The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part V: A Brief Review of Charles Carreon's Complaint

Note: our entire series of posts about the Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk situation is now complied under the Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk tag.

Background: our previous coverage of the epic and (epically ridiculous) battle between FunnyJunk attorney Charles Carreon and The Oatmeal can be found here: Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV.

A few days ago I discussed a report — which proved true — that FunnyJunk's attorney Charles Carreon had sued Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, and two charities in a fit of what can only be described as unbalanced, from-Hell's-heart-I-stab-at-thee pique.

Today, as promised, I'm going to talk a bit about the merits of — no, the substance of — you know, scratch that. I'm going to talk about the butthurt that Charles Carreon angrily crayoned down and chucked at a federal judge.

I. Preliminaries

Mr. Carreon's complaint is now hosted many places, including (in redacted form, without large exhibits) here. The entire thing, with exhibits, is now available on PACER as well.

I'm not going to explain all of the problems with it. First, that would be a monstrously long post. Second, I'm not going to do anything that might help Charles Carreon, whose behavior in this matter is contemptible. So: you'll have to wait for motion practice to see the defendants' approach to issues of jurisdiction, standing, California's anti-SLAPP statute, and a full treatment of Mr. Carreon's eccentric view of California charitable law. I have no doubt that Venkat Balasubramani will do a spectacular job for Matthew Inman, with whatever assistance he and Mr. Inman decide to accept. (Thanks, by the way, to the attorneys, paralegals, law students, and other professionals who have offered pro bono help. Stand by. You never know who might need it.)

So: the complaint. Let's begin by quoting an applicable Federal Rule of Civil Procedure looming over it, and over Mr. Carreon: Rule 11.

b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
. . . .[emphasis added]

Violations of Rule 11 may lead to monetary sanctions by the court.

On to the complaint itself.

II. Causes of Action and Prayers For Relief

As the Courthouse News Service report correctly suggested, Carreon's complaint names Matthew Inman (proprietor of The Oatmeal), IndieGoGo Inc. (the web site that hosted the fundraiser), the American Cancer Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and a number of "Does," or as-of-yet-unidentified defendants to be named later. After Mr. Carreon's summary of what he believes the facts and the law to be, there are three causes of action — that is, three claims based on which Mr. Carreon believes he is entitled to relief.

The first cause of action seeks to impose a constructive trust upon the proceeds of Inman's BearLove charity. To over-simplify, trust is a legal structure that puts restrictions on the use of an asset and imposes obligations on its manager, the trustee; a constructive trust is a remedy that a court can impose by ordering that an asset be treated as if it were in a trust, with its use restricted and supervised. Mr. Carreon asserts that the court must impose a constructive trust because Mr. Inman and IndieGogo have violated California charity law. Of course, under California law, a constructive trust is a remedy, not a cause of action— it's what you get if you prove a violation you have standing to complain about, not the violation itself.

The second cause of action asserts a trademark violation under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125, against Mr. Inman and one of the Does. Mr. Carreon asserts that (as, if you thought about it, you would expect) he trademarked his name, that somebody started a fake Twitter account in the name @charles_carreon, and that this hurt him. Mr. Carreon thinks that this person was incited by Mr. Inman, or "on information and belief" was Mr. Inman himself. "On information and belief" is lawyer-speak for "I have no evidence whatsoever, but I kind of like to imagine that it's true, and who knows what I'll find in discovery." Mr. Carreon goes on to complain that the fake @charles_carreon tweets were "abrasive and provoking" and "engendered negative responses" to him, which is upsetting because he "makes it a habit to engage in tempered speech even on matters of heated debate." Yes, it's totally true, as anyone who has read about this story or met Charles Carreon could attest: interacting with him is clearly a memorable joy, akin to being farted upon by a unicorn, and his actions normally inspire only adulation and the occasional rapturous fainting incident.

The third cause of action is against Inman and the Does again, this time for the awkwardly named "Inciting and Committing Cybervandalism In The Nature of Trespass To Chattels, False Personation, and Identity Theft," which believe it or not you will not find in the California Civil Code. Here Mr. Carreon asserts that Inman incited others to hack Mr. Carreon's website (which he immediately detected and stopped) or use his email address to sign him up for websites and goods and services he did not want. Mr. Carreon asserts once again "on information and belief" (or, as I prefer to say, "ass-damply") that Mr. Inman perhaps did these things himself.

Finally, we have the "prayer for relief," where Mr. Carreon says what he wants out of all of this. He wants (a) an order imposing a trust over the BearLove proceeds, (2) an order barring Doe No. 1 or Inman from using his name "in any manner," (3) an order requiring IndieGoGo to comply with certain California charity laws Mr. Carreon thinks ought to apply to them, (4) a order requiring the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer society to do things Mr. Carreon thinks they are supposed to be doing, (5) damages, (6) disgorgement by Mr. Inman and IndieGoGo of "ill-gotten profits," (7) triple damages, (8) attorney fees, (9) an order requiring the defendants to report to the court about how they are complying with what Mr. Carreon wants them to do, (10) punitive damages, and (11) a formal judicial declaration of most wanton and hurtful trespass unto fee-fees. I may have made one of those up.

Having reaped the whirlwind of scorn for suing the charities, Mr. Carreon will no doubt protest that he didn't sue them for money, he just asked that they comply with the law. In fact, it's going to be difficult and expensive for the charities to respond at all. Even though Mr. Carreon named the charities as defendants in the caption, he doesn't name them as defendants in any of the three causes of action, and yet he asks the court to issue orders directing them to do things, and his demands for damages and attorney fees doesn't make it clear whom he thinks should be paying him. Also, in paragraph six identifying the parties and the court's jurisdiction over them, Mr. Carreon only says "The Charitable Organization Defendants are . . ." before trailing off awkwardly without conclusion, like a former friend or family member mulling how to create a diversion rather than answer the question "how can you tolerate being associated with this vexatious twatwaffle?" This means that the charities will have to pay lawyers to research how to put into fancy federal-court language the basic message "attention entitled dipshit: what exactly are you suing us for?"

In addition, there are patent defects, provably false statements, and rank hypocrisies in the complaint. Let's mention just a few:

III. Legal, Factual, And Moral Bogosities

Sweet Charity: Mr. Carreon's theory of how California charity law governs the defendants is wholly harebrained. As but one example: Mr. Carreon asserts that California Government Code section 12599 controls The Oatmeal, even though that statute by its own terms applies to "any individual, corporation, unincorporated association, or other
legal entity who for compensation" engages in fundraising in California — professional telemarketers and fundraisers, in other words. In a similarly wrong-headed or deliberately deceptive vein, Mr. Carreon claims that Government Code section 12599.6(b) requires charities like the ones he has sued here to "exercise and establish control" over "all fundraising activities conducted by others for their benefit." Except that's not what Government Code section 12599.6 says at all. It says "A charitable organization must establish and exercise control over its fundraising activities conducted for its benefit, including
approval of all written contracts and agreements . . . ." Mr. Carreon made up the part requiring charities to police fundraising they don't control themselves or contract out. That's why if your kids sell lemonade in order to donate the proceeds to save the pandas, the World Wildlife Fund doesn't have to come and proofread their signs and make sure that they aren't misstating the ingredients of the snickerdoodles or coercing the Jenkins kid up the block to buy seconds.

True Versus Truthy: Mr. Carreon makes a number of factual assertions that appear to play rather fast and loose with the requirements of Rule 11, cited above. Take, for example, his claim in paragraph 37 that "Mr. Inman's stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign" to the charities. Mr. Carreon's own exhibits show that he is lying. Mr. Inman said that he was trying to raise $20,000 (at the time of this writing he has exceeded ten times that) and that he would donate half to one charity and half to the other. Later, when results far exceeded expectations, Mr. Inman posted an update, saying "a lot of people have been asking what I plan to do with the extra money we raised over the initial $20,000. 100% of it is going to charity. I’m going to add 2 more charities to the list, in addition to the ACS and the NWF." Mr. Carreon also implies falsely in paragraph 30 — as he has stated falsely to the media — that the bear-loving mother Mr. Inman drew was meant to be Mr. Carreon's mom, when in fact the post makes it perfectly clear that the statement is directed a FunnyJunk, a web site that does not actually have a mother (unless, perhaps, its mother is AOL).

Take also Mr. Carreon's dark speculation that some sort of skullduggery must be at work for anyone to find the email he uses because he has not posted it anywhere on the internet "except where required by law or internet regulations [sic]." In fact, aside from PACER and WHOIS entries (which Mr. Carreon conceded) he also made the email address available in his California State Bar profile, his Oregon State Bar profile, as the contact email for his "RagingBlog" blog captioned "Charles Carreon" (since deleted, hours after someone pointed it out in comments on this site), repeated all over his site (where he's fond of posting his own emails to people), and in his own 2009 press release. In short, Charles Carreon's email address was easily accessible to anyone reasonably good at using Google. I don't find Google sinister. Perhaps Mr. Carreon does, particularly after this whole episode.

You Can't Say That! Mr. Carreon claims that Mr. Inman "incited" others to create a false Twitter account using his name, and to commit "Cybervandalism." Yet despite his ability to quote Mr. Inman in great detail in an embarrassingly pearl-clutching quasi-Victorian effort to cause horror and disgust at Mr. Inman's comedic style, Mr. Carreon does not cite a single thing that Mr. Inman said that sounds like incitement. Not a "go email him," not a "don't put up with this guy," not a "let's show him," not a single word encouraging any action other than donations. This is in sharp contrast to Mr. Carreon's client, FunnyJunk, which accused Mr. Inman of wanting to shut FunnyJunk down and urged its users to "Contact Oatmeal anyway [sic] you can." It also contrasts with Mr. Carreon himself, who became incensed when Mattel's trademark attorney would not respond to his emails about a porn doll that Mr. Carreon thought infringed a Mattel property, and urged his readers to contact the hapless attorney. (Both FunnyJunk and Carreon, in those examples, provided contact information for their targets — Inman redacted Carreon's contact information from the letter he published and linked his Wikipedia page rather than his web site.) But those examples, no doubt, are just different.

The implications of Mr. Carreon's argument – which will be demolished by apt First Amendment case citations in due course — are frightening. Mr. Carreon cannot cite a single thing Mr. Inman said to incite or encourage anyone to take any illegal action against Mr. Carreon. Instead, Mr. Carreon's argument seems to be that Mr. Inman committed actionable incitement not by calling for action, but merely by criticizing, ridiculing, and reviling Mr. Carreon. No First Amendment cases support such a proposition. The implications of Mr. Carreon's argument reveal its fatuity. Mr. Carreon's argument necessarily means that the more popular or listened-to a speaker is, the less they can say, for fear that an audience will be "incited" to do something illegal against whomever they are criticizing. Mr. Carreon's argument necessarily means that the more contemptible a person's behavior is, the less that others can criticize it, for fear of "incitement." It's a deeply unprincipled position, because the category of "critical speech that might cause someone to do something wrong" infinitely malleable and can be used to attack almost any criticism one doesn't like. Mr. Carreon has not articulated, will not articulate, and cannot articulate the line between permissible criticism and his open-ended definition of "incitement." It's an un-American and pro-totalitarian position, because it effectively asserts that the government should have a license to censor speech based upon the naked assertion that someone might react to it the wrong way — a proposition that American courts have spent a half-century refuting. In a man who has quite literally wrapped himself in the flag and attempted to portray himself as a defender of the First Amendment, it is a sign of weakness of character.

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee: In this lawsuit and his public statements about it Mr. Carreon wears the guise of Innocence Abused, but he does so quite awkwardly and unconvincingly. He portrays himself as shocked and appalled at the crassness of some of The Oatmeal's cartoons, and has pretensions to "tempered speech," but quite frankly he's full of shit. Before he became Easily Offended Aunt Agnes for purposes of this lawsuit, Carreon threw elbows. As I pointed out in Part IV, the site that Mr. and Mrs. Carreon apparently operate — to which Mr. Carreon contributes — has satirical photoshops of politicians he doesn't like having sex, or topless on a photoshopped can of "Tits and Rice." But his satire does not extend only to politicians. The site also hosts a photoshop of a newspaper columnist altered so that it appears she is masturbating two men simultaneously. Apparently Mr. and Mrs. Carreon didn't like her columns.

Some time ago, Mr. Carreon lived in Ashland, Oregon, and the site was hosted on a network owned by the City of Ashland. When the columnist depicted in the two-dicks-at-once photoshop complained that the picture was pornographic and a copyright violation, the City of Ashland pulled the plug on the site. (That's what you get when you let the government host your content.) Carreon sued the city for First Amendment violations, representing the site. He lost in United States District Court and again on Appeal based on the city's limited liability — the courts found that he failed to demonstrate that the site takedown was the result of a city policy or lack of appropriate training. For what it's worth, city liability aside, I think the photoshop was clearly neither a copyright violation nor legally obscene in a manner permitting government censorship. But the point is that here, defending the right of the site he and his wife wrote for to post pornographic images of newspaper columnists who wrote things they disagreed with, Mr. Carreon waxed rhapsodic about free speech:

"Internet censorship is just the latest outbreak of a disease that government always suffers from — wanting to control what people can say," says Carreon, "We are shining a light on a problem that no one in Ashland knew about — the existence of a censor inside of the City who could, and did, turn off websites for totally improper reasons. In the case of American Buddha, it was a complaint from conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who was the subject of a risque cartoon [sic] that was posted on the American Buddha website, In other cases, we don't know what the reasons were, but the websites were turned off."

. . .

Asked why the case was important enough to justify an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, a project that can easily cost a client a healthy five-figure sum, Carreon explained: "The issue is one of first-impression, because whether a municipal Internet system subjects a city to First Amendment restrictions is, strictly speaking, a new one. On the other hand, it's just a replay of the old Jehovah's WItness cases, where an unpopular religion found its message blocked by restrictions on the use of loudspeakers and pamphleteering. American Buddha is a digital pamphleteer, entitled to the same protections as the works of the Founding Fathers, who wrote 'The Federalist Papers' pseudonymously, and circulated them secretly to avoid Royal prosecution. The Revolutionary War was in large part, a war against censorship. And it's not over."

