The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion

Print This Post

You may also like...

344 Responses

  1. Hey meow, this Popehat reader had to get a JD before being able to comprehend Frequently Asked Questions.

  2. Swindapa says:

    "I learned of it via a PACER email and considered starting a post immediately, then considered the likely consequences if I started typing the standard for preliminary injunctions into my iPhone in the middle of date night, and reconsidered."

    Wise. Very wise.

  3. Rakiura says:

    Sometimes you do the thing, and after you do the thing, you have that moment where you think

    "was that the right thing?"

    and you realise that maybe it wsan't the right thing, and instead of just putting you hand up and saying

    "That wasn't the right thing to do, my bad. I'm sorry. lets forget that ever happened"

    which would lead people to forget it, and maybe conclude you were a little foolish. You instead say

    "screw it, I'll make my thing the right thing by trying to convincing everyone else they are wrong about the thing"

    but what really happens is that even if you are even a little bit right about a small part of the thing, nobody really cares; cause they've already concluded that you are an idiot. And the hardest thing is convincing someone you're not an idiot, when you keep behaving like one.

  4. Shkspr says:

    So Carreon is suing Indiegogo to make sure that Matt can't take the picture of the money before the charities receive it? He is aware that money has no soul, right? That you can't steal it's essence by taking a photograph of it?

  5. @Shkspr: Yeah, pretty much. But to do that, he has to suggest that Inman is going to run off with the money, take his own personal kickback from it, or give it to a "charity" (Carreon's quotes, not mine) that he's connected to.

    Because otherwise his argument boils down to "he'll take a picture with it and might get a tax deduction (but I don't know much about tax deductions)!" (Seriously, he admits he doesn't know — but it's pretty much the basis of his case.)

  6. W Ross says:

    Legion of Heaters assemble!

    Give us your snarky, needy masses, lolling to satire free.


  7. W Ross says:


    You RUINED IT tablet.

  8. Chris R. says:

    Damn it Ken, the destiny meeting is next Saturday. Stop mixing things up.

  9. W Ross says:

    I really Carreoned my entrance into this chapter. :'(

  10. Chris R. says:

    We should have decoder rings.

  11. G Thompson says:

    @W Ross "really Carreoned my entrance into this chapter. :'("

    Heaters gunna Heat!


  12. W Ross says:

    Autocorrect can such my bells. :D

  13. dex says:

    For me, more maddening than pathetic. I mean it's pathetic — without question Chas Carreon is captial P Pathetic — but if he's really saying he'll let the whole thing drop so long as Inman doesn't get to take a picture, I'm seeing red.

  14. Valerie says:

    Must I continue to explain the coded messages from our master? As W Ross has clearly relayed, Heaters must assemble!

    Heat creates flames. Flames create light. Light illuminates. Illuminates = Illuminati. Attention all CKHC (Canibal Kid Hell Children) – We must assemble in Colorado to implement operation dolphin punch protocol Omega before the wild fires are contained! Time is quickly running out & it is our only hope.

  15. @Chris — you didn't get your decoder rings?

    So *that's* how they've been intercepting our communications…

  16. jonnosan says:

    If Matt Inman just gives Charles Carreon his $10 back, does that mean the rest of us can receive the thing that we paid our money for (i.e. the knowledge that Matt Inman has taken a photo of the pile of cash and sent it to FunnyJunk with the drawing of FJ's mother)?

  17. Nibor says:

    Sorry guys but still using codes (like zebra) and Morse, from which handbook are you working from the 1st and 2dn World War ???

    Every well informed Illuminati knows we are using these now

    to spread our subliminal messages and spread the marching orders to our brethren.

    Sorry if the picture goes bogus just wanted to try if I can get those HTML codes right for a change, here is the link to the new code

  18. Nibor says:

    Sorry tried to get a picture in the post but it doesn't seem to work damm. :-(

  19. Scott Jacobs says:

    Or perhaps he realized that a 96% return to the charities is vastly better than the cut charities usually get from fundraising conducted in their name under the statutory scheme he seeks to impose upon IndieGoGo and Mr. Inman.

    This really does suggest far more self-awareness that ol' Chucky is capable of…

  20. AwesomeFreddie says:

    As I stated elsewhere, I begin to wonder if Chuckie's reason behind having the money sent directly to the charities and not Inman , is that as a contributor he can then sue Inman for NOT fulfilling the terms of the campaign – no photo of Inman with the money means he didn't do what he said he would in return for the donations.

  21. Scott Jacobs says:

    At this point (actually, I suspect it was at least around the time he amended his filing) Chucky has decided that the "only way out is through", and is just gonna push this forward until he gets mocked in open court by a judge that would rather be hearing a case about a homeless war veteran camping out in abandoned VA buildings and not returning hospital gowns.

    Chucky set upon a course. He realized it might not be the best course, but his pride will not let him back down and so he's just going to power through to whatever ruinous conclusion the fates (and our Benevolent Illuminated Masters) have in store for him.

  22. Geeves says:

    Since the Bearlove campaign was based on the premise that the money would be photographed for the express purpose of embarrassing FunnyJunk and Carreon, couldn't the contributors get together and file a class action suit against Carreon for interfering with how they expressly meant to use their money?

  23. @AwesomeFreddie — I think Carreon filing a subsequent lawsuit alleging breach of contract for failure to take the picture would be precluded. You can't take positions later on that clearly contradict your earlier position.

    But I think that might open up Inman to breach of contract claims (though the argument would be that the original contract was illegal because Inman said such terrible things that they're prohibited under state law, so there was no contract to sue upon.)

    Which leads me to another point: how can Carreon assert the rights of other people without making this a class action? Is it just the nature of unfair competition claims? Otherwise, Carreon's only real interest is in seeing that his $10 doesn't appear in a picture.

  24. dex says:

    Love how solicitous he is about that whopping ten bucks he donated to the Bear Love campaign. It was his last ten bucks. Tara needed that money to buy more bat's blood for her lipstick. Charles needed it for some new photographs of him grinning awkwardly in some random context because he doesn't have enough of those. They both needed it to buy crayons and construction paper for poetry night. But instead he donated it because in the end the opportunity for a tax write-off was too wonderful to pass by–he really needed that tax write-off. He and Tara spent weeks trying to decide how to spend that ten dollars and at last decided to donate it to Bear Love for the tax write-off, but guess what? Matthew Inman came along and just fucked everything to hell.

  25. Smorz says:

    @Adam – Which leads me to another point: how can Carreon assert the rights of other people without making this a class action?

    This has been raised by me and others before, but never addressed.

    Otherwise, Carreon's only real interest is in seeing that his $10 doesn't appear in a picture.

    It's at least $20.

    CC donated again in the closing 8 hours of the Bearlove campaign. Saw his name before I donated. I've got a screen cap if I can get a link here to work…

  26. Nibor says:

    @Smorz don't you think the second one is a joke from somebody, because CC made the first one anonymous and it looks to me that it is not in his interest to do so otherwise.

    When donating on IndieGoGo you can easily donate under whatever name you want, so besides an actual notification from IndieGoGO that it was CC anybody could have made that donation.

  27. Robert White says:

    I would like to point out that this drive is -not- a charity drive, its an art project. Donors donated so that Matt could (1) take a picture, (2) mail it to funnyjunk along with a drawing, and -then- (3) send the money on to two charities.

    It was couched openly and clearly as a "philanthropic fuck off" with the "fuck off" in the largest typeface and brightest color on the page.

    Any characterization of this as a -charity- fund-raiser is patently false on its face.

  28. jonnosan says:

    I would happily sign up for a class action against Charles Carreon to restrain him from interferring with my donation to Matt Inman for the purpose of telling FunnyJunk to philanthropically fuck-off

  29. Adam Steinbaugh says:


    It's an interesting take, but I don't think it takes Inman's project out of the realm of charitable fundraisers. For example, people who run or walk in fundraising marathons are asking people to give them money for their efforts, but that doesn't mean the contributors are funding their running so much as the cause behind it. But those donors might still be annoyed if the runner subsequently doesn't run.

    Or if somebody trips them so they can't run.

  30. Robert White says:

    To all of US: if you haven't yet received your US handbook you may be one of THEM and if you know anybody who's US handbook differs from your own US handbook then you should not tell them about the differences because either you or they may actually be one of THEM and not one of US at all. If you are not sure if you are US or THEM then you are THEM. If you would like to be one of US, you should find one of US and tell them you are one of THEM and ask them if they will sponsor you as one of US to become one of US.

    Note that if you are one of THEM and you receive an US handbook you should locate one of US and hand them your US handbook.

    If you are one of them, a THEM handbook is available. It is printed by US and is distinct from the US handbook that we send to those who erroneously believe themselves to be one of US.

    If you believe you were supposed to be one of US but have received a THEM handbook this may not be an error. Copies of the THEM handbook are being sent to representative samples of US so that they can spot THEM more easily and tell US about THEM and how well they are following their instructions.

    If you want to be one of THEM but you are in fact one of US, do not panic, you need do nothing as your desire to be one of THEM makes you one of THEM according to THEM and it makes you unfit to be one of US according to US so you are already THEM and need to tell US to stop sending you your US handbook immediately.

    It is also vitally important that, should you receive a YOU handbook, you burn it immediately. You are not YOU as none of YOU are on the US and THEM mailing lists except in an advisory capacity, and those of YOU who are on the lists for US or THEM or US and THEM know who YOU are and so know to ignore this message from US.

    Thank you for your attention.


  31. Smorz says:

    @Nibor – Maybe. I guess only IndieGoGo could say for sure. I've never donated there before or even heard of the site before this fiasco.

  32. Robert White says:

    @Adam – Those who donated for the picture and the "fuck off" have as much right to the proceeds of their donation as those who donated to benefit bears and slow cancer.

    Anybody who wanted to benefit bears or slow cancer were always and continuously able to donate to the separate charities separately.

    Therefore those who gave to the bearlove campaign are likely participating in the "art project" of the "fuck off" as a primary motivator, with the knowledge that the charitable part is a side effect at the least and a co-equal proposition at the median.

    As someone who doesn't donate through marathons I can not speak to whether there is a "sweat your balls off or they don't get the cash" contingent to the average run-for-cause fund raising effort.

