If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Crunch)   FunnyJunk.com lawyer Charles Carreon finally backs off...just kidding, he's now suing the charities, too   (techcrunch.com) divider line 176
    More: Followup, Matthew Inman, National Wildlife Federation, charitable organizations  
•       •       •

5781 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Jun 2012 at 8:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 10:41:36 AM
From the Popehat article about the suit:

1. The lawsuit is captioned Charles Carreon v. Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does [Does are as-of-yet-unnamed defendants], Case No. 4:12 cv 3112 DMR.

Those unnamed defendants? They're us. I'll bet you Chuck Carreon is reading the comments on every online article about this looking for defamatory comments about him.

Why? I can only assume Charles Carreon rapes little boys, that's why.
 
2012-06-18 10:43:01 AM

Teknowaffle: His wife was making the rounds on various articles commenting absurd bullshiat,I honestly think there is something wrong with her and him.

Look at the posts on the message board on the site they run (they are the only ones who post)

Loony site

His wife seems to be a hard core Truther, which by association means he is going to be one too.
Link


holy crap great find

Epic Thread is epic
 
2012-06-18 10:43:38 AM
 
2012-06-18 10:43:51 AM

FuturePastNow: From the Popehat article about the suit:

1. The lawsuit is captioned Charles Carreon v. Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does [Does are as-of-yet-unnamed defendants], Case No. 4:12 cv 3112 DMR.

Those unnamed defendants? They're us. I'll bet you Chuck Carreon is reading the comments on every online article about this looking for defamatory comments about him.

Why? I can only assume Charles Carreon rapes little boys, that's why.


i lolled and got in trouble at work. well freakin played.
 
2012-06-18 10:45:14 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .


I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)
 
2012-06-18 10:45:47 AM

FuturePastNow: From the Popehat article about the suit:

1. The lawsuit is captioned Charles Carreon v. Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does [Does are as-of-yet-unnamed defendants], Case No. 4:12 cv 3112 DMR.

Those unnamed defendants? They're us. I'll bet you Chuck Carreon is reading the comments on every online article about this looking for defamatory comments about him.

Why? I can only assume Charles Carreon rapes little boys, that's why.


...While wearing a Santa suit.
 
2012-06-18 10:46:21 AM

Teknowaffle: Look at the posts on the message board on the site they run (they are the only ones who post)

Loony site


Ho-ho-holy shiat some of that stuff is crazy:

Here's a thread of her talking entirely to herself, while wondering if the "Red Cursor" of "Red Cursor Collective" is Satan or the "all-seeing eye" of Horus.
 
2012-06-18 10:47:54 AM

FuturePastNow: From the Popehat article about the suit:

1. The lawsuit is captioned Charles Carreon v. Matthew Inman; IndieGogo Inc.; National Wildlife Federation; American Cancer Society; and Does [Does are as-of-yet-unnamed defendants], Case No. 4:12 cv 3112 DMR.

Those unnamed defendants? They're us. I'll bet you Chuck Carreon is reading the comments on every online article about this looking for defamatory comments about him.

Why? I can only assume Charles Carreon rapes little boys, that's why.


Consider me subscribed.
 
2012-06-18 10:48:30 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: I'm not a lawyer, so correct me if I'm wrong, but to prove the first part, wouldn't he need to demonstrate that this Internet smear campaign is a real thing, orchestrated by Inman?


No, he would. And that's why it's not going anywhere. But basically, it would be:

1. He proves there's a smear campaign.
2. He proves the fundraiser is a cover for it. (Ergo, the fundraiser is fraudulent.)
3. He gets a court order telling the charities to file a cross-claim against IndieGogo to shut down the fundraiser. They do.
4. Court issues order and IndieGogo shuts it down. Charities walk away.
5. He then goes for damages against IndieGogo and Inman.
 
2012-06-18 10:49:40 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Teknowaffle: Look at the posts on the message board on the site they run (they are the only ones who post)

Loony site

Ho-ho-holy shiat some of that stuff is crazy:

Here's a thread of her talking entirely to herself, while wondering if the "Red Cursor" of "Red Cursor Collective" is Satan or the "all-seeing eye" of Horus.


