joshtimonen talks

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lordpasternack » Tue Oct 26, 2010 10:56 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:The bigger deal for me is that I can't wrap my head around the idea of anyone just "volunteering" to create and run that whole store for nothing, and not only that but use one's own corporate entity (that requires out of pocket payments of fees and such to keep in compliance with US corporate laws), to do so. That's Timonen not only doing the work, but taking all the legal liability too. For nothing?
I think it's presumed that the negotiated salary Josh was to pay himself through the store takes into account his running of that part of the site, along with other duties. I think it's clear that if the salary was set down (verbally) to be extracted via that particular source, it would seem sensible that it would be with the duties rendered to said source in mind.

Also, people may frequently have duties added to them in any case without a pay-rise. If they don't like it, they can no doubt appeal. It doesn't give them the right to dip their hands into the cookie jar.

I really don't think that Richard would take Josh to court based on a possible "misremembering" - and likely has some kinds of evidence at least to the effect that he was being deceived. I know which side I'm weighing down on in the meantime here. I know which of the two has the hungrier ego and is casually deceptive, and which has more of a penchant for honesty. That may not count for much at the moment - but we'll see how things pan out.. :pop:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Gallstones » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:19 am

Feck wrote:I wonder how the unpaid members of staff on RDF feel about the salary the charity was paying Josh ?

I wasn't doing it for money. I just wanted things to be reasonable, fair and rational.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

Trolldor
Gargling with Nails
Posts: 15878
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 5:57 am
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Trolldor » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:38 am

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:The bigger deal for me is that I can't wrap my head around the idea of anyone just "volunteering" to create and run that whole store for nothing, and not only that but use one's own corporate entity (that requires out of pocket payments of fees and such to keep in compliance with US corporate laws), to do so. That's Timonen not only doing the work, but taking all the legal liability too. For nothing?
I think it's presumed that the negotiated salary Josh was to pay himself through the store takes into account his running of that part of the site, along with other duties. I think it's clear that if the salary was set down (verbally) to be extracted via that particular source, it would seem sensible that it would be with the duties rendered to said source in mind.

Also, people may frequently have duties added to them in any case without a pay-rise. If they don't like it, they can no doubt appeal. It doesn't give them the right to dip their hands into the cookie jar.

I really don't think that Richard would take Josh to court based on a possible "misremembering" - and likely has some kinds of evidence at least to the effect that he was being deceived. I know which side I'm weighing down on in the meantime here. I know which of the two has the hungrier ego and is casually deceptive, and which has more of a penchant for honesty. That may not count for much at the moment - but we'll see how things pan out.. :pop:
Well there is a certain honesty in looking down on people, yes.
"The fact is that far more crime and child abuse has been committed by zealots in the name of God, Jesus and Mohammed than has ever been committed in the name of Satan. Many people don't like that statement but few can argue with it."

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:31 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote:The bigger deal for me is that I can't wrap my head around the idea of anyone just "volunteering" to create and run that whole store for nothing, and not only that but use one's own corporate entity (that requires out of pocket payments of fees and such to keep in compliance with US corporate laws), to do so. That's Timonen not only doing the work, but taking all the legal liability too. For nothing?
I think it's presumed that the negotiated salary Josh was to pay himself through the store takes into account his running of that part of the site, along with other duties.
What RDF/Dawkins have alleged is that the salary Josh was to pay himself through the store was $0.
lordpasternack wrote:
I think it's clear that if the salary was set down (verbally) to be extracted via that particular source, it would seem sensible that it would be with the duties rendered to said source in mind.
Yes, that would seem sensible.
lordpasternack wrote:
Also, people may frequently have duties added to them in any case without a pay-rise. If they don't like it, they can no doubt appeal. It doesn't give them the right to dip their hands into the cookie jar.
Except, that here Josh was not an employee who was "assigned duties." Under U.S. law an "independent contractor" necessarily must be "independent." Even in RDF's complaint they point out that Josh was an independent contractor and that he was to provide his own workers compensation insurance, pay unemployment compensation and otherwise be independent of RDF. Josh was hired by Dawkins personally work on certain projects, and paid. He was hired by RDF to work on certain projects, and paid.

