Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Chapter IX: Charles Carreon Dismisses His Lawsuit

[All of our coverage of Charles Carreon's big day in court is collected under this tag.]

On July 3, 2012, just short of 4 P.M., Charles Carreon filed a notice of dismissal of his lawsuit against Matt Inman, IndieGoGo, the American Cancer Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and (as a party to be joined "if feasible") the Attorney General of California. As drafted, the notice dismisses all parties, including Does.

Mr. Carreon's filing is here.

Some initial thoughts:

1. Mr. Carreon can dismiss the case without leave of court because no party has yet answered.

2. Dismissal is, without court intervention, without prejudice, meaning that Mr. Carreon could re-file if he wanted. Will he? Who knows.

3. Based on some quick research, it appears to me that Mr. Carreon's voluntary dismissal of the action does not preclude Mr. Inman from seeking attorney fees and costs under the Lanham Act. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394–95 (1990). That doesn't mean that Mr. Inman will, or should, seek fees, for practical reasons too lengthy to discuss in this post. [Edited to add: behold the dangers of "quick research" — a kind term for "talking out of your ass" or, more popularly, "blogging." This is probably wrong, for reasons I may address in another post. But I leave it up as an example of ass-dampery.]

4. Mr. Carreon could walk away from this particular set of opponents. But somehow I doubt he will. I predict that he will crow that he achieved a victory by "forcing" Mr. Inman and IndieGoGo to handle the charitable contributions differently than they otherwise would have. And I suspect he will continue threatening and suing others. Time will tell.

Edited to add: here's the Electronic Frontier Foundation's statement.

Second, Bizarre Update: Just got a message from a twitter account in the name of Jonathan Lee Riches — who, as Adam Steinbaugh points out, is a vexatious serial litigant who is either crazy or some sort of performance artist. He filed two frivolous motions to intervene in Carreon's case in NDCA.

The purported Jonathan Lee Riches Twitter account said "@Popehat @oatmeal carreon dropped his lawsuit because inman is suing him in another case , # 4:12-cv-00490-rcc , district of arizona tuscon." I checked the Arizona docket and there is, indeed, a pro se lawsuit filed in the name of Matt Inman, using the bizarre and farcical style of Riches. Whether this is actually Riches or someone else doing it for the lulz is unclear.

However, whoever did it, I submit they've crossed a line they may regret. Filing a frivolous and farcical lawsuit as performance art in your own name is one thing. Filing it falsely under someone else's name is a false statement to the courts. It is very arguably a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. section 1001. I often write here about abuse of 18 U.S.C. section 1001 by the government, but I'm going to have to chew over whether or not this ought to be charged as a crime or not.

Last 5 posts by Ken White


  1. Al Parrott says

    Your point 4, as reads: "4. Mr. Inman could walk away from this particular set of opponents." Believe you meant Mr. Carreon.

  2. Collin says

    tiny typo: "too length" -> "too lengthy"

    bigger typo: "4. Mr. Inman could walk away" -> "4. Mr. Carreon could walk away"

  3. Sem says

    "Mr. Inman could walk away from this particular set of opponents. But somehow I doubt he will I predict that he will crow that he achieved a victory by "forcing" Mr. Inman and IndieGoGo to handle the charitable contributions differently than they otherwise would have."


  4. Joe says

    First smart thing I've seen Carreon do so far. Why do I suspect it will be his last? If he were really smart he would drop the suit against Doe as well.

    No doubt he will crow a victory thinking he has somehow forced Inman to do what Inman was going to do all along.

  5. Margaret says

    Clearly he needs to focus on the meanie Satirical Charles now. Too much multi-tasking!

  6. Eric says

    And a glimmer of common sense is shown. I wonder what made CC decide to finally back out.

  7. says

    Also, is there anything the court can do to prevent Charlie the Censor from re-filing? Can the court say "no, no dismissal for you"?

  8. says

    @Scott Jacobs: No, not in Federal court. You get one dismissal as of right. If you file and dismiss again, the court can order it dismissed with prejudice. California state courts aren't as kind.

  9. Hannah says

    I hope this is the end…

    …but I fear something far, far worse is yet to come o_o

    Any word from the oh-so-enlightening Tara yet?

  10. William McAleese says

    Maybe he got a call from the bar association. Unlikely, but it's a nice thought. More likely, he sobered up.

  11. says

    @Ken: what about anti-SLAPP? I seem to recall that there's a way to still bring the motion (or a new lawsuit) so that vexatious plaintiffs can't file suit and then dismiss in order to duck that remedy.

  12. says


    at least he's faster than the hamster

    That's just the plucky attitude you'll need taking the bar and then seeking a job in this market.

    what about anti-SLAPP? I seem to recall that there's a way to still bring the motion (or a new lawsuit) so that vexatious plaintiffs can't file suit and then dismiss in order to duck that remedy.

    You're thinking of the rule that you can't dismiss voluntarily in state court once the defense has filed an anti-SLAPP motion. Here, no motion is filed, and it's doubtful that the rule applies in federal court.

  13. Ollie says

    why do I think he's just going to wait for all of this to blow over and then go after The Oatmeal again, much as he threatened to do to satirical charles? Wait until the EFF no longer supports Inman and BAM here comes chapter X of this madness, maybe a year or 3 down the road.

  14. Mike says

    @Chris: He'll probably tell his S&M mate that spies/FBI/aliens/whatever made him do it. Then she can rant on some more about everything under the sun, post some more copyright-violating screen captures of films, and generally babble away.

  15. Victor says

    I still want to see that picture of cash and woman seducing bear picture along with the notice that Carreon has received it and forwarded it to Funnyjunk.

  16. Mike K says

    So which "corrupt" lawyer finally convinced him to dismiss? This should be interesting to hear the spin on this as his tale is likely to conflict with… well… everyone else's.

  17. Margaret says

    Noooooooooo! What will we do for entertainment?

    Seriously, though, the suit against "censorious douchebag" is even more worrisome. It doesn't have the flourish of suing actual charities, but to some, it might seem less ridiculous, and therefore…. approaching reasonable. Which it is not.

  18. Nicholas Weaver says

    Ken, questions:

    1) Can Inman pull a Doe and fire back, to make sure Carreon doesn't undismiss? Since Carreon has threatened others with "I won't sue now, maby, but I may sue 3 years from now when your pro bono attorneys have gone away", forcing some sort of response from Carreon might be a very good idea.

    2) Can Inman & IndieGoGo attempt to gain legal fees anyway, since they had to deal with the @)(*#@ TRO request?

  19. Ollie says

    I think that its association with the oatmeal suit will make sure it keeps the same level of attention and is just as or more successful than what happened for matt, the charities and indiegogo

  20. says

    Now, now, there's still entertainment to be had. Doe v. Carreon has the potential to set some good precedent, which is probably why Levy took the case — in addition, of course, to the necessity of ensuring that Doe doesn't have to live with the threat of a potential lawsuit for the next several years, when our attention span has drifted onto whatever comical litigious folly next captures it.

    Short of capitulating or settling with Doe, Carreon can't voluntarily dismiss that.

    And we still have no idea whether this is a tactical move to refile later/elsewhere, or whether it's a genuine "hey, I screwed up" coming-to-Jesus moment on the part of Carreon.

  21. HeatherCat says

    My thoughts are
    1. No resources to fully take this on when there's no way to win it.
    2. Especially when he's now being sued and will need to deal with that now.

    But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button. Wonder what Inman's going to post later on this?

  22. Nicholas Weaver says

    And ohh, if #3 is correct, I hope that either Inman, IndieGoGo, NWF, or ACS, or hell, our CA Attorney general, still file for Rule 11 sanctions.

    Somebody should, just on principle, make sure that Carreon pays an actual, monetary cost for bringing then dismissing a baseless suit. He's done that before in Oregon and gotten away with it in Federal court, and may have in state court.

  23. Eric R. says

    @Margaret – Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't CC only threaten censorious douchebag? CD executed a pre-emptive strike by filing against CC. IANAL, but it seems like CD's case is much more likely to succeed than anything CC might bring forth.

  24. singersdd says

    I think it's a positive step toward Carreon coming to his senses. Maybe. As another commenter said, though, he'll probably take credit for Matt Inman doing what he always said he would: giving the money to charity. Carreon is still out of touch with reality.

  25. Margaret says

    But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button.

    And there's the phrase of the day!

  26. Connie says

    At least Doe vs Carreon will still provide us with Tara madness and more baffling 'Seriously?! I mean, seriously?!" reactions. Yay for Inman.

  27. Al Parrott says

    I wonder what Charles is going to do for work now? I mean, who would hire him to argue any case for them, in any court? Unless he sets up shop in some dirt-mall storefront doing ambulance chasing or something… Better start socking away some money for ads, Charles, and buying up daytime TV airtime.

  28. Valerie says

    So is the madness over? I am both relieved and disappointed. Will the Charles-Carreon suit contiue?

  29. deezerd says

    What and anticlimactic ending. (If it is.) And just what the hell am I supposed to do with that half-pallet of unpopped Jolly Time sitting out on the deck? ;)

  30. Nicholas Weaver says

    Adam: I suspect it might be come to Jesus.

    Carreon did state he was retaining council to Levy in Doe v Carreon, and any outside attorney worth his salt will tell Carreon to "settle now, and you MIGHT be nice and they won't charge you attorneys fees".

    And such council would also advice Carreon to drop Carreon v Inman now, before opposing council drops a Rule 11 motion, an anti-SLAPP motion, or other such nugget of pain into the docket.

    So if he actually started talking to someone else yesterday, this might be a legitimate come to Jesus moment, and, by the 6th, we may be devoid of entertainment on this front, unless either IndieGoGo, Inman, Levy, Doe, NWF, or ACS want to get their pound of flesh before Carreon slinks back to his strip-mall office.

  31. Chris says

    Have you been hurt at work? Did you get maliciously injured by improper conditions at a supermarket? Call Charles Carreon! Even if your lawsuit is meritless he can carry on until they pay!

  32. Mark says

    Can we still expect to hear the Judge's opinion on this? Or it will be something to the extent of "case dismissed as requested"?

  33. Wren says

    Mmmn, I would worry about him bringing it back to court at a future date, yes, as he's stated in documents that he has no problem with waiting until he thinks someone is unprotected. Honestly, I was hoping to see some Anti-SLAPPing going on, and possible disbarment so that he can't go after people less able to defend themselves.

  34. HeatherCat says

    @deezerd – well, I dunno about you, but I'm taking my popcorn outside to watch the fireworks downtown tonight. Let Freedom Ring! (and pop, boom, sparkle too)

  35. says

    @Nicholas: I dunno if he said he was retaining counsel in that case — he said he had the resources to, but I dunno. He did state somewhere, though, that he had retained counsel in Arizona to deal with the Inman case, but nobody ever filed an appearance and I hadn't heard anything else of it since. They probably knew how to use the Google and didn't want to be formally associated with it.

    I have my doubts that this isn't tactical. If he really wanted to show that it wasn't, he could have dismissed with prejudice.

    Not that I think it's impossible, but color me skeptical.

  36. Nicholas Weaver says

    Chris: The problem is, there's competition for that in the desert southwest.

    I suspect its going to be "duck down, low profile" for a long time. He's going to have a hard time writing extortive legal letters for people, so he'd do better sticking to trademark filings, corporate disputes, etc.

    He also should probably file for admission to the Arizona bar: living in Arizona but only practicing law in California might very well catch the eye of sauron, err, the FTB, or the Arizona State Bar now.

    Getting ahead of that problem will make his life easier, because although MOST of the Internet is going to go "ohh shiny" and wander onto something else, he pissed off enough people that there are probably plenty of little nuggets of paper-hell that got dropped into various state bar disciplinary committees' inboxes.

    Also, once he gets admission to the Arizona bar, he can easily go back to criminal defense work. These sorts of antics work better when

    a: The other side doesn't take it personal, because it doesn't really matter all that much to them and

    b: Someone else is paying you by the hour

  37. Chris says

    Maybe he just wants to re-amend the complaint and he already used up his freebie.

  38. W Ross says

    Wow, it might be over. No word from Tara, and normally she'd be screaming like a lunatic over on the Nader Library. I can't imagine she'd be quiet without being told "be quiet, we need for this to go away now."

    Still, this doesn't preclude a creepy sequel.

  39. says

    @Nicholas: on the other hand, he did dismiss with prejudice, which I take to mean no settlement was reached, so that might be some indication that it's a true white flag moment.

  40. Nicholas Weaver says

    Adam: This was from Levy's most recent filing in Doe v Carreon on how it was serviced.

    I hereby certify that I am causing a copy of this Entry of Appearance to be sent personally to defendant Charles E. Carreon, who has previously advised that he is retaining counsel but has not yet identified that counsel.

    So Carreon did tell Levy that he was retaining council for Doe v Carreon. Which means if Carreon actually got around to talking with his attorney, Carreon's attorney might have scared him straight.

  41. Mike K says

    I don't know Adam, dismissing with prejudice when you don't have to sounds like folding when you can simply check. I'm rather hoping that he realized that all the opposing briefs were correct and he had absolutely no standing to sue and just hasn't bothered to think what the world might think (he hasn't to this point).

  42. deezerd says

    @HeatherCat – Of course. How could I forget? … Pop, boom, sparkle, and buckets o' butter.

    Maybe I'll have a one-day only July 4th popcorn stand for charity (a la Inman). Proceeds toward shipping Mr. Carreon his own pallet of Preparation H.

  43. Thorne says

    I will say that I'm fairly impressed that it took him two weeks to finally *blink*.

    Up next: Entrant in Poughkeepsie Staring Contest.

    Dude's a ringer. ;)

  44. GrimGhost says

    Hello, did someone hide gay porno mags in your locker after you stole his lunch money? Did you stuff a dork into a locker and now he's hacked your Facebook page? I'm Charles Carreon(tm), and I know your pain! Bullies and douchebags have legal rights too! Call me, Charles Carreon(tm) at 1-800-FKINMAN. My wife has twenty-three personalities available to answer the phone anytime, 24/7.

  45. says

    @Nicholas: I think Levy's thing was a bit of calling-Carreon's-bluff. If Carreon subsequently appeared pro se, it would give a bit of an indication that his overall threats were meritless and intended to intimidate Doe into folding.

  46. Laura K says

    Not a Lawyer but as a historian and literary/theology geek I NEVER underestimate the possibility of nuclear-charbroiled fcknt douchebaggery in the motives of a specimen like CC. Gawd though did these posts teach me a lot. Thanks Ken et al!

  47. Nicholas Weaver says

    Oh, and as much as I'd love to see one of the attorneys go for the pound of Carreon's flesh on the way out the door, it really doesn't seem worth it unless Carreon was given a Murum aries attigit type warning.

    So I think we will see Carreon quickly capitulate in Doe v Carreon, and then ah well, its all over, no more dinosaur fun, which will allow Charles and Tara to keep ranting to themselves in peace.

  48. Margaret says

    Am I reading Rule 41 correctly? It appears that, because Carreon is voluntarily dismissing (without prejudice), if he re-files the same case, he would have to pay the defendants' cost of the previous filing? (Per (d)(1)?)

  49. Mark says

    It is a little frustrating that one individual can waste so many man-hours and simply dismiss the whole thing without any explanation or consequence.

  50. Nicholas Weaver says

    Adam: Could be calling Carreon's bluff, you're right. Or he might have actually talked to someone.

    But something caused Carreon to finally fold [1].

    And I suspect, based on the Carreon v Those Foolish Enough To Lend Him Money cases, that someone explained to Carreon just how much monetary hurt he was looking at when he loses, and that because he'd be paying the other side's legal fees when he loses, all the silly Carreon games only hurt Carreon when the bill is settled.

