Dawkins sues Josh Timonen

[hadespussercats]

There was a request for documents RD couldn't produce? These documents were lost?

What were the documents supposed to show? What does he say happened to them? And you?

[lordpasternack]

What? The fact that Dawkins was/is a negligent, over-trusting fool is a parsimonious explanation for why it took so long for them to throw you under the bus. He never had a written contract. I'm not surprised they've lost other supporting material. This doesn't do anything except render a robust case against you unsubstantiable. I'm not impressed.

This doesn't mean they aren't right to feel aggrieved or betrayed. This doesn't mean you're innocent. Try a little harder if you want to squeeze some support or credibility out from these parts.

[joshtimonen]

I've just posted a blog about the new developments:
http://joshtimonen.com/post/7749335533/ ... tion-claim

[laklak]

[hadespussercats]

I have no interest in adding to your blog traffic, Josh. Why not give an abbreviated answer here, as though you actually were a member of this forum, and not a four-time poster who's lazily trawling for support.

[lordpasternack]

Josh - even if you are in some degree innocent here, even if there is back-stabbing going on in RDFRS's boardroom (highly plausible, again, given how naive and negligent Richard is) - we'll still think you're a twat. You're a pretty spherical twat, and many of us disliked you before we got to hear about you drawing a large 'salary' from RDFRS store proceeds. Just saying…

You've shown yourself as a deceptive, narcissistic, sociopathic liar to a number of folk, some LONG before this whole brouhaha. And Richard, for all his faults, has mostly shown himself to be honest, well-meaning and quixotic. He thought the world of you. He dedicated a book to you, and leapt to your defence while you were fucking people about during the site revamping. He's now suing you. That is a pretty major decision to make in any case, but especially when it involves such a former apple of one's eye. Both your reputations go before you. I know which account I find more plausible…

And also, Richard's now well-publicised negligence may also be part of why you did decide to be a little naughty. You know you'd get away with it - as you are likely to. I'm willing to believe that Richard and co were woefully informal, negligent and unprofessional. I'm not willing to believe they'd have Richard reverse all his affections for you and go to the extent of trying to sue you on as little hard evidence as they have, out of some kind of base spite.

[Atheist-Lite]

Josh - even if you are in some degree innocent here, even if there is back-stabbing going on in RDFRS's boardroom (highly plausible, again, given how naive and negligent Richard is) - we'll still think you're a twat. You're a pretty spherical twat, and many of us disliked you before we got to hear about you drawing a large 'salary' from RDFRS store proceeds. Just saying…

You've shown yourself as a deceptive, narcissistic, sociopathic liar to a number of folk, some LONG before this whole brouhaha. And Richard, for all his faults, has mostly shown himself to be honest, well-meaning and quixotic. He thought the world of you. He dedicated a book to you, and leapt to your defence while you were fucking people about during the site revamping. He's now suing you. That is a pretty major decision to make in any case, but especially when it involves such a former apple of one's eye. Both your reputations go before you. I know which account I find more plausible…

And also, Richard's now well-publicised negligence may also be part of why you did decide to be a little naughty. You know you'd get away with it - as you are likely to. I'm willing to believe that Richard and co were woefully informal, negligent and unprofessional. I'm not willing to believe they'd have Richard reverse all his affections for you and go to the extent of trying to sue you on as little hard evidence as they have, out of some kind of base spite.

The camera ever lies.

[lordpasternack]

Oh - and I also suspect you're taking advantage of the fact that Richard, as a matter of discretion, and likely under advice from PR people, is never going to step in to give his version of events even after this case ends - leaving you to indulge in whatever alternative history you fancy to glean moral support. Unluckily for you, we're a bunch of hardened, cynical, skeptical bastards.

[Robert_S]

Josh, why are you even bothering here?

What good will do you think you can possibly gain? Seriously!

I don't know that anyone cares much about the legal whatsits concerning the case except as an exercise in schadenfreude and speculation, if anyone's not bored of that yet. You could start by morally justifying the amount of money you got from the store as a legitimate and reasonable compensation.

You could also apologize to all those who were summarily booted off the RDF forum.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah - RDFRS affairs were shitly managed - and that's why I'm innocent, and wasn't actively exploiting their shit management. Please believe me. Please forget all that other stuff that happened with me. Disregard the implausibility of Dawkins going all the way to court based on some petty grudges, and a misremembering of our deal…

[Robert_S]

Josh, why are you even bothering here?

What good will do you think you can possibly gain? Seriously!

I don't know that anyone cares much about the legal whatsits concerning the case except as an exercise in schadenfreude and speculation, if anyone's not bored of that yet. You could start by morally justifying the amount of money you got from the store as a legitimate and reasonable compensation.

You could also apologize to all those who were summarily booted off the RDF forum.

...and the rickrolling, the slowing down of PMs to a crawl, the deception that led to that one post by Richard, your disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts...


i could go on, but I don't feel like going over all of it right now. But the question remains: Why would you care about what we over here think about you when no matter what the outcome of this case, the vast majority of us still won't much like you anyway> What possible influence over the case could any of us possibly have? Are you just posting links in key places just to get search engine algorithms to rate your blog a little higher?

[klr]

Josh, why are you even bothering here?

What good will do you think you can possibly gain? Seriously!

I don't know that anyone cares much about the legal whatsits concerning the case except as an exercise in schadenfreude and speculation, if anyone's not bored of that yet. You could start by morally justifying the amount of money you got from the store as a legitimate and reasonable compensation.

You could also apologize to all those who were summarily booted off the RDF forum.