    I can, however, safely bet that almost all contributors to the project see the act of responding to an extortionist with "I'm gonna get the money you asked for, prove it, and then direct it somewhere else just so you know how serious my fuck off really is", is, in fact, high art worth supporting.

  33. Nibor says:

    @Robert White, after reading your post for the 6th time, I've got just one question am I still I ?????????

  34. Nibor says:

    @Smoz, I did take another look at your screenshot and I'm sure it is not a named donation by CC himself, if you look everybody who donates under their own name are in red (linked to their profile) only the ones that are made anonymous and those that are made in the name of somebody else are black (they are not linked to a profile)

  35. Robert White says:

    BTW: Matt Inman never claimed he would be -in- the photograph, he claimed he would -take- the photograph. He even depicts himself as holding and behind the camera in the illustration of his intended action.

    Carreon states that Matt's intent is "so he can cash it and pose for his
    photograph alongside a stack of U.S. currency".

    Now Matt never said whether he would be in the picture or not, and I have no opinion as to whether it would be funnier if he were in, or not in, the picture.

    But the fact that Carreon is being all "lawyeresque" and still getting all these details wrong is telling as to how much of all this is in CCs head.

    Either that or he is "painting with a dirty brush" to try to recast events, statements, and proposals in a biased way. That is, "posing with a lot of cash" is one thing that serves the ego, while "taking a picture of cash CC and funnyjunk cannot have, so fuck off" is a completely different thing.

    But CC is a sucky lawyer if he cannot tell these core details apart.

    He is just a sucky human if he is choosing to make these alterations and misrepresentations "by accident".

  36. Smorz says:

    @Nibor – OK, you're right. I just donated to Ann's fundraiser and was able to do the same thing. If the name is in black lettering, it's not the actual donor.

  37. Happy says:

    If courts start requiring people to behave in a sober and responsible manner, that will ruin everything. EVERYTHING!

  38. Robert White says:

    @Nibor – you are not authorized to know that information at this time, which you would know if you consulted your appropriate handbook.

  39. @Robert: I definitely agree. I do think the analogy still holds, though: most of the people donating to a runner are friends of the runner trying to support their friend — whatever the charitable cause is largely irrelevant to them. Only a minority of sponsors are donating simply because of the cause.

    It's just that Inman has a lot of friends.

  40. Robert White says:

    Late Announcement: We have received many complaints that received handbooks just seem to be long lists of names and telephone number, with, in some cases, a large section of small business advertisements listed by business category.

    If you can not be troubled to locate, maintain, and use your decoders in a responsible manner, we will be forced to remove you from the handbook service all together.

  41. ShelbyC says:

    Is it ethical to donate to a fund whose purpose is to tell your client to Fuck Off in response to your demand letter? ISTM there has to be a conflict there somewhere.

  42. Capt Dingleberry says:

    Are you Popehats brother?

  43. S. Weasel says:

    Ohhhh, Mrs Carreon's site is full of crazy. The kind that may be interesting to observe from a great height, but you wouldn't want to get any on you.

  44. Nibor says:

    @Robert White and where leaves that those blocks that I was ordered to use ?

    And I know that you not allowed to answer that, and I should look in my handbook, but your post got me confused #-/

  45. Rakiura says:


    If you worry yourself with Chucks ethics, you'll laugh till you cry, then cry yourself to sleep.

  46. Kristen says:

    @Robert White I run marathons although I've never personally been involved in fundraising for one. A friend I run with is very involved in fundraising. She collects money for the marathon and it is a very big incentive to actually finish the race for those who donated. The people who donate expect a diligent effort made to train properly and run the race (six months hard work!) If there is an injury or illness the general idea is the person isn't required to kill themselves just to crawl over the finish line but to do their best. The money goes to the named charity regardless. It's the effort, not the outcome that's being sponsored.

    I'm sure one *could* try to sue an injured runner for not finishing a race but it'd be a total asshole move.

    If, however, someone raised money for a marathon and didn't register for the race; that's a big no, no. In my mind Inman taking his money picture is akin to signing the registration blank, it's what people donated to see.

    On a totally unrelated note: Remind me to never let the Carreon's sponser me for a marathon. D:

  47. Robert White says:

    @Kristen — You miss the real turning of the screw. It's not just that Inman must take the picture, but that once it is sent to CC, CC must give that picture of money to FunnyJunk.

    Imagine the burn. CC promised FJ like $20k but instead he will be legally require to hand/give/mail his client a picture of the money that he couldn't get, or touch, or influence.

    This is a masterstroke in the art of "fuck off". It's downright un-manning of CC before his clients. There is no wonder CC is enraged.

    "I know I said there'd be money… um… well here's a -picture- of money anyway… oh and a drawing of your mom trying to seduce a bear… What do you think of my job performance?"

    Effing Ingenious.

  48. Kristen says:

    @Adam you're right, it's friends supporting the effort. I don't think the money going to charity is the main concern for those who donate, it's just gravy.

    The reason, of course, being, if a person wanted to donate to a specific charity they wouldn't go about it in such a round about way; they'd just send a check to the charity directly instead of waiting for somebody to run 26.2 miles first.

  49. Kristen says:


    I know, that is effing hilarious! At least Carreon has eased all our consciences in the matter; nobody has to worry whether or not he deserved it, he earned every bit of embarrassment he gets.

    Pure, unapologetic schadenfreude.

  50. TomB says:

    I somehow got distracted.

    For something truly scary, hit the "distracted" link and then look at that whole thread.

    Tara Carreon talks to herself for NINE PAGES. That's ninety posts about Matt Inman in what can only be described as "batshit crazy" style. I've only seen those kind of stream of (un?)conscious crap on moon landing hoax and, well, illuminati sites.

  51. Nicholas Weaver says:

    I still want to know if this now gives me standing to file an objection, as a third party who would be damaged by Carreon's restraining order?

    As one of the donors (and 5x a bigger doner than Carreon), I donated with the expressed intent of seeing Inman take the photograph AND for the purpose of gaining standing in a manner identical to Charles Carreon, as "donate then sue" was something I inferred as a Carreon strategy in the day between his public disclosure of his donation and the filing of his lawsuit, and I'd really like the court to know this.

    I also object to the idea that a lawyer who's only licensed to the Bar in the state of California, who's federal practice, outside of Pro Se cases, is almost exclusively restricted to Northern California, should be able to just "phone it in".

  52. Rakiura says:


    Did you see the bit where she compared Chuck to John Lennon? She does know that John didn't do anything to piss anyone off right? (except for maybe Paul, George and Ringo)

    I mean Chuck and FJ first INSTIGATED the 'hate campaign' by seeking damages on an issue 12 months old. That is some hardcore freaky deaky insane genius to subliminally convince Funnyjunk to seek damages by complaining about the inadequacy of the DCMA law, knowing ahead of time that Chuck and FJ would take the bait and set the wheels of conspiracy in motion. What if it's not Matt that did it, but Chuck seeking to take himself down?! This is a case for the ILLUMINATI!

  53. Matt Scott says:

    Authentication code Charlie Hotel Alpha Sierra India Sierra Novemeber Uniform Tango Sierra.

    I've received a direct transmission from Bobby Ray Inman. He wishes to congratulate us on leaving his name out of our coded transmissions in this, our super secret forum of secrecy and superbness, as well as keeping on the down low the fact that Matt Inman is really Bobby's clone so that Bobby can live forever.

    Bobby also relays that the Money Photograph is utterly essential to propagating our subliminal messaging so that we can control the unwashed masses of our overlord's cloned persona. Further look for the hidden messages in the bottom-lefthand corner, the upper-righthand corner, and the mid-bottom. Depending on which edition of the handbook you are working from, our next target will be on page vii, 9, XI, 15, or blue (for those still working from our kindergarten training manuals).

    Whatever we do, we must stop Tara from uncovering our shadowy organization that we work so hard to remain absolutely hidden, while at the same time controlling every bastion of power in the entire world and 99.66(repeating, of course)% of all of humanity (damn those people who know that we control everything), because we have so much to fear if we are publicly unmasked (you know, from everyone who now willingly submits to us… oh screw it, I don't understand the logic behind why we remain in the shadows either, but it's our job to ensure that we continue to do so).

    Task number two is to ensure that photo gets published so that we can send both our subliminal mind control message and our hidden message to all our operatives in the field.

    Remember, no desert until you reconcile your opposites!

  54. Alex says:

    The main reason I donated a small amount was to see a public post of the picture with Matt Inman and the money. The fact that he will pass the funds on to those two particular charities is great, but to be honest, any two or four or ten charities he'd nominate would be fine with me.

    In fact I thought it a great idea that Inman wanted to split the total amount up between more than two charities.

    I don't care about the tax stuff, but I'm really pissed off that CC now tries to destroy the primary reason for why I contributed.

  55. Matt Scott says:

    No dessert either.

    That's right, stay way from deserts AND dessert. I didn't make a typo!

  56. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and again, a public offer.

    Tara, I know you are reading this: please relay this to Charles.

    The maximum amount of harm that Charles Carreon can suffer as a result of his $10 donation being "misappropriated" is that $10 doesn't go to the two charities, and he loses the tax deductibility that he mistakenly believed he had for some reason.

    I will make Carreon whole on this issue: Should Inman not complete the donation process, I will personally donate $5 to each charity in his name.

    And in any case, should Charles Carreon certify that he does itemize deductions and tells me his marginal tax rate (both federal and whichever state he actually declares his income in for the practice of law as a lawyer licensed only in California), and that nobody else has given Charles Carreon money to make him whole on this issue, I will personally reimburse him for the lost value of a $10 tax deduction.

  57. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and to quote Kenneth Seidberg, someone needs to remind Charles that

    In the event the undersigned learn during discovery that this matter was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the undersigned will seek recovery of their reasonable attorney fees as allowed by 15 USC Sec 1692k(3) against the Plaintiffs and each of them.

  58. Thorne says:


    "(and 5x a bigger boner than Carreon)"…

    I GOTTA stop speedreading.

  59. Dave says:

    Is there any way for the other donors to send in a bunch of little friend of the court briefs saying basically "this guy doesn't represent my interests"?

