Copyright and Digital Libraries.

Nothing I do is illegal. If you do it, it might very well be, but I am exempt for two main reasons. First I am the law. Second, Tara is a librarian. So we can either sue your pie hole shut so fast you won’t even be able to swallow your pie, or we can claim we are fair use non-infringers of your copyright. Now this topic was brought up in the comments section of my last entry, and I need to clarify. My wife and I can draw genitalia all over your pictures and post them to our website. We can call for bankers to be water boarded. We can use other people’s money for our own rent. I can disclose all our emails and letters. We can do anything we want, because I can and will try to bend the law to my needs. I can use a dead man’s name to sell my services. I am above you. I am your transcendent legal god.

You however have many fewer rights than I. You cannot use my name to make fun of me. You cannot draw pictures that I might perceive are my mother. You cannot call me a content thief. You cannot chose how to use your own trademark. You cannot ask for civil debate. You cannot use my tactics against me. You cannot publish my legal letters to you.

Anyone who challenges these rules will learn that my pen is mightier than the sword. One last thing, Tara says your dick is small.

Charles Carreon Esq.

Advertisements
Previous Post
Next Post

12 Comments

  1. Lorien347

     /  June 21, 2012

    Dear lawyer-with-a-name-i-dare-not-say,

    If i am not allowed to say bad things about you, may I say factually correct positive statements?

    May I say, ” LWANIDNS has said he is a lawyer with some experience in internet law”?

    May I say, “LWANIDNS writes novels for amazon that at least a half-dozen people have given glowing reviews”?

    May I say, “LWANIDNS has never, to my knowledge done anything inapproptiate with a goat. I do not own a goat, but if I did LWANIDNS would be my first choice for any goatsitting related tasks. He has my complete faith for all theoretical goat needs.”

    Any clarifications would be appreciated.

  2. Condoleeza Rice

     /  June 21, 2012

    Sir,

    I’m offended by your photo shopping of my picture on a can of soup called tits and rice on this so called “library” site by the name of American Budda.

    My tits are not saggy as you have depicted. You clearly have never seen my tits. They are very perky. They are in fact quite spectacular.

    I insist you remove this disgusting picture forthwith since it is not an accurate depiction of my tits. I will not send you accurate picture of my tits because I’m sure you would then try to sue me for distribution of pornography.

    Condi Rice

  3. Charles, remember that one time that you thought you’d won a case for American Buddha Online Library and then lost it and then ignored the fact that you lost?

    http://www.medialawmonitor.com/2011/12/penguin-group-usa-inc-v-american-buddha-new-york’s-long-arm-statute-grows-longer-for-internet-piracy/

  4. themattscott, that is libelous and defamatory. Surrender a cheque in the amount of $100,000 and a picture of your face so that it may be photoshopped with penises, to my wife Tara by June 25, 2012 or I will be forced to file a federal lawsuit against you seeking damages and attorney costs that I am sure will exceed $20M. Further more since you used my website without my explicit consent I am notifying the F.B.I. cyber task force in relation to your brute force hacking of my comment section. I also will kindly remind you the I have a trademark of the name Charles, and any further use will be litigated for damages under the Lenham Act.

    Charles Carreon Esq.

  5. A Canadian

     /  June 21, 2012

    Hello, Lawyer-who-shall-not-be-named. I have a question: What is your solution to the ancient Greek Paradox of the Court?

    The gist of it is that one lawyer trained a student in the law on the condition that the student pay up as soon as he won his first court case. The student picked up no clients, so the teacher sued him for the payment. The teacher said that if he won, the court would have to force the student to pay him, and if he lost, the student would have won his first court case, and would still have to pay him. The student, on the other hand, said that if he won, he would not have to pay as per the court’s decision, and if he lost, he would not have to pay because he had not won his first court case yet.

    Who is right? Should the student pay the teacher or not? Bear in mind that this is a hypothetical scenario. I look forward to your response.

    • Easy, whoever I was in the scenario, would win. Because as I have stated numerous times on this blog, in interviews with the media, and through actions across the internet, I am always right even when others would be wrong. Think of me as a legal Chuck Norris.

%d bloggers like this: