Dawkins sues Josh Timonen 2

[lordpasternack]

Incidentally - a little birdy told me that Josh has initiated proceedings to countersue Richard and RDFRS for defamation.

The same little birdy also told me that Richard was reportedly so fucking in the dark over the case that he didn't even know that the court had fined RDFRS for failing to get their legal act together.

[Clinton Huxley]

I hear Constantinople has fallen to the Turks.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think it could be a countersuit, technically speaking. The suit filed by Dawkins was dismissed and that case is long over. There could be no counterclaims filed. Technically, to countersue someone in federal court you have to do that early on in the initial litigation.

It's possible Timonen may initiate a new lawsuit, which would be a "suit" not a countersuit. I'm not sure what Timonen would sue Dawkins for at this point. It would probably have to be something unrelated to the underlying embezzlement claims.

Mediation may well have been suggested, but that is generally voluntary in federal court. It seems strange that Dawkins would be so in the dark. A lawyer such as the one he hired in California would normally provide detailed reports of everything that was done and send copies of every document to Dawkins. Most lawyers have clients review and approve all documents that are filed with the court prior to the documents being filed, at least when there is time.

I find it a little hard to believe -- this "flustered and clueless" thing. The guy is a smart man, and the lawsuit wasn't rocket science. Dawkins would have had to supply the underlying facts to the lawyers so that they could prepare the complaint. The failure to comply with discovery in the case could not be a surprise to Dawkins. If it is, then he should have his lawyers pay the court sanctions, because they must not have informed him. However, it would be strange indeed if the lawyers did not send notices in large print stating "YOU MAY BE SANCTIONED IF WE DON'T COMPLY - YOU MAY BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT." It would have had to have been willfully ignored.

[Coito ergo sum]

I hear Constantinople has fallen to the Turks.

[Clinton Huxley]

Maybe they meant "medication" rather than "mediation"

[Svartalf]

Dawkins needs thorazine, and timo has nothing that a good course of molybdotherapy won't cure.

[lordpasternack]

It's possible Timonen may initiate a new lawsuit, which would be a "suit" not a countersuit. I'm not sure what Timonen would sue Dawkins for at this point. It would probably have to be something unrelated to the underlying embezzlement claims.

Yes - this is what I mean. I'm not up on my legalese, sorry. I've been told that he has initiated legal proceedings against Dawkins et al, particularly for defamation.

It seems strange that Dawkins would be so in the dark.

Coito - there was once a time when people were discussing felching, fisting, the taste of semen, BDSM and ass-to-mouth on the old RD.net forum. Richard discovered this SEVERAL MONTHS later. That is - this was occurring right under his nose - with ample opportunity for him to have heard via email, PM, letter, carrier-pigeon or other media - from moderators, from users of the site, from anyone - and he had no fucking clue until that fateful day when he finally heard, and alighted on the content, and promptly shat himself over the possible PR crisis.

This is also the same man who never bothered to have a proper contract with Josh, has reportedly lost whatever material he had to establish his case about what agreement they had, and never bothered to have Josh audited for three years.

This sort of thing is not out of character for Richard.

A lawyer such as the one he hired in California would normally provide detailed reports of everything that was done and send copies of every document to Dawkins. Most lawyers have clients review and approve all documents that are filed with the court prior to the documents being filed, at least when there is time.

I daresay Richard had his staff deal with that. Again - not out of character.

It would have had to have been willfully ignored.

It would not be out of character if Richard did exactly this - while leaving everything with the rest of RDFRS and his legal team.

[Pappa]

LP, to be fair... why would Dawkins have known anything about the Vets' Forum? It was initiated by OBC and only the Vets really knew about it. That's where the anal fisting and BDSM threads were IIRC.

And for the most part he had limited interation with the forum. He occasionally started threads, but rarely joined discussions or followed them.

[lordpasternack]

LP, to be fair... why would Dawkins have known anything about the Vets' Forum? It was initiated by OBC and only the Vets really knew about it. That's where the anal fisting and BDSM threads were IIRC.

He was given Veteran status - despite his low post-count. He had access. It was precisely reportedly when he got emails from 'veterans of the forum' that he dropped by and discovered it.

Edit: And there had been plenty of bawdy threads in the open Off-Topic area, in any case. Including that (in)famous scatological rivalry that went on for a while between Devogue and Martinelv (pbuh).

And for the most part he had limited interation with the forum. He occasionally started threads, but rarely joined discussions or followed them.

Yeah, I know - but he did get involved to some extent, and certainly responded to some PMs... But my point still stands. He was completely oblivious, hands-off, and had no procedures in place for keeping him even vaguely informed about what was going on. That's the point. That was the problem. That's still what's not out of character for him. That's likely the parallel with this legal case.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's possible Timonen may initiate a new lawsuit, which would be a "suit" not a countersuit. I'm not sure what Timonen would sue Dawkins for at this point. It would probably have to be something unrelated to the underlying embezzlement claims.

Yes - this is what I mean. I'm not up on my legalese, sorry. I've been told that he has initiated legal proceedings against Dawkins et al, particularly for defamation.

Difficult lawsuit to maintain in the US. Requires an unprivileged, false, and defamatory statement that causes injury to Timonen. It has to be false when made, and is distinguished from a matter of opinion. It has to harm Timonen's reputation, and couldn't be a joke, etc. Lots of defenses.

Any idea what court it is filed in? California? State court? Federal court?

It seems strange that Dawkins would be so in the dark.

Coito - there was once a time when people were discussing felching, fisting, the taste of semen, BDSM and ass-to-mouth on the old RD.net forum. Richard discovered this SEVERAL MONTHS later. That is - this was occurring right under his nose - with ample opportunity for him to have heard via email, PM, letter, carrier-pigeon or other media - from moderators, from users of the site, from anyone - and he had no fucking clue until that fateful day when he finally heard, and alighted on the content, and promptly shat himself over the possible PR crisis.

Well, that would be understandable from a person who has no interest in chat boards. He left it to someone else to run, and never visited there to look for naughty threads. In a legal matter where he is the plaintiff, he has to work with the lawyers to give them the facts they need to prepare a complaint. He would have had to review and sign off on the complaint ahead of time, because the lawyers would want to be sure that everything they put in the pleadings are true. When the discovery requests came over from Timonen, they HAD to be forwarded to Dawkins with instructions. If Dawkins wasn't complying, the lawyers were duty-bound, ethically bound, to notify Dawkins of the repercussions or it is malpractice. They would have made sure to deliver to him a letter setting out exactly what was required to comply and exactly what could happen if he didn't.

The only two explanations are (a) the lawyers did not do that, in which case Dawkins would be like "what the fuck???!!! I owe $X for something I was never informed about????" -- that is called "malpractice," or (b) Dawkins was apprised of what he needed to do and the repercussions, and just didn't comply.

This is also the same man who never bothered to have a proper contract with Josh, has reportedly lost whatever material he had to establish his case about what agreement they had, and never bothered to have Josh audited for three years.

Sure. That is why it is probably the latter option (b) above. But in that case he can't claim that he was ignorant, other than willfully so.

This sort of thing is not out of character for Richard.

A lawyer such as the one he hired in California would normally provide detailed reports of everything that was done and send copies of every document to Dawkins. Most lawyers have clients review and approve all documents that are filed with the court prior to the documents being filed, at least when there is time.

I daresay Richard had his staff deal with that. Again - not out of character.

Perhaps. But, at some point, Richard had to have been informed. He was the owner of the foundation. The lawyers, before they let Dawkins get held in contempt, would have picked up the phone and said, "Richard, this is your $400 an hour lawyer here. We need to make sure you realize that you are going to be held in contempt of court." He had good lawyers, not some dicks off the street.

Is what you're saying possible? Sure. But, it doesn't sound likely, because in this case it's not just his own sloppiness and slipshod mad-scientist approach to things that would be at issue. It is a detail-oriented law firm accustomed to litigation that knows they have to cover their own asses by being sure the client can't claim later to have been uninformed or misinformed. This is something lawyers are trained to do. It's one of the ways lawyers must play defense against their own clients. You must provide the client with information and instructions. If the client can claim "you never told me" then that is a big problem.

It would have had to have been willfully ignored.

It would not be out of character if Richard did exactly this - while leaving everything with the rest of RDFRS and his legal team.

Then his RDFRS ought to be fired, and his legal team sued for malpractice if they didn't inform him.

I mean - nobody said to him, "Richard!!! YOU ARE GOING TO BE HELD IN CONTEMPT OF COURT!!!" -- it wasn't a surprise. There were motions filed, and months to prepare for a court hearing on the topic. Nobody said anything to him? No RDFRS guy sat there looking at a letter that said "we need you to produce the following information to us by X date or you may be held in contempt of court and fined," and said to himself, "gee - I don't have this stuff, so I better let Dawkins know?"

Something doesn't smell right.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's still what's not out of character for him. That's likely the parallel with this legal case.

One of the main problems with his legal case was its weakness.

[Svartalf]

LP, to be fair... why would Dawkins have known anything about the Vets' Forum? It was initiated by OBC and only the Vets really knew about it. That's where the anal fisting and BDSM threads were IIRC.

And for the most part he had limited interation with the forum. He occasionally started threads, but rarely joined discussions or followed them.

When was that? I must admit that this Vet's forum and OBC stuff is utter mystery to me. Then again, I think I arrived on barely a year before the Great Shitstorm that drove me here.
(azctually, even less than that since I registered ther in Aug 2009 and was driven out late jan 2010)

[lordpasternack]

Well, Coito - if you have a look at the legal documents on Timmy's blog - there reportedly was a bit of a delay between the sanctions being announced, and Richard's team actually responding. Also bear in mind that his team got sanctioned precisely for their failure to be competent and timely.

I also heard, generally, that Richard was indeed unhappy with his lawyer - but again - he should have made sure he had a decent one, and had been keeping an eye on his (lack of) case, right from the outset.

I'm all for this conclusion, actually:

Then his RDFRS ought to be fired, and his legal team sued for malpractice if they didn't inform him.

With my emphasis.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, Coito - if you have a look at the legal documents on Timmy's blog - there reportedly was a bit of a delay between the sanctions being announced, and Richard's team actually responding.

I have looked that them. Sanctions don't get assessed in the first place without the person who is sanctioned being apprised in advance, in writing, and with a hearing to determine them. The Dawkins team had to have known that certain information was requested, they had to fail to comply, they had to have received a "motion to compel," they had to have received an order from the court ordering them to comply, they had to fail to obey that hearing, and they had receive notice that they were being called back into court to answer for their noncompliance, and THEN the sanctions would be entered against them.

Also bear in mind that his team got sanctioned precisely for their failure to be competent and timely.

For failing to produce documents and information they were requested in writing. Then they were given another chance under a written order of the court. Then they were called back into court to face a contempt hearing. They would have received written notice at least four times, and a specific order of the court.

I also heard, generally, that Richard was indeed unhappy with his lawyer - but again - he should have made sure he had a decent one, and had been keeping an eye on his (lack of) case, right from the outset.

This is a client issue, clearly. Unless the lawyer failed to inform the client that the discovery was due, that there was motion to compel, that there was a court hearing and an order entered compelling, and that the order was violated, and that contempt hearing scheduled....unless the lawyer just flat out did not inform them of that stuff, then it must be that the client just failed to comply.

I'm all for this conclusion, actually:

Then his RDFRS ought to be fired, and his legal team sued for malpractice if they didn't inform him.

With my emphasis.

Perhaps so. But, again, while I don't know, I find it unthinkable that the attorney did not pick up the phone and call Richard Dawkins, email him directly, and send him a letter directly that they would be nailed for contempt sanctions. Contempt is serious business. Judges are hesitant to find people in contempt, the proof has to be clear, and when a judge is going to enter such an order, it's because the party has simply ignored an ORDER of the court. That is, a court set forth precisely what was required, in writing, signed by the judge, and the party subject to the order ignored it. That is civil contempt.

[lordpasternack]

I heard vaguely that Richard specifically wanted practically zero involvement in the case.

It would not surprise me if he had tried to find some way to delegate EVERYTHING - to delegate everything, in his own particular way of cluelessly delegating to individuals who are in all likelihood as incompetent as he is.