He's trying to look sensitive, that means the poor things gonna be a chinchilla chimichanga before the weeks out is we don't do something!!!eXcommunicate wrote:Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.

He's trying to look sensitive, that means the poor things gonna be a chinchilla chimichanga before the weeks out is we don't do something!!!eXcommunicate wrote:Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.
Nah - he'll just say that he invented it and claim all the profits deriving from chinchillas rightly belong to him.Robert_S wrote:He's trying to look sensitive, that means the poor things gonna be a chinchilla chimichanga before the weeks out is we don't do something!!!eXcommunicate wrote:Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.
I just looked up "notice of removal"-- the gist I get is that a defendant can apply to have his case removed from state to federal jurisdiction, or from one state to another (as long as all defendants in a case agree to do so.) The reasons for this could be that the defendant doubts their ability to get a fair trial under the initial jurisdiction, or that possibly the statutes of the new jurisdiction would be more favorable to the defendant's case. Or possibly so that two people who just moved to Oregon don't have to travel to California for their court dates. I'm not sure.hopey_dishwasher wrote:I've sort of been following this, but am not legally-literate enough to understand what the point of the new documents is. What's being removed?
Does this mean the case has been dropped, or moved to another court, or what? Are they documents that he has received, or that he has submitted?
Also, what's his defense? Is it
a) that he never took the money
b) he was entitled to the money and he took it, and hasn't done anything wrong
c) the precise manner in which he was employed did not legally prevent him from taking the money, so he did; You snooze you lose.
?
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it
^^^ Cross breeding between Timonen and a chinchilla...Tigger wrote:It's not actually a chinchilla
I'm suddenly seeing images in my head of Richard Gere... huh. Funny.Bella Fortuna wrote:I think the chinchilla photo may be the most damning thing about the whole matter.![]()
"If the chinchilla fits, you must acquit"
Maybe JT's just a bigger arsehole...hadespussercats wrote:I'm suddenly seeing images in my head of Richard Gere... huh. Funny.Bella Fortuna wrote:I think the chinchilla photo may be the most damning thing about the whole matter.![]()
"If the chinchilla fits, you must acquit"
As I've already stated, it's not just a question of legalities here. Someone can be a downright cunt, and still be within the letter of the law. Timonen could have led Dawkins down a long garden path, wilfully deceived and misled him, and used money that was ostensibly agreed to be used for charity coffers instead for his own selfish purposes - and he could get away with this partially or fully so far as the law is concerned - and we can all still agree that it's completely bastardly, all the same.Rum wrote:I find it quite worrying that people are influenced by opinion, impressions (the chinchilla was certainly a mistake!), and prejudice here. I don't like the look of this guy either from what I know, but I am happy for the courts to decide what was legal and what was not.
Indeed, especially as the Google cache sees all ... something RD himself once pointed out.Pappa wrote:Hahahaha.... the documents have been removed. What a surprise. Josh is an utter dufus for posting anything online about it while proceeding are... erm... proceeding.
Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.Pappa wrote:Josh is an utter dufus
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests