The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part XII: Brave Sir Charlie Ran Away

Print This Post

You may also like...

110 Responses

  1. Grifter says:

    I don't have a lot of money. By that I mean "any extra".

    But I live in the area and I'd volunteer to be a "special appointment" server if they wanted some volunteers to save on costs of waiting around…

  2. Daryl Herbert says:

    Since he's bragging about being a fancy-pants lawyer, doesn't that give you a clue as to where he will be? He can't hide from process servers when he makes a court appearance unless he does it by phone.

    You can send your process server to the courtroom even if he appears by phone, to ask the court staff where he can be found (as in, "I'm here looking for Charles Carreon. Isn't he going to come in today? I need to serve him with something"). If you make it known to the court clerks that he's ducking service, he'll drop a few points in their eyes.

  3. Ken says:

    Daryl: Maybe I'll respond after he's been served; for now I'm not going to say anything that will provide data that might assist him in evading service.

  4. Adam Steinbaugh says:

    This whole thing is even more complicated by FRCP Rule 4(g).

    On another note, allow me to reiterate the fact that I'm bored and would be DELIGHTED to drive to Tucson.

  5. Michael says:

    So… all I have to do to avoid getting sued is tell them I'm not interested? Sweet, I'll have to remember this.

    This is absurd.

  6. David Veatch says:

    This is the case that put on my RSS feed. Though the generally high quality and irreverent attitude keeps me here, updates are very much appreciated. I've put my money where my mouth is. I understand Mr. Carreon used to be a decent guy fighting a decent fight. If that's the case, it's too bad he's fallen so far from grace.

  7. Bib says:

    Left funds for a half-hour. Hey, it's not much, but it's a start.

  8. TheOtherMatt says:

    As I understand it anyone age >= 18 can serve process, so couldn't they do a crowd sourced thing and have people from teh Internet hang out at Brave Sir Charlie's until he shows up

  9. Adam R says:

    I might just need to revive the @CCTranslated twitter account…

  10. Jessica says:

    Not to be a jerk or anything, but can't Matt pay the fees? I feel like he's gone to the well a bunch of times lately for money, and he's headed out on a book tour. I don't think he's hurting for money so badly he has to crowd source this one.

  11. Nicholas Weaver says:

    What struck me as odd is that the Judge missed a couple of things in his denial of alternate service, namely that

    a: Charles has shown that he is not just aware that the case exists, but details of the case because he used the case number in his letter to walgreens.

    b: One of the email addresses used is the one specifically used by the Northern California Federal Court to send electronic communications to Carreon, who practices in that very court.

    I'm also surprised there aren't bar association rules that deal with lawyers ducking service.

  12. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Oh, and I kicked in for some time too…

  13. Shawn says:

    @TheOtherMatt: I was thinking the same thing. Get some local rock bands to show up, do a 'benefit' concert, with a couple hundred people in the audience all with copies of the papers. Or just form a 'picket line' around his house, no body gets in until he's served!

  14. Shawn says:

    @Jessica: This is not a case involving The Oatmeal. This is some one that made a blog site to make fun of Charlie the Censor during the whole Oatmeal thing.

  15. plutosdad says:

    It's amazing that he can avoid being served when he has talked about the lawsuit and obviously knows about it, yet if you are poor and owe money to someone, the credit agency can MAIL you a summons and since you probably moved you will end up with a warrant for FTA.

  16. Jason says:

    @Nicholas, I imagine that the Bar would be VERY interested in a complaint that Carreon is violating California Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that California has case law which specifically establishes that evasion of service process so violates the code and constitutes contempt of court:

    It's fascinating. Does Carreon think he'll EVER get hired again?

  17. Jason says:

    All that said, though, I just read the judge's denial, and it seems like he paved the road to at least two or three ways that service can be effected within a VERY short period of time.

  18. Scott says:

    Done. Happy to be part of the mouse army.

  19. perlhaqr says:

    Public Citizen tip-jar hit.

  20. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Jason. Yeah.

