Every so often, a celebrity has some sort of seeming meltdown. An ugly divorce, a strange rant about cops or Jews, or an interview where they do something so bizarre that all the celeb gossip for the next week is focused on them. Sometimes they really relish it, and try to stay in the limelight as long as possible.
I get the same impression from this guy. At this point, it's no longer about the FJ defamation suit, or about winning in court. It's gotta be about getting his name out there, maybe trying to generate some book sales or link juice back to his site.
We on HN don't care about people jumping on Oprah's couch; let's give this guy the same treatment.
Why aren't lawyers that do this type of stuff disbarred? After filing X number of absolutely frivolous suits in X time period, there should be a cooldown period. It could discourage lawyers from pursuing such things, effectively stopping clients from suing too frequently and frivolously.
Perhaps it's a bit like the "free speech" thing. That is, you can frivolously say whatever you like, and similarly you can frivolously file as many lawsuits as you like too?
I'm homeless, jobless and deeply in debt. Can I puleez sue myself for five mil and have the state pay me damages? Pleeeeez, can I huh, pleeezz?
Edit: I am wondering if the folks downvoting me even looked at the infographic. It literally lists someone suing themselves for five million and expecting the state to pay the damages on the grounds that he can't afford it.
Wow, this is just insanity. Any judge looking at this suit should dismiss it based on how frivolous it is, and everyone involved should just grow up, and the lawyer suing the Oatmeal and Charities should start making an honest living.
He should be disbarred. Trying to sue the charities themselves, which aren't even involved in this squabble? Ridiculous. How anyone with a functioning brain could come to the conclusion that this is the best course of action baffles me.
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.
The only thing that I can see that Carreon has got right is that The Oatmeal cannot sue for copyright infringement (however, they still hold copyright) as they didn't file with the copyright office. However, given that you don't have to file with the U.S. Copyright Office to gain copyright on your works, I can't see why Innman couldn't register his copyright and then sue for infringement. The copyright is not in any doubt, just the ability for him to file a lawsuit for infringement.
I think the thread of this story has wandered into trivial territory. It's not as if we need to see every detail of every frivolous lawsuit.
Edit: He's got a book and some really wonky websites. His ebook is here: http://sex.comchronicles.com
Amazon has it here, some of the reviews are telling:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439201013
It's subtitled titled "A White Hat Lawyer's Journey to the darkside of the internet"
He's definitely got the attention-seeking symptoms going on. I don't think gawking at zany lawyers is a good use of the front-page.