No change EK, still in limbo.

EquivoKate wrote:thanks in advance?

You're welcome in advance.

I believe the lawyers are still arguing over what they're going to argue over, and charging everyone else thousands of dollars for the privilege.

Made of Stars wrote:
I believe the lawyers are still arguing over what they're going to argue over, and charging everyone else thousands of dollars for the privilege.

They're probably negotiating the movie rights. 'Inherit the Windy' anyone?

"Vacation land for lawyers in love."

RS

I just posted some updates.
Josh

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

!	GENERAL MODNOTE link removed by staff. kiore.

Hello Josh. Are you in a position where you may be able to answer some questions about the case and interact with the members, or are you simply posting links to your blog ?

Er... I totally love how there's a donate button on his blog.







Not.

I'm working on some summary notes.

I've just posted a blog about the new developments:

!	GENERAL MODNOTE link removed by staff.kiore.

joshtimonen wrote:I've just posted a blog about the new developments:

>Link removed.<

From that link...

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...

Why would they pay a fine to you?

ETA - link removed.

http://joshtimonen.com/post/7749335533/ ... tion-claim

As if the incident with Skepchick weren't bad enough. Many atheist have rightly criticized various theologians appeals to the hiddeness of God to explain the lack of empirical evidence to support their case and yet hear are Dawkins and other members of the foundation making similar claims. When it comes to evidence, something Dawkins has repeatedly claimed is paramount when considering the truth, shouldn't it be made available for independent confirmation? Surely Dawkins wouldn't want us to just take his word on authority without evidence anymore than the we should take the Pope's word on authority, right? Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the principles Dawkins espouses he would choose to only apply to religion. But wait, doesn't that sound suspiciously like special pleading. Dawkins once spoke of how much he admired a particular scientist for publicly admitting he was wrong. Dawkins was correct to express such admiration. I only hope he can live up to his own principles.

Because the judge said so.

BrandySpears wrote:Because the judge said so.

...and the court sanctioned them and their attorney with a fine of $3,500.00 for failing to comply...

Fines are normally paid to court, not to a third party.

The judge did not order compensation to be paid.

Here are my comments on the recent developments (in-line).

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.

I disagree that links are removed on the basis that there is a donate button on the destination given others post links to the likes of Amazon (which is a massive multi-billion dollar tax avoiding mega-corporation) and other sites that have a subscription business e.g. links to papers and journals.

It would be spam if it was plastered across RatSkep but not when it's in a single thread that is topical to the content.

Josh,

Fines are to be paid to you, Josh? Never heard of that coming from a US court in my life. Better get your lawyer(s) to educate you a little more completely. I also imagine they would also advise you to stop posting ANYTHING ANYWHERE until this issue is resolved, even on your fucking worthless blog.

As far as I'm concerned both you and Richard fucked up a real good thing, and I don't give a fuck what happens to either of you. Do we need to drag out the evidence that the both of you treated people back on the now DEAD forum like dirt, and misrepresented the facts? Do we need to drag out Richard''s mouth-foaming diatribe based on pure bullshit lies? Both of you should be deeply ashamed of the events that transpired back on the old forum. We members that invested far more than a few lousy bucks are the big losers in this, not you and not Richard.

I don't give a fuck if you stole from Richard or not. I don't give a fuck if he is lying through his teeth about your agreement, or lack thereof. The issue just isn't that important to those of us that have worked so hard to re-establish a community of rational discourse here. You sure as fuck haven't helped in this effort. Does it bother you that we regrouped so quickly?

You have not posted anything in any other thread here. Not one post in any other thread at all. Why not Josh? Do you have anything to contribute here, or are you only here to spam our forum? I wish you would accept voluntary suspension and leave us alone. Most of us have very little interest in your legal, or personal, affairs. Until you display some genuine interest in the future of this site I will remain highly skeptical that your care one iota about anything other than yourself. I am dangerously close to a violation of our FUA, and I'll be damned if this silliness is going to earn me any sanctions.

In the immortal words of Gollum, "Go away, and never come back!"

RS

There is a difference. You don't see any executives from Amazon hawking their web sites here.

I hope that, in future, we'll discuss only the legal dispute in this topic and any lingering grievances about the old forum elsewhere.

theropod wrote:In the immortal words of Gollum, "Go away, and never come back!"

In the book or in the movie? (I don't recall Gollum saying that in either.)