    It wouldn't actually surprise me if it was Levy who did it: By filing Doe v Carreon, all the Carreon butt-hurt complaints get destroyed in court, and Carreon picks up the tab for Levy's time.

    [1] Carreon, playing 5 card stud, wasn't even a four-flusher, but a two-flusher…

  51. Patches says

    @HeatherCat "But I wouldn't trust him further than I could left-click this mouse button." I assume you're a Mac user …

  52. Thorne says


    That's just human nature kicking in. Everybody wants to see the bad guy get punished in the end.

    I'm looking at this as still getting what we want because all Carreon's actions can do right now, at best, is calm the hornet's nest.
    And this is a nest with a LONG… FUCKING… MEMORY. ;)

  53. Nicholas Weaver says

    Ken: I actually hope he won't try something like this in the future. Mostly because his name is now poison to Google: Anyone who receives one of Carreon's future threats who searches for Carreon will quickly fine all this lovely stuff.

    Its quite unlike 10 years ago, where his abusive lawsuits against the County see him emerging without sanctions. But now, not only is there a pattern, but its a known and searchable pattern.

  54. deezerd says

    Realistically, does Carreon have any similar option for a minimallly-painful exit from Doe's suit? Other than 1) offering to settle, or 2) boarding up the windows and waiting for the storm to blow over?

  55. Ollie says

    I just can't see Carreon giving this up all of the sudden. Is there any way Inman can pursue this so that he doesnt constantly have to worry about another lawsuit?

  56. says

    It would bother me, a lot, if he can get off without some sort of penalty or sanction. Whether or not Inman could/can afford it, he had to get a lawyer to respond to that original, baseless demand.

    And that's even before the actual suit.

    What's to stop asshat lawyers from doing this to other people, who likely won't have Inman's resources and sang froid?

  57. Nicholas Weaver says

    Thorn: Actually, its both very short and very long.

    If he capitulates on Doe v Carreon, and if one of the defense attorneys in Carreon v Everybody doesn't want to go for the pound of flesh, the active Internet will generally forget about him by Monday.

    What problem he'll face is now his name is associated with this abusive lawsuit MO, because on the passive Internet, this stuff will stay up for years.

    Which means the "Process Server Shakedown Racket" is far less effective for him, and a different area of the law (or retirement) would be advisable.

    The other problem is any things put in motion (e.g. complaints to the CA and AZ state bar, CA FTB) that may have inertia. He kept the attention of the Internet for too long, long enough that somebody could have started something that, quietly, behind the scenes, will make Carreon's life miserable for months to come.

  58. Thorne says

    Oh, and all things being equal, I honestly believe I'd pay good money to see Tara go all "Rage Quit video" over this dismissal. ;)

  59. Nicholas Weaver says

    deezerd: He can. Quite easily in fact.

    All he has to do is offer to settle, immediately. All but the issue of attorneys fees is clear cut "He's gonna lose" anyway, and attorneys fees just go up the longer it takes for him to capitulate.

    I bet that if Charles settles over the holiday weekend, he can probably get away with "Agreed, and here's the $350 in court costs you incurred".

  60. Thorne says

    That's exactly what I was talking about, Nicholas…

    If he pops up down the road pulling the same kind of shit again, all it'd take is for the victim to reach out online, Monty Python "Help, help, I'm being repressed!"-style and the Illuminati will rise again. ;)

  61. HeatherCat says

    Hey @Nicholas – I think I'd like to supplement your discretionary fund by procuring some of that wine you speak of.
    I could definitely use some good stuff to imbibe when the next round surely comes forth in this saga.

  62. Al Parrott says

    One happy thought that hasn't really been addressed yet: This should legally clear the way for all the money to go to NWF and ACS, correct?

  63. Chris says

    @Al Parrott, all the money has gone to them and now there is no real threat of it going any where else.

  64. HeatherCat says

    The money's already sent to the charities – he didn't successfully impede that transaction, and Inman's filed 'proof' with the court.

  65. Patches says

    @Al Parrott: THAT ALREADY HAPPENED. Inman's counsel has declared in court documents that the checks have been sent by mail.

    Note that as the money has now all left Inman's/his counsel's possession, huge sections of Carreon's suit are now moot: in particular that whole part about Inman being able to run off with the cash.

    Ken: I am interested in knowing, is this it? Will there be a response from the judge/court?

  66. Al Parrott says

    Excellent. Now I want to see the picture of Matt sitting on a head-high pile of twenties. At least that part of this whole circus has gone very, very well.

  67. HeatherCat says

    I see that EFF has a nice post on their site regarding this.

    "This was nothing more than a meritless attempt to punish Inman for calling attention to his legal bullying. We called him out on this in our briefs, so it's no surprise that Carreon was left with no choice but to dismiss."
    Brilliantly and simply put.

  68. says

    ACS' attorney just filed a notice of appearance. Nothing substantive.

    And the judge in Doe v. Carreon just referred that case to judge Chen, who was overseeing Carreon v. Everyone, to determine whether the cases should be combined under Chen. I'm not sure what effect Carreon's voluntary dismissal will have on that.

    It'd be funny if Carreon were dismissing because he didn't like Chen, then Chen retains Doe v. Carreon — and any subsequent Federal case Carreon files (against Inman, etc.) gets referred back to Chen because he's overseeing Doe v. Carreon.

  69. Mark says

    Because all this without prejudice bullshit, I wonder if Inman will avoid making any comments on this case after it is officially dismissed.

  70. says

    How much of the law business is just messing with paperwork, anyway? I'd be tempted to call my hypothetical firm "Dead Tree Legal Services."

  71. Patches says

    @Mark: "I wonder if Inman will avoid making any comments on this case after it is officially dismissed." There is no reason why he shouldn't comment on it. After all, the case directly involved him. And if he chooses to draw a comic of Judge Chen ripping off Carreon's head with his teeth and spitting it out right in front of Tara, then so be it. Matt Inman, I hope you're reading this (so I can sue you for stealing my intellectual property of course).

    Here's a bit of fun for the Doe v. Carreon suit.

  72. Wondering says

    @Adam, I was also wondering if Carreon just didn't like the judge, and maybe wants to file again later — after the suit with Satirical Charles is over — in hopes to get a different judge. Perhaps one who didn't used to work for the ACLU.

    If Carreon comes out and brags he got Inman to do what he wanted and send all the money to the charities, then I will believe he won't sue again. At least not Inman. Perhaps he'll still go after the Does.

    If he doesn't come out and brag, I will worry he's just lying in wait to sue later, like he threatened to do to Satirical Charles.

  73. says

    I pointed this out in the prior thread, but since parties had to respond to the TRO, isn't that Murum Aries Attigit, e.g. isn't it too late for a 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and now it needs to be at least 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) if the other parties want to recover costs and fees and such?

    Plus doesn't he have to -move- to dismiss instead of simply declaring it?

    Notice that he is Pro Se again, so whatever law critter he found to take his case clearly told him to scuttle back under his rock.

    The question is, should he be allowed to do so, and if not can he be touched?

    If not, then this is a huge hole in federal civil procedure as a person could file and serve people pro se, and then engage an opponents lawyers in talks and such, and then amend, and then talk again, and then quit. Lather Rinse Repeat. Thereby letting a litigious ass-hat force you to spend far more than he without ever being able to get justice.

    Note that the same rule says that this dismissal is _without_ prejudice. While it's hard to re-file it isn't impossible for a censorious douchebag to do so.

    This seems broken.

  74. Patches says

    I JUST REALISED! Everyone here is overlooking the obvious! Carreon was scared away by Gino Romano's motion to intervene!

  75. says

    Inman should _immediately_ file the same thing Doe filed in the state of California so that Carreon cannot bring up the state-level causes of action on service mark infringement etc in that other court.

    IANAL; but damn, I know how these evil people (e.g. the ass-hats not the lawyers) think having been raised by vile crazy person.

  76. says

    @M. — just to reign pendant, "cooter" is slang for turtle and was so long before the whole sex context thing. Heck Cooter was the nickname of, well, Cooter on Dukes of Hazard on American prime time in the seventies, so its sexual connotation has to be fairly recent. Heck google "cooter festival" for a laugh (if the story is still there 8-).

  77. Kelly says

    I am still waiting for the proverbial other shoe to drop. I am too cynical to believe that he just said 'oops, my bad. I quit.' It wasn't even a rage quit or anything. As others have mentioned, what are the odds of him going at Inman at a state level now?

  78. GrimGhost says

    IANAL, so this might be a stupid question to law people, but–

    If CC was practicing law in Arizona (without a license), how would the relevant authorities find this out and prove it?

  79. says

    In favor of the TRO being M.A.A, the parties who responded had to research the claims, such as they were, in order to demonstrate that ass-hat was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his case.

    The commentary on rule 41 addresses the research expense as the reasoning behind the limit on a.1.A.i etc.

  80. Mike K says

    Any of those ways of keeping the case going would depend on the defendants wanting it to continue.

    My guess is that Inman doesn't care, his attorneys would probably prefer money but will do what's best for Inman, Indiegogo may want to go for blood, and the charities would probably rather not be seen as that petty (even if they'd prefer the money too).

  81. Frost says

    [GLaDOS voice:]

    "This was a triumph.
    I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
    It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction.
    Carreon Lawsuits
    We sue who we must
    because we can.
    For the good of all of us.
    Except the ones who are dead."

  82. Victor says

    Still see this popping up on his website – Due to security attacks instigated by Matt Inman, this function has been temporarily disabled.

    I say what's left of the carrion feeder is easy pickings for any countersuit.

  83. Margaret says

    a vexatious serial litigant who is either crazy or some sort of performance artist

    Why can't it be both? I THINK IT'S BOTH.

  84. Myk says

    EFF: "…We called him out on this in our briefs, so it's no surprise that Carreon was left with no choice but to dismiss"

    Is it just me, or does the image of EFF turning up in their underwear (briefs = underpants, for those confused) fit quite nicely, if not disturbingly, with the overall tone of Chuckles' approach?

  85. Margaret says

    And let me add: Carreon has brought vexatious serial litigants out like moths to the crazy flame! Truly, he is the light. (Of crazy.)

  86. Ollie says

    anyone else find the "inman" filing completely hilariou?
    more importantly, does anyone actually believe it was him?

  87. says

    @azteclady – (IANAL) but…

    If I were Inman I would argue that Carreon cannot just up and quit because by forcing the parties to "respond to the Temporary Restraining Order" (by dint of filing it) the parties -have- responded to the suit.

    Having made that argument I would offer instead a 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties, that says the dismissal is "with prejudice" so that Carreon can not ever bring this up again in any court as a cause of action.

    My plain reading is that a volentary dismissal needs to be "before the other party responds" which they have done, and the commentary at the bottom of the page http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_41 includes (in the 1949 commentary):

    [In referring to summary judgment motions] Since such a motion may require even more research and preparation than the answer itself, there is good reason why the service of the motion, like that of the answer, should prevent a voluntary dismissal by the adversary without court approval.

    Well temporary restraining orders aren't free of their responsive burden on the respondents, and that expense has been paid by several parties already.

    I don't think forcing Carreon to add "with prejudice" to his dismissal is any hardship on him in recompense for the expense paid by all other parties.

  88. Ollie says

    Robert, I think that is the best scenario to end this thing that I've seen since the idea of Carreon never filing suit to begin with.

  89. says

    Granted the claims were so bizzare and improper that having -them- gone, with or without prejudice, wouldn't really apply to any other irrational claims made by Carreon in the future.

    It would just be nice to not just have the box closed, but have the box locked and the key destroyed.

  90. Kelly says

    Okay the alleged Inman lawsuit seems to have the same bad SPaG as the other one attributed to the serial litigant. That being said, what are the odds of CC attempting to use this against Inman?

  91. says

    @Ollie – indeed, so the second best outcome — given our lack of a time machine and a means to kill Hitler, as it were — would be a scenario in which Carreon does not bring suit -again-.

  92. Mike K says

    @Kelly, Tara might use this in her rants, but I doubt Charles is stupid enough to try to claim such an obvious fake is legit. It's not like his name is Orly.

  93. says

    @ Robert White: Thank you!

    And yes, locking and then burying the box as far out of Charles Carreon's reach as possible would be best. Mind you, I really don't want the box destroyed–let it serve as an example to others thinking of filing frivolous suits.

  94. Chris says

    @Amanda, see proof that Inman is Illuminati. 7-11 is our secret code for Gamma Protocol.

  95. Kelly says

    @ Mike K- Lets hope not. Neither seem to be firing with all cylinders during this whole process and he did accuse Inman of shutting down his site, having an army of people harass him, etc… My concern was that this faux lawsuit would fit right in with the rest of the outrageous claims. Example: "Matt Inman told (Doe whatever # he is on) to file this false lawsuit against me to further harass me."

  96. Kelly says

    @ Robert White- *gapes* Dr Who told me that all of that happened- the time machine and killing Hitler. Surely BBC wouldn't steer me wrong, would it?

  97. Carlos says

    Oatmeal is a damned liar! Where's the pic of the money? :p :p
    Glad it went well, let's hope he won't try again and that the Satirical Charles may achieve success too!

  98. Mike K says

    If he were to accuse Inman of having someone else file a fake lawsuit as harassment, I'm pretty sure that Charles would be guilty of actual defamation rather than the stuff he's been accusing others of so far.

  99. Amanda says

    @Chris Now I know, and knowing is half the battle. (Also, I believe your secret code is now compromised).

  100. Berley says

    @ Ollie — shhh. You're going to get yourself kicked out of the Illuminati. And you don't want that to happen.

  101. AlphaCentauri says

    I know nothing about Jonathan Lee Riches other than what we all read in the last couple days. But I don't believe he is serious about the conspiracies he claims in his lawsuits.

    We've all gotten the random emails with paranoid ravings. (Or at least those of us who filter our spam ourselves have.) The stuff is like Tara's stuff. Real delusional ravings aren't random stream of consciousness. They may be "pressured" — ideas rushing ahead of the ability to express them — but there is a logic. It's just not based on reality. Paranoids aren't stupid; they just lack the ability to judge which things are really related and which are mere coincidence.

    Riches doesn't have an obsession with any particular person or organization. He doesn't weave a coherent conspiracy theory with unexplained loose ends; his ravings don't hang together at all. He files against anyone in the news and gets lots of attention. In contrast, we hear that he was very slick at scamming people in person and just started this nonsense when he was in prison, winning himself a place in a hospital prison. Could someone with a mind that totally disorganized have fooled anyone?

    Maybe he is a performance artist who decided to pursue his craft while in prison. But if I were federal law enforcement agents, I would be suspicious he has some scam going on, and that the vexatious litigation is both a diversion to distract attention from illegal activities and a scheme to allow him to claim insanity if he is caught.

  102. Dan Weber says

    Oh dear Lord, I hurt from laughing.

    Knowing that this joker was just getting himself deeper in hot soup with every word made it that much more salacious.

    It's probably a giant distraction from the free speech issues so I shouldn't laugh.

  103. Ollie says

    oh uhhh right that was a typo. it should have been rhyme machine. like the carreons!!! oops wait nevermind….
    don't worry, illuminati secrets are safe with me

  104. Jess says

    This seems so anti-climatic ,but I almost feel like I'm at one of those movies where they kill the bad guy at the end but suddenly he freakishly comes alive and tries to kill the hero at the last minute. Somehow it feels like it's not over just yet and we're going to see another freakish jack in the box moment.

  105. says

    The "oatmeal stains" after "everything" swelled are rather a nice touch, I think.

    But what exactly do you suppose is meant by an "offshore swiss bank account"?

