When someone tries to raise money as a way to show an opposing lawyer a "philanthropic, kind-spirited way of saying: f--- off," one wouldn't expect that lawyer to contribute to the cause. But lawyer Charles Carreon did just that after The Oatmeal creator Matthew Inman launched Operation "Bear Love Good/Cancer Bad" last week in the wake of Carreon's demand that Inman hand his client a $20,000 check.

The whole debate goes back to the existence of user-generated content site FunnyJunk. Inman was upset in 2011 that many of his comics were uploaded to the site, and he complained about it publicly. A year after the initial complaint, FunnyJunk (through Carreon) demanded the cash and charged Inman with defamation. Inman's response was the Bear Love campaign, in which all the money raised would be photographed (to be sent to Carreon) but actually mailed to the National Wildlife Federation and to the American Cancer Society instead.

In a lawsuit filed Friday and made publicly available today, Carreon went after Inman, the charities, and the fundraising platform. And he revealed to the San Francisco federal court that he "is a contributor to the Bear Love campaign, and made his contribution with the intent to benefit the purposes of the NWF and the ACS."

The donation gives Carreon standing as a contributor to make the thrust of his lawsuit about the donations (there are also a few other charges tossed in). Carreon says that Inman is operating as an illicit "commercial fundraiser" and as such should face a hosts of sanctions. (The California statute he references defines such fundraisers as doing their work "for compensation." Inman would hardly seem to fit the bill)

Carreon demands that Indiegogo, which provided the fundraising platform, not get any money and that, further, none be paid out to Inman. (Indiegogo did not immediately return our request for comment). As for the charities, they "have failed to perform their statutory duty to exercise authority over the Bear Love campaign"—even after Carreon helpfully tipped them off about the campaign.

The filing is full of colorful language. A small sample: "Inman’s use of vile, despicable insinuations of bestiality directed toward the mother of Plaintiff and/or his client were unfair solicitations prohibited by Section 12599(f) of the Act, fighting words, and incitements to commit cybervandalism, none of which are entitled to constitutional protection, and perverted the socially uplifting purpose of public giving for the malicious, vindictive purpose of harassing and causing pecuniary damage to Plaintiff, as further alleged."

Much more to come as we dig deeper into the case writeup later today.

Update: We've now had time to go over the complaint in more detail.