Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[leo-rcc]

Hell, all of us forum staff were expected to work for free.

I just don't know if RD appreciated the amount of work that might be involved in what you've described. Again: Not his style to be well-versed in the nuts and bolts of running a small enterprise.

Free??

Pappa pays all of us using the money donated to the site. The admins clear about €25 a year.

I only get a small block of cheese.

Yes, but what kind?

It looks like that plastic cheese you get on McD Cheeseburgers.

[Coito ergo sum]

...

Question: why would Dawkins need Timonen to run "The Store" under the name of UBP, a company owned by Timonen? Why wouldn't Dawkins just have a new corporation called "The Dawk-Store, Inc." formed? It makes no real sense to just have Timonen put everything in his company's name.

...

My theory: Doing it this way would have freed RD from much of the tiresome detail and need for constant intervention. That suits his style, but it does not seem to have been a very good decision ...

Certainly. Certainly. However, hiring someone to free you from tiresome detail and constant intervention is generally done for money. Here, Dawkins is claiming that Timonen just agreed to do it for free, since Dawkins was already paying him generously for other work.

Important question - would a reasonable person in Timonen's position agree to take on the entire responsibility of the Store, including compliance, bookkeeping, tax, inventory, sales, business permiting, accounting, shipping, receiving, phones/customer service, internet, etc. etc. etc. - for no additional salary over and above his salary for his two other responsibilities - for Dawkins himself and directly for RDF. The thing that troubles me is that the Store itself would seem to be a full time job in and of itself, and even if it was, say, 1/2 time job of 20 hours a week, wouldn't that still be unreasonable to take for no additional money over and above his other jobs for RDF and Dawk?

Hell, all of us forum staff were expected to work for free.

I would be willing to bet that it was clear, however you signed up as a volunteer to RDF, that you would be volunteering.

Here, we have a person who is an "independent contractor" hired by RDF and Dawkins to do work. A new project comes up, and the independent contractor's company, UBP, is enlisted to build an online Store. No writing. No letter. No email. No contract. Nothing indicates that it is to be at no additional compensation, despite it being a completely different project.

I just don't know if RD appreciated the amount of work that might be involved in what you've described. Again: Not his style to be well-versed in the nuts and bolts of running a small enterprise.

Well, I would surmise that he ran RDF like a charitable organization, and if there were people willing to volunteer, then.....thanks for the contribution! After all, it is a charitable organization, and would be looking to minimize salaries.

[maiforpeace]

Exactly. That's why it's called volunteer work, eh?

Which reminds me I need to renegotiate my contract here...I insist on being paid in real Gruyère versus Kraft substitute.

[Meekychuppet]

I used to mod at RDF, all I asked in return was that Ricky wank me off occasionally.

[Coito ergo sum]

Exactly. That's why it's called volunteer work, eh?

Which reminds me I need to renegotiate my contract here...I insist on being paid in real Gruyère versus Kraft substitute.

I think the court is going to be looking to Timonen to explain why Dawkins/RDF would allow him to run the Store, sell RDF stuff and reap the profits without giving money over to RDF/Dawkins, which were bankrolling the store.... I think Timonen could honestly say that there were no profits, after salaries and expenses. UBP is not governed by salary restrictions to the same extent as a 501c3 organization is governed. It's his company, so Dawkins doesn't have the right, without a contract that says so, to set salaries.

So, Timonen set a reasonable salary for himself and Norton, and Graham Norton. If the court can't find a basis for invalidating those salaries, then there goes most of Dawkins' claim. The remainder of these expenses are small potatoes. The money spent at Whole Foods was probably for a barbecue or a client entertainment function - business related. The dinners were probably business-related.

And, let's assume they are excessive - Dawkins needs to have some basis for being the one to complain. He's not a shareholder of UBP. He can only claim that Timonen agreed to run UBP for the benefit of RDF. So, assuming the court/jury believes that, then they will also need to find that the salaries and expenses were unreasonable. They'll have nothing in writing to go on, and only the testimony of an alleged oral contract, most of the terms of which are either left open and not agreed upon or very vague.

If I was on the jury, I might want Timonen to come forward with some reasonable explanation for why Dawkins would be so generous as to let him basically have the Store for 2 years. Timonen, I think, is probably going to say that RDF couldn't run it anyway because of the regulatory issues, so Dawkins didn't have time to handle it and said that I can have it until such time as RDF resolves the regulatory issue, and then we'll move it to RDF. And.....that's what happened.....

[M]

Timonen set a reasonable salary for himself

Fuck me.... I demand to be 'reasonably' paid from now on.

[Coito ergo sum]

Timonen set a reasonable salary for himself

Fuck me.... I demand to be 'reasonably' paid from now on.