I think him posting this on his farking site is probably going to end up getting him in big trouble, and possibly disbarred:
PSYCHO SANTA

by Charles Carreon

(Dedicated to Matthew Inman of the Oatmeal)

Well he used to be a pterodactyl up in the sky,
Tearin' people's heads off,
and eatin' their eyes,
But now he's done a change-up,
Got a new disguise --
All Points Bulletin: Look out for this guy!

He's a psycho-Santa with a big bag of tricks,
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.

Particularly dangerous to boys and girls
Who play with computers in the virtual world
He claims to be the hero of the human race,
A relief from their cubicles and bookin' their face.

He's a psycho-Santa with a big bag of tricks,
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.

His prehistoric origin's a mystery --
Did he escape from the lavatory?
Was he made by the Pentagon and NSA
A living drone that shoots mind rays,
Makin' zombies of his followers --
Internet slaves!

He's a psycho-Santa with a big bag of tricks,
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.

When cornered he will strike back with a vicious blow,
There is no depth to which he will not go.
Do not attempt to apprehend --
Type "King Kong," then hit Send.

He's a psycho-Santa with a big bag of tricks,
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.

He can revert to his original form at will.
X-Men got nothin' he can't kill.
Only a simian of similar size
Can pluck the Pterodactyl out of the skies.

He's a psycho-Santa with a big bag of tricks,
Ringin' a bell, and beggin' for clicks,
Psycho Santa got a itty bitty stick,
Psycho Santa, don't fall for his schtick.

Link

We really have to get this out there.
 
2012-06-18 10:49:42 AM

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)


hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.
 
2012-06-18 10:50:38 AM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Teknowaffle: Look at the posts on the message board on the site they run (they are the only ones who post)

Loony site

Ho-ho-holy shiat some of that stuff is crazy:

Here's a thread of her talking entirely to herself, while wondering if the "Red Cursor" of "Red Cursor Collective" is Satan or the "all-seeing eye" of Horus.


Wow, his wife is nutty as a fruitcake. I wonder if she rapes little boys, too?
 
2012-06-18 10:51:27 AM

Theaetetus: Since moel didn't pick up on it, it may not be obvious to a reasonable observer.


I'm English, and therefore don't get all American nuances...

An American may get them.
 
2012-06-18 10:52:37 AM
Has anyone mentioned to him yet that the mother seducing a bear image was directed at FunnyJunk and not him? That's not Carreon's mom, it's FunnyJunk's mom. This guy has serious issues.
 
2012-06-18 10:55:28 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)

hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.


Pfff, it's California, they protect celebrities.
And you were last July?
 
2012-06-18 10:58:14 AM

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)

hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.

Pfff, it's California, they protect celebrities.
And you were last July?


yeah - we realized we were both there in a discussion in a thread right around then. I am shocked and saddened your forgot me. I am now hiring Carreon to sue you for soul buggery, which is still actionable in Mass. and Maine.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:52 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)

hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.

Pfff, it's California, they protect celebrities.
And you were last July?

yeah - we realized we were both there in a discussion in a thread right around then. I am shocked and saddened your forgot me. I am now hiring Carreon to sue you for soul buggery, which is still actionable in Mass. and Maine.


Hey, in another thread, I invited you out for a beer and you never responded. As a result of your NIED, I suffered feelings of inadequacy, sleepless nights, and headaches. My process servers are on their way. Please lay out a sheet of cardboard.
s0.flogao.com.br
 
2012-06-18 11:06:14 AM

Teiritzamna: See i hate this man because he is actually becoming the stereotype that people have about lawyers that is untrue in 99.999% of cases. He has stopped being a zealous advocate for a client, regardless of the "goodness" of the client - and become an actual villainous sperm turtle. Its like how actual rape victims must have felt after the Duke lacrosse scandal - "Fark you for making this shiat harder"


Yeah, but there's an upside, at least from my perspective: Whenever I start getting nervous about law school, or taking the bar, or whatever the hell else, I just have to picture people like this guy, Orly Taitz, Jack Thompson, or Nancy Grace, and if that collection of kooks and morons can do it, so can I.


Theaetetus- It seems as though you're arguing pure black-letter law with no regard for the actual facts of the case or the circumstances involved. Legally, you're right, it is POSSIBLE for Carreon to win this, but no one's arguing that. As a practical matter, looking at the totality of circumstances, it's not going to happen, though. Yes, the charity CAN turn down the money, but they aren't REQUIRED to, and a judge CAN tell them not to, but again, isn't REQUIRED to. Carreon might have had a case about the smear campaign if his initial reaction to the fundraiser had been better, but when he tried to force a stop to it as publicly as he did, that exacerbated the situation for him and his client more than the fundraiser itself did. There were ways to handle that smoothly, with grace, and he wanted nothing to do with them.

This, then, is basically asking the judge for relief from a "smear campaign" caused primarily by negative publicity from his own actions, as a practical matter if not a legal one. No judge is going to go for that, especially not when it involves yanking money away from a cancer charity. Principle aside, the inevitable blowback is too high, and I think California judges are elected.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:37 AM

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)

hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.

Pfff, it's California, they protect celebrities.
And you were last July?

yeah - we realized we were both there in a discussion in a thread right around then. I am shocked and saddened your forgot me. I am now hiring Carreon to sue you for soul buggery, which is still actionable in Mass. and Maine.

Hey, in another thread, I invited you out for a beer and you never responded. As a result of your NIED, I suffered feelings of inadequacy, sleepless nights, and headaches. My process servers are on their way. Please lay out a sheet of cardboard.
[s0.flogao.com.br image 500x375]


crap i missed that! Yeah we should do that and have discussions about how much cooler we are than anyone else in a patent thread. Then we shall be ashamed. So very ashamed.
 
2012-06-18 11:10:42 AM

Last Man on Earth: Theaetetus- It seems as though you're arguing pure black-letter law with no regard for the actual facts of the case or the circumstances involved. Legally, you're right, it is POSSIBLE for Carreon to win this, but no one's arguing that.


Actually, many people are. But yes, I'm arguing that purely pedantic procedural point. As I've said, practically, he has no hope. But this won't make him lose his license, nor is suing the charities as outrageous as it seems.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:21 AM

Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: Theaetetus: false light and right of publicity

you know how i know you recently took the bar . . .

I don't know, and you'd be wrong. ;)

hey i was in the same room and it was recent to me!

Also false light is still one of those causes of action that makes my head sort of turn like that of a confused golden retriever.

Pfff, it's California, they protect celebrities.
And you were last July?

yeah - we realized we were both there in a discussion in a thread right around then. I am shocked and saddened your forgot me. I am now hiring Carreon to sue you for soul buggery, which is still actionable in Mass. and Maine.

Hey, in another thread, I invited you out for a beer and you never responded. As a result of your NIED, I suffered feelings of inadequacy, sleepless nights, and headaches. My process servers are on their way. Please lay out a sheet of cardboard.
[s0.flogao.com.br image 500x375]

crap i missed that! Yeah we should do that and have discussions about how much cooler we are than anyone else in a patent thread. Then we shall be ashamed. So very ashamed.


I'll allow it. Shoot me an email.
 
2012-06-18 11:22:51 AM

Last Man on Earth: It seems as though you're arguing pure black-letter law with no regard for the actual facts of the case or the circumstances involved. Legally, you're right, it is POSSIBLE for Carreon to win this, but no one's arguing that. As a practical matter, looking at the totality of circumstances, it's not going to happen, though.


This is that whole thinking like a lawyer thing. Its unsettling how much your brain starts doing this.
 
2012-06-18 11:33:43 AM

Adalius: Grables'Daughter: Adalius: Grables'Daughter: So here's a nice twist to the whole Oatmeal saga: the FunnyJunk lawyer who has been aggrieved by the Internet is now suing the National Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation.

Who the hell is the National Cancer Society?

It's that really elitist group that you can only join if you have cancer and a yacht. Snobs.

Ah, well that sucks since I only have cancer and a rowboat.

/I do not have cancer
//I do not have a rowboat

/I do not have cancer, but have a couple family members with it right now
//I have a rowboat
///I would like a yacht. Accepting donations now.


"My name is Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a cancer and a yacht."
 
