Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness

from the double-wow dept

Earlier this morning we wrote about Charles Carreon suing Matthew Inman, IndieGoGo, the National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society. At that time, all anyone had was the summary of the lawsuit as written by Courthouse News Service. Now, Carreon has posted the filing to his own website (with portions redacted) and the full version is now available via PACER. I’ve attached the officially filed version below. Rather than reveal new theories that we had missed in our original analysis, it would appear that our initial thoughts were dead on. This case is just begging to be anti-SLAPPed out of existence, in which case Carreon may find himself on the hook for significant legal fees.

When I was writing about the original case, I went looking through California’s regulations on charities, and couldn’t find anything that would impact Inman or IndieGoGo and all I came across was this law from this page on the California Attorney’s General website. But I couldn’t see how that specifically applied to Inman or IndieGoGo, since it seemed to be focused (a) on charities themselves or (b) on professional fundraisers (i.e., people hired to fundraise on a charity’s behalf). It did not seem to apply to people who just tried to raise money which they promised to donate to a charity. However, that is the law that Carreon is relying on. Carreon seems to try to twist the definition of a “commercial fundraiser” to make it apply to Inman and IndieGoGo, but it’s a pretty massive stretch. Inman isn’t doing this “for compensation,” so the law doesn’t seem to apply to him. IndieGoGo is just the platform, but isn’t doing the soliciting or directly touching the funds. The law is designed for an entirely different purpose.

And even if, somehow, a court actually believes that this law applies here, you might wonder how it’s possible that Carreon has any standing to sue whatsoever. The fundraiser has nothing to do with him (it was about Funnyjunk, but remember that Carreon is suing on his own behalf, not Funnyjunk’s.). Carreon appears to just be suing because he’s pissed off. Except, that Carreon thinks he found a loophole. He donated to the campaign himself in order to create standing:

Plaintiff is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS. Plaintiff is acting on his own behalf and to protect the rights of all other contributors to the Bear Love campaign to have their reasonable expectation that 100% of the money they contributed would go to a charitable purpose. Plaintiff opposes the payment of any funds collected from the Bear Love campaign to Indiegogo, on the grounds that the contract between Indiegogo and Inman is an illegal contract that violates the Act, and its enforcement may be enjoined. Plaintiff opposes the payment of any funds to Inman because he is not a registered commercial fundraiser, because he failed to enter into a written contract with the Charitable Organization defendants, because the Bear Love campaign utilized false and deceptive statements and insinuations of bestiality on the part of Plaintiff and his client’s “mother,” all of which tends to bring the Charitable Defendants and the institution of public giving into disrepute.

Yeah. Once again, Carreon contributed to Inman’s campaign for what appears to be the sole reason of using that as a way to get standing to sue. I’m somewhat stunned.

Also, how can he possibly blame the charities? Well, Carreon’s lawsuit fails in that it never actually states a claim against the charities. Seriously. At one point in the explanation of the lawsuit, he does state the following, but never actually includes the charities in any of the actual claims:

Although the Charitable Organization defendants have notified by Plaintiff in writing about the fact that the “Bear Love” campaign alleged infra is being conducted by Inman and Indiegogo in violation of the Act, and that the campaign is being conducted in a manner that could cause public disparagement of the Charitable Organization defendants’s good name and good will, neither the ACS or the NWF have acted to disavow their association with the Bear Love campaign, thus lending their tacit approval to the use of their names to the Bear Love campaign.

Again, just for emphasis, I’ll point out that even with this paragraph, Carreon fails to name either charity with any of the actual claims in the lawsuit. He does include them in part of the claim, by stating that they “have failed to perform their statutory duty to exercise authority over the Bear Love campaign,” but still fails to directly assert the claim against them. Even if he somehow figured out a way to work them into one of the claims, this particular legal theory of not disavowing “their association” with Inman’s campaign leading to “tacit approval” is pretty ridiculous as well, and not something I could see standing up in court.

Meanwhile, Carreon’s theory that Inman “disparages the image of charitable fundraising” again seems to stretch all kinds of definitions and understanding of the internet. Basically, he relies on the fact that Inman likes to mock people he doesn’t like. But that’s entirely unrelated to the issues at hand. Furthermore, despite Inman and Inman’s lawyer explaining (in great detail) to Carreon, earlier, that Inman has an ASCII pterodactyl on all pages of The Oatmeal’s source code, Carreon spends an inordinate amount of space talking about how awful this is.

