Dawkins sues Josh Timonen 2

[Bella Fortuna]

Now THAT's what I'm Dawkins about.

[Josh Timonen]

It's a Dicky situation.

[Bella Fortuna]

Just don't Harris me; you're not the Sam as pawiz.

[lordpasternack]

I'm not lowering myself into the muck and the Myers here. It's too easy PZ.

[Bella Fortuna]

Goddennett!

[lordpasternack]

I think this sockpuppet is just Hitchens a ride on Josh's coat-tails.

[borealis]

Watson what you're saying.

[lordpasternack]

Elementary, my dear… But you just elevated this to a whole new level. An unexplored lattetude. And no I don't want cream with that. You're not punny.

[lordpasternack]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 21#p923721

The case is dropped. Now back to camel toes and celery....

Not so fast. I want to see what happens after this. I obviously don't know the legal ins and outs here - but Richard/RDFRS may be compelled to award some further kind of compensation to Josh and Maureen in light of not establishing their guilt. A little insult to injury, maybe. In which case I will have to take the piss a little more and remark "well played", to Richard/RDFRS...

And that article's pretty cack, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt (since when was Richard a philosopher?) - but Richard/RDFRS could have bailed out based on both a lack of substantive evidence, and a straightforward cost-benefit analysis of the cost of taking the case to a verdict. If Greenberg were confident in getting the kinds of damages they were originally suing for - I don't think they would have cried over the further $100K or so required to pursue the case to completion.

None of this means that Josh didn't wilfully abuse Richard's trust and knowingly take more money than was in whatever way agreed. It just means things were so shoddy (verbal agreement, for fuck's sake... ) that they have nothing substantive enough to show for it.

[Rum]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 21#p923721

The case is dropped. Now back to camel toes and celery....

Not so fast. I want to see what happens after this. I obviously don't know the legal ins and outs here - but Richard/RDFRS may be compelled to award some further kind of compensation to Josh and Maureen in light of not establishing their guilt. A little insult to injury, maybe. In which case I will have to take the piss a little more and remark "well played", to Richard/RDFRS...

And that article's pretty cack, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt (since when was Richard a philosopher?) - but Richard/RDFRS could have bailed out based on both a lack of substantive evidence, and a straightforward cost-benefit analysis of the cost of taking the case to a verdict. If Greenberg were confident in getting the kinds of damages they were originally suing for - I don't think they would have cried over the further $100K or so required to pursue the case to completion.

None of this means that Josh didn't wilfully abuse Richard's trust and knowingly take more money than was in whatever way agreed. It just means things were so shoddy (verbal agreement, for fuck's sake... ) that they have nothing substantive enough to show for it.

Call me cynical but since when has the success or otherwise of a court case of this kind ever established the actual 'truth'. The game plays itself through by its own rules.

[Robert_S]

None of this means that Josh didn't wilfully abuse Richard's trust and knowingly take more money than was in whatever way agreed. It just means things were so shoddy (verbal agreement, for fuck's sake... ) that they have nothing substantive enough to show for it.

If I were being sued or had just had a lawsuit like that against me dropped, I would think it would be good PR to address that issue as well as I could to the press and different fora. For all I know, the verbal agreement itself could have been shoddily worded with both Josh and Richard coming away with different ideas about what they "agreed" upon. I'd also try to show the compensation to work ratio could be seen as fair to an informed, reasonable and disinterested person.

The old story with the king agreeing to give the sum of doubling amounts of rice piled onto each square on a chessboard comes to mind.

And how much would it have cost to have an accountant and/or a lawyer take an hour or two to have a look at and/or listen to the "agreements" and point out any ambiguities or common mistakes that could lead to problems down the road?

[Feck]

The shop was clearly just run for the benefit of Josh and friends . I find it unlikely that Richard knew and was happy for this to be the case esp after paying Josh generously for other services (like picking a font and choosing it in red ) . The people buying stuff from the shop were certainly not aware that is where their money went or they wouldn't have spent their cash .

[klr]

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 21#p923721

The case is dropped. Now back to camel toes and celery....

Not so fast. I want to see what happens after this. I obviously don't know the legal ins and outs here - but Richard/RDFRS may be compelled to award some further kind of compensation to Josh and Maureen in light of not establishing their guilt. A little insult to injury, maybe. In which case I will have to take the piss a little more and remark "well played", to Richard/RDFRS...

And that article's pretty cack, so I'll take it with a pinch of salt (since when was Richard a philosopher?) - but Richard/RDFRS could have bailed out based on both a lack of substantive evidence, and a straightforward cost-benefit analysis of the cost of taking the case to a verdict. If Greenberg were confident in getting the kinds of damages they were originally suing for - I don't think they would have cried over the further $100K or so required to pursue the case to completion.

None of this means that Josh didn't wilfully abuse Richard's trust and knowingly take more money than was in whatever way agreed. It just means things were so shoddy (verbal agreement, for fuck's sake... ) that they have nothing substantive enough to show for it.

Call me cynical but since when has the success or otherwise of a court case of this kind ever established the actual 'truth'. The game plays itself through by its own rules.

And it's a good bet that dropping the case came with strings attached in terms of no further disputes or litigation about costs.

The shop was clearly just run for the benefit of Josh and friends . I find it unlikely that Richard knew and was happy for this to be the case esp after paying Josh generously for other services (like picking a font and choosing it in red ) . The people buying stuff from the shop were certainly not aware that is where their money went or they wouldn't have spent their cash .

Damn straight.

[Robert_S]

The shop was clearly just run for the benefit of Josh and friends . I find it unlikely that Richard knew and was happy for this to be the case esp after paying Josh generously for other services (like picking a font and choosing it in red ) . The people buying stuff from the shop were certainly not aware that is where their money went or they wouldn't have spent their cash .

He should maybe make the case that from the point of view of the purchaser, the money fairly compensated him in terms of how much his efforts paid off for the stated mission:

Mission Statement for Both Charities


The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.

As far as I'm concerned, that would be the deciding moral factor.

[Cormac]

There are many reasons one might initiate a case that one might know one probably won't be able to win. For example, from the point of view of governance of the Foundation, it might be that there was a need to demonstrate that the rights of the Foundation were pursued up to the point where it became apparent that the case should be dropped.

The rationale for pursuing it would be a bare cost-benefit analysis.

But for me, I wouldn't initiate the case unless I had first reviewed all the evidence I had, and could conclude a reasonable chance of success existed. Then, I'd want to discover all relevant documents held by the other side, at which point, I'd do another review to see whether or not the chance of success had improved or disimproved.