joshtimonen talks

[Blondie]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

[Robert_S]

Has anyone here actually run a high volume online store? How much work is it really? Enough work that one could reasonably expect less than 90% of gross sales back?

[Coito ergo sum]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

True, which is why I tend to stick to what is alleged in the Complaint at this point. And, where I don't I indicate that it's my opinion about what may happen.

I can tell you though, that litigants' recollections tend to conform to what may improve their legal position....they file off the rough edges, and smooth out the wrinkles, all the while truly believing they are remembering everything with 100% accuracy.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

They do have a fraud count.

HOWEVER -- saying that "all the proceeds" would be donated to RDF does not mean that the company will not have salaries and expenses. When a charitable organization says that "all proceeds" will go to fight cancer, they still pay their employees and independent contractors (out of donations and proceeds of bake sales and merchandising, etc.). So - conceivably - Josh can say, "yes - sure - all proceeds would go to RDF...... after expenses.....and expenses includes salaries...."

[Coito ergo sum]

Further questions... who has pockets deep enough to actually let this go to court?

Dawkins easily does. He has millions. This case should be able to get to trial for $50,000 or less, because there aren't that many witnesses, I suspect.

I don't know about Timonen. He may have a nest egg he can use, who knows?

what does each party have to win and lose from settling?

Both parties gain from settling because it is over. RDF gains because they can show they went after this, if there are charity law issues that come into play, and from a marketing standpoint they show that they are concerned about people who give to RDF being ripped off. And, both sides have a risk of losing here.

Can RD (and foundation) actually get any compensation out of court,

That's the only way it can settle, if Josh has money to pay. If he doesn't, he may as well roll the dice and if he loses, file bankruptcy.

since it seems that the embezzled funds were happily spent and I doubt either josh or his cougar can afford to dish out any amount of cash that might not be regarded as insulting

That may be. Or, they may have some dough stashed. Who knows?

[Blondie]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

True, which is why I tend to stick to what is alleged in the Complaint at this point. And, where I don't I indicate that it's my opinion about what may happen.

I can tell you though, that litigants' recollections tend to conform to what may improve their legal position....they file off the rough edges, and smooth out the wrinkles, all the while truly believing they are remembering everything with 100% accuracy.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

They do have a fraud count.

HOWEVER -- saying that "all the proceeds" would be donated to RDF does not mean that the company will not have salaries and expenses. When a charitable organization says that "all proceeds" will go to fight cancer, they still pay their employees and independent contractors (out of donations and proceeds of bake sales and merchandising, etc.). So - conceivably - Josh can say, "yes - sure - all proceeds would go to RDF...... after expenses.....and expenses includes salaries...."

No, I'm afraid not.

Proceed - the sum derived from a sale or other transaction.

All proceeds - the entire sum derived from sales or other transactions.


When a company means what you suggest they are very careful to word it as "a portion of the proceeds will be donated to X", whether they specify it [the portion] or not.

No judge in the world is going to by your supposed sophistry.

I am confident that this claim is true and that RDF/RD has the evidence to back it up - I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

[Warren Dew]

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

We don't know what Josh agreed to. All we know is what the plaintiff's lawsuit alleges he agreed to.

Bella's version may be more accurate:

How did Dawkins meet Timonen?

They were having lunch together at a diner and Josh faked an orgasm, and the guy at the next table said "I'll have what he's having..."

[Warren Dew]

Proceed - the sum derived from a sale or other transaction.

All proceeds - the entire sum derived from sales or other transactions.

When a company means what you suggest they are very careful to word it as "a portion of the proceeds will be donated to X", whether they specify it or not.

While I think it's more honest to use the word in the way you suggest, it's not cut and dried:

proceeds

.... The term sometimes refers to net proceeds (after any commissions, fees or other charges are deducted), and sometimes refers to gross proceeds (before such deductions).

http://www.investorwords.com/3870/proceeds.html

The plaintiff's lawyer says they are only going after "profits", which suggests they are not claiming that "proceeds" meant "gross proceeds".

The Foundation's claims seek the return of profits from the sale of merchandise from the Store on the RDF website that defendants failed to remit to RDFRS.

http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/5 ... enberg-esq

[Blondie]

Good point.

[hadespussercats]

Roughly 80,000 dollars a year hardly seems like nothing. I wish I made that much.

You aren't a software engineer, are you?

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

Maybe software engineers see things differently.

Software engineers who make $80,000 a year have, at bare minimum, a BSc or a BMath from a recognised University. More than likely they have their masters and a decade of experience behind them with a long list of accomplishments on their resume.

Also, and this is just a minor point, JOSH IS NOT A SOFTWARE ENGINEEER! He doesn't even claim to be a web designer! I'd love to get my hands on his resume.