  106. Grifter says

    Can someone explain to me a good reason that litigants are allowed to dismiss their own cases without prejudice, or an example where it would be in the service of justice to allow it? I don't understand why he's allowed to do it (well, I understand the rules allow it, but I don't get the logic of the rules).

  107. says

    @Ollie — we do NOT discuss the time machine or its usage — should it exist — in open channel.

    Seriously people read the handbook damnit…

  108. Ollie says

    Don't mention the handbook shhhhhh!!!!! talk about giving out illuminati secrets…..

  109. Kevin says

    Somehow, the mere theory that Carreon is just waiting for all the support and passion to blow over before refiling his charges sounds too plausible.

  110. says

    @Grifter – in a normal circumstance, the court doesn't want to dissuade normally not-irrational people from realizing they are making a mistake of circumstance or passion and withdrawing.

    Basically, in normal usage, this is the "my bad, sorry for being a dick, never mind" rule.

    But in normal usage the plaintiff isn't a vile contentious douche-hat ass-bag as proven by public distraction.

    The idea is if you can get the guy to take his ball and go home before the horns are locked and the opponent can engage counter complaints then its a good for everyone.

    The limit means, normally, that you don't get to force the other side to show their hand and -then- get a free, non-binding quitsies. Once you get to see the other guys hand, letting you quit so that you maybe refile with other arguments isn't fair so there is a limit there.

    Thing is, in the responses to the TRO, Carreon got to look at the other guy's hand without paying. That's normally a no-no.

    But, again, IANAL.

  111. Grifter says

    @Robert White:

    But what I don't understand is why there isn't prejudice in the dismissal; not sanctions, but definitely an official "this case was a mistake". Are there more consequences than I am aware of of the "with prejudice" aspect?

  112. Ollie says

    You win today by making the star wars reference
    Unless some trekie can fin something clever to throw in here…..

  113. Tali says

    So something that has me wondering about Jonathan Lee Riches if he did file that pro se complaint, is how does that (as well as the Geno Romano Carreon thing he filed) play into the fact that he has a court order banning him from filing under any alias without the court's permission? Does that order only apply to Michigan courts, since its where the order originated from (hence why he can file on the Carreon case in CA, and now this one in AZ), and will that play at all into any punishments he might receive from filing in Inman's name?

  114. Kelly says

    From Ars:

    When asked whether the EFF would pursue compensation for legal fees and attorney costs, Opsahl said stopped short of saying the dismissal of charges would bring an end to the whole debacle. “I'd have to talk to my client, can't make an absolute statement on what or next step would be.” I am hoping that this means they are going to nail his butt to the wall.

    But if the defendants pursued attorney's fees, the attention might be worth it for Charles Carreon. After asking for comment on his voluntary dismissal of charges, Carreon lilted over the phone, "I'm famous, I'm notorious." Which, from the looks of it, is exactly what he wants. Oh good gods, is he saying what I think he is? Was this really just a way to get his name out there?

  115. says

    "I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate," he said, commenting on litigation.

    So, no come-to-Jesus moment. He got Inman to do what Inman was going to do anyway, and never has to face being proven wrong about anything, ever.

    And let's not forget that this was all mounted in a purported defense of people being defrauded — not just by Inman, but by Indiegogo. If that had really been the motivation, he wouldn't have dismissed. You hear that, white-hat? You sold out the "public" you claimed to be riding in to protect (who didn't need or want your help in the first place), then declared victory and rode off into the sunset when the big guns came out.

  116. W Ross says

    It should be noted that this is about the time of night when Tara starts liveblogging/drawing in MS Paint. She should have a lot to say tonight (if Charles hasn't strengthened his Hand of Pimping +1 vs Witches. It's nearly the Fourth of July, so fireworks WOULD be appropriate.

    Hrm… it all wrapped up on the Fourth of July. How appropriate.

    Happy Fourth of July/Fuck Censorship Day, everyone.

  117. Thorne says

    "Unless some trekie can fin something clever to throw in here….."

    Errand of Mercy (1967):

    Captain James T. Kirk: Well, Commander, I guess that takes care of the war. Obviously, the Organians aren't going to let us fight.

    Kor: A shame, Captain. It would have been glorious.

  118. Kelly says

    @ W Ross: if Charles hasn't strengthened his Hand of Pimping +1 vs Witches. Hey now, legit witches might complain at the association with the batshit crazy lady. (kidding, mostly)

    It will be interesting to see if she is quiet or not.

  119. Chris says

    So he's infamous for crying like a baby about the internet, not accomplishing anything through his legal prowess, having a batshit crazy wife, and getting out lawyered at every turn, and making his clients look terrible. I am so glad he's happy with the outcome.

  120. Ollie says

    I think he's just trying to pretend this is how he wanted it to go so he feels smart and spites us all. what a prick.

  121. Rand Bell says

    I have to ask since it was my first thought and I haven't seen anything from Chuckles yet — is this real? Can someone game the electronic filing system to fake a dismissal? Or are there pretty strong safeguards against such a thing? Call me a skeptic but it seems very un-Carreon like to come to his senses.

  122. Kelly says

    @ W Ross- *grins* That works. Though, you probably got higher on her list of evil… wait should that now be considered a badge of honor, making her list o'evildoers I mean?

  123. Marzipan says

    @Frost, I LOL'd. Belatedly but fervently. So does this mean that the suit was a lie?

    In light of Ken's dictum, I also propose the Carreon ratio as the ratio of threats to specifics in a lawsuit. The higher the Carreon ratio, the more likely the suit is filed with the intent of being a censorious douchebag thug instead of a valid legal complaint.

  124. Mark says

    What a strange article on Ars, though. Did Carreon only throw pseudo-witty one liners as comments?

    "Mission Accomplished," "I haven't been commenting on litigation. I litigate," "I'm famous, I'm notorious."

    *douche chills*

  125. Thorne says

    Methinks he's been spending too much time around the Underpants Gnomes:

    Step One: Dismiss Lawsuit
    Step Two: ?????
    Step Three: PROFIT

  126. Marzipan says

    Here's my entry into the Carreon quote of the night.

    From the Devil's Advocate: "Lose? I don't lose! I win! I WIN! I'm a lawyer! That's my job, that's what I do!"

  127. Ryan says

    I still think this was just one truly truly outrageous (albeit poorly constructed) attempt by CC to get his name in lights. I would bet he knew all along where the point of no return was and planned on bailing right before the cage door shut. The only thing he didn't count on was Satrical Charles turning the table, so I suspect he'll cave on that case in very short order. Of course saying he planned this would imply he thought this all through, which would again imply rational thought, so there's the hole in my argument right there.
    As for Inman, I'd be very surprised if he pursued this any further. Right out of the gate he said "I just want to make comics". Even attempting to get "with prejudice" added to it would take up more of his time I'm sure he'd rather spend elsewhere. Inman knows he'd win; CC knows he'd lose.
    There's no Carreon vs. Goliath fable ending here.
    I think it's time to pack up the popcorn folks. Keep a box of Junior Mints handy for the Doe v Carreon case, but the main event is over.

  128. W Ross says

    @Kelly I never made her list. I fly under the radar, like a… uh… fly under a radar. That's OK though, cause I'm pretty sure a lot of her rage is sexual.

    @Chris A man on a sinking ship will be happy with a desert island I guess.

    @Ollie The RIAA, Penguin, or any number of other people will have their wicked ways with Charles Carreon, so don't think he got off scott free. Plus he has to live with Tara, so he's already in a kind of hell. The books will self-balance as long as they stay together.

  129. Marzipan says

    Here's my entry into the Carreon quote of the night.

    From the Devil's Advocate: "Lose? I don't lose! I win! I WIN! I'm a lawyer! That's my job, that's what I do!"

  130. Nicholas Weaver says

    THe more I think about it, the more I think is that the EFF and Inman are not going to quite let this lie, namely, since they did do the replies on the TRO, they need to force Carreon to change it to dismiss with prejudice.

    Especially since Carreon has threatened people with "I'll sue you, perhaps, not now but three years from now, when you no longer have a pro bono lawyer…"

  131. Kelly says

    @ W Ross- so you're like one of the human looking Cylons then? Well played! Ewwww, I did not need to think of her rage that way.

    Also, geek quote, though it is BSG not Trek, so I don't know if it counts. It seems fitting as they were talking about Baltar who is almost as strange as CC has been in this case…almost.

    Roslin: He's an odd one, isn't he?
    Billy: Cuckoo

  132. Mike K says

    "Whatever is wrong with you… is no little thing." (expect some of you will guess the movie pretty quick without an explanation)

    It's annoying that he's claiming victory, but since almost everyone involved predicted that he would, it's at least not a surprise.

  133. W Ross says


    New MSNBC story. Google mentions of "Charles Carreon" in the last hour up to 200. This is the end of the line, but who knows what they might throw in right at the end, so I'm sticking around past the credits (probably Nick Fury.)

    @Kelly I'll take that. You pick your geek Rouge/Infiltrator archetype and I'll roll with it. I'm easy that way.

    @Nicholas Weaver I agree. I worry that this is yet another strategy. I hope if he does attack again the person knows not to lose their shit, and to come find some help. I'm pretty sure most of us are ready to fight this asshat's bullshit to the grave as long as we can do it in our spare time, so a silent victim is really his only way to do any more damage.

  134. Amanda says

    It is highly illogical that I have initiated a geek-out on a (mostly) law blog.

  135. T.Stark says

    "Charles Carreon Batshit Crazy" comes back with 516 results in Google.
    "Charles Carreon douchebag" comes back with 22,000+ results.

    You are indeed, famous. I'm sure your Mother would be proud.

  136. dex says

    There's no way of getting satisfaction with a narcissistic personality like Carreon. He will always weasel out of the shit he starts at the last second, and claim victory.

  137. Chris says

    Carreon ended his interview, looking into Tara's eyes and said:

    "Worlds are conquered, galaxies destroyed…but a woman is always a woman."
    — James T. Kirk

  138. Kelly says

    @ W Ross- Oh now Nick Fury entering this debacle would be priceless. I am a Trekkie of course, but a bigger BSG geek.

    @Amanda- Nah, I think most of us are geeks here and we like to let the geek show as often as possible.

    @Nicholas Weaver- I think this is another strategy. Though I agree with W Ross, I would like to think that anyone else that faces this will actually ask for help and everyone will jump in to do just that.

    @ Chris- That link made me laugh aloud. Also loving the Kirk quote.

    @ T. Stark- thanks for the stats. He really needs to learn that infamous is not always a good thing. Sadly, I think he missed that day of class.

  139. just_wow says

    The best thing about the lawsuit filed in the name of Inman is that the events described in Dennys are not far fetched.

  140. Mike K says

    Chris, that quote reminds me of these song lyrics: "He was a boy. She was a girl. Can I make this any more obvious?" (Sk8er Boi for those of you too young to have heard it and those of you so old to have ignored it :p)

  141. HeatherCat says

    @Mike K, unfortunately I know of Ms. Avril's, um, "work". Can't really say I was ever a fan. But being in that later Gen-X demographic with a love for music and pop culture I have to keep up on these things for trivia night ;)

    And it's late on the east coast, I'm tired. Been one helluva show tonight, that's for sure.

  142. W Ross says

    @M He really looks like a proto-nosferatu, doesn't he? :D

    @Kelly Captain Kirk could have gotten a lot more done if he wasn't banging everyone he met. He was the John Edwards of Sci Fi. Trek is OK but I prefer Firefly/Dr. Who. I want to solve problems with my brain or viscous punching, space-diplomacy is for the birds.

  143. says

    @W Ross: I don't have any particular vitriol for him (other than standard dislike of troll douchecanoes), but my first thought was "what a pan-poser."

  144. Kelly says

    @M LMAO!

    @ W Ross – So true! YAY! Another Firefly & Who fan! Also, I call bonus points for the "proto-nosferatu" which explained it so much better than… oh dear gods, he looks rather Gollum-like, which was my first thought.

    @ Mike K- I have a teenage daughter, I recognized the song right off.

  145. dex says

    @M, love the pic. Spread it around. Send it to Tara; it deserves a place in the N Library.

  146. says

    @dex That's not a bad idea. I literally have no money, so if they sue me, i can just tie them up in court for years for the lulz. Any excuse to get dressed up.

  147. Gal says

    It really bothers me that a lawyer can bluff his way through so many double-downs, and not actually put anything in the pot.

    So Carreon's reputation is tarnished, great. How many other lawyers are there who make a living out of bullying people with the threat merit-less litigation?

  148. W Ross says

    @simcop No worries, it's late. Bunch of articles out (they'll pop up when my comment comes out of moderation, assuming Ken is up late, otherwise Forbes, Boing Boing, Seattle Times.)

  149. says

    (post the link here, that is, not link to my beauty blog that no one outside of a very specific demographic gives two damns about)

  150. Chris says

    Hey when did they change the banner of the nader library? I guess I've been scrolling down looking for new post and didn't notice the Carreon double middle fingers in the air? Or is that new?

  151. says

    Dang, I didn't realize Chris meant the "double middle fingers" in the air literally. Stay classy, Charles.

    @dex – Thanks! Some days the jokes really do write themselves.

  152. dex says

    Hilarious letter from Tara to R. Nader back in the day. (Sorry; not savvy enough to link. Sorry also if this is a repost.)


    Esp. love the description of the two fundraisers she and Charles threw for Nader, which attracted exactly one (apparently homeless) guest apiece. God, to have been a fly on the wall at those gatherings. Other highlights include a hypocritical defense of free speech, withering charges of out of touch-ness, and loving mention of riotous internet debate.

  153. Kris says

    What happened to the Trademark Infringement? You know, the thing he quoted as was the purpose of the suit, until he remolded the pile of reek into a "I'm fighting for the public re: charity donations"?

    I was initially of the mind that Inman could take the high road and be like, "You got your ass handed to you, legally speaking, so I'm going to leave it at that" and let it go. But now since this douchenozzle is claiming "The only reason Inman did what he was going to do anyway is because I stepped in", I really hope that this guy gets some serious legal hurt thrown his way.

    What a douche.

  154. dex says

    It's worth reading the posts that lead up to Tara's Nader email as well. Genuinely funny, with Tara quoting e.g. an administrator of the Nader Facebook page asking her politely to perhaps not comment quite so often, and Tara taking it as fascist suppression, etc.

  155. jj says

    Given his otherwise obnoxious threats to "Doe", one could construe his dismissal as part of his previously stated strategy, could one not? Or is this not so? I don't know. Mathematics is much clearer than law.

  156. Jonathan says

    Damn, I suppose it was fun while it lasted. *Shelves popcorn* I was really looking forward to seeing him thrown out of court.

  157. says

    "3. Based on some quick research, it appears to me that Mr. Carreon's voluntary dismissal of the action does not preclude Mr. Inman from seeking attorney fees and costs under the Lanham Act. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 394–95 (1990). That doesn't mean that Mr. Inman will, or should, seek fees, for practical reasons too lengthy to discuss in this post."


    …a rage-charity fundraiser for the ages?

  158. Joe Pullen says

    Well not completely over yet. Carreon may have dropped his suit against Inman but he never filed a suit against Doe. Doe filed against Carreon. The next question will be can Doe get Carrreon to capitulate on his threats of indeterminant future litigation against Doe or will Doe have to proceed and grind Carreon into the dust from whence he came.

  159. Joe Pullen says

    Good one Mark. I suspect Doe is about to school Charles in some real lawyering.

  160. Jeff says

    Ken, if you check the address in the purported Inman filing, it's Mitchell's Hall on George Washington University's campus in DC.

  161. Chris says

    @dex, yeah the Carreon Nader parties sound like a blast. I'm sure even the homeless guy that showed up was like "these people are nucking futs!" Could you imagine? You see a flyer for a political event and you're like "yeah I should go!" Only to show up and have Tara Carreon staring at you with her best "It" grin? No thanks.