Inman has announced his vindictive response to his real and imagined enemies by posting, within the source code of all of the webpages on his main website,, the following image and text, depicting himself as a pterodactyl that will “ptero-you a new asshole.” A screencapture of the core of the source-code appears as follows:

Following the link to leads the Internet user to a page on where a video created by Inman and Sarah Donner depicts Inman, in his character as a carnivorous, prehistoric flying reptile that first rips the intestines out of a man’s anus, then flogs him with his entrails, then steals a pineapple from a boy, tears his head off, flings it a girl and knocks here head off, then grinds up the girl’s head up in a wood-chipper, blends it with the pineapple, and drinks the grisly cocktail

The filing then shows screenshots from the video in question, which we’ll just embed here for your viewing pleasure:

Carreon tries to claim that these images actually incite Inman’s followers into action:

Inman’s followers are by and large with technologically savvy young people eager to follow the latest trend, who embrace Inman’s brutal ideology of “tearing you a new asshole.”

Seriously? Carreon is literally arguing that fans of a silly comic with cartoonishly ridiculous violence leads them to “embrace” this “brutal ideology?” Carreon really ought to spend more time online. Carreon repeatedly makes incredibly weak connections between Inman’s cartoons, his online persona and the later hatred directed his way, but without any actual evidence.

Later in the lawsuit, Carreon again claims that Inman’s statement that Funnyjunk “stole” images is “false and misleading.” Whether or not that’s true, it’s irrelevant here. Funnyjunk is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit. He also goes off on Inman for “fighting words, and incitements to commit cybervandalism, none of which are entitled to constitutional protection.” Neither of those make sense. It’s nearly impossible to see how Inman’s cartoons, as sophomoric as they might be, qualify under the standard legal definition of “fighting words” or any kind of incitement to violence. In fact, Inman has made no references inciting his audience to do anything other than give money to charities (which most people would consider a good thing).

Moving on… we’ve got the trademark and publicity rights claim. As expected, Carreon is asserting that various actions violate the trademark on his name and his publicity rights. The key is that someone set up a fake Twitter account in his name and tweeted various statements that might make Carreon look silly. Of course, reading some of the tweets, it seems rather obvious that the account is fake. For example, one of them talks about “backtracing” Inman’s IP — a rather obvious reference to the famous ya dun goofed internet meme. Also, as he had suggested in an interview on Friday, Carreon makes interesting leaps of logic in suggesting that Inman himself may have set up the fake account.

Then, finally, we have the “inciting and committing cybervandalism in the nature of trespass to chattels, false personation and identity theft.” Here, he claims that the fact that his email address was made public was part of that incitement, claiming that he never made it public:

As noted above, Doe1 or Inman proliferated Plaintiff’s email address via a fake tweet made by “” Plaintiff had not posted the email address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations. (The email address appears on legal papers in PACER filings in cases where required by the rules of this and other U.S. District Courts; however, these filings are viewable only by PACER users. The email address was also used in the Whois registration database for various websites Plaintiff has registered for his benefit, and as by the authorized registrant/agent of various legal clients.) Inman or persons incited by Inman also proliferated the email address and Plaintiff’s home address on social networking websites, again for the malicious purpose of enabling cybervandalism.

Except… court filings are not only viewable to those with a PACER account. Filings with the court, if not under seal, are considered public documents and are often available from a variety of sources, including the Internet Archive and other places as well. Separately, if he didn’t use an anonymizer, the whois info that includes his email address is public info. Furthermore, his address is available elsewhere online as well, including (um…) both the websites for the State Bar of California and the State Bar of Oregon. Oh, and the email address is also clearly stated in the version of the legal filing that Carreon posted to his own website. While he redacted his email address in the header, he did not within the text of the complaint. In other words, that address was widely available to the public already.

His second claim of cybervandalism was that someone tried to reset the password on his webhosting account:

On June 13, 2012, at 9:28 p.m., either Inman or one of the persons named as Does 1 – 100 engaged in the act of trespass to chattels, cracking the password on Plaintiff’s website at and requesting to reset the password. Fortunately, the intrusion discovered instantly by Plaintiff who was sitting looking at his computer screen when he received an email from the website software system, and was able to retain control of the website by immediately changing the password using the hyperlink in the email.