2012-06-18 11:41:35 AM

Teknowaffle:
His wife seems to be a hard core Truther, which by association means he is going to be one too.
Link


Sort of off topic, but marriage does not mean you share political beliefs. I'm actively political, and my husband is apathetic though vaguely attached to the opposing party. He does not have any say in what I post on the internet, nor does he share my opinions on at least some of the stuff I post.

/Not that I've ever posted pterodactyl poetry. That's a new one.
 
2012-06-18 11:43:22 AM
It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica
 
2012-06-18 11:48:30 AM
Carreon has posted the lawsuit to his website: www.charlescarreon.com
 
2012-06-18 11:49:31 AM
Carreon reminds me a bit of has-beens in any field, happy for any attention at all. Like Henry Winkler peddling reverse mortgages or the reanimated corpse of Larry Hagman still making eyebrow gestures on the rebooted Dallas. Carreon fancies himself a celeb, and by golly this is the moment he's been sitting out in Tuscon with his nuttier-than-a-squirrel wife waiting 10 years for now, back in the game at last.
 
2012-06-18 11:52:36 AM

Nova81426: It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica


From the cited filing: ""Inman's use of vile, despicable insinuations of bestiality directed toward the mother of Plaintiff and/or his client were unfair solicitations prohibited by Section 12599(f)..." Now, just throwing this out there, but I'm thinking that in the context of "insinuations of bestiality directed toward the mother," you may want to avoid phrases like "unfair solicitations." The imagery doesn't help his case.
 
2012-06-18 11:55:45 AM

s1ugg0: KellyLockhart: Kyro: He seems to be taking a hit right in the book reviews, too.

I'm wondering how long until he sues Amazon over the reviews.

I did my part.


I didn't write a new review. I did, however, vote up all the 1's and 2's.
 
2012-06-18 11:59:01 AM
I'm on the Oatmeal's side in this issue but just barely. I think that Inman overreacted about the presence of his comics on funnyjunk.com (it's unfortunate but unavoidable for freely distributed webcomics to be re-hosted on sites like that) but at the same time it was a major dick move on Funnyjunk's part to issue the ultimatum to pay $20,000 or face legal action, when really all he did was publicly complain about his stuff getting ripped off.

All in all, this will be amusing to watch.
 
2012-06-18 12:01:25 PM

Nova81426: It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica


I read that and decided to see if he listed himself as pledging money. I wonder if this one is him or someone being cheeky (assuming the latter; don't feel like clicking "Load More" more than a few times):
i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-18 12:03:56 PM

pastorkius: Nova81426: It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica

I read that and decided to see if he listed himself as pledging money. I wonder if this one is him or someone being cheeky (assuming the latter; don't feel like clicking "Load More" more than a few times):
[i.imgur.com image 431x132]


Ok, so a whole bunch of donors loaded at once and there's a whole host of Charles Carreons ranging from $5-$50. Very creative.
 
2012-06-18 12:07:46 PM

Nova81426: It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica


Doesn't Carreon provably knowing what is going on kind of screw up the whole idea of him being mislead?
 
2012-06-18 12:18:18 PM

Grables'Daughter: EvilEgg: I am suspicious, no one is this impossibly stupid.

You have seen some of my posts, haven't you?


This thread brought your profile to my attention, and so this thread was therefore worth my time.

/My time isn't worth much
//About $11 an hour if you ask my boss.
 
2012-06-18 12:19:49 PM
I wonder when he will start suing people on message boards for libel.
 
2012-06-18 12:21:39 PM

Dr. Mojo PhD: Father_Jack: Dr. Mojo PhD has that pretty well covered in the other thread. Let's see if he covers those same bases here.

Oh joy, another retard who can't understand the difference between "Inman shouldn't use cancer for PR moves because it is tacky" and "Inman shouldn't use cancer for PR moves because it is tacky and also I think that that means FunnyJunk's original threat demanding 20 grand to steal Inman's IP was right and justified."

Non sequitur, biatch. The logic does not follow. Now settle the fark down, this is tragic (and funny in a kind of reverse-PR-suicide kind of way) for entirely different reasons.

And completely and utterly disgusting since he's now suing cancer charities. This takes tacky and classless to a whole new level.