Dawkins claims that he then hired Josh to run the Store through Josh's company, UBP, and take care of everything related to the store, but this project would not be paid for. Dawkins was paying Josh enough already....says the complaint.
lordpasternack wrote:
I really don't think that Richard would take Josh to court based on a possible "misremembering" - and likely has some kinds of evidence at least to the effect that he was being deceived. I know which side I'm weighing down on in the meantime here. I know which of the two has the hungrier ego and is casually deceptive, and which has more of a penchant for honesty. That may not count for much at the moment - but we'll see how things pan out.. :pop:
At this point we really don't know. Both sides, to some extent, are basing their positions on their recollections. The first legal basis in the complaint for RDF to sue Josh is an "oral contract," whereby Josh agreed to use his own company, UBP, to own the Store and run it - and that it was to be run "for the benefit of RDF." We don't know much more than that, really, about even what the terms of this "oral contract" were.

I would expect, as you pointed out, that RDF has some evidence of deception - they better, since they've alleged "fraud" and that statements were made constituting an "oral contract." Someone is going to have to testify to what fraudulent statements were made and what the terms of the oral contract were. If it's one person's word against another, the question of proof becomes very difficult.

One thing i'd like to know is how much money did RDF pay in to UBP to run the Store. Was the Store self-sufficient, or did RDF have to bankroll it. If the store was self-sufficient, that would tend to favor Josh. If RDF was dumping money in it, it would tend to indicate that UBP was in some respect operating for the benefit of RDF - nothing is generally for free in these situations.

User avatar
Faithfree
The Potable Atheist
Posts: 16173
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:58 am
About me: All things in moderation, including moderation
Location: Planet of the grapes
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Faithfree » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:27 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote: One thing i'd like to know is how much money did RDF pay in to UBP to run the Store. Was the Store self-sufficient, or did RDF have to bankroll it. If the store was self-sufficient, that would tend to favor Josh. If RDF was dumping money in it, it would tend to indicate that UBP was in some respect operating for the benefit of RDF - nothing is generally for free in these situations.
From pg 6:
23. Plaintiffs and Timonen agreed that (i) Plaintiffs would fund the creation and operation of The Store (primarily with seed money generated by the sale of “Growing Up in the Universe” DVDs), ..
Although the amounts are not given, this line implies that RDF not only funded the initial creation, but also the ongoing operation of the store.
Although it may look like a forum, this site is actually a crowd-sourced science project modelling the slow but inexorable heat death of the universe.

Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Coito ergo sum » Wed Oct 27, 2010 3:49 pm

Faithfree wrote:
Coito ergo sum wrote: One thing i'd like to know is how much money did RDF pay in to UBP to run the Store. Was the Store self-sufficient, or did RDF have to bankroll it. If the store was self-sufficient, that would tend to favor Josh. If RDF was dumping money in it, it would tend to indicate that UBP was in some respect operating for the benefit of RDF - nothing is generally for free in these situations.
From pg 6:
23. Plaintiffs and Timonen agreed that (i) Plaintiffs would fund the creation and operation of The Store (primarily with seed money generated by the sale of “Growing Up in the Universe” DVDs), ..
Although the amounts are not given, this line implies that RDF not only funded the initial creation, but also the ongoing operation of the store.
Yes, and I am interested in "how much" was contributed. That's important.

Complaints are generally very carefully worded, and when reading them it is very important to pay very close attention to precisely what is said.

So, yes, RDF claims (a) there was an agreement that "Plaintiffs" (both RDF and Dawkins) would fund the "creation and operation" -- (b) that funding would be "primarily" with "seed money" generated by the sale of "growing up in the Universe DVDs."

The amount and nature of the funding is not at all clear - but the sales of growing up in the Universe DVDs would presumably be done through the store. So the "seed money" may well be revenue from Store sales.

It's not exactly clear - and there is wiggle room in the language.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by hadespussercats » Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:34 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:
Bella Fortuna wrote:OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing. :dono:
The issue is burdens of proof.

If you have a commercial photographer come to you home to take pictures of your family, and the photographer comes over, takes pictures of your family, gives you the picture, and then bills you. You then respond - "hey, Photog! F U! I never agreed to pay your anything!" - The photog sues you for the cost of the pictures, claiming an oral contract, that you called him on the phone and said you needed pictures taken of your family and would pay his going rate for them. You deny agreeing to pay him, but admit calling the photog to come over and take the pictures.