  60. V says:

    @Nicholas Weaver
    (non-lawyer perspective) I don't think 1 person of 14,000 will be able to help prevent the restraining order. The lawyer will almost certainly be able to come up with the argument that Carreon is one of the few (if any) to have misunderstood the campaign's purpose and its tax status. (And probably more arguments.)
    If the case does proceed further, then maybe they'll need to prove that. Perhaps using Indiegogo's records, perhaps using volunteer testimonies or perhaps the court will allow "friend of the court" opinions from people such as yourself at that point.
    From what I've read about the amicus curiae/friend of the court concept so far, they don't always allow them and they may take exception to being bombarded by 14,000 such letters.

  61. Adam says:

    Can someone tell me if Carreon deleted his twitter, or if he just block blocked my @CCTranslated account?

  62. Christina says:

    I've been following this since Dear Author mentioned it, and there's a question that's been nagging me almost from the start —

    What if the bank won't allow Inman to physically withdraw the total amount — whether due to policy or the fact that they just don't have that amount on hand? Would a picture of the certified cashiers checks made out to the two charities be sufficient?

    I can just imagine the look on the poor teller's face when he tells her, "I would like withdraw $200,000 in small bills. Thanks."

  63. nlp says:

    Setting aside the whole "my wife and I took so many drugs during the sixties and seventies that little pieces of our brains are now frying and disappearing" problem, wouldn't Carreon have been better off suing on BEHALF of the charities and the Attorney General of California? He could claim that all he wanted was to make sure that they got the money donated on their behalf, and he wouldn't have been laughed at for trying to sue two large charities for reasons no one can quite understand.

    Also, I never got a handbook. (However, given their general attitude toward mail, it's entirely possible that the problem lies with my local post office. Please advise).

  64. Nicholas Weaver says:

    V: True.

    But if any lawyer involved wishes it, I will provide a declaration to the effect of any or all of the following (and I will write it myself, so said lawyers don't need to waste any time. I have a template so it will even be formatted right for the federal court.):

    1) One of the two reasons I donated to the BearLove campaign was specifically for the creation of a photograph designed to publicly humiliate, in a proper, 1st Amendment compliant manner, Carreon's Client and Carreon because of their ridiculous demand letter.

    Carreon's attempt is thus about a prior restraint on my right to free speech, namely, providing money as a visual resource for Inman to create a photograph which expresses the ridiculous of Carreon's initial complaint on behalf of his (former?) client FunnyJunk.

    Frankly speaking, I don't care beyond that if the money is used to give bears cancer.

    2) The other reason I donated was specifically to gain standing to object should Carreon attempt to limit my speech, based on Carreon's own behavior in donating as a way of finding SOME way to sue Inman et al. (thus its a way to introduce into evidence right then and there of Carreon's attempt to manufacture standing, since I specifically modeled my donation on his public behavior up to the point of his donation).

    3) That as a non lawyer, with only access to a PACER account, I could see a pattern of Carreon's willingness to abuse the legal process, although since such acts have not been correlated by any court, he has yet to be sanctioned.

    Combined with the public statements of his spouse and (presumably still current) employee in public, have reasonable cause to worry that he may attempt to serve me with an abusive subpoena.

    4) That I have now publicly offered, in a place where Carreon's spouse is known to read it, to make Charles Carreon whole for any monetary damage due to his $10 not being directed to the two charities, and any loss due to his inability to deduct $10 from his taxes.

    I have not contacted Carreon privately with this offer, since he might mistakenly view my kind-hearted offer to ensure that his $10 is not wasted as harassment.

  65. Kristen says:

    @Christina in his latest update Inman said his bank has agreed to issue the funds in $20 bills for a picture before sending the money to ACS and NWF.

  66. Nibor says:

    @Adam yes he closed his account and all tweets where removed

    @Christina, I'm fairly sure that I read somewher that Inman's bank was in on it and was providing the amount in $20 bills.

  67. ShelbyC says:

    And would he really be allowed to attend the hearing by telephone? Nobody forced him to file in the ND California, right? Can you file by fax in any court, and then say, oh, it would be too expensive to fly there for the hearing?

  68. HeatherCat says:

    Holy hell, I actually have a few drinks and crash at 11pm last night, wake up like NOW, and I miss a LOT!!

    Um, I still have a handbook I shared with my ex from 2001. I'm sure some of the provisions and definitions have changed, but for the most part the rituals are the same – right?

    @V – that's why I was asking about a petition last week for the donors to sign maybe. I'm still not sure what's right and proper in that venue.

  69. W Ross says:

    I just met you!
    And this is crazy!
    But here's a lawsuit…
    Pay me maybe?

    All the other does…
    They don't evaaaaade me.
    So here's a lolsuit…
    Pay me maybe?

  70. Chris R. says:

    Just remember my enlightened brethren. As the master has said.
    "Zealots often carry the day."
    -Bobby Ray Inman

  71. Nicholas Weaver says:

    ShelbyC: Even moreso, he's only licensed to practice in CA, not Arizona, AND he venue shopped it to be in California, AND of the federal cases he works, Northern District is where he works, so it shouldn't be the court's problem that he choses to live in Tucson (presumably where he pays less tax) than the Bay Area where any in-court practice he conducts takes place.

  72. TomB says:

    BTW Ken, you missed the last "eeeevil Illuminati" "secret" meeting.

    And it was your turn to bring the donuts.

    Kissinger was SO pissed. He sulked the entire time. Even when we agreed to let Germany annex Greece!

    You might want to sent Henry an apology, like a nice fruitbasket, or an unconscious Ron Paul with a pentagram carved in his chest*.

    *NB: To all the people reading this who have lost their senses of humor in a horrible childhood-decapitated-clown accident, this is only a joke. Nobody here want Ron Paul kidnapped and tortured by the Illuminati.

    ….but the Kissinger stuff was real.

  73. Roxy says:

    Thanks to Katie Holmes filing for divorce, I think I've finally nailed down the Carreon's crazy. They behave like Scientologists. This is probably why I can't, for the life of me, figure out where they get off on all of the post lawsuit cartoons/songs/incoherent ramblings.

  74. dex: "Tara needed that money to buy more bat's blood for her lipstick."

    i love you.

    Ken – the {fnord} awards committee has short-listed you for – if recordkeeping has it right – your 23rd Selfless Unbillable Warrior Effigy Of [REDACTED]. we would like to shake your hand in the prescribed manner.

  75. Mark says:

    A quick prayer for us to keep this commenting section as free of circle-jerking as possible, Ms. Carreon's irrational ramblings notwithstanding.

    Although I freely admit that I'm guilty of it–it's too tempting. :)

  76. Mike says:

    A few turns of civ 5 always turns into hundreds for me….

  77. perlhaqr says:

    Therefore those who gave to the bearlove campaign are likely participating in the "art project" of the "fuck off" as a primary motivator, with the knowledge that the charitable part is a side effect at the least and a co-equal proposition at the median.

    It's true. I donated explicitly because it was part of a huge "Fuck off" to a serrated enema nozzle of a lawyer and his mendacious ass weasel of a client.

    I mean, I'm happy enough that the money is ultimately going to go to the ACS and NWF, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if there wasn't the initial "Fuck off" involved. Actually, I think I didn't even actually feel compelled to donate until the lawsuit had been filed. At that point, it was pretty much a moral imperative that I throw in a 20.

    So, good for you, Matt Inman, you managed to figure out how to mobilize pathological misanthropy for a good cause. :D

  78. Roxy says:

    "Court records also reveal that a case management conference has been set for a federal courtroom in San Francisco on September 21, 2012. The tenacious Arizona attorney also reports that spending $1,000 to travel from Tucson, Arizona, to San Francisco would “impose a substantial hardship on me.” As such, Carreon wishes to “appear telephonically.”"

    So, he has ten bucks to create a pissing match, but can't get in his car and drive to the fight he started? Awesome.

  79. Scott Jacobs says:

    The judge should tell him "Tough shit – you started this, you filed it here on purpose, so either show up or I'm tossing the entire thing."

  80. Valerie says:

    From the Ars Article:

    "Carreon's latest filing was written to Inman’s attorney, Venkat Balasubramani, a Seattle-based tech lawyer who has previously been a contributor at Ars. In that, Carreon added he was willing to settle the entire case if Inman would “disclaim all interest.”"

    IANAL – what does disclaiming all interest mean? Is that simply his asshat move to try to prevent Inman from taking the photo?

  81. Marzipan says:

    After rereading Carreon's complaints, I agree with Ken that Carreon's line of reasoning for describing Inman and Indiegogo isn't explicitly spelled out. If I try to complete Carreon's argument for him, he could state something like this after quoting Cal. Govt. Code § 12599(a):

    "Because Inman sought to receive funds solicited for the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation, he acted as a commercial fundraiser under § 12599(a)(2). Furthermore, because Indiegogo received and controlled funds solicited for the American Cancer Society and National Wildlife Federation, it acted as a commercial fundraiser under § 12599(a)(2)."

    But it seems to me this justification would fall down under scrutiny. Inman didn't receive any direct compensation for his fundraising activities, even though he was raising funds for these specific charities, so he wasn't a "commercial" fundraiser. Conversely, Indiegogo didn't solicit donations for either of the two charities; rather, it just provided a platform to channel funds to Inman, even though they received the money, so it wasn't a commercial "fundraiser".

    Also, if I take seriously Carreon's claim that "irreparable harm" would be caused by letting Inman have access to the money, what could possibly be that harm? That is, what harm would be committed that monetary damages alone couldn't repair? I submit that it's the taking of the picture of the money raised and sending the money to Funnyjunk's admin. Unfortunately, this is exactly the good or service that many donors to the campaign wanted (as pointed out in these comments), and it's the only benefit one would expect in lieu of donating directly to the charities themselves for the tax exemptions.

    Thus, Carreon demonstrates that he's trying to prevent his own butthurt from spreading at the expense of the only ostensible benefit for those donating to the campaign!

  82. Justin D. Jacobson says:

    Aside from everything else, he wouldn't have standing to request an injunction on behalf of other donors, who he is not representing.

