maiforpeace wrote:PZ made a point of posting at RS that the document was the work of the the attorney and not RD's words. I think that's interesting - perhaps RD may have expressed some misgivings about what's going on with his case to PZ? Like LP, I don't think RD would have done this unless he absolutely had to. If it had just been him who JT had embezzled funds from he would have let it go I think. He's doing it because he too has a fiduciary duty to the foundation.
You are correct that Dawkins owes a fiduciary duty to the Foundation. He has to go after this money.
I doubt, however, that Dawkins would just let it go if someone stole $375,000 from him personally. That's a nice chunk of change, and not something you just give away to thieves.
The document was most likely prepared by an attorney, but with consultation and prior approval of Dawkins (or whoever Dawkins has appointed other than himself to handle the matter, if anybody). That kind of a note has not only legal concerns, but also PR concerns involved, so it would be very unlikely, IMHO, that it went out without the Foundation reviewing it.
maiforpeace wrote: Once you go to an attorney, especially those sharky types that handle this sort of case, it's kind of out of your hands.
This kind of case is not one that you'd go to a "sharky type" lawyer. This is something you'd go to an intellectual property litigation firm, that handles complex matters.
It's also NEVER out of the client's hands. The Foundation attorney is paid hourly, and all major actions in the case are reviewed with the client prior to them being taken. The Complaint, for example, had to be reviewed and signed off on by Dawkins because he has to represent to the attorneys that everything they are saying to the court is true.
maiforpeace wrote:
RD doesn't have the option of looking over the document, objecting to some of the wording and adding his edits.
It would be surprising if RD did not have that opportunity, actually.
maiforpeace wrote:
Either you go along with what the attorney tells you to do, or you fire him and get a new one which costs even more money. RD has already sunk a little fortune into the guy he has now.
The attorney will, however, seek input from the client, particularly on a statement like this. The statement needs to be accurate, and the facts come from the client. It could be malpractice for the attorney not to run this kind of a release by the client beforehand because (a) there is plenty of time to do so, and (b) if the attorney makes a misstatement that the client would have corrected it could conceivably damage the case.
maiforpeace wrote:
RD may win his case, but he will still lose. This type of lawsuit will take a real toll on his emotional health, especially since he did have a personal relationship with Josh. I feel badly for him having to deal with this, especially at his age - he's no spring chicken.
It's also unlikely that Josh will ever pay a judgment obtained by Dawkins. If he gets hit with a $1,000,000 judgment, he'll file Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
