Who here is on Timonen's side?

[JimC]

The Terrible mistreatment of Josh has driven me to drink

Me too...

I was teetotal until I read this...

[Thinking Aloud]

I was teetotal until I read this...

It's really subtle.

[Rum]

Personally I have no real idea how the business dealings went between the two of them. Dawkins is I am sure quite capable of naivety and carelessness in such things. I don't in any case have any interest in digging around for whatever 'evidence' there is either way. Life is too short and the courts will decide in due course anyway.

Most people here feel the way they do because of the way the forum and the community around it was ripped out of the web site so unceremoniously, insensitively and crudely. That is the root cause of much of the ill feeling I suspect.

[Don't Panic]

I was teetotal until I read this...

It's really subtle.

Depends on the brand.

[Ayaan]

Personally I have no real idea how the business dealings went between the two of them. Dawkins is I am sure quite capable of naivety and carelessness in such things. I don't in any case have any interest in digging around for whatever 'evidence' there is either way. Life is too short and the courts will decide in due course anyway.

Most people here feel the way they do because of the way the forum and the community around it was ripped out of the web site so unceremoniously, insensitively and crudely. That is the root cause of much of the ill feeling I suspect.

When you treat a group of people the way Josh treated the forum and community around it, you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy when something like a lawsuit falls in your lap. Just sayin'.

[Geoff]

No. Don't worry. The cheese is safe.

I suppose Josh may remain alive for the time being.

But the bacon!! Has anyone checked the bacon?!

Iz OK...I eated it...

[Ayaan]

No. Don't worry. The cheese is safe.

I suppose Josh may remain alive for the time being.

But the bacon!! Has anyone checked the bacon?!

Iz OK...I eated it...

But, but, you didn't save any for the rest of us.

[Atheist-Lite]

Personally I have no real idea how the business dealings went between the two of them. Dawkins is I am sure quite capable of naivety and carelessness in such things. I don't in any case have any interest in digging around for whatever 'evidence' there is either way. Life is too short and the courts will decide in due course anyway.

Most people here feel the way they do because of the way the forum and the community around it was ripped out of the web site so unceremoniously, insensitively and crudely. That is the root cause of much of the ill feeling I suspect.

When you treat a group of people the way Josh treated the forum and community around it, you shouldn't expect much in the way of sympathy when something like a lawsuit falls in your lap. Just sayin'.

Josh only displayed the reactions of all who fall foul of The Peter Principle and I do wonder how many here would have reacted with greater wisdom in the panic of the moment, the push of events? If he is guilty of any kind of fiscal mismanagement it is best to recall he is a talented technician, a artist with camera, and not a accountant. Richard Dawkins tempted Josh out from his safe niche role into the realm of 'greater possiblities' and presented the poorer guy with moral hazard....IMO.

[klr]

Josh? I'm right behind him ...

[Coito ergo sum]

Is there an email early on when the store started making money that says, "Richard - I just wanted to thank you for the opportunity to develop the site.

It's not my place to say,

Then I would say it's not your place to say most of what you have already said.

but I gather the bulk of their business dealings were done face to face when Richard was in town.

Quite possible. However, I would find it unimaginable that a computer guy like Josh would not engage in email communications to his clients. One can't always wait to make decisions until the client is in town or can make it to the office to have a face to face chat. Some decisions would require Dawkins' approval, I'm sure. It would be the odd website indeed where the client did not "sign off" on things like the look, feel and layout of the website, and other things. Moreover, when you're talking about 10s of thousands of dollars and even hundreds of thousands of dollars, it doesn't make much sense that there would be absolutely no written exchange concerning who gets what. I would think Josh would have thought to himself, "Hmmm...Richard said I could keep all the profits, but what if the profits become like $1,000,000 or something? Maybe I ought to just make sure it's confirmed and send him an email that says - "As we discussed, when the store makes a profit, that will be my compensation. This month it was $X and I am keeping $Y." I mean - without ANYTHING in writing, Josh is basically saying that he can do what he wants with the website,take all the profits (leaving for himself the sole decision-making authority about what profits go back into the website for development, expansion and upgrades, etc.), and if the website went under because Josh took too much in profits rather than reinvesting - well - so be it - Dawkins promised him he could keep all the profits, so that's that. See?

That's all speculation, of course, but frankly, there MUST be emails between Timonen and Dawkins. I can't believe there aren't. And, if there aren't, well, shame on them both. That's just plain STUPID.

Still, there must have been some e-mail about the business arrangement in the years of their work together, if not explicitly stating the terms of the agreement, at least implying as much.

Exactly - if there was an agreement like Timonen describes, then the parties would likely have acted in accordance with that agreement. And, some communications that logically follow from there being such an agreement ought to exist. It would be strange, at least, if they didn't.