    But for alternate service, I'd personally vote for a billboard truck, parked outside Chuckles's house for a week, playing La Cucaracha with the case information written on the side, since I think that can be reasonably expected to be noticed. :)

  21. This is Not Legal Advice says:

    FRCP 4(e)(1) – you can serve based on the law of the state where the district court is (i.e., California law, because the suit was filed in CAND)

    Cal Civ Pro 415.40 – you can serve someone at their out-of-California address by sending the summons/complaint via U.S. mail (return receipt requested, postage prepaid). Meaning you can mail it to Carreon's AZ address on file with the California state bar.

    M. Lowenstein (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 762 – it doesn't matter if the person has an in-state presence. Even if Carreon has a presence in California, that doesn't take away your ability to use certified mail to serve him.

    So congratulations, you've already raised enough money to serve him 100 times over.

    Disclaimer: I don't claim to be an attorney licensed in any state. I don't certify that this post is accurate. I don't certify that any of those statutes/cases are still good law. Rely on it at your own risk.

  22. This is Not Legal Advice says:

    By the way, I won't be offended if you choose not to publish the last comment, because you don't want to tip off Mr. Carreon that you are choosing to serve him in that manner.

  23. @Nicholas: I think you mean "any song by the Dead Kennedys"

  24. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Adam: Yeah. Style points. Or the Ramones.

  25. Jon says:

    I have to think that an average, non-attorney, person would not get the leeway to return an envelope unopened, and upon hearing it is a servicer answer "ain't no one here but us chickens!", not to mention trying to get the plaintiff fired quoting the case to the employer…
    Am I wrong to think that the judge asking the plaintiff to keep trying is atypical and absurdly beyond reasonable?

  26. J Mortimer says:

    I wonder how much it would cost to have a bomber air drop a few hundred thousand Xeroxed copies of the process over his house?

    Or maybe we could papiermache a ton of them into a ball, construct a giant slingshot and launch the thing through his living room window?

    Or we could borrow some of the owls from the Harry Potter movies and have them harass him until he opens one of the damn things?

    ………..If only we were millionaires.

  27. Dan Weber says:

    Adam wins with FRCP Rule 4(g). Please tip your Public Citizen server, he'll be here all week.

    I totally understand why the court wants to be sure its bases are all covered with regards to serving papers, but I don't understand how someone can continue to be a lawyer after refusing to participate in a critical part of the legal process.

  28. Roger says:

    Jessica, Matt is not the blogger suing Carreon. (Now, could he donate a little money as a random citizen? Sure, and I suspect he has.)

  29. Anglave says:


    Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk is the case that brought me to Popehat, and I've received many hours of entertainment as a result. I donated to BEARLOVE, and I'm happy to donate for Satirical Charles.

  30. eigenperson says:

    Donated $50.

  31. En Passant says:

    I'm not an expert in process serving, but I've heard tales from people employed in process serving and skip tracing.

    First, I reiterate what the court in the instant case Recouvreur v. Carreon noted:

    Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the methods by which service may be effected. Rule 4(e)(1) permits service by any means permitted by the law of the state in which the case is pending, or the state in which the defendant resides. Alternatively, Rule 4(e)(2) allows service by: (1) personal delivery of the summons and complaint to defendant; (2) leaving a copy of each with a person at the defendant’s residence, or (3) leaving a copy of each with an agent authorized to accept service.

    That gives considerable latitude to the server — any of two states' rules or Federal rules.

    As far as I know, deception as to the server's identity or purpose is not forbidden, nor is stealth. For example, a server could employ a barber to place the papers into defendant's hands when he went to get his hair cut.

    Unless Charles the Slippery is holed up in his castle with no contact to the outside world, service can be done. Even if he is holed up, he or a member of his household must occasionally venture outside for various necessities, or have them delivered. For example, a process server posing as a pizza delivery (from the very shop he ordered from) could accomplish service (and even deliver the pizza at the same time). All he must do is utter the magic words "you have been served" and certify under penalty of perjury that they place the papers in defendant's hands or on his person.

    Although such methods may be expensive, they can be very effective against process dodgers. They even have the bonus psychological effect of causing dodger some butthurt for having been gullible or off-guard.

