More Unfunny Junk

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

by jusben1369 • 14 years ago

117 79 14 years ago

bradleyland5• 14 years ago

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.

s_henry_paulson2• 14 years ago

Except for there is no law being broken here.

If drawing and distributing a picture of someone in a negative fashion were a punishable offense, every political cartoonist in America would have been put on the chopping block long ago.

scott_s2• 14 years ago

That's rather the poster's point: even if the claims are demonstrably false, it can be an enormous burden and risk to actually demonstrate that.

rprasad4• 14 years ago

Oddly enough, Carreon is not suing over the picture itself--he is not suing for libel (i.e., a published defamation) or intentional infliction of emotional distress. He is merely claiming that the picture is a motivating factor in suing the Oatmeal guy.

Of course, Carreon is representing himself in the matter, and we all know what they say about a lawyer who has himself for a client...

citricsquid• 14 years ago

I've seen a lot of comments online talk about how in the US people are very litigation-happy and the law enables it. Does your situation exist because you're located in the US or is your situation something that would happen anywhere in the world?

bradleyland5• 14 years ago

I can't really say, because I lack sufficient knowledge of legal systems outside the US. I really only know what I know about our current system because of this lawsuit. I'd prefer not to know any of it! I just want to build great products.

wmil• 14 years ago

Most countries operate on a "loser pays" system. Whichever party loses has to pay the legal fees of the winning side.

This does a lot to discourage nuisance lawsuits.

In the US defendants generally can't recoup costs unless the claim is declared a "frivolous lawsuit".

buro92• 14 years ago

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.

Peroni• 14 years ago

That sucks beyond belief. You often hear of litigation cases in the States but rarely hear UK cases being publicised.

You should come to the Hacker News London meet-up and let me buy you a pint or twelve.

Semaphor• 14 years ago

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

rprasad4• 14 years ago

One of the biggest misconceptions about the corporate form is that it fully shields investors, officers, or employees from liability for their actions. It does not.

Employees remain liable for their own actions, though the corporation may also be liable for its employees actions. (See "detour and frolic" doctrine.)

Officers can be held liable for their decisions in running the corporation. However, officers are usually indemnified (by the corporation) for lawsuits against them if they were properly acting in their capacity as officers.

Investors can be held personally liable for any of the corporation's liabilities if the corporation is "undercapitalized", i.e., it does not hold sufficient liquidable assets or insurance to cover its current predicted exposure to the sum of its liabilities. This usually describes most S-Corps and smaller C-Corps, especially solely-owned corporations.

bradleyland5• 14 years ago

In our case, the lawyer smoked up a "civil conspiracy" charge, which is a popular method of breaking through corporations. But yeah, same result, different plot.

acabal• 14 years ago

What a nightmare. How do small fries defend themselves? What happens if some loony decides to drag a very small business into a frivolous lawsuit? Sinking $100k into trying (and not even necessarily succeeding!) to defend against ridiculous claims is utterly outside of financial reality for many. But what's the alternative? Lose everything?

How do the little guys defend themselves against this garbage?

dredmorbius• 14 years ago

You get a lawyer.

If you're smart, you figure out how much legal help you can afford. There is some help available pro-bono, some through legal clinics.

It's helpful to figure out what you feel that you should do, and what you actually need to do. Getting the other side to spin its wheels can be helpful, though for a morally motivated pro se opponent, this can be challenging (by "morally motivated", I mean an opponent who's motivated by their own moral outrage, not necessarily acting morally), as they are essentially gifting themselves their own legal services. Being prepared can be helpful, but that can cost.

Often you don't need to do too much, sometimes that's not the case. And law can very much be a war of attrition.

There are some countermeasures which can be taken, generally launching a countersuit, making disclosure demands, etc., though these also have their own costs, and if your opponent doesn't have deep pockets, they're not particularly effective and/or interesting to your own legal counsel (who after all is looking for their billable hours or 30% contingency).

A very good rule of thumb is not to do business with assholes (or marry one), though this won't cover you in all cases (e.g.: Oatmeal vs. FunnyJunk).

There are also personal liability policies available, though they can be expensive. On the positive side, they make your problem your insurance company's problem, and they may be motivated to respond effectively to shut down your opponent. More often these or other legal insurance policies will cost a fair bit up-front and pay for a small fraction of legal costs.

bradleyland5• 14 years ago

If we weren't successful at our startup, I'm not sure how I'd pay to defend myself. The reality is that I probably would not have been able to, which would have resulted in a default judgement followed by bankruptcy.

I'm not from money. I'm the son of factory worker and a stay and home mom who cleaned houses to help pay the bills. This whole ordeal is utterly terrifying. I (along with my other partners) bootstrapped our company on money earned and saved by working our assess off. I personally contributed over $60,0000 to start our company, and that money came from nothing. I earned it fixing computers and working on our startup in-between customers and at night.

The thing that keeps me going is anger. That's the only emotion that trumps my fear. I'm outraged at the absurdity of the allegations levied against me.

s_henry_paulson2• 14 years ago

"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.

alttab• 14 years ago

This is probably the most accurate forecast. That said, The only people who are going to hire this guy after this fiasco are those who do not know about it.

scott_s2• 14 years ago

Nobody is going to end up doing anything

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

fleitz• 14 years ago

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

masklinn• 14 years ago

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

he's being milked though, it's been a long time since I thought the term "lulzcow" applied to somebody and it applies fully to Carreon. Though it's not funny for Inman it's rather entertaining to see Carreon keep digging.

pavel_lishin2• 14 years ago

> "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?

chris_wot10• 14 years ago

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...

2. http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...

redthrowaway2• 14 years ago

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.

brianjyee2• 14 years ago

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

RobAley• 14 years ago

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...

brianjyee2• 14 years ago

"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.

Nutella2• 14 years ago

He's suing the charities along with Inman and IndiGoGo on his own behalf, not for FunnyJunk. He's acting as his own lawyer and demanding his legal fees be paid by the defendants. That's some amazing chutzpah.

chris_wot10• 14 years ago

It appears that he wants to sue the charity because of the following logic:

1. Indiegogo is incorporated in California.

2. It appears that under Californian state law that to collect money for a charity you must register to do so.

3. The charities were informed of the fundraising efforts, and as no paperwork had been filed they have the authority to shutdown the fundraising efforts.

4. The charities have refused to do so, therefore for some reason they are liable for the campaign.

(Reasoning taken from here: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...)

rpsw2• 14 years ago

> "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• 14 years ago

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

:s/You could argue that//

:s/Carreon/Carrion/g

http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter

rpsw2• 14 years ago

Carrion as in carcass of a dead animal?

verroq2• 14 years ago

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.

icebraining2• 14 years ago

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.

verroq2• 14 years ago

I think if he didn't draw the bear picture Carreon wouldn't have taken it personally. Right now this lawyer is representing himself on a rampage against the Oatmeal and charities.

chris_wot10• 14 years ago

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!

officemonkey2• 14 years ago

"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

gamache• 14 years ago

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.

redthrowaway2• 14 years ago

Boing Boing says he's getting pro bono counsel: http://boingboing.net/2012/06/18/funnyjunks-lawyer-sues-amer...

jasonwatkinspdx• 14 years ago

Nice headline Nate. Well played.

TomGullen• 14 years ago

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)

acqq• 14 years ago

The full PDF link of complaint is linked from here:

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2012/06/carreon-v-the-oatmeal....

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.

RobMcCullough• 14 years ago

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.

Codhisattva4• 14 years ago

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]

More Unfunny Junk

Related Stories