Matt Inman, creator of The Oatmeal webcomic, has snapped his promised picture of a huge pile of cash—but he used his own money, not donated funds.

Regular readers will remember that Inman tried to raise $20,000 online after Charles Carreon, lawyer for now-implacable-Oatmeal-foe FunnyJunk, asked Inman to cut him a check for that amount to cover alleged "defamation." Inman planned to photograph the cash and send the picture to Carreon—but the money itself would go to charity instead, to mock the initial demand. (The campaign actually raised more than $200,000.)

The whole case, now tangled in some truly bizarre litigation, threatened to put a stop to the picture taking. Carreon went so far as to file this weekend for a temporary restraining order that would halt any disbursement of the funds to Inman. Sunday night, Inman responded with his first legal broadside since the case began, his lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Focal Law blasting Carreon with both barrels.

Mr. Carreon attempts to disguise his attack on free speech by focusing on various (inapplicable) regulations. But his true intent is clear. For example, he rails against Mr. Inman’s plan to take a photo of the money raised. Showing a photo of a huge pile of money going to charity in lieu of paying off a bogus threat was a key part of the expressive First Amendment protected activity that was a core part of the plan, and something that Mr. Inman made clear to all the funders. Yet if Mr. Carreon had his way, he would prevent the 'publicity stunt,' which Mr. Inman said he planned from the beginning of the campaign, from occurring.

(The response then adds, with obvious snark, "This is a curious thing to seek when purporting to act for the interests of the other funders," who likely want the picture to be taken.)

Too late. As the lawyers note, Inman has already snapped the pic. Because of Carreon's complaint, however, "Mr. Inman has decided to not withdraw the funds in order to photograph them. Instead (unwilling to allow Mr. Carreon to interfere further with his expressive activity) he decided to photograph his own funds."

In a separate sworn statement, Inman himself says that "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."

As for the money itself—well, that too has been distributed. Inman's campaign raised $220,024 which was to be split between the National Wildlife Foundation and the American Cancer Society. After the fundraising site Indiegogo took its 4 percent cut ($8,000.96) and the credit card processors got their 3 percent ($6,600.72), Inman was left with $204,622.32.

Indiegogo held $95,675.68 of that money, mainly in credit card donations. In a legal filing of its own, also made last night, the site notes that it was directed by Inman to send the money directly to the charities in question, bypassing Inman altogether. That was done on June 29.

The rest of the cash ($108,946.64) was donated via PayPal and sits in a PayPal account awaiting disbursement. To deal with the money, Inman swears that he has "written a check to each charity ($54,473.32 each) and given these checks to my counsel to forward to the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation." (The lawyers are apparently holding the checks until the temporary restraining order has been decided upon.)

Point by point

As for Carreon's other assorted claims, Indiegogo's and Inman's lawyers deal with them each in turn.

Inman will get a huge tax writeoff for donating to charity! "Should Mr. Inman claim the money raised from the BLGCB campaign as income, this would increase his tax burden as well," his lawyers note. "And to the extent that Mr. Inman could deduct the money raised, he would merely be in the same situation he was in before obtaining the money. There can be no enrichment from tax consequences of the money raised, let alone an unjust one."

"Should Mr. Inman claim the money raised from the BLGCB campaign as income, this would increase his tax burden as well," his lawyers note. "And to the extent that Mr. Inman could deduct the money raised, he would merely be in the same situation he was in before obtaining the money. There can be no enrichment from tax consequences of the money raised, let alone an unjust one." This is an emergency! As Indiegogo notes, "Carreon did not file his papers until June 30. By the time he filed them, he had been informed that the money already had been transferred. As explained below, Carreon was aware at least as early as June 15 that the money was liable to be transferred at any time beginning June 26 and at all events no later than Monday July 2... Carreon could have applied for a TRO immediately. Instead, he waited to serve his papers until the middle of the period of time in which disbursement was to occur, presumably in an effort to manufacture an emergency. The Court should not countenance this gamesmanship."

As Indiegogo notes, "Carreon did not file his papers until June 30. By the time he filed them, he had been informed that the money already had been transferred. As explained below, Carreon was aware at least as early as June 15 that the money was liable to be transferred at any time beginning June 26 and at all events no later than Monday July 2... Carreon could have applied for a TRO immediately. Instead, he waited to serve his papers until the middle of the period of time in which disbursement was to occur, presumably in an effort to manufacture an emergency. The Court should not countenance this gamesmanship." My mom's honor is at stake! Inman's affidavit makes it sworn-up and official: he was never insulting Carreon's mom. "The comic I plan to send is a satirical drawing of FunnyJunk’s mother seducing a Kodiak bear. The comic is a humorous visual expression of my lack of intimidation and my disdain and contempt for FunnyJunk’s threat of a frivolous lawsuit."