  32. James Pollock says:

    "Am I wrong to think that the judge asking the plaintiff to keep trying is atypical and absurdly beyond reasonable?"
    You don't want to leave any opportunity for a successful appeal. A court that the defendant does not actually reside in has to be very careful on the matter of obtaining jurisdiction over the defendant, as those are the ones scrutinized the most.
    Best case scenario: crowdsource enough process serving to keep Carreon in his house until he has to do something on a legal matter, and then either serve him or get him for UPL in Arizona.

  33. SA says:

    Silly semi-on-topic – service in a comic strip:

    (although I doubt the Judge would condone picking a fight once the target has shown up at the place you'd expected him to be)

    … and thanks for the update on this case.

  34. En Passant says:

    Jason wrote Oct 18, 2012 @8:50 am:

    It appears that California has case law which specifically establishes that evasion of service process so violates the code and constitutes contempt of court: [citation omitted]

    It is important to understand that the case you cite, In re Holmes (1983) 145 Cal. App. 3d 934 [193 Cal. Rptr. 790] is about avoiding subpoena service, or detaining a witness or party in an ongoing case already in court. It has nothing to do with service of summons and complaint upon defendant or avoiding service of summons and complaint.

  35. Ken says:

    I won't be commenting on any legal analysis of service in here.

  36. Shawn says:

    I won't be commenting on any legal analysis of service in here.

    @Ken: If not here, then where? take all our fun away!

  37. Nicholas Weaver says:

    Shawn: Charles reads this. Thus its right that Ken only comments after the filings are smacked down…

    And then ken won't have to comment because they will be up in all their glory on Pacer.

  38. Nicholas Weaver says:

    For the non lawyers like me, the joke is FCRP 4(G) which I looked up(emphasis added):

    (g) Serving a Minor or an Incompetent Person. A minor or an incompetent person in a judicial district of the United States must be served by following state law for serving a summons or like process on such a defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of the state where service is made. A minor or an incompetent person who is not within any judicial district of the United States must be served in the manner prescribed by Rule 4(f)(2)(A), (f)(2)(B), or (f)(3).

  39. Jon says:

    @James I guess that makes sense…I just hope that when he is finally served it is scented with eau de taint, assuming lack of proximity to Ken.
    (If anyone actually makes "eau de taint: the discerning scent of contempt" I want royalties to be paid to Popehat.)

  40. Submitted for your LOLs, if only tangentially-related: I was adding feeds to my new RSS feeder. Tried to add Carreon's and (unlike when I added it awhile ago), was asked for an email address. Then I noticed the name of the RSS feed: CouplesClickTV.

    Which appears to be a swingers' site?

  41. Yep, this is the kind of riveting content you can expect when you subscribe to the RSS feed on Charles Carreon's law firm website (NSFW):

  42. Jacob Henner says:

    Does anyone know if this is the type of thing that would be admissable in a potential future trial? That is, can the obvious evasion of service be brought up, say as evidence of bad faith/awareness of unethical behavior/frivolous litigation?

  43. BNT says:

    @Adam: That screencap leaves me wondering if "wearing patent leather shoes" is a euphemism of which I'm blissfully unaware.

    I'm going to pretend it's not. It's funnier that way.

  44. alexa-blue says:


  45. Art says:


    It's understandable that you can't comment now but could you provide us with some delicious legal analysis when the dust finally settles on this debacle? I know there will be open records and such but we're not all fancy-pants lawyer types and it is great to have someone competent go through 'em and point out the important/fun parts with a generous helping of snark.

  46. En Passant says:

    BNT wrote Oct 18, 2012 @12:43 pm:

    @Adam: That screencap leaves me wondering if "wearing patent leather shoes" is a euphemism of which I'm blissfully unaware.

    Or a joke on an old meme or urban legend..

  47. Mark says:

    TC must be fuming not being able to talk about this in her private circlejerk of one.

  48. Pete says:

    Happy to help! One hour funded.

  49. Windypundit says:

    Funded. Let us know what happens.

  50. Matthew Cline says:

    Wait, so if you want to avoid a lawsuit, all you have to do is refuse to take the service papers? That doesn't make any sense.

  51. Josh C says:

    Would you consider speculating on process service after it's successful?

  52. Jay Z says:

    I will contribute some $ when I get home. It's crazy that it's so hard to serve him. Is that just AZ law being stupid and obtuse (as usual), or is this pretty common place?