  162. Nibor says

    A “little” thought on the situation:
    As far as I can follow it, FFE and possible IndieGoGo wrote CC some letters, in which they explain to him, why he wouldn’t possible win his case, probably doing so in in lawyer language and this must somehow made an appeal/click/connection to CC´s lawyer part of his brain.
    This would planted a seed that could bypass his ego and/or other half (not as in brain but as in man and wife), for is was using “logical lawyer reasoning and words” the only thing he actual understands with his intelligence.
    Note: For I found many comments/evidence of him being stubborn, foolish, narcissistic, sometimes plain mad, but he is an intelligent man, misguided maybe but intelligent never the less.
    Because this made him reasoning with his “mad” parts. Finally he got the message, that he couldn’t win and that it would possible harm him dearly in the process, so an/the survival mode was engaged (maybe willingly and knowingly but more likely he wasn’t aware of it himself)
    This mode/mind-set made him look for a way out and I guess this was around the time when he came up with the TRO, for it would force the hands of the others.
    Until now the letters could be dismissed ( for they weren’t real, only actual court documents are real).
    He knows when confronted with a TRO they have to react and show him (and the judge) at least a part of their cards.
    After having contacted IndieGoGo he knows the money is already gone, probably in the letters from FFE he has been told that the photo also is already taken, so the TRO helps him by accentuating the “all money to charity” part. He is shifting( in his head) the attention away from all the bogus/lost parts of his initial filing and as much as possible direct the attention to the part that he can consider (probably unconsciously) as his doing and as a win.
    Then when the reactions roll in and confirm that the money is gone, also the lawyers are making minced meat out of his original complaint in “real” (official court documents).
    And also is he confronted with a case against him, put to him in the only language he understands not obscured/distorted by his misled ego and significant other half.
    Now the reality kicks in, he has to survive, with the least of damages, so he goes for voluntarily dropping the case, just before a judge speaks (on the TRO part) so he actually does not lose.
    Now I am going in a part that I don’t know if it’s legally correct:
    Because the case is dropped before the other parties show hands (they showed it in the TRO case but not in the actual case itself) he still can get out without going to court. (possible compensations can’t be claimed) as would be impossible after the other parties had counter sued (anti-SLAPP?) or filed their defence.
    So in his mind he has shifted attention to the part that is safe, he sees this is accomplished, he pulls out and he untimely wins. Bzinga (for he hasn’t lost the case so it’s a win)
    The other case in which HE is sued is not related to this win and will be dealt with from now on
    That other thingy is gone now and he is safe again, by settling out of court, which I think he will try to do, when he realises he will lose if he continues (don’t forget he is still in contact with reality as much as possible for him from that other thingy).
    Also is in his mind his beloved Nader is involved, or at least his company and even CC hasn’t the guts to go against his holy “man-god” .
    But if it is settled out of court again he survives without losing so he wins, a double Bzinga.
    If only J.Doe agrees to a settlement.

    Note to J.Doe: Please don’t :-) , otherwise I really will have too much time on my hand and I will have to find/search another hobby.

    But this is only a "little" tought of me ;-)

  163. Thomas says

    So Nader Library's banner image has been replaced with Charles at home, giving the finger in a Joey Ramone shirt. This seems to scream, with no subtlety, that he's bizarrely claiming victory and giving us all a big FU…

  164. Roxy says

    To quote inception, I am disappoint.

    I still don't know what he thought he was going to accomplish here. :/ I do, however, know by looking up past bar punishments on lawyers he would have walked away with a slap on the wrist at most. :/

  165. Roxy says

    Also, I realllllllllly hope Inman draws a graphic to go along with the bogus lawsuit.

  166. W Ross says

    @Nibor Nice find.

    Charles Carreon is 1/64th Cherrosqua Injun, and 1/75th Spanglish Tanquistador… He's TOTALLY not white. There's nothing more urban than a litigator from Oregon.

    "When cute Mexicanas are flirting
    Red blooded chamacos must play
    It's true we don't do much computing
    You don't make Mexicanos that way."

    Maybe if you spent less time hag-bagging and more time computing you'd know the things a person ought not do on the Internet, though. Just a thought.

  167. FlounderFather says

    Well #grimghost … The phone number you posted belongs to a watch dealer in Cour DeLane Idaho … Please folks, don't call it unless you need a watch. Though they could make money selling a novelty one with an overweight trailer trash woman as the second hand chasing a bear minute hand …

  168. says

    RE: Doe vs Carreon, I don't think he -can- "settle that out of court" as the point of the suit is to get the court to say that Carreon's threats barred.

    RE: Carreon vs Innman, section 41 says that those dismissals have some sort of future weight as it they were findings of fact or some such. IANAL so I didn't understand. My worry is the servicemark nonsense which can come back under rules in some state; composted with the weird vagueness of the original clams being so unclear as to allow this dismissal to not apply to all sorts of similar but differently worded things.

    To some extent I think Inman needs to join with Doe for the "this douch-canoe just cant sue us for trademark and servicemark nonsense, ever, after threatening barratry/lawfare" finding from the court.

    IANAL, so this is all lay-reading.

  169. says

    @W Ross — something that no good racist would ever admit, but that history reveals with certitude: There is no such thing as "white" for all practical purposes.

    Between the ability of arbitrary members of various blood lines to "pass for white" (which most youngsters don't even know is a thing now days); and the fact that Europe was invaded from every direction in every generation; "being white" is being a mongrel in great depth.

    The two reasons that "white people" covered the earth are (1) having come from everywhere, we had immunities in our genes to all the local diseases from everywhere, and (2) we were so used to land changing hands by force that our idea that "if you can take it, god meant it just for you" (a.k.a. "might makes right" a.k.a. "manifest destiny") let us get well past the enlightenment and into the age of ocean voyaging, without balkanizing.

    The only thing we lacked was the "native american" blood lines, and so an ingrained resistance to syphilis, and we are fixing that now.

    Having been in school through that time when integration became normal, and having been raised in so-cal by completely race-agnostic parents I totally didn't appreciate the experience at the time, then I moved to maryland at 12 and was all WTF?

    To this date when I see a muddled crowd of "white" people, especially on TV, with their various hair and eye colors barking about "the purity of the white race" I have to suppress a laugh in the name of my own safety.

    I am pretty sure that's why racists go to the skin-headed. If you cut off all that hair, the absurdity of "racial purity" is easier to hide from, and the cognitive dissonance is minimized.

  170. Valerie says

    A treat for the 4th of July. After listening to Charles sing about chili peppers and how Mexican he is, you can read this and learn a little history:

    "A plaque in front of the Santa Barbara Courthouse, placed by the Daughters of the American Revolution commemorates de Anza’s arrival at the location on July 4, 1776. Thus, my relatives were busy settling the west coast for the King of Spain, while the Mayflower descendants were telling George the First to piss off."

    He is only 2 Georges off.

    And if you don't believe he is a genuine certified minority, there is this:

    "I have lots of experience with prejudice, even though most people think I’m “white.” In Mexico, I was called a “gringo,” and treated badly. In Washington D.C., I was called a “honky” by black people. Innumerable “white people” have asked me what I “am.” When I answer, “I’m a Mexican,” they often reject the idea, telling me “Oh no, you’re Spanish.” To which I respond that once the Mexicans and Spaniards got in bed together, it got hard to tell. In the blood of my family, there are many people called Native Americans – two hundred years in the desert will erode a lot of race purity – but my Mom, whose own mother was obviously a tiny woman of indigenous origins, never thought of herself as “an Indian.” Blindness is in the eye of the beholder."

    Fight the power, Charles, fight the power.


  171. Joe Pullen says

    Couple of key points to remember that will be interesting as this saga continues – because it is indeed not over yet.

    (1.) Carreon sued Inman – FunnyJunk did not sue Inman. FunnyJunk walks away unscathed, their only cost being Carreon’s original representation fees and a good bit of internet bad will which will soon be forgotten because their audience has the attention span of a lightening bug. FunnyJunk has benefited by enjoying a temporary bump in website traffic and potentially revenue. Most likely scenario – Carreon approached FunnyJunk convincing them he could get $20K out of Inman with a 40% cut to himself (so as W. Ross said, he could make rent). Although FunnyJunk has not announced anything it is highly likely they dropped Carreon as their representation which would explain why Carreon filed personally against Inman – most likely due to his butt-hurt feelings of being made to look like a fool and the loss of his perceived entitlement to 40% of a baseless lawsuit for $20K.

    (2.) Although Carreons suit against Inman was dismissed without prejudice, Doe’s lawyers have filed a referral of Doe’s case to the same judge on Carreon’s original suit against Inman. I’m not a lawyer but I have to wonder if this will ultimately change Carreon’s case against Inman to being dismissed “with” prejudice as Mark noted thereby closing the avenue of Carreon refilling this against Inman in the future.

    (3.) Regardless, the referral was a master stroke by Doe’s lawyers in the case Doe has filed against Inman. If that case proceeds, it helps demonstrate a pattern of vexatious litigation and abuse of process by Carreon. Keep in mind Carreon has not yet replied to Doe’s case. If he has, I’ve not seen it yet. I hope Doe will not drop his case until Carreon capitulates 100% and agrees to all of Doe’s demands. If the referral is upheld, and I suspect it will be, and Carreon does not come to mutual agreement with Doe, I predict the case will go badly for Carreon. I see no way out for Carreon on this one and I think he is finally about to get skewered good and proper.

  172. Nicholas Weaver says

    Charles CAN settle Doe v Carreon out of court. All he has to do is agree to the terms of relief that the suit seeks. I

    bet he will, he'd be stupid not to, and his sudden "Me Bad" in Carreon v Everybody shows that althouh he's a reprehensible bully and a censorous asshat, he's not entirely devoid of intelligence.

  173. Joe Pullen says

    Nicholas – agreed as long as he has come to the realization he can't win that case. I don't think he is stupid, just stubborn and lacking the ability to see other people may be smarter and a few moves ahead of his game. I do not think he counted on Doe suing him and this likely took him by surprise.

  174. says

    Llachlan, in this context "answer" means a specific pleading that admits or denies the allegations in the complaint. It doesn't mean any filing whatsoever.

  175. Moo says

    The last part of the Ars article is interesting…where he mentions that he's famous.
    Was that the point of it all along? To get his name out? Or was it attempt at a save. Like "I'm not really that huge of a douchebag…I just really want my name in the lights!"

  176. Moo says

    Also…I wonder if he means "Mission Accomplished" with a Bush flair?

    As in…this will keep going on until you lose all expectation for it to end…

  177. Nate says

    Ah Chuckles, you might have stood a chance that we'd believe you'd dismissed because you'd achieved what you wanted to, if you hadn't said in one of your interviews (and in your complaint) that you wanted to change the way charitable contributions through sites like Indiegogo worked (indeed one of the prayers for relief involved halting all the current campaigns) and subjecting them to what you perceived was the way the California law worked.

    I do hope that Inman's lawyers advise him to not leave it at this without getting it "with prejudice" and getting fees. Do they have to agree with the dismissal since they had to submit for the TRO? Or does just the judge have to sign off on it? If he gets the dismissal as it stands, I wonder if Inman can enjoin with Doe for declaratory relief.

  178. Llachlan says

    @Ken – but doesn't the filing by Indiegogo (and the EFF) count as denying the complaint? Or is it the fact that the action being sought was a TRO, and hence doesn't really contain a complaint? And thank you for taking the time to reply earlier.

  179. Nate says

    Annnd apparently I should have refreshed since this morning. Ken answered the questions with regards the TRO answering and I see the Doe case was passed to Judge Chen. This could still be popcornworthy.

    Off to bed now, wondering what I'll wake up to in the morning lol.

  180. Nate says

    @Joe lol, sadly not on a work night (partners' not mine, since I'm a kept man) ;) lol.

  181. Valerie says

    Any chance Inman can take further legal action, since Charlie is basically accusing him of planning to criminally defraud people with this "Mission Accomplished" bull shit (predictable, but galling).

    I really hate to think of this asshole doing a victory lap for a fictional act of heroism & facing no substantial repercussions for abusing his license & giving some decent people a whole lot of undeserved trouble.

    Has anyone photoshopped his head on flyboy Bush yet? Because that really needs to happen and be sent along to the Nader Library so Tara can stick a penis on it.

  182. Stuart says

    @WRoss: Sounds like someone needs a history lesson with that song. I mean it was the Spanish that claimed that area not Columbus.

  183. Chris R. says

    Just noticed this browser had me down as Chris and the other as Chris R. I had switched to Chris R. after the other guy wanted to hack naderlibrary. So back to this name.

  184. Valerie says

    @ Stewart Well, he also thinks that Americans are celebrating their independence from George I today. (just two Georges short of being correct!).

    And he thinks the federalist papers were written in secret during the revolution to keep them out of British hands (just half a decade, one war, and one independent nation away from being correct!).

    He is also a civil rights legend, having stared down viscous racism for decades! He has been called "gringo" in Mexico and "honkey" in DC and he has even been called "white" by other white people!

    Clearly a well informed and self-effacing member of the California Bar.

  185. Stuart says

    I really hope Inman makes sure to get it dismissed with prejudice and recovers legal fees. I usually don't like to kick em when they are down but CC has it coming since he's laying there saying how he won. He needs to be shown he did not win and made to admit it.

  186. dex says

    Chas is also quite a mover and shaker in political circles, having hosted two fundraisers for Ralph Nader that unfortunately didn't raise any funds because no one came. It was just Chas and Tara sitting at a table littered with patriotic confetti wheezing into noisemakers and thinking dark thoughts about fascistic communists.

  187. Snowydew says

    I did a quick google check and figured out the person posing as Inman in this weird lawsuit you mentioned is most likely a Student at George Washington University, according to the address given.

  188. Jon says

    I think the only person here who didn't lose out is Carreon:
    1. Oats didn't take the picture with the money (using his own money isn't the same) as I think was the only real purpose of the lawsuit
    2. The next DB who wants to extort money knowns Carreon is now famous for following through on threats to grind the defendant down (how many people will see a letter for nut-job carreon and pay to not go down this path?
    3. Oats, Indiegogo and the charities had to pay (or use up a pro-bono resource) to defend against this.

    For the cost of a few filing fees his site saw a spike in traffic (as did FJ I'm sure) to his website, and he now has "marketed" as an unreasonable attorney who is better settled with than faced to millions.

    I beg whoever can bring the anti-SLAPP against him does, and that the defendants seek to recoup their legal fees.

  189. Joe Pullen says

    Not to worry Chris R. – we know our illuminate brethern by the secret handshake and the zebra protocol. If you're managing your image via Gravatar you can change the name there and it will populate to all your current and prior posts.

  190. says

    Okay, yes, Doe v. Carreon could settle, but if he's a big of a lawfare douche as we know him to be, and as he has threatened to be, the settlement wouldn't be worth the paperwork it was written on.

    The settlement being a private thing, would be subject to contract law (I think, again IANAL) in terms of interpretation etc. and so would not bear the weight of a true finding of the court.

    So ass-hat could just violate it later, claim it was for a different or more limited set of facts, and then fight out the tort when Doe complained.

    Courts don't mind contract disputes all that much, but they hate it when you play games and misrepresent prior judgments.

    I'd go for the ruling. If Carreon decides to play nice, let him stipulate the facts and then let Doe have his just and binding ruling.

  191. Valerie says

    @ Jay Lee Excellent work, Agent Orange, the Master will be pleased…

  192. says

    @Jay Lee: Yours has far better comedic value than mine. I think it's the fact that he looks like a poseur dumbfuck instead of just looking like a stereotypical pedophile, as in the more lawyerly photo.

