Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Coito ergo sum]

Very nice - they did, as I suspected and suggested, explore the ability to "remove" the case to federal court. And, they have filed a "notice of removal" alleging a "federal question" under the federal Copyright Act. It looks like a valid notice of removal with substantial basis, but both sides have an argument here. RDF never explicitly alleged a federal claim, but Timonen says that RDF's complaint is "artfully drafted" to avoid the explicit mention, but nevertheless it in reality purports to allege a copyright claim. So, the ball is RDF's court to file a "motion to remand" the case back to state court. They have 30 days from November 4 to file such a motion. If they do, the burden is on Timonen to show that the case is properly in federal court.

Why did you think Josh was better off in federal court? It seems to me keeping it in a California court would allow him to try to paint the case as "some mean foreigner trying to take advantage of a nice local California company".

I didn't take a position as to where he would be better off. I merely thought his lawyers should consider it. They must have reviewed it and felt it would be better off in federal court.

Why would one be better off in federal court?

Sometimes a federal court is perceived to be more "defense oriented,"
Sometimes a federal court is thought to be more conservative in its judicial temperament.
State courts are generally more prone to higher jury verdicts, or at least that's the conventional wisdom.
The attorneys may look at the judge assigned to the state court case, and they may know something about his background and propensity/judicial philosophy/political leanings, etc., and compare that to their chances of drawing a more favorable judge in federal court - i.e. they be "forum shopping" a bit.
Or, they may see it as acceptable either way and may simply want to remove it to federal court because apparently the plaintiff's had some desire to avoid federal court (i.e. - they wanted state court, so we want federal court)
Or, they may simply be using this as a way to buy time before having to take a substantive position.

Or, a combination of the above....

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

?

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.

Not quite. A notice of removal is only used to move a case from state court to federal court. If the issue was state court to another state court, it would be a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or a motion for change of venue (if two state courts both have jurisdiction).

The notice of removal doesn't require a "fair trial" issue - it's based on either (a) the complaint raises a "federal question" (federal constitutional question, or claim under a federal statute), or (b) the parties are of diverse jurisdictions or "diversity jurisdiction." Here, Timonen has removed the case based on his allegation that RDF has raised a "federal question" under the United States Copyright Act.

What I don't understand is why JT is publishing all this.

They are public record and available to anyone who goes to the court house or wants to pay a couple dollars on PACER http://www.pacer.gov/ So, maybe Timonen thinks the documents are going to be circulated anyway, and it's best to stay out in front of them and make sure there is no impression that he's afraid of their contents.

What's the point? These forms do nothing to establish the facts of the case. Nor do they engender sympathy--

Litigation is a long process, and there are many different audiences. He may be trying to give the impression that he is confident about the case and doesn't mind if folks are aware of every little thing.

any more than a photo of a douchy-looking guy nuzzling a chinchilla engenders sympathy. But all I can think is that he's trying to fight his court case one-handed in the public sphere, before it actually takes place in the legal one. Which, quite frankly, reeks of the man who doth protest too much. And it makes him seem very immature and loose-lipped-- which, what with the chinchilla photos and all, he probably is.

Well, whatever one thinks of Timonen, I don't think posting the court papers is really "fighting the case in the public sphere." I mean - like I said, the documents are a public record anyway, and anyone else might post them. If he didn't post them, then someone getting access to them otherwise might ask why Timonen wanted them kept secret? What's he hiding?

Now, if he had added detailed commentary of his own to the blog about the case, then I'd think he was more likely trying to litigate the case in the public sphere. But, as it stands - I think that for those of us interested in the case, it's nice to not have to pay the couple bucks that PACER charges for copies of court documents.

[Don't Panic]

Josh is an utter dufus

Pappa's post: abridged version. Practically lossless compression.

Josh = dick

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

[lordpasternack]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

[Don't Panic]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

What's going on here? Are you attacking a member because he's a dick? Or, attacking a member's dick?

[Bella Fortuna]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

Both of you shut it. I have it on good authority that Josh was lent a penis by his other half. Anyone who spends his days cuddling chinchillas is sorely in need of one.

[Don't Panic]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

What's going on here? Are you attacking a member because he's a dick? Or, attacking a member's dick?

I warned Pappa for insulting Josh since Josh is a member here, it appears I inadvertently also insulted Josh in my warning for Josh being insulted.

I fully expect to shortly receive a warning for my warning, and LP is imitating a mod, and will soon be spanked until she's had enough.,

[Feck]

Josh liked Chinchillas before it was cool to like Chinchillas.

It's NOT cool .

[Don't Panic]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

Both of you shut it. I have it on good authority that Josh was lent a penis by his other half. Anyone who spends his days cuddling chinchillas is sorely in need of one.

This is a formal notification of intent to file a formal warning for the act of impersonating a staff member, impalation upon a staff's member, and implying a member has a staff.

[Bella Fortuna]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

Both of you shut it. I have it on good authority that Josh was lent a penis by his other half. Anyone who spends his days cuddling chinchillas is sorely in need of one.

This is a formal notification of intent to file a formal warning for the act of impersonating a staff member, impalation upon a staff's member, and implying a member has a staff.

Point of clarification: Will there be chinchillas involved?

[Don't Panic]

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

Both of you shut it. I have it on good authority that Josh was lent a penis by his other half. Anyone who spends his days cuddling chinchillas is sorely in need of one.

This is a formal notification of intent to file a formal warning for the act of impersonating a staff member, impalation upon a staff's member, and implying a member has a staff.

Point of clarification: Will there be chinchillas involved?

Point of obfuscation: Maybe

[lordpasternack]

Pappa, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another member.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a dick unless you have evidence.

Don't Panic, this is a formal warning for a personal attack on another user of this forum.

It is not okay to imply that Josh has a member unless you have evidence.

LordPasternak, this is a formal warning for suggesting that I would not share evidence of the existence of Josh's member with you in order to have it professionally assessed by the resident expert on all things Phallic.

Both of you shut it. I have it on good authority that Josh was lent a penis by his other half. Anyone who spends his days cuddling chinchillas is sorely in need of one.

This is a formal notification of intent to file a formal warning for the act of impersonating a staff member, impalation upon a staff's member, and implying a member has a staff.

This is a formal notification of intent to file a formal acceptance of your rod and your staff, impalation on your staff's member, and spanking till I've had enough, hopefully spread over easy weekly installments.

[lordpasternack]

Okay. What gives?! DP actually FOLLOWED THROUGH and gave me a Formal Warning! I thought this was all just a lark - you power-abusing admin and utter bastard. This is the ultimate betrayal. This is the darkest chapter of my life so far.

I will be vindicated. Your case is a total joke, based on nothing but gossip and hearsay. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let the truth prevail.

[Don't Panic]

Okay. What gives?! DP actually FOLLOWED THROUGH and gave me a Formal Warning! I thought this was all just a lark - you power-abusing admin and utter bastard. This is the ultimate betrayal. This is the darkest chapter of my life so far.

I will be vindicated. Your case is a total joke, based on nothing but gossip and hearsay. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Let the truth prevail.