    (I know you might not be willing to answer right now, but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts after he's been served)

  53. tilrman says:

    Ethically and legally speaking, can the papers be posted publically so that someone who happens to bump into Sir Charlie can serve him with a copy? His knowing that any stranger (or less-than-friendly acquaintence) on the street might hand him papers at any moment would at least partly turn the tables in the waiting game.

  54. @Jay Z: it's based on Federal and CA law, not AZ in this instance. It's a reasonable ruling that leaves the door open to substituted service — that is, service by email or other means — if Carreon keeps dodging service. That said, it doesn't sound like the judge is keen on allowing email service, but it's not out of the question.

    This ruling is likely preferable to the judge granting permission to serve via email and thereby giving Carreon a chance to litigate this phase of the case up through the appellate court. Because that's his express strategy: delay consequences and drive up the cost (in time and money) to protect the blogger's rights.

  55. James Pollock says:

    I've only a general understanding of the rules, but vague memories from civil procedure class suggests that service by publication should become available soon, if it hasn't yet. Look for the ad in the Tucson newspaper…

  56. James Pollock says:

    Looking forward to part XIII.

  57. KronWeld says:

    It would be great if The Oatmeal posted this request as well. Anyone know how to actually get a hold of him and suggest it? There is no e-mail address on his page and he asks to be contacted on Facebook, but not through messaging. I don't do Facebook so that rules me out.

  58. @KronWeld: Oatmeal did tweet it, to his credit, and the site subsequently crashed (which also happens when I reload it twice in a day).

  59. John Pomeroy says:

    Just paid for some guy to hang around for half-an-hour. Chuck'll have to come out sooner or later, no?

  60. KronWeld says:

    @Adam – Thanks. I didn't know that. It should help.

  61. Aaron W says:

    Since Ken isn't commenting on the legalities surrounding service, perhaps another attorney would weigh in?

    It seems like Mr. Carreon, as an officer of the court, would have an obligation to not obfuscate or otherwise attempt to prevent service of court orders, correct? So is Carreon paving the way for an ethics complaint against him?

    (And perhaps, if we're very lucky, that's why Ken isn't commenting?)

  62. Joe Pullen says:

    Given all of the recent examples of the benefits of maintaining one's anonymity, etc. I think I'll zip out tomorrow and buy a few pre-paid cards and hit the tip jar for a few days of process server time skulking around in hopes of pinningI down Chuckles. The pleasure of seeing CC having to face up to the mess he has created would truly be a real fine brandy and cigar type of moment.

  63. Chris R. says:

    If the Oatmeal sneezes in a website's general direction they tend to crash.

  64. En Passant says:

    @Aaron W Oct 18, 2012 @7:30 pm:

    I'm not "weighing in" because I know not from Shinola about AZ law and process service. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

    But here is a recent AZ appellate case, somewhat on point, that would appear to bode well for Public Citizen's efforts in the long run. Especially on the issues of due diligence and impracticability standards under AZ law.

  65. Jay Z says:

    @Adam Steinbaugh: Ahh, that makes sense, thanks!

    @Ken: How many hits did you get from Oatmeal fans? (for the record, the first time I came for the oatmeal coverage, stayed for the insightful first amendment commentary)

  66. Sari Everna says:

    Count me among those who came for the Carreon, and never left. I've been keeping my dad in the loop about the continuing saga of Carreon, and we had some amusing thoughts, his first being "If he keeps this up, maybe they should ask the judge to declare him dead!" and I can't deny that the thought of the aftermath appeals to my sense of schadenfreude. And what other reason could there be for him to be impossible to reach? His other suggestion was to blockade the house. After all, if you won't allow anyone in or out until he's served, well, he has to get food somehow. Of course, I personally like the idea of getting him via pizza delivery. You'd just have to intercept the delivery guy and have the papers in a plastic bag. And then Carreon would have been served pizza!

    Of course, it's all more tongue-in-cheek than anything, but it's amusing to think up ways of ferreting out that rat.

  67. AlphaCentauri says:

    If the other residents of the house are clearly helping him avoid service, and since they have been made it clear on line that they take a personal interest in this entire mess, can they be added as defendants — so that anyone who comes to the door gets served?

