Bear Seducing Lawyer who sued "The Oatmeal" for $20000 to pay $46100 instead
35 replies, posted
[img_thumb]http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/carreon.jpg[/img_thumb]
[quote=Article]Last summer, Tucson lawyer Charles Carreon dashed off a letter requesting that the creator of popular webcomic The Oatmeal "deliver to me a check in the amount of $20,000" as payment for some things Oatmeal creator Matt Inman had said about a site called FunnyJunk. Carreon didn't get his check, though. Instead, Inman drew a crude picture of woman—who might or might not have been Carreon's mother—seducing a bear. "There are some things that you accept with grace," Carreon told Ars in an interview last summer. "But I do not accept that my mother engaged in bestiality and I do not accept that FunnyJunk slept with its mother, as it does not have a mother."
The judge was displeased with the way Carreon "went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service" and that he "engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics" in objecting to pay the other side's attorneys' fees, amounting to "a mini-trial on plaintiff's motion for fees." In fact, $37,650.25 of the $77,765.25 bill was added up after Carreon admitted defeat. Carreon even deposed the opposing lawyer, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, but the judge ruled that this only created "additional frustration for plaintiff and his attorneys."
Carreon won't have to pay the whole bill, however; the judge did some calculating and chopped things down to $46,100.25[/quote]
Source: [url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/the-madness-ends-lawyer-charles-carreon-to-pay-46100/[/url]
Definitely deserved.
[QUOTE=Aries;40265088]I cannot fathom why that lawyer took the case.[/QUOTE]
money~
That brights up my day.
Good. Fuck Funnyjunk and long live The Oatmeal.
[QUOTE=DiCiSpitfire;40265048]Serves him right.[/QUOTE]
Yea thats what he gets doing his job and not wanting slander of him by some childish comicmaker.
Lots of bandwagoning here
[QUOTE=Iago;40265673]Yea thats what he gets doing his job and not wanting slander of him by some childish comicmaker.
Lots of bandwagoning here[/QUOTE]
He's not "just doing his job", he's been a fucking idiot. Dif you even read the article? There's only a small excerpt in the OP.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;40265881]He's not "just doing his job", he's been a fucking idiot. Dif you even read the article? There's only a small excerpt in the OP.[/QUOTE]
Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.
[QUOTE=Iago;40265911]Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.[/QUOTE]
yeah im sure the judge was a massive oatmeal fan too, thats why the shady lawyer got fined obviously
oh christ
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
i bet his parents are proud
[QUOTE=Iago;40265911]Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.[/QUOTE]
Well aren't you a coolest kid on the block or what?
[QUOTE=Iago;40265911]Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.[/QUOTE]
There's no way you read the article and can still defend that guy. He brought this shit upon himself. Seriously, FunnyJunk essentially stole all of Inman's comics and removed all credit that was his from his comics and instead replaced it with their shitty watermarks, so he was not given credit for the things he created, it's reasonable for him to have said what he said about FunnyJunk. And all because he posted one simple post on his blog, this Carreon guy tried to sue him. Seriously, please tell me where Inman went wrong in this, I'd love to hear it.
I'm not defending funnyjunk, i'm just saying that the lawyer shouldn't be fined.
"Just Carreon, nothing to see here"
[QUOTE=Iago;40266459]I'm not defending funnyjunk, i'm just saying that the lawyer shouldn't be fined.[/QUOTE]
Why shouldn't he be fined?
[quote]"a mini-trial on plaintiff's motion for fees." In fact, $37,650.25 of the $77,765.25 bill was added up after Carreon admitted defeat.[/quote]
The trial was over and he threw the equivalent of a baby tantrum over losing. If I look at this correctly, which I believe I am, he did this to himself and has nobody to blame but himself.
[quote]"went to great lengths, imposing unnecessary costs on plaintiff, to avoid service" and "engaged in unnecessary, vexatious, and costly tactics"[/quote]
[QUOTE=Iago;40266459]I'm not defending funnyjunk, i'm just saying that the lawyer shouldn't be fined.[/QUOTE]
He looks like he racked up the bill though.
[editline]13th April 2013[/editline]
Above ^
[QUOTE=Iago;40266459]I'm not defending funnyjunk, i'm just saying that the lawyer shouldn't be fined.[/QUOTE]
You do realize what happened, right?
The lawyer tried to sue a website that said bad things about him.
The website in question countersued.
Lawyer drops case; tries to avoid going to court constantly.
is finally caught outside of a federal courtroom, admits site was legal, agrees to pay 725 dollars
Website's lawyer demands more money for wasting everybody's goddamn time
Lawyer #1 agrees... to pay 200 more dollars.
The whole point of him being fined is that he made a frivolous lawsuit. Why should he possibly not be forced to pay a fine?
[QUOTE=Iago;40265911]Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.[/QUOTE]
Didn't he also sue some charities or something?
Iago, maybe you should read what actually happened first mate
[url]http://theoatmeal.com/blog/funnyjunk_letter[/url]
The article is fucking horrible.
So is the oatmeal paying him or is he paying the oatmeal now?
should've called saul
[QUOTE=Mega1mpact;40270003]The article is fucking horrible.
So is the oatmeal paying him or is he paying the oatmeal now?[/QUOTE]
The lawyer is paying $46,100 in court fees
I remember back in the day Funnyjunk was the internet hotspot for viewing funny content. Now it's just shit memes.
[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;40273806]I remember back in the day Funnyjunk was the internet hotspot for viewing funny content. Now it's just shit memes.[/QUOTE]
I don't remember that time at all.
[QUOTE=Iago;40265673]Yea thats what he gets doing his job and not wanting slander of him by some childish comicmaker.
[B]Lots of bandwagoning here[/B][/QUOTE]
"lolol im gonna be unique by saying something different just because its different and not because it follows any form of logic and call anyone else a ~bandwagoner~
[QUOTE=Iago;40265911]Yea i'm already aware about the oatmeal v funnyjunk thing, but he got publicly embarassed just because he was working for funnyjunk.
Oatmeal was being a childish moron, most of facepunch hates funnyjunk so they're okay with people being unfairly fined aslong if they disagree with their opinions.[/QUOTE]
You do know this doesn't have anything to do with The Oatmeal right? it's a separate case.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.