The Most Hated Man on the Internet (This Week)

[Lemur]

Dunno if Orgahs have been following, but there's this site called funnyjunk, and it was reposting Oatmeal comics without permission. Matt Inman, maker of the Oatmeal, mentioned it in a blog post, which prompted funnyjunk's lawyer, Charles Carreon, to send a threatening letter and a demand for $20k in compensation for something or another. That's the backstory.

Anyway, The Oatmeal responded with this hilarious takedown of the threatening letter. As you would expect, the internets rose like an angry mob against the lawyer. His response? Sue everyone in existence.

Late yesterday Ars Technica posted a fairly long (and delusional) interview with the lawyer. The man is clearly a first-rate loon.

Curious if any orgahs have participated in this. Anybody donate to the charities Oatmeal earmarked? Anybody written any comments on the legalities (this has the legal blogs on fire).

I would especially like to hear from anyone interested in attempting to defend the lawyer's actions.

-edit-

In defense of this thread's title, if you Google internet's most hated man right now, the top links are about Carreon. Apparently he has supplanted a guy named Hunter Moore, whom I'd never heard of before now.

[Greyblades]

Question: how does someone who's insane become a lawyer?

[Fragony]

Question: how does someone who's insane become a lawyer?

By following classes?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well it depends on how you define insane. American legal system being what it is...

[Fragony]

Well it depends on how you define insane. American legal system being what it is...

Oh trololol, has Edwin Lensink been released yet

[Hooahguy]

Not just this week, also last week.
The lawyer really is a massive .

At least a bunch of other lawyers are flocking to the aid of the people he's suing to do pro-bono work.

[spankythehippo]

'Twas a hilarious read. Reading the lawyer's rebuttal was torture.

[PanzerJaeger]

Hunter Moore's site was thoroughly enjoyable.

[InsaneApache]

The ***** wearing a Joey Ramone T shirt. He'll be pogoing in his grave.

[Sarmatian]

Ah, there are two really sad truths to be understood here.

1. People have waaaay too much free time.

2. It takes a big pile of manure to get people to give to charity.

[Xiahou]

Ah, there are two really sad truths to be understood here.

1. People have waaaay too much free time.

2. It takes a big pile of manure to get people to give to charity.

I learned that The Oatmeal (which I don't think I've ever heard of before) isn't very funny. I read a few comics, sighed, and clicked away- thus ending my interest in this story....

[Lemur]

Update: Insane lawyer files injunction to prevent charity money from being distributed to charities. 'Cause that's how he rolls.

[Hooahguy]

Update: Insane lawyer files injunction to prevent charity money from being distributed to charities. 'Cause that's how he rolls.

Old news bro.

[Lemur]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Hooah! Thanks for letting us know you can't be bothered, Xiahou!

Insane lawyer continues to threaten lawsuits for everyone; gets counter-sued, and quite effectively. Insane lawyer's threats are worth a read, if only for comedy value:

As far as when and where I will sue your client, be certain that it will occur if your client does not cede the domain, and advise her of ten things:
1. That there is essentially no statute of limitations on this claim, and the prima facie laches defense [ed. note: that's an equitable defense that asserts "you waited too long to file this."] would not kick in for at least three years.
2. That venue in this action can be validly laid in at least three places, maybe four, if she doesn't live in Arizona, Florida, or California.
3. That I am capable of employing counsel to handle my claim against her, who will incur attorneys fees and seek recovery of the same. I filed pro se against Inman simply for the sake of convenience and the need for speed, and not from a lack of resources.
4. That the law in this area cannot be predicted with certainty, will evolve substantially over the next three years, during which I will be using digital forensics to establish actual trademark damages in addition to seeking the maximum cybersquatting penalty of $100,000.
5. That a judgment that recites that the domain was obtained by fraud upon the registrar, in the form of a misrepresentation that she did not know of my trademark on the name, might well be non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
6. That a judgment can be renewed indefinitely until collected, and that California judgments accrue 10% interest, which can compounded once ever ten years by capitalizing the accumulated interest.
7. That you cannot guarantee that Public Citizen will provide her with free legal services on June 1, 2015, when I may very well send the process server 'round to her door.
8. That I have the known capacity to litigate appeals for years (check my Westlaw profile, and of course, the drawn out history of Penguin v. American Buddha, now in its third year, having passed through the Second Circuit and the NYCA, and still hung up in personal jurisdiction in the SDNY).
9. That the litigation, being of first impression in virtually every Circuit, grounded in a federal question, involving a registered trademark, and dispositive of many open issues in the field of Internet commerce and speech, might very well continue for a decade.
10. That Public Citizen might well be unable and/or unwilling to provide her with representation until the resolution of such an extended course of litigation.

[Papewaio]

At what point does it go from being a lawyer and using it wisely to being a bully and harassing people?

Separately: What penalties can be enacted to stop someone wasting the courts time? I presume you can't stop someone suing even if they have a history of it and even if people don't like the reasoning behind it. I assume a person could make claims like he is and lose a hundred of them and still sue the 101st. So what protections are in place to others ?

[Hooahguy]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Hooah

You're quite welcome bro!

Anyhow, I read an article which interviewed the scumbag lawyer. He basically said that he was ready to "take on the internet," or something to that effect.
I laughed.
It seems as if he is in a serious nosedive right now, suing everyone and everything that dare utters his name in a derogatory manner.

[Lemur]

What penalties can be enacted to stop someone wasting the courts time?

There's a thing called an anti-SLAPP law, which seems very appropriate to this case.

[Papewaio]

I read that anti-Slapp link. It seems he is following it blow by blow including shopping around for a jurisdection that would be easier for himself.

It also seems used as a censorship tool (slapp) but the link states the hardest part is proving that it is for censorship. Has t this guy more or less stated that is what he's trying to do.

This is the 1% who gives lawyers in democracies a bad name. Just look at countries were the rule of law doesn't operate and you soon get an appreciation for lawyers. But guys like this brings the whole profession into disrepute with layman.

[Hooahguy]

So it seems like Carreon dropped the lawsuit.

San Francisco - Attorney Charles Carreon dropped his bizarre lawsuit against The Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman today, ending his strange legal campaign against Inman's humorous and creative public criticism of a frivolous cease and desist letter that Carreon wrote on behalf of his client Funny Junk.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and co-counsel Venkat Balasubramani represented Inman in the case. While Carreon's lawsuit was purportedly about whether Inman's online fundraising campaign for the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation complies with California regulations, it was really a classic SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

"Matthew Inman spoke out against Carreon's threat of a frivolous lawsuit, in a very popular and very public way," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "This was nothing more than a meritless attempt to punish Inman for calling attention to his legal bullying. We called him out on this in our briefs, so it's no surprise that Carreon was left with no choice but to dismiss."

The extraordinarily public dispute between Inman and Carreon started in 2011, when Inman published a blog post condemning the website FunnyJunk for posting hundreds of his comics without crediting or linking back to The Oatmeal. A year later, Carreon – the attorney for FunnyJunk – served Inman with a letter claiming the post was defamatory and demanding The Oatmeal pay $20,000 and agree to never speak the words Funny Junk again.

Inman publicly annotated the cease and desist letter with a scathing critique of its facts and logic and posted it on The Oatmeal. Furthermore, instead of paying Carreon's baseless demand for $20,000, Inman decided instead to start a fundraising campaign called Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad through the Indiegogo fundraising platform to benefit the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation. The fundraiser's goal was $20,000, to match Carreon's demand, but the final total was over $200,000.

"Inman sparked a flood of charity donations, and yet Carreon still tried to punish him for making fun of his baseless legal threats by dragging him through the court system," said EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry. "We're very pleased that Carreon has seen that his lawsuit had no merit, and hope that this is the end of his abuse of the legal system."

[Lemur]

But now he's going to help other victims like himself, whose obnoxious behavior has been widely ridiculed. Don't you understand? When you comment on an idiot, or point out their idiocy, it's basically rape. Don't believe me? Welcome to RAPEUTATION.

[InsaneApache]

You bumbuggerbumpoo you.