  68. Nate says:

    AlphaCentauri – it's my understanding they members of the household don't need to be added as defendants in order to be served on his behalf. IANAL of course, I'm just going off what someone quoted above.

    Consider a donation made, all the way from the UK, in thanks of the many hours of entertainment and lulz this & SC have provided.

    I can understand why Ken is keeping quiet, he doesn't want to give away plans to CC. I am partial to the pizza guy idea, but I am now imagining CC cursing those "illuminati nazi's" because now he can't even order pizza/take out. I suspect these process servers have so many more tricks up their sleeves yet, which is probably why the judge denied the request. I'm quite amused by how (much more) paranoid this must all be making the Carreons. Hell, we don't even need someone intent on serving the papers sitting outside the house…just random people taking it in turns to very obviously sitting there. Onnnnnn second thoughts…doesn't TC have a shotgun. Ummmmm…pizza box it is.

  69. perlhaqr says:

    I can understand Ken not wanting to comment, for fear of giving away the strategy and letting Carreon thereby avoid service. But I also like the idea of just naming every possibility, so that he has to be paranoid about … well, everything! And then it sounds like Dr. Seuss.

    "We could serve him in a box.
    We could serve him with a fox.
    We could serve him on the train.
    We could serve him in the rain.
    We could serve him at his house.
    We could serve him mail-by-mouse.
    We could serve him in the dark,
    we could serve him at the park.
    We could serve him with a goat,
    we could serve him on a boat.
    We could serve him here or there,
    we could serve him anywhere!"

  70. Ken says:

    Thanks to everyone for the support. Expect a post next week.

    It's not my decision to make, but I think service should be handled by professionals and not crowdsourced. I'm not sure the people offering to try to serve Mr. Carreon are aware of all relevant factors.

  71. Dan Weber says:

    "If you think a professional is expensive, wait until you pay for an amateur."

    $60 sounds expensive, but it doesn't surprise me as the market clearing rate for someone willing to walk up the whack-jobs and give them very bad news.

  72. Nicholas Weaver says:

    but it doesn't surprise me as the market clearing rate for someone willing to walk up the whack-jobs and give them very bad news.

    Especially for someone willing to represent the Buddhist/CIA Illuminati conspiracy.

  73. James Pollock says:

    The fun part is that the server him- or her-self makes nowhere NEAR $60 an hour. In the job postings I've seen, they're offered a flat rate (but this may be a regional difference) but it still doesn't add up to much more than $12-15 per hour.

  74. mojo says:

    Are there no "hot chicks" in the US Marshall's office?

  75. If only I could run into Carreon in the street with a copy of these papers. I'd hand them to him, put on a pair of sunglasses, and then say, "Carreon – you just got served."

    Also, donated $10. :-)

  76. Kevin Malone says:

    I do not get it. How does Carreon's right to due process get abused by refusing to continue humoring his desperate attempt to avoid due process?

  77. Kelly says:

    Why does it not surprise me that he is still acting like a 5 year old? Will donate as soon as I can. If anything, he provides amusement.

  78. Artor says:

    I had an interesting experience serving papers once. There was a man running his business in a small town, but a guy lived across the street from the shop who was a raging antisocial asshole. The boss wanted to by him out so he would go away, and offered earnest money for the sale of his house through an intermediary. Mr. Asshole took the earnest money and signed an agreement to sell, but reneged and refused to return the money, so a lawsuit ensued and papers had to be served. The interested parties can't serve their own papers, so they asked me to do it for them.
    I was extremely hesitant, as Mr. Asshole had pointed a gun at me for straying over his unmarked property line before, and to knock on his door would involve going around the back of his house & inside his gate. I refused for a couple weeks, but something had to be done, so one morning, I agreed to do the deed.
    Fortunately, the boss had just handed me the papers, and I saw Mr. Asshole getting in his car to leave. There was my chance to meet him without a gun in his hands! I ran out into the street in front of him and called out as he tried to swerve around me, "Mr. Asshole! You have been served!" He wouldn't stop to take the papers, so I tossed them to land on his windshield. It was a dewy morning, so the manila folder stuck flat, right in his field of view, with the official court markings staring him in the face as he tried to peer around them and navigate down the road.
    He did eventually sell the house and move, but as you can guess, he was an asshole every step of the way.

