Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Hermit]

if they get a conviction in the criminal court, they can use that conviction in the civil court. In the US, generally speaking, when a defendant in criminal proceeding is convicted of a crime that includes restitution (as embezzlement penalties do), then the defendant is actually prohibited from denying the civil claim for the same thing. So, if there was a criminal conviction for embezzlement, then a civil suit for the same embezzlement would result in an easy civil judgment. The fact that there was restitution ordered in the criminal prosecution would help RDF, not hurt it.

The foundation alleges that money has been embezzled and that it has been further damaged financially. It wants to be recompensed for that by the defendant. What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

[Coito ergo sum]

He didn't have enough evidence, otherwise the county would have taken up the case.

Then we know for a fact that the State isn't preparing a case right now?

RD would have been advised to wait to file a civil suit if they were going to file a criminal case.

How so? I see them filed simultaneously all the time.

Very often the police will themselves back off if you go ahead and file suit.

Yes, there can be simultaneous civil and criminal prosecutions, but very often the police do suggest that you wait. You don't have to listen to them, but if you don't then they can make the decision to back off.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Civil cases and criminal cases can be tried separately here. OJ Simpson was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil case.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Very often the police will themselves back off if you go ahead and file suit.

Yes, there can be simultaneous civil and criminal prosecutions, but very often the police do suggest that you wait. You don't have to listen to them, but if you don't then they can make the decision to back off.

You're making this up as you go along, again.

[Coito ergo sum]

if they get a conviction in the criminal court, they can use that conviction in the civil court. In the US, generally speaking, when a defendant in criminal proceeding is convicted of a crime that includes restitution (as embezzlement penalties do), then the defendant is actually prohibited from denying the civil claim for the same thing. So, if there was a criminal conviction for embezzlement, then a civil suit for the same embezzlement would result in an easy civil judgment. The fact that there was restitution ordered in the criminal prosecution would help RDF, not hurt it.

What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Because there are two different objectives.

The criminal process is brought by "The People" (or the "United States") against a Defendant to prosecute a criminal violation.

The civil process is a private lawsuit brought against the defendant to get a judgment for money damages.

A criminal conviction may, or may not, result in an award of restitution, and if there is restitution it may not be for what the injured party considers to have fully compensated him. So, if an injured party wants to sue, he can sue and get a money judgment for injury he can prove.

Example - Joey Boots punches Al Shmoozer in the face. Al Shmoozer can report Joey Boots to the police and the police can investigate and under proper circumstances arrest and prosecute and convict Joey Boots. However, Al can also sue Joey Boots for the injury suffered as a result of the punch in the face. Same goes for RDF and the allegation that Timonen embezzled.

[Coito ergo sum]

Very often the police will themselves back off if you go ahead and file suit.

Yes, there can be simultaneous civil and criminal prosecutions, but very often the police do suggest that you wait. You don't have to listen to them, but if you don't then they can make the decision to back off.

You're making this up as you go along, again.

You obviously don't know what you're talking about. I do. It's common relative to business-related crimes.

[Hermit]

What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Civil cases and criminal cases can be tried separately here. OJ Simpson was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil case.

Look at what the foundation is seeking to achieve. The question remains: What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

[Coito ergo sum]

What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Civil cases and criminal cases can be tried separately here. OJ Simpson was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil case.

Look at what the foundation is seeking to achieve. The question remains: What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Because they can't necessarily achieve their objective with the criminal process. They might, but not necessarily.

Also, it is not RDF's call whether there will be a criminal prosecution. The most they can do is file a report, provide information and ask that something be done. It's up to the prosecutor to decide if a criminal proceeding will go forward. It costs RDF relatively little to report the matter to law enforcement and cooperate with them, so there is no point in them not at least exploring that route.

The civil suit gets them a money judgment, if they win, and they have to pay their attorney hourly fees to bring that case, plus out of pocket costs and filing fees. They're looking at tens of thousands of dollars to try this case, depending on how far it goes. A successful criminal prosecution would cut that time and money down considerably.