First of all, merely requesting a reset password is not “cracking the password.” It’s requesting a new password, which the user would not be able to act upon unless they had access to Carreon’s email (and there is no indication that that happened). In fact, it appears that the password reset system worked as designed, in that Carreon was warned that someone wanted to reset the password. And, actually, the fact that Carreon admits to “using the hyperlink in the email” suggests that that could have been the real hack attempt. You should never change your password using a hyperlink sent to you in an email. You should always go directly to the site yourself and login and make the change. Normally, if you receive one of those reset emails and haven’t tried to reset your password, you’re supposed to ignore it so that the password doesn’t get reset. Clicking on the link and changing a password that way makes one susceptible to phishing attacks.

Finally, Carreon notes that some idiots online have signed his email account up for various spam emails/newsletters. If true, that’s pretty stupid on whoever signed him up for those kinds of things, and people really shouldn’t do that. But claiming that’s “cybervandalism” or anything that can or should be pinned on Inman (again, whose target was Funnyjunk, not Carreon) seems ridiculous in the extreme.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: acs, funnyjunk, nwf

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: FUCK IT.. Techdirters....just force me to be Carreons wife

Is it wrong of me to want, to help him get to China, all with the aim of him learning Kung foo ?
Then he can go kick Inman’s ass for using charity and misleading depictions of himself to gainer support.
Angry responses welcomed.
If Carreon wins the LEGAL fight ( even portions of it )
I will smile at Law beating Inman’s PR manipulation and spamming stunt.

Carreon doesn’t give a fuck about PR or how he looks
Inman’s tactics are useless against him… lulz
Many a man would fall under the pressure, not Carreon.
All the moar drama for us !
Admit it….YOU love it too, amiright
–Inman…. Sneakily hiding behind charity
–Carreon…. Fuck you and fuck your charity, I’m gonna legally butt-fuck you hard

Lulz… this is fine ass drama.

But i reckon he knows how to use law to get a result.
The court of public opinion is not the law. #JustSayin

bratwurzt (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 FUCK IT.. Techdirters....just force me to be Carreons wife

This is not trolling. You don’t get funny by fancy fonts and failed attempts to write an ellipsis. It’s obvious you’re on Carreon’s side of argument and that makes you a bad troll – you should use an emotional bait and wait for response and THEN assert some lie as a fact. You know – we are more vulnerable when we’re confused by your… khm… “esteemed trolling”. But hey – you can’t have good trolling without bad ones.

#justSaying #nothingToSeeHereCarreon

Anonymous Coward of Esteemed Trolling (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Fallacy for a point of both sides not innocent

Go after the monkeys writing the message.

Ignore Shakespeare, he donated to charity, so as to make it OK to lock up monkeys for infinity, all because he was too lazy to write his own books.

Personal attacks for opposing opinion… how original

[citation needed or GTFO] says:

Perfect example of human beings not learning from history...

Let’s see…

Jack Thompson: the anti-gay, anti-video game former lawyer that lost his license because of some stupid crusade for his ego.

Paul Christoforo: Ocean Marketing that had atrocious spelling and took on Penny Arcade and PAX, causing him to become another name in the “Internet Hall of Shame.”

Now we have Charles Carreon: Once known as a defender of the First Amendment, now deciding to throw his entire career down the drain because he decided to make the whole FunnyJunk fiasco a personal grudge.

Is there a list somewhere of all the idiots who tried to sue the internet and failed? Because I haven’t seen so much “Destined to Fail” since Lamar Smith* tried to stick up for SOPA.

*Too bad he won the primaries despite the internet against him…And he ignores everything that happened by stating that he’s an advocate for the internet.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Perfect example of human beings not learning from history...

“Is there a list somewhere of all the idiots who tried to sue the internet and failed?”

Possibly, but that list will be endless, going forward.

Combine a self-righteous moral crusade with a complete misunderstanding of how the internet actually works. Add to that greed and the potential for short-term fame and profit (even if the latter is realistically not going to happen), and you get the perfect incentive for clueless marketers, politicians and lawyers to step forward.

apauld (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I’d love to see the judge ask him “Did you just participate in something you believed to be illegal, for no reason and on purpose?”

I had thought of that also; and if stated as “Did you chose to donate for the sole purpose of creating this lawsuit?” it shouldn’t turn out well for Carreon. I would think that voluntarily participating in anything just so you could sue the principals; ought to be actionable in it’s self.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Judge: Did you chose to donate for the sole purpose of creating this lawsuit?

Carreon: Oh, no! As stated in my filing, the only reason I donated was because I care so much about the charities!