Compare that position to the one he assumes here, asserting that Matthew Inman's impudent BearLove image is so horrific that charities ought to be court-ordered to make him stop using it to raise money for them. Compare his words about anonymity to his desire to find the person who made an obviously satirical Twitter account mocking him. Compare his stirring rhetoric, which invoked the Founders and the Revolutionary War and past victims of censorship, with his current rhetoric, which invites comparison to the Comics Code Authority and Thomas Bowdler and Judge Louis A. Goodman. Compare who he has claimed to be, and who he wishes he were, to who he has become as a result of his petulance and ego. Compare, and shake your head.

Note: Many of the observations in this post come from people who offered comments on our prior chapters, including but not limited to Nicholas Weaver, W Ross, joe, Ann Branson, Keith R, MJ, and Jack. They have my thanks. I suspect that the longer Charles Carreon continues to dig, the more illuminating things readers will find in his past writings and actions. That is as it ought to be.

First Edit: ArsTechnica refers to this as a "devastaing nuclear attack." If you've followed Carreon, you know that means it's not my fault, but Walt Disney's.

Second Edit: In the "abject and unapologetic hypocrisy" category, this page on the American Buddha web site shouldn't be missed. Headed "MEMO TO ANN COULTER — YOU'LL GET YOURS, BITCH!", it includes writing attributed to Charles Carreon, including this:

Since Medusa wasn't human, it was perfectly okay for Perseus to smite her head from her shoulders. Since Coulter has abandoned her humanity for money, influence, and the adulation of fools, it is perfectly okay to use whatever means are necessary to bring an end to her reign of terror, including publishing her decapitated visage, snake ringlets and all. It doesn’t matter whether you’re left wing, right wing, libertarian or anarchist, don’t let this reactionary Medusa turn you to stone — stalk her carefully, using your mirror-shield to avoid looking directly into her eyes — and when you are close enough, one clean slice directly above the shoulders will do the trick.

Again, compare that to Charles Carreon's hand-wringing about incitement and tone and content. Hat tip: commenters Jonathan and Grifter.

Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. LW says

    I have been following this story on your site and read your insights with great attention.

    This is a point which I haven't seen anyone bring up:

    In para 37, Carreon claims, "Inman's stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign to the NWF and the ACS…" but in para 38, he (somewhat incoherently) claims that those who donate have a reasonable expectation that 100% of the proceeds will go to charity.

    If we take para 37 as true, then once $20K had been raised, anyone who donated thereafter (probably including Carreon) clearly *could not* reasonably expect any part of their donation to go to the charities.

    Doesn't this kind of undercut his argument?

  2. darius404 says

    To add insult to, well, insult, his post about Emily Dolly has 2,959 comments…. which are almost entirely spam.

  3. Thorne says

    Classic bait-and-switch…

    I'm sure Carreon thought he was wrapping himself in the 'Robes of Righteousness' when, in reality, it turns out all he bought was a +2 'Cloak of Cuckoo-for-Cocoa-Puffs'.

    Reeeeeeeally hope he kept the receipt.

  4. neil says

    The only thing that could make this better would be if Carreon sued Popehat for malicious analysis.

  5. says

    Funny: Mr. Carreon is willing to issue subpoenas to uncover the identity of whoever keeps popping up with the satirical Twitter accounts (that is, to get their IP addresses). But he apparently hasn't alleged a cause of action against the person who purportedly was actually trying to hack his website (by requesting a change in the password).

    That information would be readily available to him, assuming he runs his website competently, by checking the access logs to see what IP address accessed the password-change link.

    So he sues the people criticizing him and purportedly 'inciting' these evil acts, but not the person who he thinks was incited. Speaks volumes about the improper motives (ahem, hello Rule 11(b)(1)) in bringing this action, as well as the 'damages' he's suffered from the incitement (read: none).

  6. Jason says

    Excellently written as usual, Ken! I wish this asshat would go away already. But I suspect that his choosing to stick around will result in great belly laughs for all (excluding him, of course)

  7. darius404 says

    Too bad Charles Carreon lived too long and didn't die the hero. . .

    I don't believe you mean that literally, but I think it's best to stay away from language like that. Some people (unreasonable people, in my mind) might take that as a threat. It's more than likely nothing would happen, but considering the stuff people get sued/arrested over, it's just safer not to talk quite like that, or at least clarify your meaning. It's a bit less fun perhaps, but when discussing "sensitive" people, it might be best.

  8. Thorne says


    It's a twist on a 'The Dark Knight' reference.

    Speaking of….

    Total props to Ken for working in a bitchin' Star Trek II reference.


  9. says


    " the works of the Founding Fathers, who wrote 'The Federalist Papers' pseudonymously, and circulated them secretly to avoid Royal prosecution. "

    One would think that one, billing himself as a first amendment lawyer, would possess at least rudimentary familiarity with the history surrounding the documents written by our Founding Fathers. The Federalist Papers were written after the Revolutionary War was concluded, the Articles of Confederation were in effect, and there was no royalty claiming any current legal jurisdiction over any of the United States of America.

    They were, in fact, written to encourage the ratification of the Constitution which eventually replaced the AoC — that same Constitution which was amended to included protection of freedom of speech. Cleary, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay were not avoiding the prosecuting arm of George III.

    But, as you say, a full exposition of everything that Carreon gets wrong would fill volumes. I just wanted to pick a nit and show off my historical knowledge.

  10. says

    "Yes, it's totally true, as anyone who has read about this story or met Charles Carreon could attest: interacting with him is clearly a memorable joy, akin to being farted upon by a unicorn, and his actions normally inspire only adulation and the occasional rapturous fainting incident."

    If this were a Beatles concert, this is the point at which I would have thrown my panties at you.

    This post almost made me weep.

  11. Ronnie says

    Started reading your blog as a result of the Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk debacle. I really appreciate your informative and humorous look at the entire goings-on. As hilarious as this is, I also find it profoundly sad, because good people are going to have to pay a lot of money to deal with Carreon being a buffoon. I have almost no knowledge of legal proceedings, but I fear that this is going to get a lot worse before it gets better–after all, we've already established that this guy has no clue when to quit.

  12. Sargon says

    The best part about that long quote from Carreon about free speech is that his bit about the Federalist Papers is completely wrong. They were written during the debates over ratifying the Constitution. At that point there hadn't been any Royals around to persecute anyone for a good four years or so…

  13. W Ross says

    There will be a day when the data aggregating skills of the Internet will fail… but it is not THIS DAY!

  14. says

    If this were a Beatles concert, this is the point at which I would have thrown my panties at you.

    You'll have to get in line behind the horde of Regretsy people…

  15. Dan Weber says

    "Donate half to one charity" links to a wordpress command page. Hopefully that was just an accident and not some kind of injection attack.

  16. Zachary says

    Beautiful analysis. This whole issue- Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk- lead me to your website and I'm glad it did. I love stories about the first amendment, and defending it, and smacking down pompous judges and lawyers.

  17. Margaret says

    "Oh, and another thing…"

    Regarding the widespread (despite being clearly corrected) misconception that the lady seducing the bear represents Carreon's mother instead of FunnyJunk's mother: In re-reading The Oatmeal's initial response, it's quite clear that the ENTIRE thing is directed at the (anonymous entity) of FunnyJunk. NONE of it is addressed directly at Carreon, except for the part where The Oatmeal opines (to FunnyJunk, the client), "Your Lawyer = A+". Well, we all know that's sarcastic, but even so, it barely goes beyond mildly insulting.

    So for Carreon to claim that any part of The Oatmeal's initial "post" with the marked-up letter is addressed to him, and therefore damages him, is absolutely untrue. Any butthurt should be FunnyJunk's to double down on. Clearly, they/it/he doesn't care to.

  18. Kristen says

    @Thorne that line is a quote from Moby Dick. Khan was quoting Ahab. Sorry for the pedantry. Carry on.

  19. Chris R. says

    Am I the only person who has a morbid curiosity of what would happen if Tara Carreon got on this comment thread?

  20. Joe says

    Careful Darious404, the “other Chris” (not Chris B.) may try to shit bomb you for daring to suggest he mind his Ps and Qs ;-0

    Ken, seriously I think I may have peed my pants I laughed so hard. Each installment is better than the last. I predict Carreon’s butthurt level has now reached the level of Nuclear and I predict it will soon go stratospheric when he sees this site

    I also think you may have a new Popehat term along the lines of inspiring fainting couch pearl clutching incidents as a result of Unicorn farts aka “Unicorn Taint”. You know that oh so rare but very distinctive odur similar in scent to the vexatious twatflatulence someone like Carreon exudes when they haven’t a legal leg to stand on, except that Unicorn Taint would be “righteous” taint.

    On a final note, I was glad to see the legal interpretation of something I had long wondered about – specifically how he could be suing the charities for placement of assets into trust as a remedy when he had yet to prove any violation – talk about putting the cart before the horse.

  21. says

    So I'm fascinated by this saga. I've learned more about US First Amendment Law than I know about any law in my own country (Australia). The question for me is, what happens next?

    I would be horrified to see this ghastly cyber-villain get even a single cretinous point across the line. But it seems like he's the hydra of lawsuits – cut off one and two more appear. How long can this go on for?

    Mind you, I daresay his career's all but over, so the funds will have to run out sooner or later.

  22. says

    So I'm fascinated by this saga. I've learned more about US First Amendment Law than I know about any law in my own country (Australia). The question for me is, what happens next?

    I would be horrified to see this ghastly cyber-villain get even a single cretinous point across the line. But it seems like he's the hydra of lawsuits – cut off one and two more appear. How long can this go on?

    Mind you, I daresay his career's all but over, so the funds will have to run out sooner or later.

  23. Thorne says

    @ Kristen

    "Great Moby Dick reference, dude."

    "Great Star Trek reference, dude."

    Which one do you reeeeeallly think Ken would be aiming for? ;)

  24. Collin says

    small typo #2:

    where Mr. Carreon says want he wants out of all of this

    Should be "what" ;)

  25. says

    @Chris R – I share your morbid curiosity as to how that would transpire, but she only responds to vague criticisms, not well constructed arguments.

    Having been born and raised in Kentucky, I am pretty much fluent in Cray Cray, but I am only 83% sure I have understood her latest conjecture. It seems that she thinks we are actual Nazis (on the payroll of Matthew Inman) who are targeting her husband, because…wait for it… his ancestors were Super Secret Spanish Jews. & the post following.


  26. Joe says

    Shoot – I meant Chris R. not Chris B. Chris R. is cool. I also meant to say putting the cart before the Unicorn.

    I see the person who has put up the "secret diary of Carreon" site has been smart and hidden the registration via proxy. I also hope they paid for the transaction with a pre-filled generic store debit card because I don't trust Carreon no to get even more put out and decide to subpoena the proxy's records – if in fact he can even legally do so.

  27. Berley says

    I'm so glad your website is back up and running. For a minute there, I thought you were going to have to be joined as an indispensible third party because Carreon was engaging in a DOS attack against you for your malicious analysis. ;-)

  28. W Ross says

    @Ann There are 30 new Tara Carreon comments and you didn't mention this before?!

    A hater, that's what you are.

    (If you're new to this drama, has a whole different side of the story. Be forewarned this is like reading the Necronomicon and if you try to attach reason to it you will be stricken blind.)

  29. Nicholas Weaver says

    (Ob IANAL. But I am good at thinking evil…) Hey, quick thought on Carreon's truthiness or lack thereof, as he attempts to examine the outer mantle…

    The screen shot for the exhibit for the BearLove fundraiser (Exhibit A) was taken when there were 3 updates. The second update was "100% goes to charity" bit, which was done well before that screenshot was taken.

    Any reasonable inquiry would have had Carreon view the update status to the BearLove campaign. Which means Carreon knew or should have known that paragraph 37 in his complaint is false, because Inman stated the exact opposite in update #2.

    So this now makes probably two known-false statements. And, in this case, if he did view the update page (highly likely), a deliberately false statement.

    Question: How much rule 11 violation can one get away with before the CA state bar gets interested in this?

    And someone should send a nastygram to Carreon stating that he MUST preserve his web browser history, so that it can be verified if he did indeed read that update before submitting his filing. [1], since that is the difference between "He didn't do a reasonable inquiry when writing his pleading" and "he just outright lied in his pleading to the court".

    (Yes, its Mean and Evil Lawfare time. But Carreon started it, and it appears that his wife has threatened games like this as well… Murum aries attigit, after all.)

    And one other thought: The only reason he donated to the BearLove campaign appears to be to gain standing to sue. Is this even kosher? It seems like, even if that would grant him standing, its something akin to walking in front of a car in order to get hit and sue the driver.

    Likewise, his attempt to solicit business from Mattel seems, umm, questionable. I wonder how many other trademark holders have received, umm, "helpful" notices from Charles Carreon, Douchebag Attorney ™?

    [1] Also, someone should send a note to IndyGoGo about that particular issue: they may be able to identify Carreon's visits in their logs, which would also show if Carreon read this individual page.

  30. says

    I know, I know. My kid's all, "Mommy! Waaah! You're always on your phone reading! Waah! I'm only two; I can't feed myself! Waah!"

    Kids are totally selfish. They have no idea how much effort it takes to police the Cray.

  31. Kasper says

    Ken, I got into this blog solely from the Oatmeal-Carreon controversy, but after reading this and a lot of your other posts, you've got me, a high school senior completely undecided about what to do with his life, seriously looking at going into law. Thank you!

  32. Munden says

    I must confess to some curiosity about the previously mentioned trustful person who initially spoke up for Carreon. I am wondering what this person now thinks of this 'Champion of Free Speech' after all of this.

  33. Tomas - University Place, WA says

    An enjoyable post about a despicable spectacle.Thank you!


  34. W Ross says

    You know what? We can be sure that techdirt profile is real… cause Carreon isn't suing it or commenting on it. With the fake twitters and such he gets right in there, but "taracarreon" has been spitting crazy for like 4 days straight (over 100 comments) and not a peep.

    If she was fake, she'd be part of the drama. She's not, so I submit that she's real.

  35. W Ross says

    @Nicholas Epic.

    See, this is why you really shouldn't antagonize the Internet into a crowd-sourced defense.

  36. darius404 says

    Ken, I got into this blog solely from the Oatmeal-Carreon controversy, but after reading this and a lot of your other posts, you've got me, a high school senior completely undecided about what to do with his life, seriously looking at going into law. Thank you! [emphasis added]

    Dammit, Ken, look what you've done to the poor kid! LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE!

  37. W Ross says

    @Matt Scott Oh… my… god…

    BTW isn't that wanted poster basically exactly what they're saying Oatmeal did except theres is (as usual) slightly more inflammatory.

    Also it's deeply ironic that that page also hosts a ripped Oatmeal comic, which is what started all this in the first place (but to her credit she did link it, lol.)

  38. darius404 says

    Munden, the man who partially vouched for Mr. Carrion would be Marc Randazza , a 1st Amendment attourney. You should totally read up on the guy, he has truly earned his title of 1st Amendment Badass.

    (The first link is just his Wikipedia page, while the second link is Popehat's own ode to the man. Popehat's tribute, as you might expect is far more informative and entertaining)

  39. Nicholas Weaver says

    Matt, wow… Carreon is really gone loco in his "songs".

    It makes me really really start to wonder if there is some mental illness going on here.

    Nothing near 5150 territory (the only danger to himself appears to be to his reputation, profession, and finances), but its pretty sad actually to see a lawyer that, a week ago, was reportedly respected go so completely bat-shit-insane in public and in his pleadings to the court.

  40. Lucas says

    So Carreon (I keep wanting to write carrion) writes a song about how he is "the pterodactyl killa'
    From the City of Tucson? Isn't that, along with the wanted poster, incitement under his own twisted logic?

  41. Andrew says

    Let's begin by quoting an applicable Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure looming over it, and over Mr. Carreon: Rule 11.

    You meant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, right?

  42. Matthew Cline says

    (4) a order requiring the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer society to do things Mr. Carreon thinks they are supposed to be doing,

    What are these things he think they should be doing, besides his demand that they police fundraising done by third parties?

  43. Caleb says

    @Nicholas Weaver:

    I have the same concern. In all seriousness: have we heard from anyone close to Carreon as to whether this bizarre episode is at least partially the result of some psychological malfunction? Health issues, family tragedy, ect? Because as entertaining as all this is, I can't shake the feeling like we're laughing at the kid with multiple sclerosis trying to run the 50 meter dash…

  44. Bill Stewart says

    IANAL, though I have played a politician on TV, but I think Popehat's wrong about a First Amendment defense applying here, except possibly for some of the Does. The rest of the defendants are covered by the "Plaintiff doesn't have standing" and "There's no credible cause of action against them" problems, which would presumably be addressed with pre-trial motions, so the case doesn't deserve to get far enough for them to have anything to defend.

    However, just because the case is likely to be thrown out on its ass, that doesn't mean that they aren't entitled to attorney's fees.

  45. Margaret says

    @Adam Steinbaugh:

    That comic on Tara Carreon's site does not appear to be an Oatmeal comic. It seems to be a parody in the style of the Oatmeal, detailing how the Oatmeal is not funny. ?!?

  46. says

    You guys know Law. I know linguistics. Even before the cross posting between sites, Tara Carreon's rhetoric, word choice, and writing patterns were completely the same across platforms.  I was wrong about the Anonymous poster being her on one of the earlier Techdirt posts, though .  I now believe it was the daughter.  Similar tone and word patterning, but most obviously is the overuse of the same born-of-frustration antagonist phrases "Knowledge is power", "Why do you care so much?", etc.

    Then the icing on the cake is when Tara herself comforts the "Anonymous" poster in question.

    It's almost kind of touching.  They really are the only ones in the whole world supporting each other in this madness.  That's…a family…*gently wipes away a single Cronkite tear*

  47. says

    @Bill Stewart: even if the First Amendment were to somehow not be an applicable defense, a special motion to strike via California's anti-SLAPP statute would put the burden on Carreon to show that he's likely to succeed on the merits, and considers all the evidence available. That's quite a heavier burden than a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which would give Carreon the benefit of the doubt and is limited to what's contained in the Complaint (and assumes all the facts in the Complaint are true).

    (If I recall correctly — actual lawyers, please feel free to slap me upside the head with real law if I'm wrong.)

  48. Jess says

    Caleb – I wondered that too but the crazy does not appear to be limited to just him – it appears the whole family is piling in.

    Ross, Ann, if you look at Tara Carreon’s post on on Jun 19th, 2012 @ exactly 5:15pm you’ll see about mid-way through her rant she copied Randazza’s ENTIRE hilarious paragraph that included the sentence about rhinos raping chinchillas dressed up in unicorns' undergarments. Try not to choke on the irony of that fact BTW. Even the insults are copied/plagarized from other sites.

  49. says

    Spoke too soon. That comic is a parody of Oatmeal, but Tara Carreon is spending her time editing comics from Oatmeal to make fun of him. For example, this is from an Oatmeal card (edited to imply that Inman has a three-inch dick), and the post of the Pterodactyl is unedited from the original (though meant to show where another, edited image came from).

    All in all, probably fair use. But still kind of hypocritical to be portraying him as having a small dick while her husband is suing him explicitly on the basis that his cartoon portrayal of some unknown person's mother seducing a bear is too degrading for a charity to stand by and allow.

  50. Melissa says

    All that is left is for Carreon to say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home" after he loses.

  51. SamVimes says

    Started reading your blog because of he Oatmeal situation, and just wanted to say that i'm hooked. You have an excellent wit and writing style that makes me want to keep reading.


  52. Mary L says

    Not so long reader, first time commenter….yadayadayada.

    If he were smart (ha), wouldn't CC try to keep his wife and daughter quiet during all of this? They are making themselves look even worse with their attempts to "troll the trolls."

    This is so morbidly entertaining.

  53. Chris R. says

    @Teeemz Of course I will: Doe 1 in the Complaint becames named defendant after Twitter and ArsTechnica answer subpoena

    So he's going after people he believes are behind his fake twitter and people who posted about him on ArsTechnica.

  54. Laurie says


    I'm a health care person, and I therefore can't stop thinking about the health-related aspects of the situation…. which are kind of troubling (see @caleb et al above) Which led me to wondering something that I thought you, as a linguistics person, could maybe shed some light on?

    I noticed the distinctive writing patterns too (how could one not, they're SO, uh…. very, *very* distinctive). Ignoring for a moment that the different writers appear at times to have different points of view; are the er, unique, aspects of the different writers' (including Carreon himself) linguistic styles similar enough that they could all be the same person writing as different personae?

    I ask because there are a bunch of things about the different writers that are so amazingly similar and also so unique when compared for example to well… to the vast majority of pretty much everything else I've ever read… that it's hard for my imagination to grasp there being three people who all express themselves in such a unique way, but in a way that is at the same time so similar to each other's.

    And intellectually too, their ideas are so similar as to often seem like one person's. I mean, I know they're theoretically all one family, but usually family members don't express themselves that nearly identically, or all believe so many of the same very unusual things, do they? Or, maybe they do, I dunno; for sure it's not my specialty. But I can't help noticing in the families that I deal with professionally, that when one member believes certain very unusual things (especially when those things contradict clearly established facts), generally the other family members don't. But here they all seem to agree on a bunch of highly unusual things, and all talk about those things in very similar ways…

  55. says

    Well, crap. I've been Carreoned.

    I must have missed where you were referred to, but assuming they did so, and it was untrue, you would likely – unlike the Carreons – actually have a cause of action, as you are not a public person.

    Sullivan v Times wouldn't hold, I wouldn't think…

  56. Chris R. says

    Ann, now I know why Charles Carreon took up the FunnyJunk case. After seeing both and now I now see that FunnyJunk is the only website on the internet that can compete with both those sites on an ugliness level. If FunnyJunk were to vanish, it'd only be Carreon supported websites left vying for the ugly summit.

  57. Thorne says

    Google the words 'profile of a sociopath' for a fascinating read.

    Just sayin', is all, since one could go through, say, American Buddha or the Nader Library and pretty much go "check", "check", "check"… ;)

  58. Rakiura says

    This Blow-by-blow account of the entire saga has been excellent to read and follow, it brings the wealth of information together in a sigular, to the point, package.

    Looking at this as objectively as possible, it baffles me exactly what his intentions and motivations are. Nevermind the 'Streisand Effect' scenario that is currently playing out, his claim essentially wants to 'make sure' that people aren't mean to him, and that all of the money that Inman has been raised goes to the charities they belong, irrespective of the fact that he has pledged this publically; by antagonising people and costing them more money, completely oblivious to the reasons which he gave them to establish this opinion. It is the most counter-productive course of action you could possibly draw up.

    He's definatley operating outside of the scope of acting in his clients best interests. If I'm FunnyJunk, I want out of any association with this guy, if business was suffering before, full blown extinction is imminent with this cyclone of suck swirling around them care of this guy.

  59. Jonathan says

    And he has the gall to sue OTHERS for defamation? I can't wait to see how this pans out in court. I will be watching avidly from the sidelines with a bag of popcorn and a vuvuzela, that seems suitably obnoxious for Carreon no?

  60. Nicholas Weaver says

    Laurie: There has been lots of work done on author identification, both automatically and manually.

    But the Tara Carreon's language is so different from Charles Carreon's language (e.g. long form Tara stuff on the american-buddha vs long form Charles on his various websites) that it doesn't take a computer analysis to generally think they are different people.

  61. Shawn says

    Laurie: I am no expert on anything, but I have seen this sort of thing before. I have had several acquaintances with family structures like this; eccentric people find each other, form a family, feed off each other's eccentricities, and produce children that are exposed to this alternate worldview for so long that they have no choice but to buy into it. Unusual opinions, speech patterns, and even predilection to bad poetry/songwriting are familial traits. Often the children meet the real world and escape; I guess others continue to follow in their parents footsteps.

  62. says


    folie a deux, or multiple (internet) personality disorder? Imaginary friends (due to lack of real ones)?

    If Carreon is also his own wife and daughter, then technically he is his own Mom, explaining why he took that cartoon so personally…

  63. says

    @Laurie – Their writing styles, vernacular, and tone are very unique, and we have established that there is indeed a wife, a daughter, and, dear god, a Charles Carreon, so I think it is highly unlikely that it's the same person.  There have been documented cases where forensic linguists and handwriting experts were unable to tell the language and handwriting of patients with severe multiple personality disorder were not indeed multiple people, but those circumstances are exceedingly rare.  (Shirley Ardell Mason, aka Sybil, comes to mind. Check out the gallery of her signed artwork she created as her various personalities and prepare to have your mind blown).

    I am not a psychologist, but I think what you have is a family that has experienced severe  isolation as a result of ongoing, difficult to treat mental health issues.  I think you have the high functioning narcissist personality disorder in Charles Carreon:


    A person with narcissistic personality disorder may:

    -React to criticism with rage, shame, or humiliation
    -Take advantage of other people to achieve his or her own goals
    -Have excessive feelings of self-importance
    -Exaggerate achievements and talents
    -Be preoccupied with fantasies of success, power, beauty, intelligence, or ideal love
    -Have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment
    -Need constant attention and admiration
    -Disregard the feelings of others, and have little ability to feel empathy
    -Have obsessive self-interest
    -Pursue mainly selfish goals

    And the less functional, paranoid personality disorder of Tara Carreon:


    People with paranoid personality disorder are highly suspicious of other people. As a result, people with this condition severely limit their social lives.

    They often feel that they are in danger, and look for evidence to support their suspicions. People with this disorder have trouble seeing that their distrustfulness is out of proportion to their environment.

    Common symptoms include:

    -Concern that other people have hidden motives
    -Expectation that they will be exploited by others
    -Inability to work together with others
    -Social isolation

    Mrs. Carreon's career has mainly included working as her husband's legal secretary and being a fake librarian, and she has demonstrated an inability to maintain a circle of friends or aquaintenances, even having to be forcibly removed from the Occupy Tuscon  FB groups, because of her posts there.  This, to me, indicates a low level of function, and thus a severe dependency on her husband has been bred.

    Then you have the daughter, who is only guilty of loving her parents.  When you have parents who have embarrassing pathological behavior, you can either isolate yourselves from them or defend them (sometimes to the point that you will start to believe some of their delusions and irrationalities).  She has chosen the latter, and I can't say I blame her, though the more prudent and caring thing to do would be to stop pouring gasoline on the fire and tell her parents kindly to stop the madness and seek professional help.

  64. Misanthropesq says

    As an attorney of many years (and by the way, @Kasper, I would strongly suggest reading before you consign your life to this beknighted profession) I have always wished that there was a more generalized version of collateral estoppel called "hypocrisy". Unfortunately, the fact that Mr. Carreon and his clan have engaged in the very same behavior they are accusing the Oatmeal of (though, ironically, in a far clearer manner) would likely not be relevant to this crap litigation.

  65. C. S. P. Schofield says

    Somehow this reminds me of a line from THE LION IN WINTER;

    "That monument to mock, that epic idiot!"

    – Prince Richard (played by Anthony Hopkins in the film)

  66. Kristen says


    Very true. I will admit to the likelihood that Ken was making the more geeky reference. However, in my brain, I will also give him the smarty-pants cred. ;)

    The mental illness issue is very real in this case in my opinion*. Tara Carreon does not read as a mentally sound person. From personal experience I can (sorta) understand Carreon's daughter's reaction. My parents have "embarrassing pathological behavior" and out of four children, two of us have decided to have no contact; the other two would support our parents to the bitter end. Depending on her age she may still be in denial, thinking her parents behavior is acceptable and believing her mother's paranoia. It wasn't until my twenties I realized my parents are not, in fact, unfairly persecuted but, instead, rather unstable.

    *My opinion as a not-psychologist

  67. W Ross says

    She's got some sort of persecution complex, and if it's family wide it would explain why in the face of genuine, logical arguments they go to "Matthew probably has enough money to pay for an army of Internet soldiers cause he's funded by the CIA.

    In addition to the incident Ann mentioned, she's written Ralph Nader re Facebook "persecution" ( ), the well established "lets sue google" incident, and so on and so forth. It's important not to turn this too much towards Tara & clan any more so than they insert themselves and become part of the narrative, but Ann's right, there's a weird clannishness (almost cultishness) in the attitude if you dig around.