...and the rickrolling, the slowing down of PMs to a crawl, the deception that led to that one post by Richard, your disrespect for the volunteer efforts of the moderators, the deletion of whole accounts...


i could go on, but I don't feel like going over all of it right now. But the question remains: Why would you care about what we over here think about you when no matter what the outcome of this case, the vast majority of us still won't much like you anyway> What possible influence over the case could any of us possibly have? Are you just posting links in key places just to get search engine algorithms to rate your blog a little higher?

... although feel free to substitute "won't much like you" with something more towards the industrial strength end of the scale, according to taste.

[joshtimonen]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK? DAWKINS AND FOUNDATION CLAIM THAT DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR CASE WERE “LOST FOREVER”

Today we’ve posted our motion for terminating sanctions against Richard Dawkins and The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), who filed a lawsuit against me last October. At the time, interest was very high in the case. Since then, it seems that the interest in the case has waned, as we have continued to fight back against these baseless, improper and inflammatory allegations. I encourage you to read through these newly public documents, and see what has been happening with the case.

Dawkins and his foundation are claiming that the documents that support their case were “lost forever”. Specifically, they’re claiming that Robin Cornwell had a computer crash, and lost all of her emails (even though most of her accounts are webmail and IMAP-based), and that Dawkins lost all of his emails when he retired from Oxford, and lost that email account (although he has others, including a mac.com address). Essentially saying “my dog ate my homework.” They also tried to throw their former trustee Karen Owens under the bus, saying she could have “thousands of documents” (including their emails?), that she didn’t turn over to them when she resigned.

Please see Karen Owens’ declaration where she states that she turned over all relevant documents to RDF on her resignation. She also documents all of the email accounts used by Dawkins and Cornwell, including “secret” e-mail accounts used by Dawkins under the name “rogerderwen@yahoo.co.uk”, (alternately ‘signing’ his name sometimes as “Roger” and sometimes as “Richard”, or variants thereof) and by Cornwell including “Robert.Diamond@me.com” and “Marion_Mistress@yahoo.com”.

This motion for terminating sanctions has been filed, and will be heard on August 5th. By this Friday, we will file our counter-claims against Richard Dawkins and RDFRS, which should answer any questions you may have about this case. You will be able to hear my full account of the story, and read the many emails and documents that back up my account when our Counter-Claims are filed.

Until then, I strongly encourage you to read through the motion for terminating sanctions and all of its associated exhibits. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there for you to see.

1. Dawkins and his gang tried to bring charges of embezzlement and larceny against me last year, but the judge permanently threw those charges out (with prejudice) in May, 2011.

2. Dawkins and RDFRS failed to produce documents, and the court sanctioned them and their attorney with a fine of $3,500.00 for failing to comply and ordered them to produce documents in 15 days.

3. They still haven’t paid us that $3,500 and they still haven’t produced the documents that the Judge ordered them to produce, so we were forced to file the Motion For Termination Sanctions, this time in addition to monetary fine, we are asking the court to throw out the rest of their case.

And by this Friday, you’ll get the real story. Stay tuned.

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm very excited.

[Cormac]

If you'd prefer to read my comments in-line, here you go.

THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK? DAWKINS AND FOUNDATION CLAIM THAT DOCUMENTS THAT SUPPORT THEIR CASE WERE “LOST FOREVER”

Today we’ve posted our motion for terminating sanctions against Richard Dawkins and The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), who filed a lawsuit against me last October. At the time, interest was very high in the case. Since then, it seems that the interest in the case has waned, as we have continued to fight back against these baseless, improper and inflammatory allegations. I encourage you to read through these newly public documents, and see what has been happening with the case.

Dawkins and his foundation are claiming that the documents that support their case were “lost forever”. Specifically, they’re claiming that Robin Cornwell had a computer crash, and lost all of her emails (even though most of her accounts are webmail and IMAP-based), and that Dawkins lost all of his emails when he retired from Oxford, and lost that email account (although he has others, including a mac.com address). Essentially saying “my dog ate my homework.” They also tried to throw their former trustee Karen Owens under the bus, saying she could have “thousands of documents” (including their emails?), that she didn’t turn over to them when she resigned.

Please see Karen Owens’ declaration where she states that she turned over all relevant documents to RDF on her resignation. She also documents all of the email accounts used by Dawkins and Cornwell, including “secret” e-mail accounts used by Dawkins under the name “rogerderwen@yahoo.co.uk”, (alternately ‘signing’ his name sometimes as “Roger” and sometimes as “Richard”, or variants thereof) and by Cornwell including “Robert.Diamond@me.com” and “Marion_Mistress@yahoo.com”.

This motion for terminating sanctions has been filed, and will be heard on August 5th. By this Friday, we will file our counter-claims against Richard Dawkins and RDFRS, which should answer any questions you may have about this case. You will be able to hear my full account of the story, and read the many emails and documents that back up my account when our Counter-Claims are filed.

Until then, I strongly encourage you to read through the motion for terminating sanctions and all of its associated exhibits. There’s a lot of interesting stuff in there for you to see.

1. Dawkins and his gang tried to bring charges of embezzlement and larceny against me last year, but the judge permanently threw those charges out (with prejudice) in May, 2011.

2. Dawkins and RDFRS failed to produce documents, and the court sanctioned them and their attorney with a fine of $3,500.00 for failing to comply and ordered them to produce documents in 15 days.

3. They still haven’t paid us that $3,500 and they still haven’t produced the documents that the Judge ordered them to produce, so we were forced to file the Motion For Termination Sanctions, this time in addition to monetary fine, we are asking the court to throw out the rest of their case.

And by this Friday, you’ll get the real story. Stay tuned.

... of course, neither 1, 2, or 3 means that you didn't improperly get money from your position.