One factor against waiting to bring the civil suit might be the authorities have already chosen not to move forward with a prosecution. Also, it's possible that RDF wants to move quickly to try to get to whatever money is still around (before Josh can bury it). (among other things).

[Hermit]

What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Civil cases and criminal cases can be tried separately here. OJ Simpson was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil case.

Look at what the foundation is seeking to achieve. The question remains: What is the point of going through two court cases if you can attain your objective with one?

Because they can't necessarily achieve their objective with the criminal process. They might, but not necessarily.

Precisely. It's also cheaper not to bother with it and take the civil court route. Success is more likely that way anyway.

[Blondie]

I wonder why there isn't a criminal prosecution here...

At nearly $1,000,000, this might have garnered the attention of the FBI, not to mention California authorities....

Firstly, in a criminal case an offense has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Finding Timonen and/or co-defendants guilty in a civil court only requires such a judgment on the basis of probability. Secondly, the prospects of recovering anywhere near the full amount of allegedly embezzled money, not to mention additional punitive ones, are enhanced by taking the latter route.

Regarding your first point, yes, I know that Forrest. But, a criminal prosecution is at no cost to RDF. A civil suit costs RDF probably $300 an hour for an attorney, plus out of pocket costs, fees, etc.

Regarding your second point, if they get a conviction in the criminal court, they can use that conviction in the civil court. In the US, generally speaking, when a defendant in criminal proceeding is convicted of a crime that includes restitution (as embezzlement penalties do), then the defendant is actually prohibited from denying the civil claim for the same thing. So, if there was a criminal conviction for embezzlement, then a civil suit for the same embezzlement would result in an easy civil judgment. The fact that there was restitution ordered in the criminal prosecution would help RDF, not hurt it.

He didn't have enough evidence, otherwise the county would have taken up the case.

Not to mention it's California, and L.A. where this is happening. The amount of money in question is small peanuts compared to some of the stuff they must have going on - the system just doesn't have the resources to take on every single case.

RD hired some high profile entertainment business attorney - I would venture to guess his fee is more like $450 - $600 an hour.

Did you see who Josh hired?

How the Mighty Have Fallen

Josh Timonen, perhaps foolishly, has registered on a number of 'prominent' atheist and secularist forums to advertise his response to these allegations which he has dubbed "The Ultimate Betrayal". In it (available here) he intimates that the allegations made against him by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason are "malicious attacks" intended to "destroy someone’s [his] reputation, self-worth and dignity" and that there isn't "any evidence to back [these "malicious attacks"] up". He goes on to assert "This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded." "the truth will prevail" writes Mr. Timonen. He concludes with the promise of a forthcoming legal statement to be released through his legal team, Costa Abrams & Coate, LLP.


In case you're wondering just what the quality of the legal representation Mr. Timonen has secured for himself is you may be interested to know that this is the same firm who has represented such clients as Time Warner, AIG, and AT&T Corporation amongst other 'illustrious', high-profile, names. One can't help but wonder where he found the money to pay for this kind of legal representation on a salary of £50,000 a year?

From my blog. What to they charge an hour?

eta: fixed up quotes - I'm extremely ill today, I can barely type.

[kiki5711]

In case you're wondering just what the quality of the legal representation Mr. Timonen has secured for himself is you may be interested to know that this is the same firm who has represented such clients as Time Warner, AIG, and AT&T Corporation amongst other 'illustrious', high-profile, names. One can't help but wonder where he found the money to pay for this kind of legal representation on a salary of £50,000 a year?

Do they think they'll get some publicity from this? why else would they represent Josh? He's not anyone famous, nor rich?

[maiforpeace]

I wonder why there isn't a criminal prosecution here...

At nearly $1,000,000, this might have garnered the attention of the FBI, not to mention California authorities....

Firstly, in a criminal case an offense has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Finding Timonen and/or co-defendants guilty in a civil court only requires such a judgment on the basis of probability. Secondly, the prospects of recovering anywhere near the full amount of allegedly embezzled money, not to mention additional punitive ones, are enhanced by taking the latter route.

