An attorney representing Satirical Charles, the person behind a satirical website mocking pugnacious Arizona attorney Charles Carreon, has filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, seeking a preemptive declaratory judgment in the case after Carreon indicated his interest in finding and then suing Satirical Charles by name. The legal move asks the court to declare that Satirical Charles has done nothing wrong.

Carreon has accused Satirical Charles (whose identity is known to Ars) of trademark violation and cybersquatting and has asked for a cease-and-desist of the site.

"We'll let the judges make the decisions and read the briefs. As an attorney, there's only so much time I can devote to speaking to the press, and I need to get to other things," Carreon told Ars on Monday. "My response to the litigation will be in due course."

"Vituperative Internet youth"

"We have litigated these domain name cases for some time," Paul Levy told Ars on Monday. Levy is Satirical Charles' pro bono counsel and a well-known attorney with the advocacy group Public Citizen, founded by Ralph Nader. He has also sided with Carreon on past cases.

"I really thought that both because we're so plainly right and because we have a prior relationship with Carreon—I thought there was a reasonable chance that he would see what I had to say and respond: 'OK, we're not going to pursue this,'" Levy said. "I thought there was a realistic possibility of that, and given that we've been on his side in the past and that he would take what we had to say seriously."

Levy was also the lead counsel in the case Lamparello v. Falwell (2005), which found that sites mocking others (in that case, a site targeting conservative Christian minister Jerry Falwell) can be protected by the First Amendment.

In his complaint, Levy reveals more of Carreon's normal bombastic rhetoric. He quotes Carreon's threats to draw out this litigation, threats in which Carreon talks about his "known capacity to litigate appeals for years" and adds that "Public Citizen might well be unable and/or unwilling to provide [Satirical Charles] with representation until the resolution of such an extended course of litigation."

Carreon is further quoted in the complaint as telling Levy that he is "utterly disgusted to see the organization [Ralph Nader] founded leaping to the defense of someone who is in league with a person who has harnessed the lowest impulses of puerile, vituperative Internet youth to generate a Charitable Fund that has been used to bribe two major charities into tacitly endorsing a campaign that is utterly devoid of charitable purpose, and is a mere cover for a hate campaign."

Writing on her own website, Carreon's wife Tara was more succinct: "And to Public Citizen's lawyer Paul Levy: Fuck you very much for filing a lawsuit on behalf of a cybersquatter's right to cybersquat, you corrupt fuck. I hope all these corrupt lawyers die in hell."

Register.com reveals user data, remains silent

In the suit, Satirical Charles is named only as an anonymous "Doe." This is despite the fact that Register.com, which hosts the domain name in question, temporarily uncloaked the person's true identity by altering the site's WHOIS data, which Ars discovered last week.

Last Thursday, in a letter sent to Register.com, Carreon threatened to name Satirical Charles as Doe 2 in the case that he had previously filed against a slew of defendants, including Matthew Inman (creator of The Oatmeal), two charities, and one hundred un-named "cyber-vandals." He also demanded that Register.com identity the individual, which the company did. Register.com has yet to respond to Ars' current and previous requests for comment about its actions.

Satirical Charles has expressed his own frustration at the increasing lunacy of the entire case.

"You could have engaged me in meaningful dialogue," Satirical Charles wrote on his own blog on Monday, in a post directed firmly at the real Charles Carreon.

"You could have put your angry hat away and e-mailed me. I would have agreed to disagree, but I would have listened to your concerns. I might have even agreed to find a mutually respectful compromise. I can disagree with your actions and still seek civility. That is over now. I have been threatened, my rights have been threatened, and I do not negotiate under threat. You cannot silence me for disagreeing with you. You cannot silence others who disagree with you."