  79. Luna_the_cat says:

    Just out of curiosity, and speaking of very bad legal behaviour, had you seen this: ?

  80. Ken says:

    Luna: Ten people pointed me to it today.

    I've offered my help.

  81. Luna_the_cat says:

    I should have known! :-D

  82. Robert White says:

    You know, back in the prehistory of the internet, when the email protocols were being invented, they included both delivery and read receipts. Spammers ruined this by harvesting those receipts as a means of scraping addresses of the innocent in a quest to sell larger penises to unsuspecting minors.

    So the receipts for email are dead.

    So they have some sort of gate on their house… I wonder what a waterproof envelope and a whole heck of a lot of nylon wire tires might accomplish… I mean even if they hired someone to remove the zip ties and envelope, that someone would be their agent and on their premises…

    The problem with trying to catch Chuckles the Clown out doing is lawyerly business is that he isn't licensed to practice in the state where he lives, so he _doesn't_ go out for that purpose lest he be jailed for contempt.

    Once the freaky cult closes its compound things can be a little unlike normal human interaction.

    Censorious Calamity is very like Phred Phelps… it's wacko Waco all the way to the edge of the property.

  83. marc says:

    May I suggest you have someone hang out at the Sky Bar on Wednesdays in Tuscon? From what I have read on the Nader Library (Tara and Charles rant and rave outlet) they hang out there quite a bit to annoy the crowd gathered there. It should be pretty easy to serve him papers there, he'll have his guard down a bit, or at least he'll be more receptive to being approached.

  84. Random Encounter says:

    Maybe he fancies himself some sort of Buck Godot.

  85. Lizard says:

    @Ken re: . Uhm… I could sort of make some kind of sense out of most of that swamp[1] of consciousness rant, but I am lost at the link between studying Thomas Paine and "fascism, sadism, and madness". Isn't Thomas Paine pretty much the antithesis of "fascism, sadism, and madness"?

    I am trying to make sense of the ravings of a madwoman. What does that say about my own sanity?

    [1]As opposed to stream.

  86. Analee says:

    @perlhaqr: Between your Carreon Seuss comment and Jon's "Eau de Taint" comment, I lost two mouthfuls of water to near back-to-back spittakes.

    I only wish that I didn't have rent due on November 1st, because if I didn't, I'd toss an hours' worth to a good cause. I hate that living paycheck to paycheck renders me unable to contribute to all the good causes I want to support. :(

  87. Joe Pullen says:

    Ken now has his own parfumee "Eau de Taint" idea courtesy of Jon.

    Ah the sweet smell of snark.

  88. Adam says:

    Pencil me in as another in the "came for the Oatmeal, stayed because it's great" popehat readers.

    @Robert White: I believe you're wrong about e-mail read receipts. Both delivery success and read receipts are relatively new standards compared to SMTP. It turns out (unsurprisingly?) that e-mail is exceptionally complicated. begins to address the mess that *just this little corner* of internet messaging turned into.

    The most effective read receipt is the easiest to use now: embed a tracking code into an image signature, and most people will load it, verifying their receipt of the mail.

    If anyone knows where I can read about legal precedents regarding proof of e-mail receipt (or lack thereof) I'd love to read about it. I ain't no lawyer, but I could probably be an expert witness about e-mail, sadly.

  89. Ken says:

    @Joe Pullen: Which Jon? Who did that? I love it!

  90. Joe Pullen says:

    @Ken – Jon • Oct 18, 2012 @11:34 am

    I got the idea from Jon and Analee's posts. The artwork and concept execution is mine.

  91. Joe Pullen says:

    @Adam, @Robert White. Interesting fact I learned a few months ago from our use of – there is a HTML email feature that embeds a "cookie" in the email. While there are a few email systems sophisticated enough to strip it out apparently they are few and used by only a few large corporations. Once the email is "read" my understanding is the cookie sends a read receipt back to the email record on I suppose you could sign up via credit card for a few months at $65 a whack and – presto – proof he has read it. Although I'm not certain this would work in a court of law since you'd have to prove he is the only one with access to his email and someone else didn't actually read it.

