Dawkins sues Josh Timonen 2

[lordpasternack]

Oh - and not having the time right now to slice through all of the profound stupidity innocently communicated by Richard in his emails above - I feel I should highlight this gem, paraphrased:

Person 1: "I believe this woman is doing everything in her power to hurt these other people - and will hurt your organisation badly in so doing. She has a penchant for re-writing history to suit her whims - which is also only going to cause you more trouble in future. And I for one can't in good conscience execute her capricious, disingenuous orders any longer."

Person 2: "But don't you know that that woman really values you - and will be devastated to see you go?"

[chalkers]

Person 2: "But don't you know that that woman really values you - and will be devastated to see you go?"

That's how they operate giving praise to exploit people. You've got to keep telling yourself that praise is not the same as respect and that praise is a cheap commodity to part with.

[lordpasternack]

Person 2: "But don't you know that that woman really values you - and will be devastated to see you go?"

That's how they operate giving praise to exploit people. You've got to keep telling yourself that praise is not the same as respect and that praise is a cheap commodity to part with.

Richard seems to be very good at picking out unsuspecting victims, and unwittingly grooming them to exploit him, backstab each other, fail repeatedly at their jobs, create PR disasters, and then repeatedly cock-up the process of attempting to limit damage and clear up the mess... And then of course, Richard turns up on the all-too-familiar scenes of discord and disarray, and cries his innocent little eyes out about how he can't bear all of this rottenness again - mutters some platitudes - and then continues to fail to address the flagrant problems in the governance of his organisation. And continues to ignore those trying to reason with him. And slips away from arguing with the likes of myself as it becomes obvious that I am cleaning his clock. And so the cycle continues...

As for praise - it became clear to me early on through some rather minor interactions with Richard that he is very easily impressed, and very willing to praise people in a way that is, to me, cloying. It became obvious to me pretty quickly that I could likely very easily take the man, hook, line and sinker, for whatever my own particular self-interests were - and that he would sing my praises, and defend me tooth and nail all the while - even if I backstabbed and exploited HIM. Likely all the more so if it got, uhm, intimate. And that was, he may be disappointed to discover, one of the first things that put me off him.

I have a strong visceral dislike of feeling that I am being uncritically, unthinkingly, naively, romanticised and praised - that I am not being challenged or treated with a healthy amount of scepticism (along with respect, of course). And this was a vibe that I picked up from Richard, and I just balked at it. I mean, aside form the fact that it embarrassed me in the immediate term - I was afraid of what I might let myself do, if I had pursued and indulged him. I saw the potential to be badly corrupted, innocently, and I didn't feel at ease with it. I daresay that some of the flagrant issues within his foundation are a consequence of people having even just a touch less scruples than me?

And to be quite frank - I really do prefer people who have critical thinking and critical inquiry skills that really are more than just a fashion accessory - if we're going to get to that particular point of the issue, here...

[lordpasternack]

I'll just leave this here, for now... An excerpt from the Declaration of Charles Coate (paragraph 9) - with my added emphasis:



Josh Timonen and co, quoted from emails from both Richard Dawkins and Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, sent in 2007 - which reportedly directly contradict the allegations made by RDFRS against Timonen - regarding the details of their informal agreement over the running of the RDFRS store, and their explicit knowledge of how Timonen would be running it.

And instead of throwing her arms up and crying about how these emails must not be genuine - Cornwell, on behalf of RDFRS, instead insists that the emails have been "taken out of context" - but provides no further evidence as to what the true context might have been. She provides effectively zero evidence to establish RDFRS's case against Timonen, and then insists that evidence that seems to flatly contradict her own (ever-changing) testimony has been "taken out of context".

I have yet to see these emails for myself. I'm told that they're part of the Exhibits in Timonen's lawsuit against RDFRS - along with other emails that are rather incriminating against Dawkins and Cornwell. And I look forward to reading them and trying to puzzle out ways in which they could be dishonestly taken out of context.

I think the plot does thicken, though...

[Tyrannical]

Is there a synopsis of this current suit? is this the same case that was going on forever or is this a different one? Were the IP rights ever settled for the stuff (videos, etc) that Josh did for the foundation?

