joshtimonen talks

[Bella Fortuna]

He won't be back - he's just spamming his sob story to all the atheist forums.

[Coito ergo sum]

He won't be back - he's just spamming his sob story to all the atheist forums.

After reading Dawkins' complaint, I'm left with some uncertainty as to whether Timonen is actually in the wrong here. That's not supposed to happen, since the Complaint in a civil case is written by the Plaintiff's lawyer and is as a result a one-sided document. You're supposed to be able to conclude from the complaint that if everything the plaintiff says is true, then he should win. I was not left with that impression. That's a bad start to a lawsuit.

I don't care about this guy Timonen one way or the other, and didn't care much that the RDF forum was taken down. I like Dawkins, and know nothing about Timonen.

[Coito ergo sum]

Josh -

You might consider looking into whether or not you have a basis to "remove" the case to federal court.

You might be able to remove it to federal court based on a lack of diversity of citizenship. There has to be "complete diversity" of citizenship, and Dawkins is not a California resident, right? So, the amount in controversy is over $75,000. File a Notice of Removal, bring it to federal court and then file an immediate motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. At a minimum, it looks like Dawkins has failed to plead "fraud" with requisite particularity, and you can probably find arguable pleading difficulties with the other counts.

Obviously, your attorneys know more about the case than anyone on a message board, but I would at least think they'd look into that option.

You don't have to answer the complaint right away if you start off with a motion to dismiss.

[lordpasternack]

After reading Dawkins' complaint, I'm left with some uncertainty as to whether Timonen is actually in the wrong here.

He's most definitely been a deceptive, trust-abusing dickhead either way - but whether Richard has the legal materials and means to hand to have him taken down LEGALLY for his behaviour, is of course another matter. Someone can be "in the wrong" and still within the letter of the law. Let's not confuse ethics with the legalities, here.

[Atheist-Lite]

Is Richard Dawkins required to inform the Charity Commision of this matter or are they outside the loop despite the coming publicity this matter will recieve?

[devogue]

Meatloaf diddit.

[Coito ergo sum]

After reading Dawkins' complaint, I'm left with some uncertainty as to whether Timonen is actually in the wrong here.

He's most definitely been a deceptive, trust-abusing dickhead either way - but whether Richard has the legal materials and means to hand to have him taken down LEGALLY for his behaviour, is of course another matter. Someone can be "in the wrong" and still within the letter of the law. Let's not confuse ethics with the legalities, here.

Well, of course, that is quite true. But, we don't really know if Timonen has been deceptive or a trust-abusing dickhead either way because we don't know what the discussions were between the parties, yet (or what both sides SAY were the discussions).

I pointed out earlier that quite often in these things two dramatically opposing sides can have completely different recollections of "the facts," and both can be honestly telling what they think is "the truth." I wouldn't call either side the villain yet.

I have to say, one thing that I wonder about in regards to the case is how Timonen just handed over the "damning" quickbooks evidence. According to RDF, RDF asked for the quickbooks data because RDF wanted to take over operation of the Store now that they had worked out their "regulatory issues" that kept them out of it in the first place. Timonen did so, and lo and behold, there are all these improper payments! Salaries Timonen expressly promised by oral contract he was not to take! Right there in black-and-white!

Well....if Timonen did agree to this oral contract to not take a salary from his own corporation, UBP, and operate the store at no additional income, then surely he -- clearly not being an idiot -- would know that if he took this salary, it would be a big deal if RDF/Dawkins found out about it. So, wouldn't he have, during the 2 years he had exclusive dominion over the books and records, have tried to cover it up? Have tried something a little more complex then glaringly noting in the records essentially "I'm taking a salary!!!!"

I guess stranger things have happened, but it just doesn't sit right. The guy is not a moron, and he had to know that at some point this data was going to have to come out....maybe he thought that RDF would never care about the store... I don't know.

The bigger deal for me is that I can't wrap my head around the idea of anyone just "volunteering" to create and run that whole store for nothing, and not only that but use one's own corporate entity (that requires out of pocket payments of fees and such to keep in compliance with US corporate laws), to do so. That's Timonen not only doing the work, but taking all the legal liability too. For nothing?

[Bella Fortuna]

OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing.

[Trolldor]

Yeah, and look how that turned out.

Always work for pay!

[devogue]

OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing.

Didn't he get you?

[Bella Fortuna]

OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing.

Didn't he get you?

I did get a couple of DVDs... purely coincidental...

[Coito ergo sum]

OBC did tonnes of work for Josh and Richard, for production of their videos, for nothing.

The issue is burdens of proof.

If you have a commercial photographer come to you home to take pictures of your family, and the photographer comes over, takes pictures of your family, gives you the picture, and then bills you. You then respond - "hey, Photog! F U! I never agreed to pay your anything!" - The photog sues you for the cost of the pictures, claiming an oral contract, that you called him on the phone and said you needed pictures taken of your family and would pay his going rate for them. You deny agreeing to pay him, but admit calling the photog to come over and take the pictures.

Yes, you could claim that in other circumstances people have done work for free. However, the job of the court is to be the "finder of fact" and to weigh the evidence and the testimony and decide who is more likely telling the truth and what the facts really are. In my view, a court/jury would be more likely to find that if you call a commercial photographer and ask him to come to your house to take pictures, you likely agreed to pay for them.

So, here we have Dawkins bringing the case saying that he called up an independent contractor, Timonen, and asked that Timonen create and run an online Store and operate it through Timonen's own company, which would necessarily involve research, design, development, implementation of the site, negotiating terms of credit card systems and other pay systems, logo design, marketing, creation of content, selecting product, ordering product, receiving, inventorying, sales, shipping, bookkeeping/accounting, corporate compliance, California sales tax (which is among the most complex) and other taxes, and everything else associated with the business.

It is possible that Timonen agreed to take all that on for nothing. Yes. But, on the surface, does it not at least raise your curiosity? If I were on the jury, I would want to know why. I would want to know when Timonen agreed to do that, and what exactly was said, because it seems to me to be something that someone who has to make a living can't just do - donate 2+ years worth of time running a business. Maybe he did - the context and all the facts could clear it up.

[drl2]

Meatloaf diddit.

For love? Because I've heard he'd do anything for that.

[devogue]

Meatloaf diddit.

For love? Because I've heard he'd do anything for that.

Did I say Meatloaf. Sorry, I meant Mrs Josh.

[laklak]

Common mistake, Dev.