Inman's affidavit makes it sworn-up and official: he was never insulting Carreon's mom. "The comic I plan to send is a satirical drawing of FunnyJunk’s mother seducing a Kodiak bear. The comic is a humorous visual expression of my lack of intimidation and my disdain and contempt for FunnyJunk’s threat of a frivolous lawsuit." Inman is a "commercial fundraiser" under California law! The law applies to any fundraiser working "for compensation" and was meant to address outside professional fundraising organizations. As Inman's lawyers write, "Finally, Mr. Inman has stated, under oath, that he is not in fact receiving compensation, and was not hired or paid by any charity. Because Mr. Inman is not a commercial fundraiser, Mr. Carreon loses the keystone that supports his claim to control the destiny of the funds raised."

The law applies to any fundraiser working "for compensation" and was meant to address outside professional fundraising organizations. As Inman's lawyers write, "Finally, Mr. Inman has stated, under oath, that he is not in fact receiving compensation, and was not hired or paid by any charity. Because Mr. Inman is not a commercial fundraiser, Mr. Carreon loses the keystone that supports his claim to control the destiny of the funds raised." Inman is potty-mouth! Carreon specifically cites Inman's initial "Fuck Off" comment as evidence that he shouldn't be allowed to sully the good name of the two charities in question by raising money for them. Inman's lawyers respond: "The First Amendment does not permit the law to hold, as Mr. Carreon claims, that the phrase 'Fuck Off' 'cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.' As Justice Harlan explained in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), 'while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.'"

Carreon specifically cites Inman's initial "Fuck Off" comment as evidence that he shouldn't be allowed to sully the good name of the two charities in question by raising money for them. Inman's lawyers respond: "The First Amendment does not permit the law to hold, as Mr. Carreon claims, that the phrase 'Fuck Off' 'cannot be lawfully associated with tax-exempt charitable solicitation in the State of California.' As Justice Harlan explained in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), 'while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.'" I've been irreparably harmed! The bar to a temporary restraining order, granted before any trial has taken place, is a high one, and usually requires that the continuing injury be so severe and immediate that it could no longer be mitigated after a trial. "Carreon’s total contribution [to Inman's campaign] was $10. Should it later be determined that any harm flowed from these events, that harm would be readily compensable with an award of monetary damages or restitution." In other words—we could pay him his ten bucks back after a trial.

The bar to a temporary restraining order, granted before any trial has taken place, is a high one, and usually requires that the continuing injury be so severe and immediate that it could no longer be mitigated after a trial. "Carreon’s total contribution [to Inman's campaign] was $10. Should it later be determined that any harm flowed from these events, that harm would be readily compensable with an award of monetary damages or restitution." In other words—we could pay him his ten bucks back after a trial. This isn't just about my feelings! Inman's lawyers argue that that entire case is "notable as much for its lack of context as its lack of merit... This case, and this Application, is nothing more than Mr. Carreon’s blatant—and baseless—attempt to retaliate against a critic with whom he is engaged in a very public dispute."

"They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill."

As for Charles Carreon, he's been making his anti-Inman arguments in legal filings. His wife, however, continues to crusade publicly on his behalf. When the Carreons' hometown Tucson Weekly put up a couple paragraphs on the case and concluded, "I generally like to cheer for Tucsonans, but in this case, I'm going to side with The Oatmeal instead of a guy suing the American Cancer Society." Tara Carreon responded:

"There is now plenty of proof that Matt Inman is one of a gang of people who promote the same type of ideas that inspired Jared Loughner to try and kill Gabrielle Giffords," she wrote. "Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, who studies hate groups and hate speech, examined Loughner's sites and concluded that his material on grammar, in particular, likely came from the writings of far right activist David Wynn Miller. If you Google Matt Inman + grammar, you will find a similar obsession. And similar hate."

The Carreons continue to receive the wrath of the "the Internet" over their actions, though the real hate seems to have burned off; someone recently sent them a faux "indulgence" that removes some of the purgatorial fire required to refine the soul of a "petulant, amoral, censorious douchebag."

The Carreons don't find it even remotely amusing.

Regarding this accusation that Charles is a "censorious douchebag," Inman's gang has made clear what they consider "censorious"—having any morals at all!... These guys have the mentality of assassins. Anything less would not be macho. They are killers, at least in their minds. Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy! This "censorious douchebag" blame is the blame of cannibals, of assassins. These children have been corrupted by a corrupt society. And everyone who fails to register an opinion and act in this matter is to blame. They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?

If there's one thing the Internet does not lack, though, it's opinions—and plenty have been offered on this issue. It's just that few of them support the Carreons.