[lordpasternack]

Is there a synopsis of this current suit? is this the same case that was going on forever or is this a different one? Were the IP rights ever settled for the stuff (videos, etc) that Josh did for the foundation?

It's not the same lawsuit - it's a new lawsuit, with Timonen et al as Plaintiffs, and RDFRS et al as defendants.

Anyone remotely interested can find the case by running a search for "Josh Timonen", on this site - which costs a few dollars.

Alternatively - the text of the case summary can be found here. It's very dry.

No synopsis that I know of - other than that Timonen/UBP has been winning the claims of IP rights for the work created while working with RDFRS - and that there are Exhibits contained within the court docs that are potentially very embarrassing for RDFRS.

[lordpasternack]

Actually - I should clarify - the document I've linked to above was from the previous lawsuit. But I think the emails discussed in that declaration are included as Exhibits in the current lawsuit against RDFRS.

[klr]

WTF is Timonen up to? Is he just being an insufferable ass, or is he trying to screw RD for yet even more money? Or is it both?

[lordpasternack]

WTF is Timonen up to? Is he just being an insufferable ass, or is he trying to screw RD for yet even more money? Or is it both?

Kevin - if RDFRS wrongfully filed a lawsuit against Timonen, they have screwed him (as well as themselves) out of plenty of money, while defaming him. Not to mention of course that the current lawsuit will also be costing Timonen a lot of money, with no guarantee of success, either.

But if, for talking's sake, someone knowingly and maliciously, wrongfully pursued a lawsuit against Timonen - then I daresay Timonen would be right, and well-advised, to seek some kind of redress via legal avenues.

He's not my best friend - but then neither is Cornwell - and I recently had an email correspondence with her in which she misled, wrongfooted and lied her face off to me, really nicely and charmingly, about a number of things that I was able to fact-check and show to be false. So let's just say I'm far more inclined to actually look at the evidence, and hear out any claims of Josh having been stitched up, than I would have been two years ago.

[Svartalf]

Wait, it it possible that Timonen might be sued wrongfully and maliciously? I thought the guy had been the one to con the RDFRS in the first place, even if said foundation had been stupid enough to allow him to do so by not having a proper contract by which to prove they had been conned rather than a mere misunderstanding about tim's duties and benefits.

[lordpasternack]

Wait, it it possible that Timonen might be sued wrongfully and maliciously? I thought the guy had been the one to con the RDFRS in the first place, even if said foundation had been stupid enough to allow him to do so by not having a proper contract by which to prove they had been conned rather than a mere misunderstanding about tim's duties and benefits.

"...Defendants quoted from two emails authored by Dawkins in 2007 and Cornwell in 2007, which directly contradict Plaintiffs' allegations concerning the purported online store agreement, as well as the Plaintiffs' knowledge regarding the same. In response to such counter-settlement offer, Plaintiffs' counsel stated that they believed those emails were being taken out of context. Yet, absolutely no evidence has been provided by the Plaintiffs to substantiate their claim that the emails were taken out of context."

My emphasis.

And again - that's from paragraph 9 of the Declaration of Charles Coate, in the original lawsuit of Dawkins et al, versus Timonen et al.

[Svartalf]

I know what tim did, no venom is too bad for him, may his karma be felt in this very same life.

[lordpasternack]

I know what tim did, no venom is too bad for him, may his karma be felt in this very same life.

What are you talking about? The whole point of that paragraph is that Timonen produced evidence apparently showing that he was operating the Store exactly as had been agreed with both Dawkins and Cornwell in 2007.

If you still think he was being a bastard, then you may well have to concede the basic point that he had been doing it with Dawkins' explicit blessing - even if Dawkins couldn't remember the specific agreement reached, three years later.

[Jason]

I'm not sure Dawkins ever intended to spend his twilight years embroiled in lawsuits with his former lover, son, whatever - Josh.

[Cormac]

Chalkers' screenshot placed inline - for easier following:

notice.png

As far as I am concerned, Josh Timmonen destroyed his own reputation by his deplorable behaviour in "managing" that forum. I don't care how much time he put into it. He behaved like the asshole he is.

Nothing that I heard about him after that changes my opinion.

That he was embedded into the organisation is undeniable. That he was integral? Perhaps, but not in a good way.