Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[anthonzi]

Now you can't just leave it at that. Did she find a willing practice dummy?

I'm no dummy.

Get money get paid

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure Dawkins feels some moral responsibility, his mistake was not making a distinction between personal trust and business trust.

Dawkins actually did make that distinction quite clearly. He was able to differentiate among (a) hiring Timonen to work for Dawkins personally, and (b) hiring Timonen to work for RDF the foundation, and (c) having Timonen run the store as a separate entity independent and distinct from RDF to avoid any "regulatory problems" with RDF.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now you can't just leave it at that. Did she find a willing practice dummy?

I'm no dummy.

Get money get paid

I have to say one thing here. I've never met Linda Lovelace (and since she went fundy I don't want to), but this lady needed no suggestions from her. Must have been a natural talent. And that's a shame, because if she'd ever written a book on the subject it would have been a NYT best seller to this date.

[Coito ergo sum]

plus, they are demanding recovering "their" Richard attorney's legal fees. Aren't they? but then that's standard in every complaint, doesn't mean it will be granted.

The court will grant attorneys fees: (a) if a written agreement between the parties provides for it, or (b) there is a statute or court rule that provides for it in a given situation.

Here's the complaint: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/uplo ... imonen.pdf

O.k. - here's the deal - it looks like Timonen first did some work for Dawkins personally. Then he was hired to work on web sites for RDF (UK and US). Then the issue of the store came up. Timonen was asked to set up the store, and paragraph 22 is interesting in that it says, "Timonen...agreed to use his personal corporation UBP to operate The Store for RDFRS’ benefit."

So, issue number 1 - we have no written contract regarding this, apparently. And, Timonen started The Store under the name of UBP, Timonen's own corporation. On the surface, Timonen could argue that UBP owns the Store. Dawkins alleges that there was an oral agreement for Timonen to use the Store for the benefit of RDF. In paragraph 23, Dawkins states that Timonen was "already being adequately compensated" for the personal and RDF website work, and would get nothing more for doing the additional work relative to the Store. Hmmm....that, to me, opens up the door for Timonen to say something to the effect of, "See! With all the mountains of work involved in building The Store, I would never have agreed to do it without compensation over and above what I was already doing." Dawkins anticipates that allegation by Timonen, and Dawkins stresses in the complaint that Timonen is already being paid "generously" and far more than a mere 24-25 year old should get.

[snip for brevity]

Very interesting stuff. Also makes it more likely that Timonen's expensive lawyers may have taken the case because they smell a countersuit (?)

They took the case because Timonen hired them and paid them a retainer. Taking a Defendant's case is basically a "no brainer." Timonen MUST have a lawyer to defend this case - he will most certainly lose if he doesn't. There is certainly a possibility of Timonen filing counterclaims (e.g. defamation of character), but that isn't really the decision point for the defense lawyers. They're not going to take that on a contingency fee basis anyway. It's part of the defense, and billed on an hourly basis.

[Blondie]

It's a registered Charity in the UK ,I think that might be revoked .

Certainly should be, it's obviously been completely mismanaged. I wonder if there are any UK laws that might come down on Dawkins himself--apparently there was no written contract towards Timonen; apparently no or incompetent accounting over many years. Certainly thousands of contributers/buyers of shirts were frauded. I don't see why Timonen should be the only one responsible here, legally (or morally or logically).

You're kidding yourself. This will go largely unpunished.

The Ratskep thread has been culled down to 81 pages. Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.

Don't they have better things to do? Like harass people for not ending every post with a smiley and handing out suspensions for criticizing someone who refuses to backup their claim?

[Svartalf]

Pretty much every celebrity with more than half a brain.

all 3 of them?

[Svartalf]

On the cover of a magazine...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

On the cover of a magazine...

Not crazy about that Barrett sight. There are better out there.

[Svartalf]

It's a registered Charity in the UK ,I think that might be revoked .

Certainly should be, it's obviously been completely mismanaged. I wonder if there are any UK laws that might come down on Dawkins himself--apparently there was no written contract towards Timonen; apparently no or incompetent accounting over many years. Certainly thousands of contributers/buyers of shirts were frauded. I don't see why Timonen should be the only one responsible here, legally (or morally or logically).

That's not at all obvious. The Store was run by UBP, not RDF.

There is no indication that there is "no or incompetent accounting." UBP certainly had an accounting system, since it's referenced in Dawkins' complaint. Whether it is "incompetent" remains to be seen.

It's not certain that buyers of shirts were defrauded. That allegation hasn't even been made.

Buyers of shirts, and any other RD merchandise were buying to support the RDFRS, if the profits (meaning anything beyond the actual cost for the items, since josh was already handsomely paid and was not expected to take a cut on shop money) went anywhere else, the buyers were by definition defrauded as to the destination of the money they spent.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's a registered Charity in the UK ,I think that might be revoked .

Certainly should be, it's obviously been completely mismanaged. I wonder if there are any UK laws that might come down on Dawkins himself--apparently there was no written contract towards Timonen; apparently no or incompetent accounting over many years. Certainly thousands of contributers/buyers of shirts were frauded. I don't see why Timonen should be the only one responsible here, legally (or morally or logically).

That's not at all obvious. The Store was run by UBP, not RDF.

There is no indication that there is "no or incompetent accounting." UBP certainly had an accounting system, since it's referenced in Dawkins' complaint. Whether it is "incompetent" remains to be seen.

It's not certain that buyers of shirts were defrauded. That allegation hasn't even been made.

Buyers of shirts, and any other RD merchandise were buying to support the RDFRS, if the profits (meaning anything beyond the actual cost for the items, since josh was already handsomely paid and was not expected to take a cut on shop money) went anywhere else, the buyers were by definition defrauded as to the destination of the money they spent.

That's only part of the analysis of a question of fraud. Fraud requires a false statement made with the present intent to deceive, upon which a person justifiably relied to his or her detriment/injury.

Also, even a 501c3 entity can pay independent contractors and employees compensation and salaries. It's not required that only the "actual cost for the items" be charged with anything charged above that going to serve the charitable goal - the charitable organization has operating expenses which it is permitted to pay out of donations and other income.

A key question is whether payment of Timonen and Norton salaries out of the UBP entity was in any way improper. In and of themselves, salaries/compensation are not PER SE improper. A 501c3 organization can pay reasonable, but not excessive salaries (and there is IRS guidance as to how to figure out what is reasonable), but a regular corporation like UBP was has no such restriction.

RDF may be bringing this suit to cover its own ass - if the RDF website was making representations about the charitable nature of sales on RDF. Who made the representations that sales of merchandise would go to charity? RDF?

This case is very interesting.

[Trolldor]

Video? What Video?

[Cunt]

has anyone alerted the Brit charity commission?

Those (such as Cal - and many other heroes) are struggling to play by the rules while, it seems, Dawkins is dodging them on purpose...

I am beginning to think maybe Dawkins is the biggest snake in this storey...

[Bella Fortuna]

Video? What Video?

Huh? Where?

[Trolldor]

The Ratskep thread has been culled down to 81 pages. Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.

Reminds me why I don't go there. They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

They deleted the video too.

[Bella Fortuna]

Ah - Meeky made a humourous video about Josh.