Josh made no secret of his use of funds from the store. Everybody, Richard, the foundation, etc., knew how he was spending the money.

That may be - but, the Devil is in the details. What was known? Timonen's case would be pretty rock-solid if he emailed Dawkins an Excel spreadsheet showing profits/losses and/or a balance sheet for the store, indicating what amount is distributed to Timonen. If quarterly or even annual documents like that exist, and Dawkins didn't object to the distribution to Timonen, then it would be hard for Dawkins to claim embezzlement, etc.

I imagine it irked the foundation no end, but Richard was happy, as Josh was constantly re-investing much of the money in equipment for the foundation's use, such as a Red Camera, computers, etc., That's not to say he didn't spend on himself, but Richard never expressed disapproval with Josh's lifestyle as supported by the store proceeds, and Richard was in a position to know, seeing Josh several times per year.

The key is not whether Dawkins could surmise due to Timonen's lifestyle that Timonen was spending money, it's whether Dawkins was notified or informed of whether the Store's money was being used for that purpose. Dawkins' assumption, no doubt, is that Timonen had other things going on - Timonen was an independent contractor, not an employee, and as such could have many other clients. Dawkins may well have thought that Timonen was a talented guy and making money elsewhere, and part of the reason Timonen might be making money elsewhere is that he could put on his CV and client list "Richard Dawkins" and "RDF" - that would be a great sales pitch for Timonen.

It was obvious to everyone that knew Josh that he had no time to work any other jobs, so any money he had came from his work on the Dawkins site and store.

Obvious to anyone who gave a shit, maybe. It's up to Dawkins to say what what was obvious to him, but I doubt he's going to say that it was obvious to him that Timonen was using the funds from the Store. Unless Timonen was reporting to Dawkins his hours spent on the project, Dawkins may well not have known. As you said, they were on opposite sides of the world, and got together infrequently.

Dawkins probably has slews of volunteers willing to work day and night for the opportunity of being able to say they worked with/for Richard Dawkins.

He never won the lottery. Why, all of a sudden, was he accused of embezzling out of the blue, after years of developing the site and earning money through the store?

Because it had only just started making money. And, the embezzlement is in part supposed to be that Timonen used company funds to pay personal expenses. That means that it would not be readily apparent to Dawkins that the money was being used by Timonen. The proper way to take funds from a company is to make an actual distribution - like a salary/wage, dividend to shareholder, or payment to an independent contractor. You don't just have the company pay your bills, especially if you're not the owner of the company.

[Coito ergo sum]

Paul is asking us to believe Richard told Josh to open an on-line shop in the name of the charity and to keep all the money for himself and his friends . I find that unlikely And if that's the case why would Richard be so keen to bring it to everyone's attention with a court case ?
]

Richard might be keen to bring suit because it might endanger the charitable foundation's charitable and tax-exempt status to operate the store in the name of the charity but outside of the charitable purposes. I.e. - if the funds raised by the store weren't being used for the charity, then that would be a no-no.

So - Dawkins has to claim to have intended all along that the funds be used for the charitable purposes, and that would mean that Timonen using store funds for personal expenses has to be something Dawkins wasn't aware of and did not approve of.

It may also be false or deceptive advertising and a violation of charitable fundraising regulations to put up a store that people think is operated where profits on the mugs and t-shirts go to the charitable purposes. If what Timonen is saying is true, then the store was not, in fact, being used for that purpose. Dawkins may have approved of that not fathoming that there was anything wrong with doing that. Or, Dawkins may well have not known what Timonen was up to. Either way, Dawkins must take the position that he thought the Store would be operated in line with the foundation's charitable purposes.

[Mr P]

Personally I have no real idea how the business dealings went between the two of them. Dawkins is I am sure quite capable of naivety and carelessness in such things. I don't in any case have any interest in digging around for whatever 'evidence' there is either way. Life is too short and the courts will decide in due course anyway.

Most people here feel the way they do because of the way the forum and the community around it was ripped out of the web site so unceremoniously, insensitively and crudely. That is the root cause of much of the ill feeling I suspect.

Again. The court case is really nothing more than comic relief to a lot of people round here.

[Mysturji]

When is the court case BTW?

[Bella Fortuna]

When is the court case BTW?

You can check for up-to-date news on the site Josh started to solicit donations for poor widdle him!

[Feck]

Personally I have no real idea how the business dealings went between the two of them. Dawkins is I am sure quite capable of naivety and carelessness in such things. I don't in any case have any interest in digging around for whatever 'evidence' there is either way. Life is too short and the courts will decide in due course anyway.

Most people here feel the way they do because of the way the forum and the community around it was ripped out of the web site so unceremoniously, insensitively and crudely. That is the root cause of much of the ill feeling I suspect.

Again. The court case is really nothing more than comic relief to a lot of people round here.

Liberally soaked in a large glass of 'We told you he was a prick years ago'