    I expect that there is no amount of disapproval that the Carreon clan can't blame on external factors and secret enemies, and I'd feel a lot sorry for them if they weren't aggressively litigious. I don't think any of them can help themselves.

    (But again, it's hard to care about a clan's untreated mental illness when they're trying to inflict suffering on people.)

  68. says


    1. You're a working lawyer. When do you have time to crank out posts that are this long, involved, and researched? When do you have time to eat babies, drink martinis, and sue makers of spilled coffee like the rest of your lawyerly brethren (and sistren)?

    b) Please, for the love of God and all that is holy, tell me you're working on a book.

    iii – Technical question: Your last section talks about Carreon's hypocrisy. Would that actually carry weight with a judge? Is there a tu quoque defense ? Or are you just pointing out his general assholery?

  69. apauld says

    I would like to thank the entire Carreon family for reminding the kids to stay off drugs.

  70. HeatherCat says

    I'm learning so much from this whole debacle… mostly about how NOT to handle things.
    Chris R. – I too was scratching my head all week trying to figure out why he was representing FJ. I'm still stumped as to why it took nearly a year, unless of course (Duh!) he needed that time to look within his own intelligence and vast knowledge of the law… oh wait, sorry. I got nothing.
    And neither does he. Except his lovely singing career. But darn it, why did he have to go and ruin The Ramones??

    When this is over, I expect a new color in the Cray box to be named in his 'honor'. We don't need 'green-blue' anymore, do we?

  71. Nicholas Weaver says

    Ken: A timeline question…

    IIRC from your "California anti-SLAPP summary", one of the key things is that an anti-SLAPP motion, at least in California court, stops discovery. [1] But a motion to dismiss and section 11 sanctions motions do not, correct?

    So a couple of questions:

    1) Will this "hold discovery" behavior also work in federal court, given Carreon deliberately chose California as the state for this action?

    2) If it does not, how long until Carreon is able to start sending out subpoenas to third parties, as he turns his quadruple-down into a quintuple-quadruple-down?

    And for everyone:

    Who wants to bet that, as soon as Carreon is able to start sending out third-party subpoenas, we will see insanely broad third-party subpoenas sent to Ken, TechDirt, and others, both with the intent to harass and to "identify individual posters who have willfully violated the trademark of Charles Carreon, Douchbag Attorney ™, etc, etc, etc…"? [2]

    If so, who wants to bet that it becomes a badge of honor? [3]

    [1] The other being that it can introduce new evidence and force the other side to justify their case, barriers not present in a motion to dismiss which, IIRC from your summary, requires assuming that the facts as stated by the other side are, well, facts…

    [2] Its true that Mrs Carreon later said this was a joke, but her sequence of postings at techdirt certainly suggest that bogus and overbroad subpoenas, designed to harrass, are something that the family considers as a tool:

    Since when did you become a copyright chicken hawk? You probably still have MP3s and movies on your hard drive that you got through illegal file-sharing on Napster, Kaaza, and Pirate Bay, you hypocrite. Better delete all of them right now before Charles subpoenas them to prove that you're a media mole.

    For all of that illegal content on your hard drive. You'll have to seek a protective order to keep your porn stash private. What's your preference — het, gay, bi, BDSM?

    And about the subpoena, JK. I have no control over what Charles does. He's an officer of the court, who would never abuse his authority.

    [3] Oh, and just in case Carreon is operating under the delusion that I, personally, am doing anything other than my public postings, some investigation, and a couple of private emails to interested third parties, all of which are protected activity under the 1st amendment, I post under my real name, work at the International Computer Science Institute in Berkeley, and will accept service at work between the hours of 9AM and Noon. You're welcome…

  72. Joe says

    @Robert Hewes

    It has been hypothesized that Ken keeps an army of internet trolls in his basement that can dig up virtually any piece of information in a matter of hours and who are sustained by a steady diet of stale snickerdoodles, 5 hour energy drinks, and re runs of Night Court.

    It is also rumored that while vacationing in Molokai, Ken stumbled across and picked up a strange glowing rock which imbued him with special super powers including the ability to see through the densest bullshit, write an amicus brief faster than a speeding petaflop, and leap over the office trash can in a single bound.

  73. says

    I just hope that they subpoena Techdirt user TDR, who illicited the strongest reaction to date from Tara. If for no other reason, than I really really really want this to be on record somewhere:

    "Yes, your honor. I did indeed insert the Plaintiff's name into a quote from Red Dwarf."

  74. Nicholas Weaver says

    Oh, from the trackback: Ars Technica reports that Carreon is already planning on subpoenaing both Ars and Twitter.

    He's gonna find that a tough road, as Twitter's lawyers are notorious for saying FOAD to third party subpoenas, and Ars has made it clear that it is their position as well.

    And both are going to go "Not only are we a third party, and this imposes an undue burden, but this needs to wait for both the motion to dismiss, the SLAPP reply, and the Section 11 sanctions…"

    And who wants to bet that whatever subpoena he sends will be hideously overbroad as well?

    But you know its just the beginning…

  75. Misanthropesq says

    I would be curious to see how Twitter responds to a subpoena from Carreon to identify the user behind the mock account. As a company, they have shown a strong record in protecting users from subpoenas (albeit in a prosecutorial context). I have no doubt they are aware of this matter, and that Carreon's behavior has gone all the way to ludicrous speed. I wonder if they wouldn't use some level of effort to protect the users in question.

  76. Jonnelle says

    Ann said "Then you have the daughter, who is only guilty of loving her parents."

    I'm not sure I could publicly support my parents descent into insanity no matter how much I loved them.

  77. says

    @Jonnelle – nor could I, but I can understand the inclination. Also, I was fortunate enough to be raised by two open minded, relatively sane individuals, so I hesitate to stand in judgment of someone raised in the environment she was evidently raised in. I can't imagine what type of coping skills the mind would have to engineer to survive that.

    That said she is 33 years old and has been exposed to the outside world. So she's going to have to put on her big girl panties and own her shit as the rest of us do. *shrugs*

  78. Jonathan says

    What I'm confused about is how someone with views like these was STILL a reputable lawyer BEFORE this incident. I might not have known him but by looking at his website, youtube channels and various comments/things he has done before this whole debacle began it really makes me wonder… I mean, (NSFW)… All I see is a torrent of vitriol aimed at someone who disagrees with him. I'm sorry but while I might not have been trained as a lawyer or anything of the sort I WAS taught decency and how to respect others unless they prove to you they don't deserve it (obviously something Mr. Carreon has not heard about). I think this has to be the nail in the coffin for me.

  79. apauld says

    @Ann: my favorite quote on this story a techdirt is when Tara stated "They're working for the Publishing Industry here at Techdirt." I think your above pathology hits the nail directly on the head.

    A question for the law folks, could a lawyer face disbarment or some sort of formal censure over this lawsuit? Over the statements made to the press in the run up to the actual filing of the lawsuit?

  80. perlhaqr says

    It also contrasts with Mr. Carreon himself, who became incensed when Mattel's trademark attorney would not respond to his emails about a porn doll that Mr. Carreon thought infringed a Mattel property, and urged his readers to contact the hapless attorney.

    "Emily Doll" is a porn actress, not a porn doll. FWIW.


    The one, very, very slight thing that Carreon has said that might be accurate is the claim that people contributing to the charity campaign might expect "100% of their donations" to go to the charities named, which Inman might be screwing up with his claim that he's going to distribute to 4 charities instead of the originally named 2.

    Which is, like, totally grasping at very weak straws, but it was a concern I thought might warrant mentioning.

  81. Fezzer says

    @Nicholas Weaver

    I too have wondered about your third point, "If so, who wants to bet that it becomes a badge of honor?".

    To this end I'd like to call "shotgun" on Doe 42.

    Now to say something derogatory about our wonderful Mr. Carreon….

    …..damn it, where do I start?!!

  82. W Ross says

    Reviews are getting savage. Some are trolling but it looks like some people actually read the free copy and are weighing in (and those reviews are still pretty bad.)

    The ArsTechnica story won't help matters much. Good lord does he have a chronic case of foot in mouth disease.

    I think we're going to run out of "ing down" things to say about Charles Carreon, honestly. down?

  83. says

    Writing under the name "Lo Fi Nikita", Mr. Carreon (presumably, based on that Youtube link above) complained in an Ashland Free Press editorial that newspapers' websites shouldn't restrict posts by others because the commentary is protected by the First Amendment:

    On August 25, 2006, the Tidings ran Bob Plain’s article on Michael Ruppert, “Wilderness Relocates to Venezeula.” The article provoked many comments, and a poster we’ll call Teesee was doing her best in the restricted space format to post some serious information about Ruppert and his CIA connections. The Tidings actually employs a censor to review posts before they appear online, though, and Teese was uploading faster than the censor was reading. The censor then jumbled her posts so they didn’t make sense. Soon she started to harvest a stream of nasty comments from some online bullies. Then the Tidings censor refused to post her replies to the bullies. The Tidings censor added decisive strength to one side of a debate, allowing Teese to be pelted with verbal abuse, and depriving
    her of the means to respond. Somewhere, a corporate halfwit
    was working hard damping down digital conflict. The Tidings’ fluffy reporting accentuates the positive, while the censor eradicates the offensive. Under the guise of protecting itself from liability, or readers from offensive speech, the Tidings is abusing its media power, distorting the image of our community. The censor doesn’t protect the Tidings from liability, either. Comment boards have an absolute exemption from libel and other forms of “publisher liabiity” for third party statements under 47 USC Sec. 230(c)(1). See Zeran v. AOL, 129 F.3d at 331. The Tidings enjoys free speech rights under the First
    Amendment. It should accord some to its readers.

    Funny that he's now arguing that charities have a duty to step in and restrict protected speech because the meanness of the fundraiser might reflect negatively on the charity.

  84. Dan Weber says

    I hope the people giving him 1-star reviews have actually read his book. Giving bad reviews to people you don't like is low-class.

    That said, I did read a little and it seemed to be written with the voice of a 14-year-old girl, so I can totally believe someone reading it and deciding to give it 1 star.

  85. Kevin S. says

    Count me among those who found their way to PopeHat over this saga (via both Wil Wheaton AND Darths and Droids, in case you were wondering how much the nerd demographic was driving your traffic ;-) ). I'm actually kind of surprised to see nobody having made the Fred Phelps comparison here. Phelps was a pretty big-shot civil rights lawyer in the early sixties before he snapped way off the deep end and became the antithesis of everything he previously stood for; it appears Carreon is going through the same thing with the First Amendment. He's even got the "brainwashed family parroting his delusions all over the internet" thing going, although without nearly the same size brood. No word if his psychosis was religiously-induced the way Phelps was, though.

  86. says

    For what its worth, I've archived his sites and using SiteSucker.

    I started to archive American Buddha, but after a couple hours and over a gig of illegal MP3s started getting sucked down, I cancelled the archive.

    If he does alter or delete his sites between now and his court dates, there's a snapshot available. Who else is archiving his sites, and how?

  87. John says

    "He also claimed that a subpoena would be a waste of time. "I don't live in the United States nor do I plan on visiting anytime in the future," he added. "If Charles can somehow get a court order to all of the proxy servers I used, he may be able to find me here in my comfy home in Sweden."

    If modelista and what they are saying are real, they are for sure my new hero. Go Sweden, who also had a great last game against France!

  88. NealK says

    @Robert Hewes: "When do you have time to eat babies[?]"

    As a lawyer, I am shocked and deeply offended by your comment. I do not eat live human babies and I think most lawyers can truthfully say the same.

  89. W Ross says

    He brings up Ali and First Amendment Rights here, while being sideways and yelling through a microphone. Then he talks about how great the drugs are in Pakistan… or something… dunno, I kinda nodded off.

    Anyone want to speculate on the potency of the marijuana one might theoretically find in the Carreon household?

    (Note: This speculation is purely hypothetical and for thought experiment purposes only. Charles Carreon is a high-powered white-hat internet attorney and Tara Carreon is also… presumably important for some reason and is a websiteLIBRARY owner for whom society has great regard. Will Ross would never actually speculate about how baked Charles Carreon(TM) and company is on any given day [though if he did he'd say "really quite baked, I should suspect" but he wouldn't because he cares.])

  90. Grifter says

    Ohh, that Ann Coulter page is just precious.

    "Since Medusa wasn't human, it was perfectly okay for Perseus to smite her head from her shoulders. Since Coulter has abandoned her humanity for money, influence, and the adulation of fools, it is perfectly okay to use whatever means are necessary to bring an end to her reign of terror"

    And the Oatmeal incites?

    I can't stop wondering if he's a Poe, since the idea that he's actually like this is so repugnant.

  91. Nicholas Weaver says

    Jonathan: The reason why it hadn't destroyed his reputation before is that, frankly speaking, the American Buddha site and related web properties had zero-google-juice, because nobody links to the ravings of random nuts online.

    Likewise, his site probably got negative-google-juice from all the spam-links in the comments. If a blog's comments are 2000 spam messages, you can be sure that Google puts it way Way WAY down in the rankings.

    So there was a complete divorce between his professional activities (which would get found easily, as they were linked to by the CA bar association, LinkedIn, etc, and the professional site is, well, actually professional) and any of his on-line ranting which could perhaps be perceived as the work of a batshit insane twatwaffle.

    But once the Internet analysis FOUND the first shreds of the weirdness, it could just pull on the threads and follow links manually. EG, how I found the Mattel bit was scanning through the link someone else posted here, and going "WTF!?!?"

    And NOW, because of all the real links to his lunacy, his lunacy does have the Google Juice he so desperately wanted Google to give him.

  92. desconhecido says

    That linked-to pdf of the Ashland Free Press shows that Carreon is a 911 troofer. No surprise there.

  93. Dan Weber says

    Ken, you are now the #2 google result for "ass-damply."


  94. Chris R. says

    W Ross, Yeah I just tried going to it. I am saddened that an account that clearly stated it was a parody was taken down. It abided by all the rules twitter set forth in their parody / satire / fan / roleplaying section. At least Charles hasn't taken down yet. Though I am sure he will.