Start MCJ, Inc., and you may compensate yourself as you see fit. In fact, under US tax law, you would be required to pay yourself a certain amount in "salary" for tax purposes, so that you do not categorize it all as a dividend or something that might be taxed at a lower rate, like capital gains.

The point wasn't the idea of person being entitled to a "reasonable salary" -- the point was that if you own and operate a corporation, and that corporation makes money, you normally can pay yourself a salary. From Dawkins standpoint, if he can't prove that Timonen was paying himself an "unreasonable" salary, then it's going to be hard to demonstrate that the money should have wound up at RDF - see what I mean? RDF's lawyers have anticipated this, and have taken the position that ANY salary at all taken by Timonen was inherently improper because Timonen "verbally agreed" to operate the Store for the same money he was already being paid before the Store came up.

Whether Dawkins wins on that, I think, is going to be whether he can establish that Timonen agreed to that. So, were there witnesses, or does Dawkins rely on his own conversations with Timonen. If it's Timonen vs Dawkins, and Dawkins bears the burden of proof and has some ground to cover if he wants to win.

[maiforpeace]

Exactly. That's why it's called volunteer work, eh?

Which reminds me I need to renegotiate my contract here...I insist on being paid in real Gruyère versus Kraft substitute.

I think the court is going to be looking to Timonen to explain why Dawkins/RDF would allow him to run the Store, sell RDF stuff and reap the profits without giving money over to RDF/Dawkins, which were bankrolling the store.... I think Timonen could honestly say that there were no profits, after salaries and expenses. UBP is not governed by salary restrictions to the same extent as a 501c3 organization is governed. It's his company, so Dawkins doesn't have the right, without a contract that says so, to set salaries.

So, Timonen set a reasonable salary for himself and Norton, and Graham Norton. If the court can't find a basis for invalidating those salaries, then there goes most of Dawkins' claim. The remainder of these expenses are small potatoes. The money spent at Whole Foods was probably for a barbecue or a client entertainment function - business related. The dinners were probably business-related.

And, let's assume they are excessive - Dawkins needs to have some basis for being the one to complain. He's not a shareholder of UBP. He can only claim that Timonen agreed to run UBP for the benefit of RDF. So, assuming the court/jury believes that, then they will also need to find that the salaries and expenses were unreasonable. They'll have nothing in writing to go on, and only the testimony of an alleged oral contract, most of the terms of which are either left open and not agreed upon or very vague.

If I was on the jury, I might want Timonen to come forward with some reasonable explanation for why Dawkins would be so generous as to let him basically have the Store for 2 years. Timonen, I think, is probably going to say that RDF couldn't run it anyway because of the regulatory issues, so Dawkins didn't have time to handle it and said that I can have it until such time as RDF resolves the regulatory issue, and then we'll move it to RDF. And.....that's what happened.....

That's an interesting analysis CES. I will be curious to know how it all pans out. I tried looking for the court docket online in that county, but it's not obvious. I understand it will go to court in January, which makes sense if it was filed the 27th.

Timonen set a reasonable salary for himself

Fuck me.... I demand to be 'reasonably' paid from now on.

Yea, that's for sure.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you have the case number, I think you can search it here -- http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcal ... Type=Civil Fucking California, charges for a damn name search, $4.75. The case number wasn't on the copy of the complaint available online.

I highly doubt anything is going to trial in January. The parties will do discovery first. That's probably a pretrial or scheduling conference. If this goes to trial, it's as likely as not it'll be a year or more from now.

[maiforpeace]

If you have the case number, I think you can search it here -- http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcal ... Type=Civil Fucking California, charges for a damn name search, $4.75. The case number wasn't on the copy of the complaint available online.

I highly doubt anything is going to trial in January. The parties will do discovery first. That's probably a pretrial or scheduling conference. If this goes to trial, it's as likely as not it'll be a year or more from now.

I was looking for something like this... Here in my county you can look it up all kinds of ways.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/civil.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

If you have the case number, I think you can search it here -- http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcal ... Type=Civil Fucking California, charges for a damn name search, $4.75. The case number wasn't on the copy of the complaint available online.

I highly doubt anything is going to trial in January. The parties will do discovery first. That's probably a pretrial or scheduling conference. If this goes to trial, it's as likely as not it'll be a year or more from now.

I was looking for something like this... Here in my county you can look it up all kinds of ways.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/civil.htm

Yeah - the site I linked you to gives you other search options, but they cost $.

Have you read the complaint? What was your feeling?

[Atheist-Lite]

Well, I think Josh is like Neo and he has been bated & then trapped by the system, by the Matrix.

[maiforpeace]

If you have the case number, I think you can search it here -- http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcal ... Type=Civil Fucking California, charges for a damn name search, $4.75. The case number wasn't on the copy of the complaint available online.

I highly doubt anything is going to trial in January. The parties will do discovery first. That's probably a pretrial or scheduling conference. If this goes to trial, it's as likely as not it'll be a year or more from now.

