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.

Carry on my douchebag son
There'll be no peace till you are done
Lay your 15 minutes to rest
Don't you sue no more

Once you sued for just the lulz and confusion
Just to keep up appearances and delusion
You were douching ever higher
But you douched too high

Though my eyes could see you weren't a real kind man
Though my mind could think I was going real mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say

{Refrain

Masquerading as a man with a reason
Suing all with no regard for the season
And if you claim to be a wise man, well
It surely means that you don't know

On a stormy sea of internet persecution
Tossing off at the thought of retribution
You set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say

{Refrain
No!

Carry on, you will always be laughed at
Carry on, nothing equals this ass hat
The center lights around your vanity
But surely tardom waits for you

Carry on my douchebag son
There'll be no peace till you are done
Lay your 15 minutes to rest
Don't you sue no more(don't you sue no more)

/With apologies to Kansas and whoever I'm supposed to apologize to for bastardizing their lyrics

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"

I will say the same thing I say to cops who biatch about how the public focuses on the corrupt douchenozzles in their midst: if we actually saw routine discipline of the "bad apples" we might believe that you really care about getting rid of them instead of public relations.

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.



youre ADORABLE how you call me a biatch and a retard then you tell me to settle down. Next time i'll put little :P icons after my posts youre not supposed to get frothy over.

Masterstuff: EvilEgg: I am suspicious, no one is this impossibly stupid. There is another game going on here.

How quickly we forget Jack Thompson(disbarred). Yes, there are people who are this impossibly stupid.

So Carreon doubled down on his previous double down of derp? Are we at a double-double-double-double?

God how I miss Jack Thompson. Yes, he was a headache, but his extreme level of butthurt was just so damn funny.

While the complaint isn't yet available, this was in that article two days ago:
My first question for Mr. Carreon was about his attempt to shut down the The Oatmel's fundraiser. I didn't understand why he wouldn't instead just say that raising money for cancer and wildlife preservation was great, but it did not affect the damages that were owed to his client. The move seemed to cause more bad PR for himself and FunnyJunk rather than help his case.

Carreon replied that under California law, you must be properly registered to conduct a fundraiser, something he is certain that Mathew Inman (operator of The Oatmeal) and IndieGoGo (the crowdfunding site being used The Oatmeal) are not.

"You might think of it as the 'Pseudo Santa' law," he explained. "Anybody can get a Santa suit. Then around Christmas time, you can probably make pretty good money wearing one outside of Macy's, ringing a bell, and saying you'll give the money to the Salvation Army. But you can't do that."

Carreon went on to say that he had been in contact with the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation and confirmed that Indiegogo had not executed the proper fundraiser paperwork. He explained that this missing documentation gives a sponsoring organization the power to shut down a campaign that may bring a charity itself into disrepute or injure its goodwill...or might be "using a charity as a human shield for a slander campaign inciting people to cyber vandalism," Carreon added.

Now, my guess is that he's suing the ACS and NWF to force them to shut down the campaign, so it's not as if he's going after them for damages, just an injunction.

Dog Welder: The woman who finally presided over his trial had to put up with some pretty serious shiat from Thompson in order for his disbarment to go through and stick, but when it finally did the case was iron clad.

Yes, but recall it took numerous frivolous filings and if memory serves, he actually submitted a picture book of swastikas, gay porn, and kangaroos as judges with the intimation that the court was too retarded to understand his arguments and this was the only way they could understand what he meant. Then he tried to claim them rejecting this was an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

This was 12 years after he tried to have the Florida Bar itself, like the actual bar association, declared unconstitutional.

I mean Jesus H.

Dr. Mojo PhD: The My Little Pony Killer: I hope this ends with Carreon being disbarred and then jumping from a bridge.

It won't. Remember how far Jack Thompson had to push it, and through how many suits and actions, and how much ridiculous shiat he had to pull, and for how many decades?

To be fair to Thompson, he constructed a house of cards built upon delaying tactics, more delaying tactics, obfuscation, and outright intimidation and harassment of those who were coming after him (to the point that they just said, "Fark it! I'm done with this" -- judges basically continued to pass the buck on to other people so they didn't have to deal with his bullshiat). There was an almost admirable ability of Thompson to use smoke and mirrors to keep his lawyerin' license for as long as he held it.

The problem is, that when you build up your entire career on a foundation of delaying tactics and lies, it's all going to fall down eventually. The woman who finally presided over his trial had to put up with some pretty serious shiat from Thompson in order for his disbarment to go through and stick, but when it finally did the case was iron clad.

The My Little Pony Killer: I hope this ends with Carreon being disbarred and then jumping from a bridge.

It won't. Remember how far Jack Thompson had to push it, and through how many suits and actions, and how much ridiculous shiat he had to pull, and for how many decades?

I hope this ends with Carreon being disbarred and then jumping from a bridge.

Troublesome Strumpet: There is not enough popcorn in the WORLD for watching this dude go down in flames.

I didn't know they had drive-thru law schools.

Maybe he has a GED in Law...

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

This guy, Carreon, is becoming the Orly Taitz of Copyright Law.

XMark: 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.

-Carreon loses his farking mind, stops any appearance of acting for his client, begins representing himself pro se and sues everybody including the charities

Yeah I know that bit was in the headline, but still.

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

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.

I wonder when he will start suing people on message boards for libel.

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.

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.

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

imontheinternet: Carreon has filed a lawsuit he knows is frivolous in order to bully the charities into speaking out against Inman.

Well that answers the "what is the endgame" question.

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.

Well that's what I was pointing out yesterday. Up until this. A lot of people were going "Carreon Carreon Carreon" and it's like, well, he's a lawyer. He's representing his client. This is on his client, FunnyJunk, not on him as a person or as a lawyer. It's not like lawyers are the arbiters of whether or not a client's case is Good and True and Moral and Righteous or anything.

And up until now, that remained true of Carreon. And then he goes and does this, and just to remove any doubt that, yeah, it really is him this time, unequivocally and absolutely 100% stereotypical dickbag lawyer, he chucks in the pro se angle.

What I can't get here is what's his endgame? I completely disagree with Inman using charities as a PR move. I really do, I think it was an inappropriate response to Carreon's letter (partly because of the risk of, well, this). But what does he think he's going to solve here, from any standpoint?

1. He stops the charities getting money. So he's punitive against a charity because of the actions of somebody he disagrees with?
2. He, what, undoes Inman's own PR move? Like a legal stop action will travel through time to the past and undo the fundraiser?
3. He tries to hold up that legal order as some evidence that the PR was bad? Cue Morbo: That's not how PR works, man.

Like I just don't see the point of this. At all. Theaetetus has offered that it's procedural hoop jumping, and that may be, but if the charities aren't party to that procedure, you aren't playing to any outcome but one of those three. Which again raises the question, what the fark?

The worst part of it is it's so cartoony that I don't know whether to find Carreon and put a plastic shopping bag over his head on general principle or just find the turn the situation has taken to be so absurd as to actually transcend outrage into comedy at how ill-thought-out this is going to be.

CheatCommando: 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"

I will say the same thing I say to cops who biatch about how the public focuses on the corrupt douchenozzles in their midst: if we actually saw routine discipline of the "bad apples" we might believe that you really care about getting rid of them instead of public relations.

Well see i think you are missing my point. What usually happens in threads (and RL discussions) is that Person A sues Person B. To do so, person A hires Lawyer 1. Person A has a raging hard-on for this fight and wants to be as brutal as possible. Lawyer 1 perhaps counsels Person A to chill, to try negotiation, to try a less aggressive tack. Person A (perhaps with legitimate reason) says no, cry havoc and slip the dogs of law. Lawyer 1 does what he swore an oath to do and fires off all the legal tricks he has got. Rains absolute misery on Person B. Does everything the law allows and requires to pummel B into the ground - all at the direct order of Person A. Outside observers look and go - "friggin lawyers - they are so awful" Not Person A. Lawyer 1 is the villain. This is somewhat . . . annoying.

If you think i am making this up read any thread where the RIAA decides to sue some grandma for downloading a song for full statutory damages. You would think it would be "bastard music execs!" and to an extent it is. But for every one of those comments there are at least a few "lets kill lawyers! this is all their fault!"

This causes me to make the sighs and head shakes. Makes me think you know people its not the lawyers fault. They are literally just doing their jobs and as everyone knows, in this world you often have to work for assholes. And then this guy comes along.

In the beginning i hoped that he was just working for dicks. That he sighed to himself before sending that initial crazy ass letter. That the client had required all the weapons grade WTF in it. Then this crap happened and all i can think is "stop being the thing everyone hates - you cock"

blerg - i hath unburdened meself

Thorak: Yes, but he's trying to sue based on a California law, according to one interview, when Inman lives (according to Wikipedia) in Seattle, Washington.

Where Inman lives is likely irrelevant. Choice of Law in a 50 state federal system is what we in the legal profession call "farked up"

Dr. Mojo PhD:
It's still tacky and classless and frankly at a level that is utterly appalling to any sense of human dignity.
... big boy pants... gay...

Agreed. And the lawsuit is pretty bad, too.

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

Yes, but he's trying to sue based on a California law, according to one interview, when Inman lives (according to Wikipedia) in Seattle, Washington.

The "Pseudo-Santa" crack was, if anything, defamation itself, since it implied that Inman was intending to keep the money rather than donate it it as he stated, which would be the crime said law exists to prevent in the first place.

Popehat has a pretty good read on what this lawyer can expect if he tries to take this crap to court.

fluffy2097: Theaetetus: On what grounds? Because you don't like him? While I agree, that's not really a valid legal reason that a judge can hang an order on.

I'm pretty sure a judge could dismiss a case entirely on the basis of it being not within the spirit of the law, even if they are technically correct.

"I'm shutting down a fundraiser because they said mean things about me" is obviously not in the spirit of fundraising laws.

Well (putting aside the fact that equity is equity in the case of an injunction) generally a judge ruling because he dislikes the rationale behind a totally legally correct matter is an actual activist judge. Its probably best not to have our judges ruling because they dislike you (even if you deserve it).

Of course in equity the judge would have a lot more flexibility to put his thumbs on the scale of the balance of harms for example, but frankly i doubt that would be necessary in this weakass case.

Theaetetus: Dr. Mojo PhD: And what in the fark is he suing the charities for? What the fark did they do? What are they supposed to do, turn down a legitimate donation?

See above - they can shut down an illegitimate fundraiser using their names, and his argument is that it's an illegitimate fundraiser. The charities are defendants so that he can get a court to order them to order the fundraiser to be shutdown. It's more of a procedural hoop.

I'm familiar with his argument, he made it in the Interview that was linked yesterday.

It's still tacky and classless and frankly at a level that is utterly appalling to any sense of human dignity.

You know what he could do? He could ask the charities, as a party, as an entity, if they find this acceptable, and if they don't want to turn down the money he can put on his big boy pants and deal with it instead of forcing them to force others to turn down donations and keep the charities out of what he has now turned into his own gay little Internet slapfight.

There's like one good reason to sue a non-profit group and that's if its ripping people off. I'm sure there's others some people could think of. But you don't sue UNICEF because the treat-or-treating kid didn't have the right paperwork and you want UNICEF to throw the pennies back in his face, and if, for Christ knows what farking reason, you actually choose to do this you will come across as farked up mentally.

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

Pretty sure this idiot continues to kick the hornet's nest because he's an AW and is hoping to at least pick up another book deal.

Dr. Mojo PhD: And what in the fark is he suing the charities for? What the fark did they do? What are they supposed to do, turn down a legitimate donation?

See above - they can shut down an illegitimate fundraiser using their names, and his argument is that it's an illegitimate fundraiser. The charities are defendants so that he can get a court to order them to order the fundraiser to be shutdown. It's more of a procedural hoop.

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.

Theaetetus: imontheinternet: Theaetetus: Now, my guess is that he's suing the ACS and NWF to force them to shut down the campaign, so it's not as if he's going after them for damages, just an injunction.

He's still an idiot. 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.

The case should get tossed, and he should be forced to pay the charities' costs and attorney fees.

On what grounds? Because you don't like him? While I agree, that's not really a valid legal reason that a judge can hang an order on.

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.

Oh, wait - what if lawyer Carreon has a personality disorder that makes him do these self-destructive acts? We should pity him, perhaps send him notes similar to the ones I sent my ex when she wants more money or attention.

Those notes are along the lines of EABOD and DIAF.

yours, in hopes of everyone getting along

Haha, oh wow he's gone the pro se route, has he? So much for the leeway he could get in just representing his client's interests.

And what in the fark is he suing the charities for? What the fark did they do? What are they supposed to do, turn down a legitimate donation?

Here is a bit of advice to our lawyer friend from an old Scottish proverb

"when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging"

RogueVortex: EvilEgg: I am suspicious, no one is this impossibly stupid. There is another game going on here.

I often wonder if people like Mr. Carrion are inflaming the internet community for their 15 minutes of fame.

How long until he's a meme?

He's as much a meme as Milhouse.

EvilEgg: I am suspicious, no one is this impossibly stupid. There is another game going on here.

How quickly we forget Jack Thompson(disbarred). Yes, there are people who are this impossibly stupid.

So Carreon doubled down on his previous double down of derp? Are we at a double-double-double-double?

Mentalpatient87: How long until the inevitable "everyone's a jerk here" misinformed post?

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

I can't wait to see his actual complaint that he filed in court. Hopefully it'll show up on PACER today so someone with access can get a copy to pass around. I soooo want to read it.

KellyLockhart: The longer this goes on, the better it gets. I just had to buy a new jumbo box of microwave popcorn to keep up with the fun.



Otto: Well how we gonna get outta here?
Homer: We'll dig our way out!
Wiggum: No, no, dig up, stupid!

It's interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet's nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well.

Indeed. Who needs reality TV when you have this kind of stuff to entertain us?

Anyone got a pool started on when this guy gets disbarred for misconduct?

There is not enough popcorn in the WORLD for watching this dude go down in flames.

I didn't know they had drive-thru law schools.