Judge: And did you donate before or after you asked IndieGoGo to terminate the fundraser?

Carreon: After, because then I knew they would get the money.

Judge: So why did you name the charities in this case?

Carreon: oh, wait – did I say “after”? I meant before.

Judge: OK, so if you did it before, why did you try to get IndieGoGo to cancel the fundraiser?

Carreon: Dammit – did I say “Before” .. umm.. wait, can we start over?

Anonymous Coward says:

My new favourite bit...

Plaintiff had not posted the email address anywhere on the Internet except where required by law and Internet regulations

So… he didn’t post his email address anywhere except where he did post it, so therefore it wasn’t public?!?!

I have to wonder how this guy manages to tie his shoes in the morning.

Jack (profile) says:

Re: My new favourite bit...

Funny, he posted his email address himself when he published this press release in August 2009:

and it also appears here:

Surely he’s lied to the court since he must remember that press release.

Brent (profile) says:

I’m guessing that Carreon is now completely engulfed in the ‘point of no return’ mindset. He recognizes the harm this case is and will continue to do to his personal and professional reputations and believes the only way he recover is to actually win something.

Either that (maybe a bit of both) or he is attempting to provoke Inman to do something that is actually illegal and then use that ‘clear’ offense as justification for the claims filed himself and/or on behalf of FunnyJunk.

Rich Kulawiec (profile) says:

Some technical points in re "private" email addresses

1. Setting up a truly private email address is difficult — and largely pointless. (After all, if it’s truly private, then nobody but the owner knows it and this rather limits its usefulness. I have a few of these that are used by my own software agents, simply because it’s convenient.) Creating a truly private address requires running your own mailserver on your own hardware (shared hosts and clouds need not apply) and configuring the MTA (Mail Transport Agent) on that system so that it won’t reveal the address when queried (e.g., via SMTP VRFY). None of this is within the reach of most people.

2. Of course once you share any email address with ANYONE — a registrar, a document processor, ANYONE — it’s no longer private in any sense. These entities may publish it (deliberately) or leak it (accidentally) or store it or share it or any number of other things.

3. Even addresses which aren’t shared but which are insufficiently obscure can be deduced via brute-force enumeration — something that spammers discovered a long time ago. John Smith at might be jsmith, john.smith, jack.smith, smith.john, smithj, or any number of other similar variants…and it takes only a small percentage of a botnet to run their exercise on millions of users.

4. Even addresses which are carefully set up as in (1) above may not remain private: security compromises in desktops, laptops, phones, pads, etc., can yield them up quite readily. Again, spammers have become quite adept at “harvesting” addresses by targeting these.

Bottom line: setting up and maintaining a “private” email address is a technically challenging task that requires specialized knowledge and dedicated hardware.

Coyote says:

So, what’s the office number of Carreon Industries? I assume they do very well in plumbing, construction and all sorts of nasty, muddy business, like digging dirt and shoveling elephant shit.

I have this big elephant shit called my house. Could you come help me clean it up, remodel it dig a few holes? I’d like a pool. Just not too deep. Otherwise, you might hit the septic tank.

Not that you’d notice or anything, though, considering the amount of shit you’ve got piling up in your own backyard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Carreon's Disciplinary History

According to the Oregon State Bar’s website, Charles Carreon’s license to practice law was suspended for 60 days back in 2005. It looks like he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in British Columbia, and also took money from his trust account to pay part of a judgment against him and his wife without his client’s permission.

His documents start on page 311.

I am by no means implying that he is a terrible lawyer just because he received a disciplinary sanction, it’s just always helpful to look at these things for a little context.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

Re: Carreon's Disciplinary History

Charles didn’t do anything. He took the fall for a decision I made to pay the rent on the basis of a prior agreement with our client to pay, on which agreement client reneged when his company went bust and he split with his partner, which partner we sided with, who ended up opening a car wash rather than work with said partner, and it was a vendetta against Charles for his alliance with good partner, as opposed to bad partner. Things are seldom what they seem.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Carreon's Disciplinary History

The adult thing to do would be to just leave. You don’t have to announce to the world your plans to do so. And what’s truly depressing and ugly IS SUING TWO CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS for no reason whatsoever, besides spite and anger at being humiliated and laughed at for things you yourself did to cause said laughter.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Carreon's Disciplinary History

“No reason whatsoever?” Why are you so retarded? You can’t read? You don’t think the public’s donations should go to the charities they wanted them to go to? You think donation and fund-raising should be a free-for-all? You’re an idiot, pure and simple. You can’t see beyond your own dick.