  95. Nicholas Weaver says

    Add a mother apparent falsihood to paragraph 38:

    because the Bear Love campaign utilized false and deceptive statements and insinuations of bestiality on the part of Plaintiff and his client’s “mother,”

    Unlike the and/or reference in paragraph 39, this one directly states that the campaign used false insuations of beastailty against the plaintiff and his client's "mother". So is Carreon just lacking in reading comprehension skills or is this a deliberate misstatement to the court?

  96. Librarian Dan says

    So I noticed that in Carreon's demands of the outcome of this suit he includes:

    4. Requiring the NWF and the ACS to affirmatively require written contracts with all commercial fundraisers in the State of California and to police the activities of fundraisers in order to prevent future abuses, false advertising, and unfair practices;

    Wouldn't this make further fundraising for both charities, at least in California, a gigantic pain for both of those charities? If they're being required to jump through a bunch of legal hoops and shoulder the burden of any claimed "future abuses?"

    That sounds almost worse than suing them both outright in the long run.

  97. says

    All those Carreon poems make me want to try.

    Butthurt and the man I sing/
    who, forced by fate and haughty Oatmeal's unrelenting hate/

    man, this is going to take some time.

  98. HeatherCat says

    @W Ross – Ah, the Scooby Gang! I miss that show…

    And for the record, I just can't bring myself to visit any of this guy's mad-cap websites. I don't wanna add to his already undeserved skyrocketing hit count (he must think he's positively popular now).

    I don't feel like asking for stronger meds to deal with the certain attack upon my sanity anything written by ANY Carreon would surely inflict. So I'll happily amuse myself with what anyone else posts if they choose to go and report what they find.

  99. Joe says

    I'm curious as to what is the dollar value Carreon(TM) really was truly expecting to see in his pocket for this litte endeavor. Given who and what he is suing, I don't see there being enough of a pay-off in this thing (at least financially) to have pursued it in the first place.

  100. says

    @Joe: the payoff is the hope for a soothing kiss from a Federal judge to a bruised ego.

    Oh, and the attorneys' fees he's demanding (in representing himself) as a result of trademark infringement. Those, too.

  101. Sarahw says

    I don't quite know what to make of the folie a trois that is the Carreon clan. Wad some pow'r give them a giftie.

    So where is Funnyjunk in all of this? Can't they shake this louse off their bonnet?

  102. Joe says

    Adam – really that's all? Wow! I wonder what the $ amount for attorneys' fees for something along that line would be – not that he'll see a penny of it anyway.

    Chris R. – I also hope the site doesn't get taken down. Especially since it includes Kimberlin and is a delicious piece of snarky humor. Whoever is running it is not in a USA time zone so even if the site gets taken down the author should be at least somewhat shielded from both Carreon(TM) and Kimberlin's shenanigans.

  103. W Ross says

    @Joe He'll put together all the expanded traffic he gets from this month, then say he gets that every month, then he'll put that against the highest market price for advertising that he doesn't sell, then he'll say that's what he gets.

    Then when nobody gives a crap about him in a month, he'll try to use the "drop off" in traffic he never had to show damages. That would be my guess.

  104. JFR says

    Someone should point out to Carreon that his Ars Technica photo has the flag flying the wrong way. It's like a little metaphor, isn't it?

  105. W Ross says

    More of Tara Carreon's weird clown fetish stuff. This page is linked in the page linked when she calls Oatmeal a "Killer Klown" Now I get why she's been saying Oatmeal is a Clown, she thinks we're all JUGGALOS.

    I find that more offensive than being called a nazi or a terrorist, frankly. No man should be compared to a common Juggalo.

    Your insinuations have gone too far madam!

  106. Tori says

    @Kevin S – Fred Phelps was doing jigs in my head the whole time I was reading this. So many similarities it's nuts. I don't know much about the law, but I just wonder if, at some point, ol' Chas wanted to stop, but he thought he'd gone too far and couldn't make himself admit it. I only say that because I put myself in some really not-so-great situations as a kid doing the same thing, but I grew out of it. Then again, narcissistic personality disorder fits him to a tee, too, so who can say?

  107. says

    W Ross – "Now I get why she's been saying…"

    Dude. You are beginning to understand Carreonese. Push away from the monitor and call a loved one. There's still time to go back!!! Save yourself!!

  108. Jack says

    After reading the analysis done by Ken and others, it appears to me (a non-lawyer) that this whole travesty is a violation of Rule 3-200 of the CPRC. What's the likelihood that Carreon will be disciplined as a result of filing this nonsense?

  109. Chris R. says


    It's not like Carreon would try to sue someone in a jurisdiction he isn't licensed right? :)

  110. Nicholas Weaver says

    Hmm, two interesting and disturbing thoughts: I wonder how many of Carreon's clients were obtained using the rather unsavory (one might say "ambulance chasing") technique he attempted and failed to employ with Mattel.

    Someone could probably find other examples by going through Pacer and the trademark database and contacting his former clients.

    Scary thought #2: Is he practicing tax evasion against the state of California?

    According to the profile on on JDSUPRA and on LinkedIn, he's only admitted to the bar for Oregon (inactive), California (active), U.S. District Courts: Northern, Central, Eastern and Southern Districts of California, and District of Oregon, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Which means the only area where he actually practices law is in the state of California, which happens to have a ~9% income tax rate.

    Yet his one-man office is in Tucson, with a 4.5% maximum (and far more progressive) income tax rate.

    So does income he gets, for the practice of law in California, for pleadings placed in California courts, end up being taxed in Arizona at a substantially lower tax rate?

    (But hey, at least there is no indication that checks should be made payable to Ice Station Zebra Associates…)

  111. Joe says

    Chris R. – I put nothing past his ego – it's simply too big.

    Now granted I'm assuming the owner of that site is not within USA shores due to comment time stamps. If they've set their site clock deliberately to obfuscate their location then I'm even more impressed.

  112. says

    @Jack — that's the kind of thing Ken is talking about with the reference to FRCP Rule 11. If Carreon gets hit with judicial sanctions (or monetary sanctions in excess of $1,000), he'll have to report it to the California Bar himself, which could discipline him per CRPC Rule 3-200 (among others).

  113. Nicholas Weaver says

    Yeah, as a non lawyer, CRPC 1-400(C) seems appropriate for the Mattel email

    (C) A solicitation shall not be made by or on behalf of a member or law firm to a prospective client with whom the member or law firm has no family or prior professional relationship, unless the solicitation is protected from abridgment by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of the State of California. A solicitation to a former or present client in the discharge of a member's or law firm's professional duties is not prohibited.

    Or will Carreon insist that seemingly ambulance-chasing behavior is protected speech?

  114. Librarian Dan says

    @W Ross

    Thanks for linking the Forbes piece. It ends on a great line from Carreon. "No good deed will go unpunished by the unwashed masses."

    Apparently using threats of litigation to browbeat and extort money from a content creator, and when that fails, engaging in frivolous lawsuits against all involved are "good deeds" now.

  115. Nicholas Weaver says

    I wish the Forbes reporter would have called Carreon on the sloppiness and seeming deliberate untruths seen in Carreon's pleading to the court.

  116. i love a good tale of ass-hattery says

    has charles carreon and family succumbed to the same randy-quaid-like-can't-quit-the-crazy breakdown? this whole meltdown has gone from entertaining to fascinating to, well, just sad….

  117. Kristie says

    My question is – Where is FunnyJunk in all of this? Have you seen/heard anything about their involvement in this as of now?
    I note that I can't find any evidence to suggest that they have said a word for or against these shenanigans of Carreon's, and seeing as how they hired him to sue The Oatmeal in the first place, you'd think they'd either try to see it through or publicly apologize and denounce Carreon's actions to gain a shred of popularity back.

  118. LeonardShneider says

    Well… Everybody above has pretty much covered anything I might have added, so there's no point in being redundant. I'll just extend a high five to Ken for linking to Mike Reed's Flame Warriors site. (Me, I waver between being 'Grunter' and 'Evil Clown,' depending on my mood.)

  119. says

    Yeah, I was a little disappointed w/ David's coverage on that Forbes piece. Especially in the comments section where he refers to the 9% of donations going to IndieGoGo being the "rub". My response (and question) to that:

    Not much of a rub.  That's what those TL;DR Terms of Use policies are for.  The policy, made available to donors and fundraisers alike is very clear that up to 9% of funds will go to the hosting platform.  That is also where this argument derails.  IndieGoGo is not a fundraiser, its a web platform.  People also use PayPal to gather donations.  Is PayPal now going to be required to police every lemonade stand set up on their platform as well?

  120. Misanthropesq says

    @ Chris R., I would point out that Carreon is suing in his own name. As such, there is no requirement that he be licensed in the jurisdiction.

    (That doesn't make him a better lawyer. It simply means he isn't practicing law without a license.)

  121. Jack says

    @Adam Thanks for clearing that up for me. I suspect that he'll be experiencing significant repercussions from this nonsense in the near future; especially in light of some of his statements to the media which make it pretty clear (to me at least) that this is all part of a personal vendetta resulting from self-inflicted butthurt.

  122. GabrielHounds says

    From Mr. Carreon's (a.k.a. lofinikita) YouTube channel:
    "Randomness is a mathematically created concept used to simulate ignorance…"
    There's more. A lot more…

  123. James Robinson says

    Hi. I'm grateful to Mr. Carreon for hipping me to this blog, however indirectly or unintentionally.

    @W Ross: So, it seems that Forbes is saying that the grounds for Carreon's suit is that IndieGoGo charges a percentage of the funds raised, and thus 100% of the money raised is not actually going to the named charities (or any charities) but actually to IndieGoGo?

    Huh. I'm not a lawyer; is there anything interesting in there? IndieGoGo doesn't seem to be a non-profit or a charity, granted, but this also seems like nitpicking, as Inman clearly meant that he was not going to keep any of the money raised.

    IndieGoGo seems to host a large number of nonprofit fundraisers, and they certainly aren't the only site doing so, so Carreon might be shaking a tree here.

    … unless he really does think that Inman is collecting the money for himself in bad faith, in which case he really is cracked.

  124. Jack says

    @GabrielHounds He's a total conspiracy theorist nut-case. This gives insight into the delusional state of mind required to achieve his epic level of legal-dumbassery.

  125. Tomas - University Place, WA says

    I am not a lawyer it looks to me as though IndiGoGo is collecting money for Matt Inman, so even though IndiGoGo is collecting money it is not collecting it directly for either charity.

    It is Matt Inman who has promised to pass all the money THAT HE RECEIVES from IndiGoGo on to the two charities.

    I am trusting Matt to do what he says, and not to keep any of the money to himself. That Matt is allowing IndiGoGo to take a 4% fee off the top of the money it is collecting for Matt so that he personally doesn’t have to fuss with it is OK. All the money that Matt gets will be going to the charities. (The 4% covers the cost of transaction fees and a small fee for the service being provided by IndiGoGo.)

    (The only problem I see there would be if Matt changes the destination of the funds to include any other charities: The people donating to this point did so with the understanding the money Matt gets from this fund raising will be donated by him only to those two charities.)


  126. Thorne says

    Win (bwaaaahahahahaaaa) or lose, I'd like to suggest a title for (Up)Chuck's follow-up book on this entire experience:

    "The Carreons: Livin' Life On The Ledge"

    I'll be here all week. Tip your veal and try the waitress.

  127. says

    @Jack Agreed. Even assuming that Carreon has some point about whether Indiegogo should register as a charity (and I don't think he's correct on that, either — and I think the claim against Inman, et al., is patently frivolous), what bothered me most was how he arrived at that point.

    From one of the Forbes interviews:

    He compares Inman’s charity campaign to when people would sell tickets to throw balls at women being accused of witches in a dunking tank. Money for charity is raised, of course, but the witches aren’t in on it. He may have a very difficult time proving that Inman “instigated attacks,” as he said on his website, but he’s certain he can find some legal recourse for what’s going on right now – “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this,” he says.

    He's not apublic watchdog, vigilantly surveying charities across a state he doesn't live in. He's coming to California (and dragging Inman — or at least his lawyer — along with him) to purportedly enforce a law that he went out to find — some law, any law that would punish someone for saying mean things on the internets. He donated to a cause knowing full well how the money would be allocated, just so that he could try to make some claim that he's been injured in anything other than ego and reputation, all along knowing that the charities would have to expend considerable resources defending themselves (probably far more than Mr. Carreon 'donated').

    Sorry if I sound like a broken record amongst all the other commentators, but that kind of behavior is reprehensible. And that it comes with the end goal of silencing critics, while clinging to the pretense that the "commercial speech" category of First Amendment restrictions endorses his approach, is infuriating.

  128. LookingGlass says

    In paragraph 64 Carreon states "[Plaintiff] was able to retain control of the website" and makes no claim as to hardware damage or impaired functionality of the website. Where is the actual harm?

  129. says

    @Kristie – my day job is web pr and marketing, and at the risk of being doused in gasoline and set on fire, I'd say that what FunnyJunk is doing at this point is working out very well for them in a BUSINESS sense (certainly not in an I'd-like-to-go-live-with-baby-Jesus-when-I-die sense, however). From their point of view, they're holding most of the cards. They had already retained Charles Carreon as their attorney prior to this incident, and I would bet a Mattel Porn Doll that Carreon instigated the decision to go after The Oatmal. FunnyJunk admin shrugs shoulders, "Eh. We've already paid the guy. What's the harm in letting him send the letter?"

    Letter gets sent. Internet goes batshit crazy. A million people who had never even heard of FunnyJunk visit the website.

    We're not talking about a website that is trying to sell Bible covers. We're talking about an ad driven, content aggregator where controversy is only going to increase the bottom line. At the end of the day, they get to sit back, let the chips fall where they may, and enjoy the new website traffic. All the heat is off of them, and on to Carreon at this point, and they have all the time in the world now to decide how to proceed. They could stand behind Carreon OR sue the shit out of him and try to publicly mend fences with The Oatmeal in a glorious throwing under the bus of their attorney. Either way, prepubescents are still going to flock to thei site in droves to call each other "fag" and pretend they work for Anonymous.

