Who here is on Timonen's side?

[Pappa]

Josh was logged in for a bit about a week or so ago.

The real one or the pawiz one?

Idk actually. I wasn't online at the time.

[Thinking Aloud]

Josh was logged in for a bit about a week or so ago.

The real one or the pawiz one?

Idk actually. I wasn't online at the time.

It was the sock. The "real" one hasn't been on since his one post.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since the beginning, I have had the sneaking suspicion that it was that kind of possibly false representation that generated the lawsuit. Dawkins has to take the position that he knew nothing of Josh's chicanery, otherwise the foundation risks being called to the carpet for defrauding donors and customers of the Store. They would be exposed to a lawsuit (and still might be), or worse - action against their charitable status, or fines or worse.

The reason Josh was running the store via his own company was specifically because Richard couldn't run a store integrated into his not-for-profit venture - and originally RD.net and the true official RDFRS site were one and the same. Richard had various troubles trying to gain charity status for RDFRS, which I'm sure was down to an ongoing interaction between their bureaucracy and his howling, woeful naivety of how the world fucking WORKS. But ultimately, he set up this separate site - RD.net to house all the stuff that the charity commissioners didn't really fancy.

The Store was never directly affiliated with RDFRS, and thus has no direct legal impact on it, with regards to auditing or whatever. And in the event that your interesting drama were true - it would make no sense for Richard to allow Josh to feel so victimised. He's pay for Josh's fucking lawyers in some way. He'd be in on it. I mean, unless Josh is being paid the whole way into acting victimised so we're all convinced that RDFRS wasn't complicit - which is an interesting proposition...

There would be "legal impact" if there were representations or implications that the proceeds from the Store would be used for Foundation purposes.

My "interesting drama?" Mine is merely a speculation as to why the RD Foundation would bring a lawsuit. I haven't suggested that Dawkins was "in on it" in any way. I've suggested more of a fuck up on Dawkins part, wherein at some point it came to light that the Store was making money, that people thought the proceeds from the store were to be used for charitable purposes, and in fact the proceeds were being diverted to Josh. If Dawkins had said "oh, sure, I told Josh to keep whatever profit was made by the Store," then that would be contrary to any express or implied representation to the public that Store proceeds were being used for Foundation purposes and would arguably be wilful. If Dawkins can say, however, that he thought all the profits WERE being used for foundation purposes (or that he was being led to believe that there were no profits), but he was hoodwinked by Josh, then there is less risk or no risk to the Foundation.

It's purely speculation - but, I can tell you this - Dawkins lawyers had to inform him, if they did their jobs, about the ultimate risk of obtaining a hollow judgment. Timonen apparently doesn't have a lot of money, so the prospects of collecting from the guy are slim, and with a little planning, Timonen can make sure that nothing he owns/controls is subject to any judgment that ultimately does get entered. What that means is that there is a big risk, as with most instances of a suit against a regular Joe, that all the 10s of thousands of dollars - probably over $100,000 - in legal fees, will go down the toilet.

I like Dawkins, and met him once. He's a good guy, and I highly doubt to a near certainty - as certain as Dawkins is that there is no God - that Dawkins wasn't purposefully involved in any chicanery. However, that doesn't mean that he wasn't enlightened about a possible risk to the Foundation due to the informality and loosey-goosey set-up of the Store, and took action to prevent it (honestly believing Josh to have been a crook).

What's interesting in cases like this is that both sides could firmly believe, honestly, that they are in the right. Josh may be a fairly o.k. fella, and may honestly believe he was entitled to the money and that some off-hand comment by Dawkins constituted some "agreement" that may mainly be a creation of Josh's own wishful thinking. And, Dawkins, of course, may be an o.k. fella and firmly believe that Josh at best took some idle chatter to mean something it didn't. And, both might pass a lie detector test.

[lordpasternack]

I really don't think Richard would go all the way to court based on a 'misunderstanding' like that. Richard absolutely fucking doted on Josh, and is more grudging to pursue lawyers and litigation than the average Joe. I really think he had to feel seriously pushed, and have failed to reach any kind of reasonable out-of-court settlement with Josh. I also think we all know, including Richard, how financially reckless following the suit is - given how shaky the case is without much written documentation, and knowing that they likely won't gain much from Josh, even if they get the satisfaction of seriously financially damaging him.

Richard/RDFRS is pursuing it practically out of quixotism - serious quixotism. And while you're free to speculate about the specific nature of that quixotism - the reasons they find it necessary to doggedly pursue a case in the name of principle - I really think that it is likely about as straightforward as Richard's side of the story.

I also don't think Josh is 'a nice guy', who is genuinely mistaken and has any genuine reason to feel unduly harrassed. I have sufficient evidence gathered within my own mind that he is a pitiably insecure and superficially charming narcissistic young man who cannot accept blame, requires sympathy and moral support at all costs, and is a casual bare-faced liar to everyone INCLUDING HIMSELF. I think he fears culpability so much that he actively deludes HIMSELF and weaves stories and re-writes history to suit his conscience - and when he's worked hard at deluding himself, he gets to trying to canvass moral support from others.