I was looking for something like this... Here in my county you can look it up all kinds of ways.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/civil.htm

Yeah - the site I linked you to gives you other search options, but they cost $.

Have you read the complaint? What was your feeling?

I did read the complaint, only rather quickly last night.

I also don't think it will go to trial. They won't be able to afford it. For that amount of money they are wrangling over, I think what they will end up doing is settling. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and I think Josh's turnip is a bit dry, especially if 100K was invested in home improvements in LA real estate.

I don't expect at his age, with a girlfriend with as many financial demands as she seems to have that he has much left for RDF and RD to get their hands on.

[Coito ergo sum]

If you have the case number, I think you can search it here -- http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civilcal ... Type=Civil Fucking California, charges for a damn name search, $4.75. The case number wasn't on the copy of the complaint available online.

I highly doubt anything is going to trial in January. The parties will do discovery first. That's probably a pretrial or scheduling conference. If this goes to trial, it's as likely as not it'll be a year or more from now.

I was looking for something like this... Here in my county you can look it up all kinds of ways.

http://www.sccaseinfo.org/civil.htm

Yeah - the site I linked you to gives you other search options, but they cost $.

Have you read the complaint? What was your feeling?

I did read the complaint, only rather quickly last night.

I also don't think it will go to trial. They won't be able to afford it. For that amount of money they are wrangling over, I think what they will end up doing is settling. You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip, and I think Josh's turnip is a bit dry, especially if 100K was invested in home improvements in LA real estate.

I don't expect at his age, with a girlfriend with as many financial demands as she seems to have that he has much left for RDF and RD to get their hands on.

Well, she's a defendant in the case too, so she should have to pony up some dough. After all, she received like $168,000 from UBP. They can probably mortgage the home for attorney fees.

I posted on the other thread that I thought Josh should think about removing the case to federal court. I think that maybe the fact that Dawkins and RDF are in England might create diversity of citizenship such that the federal court might have jurisdiction.

In any case, I think he should for sure file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. the Fraud count is not pled with particularity, and the he can claim that the elements of the other counts have not been pled.

I would claim on the embezzlement count that what he's pled is not embezzlement. One of the elements of embezzlement is that the plaintiff has to be the owner of the property embezzled. The complaint alleges that Josh was the owner of UBP, and UBP owned the Store but "for the benefit of" RDF. I think that Josh can at least argue to the court that he couldn't, as a matter of law, embezzle from his own company. That embezzlement claim is weak.

As for the contract claim - the complaint doesn't even allege the elements of a contract - offer, acceptance, and consideration, and doesn't describe the terms of that contract with reasonable particularity. There is arguably no consideration as a matter of law, because Dawkins tries to bootstrap consideration for other services provided by Timonen and make it consideration for the alleged contract to run the store for the benefit of RDF. I think they've failed to state a breach of contract claim on which relief can be granted, or at a minimum there is a reasonable basis to bring a motion to that effect.

If the contract claim fails, so does the "implied covenant of good faith" - because that can only exist if there is a contract.

Then the fiduciary duty claim can be dispensed with by demonstrating that as a matter of law Timonen is not in a fiduciary position - it's a contract or no contract issue.

The fraud count is not pled with particularity, and fails at the pleading stage. At best this could survive if Plaintiff is given a chance to amend and plead what the fraudulent statements were and when they were made and how they were justifiably relied on. But, that's going to be tough to do.

That should be task number 1 - file a motion to dismiss and either end the whole thing or weed out some of the claims. Step two - file an answer and counterclaims - the counterclaims are important - I'd head straight for a claim of defamation/libel/slander against the plaintiffs and if the contract claim survives the motion to dismiss I would see if the facts warrant an allegation that Dawkins and RDF breached THEIR obligations under that contract. That's the thing about "verbal" contracts....they are what the parties remember them to be.

Just spitballing there....

[Cunt]

...

Question: why would Dawkins need Timonen to run "The Store" under the name of UBP, a company owned by Timonen? Why wouldn't Dawkins just have a new corporation called "The Dawk-Store, Inc." formed? It makes no real sense to just have Timonen put everything in his company's name.

...

My theory: Doing it this way would have freed RD from much of the tiresome detail and need for constant intervention. That suits his style, but it does not seem to have been a very good decision ...

I think it is because a not-for-profit is not supposed to be 'for profit' (of course implying that UBP was). But I am a bit simple.

------------------------

It only proves what anyone in business knows, that no-one can be trusted. People like Dawkins are often easy to sink because they are too busy basking in their own grandeur. Bill Gates did it to Steve Jobs too. It's remarkable, but not unusual.

If you were a person operating a non-profit, could you run a business to make a profit as part of it? (the one I work for can't, but I don't know the law in every country)

-----------------------