joshtimonen talks

[hadespussercats]

I've worked as an independent contractor for much of my working life, and I've never been able to simply say, "I'm taking x for this work" without working that out beforehand with the people I'm contracting for.

Of course. That's different. If you run ABC, Inc., and contract with Big Co. to do some contracting work, you - of course - have to negotiate the cost of the job with Big Co.

But, as an independent contractor, it is none of Big Co's business what you do with the revenues of ABC, Inc. You might work for many other companies besides Big Co., and earn $500,000 i revenues on the year - whether you take $100,000 in salary or $20,000 in salary is entirely up to you.

Now you're trying to point out that JT can assign himself whatever salary he wants from his own corporation, which may be true

Not "may be true" - "is true."

-- even though we don't know what sort of company JT owns-- an LLC, a sole proprietorship, etc., etc.

No - we do know - it's a corporation, UBP, Inc. A sole proprietorship is not a corporation, its an unincorporated business. An LLC is not a corporation, it's a limited liability company. The Complaint states explicitly that it is is a Corporation.

My point is that the funds from the RDF online store were not from his own company--

If his company, UBP, Inc., owned the Store, then yes it was. That is, unless RDF is correct in stating that there was a verbal contract by with UBP would operate the business "for the benefit of RDF," in which case the Devil is in the details of that contract.

his company was managing those funds,

That's what Dawkins alleges, pursuant to a verbal contract.

amongst other management tasks. So assigning himself a salary, or simply taking funds, from the proceeds of the online store, was inappropriate and probably illegal.

It's possibly inappropriate - possibly a breach of contract.

You're right that charitable organizations are allowed to pay their workers and cover other expenses, like independent contractors, before sending the rest off to directly charitable ends, but JT's company is not a charitable organization--

Yes, which means it is even freer in its business practices than a charitable organization. Regular C or S corporations can pay salaries as determined by management, subject to the board of directors and shareholders.

it is a company working on behalf of a charitable organization, namely RDFRS. Therefore, it would be RDFRS's place to pay JT's company as agreed, or for JT to write off the time and resources invested in that charity on his taxes.

Doesn't that depend on the terms of the alleged "verbal agreement?"

EDITED TO ADD:
Some people have beat me to a few of these points-- sorry for the repetition.
Also, when I used the phrase "work for hire" in discussing the "A" logo, I should have pointed out that the phrase, in the design world, means the designer is relinquishing copyright claims to any work done on a particular project. As you say, people like Julie Taymour, and companies like Disney, use contracts which clarify these issues. Most intelligent people do.

Funny. I'd always considered Richard Dawkins intelligent.

Me too.

Yes well, as you say, a lot of this depends on the terms of a verbal contract-- which it's difficult, if not impossible, to know the terms of. Which is why verbal contracts are stupid. I think we can leave it at that.

[Blondie]

Use proper punctuation then.

This is your excuse for being called out on your dishonesty (only to do it again)? Are you here to discuss this or engage in some pathetic attempt at self-aggrandisement?

The rest of your post doesn't merit a response.

I haven't in the least been dishonest.

Really? Are you quite sure? We'll just see about that then. Right now it's off to work for me.

Yes. I'm quite sure you haven't been, though.

Yes, I've been to work. I've just been too sick to bother with this. I see you must be curious what I'm going to say though.

[Mysturji]

joshtimonen
Forum Member

Posts: 1

[Svartalf]

Yeah, we know.

[Pappa]

joshtimonen
Forum Member

Posts: 1

[Durro]

Not very talkative, is he ?

[JimC]

Not very talkative, is he ?

Has he joined AFA forums like I just did, Durro?

I'll definitely post more than once...

[Svartalf]

Not very talkative, is he ?

Well, his driveby manner on several forums has been spotted early on...

Now, could somebody remind me whether the mods came up with a decision that even this obviously uncommitted attitude, possibly driven by the mere objective of benefitting from forum rules forbidding to trash talk members was enough to indeed grant him protection from the normal backlash a man with hiss morals, 'tude and deeds would be expected to cause?

[Robert_S]

I say we ban him as a spammer. He just posted an ad for his blog and hasn't been back since.

He can always appeal it!

[Tigger]

I say we ban him as a spammer. He just posted an ad for his blog and hasn't been back since.

He can always appeal it!

I agree. Anyone? It was blatant promoting of, of something or other, and I actually think the op should have been: "joshtimonen talks


















































shite."


But hey, what do I know?

I'll get a warning for that. :sighsm: Being staff, it could be severe.

Actually, an hour's suspension starting now is acceptable. ( )

[Twoflower]

If you want an hours suspension I will give you one.

[Tigger]

If you want an hours suspension I will give you one.

Euphemism city, Arizona.
Go on, then. Night all.

[JimC]

If you want an hours suspension I will give you one.

Euphemism city, Arizona.
Go on, then. Night all.

I'll look into giving you a warning when Josh reports your post himself...

[Durro]

A new member joins for the sole purpose of promoting their personal blog and then makes no commentary and no follow up posts ?

That's a spammer in my book.

[Twoflower]

Tigger has been banned for an hour.