  130. Kristie says

    That's what I was thinking. It just seems like no one's even calling them out on it – I haven't seen an interview question where someone asked Carreon what FJ thought of the developments or anyone interviewing the admins for the site. Just an oversight I had been curious about, but you're right – their current strategy of keeping silent is working out quite well for their profits, I imagine.

  131. nlp says

    From his blurb on Amazon:one of the more colorful intellectual property lawyers of the early Internet era.

    Well, he got that part right.

  132. Jack says

    @Adam, Yes, the vendetta aspect of his filing, and the intended chilling effect is especially repugnant.

    The "attack" on his website should be fun for him to try and prove. I've been working in and writing about Infosec on and off for almost twenty years and I'd like to see what sort of evidence he can provide to support his claim regarding "security attacks." My guess is none, and that his site experienced issues due to a spike in traffic, not hacking attempts.

  133. Jack says

    @Ann "Either way, prepubescents are still going to flock to thei site in droves to call each other "fag" and pretend they work for Anonymous."

    I just sprayed coffee on my keyboard. Thank you for that :)

  134. Jack says

    @Ann Clearly he's a l33t admin to be able to maintain control of a server when confronted by that level of hacking skill.

  135. Chris R. says

    I like in the recent ArsTechnica that there are a ton of commenters trying to take responsibility for @Charles_Carron. It's nice when we can all hold hands. Charles just doesn't realize that he actually pissed off the internet.

  136. Roxy says

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if Funnyjunk never retained him. I think the more likely scenario is that Carreon saw a link to the Oatmeal on one of of social networking accounts, came across that particular blog post from over a year ago and ambulance chased Funnyjunk into thinking they could embezzle make a quick 20K with a ridiculous lawsuit.

  137. says

    @Jack – Yes. Faced with the threat of a total site take down, Carreon utilized the cool use of intellect and tech saviness only seen in true pioneers of Internet Law and was able to not only check his e-mail, but then deduce that his site's password protection had worked exactly as intended by reading that e-mail.

    Take heed, pleebs. Take heed.

  138. Margaret says

    @James Robinson:

    … unless he really does think that Inman is collecting the money for himself in bad faith, in which case he really is cracked.

    It's been touched on a bit already, but that is definitely one of the more ridiculous things about Carreon's suit. He is proceeding on the assumption that Mr. Inman and IndieGoGo are GOING to abuse the public trust, do something with the money other that what's been stated, commit fraud, etc. The fundraiser hasn't ended yet, so the ultimate disposition of the money is unknown. He's basically saying, "I think they're going to do something bad." That's some Minority Report nonsense right there.

    Normally you have to wait until someone actually DOES something bad before you can sue them.

  139. Sunbeam says

    Has he actually served any of the defendants? If I recall correctly under Federal rules he has 120 days. If he hasn't served, there's still time for him to rethink his strategy. In any case I'm surprised that a declaratory judgment action in The Oatmeal's home state isn't being mooted.

  140. says

    Carreon's behavior serves to remind others how NOT to conduct yourself as a professional attorney. His cause of action is what, exactly, some bad man hurt his wittle feelings?

  141. GabrielHounds says

    @ Margeret – Yes. And at one time wasn't he suspended for spending client money he obtained in a settlement for personal use? Not exactly relevant but may illuminate his thinking… Those who do bad often assume others will act badly.

  142. Margaret says


    Yes, the irony that Carreon himself has misused money he was supposed to be keeping in trust for someone else is not lost on me.

  143. Thorne says

    Somewhere in the litany of madness, I read that TC explained the "misappropriation of funds" was Charles "taking one for her" and that it was her fault it happened.

    Can't remember which webpage it was on but it's out there. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

  144. Margaret says


    Yeah, I saw that. But the money was under his care and guardianship, and if he gave his wife the password/whatever, he clearly wasn't exercising due care. (Because his wife is clearly untrustworthy.)

    I had to throw in the last bit to make sure I get sued too.

  145. W Ross says

    Then it's ironic that he's so desperate to get the Charity funds into a trust under his control, isn't it?

    They must have rent due :P

  146. HeatherCat says

    Not so much rent being due, but maybe another trip overseas or something. A BIG, year-long trip.

  147. says

    In the stipulation to the Oregon suspension, Carreon agreed that he had "utilized" the funds to pay his rent. That's more or less consistent with Mrs. Carreon now saying she did it, but I'm curious as to what was said to the Bar. (One of the circumstances mitigating to a short suspension was that Mr. Carreon had been cooperative with the Oregon Bar's investigation.)

    All disciplinary records in Oregon are a matter of public record, so I asked for an estimate of the cost of producing those records earlier today.

  148. Jack says

    @Ann, I like her response to my pointing out the issue about practicing law in Canada. I hadn't been back to check for a reply so thanks for posting the screencap. Of course, her explanation doesn't jive with the documents available on the Bar's website.

  149. Tali says

    It would be interesting to discover how FunnyJunk decided to hire Mr Carreon. I would not be surprised at all if it was not unlike what he tried to do with Mattel, and FJ was dumb enough to accept his offer. I mean, it just seems suspect, since FJ isn't registered in CA, and Mr Carreon only has an active license in CA, that FJ should have found him themselves.

  150. Gerta says


    I expect it's quoted from Moby Dick since, y'know, that's the original and all. A humble admission of understandable ignorance goes a lot further than "I knew that."

  151. Joe says

    Actually Chris R. I think Carreon knows he has pissed off the internet but his ego-testical self refuses to waste time paying attention to the finer points of the law because he doesn't think he is accountable to anyone.

  152. Mary L says

    @Kevin S:

    YES! I'm so glad you said something, because I was afraid to. His entire family reminds me of the Phelps clan. GAH!

  153. W Ross says

    So wait wait wait waitaminute. If she did it, and he said he did it, did he lie to the bar?

    I'm not really up on the Bar story yet, did he say it was him, or his wife that moved the money?

    "21 As counsel for SEG, the Accused held in his trust ac<:ount settlement proceeds for the
    22 benefit of SEG, received in connection with a litigation matter. On or about October 11, 2002,
    23 without consulting with SEG or obtaining its express consent, the Accused utilized $1,400 of the
    24 settlement proceeds to pay a portion of a money judgment that had been entered against the
    25 Accused and his wife for a residential lease they signed in connection with the Accused’s
    1 employment in Canada. At the time, the Accused knew or Should have known that SEG disputed
    2 whether the Accuzed was entitled to payment for the lease as a reimbursable employment
    3 expense."

    But it WASN'T the accused, it was his wife. The accused is:

    in the Malter of

    Dunno, can somebody who's been following this cliffs notes it?

  154. Ara Ararauna says

    Carreon is a case of "A thief believes everybody steals." He would lump on everybody any behaviour that he would likely do if he was in the shoes of the offending person. Looks like he's trying to sue himself against a mirror, but he failed to see that there is no mirror and that he's showing his true puerile colours for the townsfolk to fling rotten tomatoes at him; a clown rehearsing a charade in open public. How can he be so arrogant and add insult to injury by suing the charities as "accomplices"? I don't want to rally anyone to anything, but this "man-kid" needs someone to put him on his proper place, probably jail for "international damages" for 6 or 8 months, because he's poking others' eyes and spitting on everyone's intellect and wallet with malice aforethought, even outside California… :I

  155. Jack says

    Over on techdirt she's claiming that Charles is a crypto-Jew who's ancestors fled the Inquisition; therefore the criticism of him equates to what the Nazis did during the holocaust.

    I really dislike this nutbag trying to connect her family's bat-shit crazy mishigas to my people.

  156. ShelbyC says

    One thing I'm curious about, slightly OT. Carreon trademarked name for providing legal services? Does that mean that if somebody also named Charles Carreon wanted to practice law, he couldn't?

  157. Sarahw says

    To me it reads like SEG was refusing to reimburse, so Carreon helped himself to the funds in trust as a "screw you" gesture. I guess it could have been an honest mistake but I think He/she were just mad.

  158. says

    @Ross — the language is the same as the stipulation to the Oregon bar: "utilized" the funds. It's true that he utilized the funds to pay his rent regardless of whether he signed the check or she did. It would still be an ethical breach if he had allowed his wife to pay the rent (or did so on his own) using funds from a client trust account, then reimbursed the account with his own money later, but "utilized" would seem to describe his wife acting unilaterally (and Mr. Carreon then not reimbursing the client account).

    It would be different if he told the Bar, "I withdrew the funds and I paid the rent", for example.

  159. William C says

    Hmm hes a bit of a jerk haha(carreon)
    I pointed out to him his Contact information was on and he replied with:
    "Of course, and it was all in Whois because I hold registration on like 90 websites (some mine and some for clients) and I like to be contacted when there's a problem with any of them. Most lawyers have Yellow Pages ads, but that doesn't mean they want to have their websites hacked, and have themselves signed up to a porn site where someone can create a fake account, upload god-knows-what and perhaps get the guys in the SWAT uniforms to blow down my door looking for the guy that "did it." False Personation, Cal. Penal Code Sec. 529. A crime. You endorsing criminal conduct, or just bloviating without rational basis?"

    but he admitted he has previously posted his contact info on the web(prior to this nonsense)

    Still a bit of a prick though :P

  160. Valerie says

    I am one of the legion brought to this site by the Bearlove saga (also via Wil Wheaton, for the record) – Great site :)

    I was enjoying the shit storm until I followed Ann's links to Mrs. Carreon's comments at techdirt.

    Charles struck me a simple, self-important, greedy, douche bag (albeit one who seems to think he is some winning combination of Weird Al, Caesar Chavez, and Jesus Christ).

    On the other hand, the paranoid rage radiating from every sentence of Mrs. Carreon's posts scares the crap out of me. The level of crazy is so epic I am hoping that she has access to neither firearms nor a clock-tower.

  161. Roxy says

    I believe that Marc Randazza says it best:
    Meh, I’m not about to let that annoy me. She’s emotionally lashing out at people who are saying shitty things about her husband. You can’t really fault her for that. That said, Chas should have a little stronger pimp hand and tell her to shut the fuck up, because the only people saying dumber things than him at this point are his wife and daughter.

  162. Wren says

    This has gone beyond watching a slow-motion train wreck and has entered the oh-my-sweet-leaping-lemurs-we're-approaching-three-icebergs-a-meteor-is-falling-straight-at-us-and-I-can't-find-my-keys kind of Twilight Zone legal mess.

    I both want to see and hope this won't go to trial.

    Oh, and I do still want to know what's going on with Funnyjunk and why they haven't said anything at all.

  163. says

    [and just for the stupid: if you do do something that would actually cause some damage under Sec. 529, you deserve to lose to Carreon when he — rightly — sues you. Don't pull a Kimberlin-disciple.]

  164. Nicholas Weaver says

    Wren: I have NO fear that this will go to trial. It will die, horribly, long before that. And I will bet as such, $100, with the loser paying to either the National Wildlife Federation or the American Cancer Society. (This seems a good fundraiser, and will cost me nothing. :) )

    The interesting questions are how badly this will go for Carreon:

    a: The obligatory motions to dismiss, both now and later. Less fun on the popcorn front, because its no big loss for Carreon if & when he loses, he's just lost his time.

    b: CA anti-SLAPP motion. If he loses here, its expensive, as defendant's lawyers are able to collect their legal fees. So a pro-bono defense lawyer is able to charge Carreon $300/hr for the time involved!

    c: The Section 11 sanctions motion. If he loses here, its not only expensive, but this could disrupt his license to practice, as anything over $1000 also goes to the state bar. Lying to the court is a big big no-no. And there are some whoppers in his statements.

    d: Complaints to the state bar. His attempt to solicit from Mattel seems seriously questionable as a non-lawyer, and is now in the public record. Is "walking in front of a moving car to gain standing to sue the driver" type behavior kosher?

    Who knows what else along those lines could be found with a little digging, now that portions of his MO are known. And at least one lawyer has said publicly he's going to start complaining to the CA bar about Carreon.

    e: Massive, insane reputational damage. He's now, in the eyes of Google, a censorous, batshit-insane twatwaffle, who clearly doesn't understand "The Internet", something that is supposed to be his speciality.

    Before, he was batshit-insane, but his and his wife's insane ramblings were ignored by the net. Now they are known, referenced, reproduced, and easy to find. Google no longer thinks such things are irrelevant, but instead associates them highly with Carreon's practice.

    f: What other subpoenas he tries to send out, before the SLAPP-down slows him down? A targeted subpoena to identify "Doe #1"? Annoying, but actually remotely legitimate (but, since it is to two third parties, Ars and Twitter, who are highly likely to say FOAD, whether anything happens before a-c completes is, who knows?).

    But if he starts throwing them all around, overbroadly, that will go really really badly, since I think anyone who receives one of them will go public with it in the process of fighting it. I almost hope he tries.

    g: Anything he says acts to add more eyeballs, and more looks, at the business of Charles Carreon. Why is he in the bar in California, but his office in Arizona, is just one such question that might deserve an answer.

    There is still time for him to walk away, but its ticking down. He might have as much as a week or more.

    Inman has already made it quite clear that there is still time for Carreon to go away quietly: Carreon can file a motion to dismiss with prejudice before the other motions arrive on the Judge's desk. "Oops, sorry, bad idea", and disappear from the web.

    The reputational damage will remain (there's too much bad associated with Charles Carreon, Douchebag Attorney ™), but the ongoing damage, and threats to his license, will go away. We of the Internet have NO attention span, and the things that could do him damage in the future won't happen if he just goes away.

    But the ram touches the wall when the SLAPP and related motions are filed. Because, once they are filed, the defense only has incentives to grind Carreon into the ground. And they will be brutal.

  165. Nicholas Weaver says

    Ann: How do you know you aren't? After all, does 11-100 are just part of the generic conspiracy to destory Carreon's reputation.

    Personally, I think "Doe i" would be appropriate, since this conspiracy is clearly imaginary…

  166. Thorne says

    @ Gerta…

    "I expect it's quoted from Moby Dick since, y'know, that's the original and all. A humble admission of understandable ignorance goes a lot further than 'I knew that.'"

    "Understandable ignorance"?? Where'd THAT come from? Maybe a belief that I'm somehow not "well-read" and don't know my classics?

