How stupid is Charles Carreon's lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation? Really, really stupid


48 Responses to “How stupid is Charles Carreon's lawsuit against The Oatmeal, IndieGoGo, the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation? Really, really stupid”

  1. angusm says:

    To give Mr Carreon credit, he does seem to be trying very hard (and quite successfully) to disprove the old theory about there being no such thing as bad publicity.

    • C W says:

      I’m sure it’ll give him a slew of new, frivolous, dumb and nasty clients.

      He doesn’t have to win, he doesn’t have to make the judges happy, he just has to get his billable hours in. He’s eating this shit up, I’m sure he’s got years more of assholery to go through before he ends up disbarred like Jack Thompson.

  2. RadioSilence says:

    I read about this on the Bob Loblaw Law Blog.

  3. Thad Boyd says:

    Take, for example, his claim in paragraph 37 that “Mr. Inman’s stated intention is to turn over only $20,000 of the amount raised by the Bear Love campaign” to the charities.

    Ah, so we’re back to the bullshit claim that STARTED all of this: that an outdated blog post that was true when it was written should be assumed accurate for the rest of eternity.

    • Noah Callaway says:

      My assumption is that he will next sue reality for changing since the original blog posts.

    • Nick Weaver says:

      IANAL, but it gets worse:  Carreon knew or should have known that this statement of his in Paragraph 37 was false, since update #2 for the BearLove campaign stated that ALL the money would go to charity, and he provides no quotations from Inman stating otherwise.

      And we know Carreon had a chance to read the update before filing suit, because the screenshot he used of the BearLove campaign site had “Updates (3)” on it!

      Thus the big question on Paragraph 37 was whether Carreon was Rule 11-sloppy (“Reasonable Inquiry” requirement) and just never saw the update, or read the update and stated what appears to be a bald-face lie in his submission to the court.

  4. Jorpho says:

    when in fact the post makes it perfectly clear that the statement is directed a FunnyJunk, a web site that does not actually have a mother (unless, perhaps, its mother is AOL).

    It’s not really clear at all, actually.  The post seems to be in response to Mr. Carreon and his letter, but simultaneously addresses FunnyJunk.  I guess the problem is that Mr. Carreon is taking it personally?

    It raises the question as to whether Mr. Funnyjunk (whoever that is) now regrets getting Mr. Carreon involved and will try to distance himself from Mr. Carreon .

  5. Jim Saul says:

    You know, of course, about the classic grade-school english class trope that there are only a handful of story archetypes… man v. man, man v. himself, man v. nature, etc.

    And now we have it. Yet a new one.

    Man v. Internet.

    Some day when the machines are debating whether humans should continue to be their equals, Carreon will be cited as proof we’re just not worth the hassle.

  6. Ian Wood says:

    Hey, look! The Dunning-Kruger effect!

  7. mccrum says:

    The only way this gets to be more cartoonish is if he grows a large mustache that he can twist while tying an orphan to railroad tracks.

  8. Ari B. says:

    I’d love to be a fly on the wall if this were to actually make it to trial.

  9. s2redux says:

    If you’ve got the extra-large popcorn bowl out, be sure to peruse the comments in today’s TechDirt article (best read in threaded mode). Someone with the nick “TaraCarreon” acts as a blocker for Charles Carreon…it’s like Ed Wood, Jr. laid hands on a defective Philosopher’s Stone; hilarity ensues.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      Rumor has it that she really is his wife. And this isn’t her first time to the rodeo.

      • Nick Weaver says:

        Since some of her postings have been mirrored by the TaraCarreon account in one of the web forums they actually operate (where presumably a fake account would not be allowed to be maintained for a week+), the consensus opinion is that it is very VERY likely his wife.

      •  If it is his wife, she is doing him no favors. She’s over there calling every critic a Nazi for reals, she means actual National Socialists.  She is more disgusting than he is. She’s claiming that TD is the Mafia and commenting on ‘what really happened’ when he was before the Oregon Bar. 

      • Just spent my lunchtime giggling and reading her comments… I think those two are a perfect match.

        Also she uses “Un-American” (always with the “u” capitalized) as an insult quite often…

    • mccrum says:

      Comments nothing, the real weirdness is here:  “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.”
      I’ve donated to the campaign mocking my client to get myself out of a pickle.

      Wow, the train to Crazytown seems to be running express today.

  10. Rudy Belova says:

    When i think of Charles Carreon, This immediately pops into my head!

    • Labbit says:

      You should totally change your name to Rudy Bearlover.

    • teapot says:

      That was a right-pretty speech, sir. But I ask you, what is a contract? Webster’s defines it as “an agreement under the law which is unbreakable.” Which is unbreakable! Excuse me, I must use the restroom.

  11. Chris Recouvreur says:

    It’s not like Carreon would ever steal funds in a trust (the one he wants to put the donations in). He hasn’t done that before… or wait: 
    Check the links.

    • teapot says:

      In case you cant be bothered finding out what he means:
      Effective Oct. 24, 2005, the disciplinary board approved a stipulation for discipline suspending Ashland lawyer, Charles H. Carreon, from the practice of law for 60 days. Carreon admitted violations of DR 3-101(B) (unlawful practice of law) and DR 9-101(A) (failing to deposit or maintain client funds in trust)
      In the stipulation, Carreon admitted that acting as house counsel in Canada was in violation of regulations of the profession in that jurisdiction, and that by utilizing the client settlement funds, he failed to properly maintain client funds in his lawyer trust account.Carreon’s sanction was aggravated by a selfish motive, multiple offenses and his substantial experience in the practice of law.

  12. That_Anonymous_Coward says:

    The Carreon Effect: The act of doubling and then quadrupling down on an untenable position. 
      And then going all in.
    Credit to an Anonymous Coward from Techdirt.

  13. There are substantial signs in Tara Carreon’s posts that make me think she’s a member, or at least a fellow traveler, of the LaRouche Movement. The thing that got me going on that hypo is a comment she posted where she quotes a publication from the Schiller Institute (a LaRouche front) for no discernible reason. Further, her various conspiracy theories and hobby horses bear a strong resemblance to typical LaRouche preoccupations. 

  14. stephenl123 says:

    All this appears to be succeeding in distracting people from the theft from The Oatmeal by FunnyJunk.

    • P.F. Bruns says:

       Oh, no.  I, for one, am keeping that firmly in mind.  I’ll be budgeting some cash toward Mr. Inman in the very near future.  To paraphrase Spider Robinson, every dollar Matthew Inman gets for his work is a drop of urine on the shoes of Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk.

  15. Jeff Simon says:

    Carreon reminds me of Nathan Thurm, a character Martin Short used to portray.

Leave a Reply