Ann (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Carreon's Disciplinary History

Mrs. Carreon, what people are responding negatively to is the clear double standard that both you and your husband live by. You have voiced a blatant disregard for the DMCA notification system and yet have asked that others utilize it. You and your husband collapse on your fainting couches over the nasty things that have been said to and about you, but you then use the highly offensive and insensitive term “retard” over and over in this forum. You balk at the comic that Inman drew of FunnyJunk’s mother, but have made far more disgusting photoshopped collages of various political figured you disagree with yourselves. The blatant hypocrisy you have both exercised is flabbergasting, but becomes particularly abhorrent when it is coupled with litigious action. Two of the largest charities in the country cannot possible police every dollar raised in their names. If my children set up a lemonade stand to raise money for the American Cancer Society without registering is your husband going to sue them too?

I would advise that you revisit the tenets of the religion that you and your husband founded last summer. Particularly the tenets regarding showing one face at all times and being aware of the consequences of our actions. The following passage seems particularly poignant:

“We are blessed with minds that allow us to reflect upon what we intend, and to consider the likely consequences of our acts before we do them.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Carreon's Disciplinary History

Wow, wait to make a point. That point being that you’re a loon and get all bent out of shape just like your husband does, and the sad part is I didn’t even mock you. I said basically, “Okay, bye, but it’s odd that your husband is suing for no good reason whatsoever two charities. CHARITIES!”

You do your husband a great service arguing on his behalf and calling people who point out he’s suing innocent charities retards. I can quite clearly read, which is why I said what I did. I read about your husband suing two charity organization. And in case you don’t get it, as you probably don’t, I was being sarcastic. You’re actually doing your husband a great disservice, but then again, he’s been doing that on his own for a week now. So a bit more bad PR on the part of his wife surely won’t be that much worse. “Hey, internet, Carreon’s wife is calling people ‘retards’ and ‘idiots’ for pointing out her husband is now suing two charities.” Oh yeah, if you thought the ridicule before was bad can you imagine how much worse it’s gonna get now that you’ve gone and put your foot in your mouth with those remarks? If I was the quick to anger sort (like you two seem to be), I’d just take a quick screenshot or two (or just link to the comment) and post them on reddit and elsewhere and just let the chips fall where they may. But unlike you two, I’m a nice guy and I’m not quick to anger.

Lol. As for the rest of what you said. Wow. Again, bravo. So not only is your husband a douchebag per his actions, his wife is also a raving lunatic who can’t handle having her husband’s douchebaggery called out and criticized.

I do think donations should go wherever people want them to go. Which is why I think it’s odd that your husband is suing two charities. Where people obviously wanted their money to go, which is why they donated to said charities through IndieGoGo in the first place. Donations should indeed be a free for all. Hence the word “donate”, as in give your money to those you want to. Fund raising should also be a free for all. Hence, “fund raising” as in try and raise funds.

I think the “idiot, pure and simple” is you. And your husband. I can see beyond my own dick. You and your husband can’t see beyond your own anger, that much is evident.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Carreon's Disciplinary History

I can see why you two are married… Your views are just as fucked up and demented as you husbands. You two deserve each other.

It’s pretty obvious you’re having a blast leeching off of Charles 15 minuets. I figured since his 15 minuets was of a very negative nature you guys would let it die. Some of his views with what they suggest are just plain absurd.

What I don’t get is why you think you’re so special. Do you seriously think Charles and yourself are the first to be trolled on the internet?

He had it coming from the second he started to spew such moronic comments.

I’m extremely for open information and I don’t even hold it against him. I believe he was wrong and should just admit it. It’s not a crime to be wrong considering we’re all wrong at one point or another.

If I fuck up I have no problem saying that I did. Even if it can be very embarrassing. It might hurt your ego, but letting it go on for so long will only make things worse when/if you decided to say you were wrong.

Beech (profile) says:

Really? no one wants to point out how carreon is trying to say that Inman is trying to say that HE is a pterodactyl? Not to mention, the comic about the motherfucking pterodactyl has been up forever. The thing in the souce code has been up since ~2007 i think. And the music video embedded was up long before this spat came around as well. Is carreon trying to say that Inman has been staging this assault on him in the background of his website for YEARS before he ever sent him the threatening letter?