  83. Jess says:

    Roxy – what car? Do you mean the Prius? Didn't someone on a prior thread mentioned it got repoed?

  84. Robert White says:

    The only way to make this "fuck off" better is if the court orders CC to attend the photograpy session so as to insure the picture isn't stock footage and to ensure that the picture is of the -actual- donation.

    I mean I don't want to hear that the bank just piled up an equivalent sum and only Carreon is really honest enough to ensure that the real bills are a true member of the money stream.

    So CC simply -must- be there to witness and countersign all the receipts. He is, after all, the self appointed overseer of all that is right an correct.

    If necessary he should appear in the picture holding a sign that reads "I hereby certify that this is the actual bearlove money and that none of it is going to my, Charles Carreon or my client FunnyJunk."

    It is his duty as an officer of the court.

  85. Marzipan says:

    I should have noted that as § 12599(i)(4) and (5) explicitly lay out payment terms for the "commercial fundraiser"'s compensation. Inasmuch as the only direct compensation Inman is getting from this in Carreon's framework is a tax donation is the tax deduction for the sum of his donation, I don't think that would be considered compensation either via fixed fee or percentage.

    So many idiocies, so little desire to help Carreon amend his complaints any more than I apparently already have.

    Oh yeah. IANAL.

  86. Marzipan says:

    @Robert White, furthermore, I believe that Carreon should be forced to fly out to San Francisco and bear said witness in the judge's chambers. Such authentication cannot be reasonably approximated using teleconferencing, telephonication, or any other way in which one might be tele-phony.

    I mean, he filed the suit in California, so he should have ample funds after his state income tax savings (for living in AZ instead of CA) to accomplish his purpose, right?

  87. Robert White says:

    As a matter of fact, Carreon needs must count and certify the entire sum both before and after the photograph to make sure that Inman doesn't divert any of it to pay his handbook printing fees.

  88. Robert White says:

    Inman then needs to film Carreon during both sessions of bill-counting, and make sure that Carreon is strip-searched before and after each occurance so as to ensure that no legitimate bills are substituted for bills from other, less legitimate sources.

    Perhaps Carreon needs to be naked at the time, like you do when you hire people to work your cocaine/hash operation, since they may be tempted to skim valuable product, only in this case Inman is exercising his legitimate legal interest in preventing Carreon from diverting funds to support or justify his causes of action.

  89. @Marzipan: that's my reading, too. The legislature never intended that potential tax benefits would qualify as compensation, or pretty much anyone who collects money from others for a fundraiser would fall under this statute, which would wind up discouraging people from running charitable fundraisers.

    (I, also, am still not a lawyer.)

    As for Carreon appearing telephonically, that's pretty common. But you can bet opposing counsel is looking at that and thinking that Carreon can't afford to litigate this forever, no matter how much his heart is in it.

  90. Mike K says:

    Perhaps a fair compromise on the appearing by telephone part would be to postpone hearings until one of Carreon's other cases is being heard in the state (within the next couple of months). Then it wouldn't be an undue burden because he would be required to be there for his paying clients. The fact that he doesn't have any paying clients that he would be required to go to the only area where he's allowed to practice law would be besides the point of the compromise.

    On the other hand, considering that my family could and did drive to vacations 36 hours away when I was a child, I can with confidence say that he could drive to California from Arizona and back on less than $100 unless he has a vehicle with horrible gas mileage. He could also sleep in his vehicle at a rest area for free, or at a discount motel pretty cheap. For the amount he stated he must have been milking his clients to get nice travel and hotels.

  91. Robert White says:

    Well, since Carreon should be finding himself needing to flee Arizona as soon as the Arizona bar figures out he's practicing in that state without a license, there is no reason for him -not- to flee to the district of Northern California in the name of economic efficiency.

    Of course since he'll lose his license in California and Oregon when he is sanctioned in Arizona, there may be no point to moving, so I could be wrong.

    Does anybody know if anybody drew the attention of the Arizona Bar Association to Carreon's practice yet?

  92. Robert White says:

    Side Note: While the question of whether this instant case is proper practice "in" federal court in the state of California or Arizona, or not, may be a valid question; the FJ Demand Letter and FJ's retention of CC, -never- touched any district in California or Oregon, and was therefore inarguably an act of CC practicing law in and from the state of Arizona.

  93. @Mike: interesting idea, but the point of filing for a TRO is that the moving party believes that court action is required immediately to prevent an irreparable harm, and that the potential harm is so great that the moving party would be justified in making its argument even if the opposing parties can't show up for the hearing.

  94. W Ross says:

    If he's going to file in California, he needs to go there to do the frickin case. It's ridiculous that someone can file out of their home state to choose their favored venue, but then want to basically Skype into the state who's tax dollars they're wasting.

    If you want to steal money from the California legal system, the least you can do is show up.

  95. Valerie says:

    Oh boy, here we go again this this time the crazy gun is aimed at Dan Gibson of the Tuscon Weekly:

    "Posted: Sun Jul 01, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject:

    After referencing Longer & language again, she

    "It is a very serious business when these guys send out another call to the Tucson Whackos to act in their interest, when we already know that this has resulted in many deaths in Tucson. Are the Illuminati crazies calling for another massacre in Tucson, perhaps of the Charles Carreon family?

    These people are dangerous, and Dan Gibson of the Tucson Weekly has a lot of guilt on his shoulders for trying to magnetize another hate response in Tucson. This guy should be fired right now!"

    Nobody in the media should be allowed to support a hate campaign against anyone. And yet, look at all those who are on board in this case. Every one of them guilty, guilty, guilty."

    So basically Dan Gibson is responsible for a massacre in Tuscon that has not yet occurred (and, of course, will not occur). Can Gibson sue her for preemptive defamation?

  96. She posted the same rant about Gibson on the Tuscon Weekly website.

  97. Joe says:

    Yeah Valerie – just like "Matt Inman is one of a gang of people who promote the same type of ideas that inspired Jared Loughner to try and kill Gabrielle Giffords."

    Seriously, the mental gymnastics that woman has to go through to tie together a conspiracy. All I can say is whackadoodle doo.

    On another note her ramblings and weird website design remind me a bit of Crystal Cox.

  98. V says:

    Valerie wrote:
    Is that simply his [..] move to try to prevent Inman from taking the photo?

    I think so, yes.

    From the 2nd 'attachment' to CCs application for a TRO:
    I and the other donors had a right to have our donations go to ACS and NWF, and nowhere else. The simple answer seemed to be for Inman to simply relinquish any authority over the Charitable Fund, and allow Indiegogo to direct the money to ACS and NWF. Accordingly, on Friday June 22nd, I sent a letter to Mr. Balasubramani as an email attachment, asking him if Inman would disclaim all interest in the Charitable Fund as part of a settlement.

    So the "disclaim all interest" is to allow Indiegogo to send the money to the charities directly.

  99. Chris R. says:

    I dare someone to respond in morse code.

  100. Mark Lyon says:

    Would it be useful for other donors to provide affidavits outlining exactly what we believed when participating in the Bear Love campaign?

    I personally donated $11 on June 11 with the intent that (1) my money would be photographed at the end of the campaign, along with the money contributed by other donors, (2) that the photograph of the funds and cartoon would be sent to FunnyJunk and its censorious douchebag of an attorney, (3) that the donations (less IndieGoGo's fees) would not personally profit TheOatmeal and would be given by him as donations to certain charities.

    I would be deeply saddened if the promised photographing and mailing did not take place before the funds are transmitted to the charities. This step was a significant contributing factor to my desire to participate in the campaign.

    I was clearly aware of IndieGoGo's fee structure before donating and expected that a small portion of my donation would be paid to IndieGoGo for their services. At no time did I desire, expect, anticipate – nor was I promised – that my donation would be tax-deductible. At no time did I labor under belief that the Bear Love Campaign was sponsored or approved by any entity other than TheOatmeal.

    I have no reason to doubt that Mr. Inman will perform the promised actions with the donated funds and look forward to seeing the photograph he sends to FunnyJunk once the funds are in his possession.

    I also hope that Mr. Carreon one day receives the assistance of the mental health professionals that he clearly needs.

  101. Valerie says:

    @ Adam Interesting that in the Tuscon Weekly post she had the sense to tone it down to "Illuminati type philosophy" instead of "Illuminati crazies." She also removed the "guilty, guilty, guilty" part.

    Still looks nuts, but she is trying to modify her message a bit for those outside Nader Library viewers. So a shred of logic exists in there somewhere.

  102. Chris R. says:

    Anyone like the Adam Weishaupt reference?

  103. Ken says:

    IndieGoGo has filed an opposition. Details to follow in an update to this post.

  104. Kelly says:

    Just how broke are they? I keep thinking that nothing about this case will surprise me…and then it does. It really does sound like his whole goal here is to keep himself from having to hand over the picture(s).

    Also, I think I have the old handbook… it will still work, right?

  105. Gal says:

    As for Carreon appearing telephonically, that's pretty common. But you can bet opposing counsel is looking at that and thinking that Carreon can't afford to litigate this forever, no matter how much his heart is in it.

    Adam raises an interesting point. I wonder if this whole thing started out because the Carreons are strapped for cash? Remember it all started with Joey the Lemur charlie the Censor trying to milk money in FJ's name over a blog post that was almost a year old.

  106. Gal says:

    Damn, strike tag didn't work.

  107. Allen says:

    You know Charles keeps redefining asshat. I'm thinking a whole new approach is needed, so I'm suggesting the Asshat Value, or AHV. It's like doubling down but exponetially.

    AHV =2^N where for most of us we hover between 0 and 1 depending on our general natures. When you start to approach N=2 you are definitely eyeing the paste. At N=2 to 4 you are well into the now famous "paste zone."

    So let me try to quantify Charle's AHV.

    Write letter to Oatmeal, N=2.
    New butthurt upon Oatmeal response N=3.
    Sue charities, N=4.
    Involve the CA AG, N=5.
    New restraining order on charities, N=6.

    That's a total AHV of 64, can he go higher, I wait with bated breath.