  193. says

    I think Inman is pissed off, and I predict that he does not quietly abide the dismissed suit and "Mission Accomplished" crap. I'd feel the same way.

  194. says

    I do think it is interesting that the RIAA has gone after some small offenders with only an IP address. There is very clear evidence that Carreon is hosting copyrighted songs and books on his site. He doesn't hide the fact.

    He does have one pending lawsuit from Penguin Books I believe about hosting books illegally on his site, but shouldn't the RIAA peg him as well? Or are the RIAA only interested in bullying people who can't afford lawyers?

  195. Kris says

    You know, rereading Inman's blog post just after the closing of the fundraiser, Inman was a bit ambiguous about the photograph of the money. He states simply, "Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother." While the initial response letter on TheOatmeal states, "I'll take a photo of the raised money", it still could be interpreted both ways. Either a.) the actual money from the fundraiser, or b.) the equivalent raised money.

    Money is money.

    This makes it even funnier in a very snarky way that Douchebag sued in the first place (regarding the money, anyway). This could have been Inman's plan all along (not even touching the money from the fundraiser, but taking photos of *other* money equivalent to the raised amount).

  196. Narad says

    I did a quick google check and figured out the person posing as Inman in this weird lawsuit you mentioned is most likely a Student at George Washington University, according to the address given.

    Yes. As everyone knows, a pro se complaint with a fake name always includes the correct street address.

  197. Dan Weber says

    TJ, my standing theory (that I've said a few times) is that no one noticed Penguin v Chas because Chas flew under their radar. The attention that he claims he wanted is going to turn out to be unwanted pretty soon.

  198. W Ross says

    I knew they wouldn't leave us. They have Internet Stockholm Syndrome now, and only seek to entertain and delight us with their antics!

  199. AlphaCentauri says

    If you run your law practice out of your home, and you have a wife who can't stop posting things on the internet, you don't have much of a legal career anyway.

    She also said that that previous problem with the misappropriated client funds was due to her actions rather than his. Maybe his failure to get licensed in the state where they live is purposeful.

  200. W Ross says

    The video will be pulled or muted within 48 hours due to infringement. These are the Carreons we're talking about; they'll use copywrited stuff, the the video will get pulled. Then the Carreons will sue You-Tube.

    This is the Prophecy of the Illuminati, and so it will come to pass within two fortnight's, probably.

  201. says

    @AlphaCentauri: not sure what her actions would have been to do render her (and not Charles Carreon) liable — it wasn't her name and signature on the checks.

  202. Valerie says

    Thank God! I thought the Carreons had forsaken us! I am literally on the edge of my seat (well, the edge of a playground bouncy horse, or swing, or something) waiting with baited breath to enjoy "Psycho Santa" and see how she one-ups our eeevvviiilll plot to rule the world using only the power of cray-cray & the sweet gift of music (Giggling excitedly).

  203. Valerie says

    She seems to have re-written her advertisement for "Psycho Santa." It will not just be any video, oh no, it will be an "intelligent video" because "there is so much you can do when you make a video":

    "We're making the video, "Psycho Santa," right now. It's going to be interesting. We're coming onto your playground, evil children. We're going to make an intelligent video. It's not like there are very many out there. Thank God for the ones that are there. It'll probably be another day or two. There is so much you can do when you make a video."
    Its like waiting for Christmas morning!

  204. W Ross says

    Called that shit. We aren't even past the title and it's already derivitive. Wonder which Ramones song he uses in it.

  205. Ollie says

    The illuminati will take care of the video. Youtube will take it down for "copyright infringement"….. hehehe always 1 step ahead

  206. Bill H says

    Carreon, my wayward son,
    There'll peace when you are done
    Lay your oddball suit to rest,
    Don't you sue no more

    Masquerading as a man with a butthurt,
    I thought I could sling a little law dirt
    But if I claim to be a wise man,
    It surely means that I don't know.

    All the wild claims and the odd positions,
    I still wouldn't clarify my true intentions
    And as I spin my story ever wider,
    I ignore the voices as they say!!

    Carreon, my wayward son,
    There'll peace when you are done
    Lay your oddball suit to rest,
    Don't you sue no more

    Apologies to Kansas

  207. Valerie says

    Here is Chuckles preemptive strike against copyright hawks who might tear down his wife's masterpiece:

    Creativity vs Copyright:

    Highlights: the sheer fucking irony + Chas preforms some Shakespeare, uses the phrase "ass-shakers," and discusses Puff Daddy.

    If you want to read Charles' words of wisdom instead of seeing him blandly recite them in front of some miscellaneous crap in his house, you can go to this page. Be warned, Charles, the accomplished lawyer, has not yet mastered the paragraph.


    I really hope the production values on Psycho Santa will be better than this crap.

  208. Valerie says

    Valerie • Jul 4, 2012 @9:29 pm

    Here is Chuckles preemptive strike against copyright hawks who might tear down his wife's masterpiece:

    Creativity vs Copyright (links to video on Youtube):

    Highlights: the sheer fucking irony + Chas preforms some Shakespeare, uses the phrase "ass-shakers," and discusses Puff Daddy.

    If you want to read Charles' words of wisdom instead of seeing him blandly recite them in front of some miscellaneous crap in his house, the script is also on this page. Be warned, however, Charles, the accomplished lawyer, has not yet mastered the paragraph.

    I really hope the production values on Psycho Santa will be better than this crap.

    Your comment is awaiting moderation

  209. Henry the Great says

    Hopefully their video editing skills are better than their design sense…

    With the amount of popcorn I have consumed through this saga, I hope I can get a deal with weight watchers…. call it the 'Douchebag Discount'

  210. Dan Weber says

    While the initial response letter on TheOatmeal states, "I'll take a photo of the raised money", it still could be interpreted both ways. Either a.) the actual money from the fundraiser, or b.) the equivalent raised money.

    Money is the ultimate fungible good. One dollar is as good as any other dollar.

  211. StillNoCouch says

    Two quick things:

    1) RE Inman's photo: I do hope he sends publishes and sends it with the following caveats:

    1a) That he send him a simple color print-out of a "Right-Click, save-as", unsigned version.
    1b) That he offers (for a modest fee to cover postage and/or charitable donation to charity), signed copies

    I would sort of expect that if Inman actually sent an original photo to this Douchebag, that it would eventually show up on eBay. Bear Love Good, Cancer and allowing this Douchebag make any money Bad.

    2) Response to the TRO seems like a response to me. Carreon can't dismiss his own lawsuit. Does he believe he is the judge in this case (and effectively the judge in the Doe case as well) ?

    My feeble, 'non-lawyer' brain seems to suggest that this isn't over until Judge Chen says it's over. I hope that Inman and his team go after (and get) FULL compensation for fees.

    This has been a very educational series — as much as entertaining.

    Thanks to Ken@Popehat, Kevin@LoweringTheBar, World+Dog@ArsTechnica … even Elie@AboveTheLaw for all of the wonderful write-ups and analysis.

    Thanks also to the EFF and Venkat Balasubramani for some intelligent insights.

    @Ann above: Will you marry me ?

  212. AlphaCentauri says

    @Adam Steinbaugh, not sure, just saying what she said. Maybe she directed crazy vibrations his way while he slept. More likely, as his administrative assistant, she would write checks for all the bills for him to sign, and he, being a trusting husband/employer, signed without questioning.

    That's how lots of embezzlement occurs, when people hire friends and relatives and stop asking questions.

  213. ThatDCGuy says

    Is it possible we are all victims of the worlds greatest troll? I mean this whole Saga is just so illogical I can't imagine anyone believing it would work out in their favor.

  214. Ollie says

    @thatDCguy, you might just be right
    Someone should edit carreon's wikipedia page so it mentions him as "world's greatest troll".

  215. Connie says

    In order to handle his new found 'fame', Charles Carreon should team up with social media expert Paul Christoforo. I think Ocean Marketing would be a perfect agency to represent him!

  216. Elliot says

    @Connie: That's "Ocean Marketting." And I think Carreon would do better by hiring Joseph Rakofsky as his lawyer.

  217. Elliot says

    @StillNoCouch: Carreon has the right at this point to drop his suit, without the judge's approval, because the defendants have not filed an "Answer" in the technical sense (see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 7(a), 8(b), 12(a, b). For example, if a plaintiff serves a Complaint and the defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff can voluntarily discontinue at that point. The defendants can, however, still pursue a motion for sanctions, although most judges will not sanction a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed. The defendants' lawyers may call up Carreon and offer to waive any sanctions motion in exchange for Carreon agreeing to make his dismissal with prejudice, though that assumes some rationality on Carreon's part.

  218. W Ross says

    Wait, wait, wait. So am I to understand that Charles Carreon doesn't believe in copywrite at all? So he'd have absolutely no problem with me remixing his song?

  219. Mike K says

    While he doesn't think copyrights should exist, he's a lawyer that appears to only care about himself. My conclusion based on that is that he would probably have a problem with someone using his intellectual property without his permission if for no other reason than because he could try to make money off of suing over it (he'd also have a problem with the way you would choose to do it, but ya know what I mean).

  220. Chris R. says

    @W Ross, he doesn't believe in copyright but he is will to threaten a DMCA takedown notice against his parody site. So…

  221. says

    Some have come forward to defend Carreon saying he is normally a good guy and a defender of the 1st Amendment. Some have speculated if his apparent descent into madness is a recent event, or why he'd argue the opposite of what he has argued in the past. Are we seeing one moment in a man's life and judging him unfairly compared to his entire life?

    I'd say no. We've been examining his websites. We've read his Vogon-esque poetry and seen his videos. The truth is, he's been unhinged at least as long as he has been posting online. And as far back as we can tell, he's been a bully. He loves ripping into people. He doesn't attack arguments, he attacks people. He's vile and vindictive.

    Holding the 1st Amendment up as a banner has only been a pretense for him to lash out at others in much the same way Fred Phelps argues that all Americans should die and that he hates the country, but it doesn't apply to him as an American. He is a saint who should be protected by the laws of the country he loathes.

    What really gets me is that as best I can tell, Carreon was set off by misinterpreting Inman's attack on FunnyJunk's mother. (I also know that someone posted the name of FunnyJunk's owner last year on the Oatmeal Facebook page. It is possible Inman has known the entire time his name and opted to not expose him publicly because he is being the better man).

    When it was explained to Carreon that he made a simple mistake and that his mother was never threatened, Carreon didn't shift gears or stand down. He repeated time after time that this was about his mother. He opted to live in a delusion rather than accept the reality that everyone else could see.

    I wonder how effective he is as a lawyer with such tactics.

  222. Mike K says

    I still say something about that picture makes me think of some kind serial killer, but I didn't realize either of the Carreons were truthers. I will admit it's kind of fun watching videos on YouTube talking about the various conspiracies responsible for what happened to the towers, but the idea of a conspiracy on that scale is somewhat beyond belief for me.

  223. Mark says

    With all these acronyms I'm a little lost. Is CC a CD and when he dresses up he goes by Tara?

  224. Jon says

    I wonder if Carreon will sue FJ when his material makes its way onto the site without permission or compensation…

  225. says

    @W. Ross — "Copyright" not "Copywrite". Presuming you speak of the granted right to control the reproduction, e.g. copying, of your original works, and so "copy-rights" shrunk to one word.

    I don't believe in Copywrite either, I hate advertising and marketing.

    [Def: Copywriting is the act of writing copy (text) for the purpose of advertising or marketing a product, business, person, opinion or idea.]

  226. cfoesch says

    … dude, I've tried to look at anything from Tara, but it's all this weird surreal word salad… I think it shows a profound lack of thought coherence, and … well, I just can't read any of it, because my mind just cannot follow it.

    It's like she's talking gibberish or something. Has anyone ever examined her for schizophrenia?

  227. ShelbyC says

    So he admits that his purpose in filing the lawsuit was to supress Inman's and the donors' speech, preventing Inman from taking a picture of the money as a "Fuck You" to him and his client. Sounds like an improper purpose to me. Seems like he's itching for Rule 11 sanctions to me.

  228. AlphaCentauri says

    Carreon got nothing for his efforts except a long-lasting internet record as a tragically incompetent attorney who is interested in promoting himself even when it undermines his client's case. My response to anything he says now is filed under, "Don't feed the troll."

  229. W Ross says


    "And this collage that I did of Kathleen Parker, one person posting at Ken's Popehat site, described as Kathleen Parker getting gangbanged. She's not getting gangbanged. I would never do that to a woman, not even one I hate. Here, Kathleen's totally in control, grabbing two penises, which symbolize UNCHECKED MILITARISM and CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT, and taking her "pleasure" from them, the penises and her pleasure functioning as sexual puns. Is it so far out to symbolize these political realities as penises? Come on! Rockets, guns, the military are all about penises. We can't fucking get away from the damn things. The Priapus people just can't stand me criticizing their principle object of worship! So much of the trouble in our world comes down to the Priapus people."

    You're right, I bet she felt beautiful and empowered from your artwork, Tara.

  230. Chris R. says

    W Ross, she has entered protocol sigma, where as she feels the need to justify everything to us. Within weeks maybe days, she will have come full circle and be one of us. Tara will be a fine initiate.

  231. FloydPepper says

    The crazy is wayyy too much on that site, @W Ross.

    She started referencing Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (one of the best sci fi series of all time, IMO), and I had to close the window.

    “Would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?” -Arthur, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  232. Mike K says

    I was kind of wondering how she missed that the point of how that missile incident was described was for humo(u)r. I mean it's obvious (at least to me), but I can honestly say after reading the entire trilogy (just the 5 books, never heard the radio versions) that there is definitely a lot of humorous violence. For instance, all the other times that the bowl of petunias dies (hilarious taken all together).

  233. Soma says

    I spotted at least 20 typos in Carreon's one-page filing, but my favorite was how he signed the filing "Attorney for Pro Se for Plaintiff." Typos aside, what a wonderful oxymoron to sum up the whole LOLsuit.

  234. Mark says

    Wow, looks like we're going to be entertained for quite some time, it seems.

    I really want one person, just one non-family-related person, to move forward and publicly defend them—without resorting to the "he is/was a nice guy but seems to be having some sort of psychotic breakdown at the moment" apology, of course.

  235. says

    I don't know what's more disturbing. The video itself, or my two year old dancing to it. In other news, I now have that song in my head. I will go open a vein now.

  236. W Ross says

    It's sub ICP's "Miracles". Charles is likely tone deaf, because he's not doing the punk thing; he's definitely TRYING to sing.

    Now we know what all the shitty Tuscon fanzine art was for.

    Charles, you're a better lawyer than you are a musician, and I mean that sincerely.

  237. Nibor says

    On the bottom there is a link to:

    I guess they will us this one now and stop on "Nader Lib."

    Gosh, Where is my popcorn, hmmm I am out, I will go to chips than.

  238. Nibor says

    I'm still not getting those HTML Codes right :-( :

    "A Distributed Internet Reputation Attack or, What You're Left With After You've Suffered One

    A First-Person Case Study: The FunnyJunk-Oatmeal-Carreon-Inman Affair

    Cast of Characters
    Inman and theoatmeal.com
    Ars Technica
    Marc Randazza
    The Fake Tweeters
    The Cybersquatters
    The DOS Attacker and Assorted Rapeutationists
    The Digital Mob

  239. W Ross says

    Yeah. The blue at the top is pretty aggressive and it's hyper minimalist, but that's because they're too old to computer and were probably really stoned when they made it on their Commodore 64 in the 30 minutes before their Osteia orgy.

  240. Eric R. says

    If I'm understanding his "legal analysis" (and believe me, the thought of understanding CC is quite disturbing in itself), he seems to be saying, "I did something stupid, and people had the outrageous gall to talk about it and make fun of me for it. We need to change the laws so they can't talk about me or make fun of me anymore."

  241. W Ross says

    OK so play the first four seconds of the video with the volume on max. Why is he subliminally adding "Up your shaft. Up your shaft. Up your shaft." To this video?

  242. Nibor says

    Looking at the source code, actualy expecting a ASCII dick or something, but it is actual a basic theme from Worldpress: Dark Temptaion theme by dynamicguru.com
    So not even original on that one altough like the name specaly if that shaft thing from W Ross is true.

    @ Catirical Charles , I know you read this thread too, nice new look but damn why the serif font, it takes me twice as long to read it (my detailed auti view gets the better of me)

    By the way, that is probable why I saw the "next" link at the bottom, but she or he is edditing it as we type because it has changed form the first time is looked at it.

  243. Chris R. says

    I like the Bobby Ray Inman in the old fashioned dive suit. Favorite part ever. In all reality I was actual disappointed with the production quality. Like they had 3 full days to work on that shit. No wonder he can't lawyer for shit.

  244. Valerie says

    I bet a lot of people who go to "raputation.com" will be expecting something very different.

  245. says

    1. Sue person you believe is responsible for screwing up your reputation
    2. Include new invented tort of "cybervandalism" in your Complaint
    3. Amend your Complaint to do ???
    4. Dismiss entire lawsuit, declaring victory
    5. Allege that person you were suing is liable for a second invented tort.

    Somehow, I think Step 5 should have come before Step 4, but that's just me.

  246. Nate says

    Srsly? This is how CC chooses to try and turn this shit around? Wow!

    Carreon sickens me, now the shit storm has died down on him he comes up with rapeutation. I guess we shouldn't expect anything else from people like that (with a wife who throws around the term nazi in a way that shows she has no real concept of what that means or what they actually did). As a rape survivor I take exception at his implication that what's happened to his reputation by his own actions comes anywhere close to rape! If I thought he was a douche before he's just dropped himself to a whole new level.

    I hope he's continued to be treated with the contempt he deserves. Ugh!

  247. W Ross says

    @Charles I podcast and do audio drama for a (kinda) living.

    Your mic is distorted. Whatever else is awful with this video, take a step back from the mic and buy a pop filter. Your plosive P's and sillibate S'es are RIDICULOUS.

    It's a microphone, not a dick. You don't have to put the damn thing inside your mouth.

  248. Chris R. says

    So I guess if someone picks on me online I can make up a word using "rape" to silence my critics right? "YOU CANT TELL ME I ASKED TO BE RAPEUTATIONED! WTF!?!?!?!'

  249. Anglave says

    I've been wading through the "Nader Library" and hadn't come across this snippet before. I thought it was wild enough to warrant repeating.

    "Then there's this other William Inman who was just convicted of murdering his wife. And his father's name is "William," too. Lots of freekin' William Inmans in the world. I wonder if there's any relation here to Matt Inman. I ask because according to Matt Inman's theory of life, any association between persons among whom one is allegedly guilty of some crime convicts the whole bunch. So if they ARE related, then Matt Inman is guilty of murder. He's obviously guilty of all his father's crimes of resisting arrest and reckless driving, and his mother's psychic insanity. Maybe we should just go off on a wild speculation like Ken at Popehat and Marc Randazza constantly do, and say the murderer William Inman and Matt Inman are related, without any evidence whatsoever. That would be fair according to the rules set out by Matt Inman and his Internet gang of thugs. Hell, I think I see a huge resemblance between this William Inman and other men from Matt Inman's family. And I don't know why I shouldn't make the same kind of unsubstantiated accusations that the neocons are always making, like that Saddam Hussein tried to purchase Nigerian yellowcake and had weapons of mass destruction. If it can work for them, and these similarly neocon bullshit Internet tech magazines like TechDirt, ArsTechnica, and Popehat, then why not for me?

    Probably because I don't say it with complete, ignorant, dogmatic conviction like they do."

    –Tara Carreon

  250. W Ross says


    This one may have slipped by you because Tara went in with a late edit. That one paragraph + dicks pick has now ballooned to:

    "This collage that I did of Kathleen Parker has been the subject of a lot of Inman gang conversation. They've gone through our entire ouevre, Charles and mine, to find every bit of potentially incriminating evidence against us, all at the urging of the disreputable and competing Internet lawyers Ken at Popehat, Marc Randazza of the Legal Satyricon, and sadistic "artist" Matt Inman of the Oatmeal, to name just a few of the bad characters in this play. The bad characters have been all over us for a long time now, ever since I shot my gun to warn off a trespassing CIA-Buddhist neighbor from an illustrious CIA family — father general counsel for the CIA, mother secretary of the OSS under Truman, entire family in the CIA — who was really pissing me off by messing with our gate, and ever since we published The Ashland Free Press, calling the government on their 9/11 shit. They've been following and harassing us ever since. At least, I assume it's them. They don't actually say who they are. But in my darkened-enlightened judgment, these newest bad characters come from the same stock of rabid and pathetic children of chaos and darkness — to use Carl Jung's words about himself (he's proud of it) — that I've met previously in so many places. My children turned out far better. They are superior people, all three of them. One of these bad characters threatened to kill me at the dinner table. Another threatened to kill me at the lake. Another described in gory detail how he loved to wring the necks of birds. Another told Charles about the spider pit in Florida. The story goes that you just show someone the pit, with the human bones stripped bare, nay, simply tell them about it, and they will back right off from doing what you don't want them to do. I think something similar must have happened to Bob Dylan, because he doesn't do anything edgy anymore. Joan Baez has had all the fire burned out of her. Neal Young is still going strong, a total hero. They killed everyone else. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see the CIA burn to smithereens in the flames of hell. Not any people, just the CIA. All the intelligence agencies, fuck them. The agents go to re-education camps to study Thomas Paine. Because they are all about fascism, sadism, and madness. I'd like to see anyone try to refute the truth of that statement. So, if you want to know who you're working for, kiddies-against-Charles-Carreon, that's my best guess. The CIA runs everything, despite what Kay Griggs says that it's really NATO. The CIA are NATO's terrorists, and although I respect Kay Griggs' judgment greatly, I believe that when you are terrorists paid for by the American government, accessing an unlimited budget, it doesn't matter who your so-called "bosses" are. And if you think they're not "domestic," you're completely deluded. They run the world, including America, as a giant totalitarian state, and no one seems to know it. Those of us who do know are like voices crying in the wilderness.

    If there was some nasty secret to be told about anyone in our family, everyone would know it by now, thanks to these guys' efforts. If you're black, they just kill you. They killed Martin Luther King. Other similarly conspiring groups of people use these methods to take down potential Presidents and seekers of public office. They also killed Robert Kennedy. Look at what they did to Clinton, all because he let some girl suck his cock in the Oval Office. I thought that was standard operating procedure for presidents. John F. Kennedy had a different girl waiting for him everywhere he went. All he did was fuck. We saw a French movie the other night which was about this. Competitors playing for a rich tycoon's stash kidnapped him and then ruined him. One person posting at Ken's Popehat site, knowingly mischaracterized this collage as Kathleen Parker getting gangbanged. Who cares if it's not true? — the words spider. Maybe no one will even look at the picture to see it's not true. Like weapons of mass destruction, it has its effect which you can't turn back. Lies are very powerful. Which is why we should be more vigilant towards them as a society. But nobody cares. Nobody even cares that we are run by a criminal government that is covering up for the real 9/11 attackers. Talk about a gangbang, that's what they are doing to us. Of course, if you say this, they'll retort: "you're acting like a little kid who says, 'he did it first.' Like that fucking matters!" It does matter. Our government always tries to pretend that they got hit first, whenever they want to start a war. It gives them moral justification. There is morality around the question of who did it first.

    Kathleen is not getting gangbanged. I would never do that to a woman, not even one I hate. It is corrupt boys and men who see every sexual encounter with a woman as a mandate for rape. Taking this person's statement to its logical conclusion, every picture of a woman with a naked man is a woman being raped. Rampant lying is obviously part of their terrorist arsenal.

    In my collage, Kathleen Parker is totally in control, grabbing two penises, which are entirely symbolic, the one on the left symbolizing UNCHECKED MILITARISM, and the one on the right CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT. She approves of these things. It's a political cartoon. I made my meaning abundantly clear with the captions. I don't approve of art that is ambiguous. But of course, the penises also function as a sexual pun; however, NOT a rape pun, but a pleasure pun.

    It's classic First Amendment stuff. Don't these guys pretend to be First Amendment people? Yeah, right —— And when the Republicans start talking about wintering wildlife, you know you got a problem.

    Is it really so far out to symbolize these political realities as penises? Gimme a break! Rockets, guns, the military, the mafia, are all about penises. We can't get away from the damned things. Our society is cursed with penises. The fact is that the Priapus people just can't stand me criticizing their principle object of worship! So much of the problems in our world come down to the Priapus people. "

    Sorry Tara, same as last time I still don't buy it. That's not a very empowering image of a woman and now your husband is coopting rape for his little Internet trifles.

    Just admit you're misogynists and move on; at this point it's the least of our concerns. But you can't defend a photoshop of a gangbang.

  251. W Ross says

    " The bad characters have been all over us for a long time now, ever since I shot my gun to warn off a trespassing CIA-Buddhist neighbor from an illustrious CIA family — "

    O.O I'm sorry I skidded right past that… Tara's paranoia has gotten bad enough for her to FIRE A GUN AT STRANGERS?!?!

  252. Chris R. says

    Okay so that's really not funny. Like fun and games ends when the crazy lady starts taking shots in the dark.

  253. W Ross says

    Yup. And you hear about some people who sent Mormons or Pizzas. Please note if you send anyone into the sphere of this house you're basically reverse swatting a stranger. I had no idea she was packing and firing.

    I mean I'm all for a good joke, but… has this gone beyond the scary place? Knowing what we know about her and this family, and now she confesses that she's shot at shadows in the past??

  254. W Ross says

    CIA Buddhists are the most dangerous ones, cause you can't kill them. You kill them and they could reincarnate ANYWHERE!!!! It's like that one movie where the angel was inside John Goodman.

  255. Jess says

    Well, have to say if people are showing up on her/their property that is not OK – some defense may be warranted – although I don’t generally advocate just shooting blindly in the dark – at least not if you want to hit what you are shooting at.

    On the other hand regarding some of Tara’s other comments . . . . .

    “If there was some nasty secret to be told about anyone in our family, everyone would know it by now.”

    Yep, that is what happens when you piss off the internet.

    “In my collage, Kathleen Parker is totally in control, grabbing two penises, which are entirely symbolic. . . . . .. She approves of these things.”

    Really? Did you ask her? Doubt that.

    “It's a political cartoon. I made my meaning abundantly clear with the captions. I don't approve of art that is ambiguous. But of course, the penises also function as a sexual pun; however, NOT a rape pun, but a pleasure pun.”

    Sorry Tara but those “tools” need to be inserted in a different place to provide womanly “pleasure”, if you know what I mean – surely I don’t need to provide you a drawing to explain this do I?

  256. Kelly says

    You know, we should just stop thinking that she can't get any crazier… she always does.

    Shots at shadows? CIA- Buddhists? I am not even going into the whole spider pit deal. Just wow.

  257. Chris R. says

    @Jess, when your justification for shooting at the person who touched your gate is "They're CIA-Buddhist" I think it's time to reevaluate the situation.

  258. Chris R. says

    Trying to find any news article that might reference that incident, no luck so far.

  259. Jess says

    @Chris – true. Very dangerous just shooting guns off. Didn't mean to be flippant. But also wonder if they are gettig some folks, who shouldn't be, actually showing up at their house as a result of all the publicity.

  260. Chris R. says

    Halloween at the Carreons

    The night has fallen and all through the neighborhood kids dressed as vampires, ghouls, demons and soldiers roam about. However a celebration of foolishness is the last thing on the mind of one man, Charles Carreon.

    Charles: Tara those aren't real demons, put down the gun.
    Charles: Then put down the gun.
    Charles: I think they just want candy honey.
    Tara: If by candy you mean our minds!
    Charles: Just put down the gun.
    Tara: No I'll show these Illuminati Buddhist what's what.
    Charles: Honey…
    Tara: What they got to you to?!
    Charles: Of course not.
    Tara: Then lock n' load!
    Charles sighs and grabs a gun. Hoping he might direct her towards the desert where no children might roam.

  261. W Ross says

    She's already making changes (little ones; she broke up the first paragraph) but I'm glad I got the screenshot.

  262. Chris R. says

    Yeah this deserved it's own paragraph for sure:

    So, if you want to know who you're working for, kiddies-against-Charles-Carreon, that's my best guess. The CIA runs everything, despite what Kay Griggs says that it's really NATO. The CIA are NATO's terrorists, and although I respect Kay Griggs' judgment greatly, I believe that when you are terrorists paid for by the American government, accessing an unlimited budget, it doesn't matter who your so-called "bosses" are. And if you think they're not "domestic," you're completely deluded. They run the world, including America, as a giant totalitarian state, and no one seems to know it. Those of us who do know are like voices crying in the wilderness.

  263. Chris R. says

    Do you think she knows we're not really Illuminati and we all work for Langley?

  264. W Ross says

    Here's how I know I don't work for the CIA. Cause if they offered me a job, I would absolutely take it in a heartbeat.

    I'm sorry, but if the CIA wanted me, they wouldn't have to trick me into working for them, lol.

  265. Mike K says

    I was thinking more focus should be on this section: "… Because they [intelligence agencies] are all about fascism, sadism, and madness. I'd like to see anyone try to refute the truth of that statement. And I have made up my mind to say the truth until the day I die. "

    But then again, I kind of missed some of the crazy like her trying to scare off a neighbor messing with her gate. Aren't there laws against discharging a firearm inside city limits? Also, from what one of the various interviews or filings said, the pizza places called him to confirm his pizza orders. Which to me says no actual pizzas were delivered.

    I think the random edits inserting random contents might be part of the reason so many of her posts make so little sense.

  266. W Ross says

    @MikeK When I see one worth mentioning I'm screencapping it from now on. Going back through copy/pastes and old screencaps and comparing… she changes history a lot.

    To her credit, it's mostly additions, but after @Cartooness trying to fail and bail I don't trust anyone not to DELETE FUCKING EVERYTHING when people call them on their bullshit.

    "Personally, I'd like nothing more than to see the CIA burn to smithereens in the flames of hell. Not any people, just the CIA."

    She also threatens the CIA but it's such a rich tapestry at this point… I mean throw it on the crazy pile.

  267. W Ross says

    She just posted again with two new links, – they're held up in moderation. You know the place.

  268. W Ross says

    Oh God. He did the "Don't mess with my Mom."

    His mic is still distorted. Stop redlining the mic you hack! :D

  269. W Ross says

    Oh my God. The other is the live recording of him doing the song.

    This is… Oh good god…

  270. W Ross says

    (Sorry to keep microblogging but things keep happening.)

    Large change to the threats section, padded out now to read "Another threatened to kill me at the lake in Mt. Shasta. Another guy at Shasta, one of a gang of guys who descended upon us, described in gory detail how he loved to wring the necks of birds. Another guy accosted Charles in an Ashland coffee shop and warned him about the spider pit in Florida."

  271. n o 0 n e says

    mind blowing crazy. that video, ugh. . .

    "there is so much you can do when you make a video" – yep, so much. the only thing they missed was the star-wipe.

    and c.i.a. buddhists and on and on. well, thank buddha the cray-cray has not ended yet.

    and for all the 'bad characters' out there, here's a little Lord Quas to help you get over that psycho-santa 'song'::

  272. Chris R. says

    Just heard the .wav file (thanks W Ross) and I have to say… we should start an indiegogo fundraiser to get Charles some singing lessons if he's going to make this a regular thing.

