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.
"Carreon also hints that Inman might be responsible for someone setting up a fake Twitter account in his name which had some "offensive statements." His evidence that Inman was responsible? At the same time that the fake account tweeted some stuff, Inman posted a tweet mocking Carreon in somewhat offensive terms. That tweet did not link to or reference the fake account, but according to Carreon: "I don't know if that's coincidence. Why was he on twitter at the same time the impersonator was? I don't know.""
He's suing the charities along with Inman and IndiGoGo on his own behalf, not for FunnyJunk. He's acting as his own lawyer and demanding his legal fees be paid by the defendants. That's some amazing chutzpah.
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.
(Reasoning taken from here: http://www.ramblingbeachcat.com/2012/06/not-backing-down-ram...)