This case ties in perfectly with his modus operandi in other contexts - including his very brief activity here and on RatSkep trying to whine about how abolishing the forum wasn't his decision, and how he feels so hard done by - completely failing to acknowledge that it wasn't the abolition of the forum, but how Josh handled it, in such a slimy, malicious and passive-agressive manner, which made people so seriously fucking riled and contemptuous. He didn't respond to any such criticism. He didn't offer any apologies or accept an ounce of responsibility. Just cried vaguely about his own supposed lack of fault, and beseeched us to pity and sympathise with him. Plus ca change…

[Bella Fortuna]

The Josh Delusion!

[Coito ergo sum]

I really don't think Richard would go all the way to court based on a 'misunderstanding' like that. Richard absolutely fucking doted on Josh, and is more grudging to pursue lawyers and litigation than the average Joe. I really think he had to feel seriously pushed, and have failed to reach any kind of reasonable out-of-court settlement with Josh. I also think we all know, including Richard, how financially reckless following the suit is - given how shaky the case is without much written documentation, and knowing that they likely won't gain anything from Josh, even if they get the satisfaction of seriously financially damaging him.

It is just that reticence to sue, the risk of losing because of the lack of documentation, and the ultimate risk of never being able to collect even if he does win, that leads me to believe that there had to be some other motivation to bring suit and spend all the required money. The suit does serve one major purpose: it shows that Dawkins is acting in his fiduciary capacity to protect the Foundation, and clearly articulates a position that he had nothing to do with mis-managing the Store.

Richard/RDFRS is pursuing it practically out of quixotism - serious quixotism. And while your free to speculate about the specific nature of that quixotism - the reasons they find it necessary to doggedly pursue a case in the name of principle - I really think that it is likely about as straightforward as Richard's side of the story.

Has Dawkins articulated a side of the story about why he filed the lawsuit (other than to recover money allegedly wrongfully taken)? It's that recovery which is highly "shaky" (as you put it). People tend not to dump $100,000 into "highly shaky" lawsuits unless there are other interests served. Here, I don't think it's all that speculative that there was risk to the Foundation. It's pretty well acknowledged, isn't it, that the Store was being presented to the public as "proceeds used for RDF purposes?" If that was the case, then even negligence on the part of the directors can put the Foundation at risk.

Snipped the rest, because I have no comment on it. You may be right on all counts.

[devogue]

The Josh Delusion!

The Joshua Plea.

[Rum]

Maybe they are both just joshing..

[lordpasternack]

You know, I still don't know exactly what you're driving at, Coito. I don't know how Richard could both have been aware of Josh's behaviour, and tolerated it to a point, and then later deem him criminal enough to want to sue him - or to be so cynical as to stitch him up to cover for his own negligence.

Remember - Richard doted on this man. Richard is lawyer-phobic. He would have tried to negotiate this diplomatically with Josh. He would have tried to hear out Josh's side of the story if there was any sincerity to it. I just can't for the life of me see your scenario.

[Coito ergo sum]

You know, I still don't know exactly what you're driving at, Coito. I don't know how Richard could both have been aware of Josh's behaviour, and tolerated it to a point, and then later deem him criminal enough to want to sue him - or to be so cynical as to stitch him up to cover for his own negligence.

Remember - Richard doted on this man. Richard is lawyer-phobic. He would have tried to negotiate this diplomatically with Josh. He would have tried to hear out Josh's side of the story if there was any sincerity to it. I just can't for the life of me see your scenario.

My scenario is not different than yours, except adds a possible risk to the Foundation of the Foundation advertising that the Store's proceeds were being used for Foundation purposes. That could jeopardize the foundation's charitable status, and even present liability to the board of directors of the Foundation for negligence. All I'm saying is that that provides a pretty good reason to go ahead and pay good money after bad in doing what Dawkins would normally be loathe to do: suing some guy in a "highly shaky" lawsuit that even if successful probably has a very low likelihood of seeing much if anything collected from Timonen.

What's not clear about that?

[lordpasternack]

Okay, I think I get you now - it's just that earlier I thought you were trying to infer some kind of prior knowledge and complicity on Richard's or RDFRS's part, before he started shitting his pants over the bad PR he might get if people found out that their donations to RDFRS via the store's profits were all just funding Josh's highly gratifying salary. (And Josh was technically an RDFRS staff member, and likely used at least some of the proceeds/his 'salary' for RDFRS purposes, such that Richard could have argued the toss to that ends if he did condone Josh's activity, or if he felt Josh had some case he could sympathise with.)

I'm still not absolutely sure of Richard's risk from not vetting independent contractors who claim to be raising funds for his charity. I suppose there is the added de facto issue that Richard implictly endorsed the contractor that he failed to vet, on his (not legally associated with RDFRS) website. I suppose it does give him an extra layer of vested interest, besides simply feeling scandalised at having allegedly been so betrayed and exploited, in pursuing the case…