Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, by the way - Dawkins also filed an amended complaint in the federal court before the case was remanded to state court.

[Coito ergo sum]

O.k. - and I got some basic status data from the State court (Los Angeles County - Superior Court, State of California).

On 02/22/2011 at 08:30 am in department NCGD at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206 there is a Case Management Conference. Unfortunately for anyone in the Glendale area, that kind of conference will be in private in the judge's chambers. It's likely only going to involve the attorneys, so it's unlikely Dawkins himself will be there, and it's conceivable it will be done by telephone.

The latest document filed in state court was 12/03/2010 Order (of Remand from U.S. District Court Filed by Court - That's the document transmitting the case back to state court from the federal court.

11/05/2010 Notice (OF FILING OF NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION 28USC1446D ) Filed by Attorney for Defendant - This may well be the screw up which cased the case to get remanded back to State court. The notice of removal was apparently filed with the state court on 11/5, which is more than 30 days after the case was originally served on a defendant. So....they may have missed a deadline by one day.

On 01/04/2011 at 08:30 am in department NCGD at 600 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206
OSC-RE Other (Miscellaneous) (RE: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH TRIAL COURT DELAY REDUCTION ACT) - this was apparently a hearing today about some sort of failure to comply with the "trial court delay reduction act," whatever that is. It's probably nothing important, but we'll likely see something noted on the docket about the case soon.

It doesn't look like Timonen has refiled his motion to dismiss in state court (as I noted a post or two ago, he had filed a motion to dismiss dawkins' complaint in federal court, which became moot when the court remanded the case to state court).

So far, this whole thing looks a little sloppy. The case was filed 90 days ago, and so far all that has happened is that it's been booted to federal court on a defectively filed notice of removal - Dawkins filed an amended complaint in federal court - and timonen filed a motion to dismiss in federal court which was then rendered moot because the court remanded it back to California Superior Court. We still don't know anything substantive about what Timonen's defenses are - he hasn't filed an answer, and probably nothing will happen much until the case management conference in February.

FYI - https://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/OnlineS ... /index.asp You can click on "case summary" on the left and enter the case number: EC054190 to get the docket. You can't read any of the content of the documents filed without paying money, but you can at least follow what is happening.

[lordpasternack]

tl;dr - sorry. I'm just waiting for the Reader's Digest version to come out when the whole charade has passed.

[Coito ergo sum]

tl;dr - sorry. I'm just waiting for the Reader's Digest version to come out when the whole charade has passed.

LOL - the long and short of it is that Timonen tried to remove (transfer) the case from the state court in which it was originally filed, to the federal court in LA. It looks like he messed up procedurally, and the court sent it back down the state court again. While in federal court, dawkins filed an amended complaint and Timonen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the motion to dismiss the complaint was never considered, because it was rendered "moot" when the case was kicked back over to the state court. That's about it.

[lordpasternack]

tl;dr - sorry. I'm just waiting for the Reader's Digest version to come out when the whole charade has passed.

LOL - the long and short of it is that Timonen tried to remove (transfer) the case from the state court in which it was originally filed, to the federal court in LA. It looks like he messed up procedurally, and the court sent it back down the state court again. While in federal court, dawkins filed an amended complaint and Timonen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the motion to dismiss the complaint was never considered, because it was rendered "moot" when the case was kicked back over to the state court. That's about it.

[Coito ergo sum]

tl;dr - sorry. I'm just waiting for the Reader's Digest version to come out when the whole charade has passed.

LOL - the long and short of it is that Timonen tried to remove (transfer) the case from the state court in which it was originally filed, to the federal court in LA. It looks like he messed up procedurally, and the court sent it back down the state court again. While in federal court, dawkins filed an amended complaint and Timonen filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the motion to dismiss the complaint was never considered, because it was rendered "moot" when the case was kicked back over to the state court. That's about it.

[Cormac]

In his 18-page complaint, Dawkins describes himself as "the world's best known and most respected atheist."

What a complete prick.

Probably written by a litigation lawyer of course.

It is what I'd have written, if I was representing RD. It goes to support the statement of the value of the brand allegedly illegally exploited by JT.

[Cormac]

This puts a slightly new spin on events two years ago, specifically JT's swiftness in acting in accordance with his master's wishes. RD could have shut down the entire web site if he wanted to. And maybe it also partly explains why JT cared not a whit for the forum otherwise. No money to be made there ...

Except, where did he think the volume of traffic that drove transactions and revenue came from. I hazard a guess that the VAST majority of it was driven by the forum.

[Cormac]

This puts a slightly new spin on events two years ago, specifically JT's swiftness in acting in accordance with his master's wishes. RD could have shut down the entire web site if he wanted to. And maybe it also partly explains why JT cared not a whit for the forum otherwise. No money to be made there ...

I have a personal theory about why the off topic was a bugbear for Dawkins, there's been rumours that old Dicky has a MAJOR problem keeping it in his trousers which is kept out the press by very good PR. When the sexual threads got pulled this was around the time that apparently a story about the Dawk was trying to be kept under wraps. Essentially if the press did ever run the story, then having that sort of material on the site would have caused a field day for the right wing press.
OK it’s a bit hypocritical and cowardly, but it wouldn’t have exactly helped the image of the Foundation from a PR view.

Fuck it. If that was the case, I'd be inclined to close ranks and say fuck all.

Whatever someone does in their private life and with their genitalia is their own business.

Fuck the newspapers and their prurient and pretend moral outrage about sex.

If RD puts it about, that is no-ones business but his and his sexual partners.

[Cormac]

There were 80,000 registered users of the RDF forums when Timonen destroyed them. That forum had a significant monetary value to marketers. For example, it would now be running ads for Sam Harris' new book. Dawkins should also sue for damages due to the loss of that forum.

He can have no cause in action there. RD took advice and acted on it. There was no fiduciary duty on that topic, (but there was potentially in relation to the monies etc.)

[klr]

This puts a slightly new spin on events two years ago, specifically JT's swiftness in acting in accordance with his master's wishes. RD could have shut down the entire web site if he wanted to. And maybe it also partly explains why JT cared not a whit for the forum otherwise. No money to be made there ...

Except, where did he think the volume of traffic that drove transactions and revenue came from. I hazard a guess that the VAST majority of it was driven by the forum.

Maybe, but I suspect JT saw it otherwise. Any and all sales were made using "his" web site, not the forum, which was just a generic set-up. He wouldn't so much as log on to the forum for months on end. If a lot of the sales traffic was coming from the forum, he doesn't seem to have ever paid any attention to it.

[lordpasternack]

Whatever someone does in their private life and with their genitalia is their own business.

Fuck the newspapers and their prurient and pretend moral outrage about sex.

If RD puts it about, that is no-ones business but his and his sexual partners.

Curiously, I kinda sorta agree with you there, quite a great deal, coming from a number of vantage points...

[joshtimonen]

I just posted some updates.
Josh

THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK? DAWKINS AND FOUNDATION CLAIM THAT DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR CASE WERE "LOST FOREVER"

http://dawkinssuestimonen.com/

[Bella Fortuna]

Why don't you give us the executive summary, for those of us who can't wade through all that without risk of lapsing into unconsciousness?

[joshtimonen]

Yeah, I know it's a monster. I'm working on that.