  92. Adam says:

    @Joe Pullen: The "cookie" you're describing is the image technique I alluded to. If you send an HTML e-mail with an IMG tag that includes a unique identifier, you can tell from your web server logs whether it was loaded.

    A significant fraction of spam uses this technique as well. Due to this, many e-mail clients no longer load images by default. Gmail does not, for example. If your e-mail client loads images by default, get a new one.

    This technique works better when you're receiving e-mail from someone you know. I know I stand a greater chance of clicking the "load images in this mail" button when I suspect no foul play is going on. I do this all the time for marketing e-mails from Newegg and various other websites. I know they're tracking me, but I want to see the deals. Give and take.

  93. within 24 hours i shall have funds to forward. no conquistador-vulture hybrid deserves to prevent himself from being served!

  94. Mark says:

    This is too funny: Sir Charlie has hired services of a whois privacy service company … IN AUSTRALIA (

    Very conveniently out of reach of US subpoenas I guess.

    Just try a whois of his usual domains (e.g., and see for yourself.

    I distinctly recalled doing a whois in the past and receiving all his AZ address/email address just fine. Just proves that we probably should screenshot and archive everything about this guy.

    … I wonder if this is related to avoiding being serviced… (/sarcasm)

  95. Mark says:

    Oh, and apparently Lady Tara IS acknowledging DMCA notices against her Nader Library. Here's one from Oct 15th:

    God forbid she misses on a DMCA deadline!

    (I wonder how long that page will stay up.)

  96. Valerie says:


  97. Joe Pullen says:

    Ah yes heard from Satirical Chucky that Sir Charles had gotten served the other day. More fun to come I'm sure. Getting the Holiday popcorn ready.

  98. Mark says:

    Here's what CC had to say about this, according to the documents:

    I have no interest in litigating this matter, and accordingly will not consent to or expose myself to service. There is no case or controversy, and your client has no Article III standing to file this suit, which is simply some bizarre form of harassment in which you play the role of officious interloper.

    The irony is strong with this one.

  99. Mark says:

    Can some kind soul explain what is happening here? I got lost in the legalese…

  100. Grifter says:

    Can someone explain how a lawyer can say:

    "I have no interest in litigating this matter, and accordingly will not consent to or expose myself to service."

    and not be bashed by the Bar for it? It seems that a lawyer who admits that he is avoiding service, and doing it solely because he doesn't wanna have to deal with the case, should face sanctions as an officer of the court, no?

  101. V says:

    There's a request to award lawyer and service costs (that were made while trying to serve CC with papers) to the blogger.
    CC wants more time to respond to that request, because he says he has been busy trying to negotiate with the blogger's team to make the suit go away and will be busy the upcoming couple of days. He says the blogger's team declined to give him more time to respond to said request, so now he's asking the court.

  102. Mark says:

    @V thanks. I thought as much, but the roundabout language got me confused.

  103. Nate says:

    In the emails from the latest exhibits Levy wishes Carreon good luck with his American Buddha case. It looks like Carreon has a hearing today about Penguin's copyright suit against him.

  1. October 18, 2012

    […] It's been weeks since we left our house. The conditions have become squalid and unbearable. I haven't had a latte in forever and feel like the world is coming to an end. Why won't these Illuminati leave me be? Every door knock, telephone ring, and stranger on the street could be an agent of my nemesis, the Oatmeal. We are running low on supplies, we've been subsisting off of saltine crackers and ketchup for 3 days now, and I am tired of using supermarket ads for toilet paper. Our television broke a week ago too, so I've been flipping through my only entertainment, a binder full of women. […]

  2. November 4, 2012

    […] Abandon new website, hide from process servers. […]

  3. November 5, 2012

    […] Hide and Seek: Charled Carreon Style! It wouldn’t be a newscast if Charles Carreon didn’t do something crazy last week. Back to the topic of Lawyers behaving badly.  It seems Charles Carreon has gone from cartoonish villainy to just cartoonish. Original Source: Pope Hat […]

  4. November 24, 2012

    […] Carreon's bravado, he has since been hiding out in his Tuscon, AZ abode, avoiding process servers like they were CIA agents out to get him.  (Long […]