Anonymous Coward says:

What’s also interesting is that Carreon failed to read the Updates on the fundraiser. He states that he has no idea what Inman will do if the proceeds exceed $20,000.

Inman says it all goes to charity:

Carreon’s donation to the campaign to obtain legal standing to sue is an interesting turn of affairs, however. Cynical and tactical at once!

apauld (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I concur. I did though, a couple days ago, check out his site. I find this situation to be the only interesting or funny thing about the oatmeal. It makes me think funnyjunk must be worse since it’s users re-post oatmeals content there. I did not, however, actually look at funnyjunk’s site; just not ready to go there after seeing the stuff I’ve seen.

Andrew (profile) says:

Re: Re: Costs

Of course it doesn’t affect the strength of his substantive claim. Here, it’s a pretty obvious and easy-to-follow rule. If the rule applies in the USA, it demonstrates even more ignorance on Carreon’s part.

Inman has already chosen a good lawyer, and I hope that he was chosen on the basis of experience and skill rather than price.

Anonymous Coward says:

In the grand scheme of useful professions I used to consider the un-fireable federal civil servant to be essentially the dead end of productivity, the gutter of the American workforce, a valid reason the federal government is ruining our currency with waste and spending explosions…

But really, it’s people like Carreon who are the worst of the worst. The American economy would likely be going gangbusters if the patent system hadn’t been transmogrified into a system of property ownership via legal fight by lawyers such as him. This infestation of trolls and vultures has turned the creative process of the American economy into their own personal b*tch through threats and lawsuits. The creativity of the free people of this earth wouldn’t be hamstrung by scum like this if they didn’t have to look over their shoulder any time they feared having their creativity stolen and themselves muscled out of the industry by those with money and legal staff via patents that are too vague, copyright enforcement that should not apply, and trademark fights that are baseless.

You are scum, Charles Carreon. You contribute nothing to society. Your ego and greed are the reason millions are out of work right now. You are a contemptible butt baby that managed to live from out of the anus of mankind, polluting our lives with pre-restraint of our own imaginations and paranoia for those who have already created beautiful things. If I had 10+ billion dollars I would try to forcibly use you as a space monkey for early colonization of Mars, at least then we’d get valuable data out of your pathetic existence.

deselect says:


The Oatmeal blacked out his information in his blog, however Charles Carreon still insists The Oatmeal gave out his email. However Mr. Carreon has done exactly what he is suing over to someone else:

He also claims there is no other way to contact him, however on the above link if you click “contact” you will get his email address.

More reading:

Lurker Keith says:

Washington Post story

Got another big link for you: the Washington Post now has a story up about the lawsuit.

It also has some info about how Carreon became involved w/ Funnyjunk, & it appears to have nothing to do w/ The Oatmeal, originally…

Carreon, 56, tells Comic Riffs that FunnyJunk hired him “five or six months ago” for general website review and that the matter of The Oatmeal’s 2011 blogpost came up. Carreon says he decided to send Inman a standard “hardball letter” accusing him of defamation ? for which he sought $20,000 in damages ? and demanded that he take down all references to FunnyJunk.

TDR says:

To paraphrase Holly:

“You’re a total smeghead, aren’t you, Carreon?”

And Kryten:

“He held a position of no importance. He was a lowly parasite, a zero. A piece of sputum swirling around the toilet bowl of life. He was like the security guard at the front gate who thinks of himself as head of the corporation. And so, when this dispute with the Oatmeal arose, Charles Carreon went over the edge. It was his case, ergo, his pride. I ask the court to look at this man, this sad man, this pathetic man, this joke of a man. A man who sat and failed his mental health exam on no less than fourteen occasions. A man so petty and small-minded, he would while away his hours writing threat letters for defendants he hadn’t even met yet. A man who commanded as much love and respect from his fellow human beings as Long John Silver’s parrot. An overzealous lawyer with a Napoleon complex. Who would ask this man to represent them in a court of law? Only a yogurt.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Don’t you have an internet library to run? You’re not helping your husband any and in fact are only adding to the whole “this guy is quite out of his mind” opinion that people have already formed.

It’s bad enough you’re husband’s suing charities now. Don’t add to the damage by now trying to back up his assertions that Inman is somehow pretending to be two charities.

Seriously, you two need to be taught how the internet works, because you’re both obviously clueless about it. Your husband keeps ranting and foaming at the mouth and thinks this will keep people from laughing at him. You actually believe calling your website an “internet library” allows you to post copyrighted material and not have to follow DMCA procedure. Lol. You cannot make up that kind of hilarity.