    Let me clue you in to a little something here…

    The secret behind Ken's "it's-a-cookbook moment" comment in Part III?
    Twilight Zone? Star Trek? Star Wars? We can't help ourselves. It really did come with the y-chromosome.
    In our efforts to be funny, you never see us go "full Lennie". (And that one IS an "Of Mice And Men" reference; not "Laverne and Shirley".)

    You can be forgiven this time for not possessing the requisite equipment to sufficiently 'get it' but now that I've dropped some serious 'dude makeup' on you, it can only be a one-time deal.

    Next time, I'd suggest not climbing onto such a high horse. It'll lessen the chance of injury when you fall off it.

  167. Nicholas Weaver says

    Ann: If I am, links for me, please, too.

    And the real honorable one is Doe 2*Pi

  168. Jack says

    It's only a matter of time before Mr. Carreon (aka Chasasaurus vexed) trademarks the words "censorious douchbag" and "twatwaffle" In relation to providing legal services.

  169. Chris R. says

    Also I so want the "Will Hate for Oatmeal" from the nader library as my twitter icon :P

  170. HeatherCat says

    @ShelbyC – you really think anybody else that happens to have the same name as he does would WANT to be a lawyer now after this?

  171. jb says

    My question is: At the beginning of this whole thing, people were giving Carreon the benefit of the doubt because Marc Randazza said he was usually a good guy.

    What does Marc have to say about his previous endorsement?

  172. Valerie says

    So if the court sides with Carreon about the cartoon (which I gather is quite unlikely), would that imply that yo' mama jokes are illegal? This is a quasi-serious question – I'm no lawyer – do yo' mama jokes constitute fighting words or slander or would they be protected as parody / satire?

    Just curious.

  173. Carlos says

    Just when I thought stupidity had reached it's limits I clicked on links leading to and…
    Fact is they're a hater family now, way to go about being a professional lawyer, especially on his stupid reply to Ann. I'm just looking forward to seeing his case fall apart, as fast as possible, I want new comics!

  174. says

    You know, the actual comic doesn't even verge on "bestiality" since it is depicted as "an -attempt- to seduce a bear".

    Though I think the cult Koolaid has probably poisoned the daughter beyond redemption if the comments here are accurate. I know this cray cray. I was raised by some very like it though far less intense.

    The answer to the wording and identity problem is probably one of indoctrination. Cults, even if they are very small, often maintain cohesion by redefining common words and creating jingoistic-to-the-cult-nation special vocabulary. (See the redefinition of "ethical" in a certain Cult of Hollywood Stars and slaves.) Whomever the driving force (likely the wife in a power-behind-the-throne sense) for conformity, once the body speaks, all the body must echo. So Mr. C. gets a line in his head, it shotguns through Mrs. C. and Darling Little Beth-Anne(™) must reflexively conform so as not to be ostracized or otherwise abused.

    This compounded crazy, usually with a "we don't speak of this to outsiders" has a tendency to create a "greek chorus" around the figurehead.

    Dad sets the tone. Mom engages in detail and motivation. Daughter is the damage-control team and utility infielder.

    Gone on long enough it becomes it's own language system full of implications and pitfalls that cannot be read by an outsider. This protects the unit because all who would attempt to help one party leave will make a language mistake "revealing them as the expected enemy".

    If you watch the reality TV shows about "survivalists" or "non-mainstream religions" (etc) you will see the same lingual dynamic amongst families and small militia groups, particularly those involving children.

    (not to sound crazy or paranoid myself. 8-)

  175. W Ross says

    AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! He doesn't so much have a treasure trail as a treasure "general area." *shudder*

    That picture is a good representation of what he's doing to himself metaphorically, though.

  176. Margaret says


    Holy Crap! That's some serious Ouroboros-ness. We may actually be approaching that singularity/collapse we'd been warned about.

    Can I throw some other pretentious intellectual crap in there that's still devastatingly apropos? You bet:

    “We shall not cease from exploration
    And the end of all our exploring
    Will be to arrive where we started
    And know the place for the first time.”
    ― T.S. Eliot, Four Quartets

  177. W Ross says

    (Also, nothing says rebel like perfectly pressed completely new jeans, and a blemishless leather jacket. That FLAG has more wear than that outfit. {

  178. Margaret says

    For the record, I mean no disrespect to T.S. Eliot, Ouroboros, or singularities. I'm just mocking myself for throwing it all in there.

  179. says

    Oh and I have suspected that C.C. is -either- an operating interest in FunnyJunk or he was never employed by them at all.

    In the former case all attacks on FJ -were- attacks on CC, which would explain the auto-transferrence of Matt's comments towards FJ being taken as direct attacks on CC. This would be bad.

    Now imagine something far worse: FJ is an automated refuse-heap that gets new content flooding in one end and craps advertising revenue out the other. So Imagine it is the bread and butter of say, one to five college stoners circa 2007. The thing just runs, and as long as it runs in the black it takes zero work at all.

    One day CC comes along and sees the year-old complaint from The Oatmeal, and decides to try to foist himself onto FJ just like he tried to foist himself on Mattel. He drafts up some Golden Prose(™) into a demand letter that, among other things, says to send $20,000 to CC and -not- FJ as settlement. The final payoff of CC's plan is to go to the FJ guys and say "look I turned that old complaint into $12,500 bucks! (33% commission of course). I should do all sorts of stuff for you."

    Matt calls him on his shit. This is, to CC, an attack on His Golden Plan To Regain Relevance and he explodes.

    Meanwhile FJ guys see the counter complaint and pipe it through their automated takedown filter.

    When CC doubles down FJ finds themselves trying to figure out where to even -find- a lawyer to make CC go away so they can go back to suckling from the automated teat.

    So maybe the reason we haven't heard from FunnyJunk yet is that they are scrambling around (competently, or half-stoned, or causally from their yachts for all we know) looking for an actual lawyer of their own and an angle as to whether they should even open their mouths or just let the Internet take care of the problem. Heck, their hits and ad revenue are probably spiking like crazy and they may just hold the "Cam-Can-Cameltoe who?" card for later if ever.

    Yes, it is a twisted idea, but really it was like the first thing that came to my mind last week when I read the demand letter and saw the "send -me- $20k" instead of "send my client $20k" demand.

    The flawed lawyer talk, the freakish year delay, and FJ's silence just don't match up with how things would roll if CC actually (competently) represented (a competent) FJ.

    CC has to keep doubling down and attacking lest his Golden Plan come unraveled and spike his ego.

  180. says

    Somewhere, Charles Carreon is drafting an unsolicited letter to T.S. Eliot, advising him to sue Margaret.

  181. Margaret says

    Yes, because "pretentious intellectual crap" can be demonstrably proven true or false, as opposed to being, say, an OPINION.

  182. T. J. Brumfield says

    As to being hacked because someone tried accessing the "Forgot Password" URL, could that be someone just crawling the site, and hitting every link to fully download the site and save it offline?

  183. Jason says

    Google search for "censorious douchebag" turned up exclusively-Carreon-related material for the first two pages (possibly more). Nice.

  184. W Ross says

    Charles Carreon Saves the Internet
    a Charles Carreon/Dr. Who Fanfic

    Charles hit enter, sending another inflammatory interview to a random reporter. In the background Tara furiously MS Painted dicks onto strangers faces. The chatter of angry keys filled the room.

    "It won't be enough," Charles cried, logging onto the Twitter and replying to some trolls. Google's instances of "Charles Carreon" ticked upwards, but not fast enough.

    The Master wasn't moving, and the code had started to replicate.

    "How are you coming with those dicks?!" Charles yelled to his wife. Tara waved his question away; she was working as fast as she could.

    "If we don't generate enough gigawatts of hate, the digital version of the Master will copy itself onto every computer in the world," the Doctor said, stepping out of the TARDIS and closing the door. "He's a creature of pure Internet after the Daleks uploaded him; so drama should be like bait. If we can generate enough of it…"

    "We can't, Doctor!" Tara said, logging into Tech Dirt and accusing everyone of being Nazis. "We even have our daughter helping from New York, but they're just not angry enough!"

    "Keep trying. If it worked with Caligula, it'll work here," the Doctor said, increasing the speed of the Tara's dick "art" with his Sonic Screwdriver. "If we can generate enough ill will he'll have to join in. You're the perfect Troll Bait."

    "They have to know this is a put on," Charles said. "Nobody in their right mind could believe someone would be this clueless!" He began typing out complaints to secondary websites, trying to draw more press in.

    "Never underestimate the ability of the human race to believe the unbelievable, Charles," The Doctor said, humming. The twitter mentions of "Charles Carreon" were increasing after a mention by Wil Wheaton.

    "There!" The Doctor said. "Did you see that? The just went down! We're doing it. We're generating massive backlash. He's moving to Twitter and setting up a false account! There's no time to lose, report it to Twitter's mods!"

    Charles typed quickly, wiping the sweat from his brow with a silken handkerchief. He clicked send. Now it was a waiting game…

    "Come on you bastard…. stay there," the Doctor said, gripping the Sonic Screwdriver tightly in his hand. Tara Carreon clicked refresh over and over, then suddenly the page read "account suspended."

    "They've suspended him! He's detached! NOW DOCTOR!" Tara shouted, and the Doctor aimed the Sonic Screwdriver at the computer. There was a piercing scream as bright green light was pulled from the outlet.

    The Doctor aimed at a small USB stick and pressed the button and the screaming stopped. He lifted it, and looked it over.

    "So much trouble, you are. Better get this some place safe." The Doctor opened the door to the TARDIS, as Charles and Tara embraced.

    "We did it! We saved the Internet!" Tara said. Charles smiled.

    "But remember," the Doctor said as he gathered up his coat, "Nobody can EVER know. It's a tough thing to bear, but for the sake of the human race, you must."

    "We know, Doctor," Tara said.

    "You could travel with me, join adventures, become my new companions," The Doctor offered, but Charles smiled and patted his shoulder.

    "Whether they know it or now, I'm needed here," Charles said.

    "I'll never forget you, Charles Carreon, White Hat Internet Solicitor and hero of Planet Earth."

    "We'll never forget you either, Doctor," Tara said, hugging him.

    "I might forget you, though," The Doctor said, and entered the TARDIS. There was a slow, rhythmic whoosh, and then it was gone.

    Charles sat on the sofa and let out a great sigh. Tomorrow he'd begin rebuilding his shattered life, but for tonight the world was saved, and so was the Internet.

    He was a hero.

  185. John says

    Edit: It just occurred to me that Joey Ramone might not have his name trademarked, which would be a difference. Oh well, still hypocritical on some level.

  186. Joe says

    W. Ross – that is seriously funny. Here is the Letterman "Top Ten Ways to know You are Charles Carreon(TM)"

    1. You cannot be bothered to waste time paying attention to the finer points of the law because you think as long as you say nanny nanny boo boo you it does not apply to you.

    2. You know the meaning of the words "common sense” but are unable to put it into practice.

    3. You are so secure in your superiority that you forget the internet is an archive/library and all you past mistakes have been nicely filed away to be found by others.

    4. You have the right to remain silent but unfortunately you lack the ability.

    5. You do not realize the internets are made up of millions of people who you cannot control, who do not agree with you, and who think you are a douche.

    6. You have a built in reputation self-destruct mechanism but cannot figure out how to turn it off.

    7. One of your key advisors is your spouse who believes in aliens, dark netherworlds, and has a fetish for insane clowns.

    8. You threaten to file lots of subpoenas because you enjoy trying to intimidate people and wasting their time and money.

    9. You file lawsuits against charities and innocent cartoonist because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to be involved in stamping out cures to cancer and funny cartoons.

    10. You sue everyone that injures your feelings including people who may in the future injure your feelings.

  187. Blaze Miskulin says

    In our efforts to be funny, you never see us go "full Lennie". (And that one IS an "Of Mice And Men" reference; not "Laverne and Shirley".)

    Duh! Because everyone knows that would be going "full Squiggy".

  188. says

    Quesiton: Does the complete lack of any mention of Does 2 through 100 in both the complaints and remedies sections make Does 2 through 100 sort of quantum fodder? I mean isn't there a need now for the court to appoint someone to writhe "you mentioned 99 anonymous people in the header without describing them or attributing them any action or identity?"

    Is there a sort of gardian in the legal system who automatically steps in and vacates the bits that just don't compute when they name or refer to literally empty place holders for piling on?

    Does that give everybody on the planet who knows about this case standing to request a protective order declaring that they are -not- Doe 2 or any other Doe mentioned?

    IANAL but I read a bunch and I can't even think that there is any existent mechanism built into the legal system to disentangle a "null dereference" of this sort.

  189. Jack says

    @Carlos, is a parody website, that's not the real Charles Carreon that replied to Ann

  190. W Ross says

    @Joe I wanted to figure out some way this could all be rational, that was my best stab at it, lol.

    A longer video story. Watching it now, it's a few days old but it's 20 minutes and the Video Quality doesn't make me want to shoot myself.

  191. Tanner says

    Would deleting the RagingBlog that contained his e-mail address be considered spoliation of evidence?

  192. Joe says

    ALERT NEW CONTENT. I just stumbled across this one. I checked back on III and IV of Ken's postings and didn't see this anywhere and I'm getting cross eyed going thru all the prior posts so someone else plz double check me. In any event its called "Hate TV" by yours truly Carreon(TM) – link was on one of his posts off the American Budda site. I've no idea how to preserve these as he could yank these videos at any time – calling @All Army of Davids to grab/record this content just in case.

  193. says

    @Tanner: if he deleted all copies of it and denied that it ever existed, probably. If he just removed the live version of it to keep rabid netizens from emailing him (and, e.g., kept a copy of the original page on his hard drive), that would probably be OK.

  194. Lauren says

    I just want to know when CC will sue himself for defamation of his own character. Which personality will win, I wonder..

  195. says

    @Joe: ha. Check out the comments — the guy who proclaims that he only acts politely in communicating over Twitter hurls insults in YouTube comments*: "retards", "Can't afford a webcam? Too ugly to show your face? Whatever … you're too pathetic for words", "ferret-brain", etc. And then there's the 9/11 truther stuff:

    Get real! The combination of Silverstein's statement, the actual collapse of Seven, and Giuliani's statement of knowing that WTC 1 was about to collapse all add up to many questions somebody doesn't want answered! And the idea that the BBC prognosticated the fall of Building 7 is absurd. PoHo is CIA.