Frankly, if more people settled petty disputes by raising money for good charities the world would be a much, much better place. Whether you think it tacky or not.
 
2012-06-18 12:23:50 PM

Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: You can't force a charity to turn down voluntary donations, no matter what the intention behind them is.

If the law says that a charity can shut down a fundraiser, then yes, they can.

They have the option, but I can't see how an outside party can force them to.
CrossEyedAtNite: I think you missed the part where he said "You can't force a charity to turn down voluntary donations" and replied instead to what wasn't said.

The law gives a charity a power to shut down a fundraiser, right? We're all clear on that one, no?
So, he goes to the charity and says "tear down this wall fundraiser!"
Charity says "piss off, wanker."
He then goes to court and gets a court order, ordering the charity to shut down the fundraiser.

You're right - you can't force a charity to shut down a fundraiser, and neither can I, or Carreon. A judge, however? They absolutely can.

/not that it will come out that way, but we're arguing about whether anyone has the power, and yes, a judge has that power


A moot point; it's question of whether Carreon has the power to do it (By using the court system and getting a judge's approval). To have that power he would need to have a good case. Of course the judge has the power.
 
2012-06-18 12:25:37 PM

deschinc: Nova81426: It was just revealed that Carreon himself donated to Inman's fund, so that he would be able to be counted as a contributor, presumably so he could then claim he was wronged by illegitimate fundraising.

Ars Technica

Doesn't Carreon provably knowing what is going on kind of screw up the whole idea of him being mislead?


Yeah, I'm no lawyer here, but he says he donated with the intent to benefit some charities. The fundraiser isn't over yet, so can he really already claim he was a victim when all the money may very well still go to the charities?

And to be clear, he did admit he donated, so one person on the donation list with his name is actually him.

"In a lawsuit filed Friday and made publicly available today, Carreon went after Inman, the charities, and the fundraising platform. And he revealed to the San Francisco federal court that he '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.'"
 
2012-06-18 12:33:50 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Iceman_Cometh: Grables'Daughter: So here's a nice twist to the whole Oatmeal saga: the FunnyJunk lawyer who has been aggrieved by the Internet is now suing the National Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation.

Who the hell is the National Cancer Society?

It's like the American Cancer Society, but without the designated hitters.

Best post in this thread.

And how did this guy ever get through law school with his sensitivity to butthurt.


THIS.

Who wants to start the betting pool on how fast this guy gets Rule 9 sanctions against him if/when this DOES go to court?

(Rule 9 sanctions, for those who are not lawyers and do not know lawyers, is basically when the court system tells you that you have been a Very Bad Lawyer and Done Things Lawyers Are Not Supposed To Do. It's often the first step to frank disbarment.)
 
2012-06-18 12:35:49 PM
Are there any cliff notes to what this is all about?
 
2012-06-18 12:35:55 PM

Great Porn Dragon: Who wants to start the betting pool on how fast this guy gets Rule 9 sanctions against him if/when this DOES go to court?

(Rule 9 sanctions, for those who are not lawyers and do not know lawyers, is basically when the court system tells you that you have been a Very Bad Lawyer and Done Things Lawyers Are Not Supposed To Do. It's often the first step to frank disbarment.)


[cough]Rule 11[/cough]
 
2012-06-18 12:37:26 PM
Best Book Review Ever from Amazon:

Book sucks. Don't buy it. It's just terrible. Riding a unicorn with AIDS would be a better option then buying this book.
 
2012-06-18 12:41:53 PM

LavenderWolf: Frankly, if more people settled petty disputes by raising money for good charities the world would be a much, much better place. Whether you think it tacky or not.


I agree.
 
2012-06-18 12:45:34 PM

toetag: Are there any cliff notes to what this is all about?


-Lots of FunnyJunk users upload TheOatmeal comics to FunnyJunk, sometimes without quoting the source, even sometimes photoshopping it out of the comic before uploading.
-Inman (the guy who does TheOatmeal) publicly complains about his stuff getting ripped off
-FunnyJunk removes some of the comics, but only those which are clearly marked by uploaders as TheOatmeal comics.
-Inman posts another update on his blog, complaining about FunnyJunk's lackluster attempts to remove his comics.
-Carreon (lawyer for FunnyJunk) threatens legal action unless Inman gives them $20,000 for damages to the reputation of FunnyJunk from his blog posts.
-Inman posts about the legal threat and says that instead of spending $20,000 he'll collect the money in donations and give them to a couple of charities.
-Carreon objects, and claims that Inman is not collecting donations in a legal manner.
 
2012-06-18 12:45:56 PM

LavenderWolf: Theaetetus: HotWingConspiracy: Theaetetus: You can't force a charity to turn down voluntary donations, no matter what the intention behind them is.

If the law says that a charity can shut down a fundraiser, then yes, they can.

They have the option, but I can't see how an outside party can force them to.
CrossEyedAtNite: I think you missed the part where he said "You can't force a charity to turn down voluntary donations" and replied instead to what wasn't said.

The law gives a charity a power to shut down a fundraiser, right? We're all clear on that one, no?
So, he goes to the charity and says "tear down this wall fundraiser!"
Charity says "piss off, wanker."
He then goes to court and gets a court order, ordering the charity to shut down the fundraiser.

You're right - you can't force a charity to shut down a fundraiser, and neither can I, or Carreon. A judge, however? They absolutely can.

/not that it will come out that way, but we're arguing about whether anyone has the power, and yes, a judge has that power

A moot point; it's question of whether Carreon has the power to do it (By using the court system and getting a judge's approval). To have that power he would need to have a good case. Of course the judge has the power.


(Regarding this statement "You can't force a charity to turn down voluntary donations, no matter what the intention behind them is." )
 
2012-06-18 12:50:23 PM

Theaetetus: Great Porn Dragon: Who wants to start the betting pool on how fast this guy gets Rule 9 sanctions against him if/when this DOES go to court?

(Rule 9 sanctions, for those who are not lawyers and do not know lawyers, is basically when the court system tells you that you have been a Very Bad Lawyer and Done Things Lawyers Are Not Supposed To Do. It's often the first step to frank disbarment.)

[cough]Rule 11[/cough]


Ah, my bad (not a lawyer, just know someone who is). Thanks for the correction.

And now the fact that he's done the following:

a) Apparently filed the lawsuit under California law rather than Washington law
b) Is now attempting to essentially SLAPP the charities being donated to out of participating in Operation Bearlove, despite the wee fact that California only has some of the most stringent anti-SLAPP regulations in the US and lawyers have and do get sanctioned for filing SLAPP lawsuits...

...well, this has me facepalming so hard I am managing to create sonic booms at this point. This is making the folks being lovingly cared for and educated at the Down's Syndrome Lifelong Learning Center look like members of the goddamn Prometheus Society, and the profoundly intellectually disabled people being cared for at the long-term nursing home/care home (that I'm always getting suggestions to donate to ever since I made a panel of a quilt for them in fifth grade that is probably STILL hanging in the lobby there) look like members of Mensa. It is actually difficult for me to fathom this level of dumbass, which if it were expressed in IQ points would probably require complex number notation because it goes into an entirely different dimension of Mentally Stupid.

Seriously, who wants to start the betting pool on how fast this guy gets sanctioned over this?
 
2012-06-18 12:52:58 PM
Another Amazon book review:

I bought this book, and tried reading it, but shortly in, my cat developed a serious case of full-body-aids-cancer. I would not recommend this book.
 
2012-06-18 12:58:45 PM

dj_spanmaster: s1ugg0: KellyLockhart: Kyro: He seems to be taking a hit right in the book reviews, too.

I'm wondering how long until he sues Amazon over the reviews.

I did my part.

I didn't write a new review. I did, however, vote up all the 1's and 2's.


Why thank you :) there does seem to be at least one random nutter voting them down...I susoect thats Charles himself though...as mine was a 0 for 1 after 5 minutes, and the rest have been +1's
 
2012-06-18 01:00:58 PM

Theaetetus: [cough]Rule 11[/cough]


i want rule 9 sanctions!

"You did not properly plead fraud - now you must be punished by Mistress Twombly"

mmmmmm Twombly
 
Mef
2012-06-18 01:04:01 PM
"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report