STStone says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It’s against the law to represent a charity without a contract. It’s against the law for a charity not to monitor rogue fundraisers.

1.) Prove it by citing actual case law.
2.) Prove Inman has acted as a “rogue” fundraiser.

Y’see, when you make accusations, the burden of proof lies upon you to actually, y’know, prove them.

G Thompson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

as long as I’m not doing it for commercial purposes (which creates monetary gain for myself) I will represent any fucking charity I so desire.

I really do not care about any fucking stupid Californian law (which doesn’t actually say what you think it says) or Californian attorney (like for example your husband) who thinks they are some god(s) gift to the internet because of some case they did in regards to “” that was really for the clients anyway and has subsequently unethically ‘advertised’ how great they are to have won the case when in fact any attorney has to do the best for their client no matter what.

When you and your husband lose this case, I want you to remember the words you just typed “The law makes sense. It’s to protect the public” and don’t dare whine or have a ego induced hissy fit, because you loosing the current case you have both initiated will absolutely PROTECT the public

Halleyscomet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“It’s against the law to represent a charity without a contract. It’s against the law for a charity not to monitor rogue fundraisers.”

You might want to check out Popehat’s analysis of that claim.

Start at the words “Sweet Charity:” in the article “The Oatmeal v. FunnyJunk, Part V: A Brief Review of Charles Carreon’s Complaint”

Mr. Carreon appears to have misread the statute.

Just an Opinion says:

Wow….16 years as a lawyer. You wouldn’t know it from his filling. This publicity certainly will not get him work, quite the opposite unless his new jog is as a comedian.

It’s even more surprising seeing as Carreon is supposed to be an expert on internet law (or so he thinks after the case). It doesn’t look like he has even been on the internet since 2000 based on his accusations.

He is also suing the maker of biometric finger print scanners too. I am willing to bet he just flushed all his other cases/work to deal with this non-case.

I see this lawyer going bankrupt, especially after Inman counter-sues for legal costs and damages.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

Mike Masnick Retard Wannabe Lawyer Writer ejaculates: “Carreon tries to claim that these images actually incite Inman’s followers into action:
‘Inman?s followers are by and large technologically savvy young people eager to follow the latest trend, who embrace Inman?s brutal ideology of tearing you a new asshole.’
Seriously? Carreon is literally arguing that fans of a silly comic with cartoonishly ridiculous violence leads them to ’embrace’ this ‘brutal ideology?’ Carreon really ought to spend more time online. Carreon repeatedly makes incredibly weak connections between Inman’s cartoons, his online persona and the later hatred directed his way, but without any actual evidence.”

My response: History is full of evidence of the connection between hate speech and hate action. We need go no further than the Nazi propaganda against the Jews. “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” Henry Ford’s “The International Jew,” and cartoon books like Elwira Bauer’s “Trust No Fox on His Green Heath and No Jew on His Oath,” were all tools for teaching anti-semitism. They had a widespread influence, all evil, that was used as a justification for the Holocaust and innumerable pogroms around the world. As Perry M. Atterberry said, they “feed the fears of the credulous and fan the flames of fanaticism and hate.”

Who in their right mind could say that there is no connection between thought and action? Only a fascist would say something like this.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

Re: Re:

These techdirt nazi scumbags are doing to Charles what they did to the Jews in Nazi Germany:

The Jewish Lawyer

Just as children have their fights,
Grown-ups have their quarrels, too.
Parents judge in children?s squabbles,
Judges settle grown-ups? disputes.
A good lawyer must before the judge
Lay bare all the details of the case
When the trial once begins.
The lawyer gets his money.
So it is in the whole wide world…
Our farmer Michael goes to town.
He?s got a date with the sharp attorney.
See him in the sketch I?ve drawn,
With handsome wife in fine attire.
Next them the lawyer may be seen,
He?s looking very poor and mean.
Just now his trade is very slack,
From farmer Michael he expects a whack!
To the farmer he makes a plea:
?Dear rich Michael be kind to me.
Couldn?t you bring me butter, wine,
Flour and eggs? That would be fine!
Just give me time with this tricky suit;
We?ll win the case and money to boot!?
Here?s good prospect, I surmise,
But all he said was a pack of lies.
The peasant folk from Dummelsbrumm
Believe it all: they are so dumb!
They bring him every kind of food.
And, Boy! that lawyer?s feeling good.
The end is sad to this long tale:
The farmer had to go to court,
So long the Jewish lawyer fought,
Primed with the farmers butter and eggs.
Now round and plump and plump and round,
Jew lawyer weighs 240 pound.
Only when there was nothing left
Did, strangely enough, the trial end.
The farmer, true, had won the case;
Now he wonders with long face
Who his goods and money took.
They were stolen all by the Jewish crook.