Regarding your first point, yes, I know that Forrest. But, a criminal prosecution is at no cost to RDF. A civil suit costs RDF probably $300 an hour for an attorney, plus out of pocket costs, fees, etc.

Regarding your second point, if they get a conviction in the criminal court, they can use that conviction in the civil court. In the US, generally speaking, when a defendant in criminal proceeding is convicted of a crime that includes restitution (as embezzlement penalties do), then the defendant is actually prohibited from denying the civil claim for the same thing. So, if there was a criminal conviction for embezzlement, then a civil suit for the same embezzlement would result in an easy civil judgment. The fact that there was restitution ordered in the criminal prosecution would help RDF, not hurt it.

He didn't have enough evidence, otherwise the county would have taken up the case.

Not to mention it's California, and L.A. where this is happening. The amount of money in question is small peanuts compared to some of the stuff they must have going on - the system just doesn't have the resources to take on every single case.

RD hired some high profile entertainment business attorney - I would venture to guess his fee is more like $450 - $600 an hour.

Did you see who Josh hired?

How the Mighty Have Fallen

Josh Timonen, perhaps foolishly, has registered on a number of 'prominent' atheist and secularist forums to advertise his response to these allegations which he has dubbed "The Ultimate Betrayal". In it (available here) he intimates that the allegations made against him by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason are "malicious attacks" intended to "destroy someone’s [his] reputation, self-worth and dignity" and that there isn't "any evidence to back [these "malicious attacks"] up". He goes on to assert "This lawsuit is a joke, and completely ridiculous. The accusations are baseless and unfounded." "the truth will prevail" writes Mr. Timonen. He concludes with the promise of a forthcoming legal statement to be released through his legal team, Costa Abrams & Coate, LLP.


In case you're wondering just what the quality of the legal representation Mr. Timonen has secured for himself is you may be interested to know that this is the same firm who has represented such clients as Time Warner, AIG, and AT&T Corporation amongst other 'illustrious', high-profile, names. One can't help but wonder where he found the money to pay for this kind of legal representation on a salary of £50,000 a year?

From my blog. What to they charge an hour?

eta: fixed up quotes - I'm extremely ill today, I can barely type.

Yes, I did. http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 75#p636959

In case you're wondering just what the quality of the legal representation Mr. Timonen has secured for himself is you may be interested to know that this is the same firm who has represented such clients as Time Warner, AIG, and AT&T Corporation amongst other 'illustrious', high-profile, names. One can't help but wonder where he found the money to pay for this kind of legal representation on a salary of £50,000 a year?

Do they think they'll get some publicity from this? why else would they represent Josh? He's not anyone famous, nor rich?

Because he gave them a hefty retainer?

[kiki5711]

Because he gave them a hefty retainer?

A firm of that kind of prestige probably demands a retainer in the ballpark of half a million dollars at the least. Where would he get this kind of money? The amount of damages claimed is not even that much. Unless there's potential to drag it out.

[Warren Dew]

The author, be it a person or a contractor with employees of his own, hired to create a work holds no right of copyright ownership. Josh does not own the copyright to anything he was hired, or contracted, to create - whoever hired, or contracted him, to do it does.

My point is that it's quite unclear whether Josh was "hired to create" the store software by the Dawkins Foundation, or whether he was creating the software for his own company, which was the entity that actually ran the store. There's no question that he was "hired to create" the Richard Dawkins web site, but the store is another matter, as it wasn't run by the Dawkins Foundation.

I suspect this is a case where neither Dawkins nor Timonen thought it necessary to go into this kind of contractual detail when they started working together, and that vagueness - and their differing assumptions about how their agreement would be interpreted - is coming back to bite them now. That's pretty typical for business agreements between friends.

I also think it's interesting that the store software is so much at issue. Normally I'd think if the foundation wanted wrest back control of the store, they'd start over and hire someone else to write and maintain new store software, which would sidestep the legal issue.

[Josh Timonen]

I'm innocent I tell you!!!