Yes, you could claim that in other circumstances people have done work for free. However, the job of the court is to be the "finder of fact" and to weigh the evidence and the testimony and decide who is more likely telling the truth and what the facts really are. In my view, a court/jury would be more likely to find that if you call a commercial photographer and ask him to come to your house to take pictures, you likely agreed to pay for them.

So, here we have Dawkins bringing the case saying that he called up an independent contractor, Timonen, and asked that Timonen create and run an online Store and operate it through Timonen's own company, which would necessarily involve research, design, development, implementation of the site, negotiating terms of credit card systems and other pay systems, logo design, marketing, creation of content, selecting product, ordering product, receiving, inventorying, sales, shipping, bookkeeping/accounting, corporate compliance, California sales tax (which is among the most complex) and other taxes, and everything else associated with the business.

It is possible that Timonen agreed to take all that on for nothing. Yes. But, on the surface, does it not at least raise your curiosity? If I were on the jury, I would want to know why. I would want to know when Timonen agreed to do that, and what exactly was said, because it seems to me to be something that someone who has to make a living can't just do - donate 2+ years worth of time running a business. Maybe he did - the context and all the facts could clear it up.
Well, according to http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/10/22/31283.htm "According to Timonen's own records, Dawkins and the Foundation paid Timonen a total of $278,750 in 3½ years - an amount Dawkins calls "exceedingly generous and well above-market for someone of Timonen's age and experience, particularly for someone providing the bulk of his efforts to a charitable organization."

Roughly 80,000 dollars a year hardly seems like nothing. I wish I made that much.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
Blondie
Forum Desperado
Posts: 1196
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 3:26 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Blondie » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:31 am

Was there an aural witness to this "oral" contract?

How did they seal the contract orally?

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Feck » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:38 am

Anthroban wrote:Was there an aural witness to this "oral" contract?

How did they seal the contract orally?

well I think they missed the happy ending bit .
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lordpasternack » Thu Oct 28, 2010 12:47 am

May I add at this juncture that I'd have been happy to make an oral contract with Richard for significantly less than Timonen, and would charge less for any additional personal services rendered on top - AND I would keep my side of the bargain up through it all.

I may not be quite as talented as Timonen for all I know, though… :tea:
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
lsdetroit
Telepathetic
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: ask your mother.
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lsdetroit » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:05 am

this means Josh is available to run MY website.
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

User avatar
Kristie
Elastigirl
Posts: 25108
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
Location: Probably at Target
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Kristie » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:06 am

lsdetroit wrote:this means Josh is available to run MY website.
Good luck with that. :biggrin:
We danced.

User avatar
lsdetroit
Telepathetic
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: ask your mother.
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lsdetroit » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:07 am

Kristie wrote:
lsdetroit wrote:this means Josh is available to run MY website.
Good luck with that. :biggrin:
im going to call it "Doctor Wellington's Beef Trapeze" .com
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

User avatar
Kristie
Elastigirl
Posts: 25108
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:14 pm
About me: From there to here, and here to there, funny things are everywhere!
Location: Probably at Target
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by Kristie » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:08 am

lsdetroit wrote:
Kristie wrote:
lsdetroit wrote:this means Josh is available to run MY website.
Good luck with that. :biggrin:
im going to call it "Doctor Wellington's Beef Trapeze" .com
I think that should be a .org
We danced.

User avatar
lsdetroit
Telepathetic
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: ask your mother.
Location: Bloomfield Hills, MI
Contact:

Re: joshtimonen talks

Post by lsdetroit » Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:12 am

Kristie wrote:
lsdetroit wrote:
Kristie wrote:
lsdetroit wrote:this means Josh is available to run MY website.
Good luck with that. :biggrin:
im going to call it "Doctor Wellington's Beef Trapeze" .com
I think that should be a .org
or maybe a .tv who uses dot TV anyways? I WILL.


oh and josh, if youre reading this, you can crash at my place when you become penniless. all i ask is that you run DoctorWellington'sBeefTrapeze.tv for me. you can keep all the money that is generated and i promise i wont sue you.
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests