Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[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" ?

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.

I used the word "fight", not "litigate", and I was referring to JT's fight to protect his public image re his court case, which he seems to be trying to do, in vague, but not entirely inscrutable ways. You have commented yourself that JT might have an interest in projecting a confident image of himself to the public. I agree with you that that does seem to be what he's trying to do. I just went further to point out that I think his attempts are failing, at least for this member of the public.

Now that I've hopefully cleared up my meaning, we needn't discuss this further. There's too little known about the facts of the case, or, in my case, the particular legal points involved, to make for an interesting discussion-- beyond what's already been said.

I'd rather look at pictures of Hitler with a dog and compare/contrast it with pictures of a certain independent contractor and his chinchilla.

[JimC]

Will someone please make a new thread when something actually happens? Thank you.

[Pappa]

Will someone please make a new thread when something actually happens? Thank you.

We'll split it off as a derail.

[Don't Panic]

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 do this again please

Excuse me?

[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.

I used the word "fight", not "litigate", and I was referring to JT's fight to protect his public image re his court case, which he seems to be trying to do, in vague, but not entirely inscrutable ways. You have commented yourself that JT might have an interest in projecting a confident image of himself to the public. I agree with you that that does seem to be what he's trying to do. I just went further to point out that I think his attempts are failing, at least for this member of the public.

Well, failing or not, his choices are: (a) post the pleadings for others to read, or (b) don't. If I were him, I would post them. He has nothing to lose by doing that. He can also, (a) provide detailed commentary about the case, or (b) don't. If I were him, I wouldn't, and he isn't.

Now that I've hopefully cleared up my meaning, we needn't discuss this further. There's too little known about the facts of the case, or, in my case, the particular legal points involved, to make for an interesting discussion-- beyond what's already been said.

I'd rather look at pictures of Hitler with a dog and compare/contrast it with pictures of a certain independent contractor and his chinchilla.

[lordpasternack]

Hey - I wasn't actually trying to invoke Godwin's Law - but now you folks gone done it proper.

[Pappa]

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 do this again please

Excuse me?

YOU ARE EXCUSED.

[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 do this again please

Excuse me?

YOU ARE EXCUSED.

But, what's his excuse?

[Tigger]

Hey - I wasn't actually trying to invoke Godwin's Law - but now you folks gone done it proper.

Ah, but gone are the days when you could get away with calling someone a "Little Hitler" inter alia, and not really mean that they had a penchant for Eau De Zyklon B.

[Pappa]

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 do this again please

Excuse me?

YOU ARE EXCUSED.

But, what's his excuse?

Probably Rule #42. It usually is.

[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" ?

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.

I used the word "fight", not "litigate", and I was referring to JT's fight to protect his public image re his court case, which he seems to be trying to do, in vague, but not entirely inscrutable ways. You have commented yourself that JT might have an interest in projecting a confident image of himself to the public. I agree with you that that does seem to be what he's trying to do. I just went further to point out that I think his attempts are failing, at least for this member of the public.

Well, failing or not, his choices are: (a) post the pleadings for others to read, or (b) don't. If I were him, I would post them. He has nothing to lose by doing that. He can also, (a) provide detailed commentary about the case, or (b) don't. If I were him, I wouldn't, and he isn't.

Now that I've hopefully cleared up my meaning, we needn't discuss this further. There's too little known about the facts of the case, or, in my case, the particular legal points involved, to make for an interesting discussion-- beyond what's already been said.

I'd rather look at pictures of Hitler with a dog and compare/contrast it with pictures of a certain independent contractor and his chinchilla.

Now you're talking...

[hadespussercats]

Hey - I wasn't actually trying to invoke Godwin's Law - but now you folks gone done it proper.

Thanks! And hey, I learned something today. From Wikipedia, but still...

[Don't Panic]

Don't do this again please

Excuse me?

YOU ARE EXCUSED.

But, what's his excuse?

Probably Rule #42. It usually is.

I ♥ Rule 42.

[J.A.Poisson]

Will someone please make a new thread when something actually happens? Thank you.

Richard Dawkins saying something is wrong with the internet when they insult his pet was the internet event of Feb 2010 according to radio 5

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, it doesn't look like this thread is up to date on the procedure in the Timonen case. The last thing I see discussed about the case was that Timonen had filed a notice of removal - moving the case to federal court.

I case anyone was not aware, though, apparently Timonen's attorneys committed procedural blunders in relation to the removal. On 11/19/10 the federal court entered an order "remanding" the case back to the California state court because apparently not all documents required for removal of the case to federal court were served on time. This is probably referring to the "notice of removal" which must be served on the plaintiff and also filed with the state court also within the required time frame. Failure to meet the time-frames is pretty strictly handled by the federal court - ie. fuck ups get you sent back over to state court. The court "stayed" (put on hold) its remand order temporarily to see what the parties wanted to do - ie. maybe Plaintiff wanted the court to stay in federal court and would not object to the defects in removal.

On 11/23/10 Timonen's lawyer nevertheless filed a motion to dismiss Dawkins' complaint for a variety of reasons - mainly claiming that Dawkins did not make required allegations in the complaint.

On 11/24/10 Dawkins' lawyers filed a brief supporting the remand order and stating that Dawkins was not waiving any defects in the removal of the case to federal court. Dawkins also went into great detail about why the case should not be in federal court because it didn't raise any federal question.

On 12/1/10 the federal court lifted the stay on its order to remand, and booted the case back to state court. The court never addressed the motion to dismiss, finding it moot because the case was being remanded to state court.

I don't know what has happened in state court since then. I would guess that Timonen's lawyers refiled their motion to dismiss in state court, but I'm not sure. Anybody have any info?