  108. Thomas says:

    According to IndieGoGo's response, it seems like they already transferred what money they had in their possession (~$100k) to the charities – at Inman's request. From what they claim, all of CC's money is already in the hands of the charities, apparently rendering his complaint moot.

    It's looking less and less like Inman gets the chance to take his picture. I call that a real shame and disappointment, all at the hands of a butthurt, litigious fool.

  109. Ken says:

    Update up.

  110. V says:

    Thanks for the update, Ken.

  111. Kelly says:

    Thanks for the update, Ken.

    [Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, just considering the validity of becoming one.]

    Am I the only one amused by this? Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon's declaration and respectfully requests that they be stricken.

    I read it as a 'he is an idiot, please make him stop. Now, or yesterday, or weeks ago…we don't care when, just make it stop.'

    Leaving aside the question whether Carreon’s self-serving ten-dollar donation to the BearLove campaign, made solely in an attempt to contrive a standing argument for this lawsuit, permits Carreon to claim any sort of harm flowing from these events, there certainly isn’t and never was any irreparable harm.

    Basically, what everyone here has been asking, right? 'Can he do this since it is clear he made the donation so he could file this lawsuit?'

    To put it another way I translated to: Let me put it in tiny words for you CC…

    I really like the slick way they basically said 'Fuck you' over and again and in such creative ways.

  112. Joe says:

    I love these statements from Indiegogo. Under issues to be decided:

    “and that the public interest favors an injunction?”

    I think we’ve seen they don’t.

    The best sentence by far from Indiegogo:

    “The simple reason for that is that there never was an emergency here, or any serious threat to anyone or anything. Carreon’s application is gamesmanship.”

    Then again back to the tax situation:

    ““Inman personally donates the money to NWF and ACS, he will be unjustly enriched by receiving a large tax write-off that should properly be allocated pro-rata to the 14,406 small donors who contributed to the Charitable Fund.” (Declaration of
    Charles Carreon (“Carreon Decl.”) at ¶ 28.) Carreon does not present himself as an expert on tax law, or cite to any authority in the tax code for either of the assertions in that statement.”

    First, no where on any site was there a declaration that the donation WAS tax exempt. I did not assume it was tax exempt when I donated. Also, Carreon clearly has no understanding of the Federal income tax rules on charitable donations. The specific designation of the exempt type of the organization will impact the limitation of the deduction each year. For instance, contributions to a church can be as much as 50% of Adjusted Gross Income with some modifications. Other charities can be limited to 30%, 20%, etc. However, if someone is receiving money that will be forwarding to a tax exempt charity, they would include that money in their income for the year (because they are not a tax exempt organization). Inman can only deduct any qualifying contributions (up to the "contribution limit" for that charity) as a charitable contribution and this would not include the 4% retained by Indiegogo. The reality is Inman is likely to be penalized, not enriched by any tax write off as he will be limited in what he can write off thereby increasing his adjusted gross income and therefore increasing his tax rate.

  113. Thomas says:

    Partial victory aside, I'd be soiling myself if I were CC reading this. These lawyers appear to have significantly better understanding of the law, the legal process, and reality. Gems like "…to the extent the claim is intelligible…" are a real kicker, too.

    To what extent can CC be held liable (if and when he loses) in wasting the time of all parties involved? The effort wasted by the 7+ attorneys that have to deal with this surely has to be worth a mint.

  114. @Thomas, I think he's still got some of the money, so there's hope for a picture yet.

    2. IndieGoGo explains that it was only ever in possession of about half of the money anyway — the half contributed by credit card. If you contribute at IndieGoGo through PayPal, the money goes directly to the person who started the campaign (here, Mr. Inman.) If you contribute through a credit card, the money goes to IndieGoGo. IndieGoGo gives its estimate of how much was left after fees.

  115. Dan Smart says:

    Just to be clear, because people seem to misunderstand the "deduction" that Matt Inman will get for this charity donation: it is not as carrion suggests income, it offsets the tax he will have to pay on the $220K. Matt will be lucky to break even on the the transaction.

  116. @Thomas: Carreon could get hit with Rule 11 sanctions for filing a lawsuit for improper purposes, or he could get hit with attorneys' fees if there's a successful SLAPP motion to strike by Inman and friends.

    If that happens, it won't be pretty. And I'd wager that Carreon's poetry about Inman, coupled with Tara Carreon's ravings about "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman" get dragged in to demonstrate the motive behind the suit.

  117. Mike K says:

    In all fairness, Inman may have enough in his own bank account to withdraw for the purposes of a picture anyway. It's not like he loses that money forever, since it goes right back into the bank vault after the picture until any checks on it clear. He could also do as others have suggested and use $1 bills to make the money look bigger which would make up for there being about half as much money.

    Any idea why the charities haven't yet made an appearance? Are they possibly hoping to get by without having to file something making Carreon look like an idiot similar to Indiegogo's opposition?

  118. Margaret says:

    OMG I read the whole thing.

    Indiegogo's lawyers are as gifted at saying "Fuck you" in legalese as The Oatmeal is at saying it in vulgar cartoon language.

  119. Gal says:

    I'm disappointed. final outcome – Inman or anyone else in his position threatened with such a suit will (at best) respond with a rote letter next time something like this happens (and it will happen,) and not air it in public,because it isn't worth the hassle. Carreon will face no repercussions whatsoever and continue to do his revolting business as usual once this blows over. Funnyjunk don't even have to wait for anything to blow over.

    Carreon was stupid and unprofessional and insane, and he'll win a small victory because nobody wants to deal with his shit more than they absolutely must. Fuck.

  120. Beth says:

    "Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon's declaration and respectfully requests that they be stricken."

    Is there a specific legal meaning to "incompetent" in this context? Because in plain English, I think that would only leave the headers and page numbers.

  121. Joe says:

    The way this is going, I think the word “carreoned” will soon become part of the standard legal lexicon as being synonymous to flattened, crushed, squashed, and trampled into legal oblivion.

    OK all you Secret Illuminate Army of David’s – if you have misplaced your secret decoder ring this image
    may help you recognize it as you plow through that shoebox of old embarrassing college pictures showing you falling off the frat house balcony after trying to light a bottle-rocket sticking out of some drunk guys ass.

    And here is a picture of the Secret Code Book
    – Sorry you can’t use it to hold up the coffee table anymore – SHIT’S GETTIN SERIOUS.

  122. Grifter says:

    Jeeze, I work 1 twenty-four-hour shift and I miss all the good stuff.

    He needs to file something else, just so I can feel on the cutting edge again!

    "Charles Carreon now sues reality for 20k in damages, stating he demands immediate injunction due to the irreparable harm of things not being like he'd like them to be"

  123. Valerie says:

    Wow – just read the document. Jesus, Carreon's butt must hurt after that spanking!

  124. Spencer says:

    It has been fun watching the mad scramble going on: "Must comb internets for additional does. Must only read portions of statutes, but never in context, and no legal authorities. Must rope in Attorney General to get standing since donating 20 bucks didn't work. Oh crap, must try to get a TRO then prelim injunction so the case doesn't become moot when the money all gets given to charity like they said they were going to do the whole time." It seems to produce an anti-checklist of how to figure out if you are ready to move forward with legal action.

  125. @Beth: when they say "incompetent", they're referring to whether Carreon, if called as a witness, would be qualified to testify as to particular matters. For example, his declaration (if I recall correctly) refers to tax implications, but Carreon's own exhibits have him saying that he isn't a tax expert. Thus, he wouldn't be qualified to testify as an expert as to the tax implications, and his statements should be disregarded.

  126. Ghost says:

    Wait wait wait… The charities were to fight cancer and help bears?? Dammit! I thought it was to fight bears and help cancer!

    I want my money back.

    I hate bears.

  127. Robert White says:

    Where is the latest?

    I wonder if the bank, which prepared the money for the photograph, will let him use the material cash as an act of good will?

    Hopefully Inman has access to at least $20k to take a picture.

    Given that the money was scheduled to transfer tomorrow (Monday) by my possibly wrong count, the early transfer is a shame. The court could have delayed in the name of prudence and there would have been a horse and barn situation.

    I am sad.

    If nothing else, we should all collect the "cash" from our old monopoly sets and whatnot and (if Inman would be so honored) offer it to Inman to gather up and photograph, or forward directly to CC and FJ.

    Or something. /sadness…

  128. Mark says:

    I love how CC missed Paypal completely!

  129. KronWeld says:

    The wackiness continues, I wouldn't be surprised if CC files an emergency request to force the two charities to give back the money so it can go into a protected trust, that he manages (taking a fair % for managing the trust), so he can be sure that the money is distrubuted to the charities. I mean, we don't really know if the charities got the money or how much till it is varified my CC hisself. Right? That is why he is doing this, to be sure the money is distrubuted correctly.

  130. Tootie says:

    I have watched this whole thing transpire for the past few weeks, and at one point last week, I even worried that Charlie didn't understand the full ramifications of his actions and emailed him asking him to stop. We exchanged a few emails and he was very cordial.
    But, as I watch and read what he and his wife are doing, I can only wonder what these two idiots are thinking. (Also, I am so happy that they found each other, so as to spare any other human being the pain of being with a lone loony-tune.)
    Now, crazy Tara on her domain is looking for more ways to attack Matt. She's way worried about his grammar comics and the pain brought on by your and you're. That not being enough of an attack today, she's gone through public documents to bring his family into the fray.
    I can only wonder, how does she make a living? Why does she have so much time on her hands?
    And finally, why do they have so many domain names? Is that her job: kvetching, bitching, and whining on the internet?
    Thanks for your great work on this Ken. It has brought me great joy reading all of your posts about this subject. I have also enjoyed the many other posts on this web-site about other subjects.

  131. Marzipan says:

    Wow. Just. Wow. It's fascinating to judge my own emotional and cognitive reactions after reading Carreon's pleadings vs. the responses. Carreon's have the "feel" of something I could try to tackle in all my non-lawyerly goodness, though I'd be heavily taxed to put together a cogent legal argument. Nevertheless, it's fun to try as an intellectual exercise.

    However, the most recent documents are nicely organized, annotated, and draw from all manner of federal, state, and case law. Upon trying to think of answers to their responses, I had a sense of dread and despair wash over me. I don't feel like I'd be remotely capable of responding to the level of detail and the depth they showed, and I'm not compelled even to try.