  273. T.Stark says

    Tara needs some tin foil. Earlier I suspected she's schizophrenic, and the rant about the CIA drives it home for me.

    Time to refill your Risperidone script- or do you go old school with the Ramones approved Thorazine?

    She needs to be sedated…

  274. just_wow says

    Even a jaded reputation-rapist like myself shudders at the horrific and depraved things Charles Carreon has done to his own reputation.

  275. just_wow says

    Well I'm embarrassed. After further perusal I see that the noun is Rapeutationist. I still prefer reputation-rapist. Rapeutationist sounds too much like receptionist. I think it could lead to some awkward misunderstandings.

    Why did he do a Legal Analysis? That's the thing he's worst at.

    Is there a morning after pill for reputations? Charlie's is going to need one after those videos.

  276. Chris R. says

    Is there a morning after pill for reputations? Charlie's is going to need one after those videos.

    I surrender the thread to you.

  277. Nibor says

    As far as I can tell these reediting/changing her posts is a reoccurring thing, so when you read something the only thing you can be sure off, is that all of it is written after the original posting date but that is it.

    It looks like, when she has a new idea/delusion popping up, she revisits all she has done before and adds/rewrites the posts so they fit her new epiphany.

    I try not to get too much into reading her writings, because I don’t want to be sucked in to a need of understanding the writings and the need of understanding the writer (this need comes from my own madness ;-) ) so I only try to scan-read them, but one thing that I see is, this also can be a side-effect from this continues reediting and so picking up things from her past posts and integrate them into the now, that she is messing up her timelines.

    So writing she is firing a gun and that she is mad about people (CIA-Buddhists) messing with her gate in one segment of a text, doesn’t mean the happened at the same time ,she can very well be talking of a gun incident at a previous place where they lived and referring to the gate at their home where they live now, and in the process confusing others (and possible herself) in believing that they are both now and related where they are not in reality.

    @Chris R. when you searched for a newspaper article on the gun discharging incident and you didn’t find it, this can very well be because it happened in another town, maybe it was the reason they had to move. (but this is pure speculation on my part)

    Also I get the impression that here is an reoccurring thing happening, they lose to the internet as they do now, they react in building a new website and make videos writing new stuff.

    When they kicked out of the Buddhist community, hmmm….. sorry when they stepped out of the Buddhist community, there was the birth of American Buddha with all the ramblings and videos beside it.

    They were kicked out of the Nader camp, hmmmm…. Again sorry they were asked not to contact the office that much (ever)again, the Nader Library came to be with all the deranged posts and videos.

    I can be wrong on this one but it looks like a awful much of coincidence, but I have to make the note that the ramblings start far before the final take down, so the sites can been made before they were kicked (out) and even have contributed to it.

    As in this case the proceedings aren’t over yet, for we don’t know what Inman and IndieGoGo are going to do with their legal costs and the Doe v. CC case is not dropped or judged on. But they have already started this new outlet.

    Note to myself (and all others):
    It is us who giving them the satisfaction and the attention they crave, so I’m part of the problem of them littering the internet even further. but I do not want to stop for it’s too much fun and entertaining (what the heck would I do with all the time I will have when this stops)

  278. Stuart says

    @Nibor: "It is us who giving them the satisfaction and the attention they crave"

    That's because it's like watching a train wreak in super slow motion that we can pause and critique every small failure and subsequent derailment and the conductors of this train have purposely done so thinking it was a good idea at the time.

  279. Nibor says

    @Stuart I know I know, it's sould be wrong doing this but o man what an entertainment is it :-) :-)

    Just had to point it out so mine concience is put to rest and I could pick up the popcorn, chips and soda again ;-)

  280. Stuart says

    I'd share my popcorn but my 7 year old keeps taking it.

    Anyone else wonder if CC was sane before he met his wife or are both of them just like WBC and try to incite people so that they can so sue them?

    I want to see CC lose this game he's played. I want to see him dropped a peg or two. I don't want to see him harmed physically but I want his career to suffer for acting like a bully on a playground where his victim fought back.

  281. Matthew says

    As with most conspiracy theorists, Tara fantasises about being able to do what she thinks the powers that be are doing:

    "I want the agents to go to re-education camps to study Thomas Paine. Because they are all about fascism, sadism, and madness."

    Despite the flaws of western democracies (and I'd count the unaccountability of secret services among those) we don't have re-education camps. I doubt that would be the case if 9-11 truthers got into power – maybe they should start calling themselves crypto-fascists against imagined government fascism.

  282. Jane says

    CC has a photo essay of his years in Colestin Valley: http://www.american-buddha.com/yn.ashland.htm#YESHE%20NYINGPO%20ASHLAND

    I ran across this view into their lives at the beginning of the drama but didn’t think it pertained. Now that she’s brought up the gun firing, I might as well share.
    There are over 800 pages making quite a long read, but pages 772 & 837 mention the firing of her gun (and the community’s board of directors request to ”put the lady of the house in therapy for a year.”) I did not see any mention of the trespassers being CIA, unless CIA is another word for drug lord. Page 771 shows yet another example how this marital unit can be vindictive asses when others dare to not see eye-to-eye with them.

  283. Chris R. says

    @Jane, you rock.

    I first saw this painted-out sign on a short visit back from California where we moved to after the Tashi Choling board of directors told the Carreons to remove all firearms from their home and put the lady of the house in therapy for a year. Getting that kind of a letter from your church may go down easy with Anglos, but it sure made me feel Mexican. Like I'd had enough of these prissy ass mother fuckers hanging on my dick. Telling me what to do, in my own house, on my own land, just because my wife decided to expend a little gunpowder when the local semi-retired drug lord and his latest flame decided to be in hearing range.

  284. Chris R. says

    The retired drug lord surveyed my land in order to prove both that he wasn't standing on my land when my wife fired her pistol (he proved that he was), and to prove that my house was one inch onto the property of another landowner, who didn't really care. He also used the survey to arrange a "lawful trespass" with Tod Miller, Code Enforcement Officer, who was willing to press code violation charges against me, but couldn't find a way to photograph my land, and knew I wouldn't let him win his case without evidence.

    I wonder if that's the same house they had to demolish because of code violations.

  285. Nibor says

    @ JaneI believe the CIA, Nazi’s, cannibals and devils are recent additions to their vocabulary.

    But I will take my hat off, for your patients for going true all of those pages, I also hope I hasn’t damaged you too much.

  286. Jane says

    @Nibor CC's words aren't nearly as difficult to read through as his wife's. Also, I've been exposed to a fair number of wingnuts in my experience so it doesn’t faze me too much. ;)

  287. Chris R. says

    They go through life assuming you either buy into their beliefs completely or you're the enemy. It's a lonely existence.

  288. W Ross says

    @Matt Scott Now wait a second, that photo essay is exactly what we do, except in this case it's wrong because….?

    The whole thing is a giant slamfuck of some neighbor they didn't like.

    Basically, since forever the Tara and Charles Carreon seem to have been a hassle/menace in every place they've lived. The gun thing is especially troubling since she doesn't seem to understand that that's wrong.

    I think this has to be Folle a Deux. To behave this way, they need each other to enable them. Charles needs Tara to agree with anything he does, and vice versa.

    This is two crazy people who've built a bubble around themselves and pushed out anyone who ever pointed out how badly they both need help.

    (That being said, I'll still watch and laugh because they've been made aware that they're nutbars MANY MANY times in their history and have chosen to throw that information away.)

  289. W Ross says


    There's your new go-to picture of Charles Carreon. That being said if this was 1998 and your kids are just hitting 30… you can't raise a child in a house like this. It's not safe, and it's not humane. If you were two jackass hippies and you wanted to live in an unsafe shack, more power to you.

    But they were right to code you for your kids sake. That thing is too ghetto to live in in Oregon. (If it was in a warmer state I'd have less issue, but there's no way that thing held heat correctly, most of it isn't even insulated.)

  290. guest says

    I have sort of been following along. There is a new update. I think she may actually be hallucinating.

    "Actually, a few times they DID identify themselves. Once, literally out of the blue, like Star Trek, as if he beamed in on a matter transporter, a guy appeared out of nowhere into nowhere where we were hanging out on the lawn by a stream. I was reading a silly little book about the CIA that Charles picked up for me at Barnes & Noble. The guy walks up — we're the only ones there — and tells me that the book I'm reading is a really good book. I said, "No, actually, it's crap. He says the CIA can do whatever they want to do, that they are above the law." He was a very dignified, tall, dark-haired gentleman who said he was from Air Force Intelligence, made a little small talk, and then invited us to come to the local Ordo Templi Orientis office. I'm thinking in my mind, "Right, like I'm going to walk right into the lair of the Devil! He must think I'm stupid. Then I'd be sacrificed in a Black Mass that I willingly walked into. I don't think so." Then he disappeared from where he came.

    Another time Robert Anton Wilson (Uncle Bob) sent two of his goons to visit us: Eddy Nix and his beautiful "friend." Eddy Nix (an Illuminati name) wanted to get Charles to help jack a rich Buddhist heiress named Mimi Hohenberg out of 5 million. I told Charles I would absolutely divorce him if he had anything to do with it. And I don't even like Mimi. She trashed the interior of my brand new Cherokee jeep just a week after we bought it by moving her stuff in it. But I'm not into female sacrifice, like so many other traitorous women."

  291. W Ross says

    Tara's writing responses at the naderlib…

    "Actually, a few times they DID identify themselves. Once, literally out of the blue, like Star Trek, as if he beamed in on a matter transporter, a guy appeared out of nowhere into nowhere where we were hanging out on the lawn by a stream. I was reading a silly little book about the CIA that Charles picked up for me at Barnes & Noble. The guy walks up — we're the only ones there — and tells me that the book I'm reading is a really good book. I said, "No, actually, it's crap. He says the CIA can do whatever they want to do, that they are above the law." He was a very dignified, tall, dark-haired gentleman who said he was from Air Force Intelligence, made a little small talk, and then invited us to come to the local Ordo Templi Orientis library, that they had some interesting books he thought I'd be interested in. I'm thinking in my mind, "Right, like I'm going to walk right into the lair of the Devil! He must think I'm stupid. Then I'd be sacrificed in a Black Mass that I willingly walked into. I don't think so." Then he disappeared from where he came.

    Another time Robert Anton Wilson (Uncle Bob) sent two of his goons to visit us: Eddy Nix and his beautiful "friend." Besides wanting to have sex with us, Eddy Nix (an Illuminati name) wanted to get Charles to help jack a rich Buddhist heiress named Mimi Hohenberg out of 5 million. I told Charles I would absolutely divorce him if he had anything to do with it. And I don't even like Mimi. She trashed the interior of my brand new Cherokee jeep just a week after we bought it after she borrowed it and moved her stuff in it. But I'm not into female sacrifice, like so many other traitorous women."

    I… uh… ok.

  292. Chris R. says

    So Charles spends like 800+ pages bitching that everyone else gets away with everything and he doesn't. Then Tara gets to chime in with CIA Illuminati human sacrifice. I mean codependent enabler in the dictionary needs their picture together. Like I felt bad for him for one second, then he goes on a 100+ page rant about how everyone else has water and power and blah blah blah. Dude that just means you pissed people off so much they singled you out because you are and have always been an asshat.

  293. Chris R. says

    I mean I go around pissing people off, but you have to be a special kind of asshole to repeatedly asked to move on. It happened in this photo essay, it happened in Ashland, it's happening now on the internet. No one wants you around because you are unbearable.

  294. T.Stark says

    Yurts can be warm…there are several of them around here, and some of them are actually really nice.

    The Carreon's yurt though- decorated in wall to wall crazy.

  295. Chris R. says

    T.Stark, I am not even sure what they built can be called a yurt. Just because you package a pile of crap as a mud mask doesn't mean anyone should put it on their face.

  296. W Ross says

    @T.Stark I'm more talking about the materials and construction, not the design. The walls are too thin, no insulation, slipshod construction. A yurt can be fine, but this one looked borderline dangerous (especially things like trap door floors and such.)

    You can't beat thermodynamics (or at least, not like that.)

    @Chris R

    Yet they can't see the pattern. Happened at their home, it happened in the Nader community, it happened with the website, it happened in the Sex.com case, it happened at Occupy Wall Street, and so on and so on.

    And yet it's more convenient for them to believe that hundreds of people are in on a conspiracy to destroy a completely unnoteworthy family (which would cost millions of dollars over the course of FOURTEEN YEARS) then it is to believe that there's something about their choices that make them unwelcome in polite society.

    You're not rebels, you have social Aspergers. Seek help.

  297. Valerie says

    Poor Thomas Paine. First Glenn Beck and now the Carreons co-op & twist his writings.

  298. Chris R. says

    @Valerie, yeah anyone who doesn't actually understand Thomas Paine probably thinks he was a quack job the way he's cited by people. Maybe he has suffered rapeutation.

  299. Valerie says

    Couple of things related to the Kathleen Parker "art."

    The issue is not whether or not she is being gangbanged.

    The issue is that while your husband submitted a pterodactyl drinking a CARTOON CHARACTER SMOOTHIE as evidence of nefarious intent, you created a lewd image of a REAL PERSON in a sexually situation she would certainly find offensive. Both legal, but to review, CARTOON SMOOTHIE vs. REAL PERSON.

    If you want a violent example of CARTOON SMOOTHIE vs. REAL PERSON, review your charming picture of Ann Coulter's medusa head on a plate which also uses the female-empowering term "bitch."

    On a related note, if you remain capable of self-reflection, consider your ideology. You assume that sinister forces, especially in our own country, are subversive evildoers who must be stopped. You think that everyone who isn't with you is against you. You believe violent intimidation solves problems (see "I shot at my CIA Buddhist neighbor") You know whose ideology that reminds me of? Hitler. There I Godwined it.

  300. Chris R. says

    It's weird because you see these happy pictures of Charles in his photo essay and you want to believe he was happy and could be happy. However it seems that every time he and his wife try to find happiness it includes being part of a group and inevitably they are cast out of the group because instead of building upon the groups ideology they try to subvert it to their own needs.

  301. Valerie says

    @ Nibor I agree. You are a bright and funny guy and shouldn't be lumped in with these wackos.

    These poor souls have Carreon disease: The profound and manic need to continually shoot one's self in the foot. Warning signs include delusions of grandeur, problems with Buddhists, and shoddily produced art & music. Remember, folks, friends don't let friends photoshop cocks.

  302. Nibor says

    I know that there was or is someone famous who said something like:

    When everybody else around you seems to be crazy to you, consider the possibility that is you who is crazy.

    Something to consider CC and TC ????

  303. Chris R. says

    @Valerie, On Godwin. Anyone can go Godwin on a conversation, but only a special few can do it when the conversation is hundreds of pages long and only with themselves.

  304. Nibor says

    So 425 is the magic goodwin number

    By the way I didn't know what it was, had to google this one, glad I did :-( now every long thread out there and I read, I'm forced to look at these refereces (me refusing to use them), thanks Valerie and Chris R.

  305. Valerie says

    @ Chris R Are you referring to me or Tara? Please just tell me that it isn't both. That is a comparison I couldn't live with.

  306. Jess says

    @Valerie – I think you just won with that comment "Remember, folks, friends don't let friends photoshop cocks". On another note is that a seal point siamese I see on your shoulder?

  307. Valerie says

    @ Jess, he was a seal point Siamese-Burmese-somethingelse-ese mix (kitten mill). Unfortunately, my sidekick died a few days ago, but I will always have fond memories of his shoulder sitting & ability to swear better than any cat I have ever known…

  308. Chris R. says

    And true to form:

    My answer except that I'm not irrational. I have totally fashioned My Mind according to My Will.

