Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[hadespussercats]

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.

I like cats better than chinchillas, anyway. So you must be innocent.

[hadespussercats]

Thanks for the clarification on "notice of removal"

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.

But how is this (your words):" 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"
different from this(mine): "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" ?

[Ronja]

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.

Stuff like this should not be hidden furthest down a page...

[Thinking Aloud]

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.

[Pappa]

I was soooo tempted to lock the thread after seeing that in the last post.

[Svartalf]

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.

is it really an attack to equate him with parts that granting he has them is a compliment in the first place?

[lordpasternack]

I like cats better than chinchillas, anyway. So you must be innocent.

This is a fun game. What do you make of this chap, then?

[Pappa]

I like cats better than chinchillas, anyway. So you must be innocent.

This is a fun game. What do you make of this chap, then?

Awwww..... he looks lovely. I wish I had an uncle like that.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah, I can just picture myself strolling through the countryside with him, singing "Hey Jude", or something.

[Bella Fortuna]

You mean "Hey, Juden"

[lordpasternack]

… take a saaaad song, and make it better… The minute, this gets right into your heart, then we can start to make things better...

[Coito ergo sum]

Thanks for the clarification on "notice of removal"

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.

But how is this (your words):" 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"
different from this(mine): "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" ?

Because people involved in litigation can have two different interests: (a) litigation interest in winning the case, (b) public interest in making sure they protect their image. One can try to protect (b) without actually "litigating" the case in the public sphere.

All Timonen did here is take documents which are of public record, and were bound to get out eventually, and post them where people can read them. He hasn't made any arguments or commentary associated with that. So, it's hard to see how he's 'litigated' anything in the public sphere.

If he was actually looking to litigate in public, I would think he'd be making his case. He hasn't. We still don't know what his position really is. All we know is that he thinks Dawkins raised a "federal question." That tells us nothing.

[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?

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.,

I would suggest that said spanking be administered in public to teach us all a valuable lesson. Perhaps use one of these:

[maiforpeace]

You mean "Hey, Juden"

[lordpasternack]

You mean "Hey, Juden"

That was the joke that I was making anyway! "Jude" is the German word for Jew. "Juden" is just the plural. Laugh at me, too!