    In short, Carreon's filings feel like those of an advanced amateur, whereas the responses feel like the masterwork of consummate professionals whose time and labor deserve to be richly compensated. I suspect such compensation will eventually come from Carreon's pockets – would another Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing allow him to dodge financial responsibility?

  132. Robert White says:

    (After learning to scroll up…)

    No wait, this is even better than I imagined. Half the money was never at suit. The picture still gets taken abet of half the money which is still more than 5x the original demand.

    And CC is -proven- an even -worse- lawyer than was already in evidence.

    Several times I mentioned that CC seemed incapable of tracking the simple details of the case whilst paraphrasing positions and mis-stating law and precedent. He has now -proved- to god and country that he is incapable of understanding even simple contract terms.

    His complete lack of understanding of the whole pay-pal thing, and the core layout of the mechanics of the campiegn is memorialized completely by this "missing" of the path more than half of the money took.

    Would -you- hire a lawyer who can famously claim that he can successfully figure out "almost half of even the simplest terms and contracts involved in any of your legal affairs"?

    So now the definition of a Carreon must be amended to put a big old 1/2 in front of all the terms and a few sqrt()s in there as well.

  133. OK, not sure if this is entirely correct, because I couldn't find it anywhere in intelligible English at but I got the following from WiseGeek:

    The burden of the gift tax is carried by the giver of the gift, not by the recipient, and the recipient generally does not have to pay anything. There are some exclusions, however, to allow people to give without paying taxes on a fair amount of worth each year. For example, there is a basic exemption, under which an individual can, as of 2009, freely give up to $13,000 US Dollars (USD); similarly, a couple could give up to $26,000 USD without having to pay taxes on it. Other gifts that are exempt from this tax include gifts one gives to one’s legal spouse, gifts given to charity organizations, or gifts in the form of payment for medical or educational services for a person.

    Generally speaking, the recipient of a gift is excluded from paying taxes on that gift. The IRS allows most gift income to remain as untaxable income, although there are some notable exceptions. Gift income which comes from an employer to an employee, for example, is still considered taxable income, and must be claimed. This similarly goes for gifts given on the behalf of an employer to an employee, or gifts given from an employer to someone on behalf of the employee. There are a few special cases in which this gift income may remain exempt from taxation, but they are rare.

    So it looks to me like this is completely tax-neutral for Inman. He isn't required to claim it as income since it's from a number of individual contributors, presumably none of whom went over the limit, and since charitable deductions are capped as a percentage of income, the cap would presumably be even lower than we thought. Of course, he may have never considered the tax implications of this whole adventure to begin with and may be dodging a huge bullet by accident.

    Or I could be completely wrong, in which case you are welcome for the entertainment. ;-)

  134. Orville says:

    Charles Carreon is truly an innovative legal thinker. Unburdened by such trivial concerns as precedent, understanding, finances or logic he boldly forges new paths into the judicial wilderness.

    It is a shame that, on his journey, he missed the large signs declaring "Danger! Minefield ahead!".

    Not because he is likely to (metaphorically) blow his own feet off with this stunt. Everything I have read makes me believe his career should be crippled. No, the shame is other people have been forced to spend more than the price of a plane flight to the court house to defend themselves against a man who thinks the best way to avoid a case of butt-hurt is to sit on a larger dildo.

  135. Robert White says:

    Oh, and CC needs to add to his resume that he is fully qualified to "act almost not too late to preserve his clients interests in any cause of action with a prepublished time-line".

  136. Robert White says:

    Do we know whether CC's contribution was made by Credit Card or PayPal? The delicious irony of it, if it were made by PayPal is profound, since his standing then would never have touched Indiegogo at all.

    If it was made by Credit Card, then CC always had a remedy far easier than to bring suit, by recalling his contribution through his card processor.

  137. Valerie says:

    Well, this "evidence" provided by our favorite looney might explain why Charles' filing is so very, um, special:

    "Maria explains that no facts are ever discussed in a so called Court because Lawyers go to school for six years to learn how to write documents that never ever use facts…"

    Also, "There's no way that Charles Carreon is "the elite."" – I think we can all agree on that point.

    And look out legal illuminati! She's on to your hatred of farm animals! Couldn't just leave it at the dolphins, could you.

    "Maria explains that when a Judge takes his Oath of Office the meaning is not what we believe it is. The same is true of a Lawyers Oath….
    Interestingly the word America when broken down using this syntax means this:

    ‘A’ – means no
    ‘merci’ – means mercy
    ‘ca’ – means sheep

    Therefore the word America means – No mercy for the Sheep. Do you think that this was an accident?"

  138. Mark says:


    It was by Credit Card or Debit Card. You can find the proof on Exhibit C here:

  139. Mark says:

    Goodness gracious! Now we have the response from Inman's lawyers. I never thought I would be thrilled to read court documents.

  140. perlhaqr says:

    Carreon, my wayward son,
    you're a piece of clueless chum.
    Lay your dopey head to rest,
    don't you cry no more.

  141. alexa-blue says:

    A couple of the commenters at Ars say that the money Inman receives is gift money and not taxable. The TRO response from Indiegogo states that the money is income. I don't particularly care (except insofar as being able to write off crowd-sourced charity donations is a great incentive to start crowd-sourced charity drives), but would prefer Carreon to be wrong on this for mostly childish reasons. Anyone with better authority who can comment?

  142. Robert White says:

    Re Tara and the various Judicial and Lawyerly oaths…

    Didn't her husband take one of those oaths?
    As she is his legal secretary, is she representing to us that when -he- took that oath, that's what -he- believed the oath to mean?

    E.g. Do we now know that CC's oath was to show now mercy to sheep?

    Does mercy include the customary use of lubricant? /doh

  143. Joe says:

    @RavingRambler – the last paragraph of my post here on Jul 1, 2012 @3:53 pm described how the proceeds would be treated if they were distributed to Inman – what I forgot to mention is that it was a direct quote from my CPA – a former IRS puke. Bottom line – no tax benefit to Inman so Carreon's argument on this piece is also a moot point.

  144. alexa-blue says:

    Silly me to have not read through the comments thoroughly. Thanks Joe and RavingRambler.

  145. nlp says:

    I wonder what would happen if lots of people stuck one dollar bills in envelopes and mailed them to Charles Carreon, with instructions to send half to NFW and the other half to ACS.

    And to keep the third half for himself.

  146. @Joe Oops! I was reading too fast the first time and missed some of it. The part I wasn't clear on was of it actually counted as income, but I guess it does. Yikes.

  147. Bertrand says:

    I thought I read somewhere that Carreon had retained an attorney in Arizona, but the declaration still identifies him as counsel pro se.

  148. Mark says:

    I love this.

    Mr. Inman refuses to be thwarted, and has taken a photo of the appropriate amount of his own money. (Inman Decl. at ¶ 38). Nevertheless, the demand shows the true nature of Mr. Carreon’s
    Application for a TRO.

  149. Chris R. says:

    Apparently Indiegogo has some pretty awesome/snarky lawyers themselves.

  150. Josh D says:

    Line of the opposition, "Indiegogo objects to the incompetent portions of Carreon’s declaration and respectfully requests that
    they be stricken."

  151. Kris says:

    Mark –

    Where are the documents from Inman's side? I'm dying of curiosity over here!

    And ditto to the point of "never so excited to read legal documents in my life". I'm right there with you, bud. I've never read a legal document before this debacle. This is one glorious ride.

  152. Mark says:


    They are all online courtesy of the RECAP project, hosted at

    The direct link is

  153. Chris R. says: – Inman response!

  154. Mike K says:

    Called him using his own money for the picture. B)

    I find it sad that despite the genius of Inman's lawyers' response that a simple typo mars it (hey, I'm a bit of a perfectionist). "… Mr. Inman planed…"

  155. Valerie says:

    As Frosty the Snowman has been going through my head since I read the words "Charlie the Censor," I have created this atrocity.

    Charlie the Censor,
    Was a foolish little troll,
    He sent some threats, just to pay some debts,
    Then the shit began to roll!

    Oh, Charlie the Censor,
    Was a white-hat so they say,
    He made his name on
    But sane he could not stay!

    There must have been some bath salts in that
    Old ass hat he found.
    For when he placed it on his head,
    He began shit to expound!

    Oh, Charlie the Censor,
    Was as a proud as he could be,
    As the lawyers say he could work pro se,
    Not just for you and me!

    Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, look at Charlie go,
    Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, writin' 'bout shit he don't know.

    For Charlie the Censor,
    Thought it all was just a scam,
    So he said I'll sue & make a big to-do,
    Till I reveal their evil plan.

    Down to the courthouse,
    With a law suit in his care,
    Running here and there all around the square,
    Yellin' my mom didn't do a bear!

    He wandered through the streets of town,
    Right past the Oatmeal's block,
    And he only doubled down when the web began to mock!

    For Charlie the Censor,
    No censure could he bear,
    So he said I'll sue till my face turns blue,
    And Tara will shout some swears!

    Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, look at Charlie go
    Thumpitiy, Thump, Thump, Thumpity Thump, Thump, talkin' 'bout shit he don't know.

  156. SPQR says:

    IndieGoGo's opposition was well done. And the contrast between the competently written opposition and the crayon version moving papers of Carreon could not be more stark.

    This is the stupidity of people like Carreon. From now on, any one thinking of hiring him who does a simple Google search will find that "Carreon's legal skills have been mocked on the Internet in very great detail.

    Carreon, you see that? You will be mocked for many Internet generations to come.

  157. Chris R. says:


    Now she's on Party Gorilla, my favorite Inman comic of all time. It really gets our secret message across efficiently.

  158. Joe says:

    RE the EFF's motion to dismiss the TRO. First paragraph and it's a doozey as follows:

    Plaintiff Charles Carreon’s application for a temporary restraining order (“Application”) is notable as much for its lack of context as its lack of merit. This case is not about false advertising or the laws regulating commercial fundraisers. This case, and this Application, is nothing more than Mr. Carreon’s blatant – and baseless – attempt to retaliate against a critic with whom he is engaged in a very public dispute.

    Why I do believe Venkat and the EFF just told Carreon to F off.

  159. Chris R. says:

    Joe I am pretty sure they are laying the groundwork for something even more special.

  160. ShelbyC says:

    "Just to be clear, because people seem to misunderstand the "deduction" that Matt Inman will get for this charity donation: it is not as carrion suggests income, it offsets the tax he will have to pay on the $220K. Matt will be lucky to break even on the the transaction."

    Not a tax expert, obviously, but how the 220K get treated? It doesn't seem like it would count as income, because he's not free to spend it how he wants, he has to give it to the charities. But if it does, wouldn't it be a tax-free gift, non-taxable, in which case Carreon would be correct about Inhman getting the tax-deduction? (Not that I have a problem with that outcome)

  161. Margaret says:

    Doozy of a quote from Inman's lawyers' letter:

    "one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric"

    I may have to remember that.

  162. Kelly says:

    @ Chris R. – Thank you for the link!
    @Valerie- I am laughing so much. I call +5 bonus for the 'bath salts' reference.

    I am still reading, but I did get a laugh when they pointed out that "it is hard to think of a party less appropriate to sue on behalf of the funders."

  163. Joe says:

    I like Valerie's "lyrics". Bet the EFF does too.

    @Chris – agreed – I am sure there is more to come. I believe we are about to witness one of the biggest internet legal smack downs of all time.

    @ShelbyC – Carrreon is incorrect about Inman receiving any benefit in the form of a large tax writeoff. Specifics of why addressed in prior posts on this thread.

  164. Striker says:

    You'd have to think that Carreon's career would be over now. Apart from the fact that he's disgraced himself as a human, his legal work has more holes in it than a pair of fishnets.

  165. Valerie says:

    @striker Yeah, the difference in quality between his filings and everyone else's is striking, even to a non-lawyer. On the other hand, he has a law license and is willing to sue anyone on any flimsy pretext, so he may be able to service a select cliental of fellow litigious bastards.

  166. Swindapa says:

    Sooo… Carreon has filed his complaint, and filed for a TRO. Indiegogo has filed a response. Matt Inman has filed a response through the EFF.

    Now, can a lawyer type please explain what happens next? Does it go before a judge and get argued, or does the judge just read the filings and make a ruling? What are the next few steps in the process, and what's the timeline?

    Thanks in advance…

  167. W Ross says:

    Ahh the best time off my night… when Tara finds the box of wine.

  168. W Ross says:


    Apparently I found some too.

  169. Anita says:

    Valerie earlier quoted Tara Carreon (please excuse my nonexistent knowledge of html quoting):

    "Interestingly the word America when broken down using this syntax means this:

    ‘A’ – means no
    ‘merci’ – means mercy
    ‘ca’ – means sheep

    Therefore the word America means – No mercy for the Sheep. Do you think that this was an accident?"

    Is it completely pedantic of me to point out that this definition of the word 'America' necessitates the letter 'C' being used twice and the transposition of the the 'I' and 'C' in order to get the word 'merci'?

    Using her syntax (in which I'm not sure how 'ca' becomes 'sheep,' but why let that stop me?), the following would be more accurate:

    A = No
    meri = mere
    ca = sheep

    So America equals No Mere Sheep. Quite a difference!

  170. @Swindapa: sometime soon, this'll go before the judge. It depends on what the judge's policies are for hearing ex parte motions like this. I'd wager tomorrow or Tuesday, though I seem to recall that the judge's calendar has time for law and motion hearings later in the week.

    Carreon will dial it in (ahem) and appear via telephone call. The defendants' lawyers will probably appear in person. Then the judge will make a ruling and we'll find out what it is pretty quickly.

  171. desconhecido says:

    It's nice to see the defendants' responses so far. Particularly the EFF response which emphasizes that Carrion's suit is motivated by his desire to punish Inman for subjecting Carrion to humiliation and ridicule.

    Unfortunately, what we don't see is FunnyJunk paying any price for its role in this whole thing. It was FJ who kicked this whole thing off by hiring Carreon to write the original threatening letter to Inman. It was FJ who initiated this whole thing by running a website by which FJ profited from the pirated work of Inman, work which FJ "practically stole."

    FunnyJunk hosted Inman material for over a year — probably knowingly. FJ modified aspects of its website so that searching for Inman's content would be more difficult. There is strong reason to believe that FJ, or parties with FJ's encouragement modified Inman's content to remove identifying features/logos so that a) the content would be more difficult to identify to substantiate demand for removal and b)to make FJ's claim that it was unaware of the infringing material.

    Apparently, FJ displayed Inman's content for a good long time, on the order of a year, without complying with the requirements of the DMCA. Perhaps some of that content had been inclucled in material that was registered with the copyright office which would open the door for significant enhanced damages. Perhaps FJ can be smoked out and placed in the public eye right next to Carreon in that picture with the improperly displayed American flag.

  172. McNugget says:

    I agree with desconhecido. I think it will be lame and unfortunate and *unfair* (though nothing about this whole kerfuffle has been altogether fair, yet) if FunnyJunk just slides away like they had nothing to do with all this. They havent issued a statement or an apology or an explanation- I think they are just ignoring it and hoping everyone forgets they were involved. And sadly that cowardly "stance" seems to be working.

  173. W Ross says:

    Funnyjunk is like the evil wizard that unleashed the dragon. I don't think anyone's forgotten the admin, but we gotta defeat the endboss first, since it's the one attacking offensively at the moment.

  174. W Ross says:

    Tara's reading Popehat comment threads again and blogging you know where.I hope we get a new cartoon and original content instead of the reposting/film bullshit she's done lately. I remember the Nader Library when it was good; she's jumped the shark lately. Her creative spark must have died.

    More OC, Tara. You've become the FunnyJunk of your own content.

  175. Rakiura says:

    Could FJ fire CC and then sue against all the advertising they are about to lose, if they haven't already, from being connected from CC's crusade against reality? If Inman 'cost' them 20k, I shudder to think what CC is costing them.

    Also, does anyone else feel like CC has tried to scrapbook together a version of the law where he might be right? It seems light on paste to hold it all together.

  176. Rakiura says:


    I think FJ is doing precisely the right thing. They are following a "Better to say nothing and have people think you're an idiot than open it and remove all doubt" policy.

    The only thing that does surprise me is that they haven't publically distanced themselves from what CC is doing since the demand letter. None of it is done by them, or on their behalf, I expected they would go to great lengths to make sure everyone knew this.

  177. Look at that says:

    The bond, the bond!

  178. W Ross says:

    37,000 views of that thread. I think that's why she can't stop. For better or for worse, this many people have never cared to listen to her in her life, and never will again. If she wasn't so nasty I'd find that really sad.

  179. W Ross says:


    You've been named by Tara! Congrats!

  180. Swindapa says:


    Thanks for that – only been to court twice, both times for traffic tickets. Momma raised me to stay on the right side of the law

  181. Daniel says:


    Because had Carreon involved Paypal, eBay (Paypal's owner) would have ground ol' Chuckles into dust.

  182. Kris_Shannon says:

    From Inman's declaration:

    The final amount of fund funds raised was $220,024.00. This is almost exactly 11 times the original goal of $20,000.

    I was trying for exactly 11 times but some other bastards sniped me at the last moment :(

  183. Chris R. says:

    @W Ross, another Chris who wanted to hack the Carreon's and from what I can tell hasn't returned since he got told off by Joe and Ken. She can't see my comments because of my gravatar, it uses the all seeing eye to block her mind.

  184. Chris R. says:


  185. AMC says:

    Inman is getting around the photo problem by withdrawing ~200k of his own money and posing with that. The roughly half of the charity money that came via PayPal went into his account, and the roughly half that came via credit card payments were held by Indiegogo, which disbursed them directly to the charities. So we'll get a picture with the full amount of [different] money, even if it was taken after the charities had received what was raised.

  186. Chris R., i adored the WashingtonWeishaupt reference. and don't forget how that recent Alamut PR plan "backfired". it's hardly more than a global-media chaff-dispenser at this point – she only knows what she thinks (T)hey^$1 want hidden…

  187. Gal says:

    @W Ross: I'm fairly certain that FunnyJunk is more like the naive demonologist (a pimple faced one who was trying for a succubus, obviously) who was tricked by the demon into breaking the circle.

    There's very little doubt in my mind, from the timeline involving the original complaint, the threatening letter, and the DMCA compliance that Charlie contacted FJ, and not the other way around.

  188. Joe says:

    @Ross – ah yes the honor of being singled out by the dingbat. The irony of fact the "other" Chris's idiotic comments are also immortalized on her site is not lost on me. He's probably wishing he could walk that post back right about now – that is if he has a consience.

  189. S. Weasel says:

    There's more to the naderlibrary site than that one forum, in case you haven't bothered poking around. There's several years' worth of word salad from the both of them. Lord knows how those two crazy kids found each other.

    And by "crazy" read "borderline schitz" throughout.

  190. Jess says:

    Oh the hypocrisy of Tara’s blog. Anyone else noticed how she decries the posting of Chucky’s email and the emails they have gotten from people and then turns around herself and writes an email to Inman’s mother AND posts that email WITH Inmans mothers email address on her site even though Inmans mother has not gotten involved in this publicly or written about it publicly.

  191. Thomas says:

    From Inman's own declaration: "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."

    So Charlie still gets told off, and he has no merit for his claim. Win-win!

  192. Nicholas Weaver says:

    So Charles filed a TRO that he knew was already moot when it was filed? Because, knowing the timeline, he waited until the 11th hour but by then the court's submission site had crashed.

    The only thing I'm disappointed in is that neither Inman nor IndieGoGo sent him a $10 bill.

  193. Trond M. says:

    The only thing I'm disappointed in is that neither Inman nor IndieGoGo sent him a $10 bill.

    Nooooo! Inman must frame that $10 bill together with a picture of Carreon and the drawing of the bearseducing mother.

  194. CTrees says:

    @desconhecido: FJ actually still hosts a lot of Inman's material. They removed the specific items Inman linked to, but certainly not everything. Currently it seems that FJ disabled their search ENTIRELY (a humor site which returns no results for "cats" seems unlikely), but using Google to search the site? All FJ is doing right now is making it harder to suss out the infringing, stolen content.