    But the universe is irrational, no doubt about it.

    I'm rational! It's the rest of the universe that isn't!

  309. Nibor says

    My answer except that I'm not irrational. I have totally fashioned My Mind according to My Will.

    But the universe is irrational, no doubt about it.

    I curse the irrational universe.

    She makes me want to repeat myself:

    Nibor • Jul 8, 2012 @11:59 am

    I know that there was or is someone famous who said something like:

    When everybody else around you seems to be crazy to you, consider the possibility that is you who is crazy.

    Something to consider CC and TC ????

  310. Grifter says

    Every time she quotes PKD as though he wouldn't call her batshit crazy, I want to punch something.

    And, of course, there's irony in her blockquote: "Madness has its own dynamism; it just goes on."

  311. Narad says

    I'm rational! It's the rest of the universe that isn't!

    She really doesn't seem to be getting the whole Buddhism thing.

  312. Chris R. says

    She really doesn't seem to be getting the whole Buddhism thing.

    Probably why even the Buddhist didn't want her around. She perverts everything she touches.

  313. Jess says

    The Principle of Cause and Effect is the foundation for all problem solving. If the Universe were not rational, every event in life would appear as a mere chance phenomenon; paradoxical; defying any logical appraisal. The Universe is rational since its creation and existence are a result of cause and effect. The fact Tara feels the Universe is not rational is further proof she has no understanding about how her and CC’s behavior “cause” results in the “effects” of what is happening to them.

  314. Mike K says

    It's interesting that some of the things she's saying seem to be things reserved for God. Making her mind according to her will, others should bow to her, etc. Then she says that she doesn't want to be a god. Then she says she'd get rid of all men if she could. That statement alone is something I wouldn't want to hear from someone that owns a shotgun; from someone that has shot it to scare a neighbor for being too close to her property it's terrifying.

  315. Chris R. says

    Did you think I wanted to become a deity? OMG, that is SO male! Spare me the maleness of this world. I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you. I told that to Charles the other night, and he got a hurt look on his face. He said, "You wouldn't even save the best man of all?" I said, "No fucking way. You're still a man." I said it with a lot of force so he would shut the fuck up. But no, he's got to shout me down. He's always got a sneaky, smart-stupid comeback. He lives on the strategists. He says, "Well, there are no girls who are any better." Fucker, he won the argument this time. But he can't even begin to compare to my win rate. I've been winning my whole life. He's been winning to, but between the two of us, I have the upper hand. He had the upper hand during the first 30 years of our marriage. But I'm going to make sure we go out with a BANG!

    Okay first she goes all man hater, then Charlie Sheen, and at the end I am pretty sure she threatened to kill them both….

  316. Narad says

    Probably why even the Buddhist didn't want her around. She perverts everything she touches.

    Oh, I doubt that anybody wants her around, but I thought her quarrel was with the syncretic Tibetan variant.

  317. W Ross says

    She's in rare form this weekend, that's for sure. "Going out with a bang" sounds a bit creepy though.

  318. Thorne says

    "I'd get rid of you ALL if I could. I wouldn't leave a one of you."


    Congratulations on dooming creation forever. Can't continue the species by eliminating one of the two "building blocks" for new life.

    And Hitler was merely "genocidal". Amateur. ;)

  319. says

    I'm working on taking down Carl Jung and the rest of the Nazis right now. I've got a lot of ammunition pointed in their direction. They might be getting a little nervous to have their BIG SECRET come out, which Houston Stewart Chamberlain so foolishly gave me.


  320. Valerie says

    I believe Carl Jung went out in the 1960s. Unless the zombie apocalypse is upon us, I think someone has beaten you to the punch, Tara.

  321. W Ross says

    She kinda reminds me of Rita Repulsa from Mighty Morphine Power Rangers (in demeanor and tone.)

  322. Valerie says

    Ok, I just googled Houston Stewart Chamberlain and he died in the 1920s. WTF is going on?! Fellow Illuminati, have I been banished from the inner circle? I thought I was for sure on the zombie planning committee.

  323. says

    RE: Satirical Charles:

    Carreon said he never threatened to sue, only to collect evidence of any trademark damage.

    Compare that to the email he sent to Paul Alan Levy:

    As far as when and where I will sue your client, be certain that it will occur if your client does not cede the domain[…]

    [Y]ou cannot guarantee that Public Citizen will provide her with free legal services on June 1, 2015, when I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.

    And so on.

  324. says

    I gotta say, TC has a lot of energy–it makes me tired just to read the quotes you guys post here.

    @ Chris R: If I were CC, I wouldn't get a hurt look in my face, I would run, as far and as fast as possible–and probably call the authorities on the way.

  325. Narad says

    I gotta say, TC has a lot of energy

    Yup. I've seen manic episodes with delusional features up close on a number of occasions. The similarity hasn't gone unnoticed.

  326. Chris R. says

    I am losing respect for Matthias Gafni. He continually quotes Carreon without even simply reading the actual complaints.

  327. Chris R. says

    Oh look the picture is in the post now, Charles with the double fingers in the air. How quaint.

  328. says

    Hey W Ross, I want to be a Mighty Morphine Power Ranger! That sounds awesome! :P I assume this is another example of "autocorrect suching your bells"?

  329. W Ross says

    @John Mammon Yes, but that would be a WAY better show. All five of them leaning against a wall, sometimes breaking from that to steal a car stereo to sell.

  330. W Ross says

    Wow… they don't call it a Kindle Fire for nothing, apparently. I knew auto correct was a tool of the devil.

  331. Laura K says


    Oh, and honestly I want to see footage of the Yurt getting launched into outer space

  332. Laura K says

    Chris R–perils of posting after work. I realized as soon as I posted the blasted thing that I can't spell Kook–as in kooky, weird, etrc, and I'd had this image of the cowardly lion in Wizard of Oz jumping around chanting "I do believe in 'spooks'" substituting 'kooks' and, well, the rest is bad comment history.

  333. Mark says

    Wow. I'm reading the email exchange between CC and Google's legal counsel. He's quite the character, to put it in mild terms.

    He insists in talking to a Google lawyer and threatens litigation if he can't. He, again, assumes that he is entitled to some sort of service. What an idiot.

    I love the lawyers response. You guys are too polite.

    With regards to the second part of your voicemail, it does not appear your client has any contractual relationship with Google and is instead trying to formulate some sort of theory of entitlement based on its view of its relationship with Google. If I am mistaken and your client has a contract with Google, please provide me with that contract and your basis for concluding that Google has breached it. Otherwise, I don't believe this theory has any legal merit and I don't anticipate that discussions based on this theory would be productive.

  334. Chris R. says

    @Laura K, oh okay. You could have told me "Oh Tara said that and then edited it out" and I'd totally believe you :P However I guess it's funnier this way. Thanks for a good laugh to wake up to lol.

  335. Laura K says

    Wow…I came THAT close to pulling a Tara? That'll teach me…yech. Glad it was still an lol moment

  336. W Ross says

    It's interesting that she's just completely emasculated Charles in her last few posts, because it puts a whole different spin on this whole campaign and some of his dumber moves.

    I may need Nibor's freaky powers of social observation here, but if we look at the history of the family's big moves they were prompted by Charles and crew steering into Tara's crazy.

    So do you think she's pushing him here more than he's pushing himself? His early moves here were dull, but not psychotic, and as the level of drama raised he went further and further off the rails until he's releasing 60 second videos where he honestly looks intoxicated or high and is just yelling into the mic.

    So does the field look the same if we take Tara at her word that every action in the Carreon clan is controlled by or instigated by her? I know her recent stuff is the delusional ramblings of a broken robot, but I think we should indulge her a bit and see if a world where a desperate Charles is trying to keep his trophy wife happy?

    Evidence for this: Tara stole the money. Tara shot at the guy. Tara's sites caused the lawsuits with google/etc. Tara's comments, Tara's songs, Tara's art… TARA TARA TARA.

    I'm starting to lose my rage at Charles Carreon. I'm wondering if he's not bad, he's just incredibly weak and impotent in his relationship. He's doing his best to protect the mother of his children from bankrupting the family, getting institutionalized, or causing the family further harm.

    Dunno if I love the theory, but it weirdly plays with the evidence.

  337. says

    I finally tried to watch that video… I think I made about 20 seconds in before my brain started hemorrhaging and I had to exterminate the tab with extreme prejudice…

  338. W Ross says

    OK, so it's not just me, then.

    I almost pity Charles Carreon more than I'm angry at him. That's got to be just awful.

  339. Chris R. says

    @W Ross, he enables her too. So don't feel all so bad for Carreon. It gets more interesting though read this from his wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Carreon):

    Carreon was born in Phoenix, Arizona. He attended Arizona State University, but left after meeting and marrying his wife in 1974. He later earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Southern Oregon State College and his law degree from UCLA School of Law in 1986.

    He left school for her. Then there's at least a 5 year gap in him going to school if he left his freshman year. More if he left later in his education. Math: 4 year college 3 year law school = 7 years. Gap between leaving and completing school 12 years.

  340. Chris R. says

    They also left for Oregon because I presume she wanted to, then left Oregon when her antics(and his) got them shunned by their community there.

  341. Nibor says

    W Ross wrote: I may need Nibor's freaky powers of social observation here

    I guess thanks :-)

    I have som ideas on this one and going to write them down but it will take a little, my english bad, need spellcheck Word2010, so will be back in a moment withe a post. giggel GGIIIGGGGGGELLLLL.

  342. W Ross says

    @Nibor It's a complement. Your brain may be differently organized, but it's Sherlock Holmesean when you get into theory and behavior.

    @Chris R Wow… yeah, that's definitely another puzzle piece. (This is also a good reason for Tara to get "humble" as she so refuses to do. Every time she tells another story, she gives us another thread to pull to figure this whole mad story out… and I've got an email in to Indigo Ray ;) )

  343. Nibor says

    This post can be a little rough on the edges.
    For I wanted to write so much, but I also need to sleep sometimes :-)
    So these are more my basic/initial thoughts and not a good read/story.

    Forgive me if it all seems incoherent and/or repetitive I did my best in the sort time I had given myself to write this.

    @W Ross

    I thought of this after reading the last few posts from TC and didn’t think it would add anything to this discussion and first wanted to wait on new developments, but I think your first impression is right that it is TC who runs the show but as I see it there is more to it.

    And getting a little more compassion with CC, for as far as I can judge from way over here and not actually seeing them interact ,could also be in its place, not that he is getting from me, for I am very into “the freedom of choice” doctrine, but with the addition that no matter what, you are always responsible for the (free)choices you (un)conscious make even if the frame work on which they are made is distorted (as in my case by my ASD) .

    I believe he is an intelligent guy but, and with a big BUT, I also think he is still responsible for his actions and they were and are bad and driven from butthurt and he is and stays a douchebag, although it seems not a simple butthurt from the original (by him unexpected) Oatmeal reaction as we thought before.

    As far as I can determine I think it was TC who took the “mother sweet talking a Kodiak bear” gag personal, maybe not as an attack on his/her mother, but as an attack on the archetype Mother and was very offended by it, I’m strengthened in this by her belief/delusion that she is a god/entity archetype mother/woman.

    So she persuaded “bullied” CC in taking action and under that pressure he wrote the bad first draft off the complaint and probably pushed by TC, filed it before he would have done had he worked for someone. And pushed henceforth into all what has expired.

    I also think that he is (or was long ago) really deeply in love with her, but that he has himself no or a very small personality (ego) (this is also conflicting with his intelligence), and I think she has an very strong personality(ego) so he compensates his small ego with hers and she is pleasured / groomed with his devotion.

    His ego size and intelligence stimulated wrongly, telling him he is nothing and even he will not be saved when it depended on her is a classic example off wrong, often result in narcissistic behaviour and all his actions and statements seem to support this.

    I think that love Isn’t the main motivation any more I am guessing but I think I has more to do with addiction to her and maybe (a little) Stockholm syndrome. So he hasn’t any real conscience choice any more.

    When I look at the “bootleg” video I see a puppy who, maybe after using something (D or/and D) he probably shouldn’t have, wanting only one thing and that is to please and approvement of his handler/wife.

    Also I don’t know how the other male participants here would act but I think I can safely say that only an very small number of them would let anybody(including wife) say something like TC did to CC and stay without at least a big fight. This seems to support my thesis that he has no real control over his life (anymore).

    But all my observations and thoughts on this subject are based on the ramblings of TC and CC themselves and as far as we know they can be manipulating us.

    Although I am convinced that the reoccurring signs and patterns agree with me.

    I want to remind everybody that this are mine thoughts one this case, I myself am socially challenged ;-) ,but I’ve had a great deal off contacts/observations with/off the mentally ill and based my ideas on this.
    So please take none of the above as facts (and please don’t sue me over it) and feel free to challenge me if you think I’m wrong.

  344. Nibor says

    @ W Ross I guessed it was and I accepted it already as such.
    I sometimes try to be funny make jokes (and am not that good at it) specially when I get compliments, they are complicated for me to handle. ;-)

  345. Nibor says

    I didn't said to much on TC because we only see her ups and don't know if there are lows that would make the diverence between bipolar and meglomania but there also seems to be a bit of paranoia scrisophobia (don't mind the spelling typing on my iPhone now so no real spell check)
    But possible aditional damage from d&d can not be dissmissed and from extensive grooming (not the grooming of hair kind but mental grooming kind) behavior

  346. Mark says

    Oops. I guess the DIRA turned into a DDOS? (Not that I condone it, though.)

    Rapeutation.com gives me:

    Error establishing a database connection

  347. Nibor says

    Me also but they were changing it all the time since it went up so it also can mean that they are updating it again

  348. Mark says

    Oh, there's an Ars article about that site. So maybe its just getting a lot of views.

    I'm reading a lot of comments to the tone of "why you keep talking about these sad, delusional, people? It's a waste of time."

    I would agree if these sad delusional people didn't keep trying to waste everybody's time and money through the legal system.

  349. Nibor says

    And weren't so entertaining ( I know it wrong but with a bag of popcorn or chips I just can't help myself :-) )

  350. Mike K says

    I'm thinking that Charles has a decent sized ego in his own right. I don't think he could have been seen as a good lawyer by some of his colleagues without one. His response to my polite email indicated a strong attachment to his wife and a huge blind spot for any of her activities. It also indicated a lack of logic concerning her, but I'm led to believe that's somewhat normal.

    It's possible that Tara isn't posting things she actually says to her husband, but that she thinks she should have said (or that happened in her delusions, considering she's received evidence of a conspiracy from dead people that are out to get her). I'm not sure that makes a difference as far as analyzing her would go, but as was said earlier, few people would put up with a spouse threatening to kill them that matter of factly.

  351. William C says

    He added me on Google+ after I commented on his picture o.O
    Note: I did not praise him in the least. Also I did not add him.

  352. HeatherCat says

    Happy, happy, joy, joy!!! Not quite what I was imagining, but much classier than I had in mind.

  353. Lakonislate says

    A duffel bag with more than $200.000 dollars in it… If I understand anything about Charles and Tara, they'll now accuse Inman of being D. B. Cooper.

  354. VPJ says


    *Snoopy Dance*

  355. Marzipan says

    @W Ross, I'm not sure – given their new endeavors, I almost think this might be more apropos of their emotional state.

  356. Myk says

    As W Ross says, it's the small details that make it sooooooo delicious. Oatmeal wins internet; waiting for advanced version to be released.

  357. Joe says

    Matt Inman rocks and I will be even more thrilled when "Doe" puts the cherry on top of the FU CC sundae.

  358. Iain says

    It's my professional internet-observer opinion that earlier comments are correct, and interacting with these lunatics is just giveing them what they want. Let it go. It's okay :-)