    And moar:

    19 patsies who really thought they were terrorists, while the insiders laughed and laughed. Silly Arabs, bombing skyscrapers is for natives!

    And, while he's not quite posting under his own name, he does reference having gone to UCLA Law, litigating free speech cases in the 9th Circuit, names his father, and his first video says it was recorded by Charles Carreon. So, those Twitter satirists aren't exactly impugning his reputation any further.

    *I assume this is a requirement of the YouTube TOS.

  196. Chris R. says

    @W Ross, it hates me. I am archiving his hate tv though. That'll take up some time.

  197. Jack says

    @Joe, Yeah Vertas posted that earlier. Carreon is starting to look Ted Kaczynski-level delusional.

  198. says

    For those drinking along at home, Justicia is documents from the case as they come in. Venkat (Oatmeal's counsel) has made an appearance (basically a document that says, "hey, send me important stuff") and Mr. Carreon has declined to let a Federal Magistrate Judge hear the case — no, no, only a full, Article III life-tenure judge's time can be wasted on this case!

  199. W Ross says

    He wants a full jury? Tell me I'm reading that wrong, and that Charles Carreon does not want the State of California to pay a dozen people for several days to sort out this frivolous nonsense.

  200. Jack says

    @Adam Thanks for the link, this should be fun reading.

    I'm still working on "discovery," the Carreons are prolific when it comes to spreading their special brand of bat-shit crazy around the web.

  201. Joe says

    Thanks Jack – I missed that one, I am cross eyed from the sheer volume of the kooky content. I can't keep up – hopefully Chris R or W Ross are keeping an indexed library of sorts.

  202. says

    Does this create any kind of conflict of interest, given he is still funny junks lawyer? I mean in terms of an ethical violation that might get the bar to sanction him. I thought attourneys had an obligation to put the clients best interests first? Does this go beyond simple censurious douchebagg

  203. Valerie says

    Does this go beyond simple douchebaggery and into ethics violations, in terms of his relationship to funny junk?

  204. W Ross says

    Tara's got a new post up:


    Till Lindeman wrote:
    On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Till Linderman wrote:

    You are the biggest fucking asshole I have ever seen. I hope you do the world a favor and die soon.

    Charles Carreon wrote:
    From: Charles Carreon, Esq.
    Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:52 PM
    Subject: Re: My Thoughts About You
    To: Till Linderman

    Dear Till,

    Thank you for your thoughtful expression, which is based on no doubt years of studying me and my background and achievements, and not on a mere flicker of dentritic turbulence in your cerebellum mediated by jolts from the hypothalamus and limbic cortex. Such offerings of developed reflection and informed thought are rare and precious, so you can understand how much I treasure them. Indeed, one who appreciates with intelligence and insight, seeing me for exactly what I am made of, is a person so rare that I cannot hold back from extending congratulations.

    But what need do you have of my plaudits? The pleasure of being must be so extreme and exquisite, that I can only stand and applaud.

    With warm regards, and the hope that I may someday see one tenth of the personal fulfillment that you currently enjoy.


    She often posts in bursts because she does follow up after follow up posts, so bet there's another one within 10 minutes.

  205. Kathy D says

    It's over two hours past my bedtime but I HAD to read all posts & comments! My only regret? Clicking on the links belonging to the Insane Carreon Posse.

  206. Chris R. says

    @W Ross – Till Lindemen is very angry. However can you imagine how much time it takes Carreon to respond to all the hate mail?

  207. W Ross says

    I'd rather he do that then go bananers and sue everyone. Maybe this is progress. Note that after I press submit comment, there will be something that makes me look silly for thinking he was finally "getting it."

  208. W Ross says!/passion_lib

    Ugh. I'd missed this one but I guess TWO daughters have been getting all fighty with the Internet.

    I gotta now agree with whoever said Westboro earlier. Going to bed. If you guys want in the morning I could probably arrange a links page. I don't want to currate photos or nothing but I could at least organize and put a "this is the such and such" on each one- just so we have some central thing since there's good stuff in all 5 comments threads.

    But first I'm gonna pass the #($# out.

  209. Margaret says

    @W Ross

    From her Twitter:

    Apparently my dad is infamous once again. These people have no idea how much my family feeds off of other people's vitriol. Hmm…literally.

    Clearly, this whole brou-ha-ha (can I call it a brou-ha-ha?) is not the result of a sudden brain tumor/personality change/major bipolar episode. Mr. Carreon, despite the absolute ineptitude of his court filing, is NOT stupid, and did not walk into the hornets' nest with his eyes closed.

    Which makes EVERYTHING that much scarier.

  210. E Kristiansen says

    The thing I do not understand is how he can use California law in the lawsuit, when non of the defendants live or operate business out of California. Anyone have any idea how it is that works?

  211. V says

    @W Ross she's been keeping mostly quiet, so I suggest there's no need to involve her further.
    (oh and yes, CC wants a jury, says so right on the 1st page of his complaint. That's probably one motivation for including examples of Oatmeal's work in the complaint.)

    @Adam thanks for the Justicia link. Looks like it'll be a while it gets to court. Is the request for an Article 3 judge going to delay things further?

  212. gvb says

    IndieGoGo and TO may not even be "Commercial Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes" because in the statute defining commercial fundraisers, it goes on to define charitable purposes as follows:

    As used in this section, "charitable purposes" includes any solicitation in which the name of any organization of law enforcement personnel, firefighters, or other persons who protect the public safety is used or referred to as an inducement for transferring any funds, assets, or property, unless the only expressed or implied purpose of the solicitation is for the sole benefit of the actual active membership of the organization.

  213. says

    This Carrion? Carreon? whatever character clearly has no integrity. Not reading all the comments, but having read your analysis across all the articles, I'm going back to the fundraiser and double my contribution.

  214. Jonathan says

    Wait, a jury? So he wants to have his case massacred by members of the public as opposed to the judge? I see. Well I can see that turning out really well for him…

  215. paul says

    I wonder if Kathleen Turner has grounds for legal action over her name being used in the URL for the Kathleen Parker photoshop job you reference? I couldn't make out why her name was mentioned in the context of a newspaper columnist. Then it became obvious: he's just sloppy.

  216. Mike K says

    I think most of us would consider many of the works available on American Buddha as infringing on copyrights. What would normally be considered fair use for an online library?

    I'm having a hard time imagining that more than the chorus of a song and possibly an analysis of the lyrics as being fair for all the music they have.
    As far as copyrighted books, I have very little idea. It seems to me a lot different to provide books to billions of people at the same time rather than paying for each copy that is physically available at any given time.

  217. Ryan says

    That Guardian article adds a new twist. It strongly implies that not only has FJ has quietly bowed out of this debacle, but has done so at Carreon's recommendation (Carreon stating he was "misinformed" by his client about the remaining active Oatmeal pics). Which means everything from here on in is 100% his own insanity-driven cause. However he still made reference to himself and "his client [FunnyJunk]" in the official complaint, implying there's still an official lawyer/client relationship somewhere. So yea, I'm all sorts of confused now.

  218. Grifter says

    Next up: Carreon sues IndieGoGo and betabeat, "Nuh-uh, it isn't friviolous!" Asks 10 jillion in damages. "This criticism of me–er, defamation of me will not stand!" Mr. Carreon was quoted as saying.

  219. Thad says

    I'm amazed to see how much Inman makes from The Oatmeal (Guardian link above). Amazed and delighted: he deserves every cent of it. He deserves also to be able to get on with it without becoming involved in someone else's farce.

    However absurd the claims made against him may be, however certain they may be to fail, and whatever assurance of that he may have from those who know the law, it must be a huge stress to be on the receiving end of all this.

  220. Margaret says


    I too was amazed to see that figure, and really, good for him. He deserves it. I wish more artists could make a living doing what makes them happy.

    However, I think (not sure) that the figure is a *little* bit deceiving – as noted, a huge portion of it comes from him selling T-shirts, posters and mugs. So while that may be the total amount he takes in from selling them, there's still some cost associated with producing the merchandise. (That's not his net profit, is what I'm saying.)

    However, it does say that he makes quite a bit just from advertising, and there's really no cost associated with that.

  221. Matt Scott says

    @Chris R-
    Her forum posts on ABOL are way more… err… batshit crazy than the ones on the "Nader Library." She mentions her time in a death cult, talks about how everyone else is nuts, and a bunch of other random nutbag stuff. It's a good read.

    She did get a few other commenters on this thread:

    But they seem to be on par with her level of crazy (although less vocal about it).

  222. Marla Singer says

    The claims on the fundraiser seem far from ripe.

    Additionally, both Mr. Carreon and his wife resort to name-calling frequently on their website, which proves his statement false that he doesn't call people bad names even in hotly debated issues.

  223. W Ross says

    @V I wouldn't suggest we involve anyone other than Carreon, honestly. It's moreso so people can see the whole story front to back.

    With all the accounts that have stirred the pot, it shows how this shit storm was continued by the Carreon clan, instead of spawned out of nowhere due to a single cartoon from Oatmeal.

    Carreon's account is one of being assaulted; the sub accounts show it's more like a brawl.

    Do you guys want me to aggregate the links somewhere? I got an hour or two.

  224. Chris R. says

    The more I read of Tara's writings, the less I think my thoughts are my own. Maybe she has a point and the city I live in has corrupted my spirit and intelligence that only nature could give me. Maybe the satellites pouring their demon thoughts into my steel and concrete cage are warping my mind and making me anti nature. I believe now I have become a nihilist because of this and I must brake free of my shackles. I must rip off my clothes, cast aside my Pumas, and run into nature to find my true intelligence. I must love again in short.

  225. Chris R. says

    Nevermind, the ground is hard and I like my shoes… damn it, I think I got a piece of glass in my foot.

  226. Margaret says


    Article in The Stranger today seems to support the idea that Carreon NOW claims that he was misinformed by Funnyjunk and would never have sent the demand letter in the first place.

    Win, Lose, Or Draw

  227. Ryan says


    Yea that's the vibe I got from the Guardian's article as well. I assume (perhaps wrongfully) that if he knew those pictures were still active from the get-go, he never would have agreed to send the initial letter. Why he continued… I dunno. Maybe he thinks he'll rocket to some super-lawyer stardom/infamy from all the attention.

  228. Derrik Pates says

    I find it hilarious that his personal website was hosted on government-owned (or at least government-run) systems and networks. Why was that, exactly? And why did he make the claim that the county or state government (whichever it was) was "censoring" him by deciding not to continue hosting it on their systems? He seems to have a very wrong-headed notion of what censorship is. Don't they (or aren't they supposed to, anyway) educate students about that in law school?

  229. Tom Trudeau says

    Keep Calm And Don't Carreon. This poster is funny. Carreon has become a meme…

    We post this riff on the Oatmeal-Funny-Junk-War (now forever joined in history) with the classic British wartime mantra:calm and perseverance in the face of adversity. A sobering sentiment for the modern internet. There’s got to be a better way than Oatmeal invoking DMCA and failing, then facing the sad lawyer’s demand for cash and subsequent lawsuit. The First Amendment hypocrisy is harmful to the debate. First calm down. Then keep calm and carry on. And please, support the charity.

    We do not typically condone using an individual’s photo satirically because we respect decency and privacy. But after seeing what Mr. and Mrs. Carreon did with photos of Condoleeza Rice and Ann Coulter on their “American Buddhist” blog, we have decided to make an exception. After all, a man who posts a photo of himself in this pose has already ridiculed himself. Besides, the crown fit so nicely on his head.

  230. flip says

    That last bit by Carreon about Ann Coulter reminds me of scientology: according to them, enemies of the 'religion' can be fought by any means necessary.

    @W Ross, great Doctor Who fanfic.

  231. W Ross says

    @Flip Thanks! I'd like to point out that my Dr. Who fanfic about Charles sending "another inflamatory interview" was written pre ArsTechnica.

    I'M A PRECOG!!!!

  232. theNuszAbides says

    @Margaret: opening the paper to that story gave me joy for a few moments (especially finding out that _____ lives in _______), but the writer is unfortunately not a stranger regular whom one might expect/trust to be sharply critical. still, the novelty of Randy being one of the few to supposedly speak with cc was… something.

  233. theNuszAbides says

    oops, conflated Margaret's addressing Ryan with _Danny_, not Randy, Bradbury. the guardian piece was far more useful than the stranger one. i especially like the gesture of number-crunching that too many 'writers' will whine they don't have time for when they're called to elaborate on or back up what they're working with.

  234. Wil says

    Has anyone noticed the "music library" on the Carreon website, that consists of links to download MP3s? He cites 17 U.S.C. 108 as his protection – IANAL, but that seems to pertain to libraries and contains this choice piece: "(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not otherwise distributed in that format and is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives." Isn't he setting himself up for massive copyright infringement, or am I wrong? BTW, this is exactly the kind of thing that old school FTP sites that offered MP3s did. They included disclaimers about being educational, a library, etc. I don't think it would have really flown then, and I don't think it does now.

  235. Dan Weber says

    Wil, I think he's gotten away with that by picking on small fries who realized it was best to walk away from crazy.

    Now that the eternal sunshine of the Internet has shone on his website, it will probably crumble.

  236. Nance says

    I'm way, way late to the party, but reading that complaint made me dizzy with the twisted attempts at logic (no actual logic was used, or harmed, in the drafting of that complaint), and the lack of anything that made sense. It's almost a shame he dismissed it – it would be fun to watch the smack down from any judge who actually had to read and attempt to rule on that drivel.

  237. Chad Miller says

    They've since deleted the double-dicks photoshop picture and replaced it with a link to the Rapeutation site (even though it doesn't make any sense in that context), lol


  1. […] The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part V: A Brief Review of Charles Carreon's Complaint | PopehatYes, it's totally true, as anyone who has read about this story or met Charles Carreon could attest: interacting with him is clearly a memorable joy, akin to being farted upon by a unicorn, and his actions normally inspire only adulation and the occasional rapturous fainting incident. […]

  2. […] the meanwhile… here's some food for thought about the current Oatmeal saga:… Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]