  195. Docrailgun says:

    I'm not certain that we actually know much about Funnyjunk. Is FJ owned or run by CC (though I think we would see the site's name more if he did own it). If not, did they actually ever hire CC or did he just respond to Inman's post 'on their behalf'? Even if they did hire him did they do so after he notified them that he was filing a lawsuit on their behalf and he would act as their agent? Do they even know what he is doing? Does it not seem more likely that they told him to stop bothering them and not use their name anymore.
    It would seem to me (and this could easily be resolved by FJ revealing the information on the timing of various communications with CC) that we are not hearing anything more about FJ because the original CC letter to Inman was a borderline scam, since it never mentioned any money for Funnyjunk. But that is my opinion (please note that, Tara) and the truth can easily be proven if FJ is willing to speak up.
    Desconhecido wrote:
    "Unfortunately, what we don't see is FunnyJunk paying any price for its role in this whole thing. It was FJ who kicked this whole thing off by hiring Carreon to write the original threatening letter to Inman. It was FJ who initiated this whole thing by running a website by which FJ profited from the pirated work of Inman, work which FJ "practically stole."

  196. Do not carry on, carreon says:

    TCarreon quotes scripture and claims that "god" wrote the bible (it's always been man-written), but doesn't understand the reference to "army of Davids".
    Instead she quotes a completely unrelated source and tries to combine the two.

    She doesn't see that that's a reference to David vs Goliath?

    This is one bat-shit-insane woman.

  197. Stuart says:


    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.

  198. Valerie says:

    Good morning, agents, I greet you with the sign of the all seeing eye.

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

  199. Valerie says:

    @ 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?

  200. John Eddy says:

    "he'll probably try to sue PayPal next"

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

  201. Valerie says:

    @ S Weasel Have you looked at American Buddha and her Mondo Bizzaro art? Some of that makes the Nader Library look like Plato.

  202. ShelbyC says:

    "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.

  203. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  204. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  205. Valerie says:

    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!"

  206. Valerie says:

    ** their view, not there view D'oh!

  207. Nicholas Weaver says:


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

  208. SPQR says:

    The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons.

  209. Rand Bell says:

    That's assumes his malpractice suits against himself doesn't take precedence.

  210. Rand Bell says:

    ^Fail grammar. Need to go read me some more Oatmeal.

  211. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  212. McNugget says:

    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?

  213. Rand Bell says:

    @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… :)

  214. Wizerp says:

    @Nicholas Wait, wait. That ( can't be legit – it's signed by a "Chalres Carreon". Someone call Charles!

  215. Victor says:

    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. =__=

  216. 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.

  217. Robert White says:

    @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.

  218. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  219. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wizerp: Yeah. Its SUPPOSED to be signed by "Chuckles the Insane Pro Se Litigant Clown ™"

  220. HeatherCat says:

    @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.

  221. Valerie says:

    Is there a rule against sending opposing counsel batshit crazy artwork?

  222. Dan Weber says:

    The Rule 11 sanctions are going to bankrupt the Carreons


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

  223. Nate says:

    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. :/

  224. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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…

  225. Vince says:

    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.

  226. dinatural says:

    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 ;)

  227. @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.

  228. Josh D says:

    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.

  229. W Ross says:

    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!

  230. Valerie says:

    @ W Ross Sadly, I think its more akin to watching NASCAR for the accidents…

  231. Susan says:

    W Ross
    Yes master, your wish is my command. I love popcorn.

  232. Mike K says:

    Wait, I thought everyone watched NASCAR for the high speed left turns. You mean some people actually watch to see horrific accidents? :O

  233. Wil says:

    Accidents were the only reason I ever watched NASCAR…

  234. Valerie says:

    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…

  235. W Ross says:

    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.

  236. Valerie says:

    @ Wil Then you will most certainly love watching the Carreons fire foot-bullet after foot bullet.

  237. Roxy says:

    "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.

  238. W Ross says:

    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.

  239. Dan Weber says:

    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.

  240. Matt Scott says:

    @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.

  241. W Ross says:

    @Matt Using what I know how to use with the space I got. It might not be pretty but it'll work, lol.

  242. Matt Scott says:

    @W Ross- I completely understand. :)

  243. Chris R. says:

    @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.

  244. W Ross says:

    @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.

  245. Matt Scott says:

    @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.

  246. Reese says:

    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.

  247. Mike K says:

    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.

  248. desconhecido says:

    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?

  249. SteveW says:

    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.

  250. desconhecido says:

    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?

  251. Valerie says:

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


  252. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Putting the links and stuff in one place:
    Carreon involved cases on RECAP:

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

    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

    (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.

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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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…

  253. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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"

  254. Jane says:

    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."

  255. Jeff says:

    Has anyone seen todays Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller? Coincidence?

  256. Mike K says:

    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…

  257. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, one more of Chuckle's purported web sites (thanks Penguin, I didn't know about this one):

    And the Charles Carreon essay collection:

    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.

  258. AlphaCentauri says:

    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?

  259. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Ha, I get it. Someone uploaded a bogus case report to PACER.

  260. Nicholas Weaver says:

    err, to RECAP I mean.

  261. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  262. Wil says:

    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?

  263. Wil says:

    Sorry…wise I could delete the last comment. It is an *old* thing with this guy:

  264. Kelly says:

    @ 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.

  265. Kelly says:

    I should clarify: Looks real as in, looks as if they were actually filed. Nothing more.

  266. Victor says:

    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?

  267. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  268. Mike K says:

    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)

  269. Margaret says:

    @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.

  270. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Wil: I think (or at least hope) the courts have a procedure for a quick "Go away" motion for such obvious crazy.

  271. Nicholas Weaver says:

    For contrast, this is Carreon's proposed order:

    which I doubt the judge will sign.

  272. 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.

  273. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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.

  274. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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…

  275. Robert White says:

    #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.

  276. mojo says:

    And not ONE use of the word "taint"!

  277. Wondering says:

    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?

  278. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: I bet you were the one who ensured that Johnathan Lee Riches's weirdness got into Recap. If so, thanks!


  279. Robert White says:

    @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.

  280. Mike K says:

    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.

  281. AlphaCentauri says:

    Maybe we should buy stock in Orville Redenbacher


    June 21, 2012


    The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds


  282. AlphaCentauri says:

    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:

    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.)

  283. Mark says:

    Judge Chen has spoken. Inman must deliver proof that he sent the final two checks to the charities… Somehow I don't like this.

    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. :/

  284. Margaret says:

    @Mark: Wow. UNCOOL.

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

  285. AlphaCentauri says:

    He's got his own wikipedia page, though more about the suits he's filed than about who he is:

  286. AlphaCentauri says:

    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.

  287. Roxy says:

    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.

  288. Dan Weber says:

    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.

  289. Thomas says:

    @ 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.

  290. Mark Lyon says:

    I would also note, your honor, that no proof of the photograph has been provided either.

  291. Mark says:


    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.

  292. Mark says:

    Also, I think the photo will appear in due course… It HAS to. That the whole point of all this nonsense, after all. :)

  293. Ken says:

    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.

  294. S. Weasel says:

    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.

  295. Roxy says:

    @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. ;)

  296. Thorne says:

    I think "mootness" is a word that should be used in sentences a LOT more…

  297. Margaret says:

    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.

  298. Mike K says:

    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.

  299. Mark says:

    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.

  300. Margaret says:

    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.

  301. Wondering says:

    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.

  302. Drew says:

    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.

  303. raphidae says:

    Truer by every step he takes: (where's my cease-and-desist?)

  304. ShelbyC says:

    @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.

  305. Matt Westcott says:

    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.

  306. Victor says:

    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??

  307. Mark says:

    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.

  308. Robert White says:

    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.

  309. Robert White says:

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

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

  310. Mark says:

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    Just kidding. :)

  311. Nicholas Weaver says:

    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".

  312. Margaret says:

    @Robert White: Your point, I am taking it.

  313. Boyd says:

    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.

  314. CCChicago says:

    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?

  315. Robert White says:

    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).

  316. Keith Ealanta says:

    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.

  317. CCChicago says:

    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.)

  318. Llachlan says:

    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…

  319. AlphaCentauri says:

    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?

  320. AlphaCentauri says:

    oops, I meant Paypal. Paypal if anything has a reputation for more aggressive chargeback policies against merchants than credit card companies do.

  321. Robert White says:

    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.

  322. Kendie says:

    I love the Judge's order! It's essentially saying "Inman, get the money to the charities now, so I can dismiss this nonsense."

  323. Ken says:

    Minor update #4: Inman's response to court order.

  324. Mark says:

    Just like that.

  325. Llachlan says:

    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.

  1. July 1, 2012

    […] a lawyer to think that he can use the law to keep himself from being humiliated?     But one of the commenters thought they saw through Carreon's nefarious plans…. […]

  2. July 1, 2012

    […] […]

  3. July 1, 2012

    […] application here) and declaration by Indiegogo's CEO.  More below — and Ken at Popehat's update analyzing Indiegogo's response is much more coherently brutal than […]

  4. July 2, 2012

    […] Foto | American Buddha, il sito di Charles Carreon Via | Popehat […]

  5. July 2, 2012

    […] Foto | American Buddha, il sito di Charles Carreon Via | Popehat […]

  6. July 2, 2012

    […] Foto | American Buddha, il sito di Charles Carreon Via | Popehat […]

  7. July 2, 2012

    […] familiar with the Streisand Effect. Up until now, that is–what with ArsTechnica, Boing Boing, Popehat, The Legal Satyricon, Lowering the Bar, and a number of other blogs picking up the story, anyone […]

  8. July 2, 2012

    […] First, the judge appears to be ready to dismiss Carreon's TRO application as moot (meaning pointless), pending proof from Inman's lawyers that the two outstanding checks have been handed over to the charities.  It's an easy way to resolve the motion without needlessly getting into the complicated First Amendment and California charity law stuff.  Popehat has more analysis and the order here. […]

  9. July 4, 2012

    […] The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part VII: Charlie The Censor Files A Motion(Pope Hat) […]