I hear you. I just wanted to point out that, whatever a software engineer, or website developer, or whatever, feels he or she ought to make, based on market value for their work, etc., etc., is irrelevant if that person does not negotiate for that pay scale and have it put down in writing.

I'd also like to point out that, while JT is claiming copyright of the "A" logo for atheists because he designed it (and really, what an amazing design it was-- fontmakers everywhere were drooling, I'm sure), if that work was done for hire, he does not have any rights to his design-- In the same way that Julie Taymour has no rights to the design work she did for "Lion King"-- all that work is now the property of Disney.

I'd also like to point out, as an aside, that JT seems like a massive tool, regardless of how foolish RD was to put such faith in him, with such little paperwork.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

We don't know what Josh agreed to. All we know is what the plaintiff's lawsuit alleges he agreed to.

Bella's version may be more accurate:

How did Dawkins meet Timonen?

They were having lunch together at a diner and Josh faked an orgasm, and the guy at the next table said "I'll have what he's having..."

I Like Bella's version. Still, as you point out, we don't know what JT agreed to-- because he was an independent contractor without a contract. Which is a stupid thing to be, unless you think it allows you free rein to determine your own compensation without discussing it with the people you're doing work for.

[hadespussercats]

I'm not, but when I agree to work for a certain amount, I understand that that's the amount I'm going to get when the work is done-- even if I made a mistake and underbid.

We don't know what Josh agreed to. All we know is what the plaintiff's lawsuit alleges he agreed to.

Bella's version may be more accurate:

How did Dawkins meet Timonen?

They were having lunch together at a diner and Josh faked an orgasm, and the guy at the next table said "I'll have what he's having..."

I Like Bella's version. Still, as you point out, we don't know what JT agreed to-- because he was an independent contractor without a contract. Which is a stupid thing to be, unless you think it allows you free rein to determine your own compensation without discussing it with the people you're doing work for.

And by-the-by, Bella's version might be considered copyright infringement as well-- at least according to Nora Ephron.

[Trolldor]

Fair use for purposes of satire or parody.

[Mysturji]

Hi Everyone,

I guess it's time for me to talk...
http://joshtimonen.com/post/1387207318/ ... e-betrayal

YOU feel betrayed?
The whole RDF forum implosion reminded me of a case of date-rape, or marital rape... it's not what was done, it was the WAY it was done.
Three.
Fucking.
Times.

The phrase "social skills" springs to mind.

But whatever. Water under the bridge. I'm over it.
My new forum is better than the old one.
Like my job.
And my sig.

[Faithfree]

And my sig.

Poor Josh, will people ever stop taking the mickey.

[Coito ergo sum]

This is all so much speculation because until we have the statement from Josh's lawyers we don't know what he'll claim.

True, which is why I tend to stick to what is alleged in the Complaint at this point. And, where I don't I indicate that it's my opinion about what may happen.

I can tell you though, that litigants' recollections tend to conform to what may improve their legal position....they file off the rough edges, and smooth out the wrinkles, all the while truly believing they are remembering everything with 100% accuracy.

However, IIRC, in the complaint filed by the RDF/RD lawyer, it is claimed that Josh represented to customers of his store that all proceeds would be donated to RDF. That's the problem with the "Josh was just getting paid" argument. I believe that's called fraud.

They do have a fraud count.

HOWEVER -- saying that "all the proceeds" would be donated to RDF does not mean that the company will not have salaries and expenses. When a charitable organization says that "all proceeds" will go to fight cancer, they still pay their employees and independent contractors (out of donations and proceeds of bake sales and merchandising, etc.). So - conceivably - Josh can say, "yes - sure - all proceeds would go to RDF...... after expenses.....and expenses includes salaries...."

No, I'm afraid not.

Proceed - the sum derived from a sale or other transaction.

All proceeds - the entire sum derived from sales or other transactions.

That's not how charities work. Charities are allowed to use some of their revenues to pay operating costs, including salaries. If saying "all the proceeds" is the same as "all the revenues" then that would mean that cost of goods sold, shipping, receiving, handling and other operating costs couldn't be paid. Salaries are operating costs. It's how business works.

When a company means what you suggest they are very careful to word it as "a portion of the proceeds will be donated to X", whether they specify it [the portion] or not.

No judge in the world is going to by your supposed sophistry.

Do you even know the precise wording?

For fuck's sake, dude - I haven't been arguing in favor of Timonen.

I am confident that this claim is true and that RDF/RD has the evidence to back it up

LOL - and you want everyone else to "spare" you of their opinions and "speculation?" Best practice what you preach...

- I cannot believe they would have failed to notice something so monumentally integral to entire enterprise either being missing or altered.

Not sure what you're referring to about "missing or altered." But, there are quite a lot of stupid things done by folks because they are good friends and they trust each other.