

More Unfunny Junk - jusben1369
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunks-lawyer-personally-sues-the-oatmeal-creator/

======
bradleyland
Watching this situation unfold is especially poignant for me. I'm also being
sued personally -- despite my acting within the confines of a corporation --
by a lawyer working on contingency. Suing someone personally is one of the
least scrupulous things that these litigious assholes (lawyers like Carreon)
do. They do it because it's unnerving. Everything you have, plus anything you
do in the future is put on the table, and clawing it back off of the table is
expensive and difficult. It's a shake down, plain and simple.

Reading all the comments on HN is such an emotional roller coaster for me.
Prior to my current legal situation, I held many of the same view points that
I read here; e.g., "A judge is going to throw this out of court! This is
absurd!" I've heard this same sentiment over, and over, and over from friends
and lawyers with regard to my case, but guess what? We're about 2.5 years in
to litigation, and only a handful of allegations have been dismissed. Several
personal allegations are still in the complaint (a complaint is a legal filing
in civil cases), so I still face losing everything, depending on the outcome
of a jury trial.

The reality is that judges frequently cannot "throw this out of court" because
it's not within their power. Judges can only rule on the letter of the law,
and civil law is written to give plaintiffs their day in court without much
consideration for the accused (yes, I'm a bit biased here). It's disgusting to
watch all this play out with other people involved, but it's gut wrenching
when it's your $100k+ hard earned cash that has been spent fending off this
type of bullshit.

~~~
buro9
Also being sued at the moment. I'm in the UK.

It's only pre-action at the moment, so there's a chance to still avoid full on
action.

I'm well aware of how real and serious this is though. That it could bankrupt
me if only the slightest thing goes wrong (for me).

This is when being a bootstrapped sole founder is no fun... there is no safety
net, nothing to catch you. I can't even afford representation, so I'm
representing myself (nightmare!). I'm spending more time reading and
researching rather than coding.

What I've learned most of all, is that right and wrong don't really matter.

If it's going to go to court, if it involves a jury (the action I'm involved
in definitely would)... then all bets are off.

And all the while life goes on hold and projects are put on pause.

From the outside everyone has their views and express them frequently. This is
all detached and partisan though, the reality is that it really can bankrupt
you, or takeaway your future, or drain your current assets and reserves. It
demands being treated with respect even if you believe your position is sound
and the case unfounded.

The hardest bit, as you rightly say, is the gut wrenching fear and stress. The
way it affects your sleep. The way it's hard to work or relax because your
thoughts are always on the legal action. It affects everything.

~~~
Semaphor
You don't get a lawyer appointed when you can't afford one?

~~~
buro9
No.

Legal Aid is available for a very limited few (the most needy - which I
actually would've met the criteria for being on a Ramen wage) and only in
certain circumstances. The action against me includes a claim of defamation
and this precludes Legal Aid.

Pro bono is available, but generally comes with many restrictions. Example:
Must live within this catchment area, or be a woman victim of abuse, etc.

Where pro bono isn't restricted I've found that the lawyers are over-loaded
and unable to take on any more. I've contacted a number of lawyers, and with
the kindest apologies they've had to decline but then recommend someone else.
The recommendations have formed a large circular loop, I've tried them all.

There are legal clinics. Attending a CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) will
generally see you referred to one. By and large these are operated by local
small solicitor firms. Some legal clinics are much better funded and
organised.

I attended SWLAC (South Westminster Legal Advice Clinic). Which is sole-funded
by a barrister who wishes to remain anonymous. Largely these clinics deal with
housing issues and fairly simplistic cases for the most vulnerable. So when I
presented my case to them for advice (how to respond, interpreting the law and
whether I'd got it right), they were quite challenged by it. For an hour on a
Tuesday evening it's perhaps beyond their scope though they did their best.

Home insurance policies sometimes include Legal Defence cover. So I tried
mine, which does have that cover. However I found that this cover is only
available for a limited range of actions against you, and again does not cover
anything that includes defamation.

The action against me purposefully conflates 2 things together... my role as
the operator of a web site, and my role as a user of my own service. The
claimant has attempted to argue that my use of my own service somehow removes
the defences afforded to the operator of a site and would make me liable for
the statements made by others on the site. The third party comments being the
ones which are claimed to be defamatory.

There is more to it than this (but not much more), but as it may go to action
I limit what I will say publicly.

------
acqq
The full PDF link of complaint is linked from here:

[http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-
oatmeal....](http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-oatmeal.html)

Carreon did something quite interesting:

Carreon sues National Wildlife Federation and the American Cancer Society in
order to _give them all of the money_ collected in their name, preventing
IndieGoGo to take 9% of the collected money and Inman to get any cent himself
and to have a chance to decide how much to pay to which charity (claiming that
Inman promised to pay only USD 20,000 to both). And of course to prevent him
photographing with the collected money. :) Ground: the collection of the money
over IndieGoGo wasn't done according to the law that regulates collection of
charities.

Moreover, Carreon claims that _he himself paid to the campaign(!)_ and wants
to protect the charities and all contributors who assume that charities get
everything that was paid.

Cool. It doesn't look like he didn't think about the suit.

------
pavel_lishin
> "FunnyJunk is not suing him," Carreon added. "FunnyJunk didn't sue him. So
> what are people bitching about?"

Oh, I don't know, the $20,000 'offer' which is tantamount to extortion?

------
rpsw
> "That fact that [Inman] wants to react by advocating net war against me and
> accusing my mom of bestiality makes him lower than the low"

Reading the offending piece on theoatmeal.com it appears the mother mentioned
is that of FunnyJunk owner rather than Carreon.

The leading text before the claimed offence:

>"You want ME to pay YOU $20,000 for hosting MY unlicensed comics on YOUR
shitty website for the past 3 years?"

Considering the cheque was to be made payable to FunnyJunk (as requested in
the letter), and as Carreon does not own the "shitty website" it unlikely the
image depicts his mother at all but that of FunnyJunk's owner(s).

You could argue that the whole blog post is addressed to FunnyJunk, not
Carreon.

~~~
woodchuck64
:s/it appears/it should be obvious to anyone/

:s/You could argue that//

:s/Carreon/Carrion/g

<http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter>

~~~
rpsw
Carrion as in carcass of a dead animal?

------
chris_wot
Being sued by a guy who was once suspended by the Californian State Bar [1]
and who said that he "stands behind myself" [2]. Not sure I'd be overly
concerned.

1\.
[http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602...](http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/%5CArchive.aspx?articleId=83602&categoryId=83521&month=2&year=2007#s19)

2\. [http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-
ram...](http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-rambling-
beach-cat.html)

~~~
redthrowaway
Just because he's an idiot and his case is baseless doesn't mean it won't be a
pain in the ass to deal with.

------
gamache
I hope Matthew Inman won't be shy about asking for legal defense donations,
because I don't think his fans would be shy about giving them. With any luck,
a good lawyer, and a few years clogging up the legal system, this could be an
expensive mistake for Carreon.

~~~
redthrowaway
Boing Boing says he's getting pro bono counsel:
[http://boingboing.net/2012/06/18/funnyjunks-lawyer-sues-
amer...](http://boingboing.net/2012/06/18/funnyjunks-lawyer-sues-ameri.html)

------
brianjyee
He's apparently suing the charities too. WTF. I'd like to hear him explain how
the charities are responsible.

~~~
RobAley
There's a more detailed look at that aspect (all be it speculative until the
filing is on Pacer) on Techdirt

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/00025519366/charle...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120618/00025519366/charles-
carreon-sues-matthew-inman-charities-hes-raising-money.shtml)

~~~
brianjyee
"Carreon also hints that Inman might be responsible for someone setting up a
fake Twitter account in his name which had some "offensive statements." His
evidence that Inman was responsible? At the same time that the fake account
tweeted some stuff, Inman posted a tweet mocking Carreon in somewhat offensive
terms. That tweet did not link to or reference the fake account, but according
to Carreon: "I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the
same time the impersonator was? I don't know.""

Ohhh man, that's gold.

------
s_henry_paulson
"Mom! He hit me!"

But seriously, this guy is just trying to milk his 15 minutes.

It'll all be over soon. Nobody is going to end up doing anything, and the
parties involved all get an increase in notoriety.

It's like a mutual troll, and the joke is on anyone who buys into this jersey
shore type hype.

~~~
scott_s
_Nobody is going to end up doing anything_

Except that something has happened, as the lawyer has filed lawsuits.

~~~
fleitz
Filing a lawsuit for a lawyer is a like us portscanning someone. It's not a
big deal.

~~~
stinkytaco
Unless you're the non-lawyer getting sued. Then you either need to put in time
and effort responding to the lawsuit or money getting someone else to respond
to it.

The idea that litigation is just something that happens is ridiculous. It's a
time consuming, expensive and often very painful process for the accused,
innocent or not.

------
RobMcCullough
I have been trying extremely hard to give Carreon the benefit of the doubt and
understand his reasoning. I am beginning to wonder if he perhaps has a touch
Asbergers syndrome, or something of the sorts.

In reading his remarks, he is obviously thoughtful, well read, and genuinely
believes himself. But, there seems to be a stark contrast between what is
going on in his head and the "real" world. Regardless, this is the online
equivalent to trashy reality T.V. and I can not seem to tear my attention
away.

~~~
Codhisattva
I've met him on a few occasions. He's smart and generally the IP lawyer I've
recommended to friends and associates. Kind of hard to do that now, but there
you have it.

[edit: fixed typo]

------
officemonkey
"They say a man who represents himself has a fool for a client and a jackass
for a lawyer. With god as my witness — I AM that jackass!" -- Gomez Addams

------
TomGullen
Can't the Oatmeal guy counter sue for for libel? (He didn't get a horde of
trolls to attack this guy, they are all acting on their own accord)

------
jasonwatkinspdx
Nice headline Nate. Well played.

------
verroq
So it seems to me that FunnyJunk trolled the Oatmeal into a legal fight with a
lawyer, with one threatening letter.

If there is a lesson in this, it is that some humility goes a long way. In his
furious stupor with FunnyJunk he attacked their lawyer as well.

~~~
icebraining
Nothing on him? _He_ has stuff on them - namely, copyright infringement (which
may or may not be covered by the DMCA safe harbor). And he didn't start a war
with their lawyer, it was the other way around.

~~~
chris_wot
If Innman hasn't registered his work with the U.S. Copyright office, then he
can't sue for copyright infringement damages. Not that he can't claim
copyright, just can't litigate. Not sure if he can file after someone posts
his copyrighted material and then claim damages though - here's hoping he can!

~~~
chris_wot
Uh, why was this downvoted? The U.S. Copyright Office has this in their FAQ -
see here: <http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register>

~~~
mistercow
It's not clear from that FAQ itself but if you read PDF (to which the link is
broken, but here it is: <http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf> ), they
make it pretty clear that the registration can occur _after_ the infringement.
However he'd only be able to get actual damages (not statutory damages or
attorney's fees) unless it's been less than three months since the work was
created.

~~~
chris_wot
I did a bit of research, and I believe that it's covered by 17 USC § 411(c).
You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being
"first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours
after the work has been "transmitted".

Not sure if there is some other part of the U.S. Code that applies though.

~~~
mistercow
>You can only sue for copyright infringement within 3 months of the work being
"first transmitted" (which I assume also includes publication), and 48 hours
after the work has been "transmitted".

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think 411c applies in this case. That subsection
refers to works whose transmission and fixation are simultaneous, which I
believe is specific to live broadcasts and performances. I'm not entirely
clear on how all of the timing language there is supposed to work, but I don't
think any of it applies to webcomics anyway.

What would apply, however, is section 412 below that, which basically says
what I outlined above; if you want to sue for anything beyond actual proved
damages, you have to have registered either before the infringement, or within
3 months of creating the work.