TaraCarreon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Both sides of Charles’ family, the Ainsa/Anzas and the Carreons, were Spanish Conversos. The Carreon name is on the list online. Ainsa, on the other hand, his mother’s surname, is also a town in Basque Spain. When Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism, in order to discard their Jewish surnames, they often took the name of their town, and thus their surnames are also “place names.” Thus, it is quite likely that Charles is genetically Jewish from both sides of his family.

The Ainsa family also had the typical southwestern U.S. tradition of mysteriously refusing to eat pork. That is something that is said to be the vestiges of Jews fleeing not only from Spain to Mexico, but then, when the Inquisition also took effect in Mexico, they further fled to northern New Spain, into New Mexico, and what is now Arizona.

The Ainsas also attained great prominence as a wealthy family in San Francisco before the San Francisco earthquake and fire. Jose Ainsa was a member of the Crab expedition that ended in the incredible Caborca massacre, and his story is a matter of legend. And if we’re looking for family pride, Jose Ainsa refused to leave Mexico before he was given an apology for being arrested as a member of the Crab expedition. Everyone else was killed and he was the only one left alive because he was so handsome and well spoken that the daughter of a prominent family fell in love with him, and begged the governor to pardon him. And he was pardoned, but he still refused to leave Mexico until he got an apology, at which point his friends bundled him up and carried him back to San Francisco. See “Hey Dude, Where’s My Silver Mines?” by Charles Carreon

Wispet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“The Ainsa family also had the typical southwestern U.S. tradition of mysteriously refusing to eat pork.”

OMG dying of laughter.

I suspect you are trying to refer to the practices that are sometimes called “Crypto-Judaism.” These are not “typical” of any U.S. “Southwestern” “tradition.”

I wouldn’t be using the word “library” near anything you’ve concocted.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You know what? I read The Oatmeal. I don’t agree with everything he says. I have not even considered making a donation. But your husband is standing out like a much, much larger asshole by antagonising everyone who doesn’t completely agree with him.

Keep railing against the sky while it rains on your face; it’ll do you the same amount of good as you’re getting here.

Adam Steinbaugh (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You’re quite correct that ‘hate speech’ contributed greatly to the advent of the Holocaust and other atrocities.

But even hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

Not that that’s the relevant category of speech at issue here. You’re looking for the category relating to incitement. Even then, inciting speech is protected by the First Amendment unless it is intended and likely to create an immediate breach of the peace. As in — right now, someone is going to get physically violent.

I greatly sympathize with the fact that people are saying all sorts of nasty stuff about you and Mr. Carreon. Some of it, I think, crosses the line, and you’re right to condemn it.

But the solution isn’t to go and drag someone into court far away from their homes — an act which can be quite confusing, costly, and tolling, especially when you don’t have the comfort of an able friend, family member, or husband who has the benefit of having worked tirelessly to learn the intricacies of the legal process. Nor is the solution to use that high level of education to go and find a statute with which you can bludgeon the other side with the purported purpose of ensuring that charities get their money (and, in the process, costing those same charities a great deal, and deterring others from donating or starting their own fundraisers — a Pyrrhic victory, if it gets to that).

No, the solution is to fight back — with more speech. Just as you’re doing now, and just as Mr. Carreon is doing elsewhere. Public debate is caustic — if you don’t want to be criticized (perhaps vehemently), do nothing.



I would like to state, for the record, on behalf of the WHOLE INTERNET, that you are both are fucked in the head. The levels of hypocrisy you have both displayed is unfathomable. IT’S TIME TO STOP DIGGING, BITCH.

If any of this bullshit makes it anywhere near a courtroom, I will be absolutely ashamed.

Deselect (user link) says:

Hey you guys better watch out what you say about Charles Carreon, he has subpoenaed ArsTechnica and Twitter to find out who all the scary internet people are. Also his wife Tara will draw genitals on your face if they can. All of this is explained here: … ernet-now/

Also they will probably claim that drawing dicks on your face is satire, but a cartoon woman seducing a bear is total pornography.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...