Richard Dawkins brings court case - Page 4

Delphinium · 26th October 2010, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by KateHL

Tinomen is certainly in the wrong, but I found this a bit nauseating (from the article):

Seriously? He has the nerve to call himself the 'most respected atheist'? Best known I understand, but it takes cajones to call oneself the 'most respected' anything. My Dawkins love is falling a few major pegs.

The complaint says "....and perhaps the world’s best known and most respected atheist." I think it makes a difference having those few words there.

As for me, I'll be watching this with interest to see how it pans out. Seems from the complaint there was a serious lack of oversight there which would have given plenty of opportunity for fraud to happen if someone so desired to do so.

KateHL · 26th October 2010, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by Delphinium

The complaint says "....and perhaps the world’s best known and most respected atheist." I think it makes a difference having those few words there.

It doesn't really matter anyhow as it was Dawkins' lawyer who made the statement and not Dawkins (as everyone quite rightly pointed out to me). But had it been Dawkins' own statement, the 'perhaps' would only seem to indicate a false sense of modesty on top of the hubris.

Delvo · 26th October 2010, 08:54 PM

Isn't asserting that one has/had a certain reputation necessary in order to make a legal claim that someone else has damaged it?

PhantomWolf · 26th October 2010, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Why should other people's wrong, superstitious choices be respected?

Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices?

arthwollipot · 27th October 2010, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

I read Josh's perspective on his website ( http://joshtimonen.com ) the other day and it allowed people to comment. Josh has now deleted the comments and removed the comment box.

People raised some interesting issues to Josh, but alas they have been deleted.

Or maybe his lawyer and common sense said that he shouldn't be making public comments about the action at this time. I would suggest that everyone else should follow suit, but people will be people, and people will gossip.

The only thing I will say, again, is "alleged". Nothing's been demonstrated or proven yet. We shouldn't be pre-judging.

Soapy Sam · 27th October 2010, 03:51 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices?

They're wrong.

BenBurch · 27th October 2010, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices?

So, if you choose to commit Genocide because you believe your god mandates that, I have no right to disrespect that choice?

Questioninggeller · 28th October 2010, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Or maybe his lawyer and common sense said that he shouldn't be making public comments about the action at this time.

Josh's comments are still there (never deleted). What I wrote was he deleted people's comments on his statement, which included questions/comments about his earlier activities on the Dawkins website.

Chaos · 29th October 2010, 05:19 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

So, if you choose to commit Genocide because you believe your god mandates that, I have no right to disrespect that choice?

That´s not a belief. That´s acting on a belief. Big difference.

AlBell · 29th October 2010, 05:45 AM

Stamp out Thoughtcrime or we will kill you.

The unofficial slogan of US lefty-libs.

Cuddles · 29th October 2010, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I cannot fathom why people react so negatively to Dawkins.

Are Atheists supposed to politely "get along" and hope that nobody notices them?

Or is the objection that he is publicly an Anti-theist? Is that not an issue one is supposed to moot?

You cannot destroy religion (or begin that process) without pissing off religionists.

This isn't really the thread to for it, so I won't go into things here. Suffice to say that my problem with Dawkins is not with his attacks on religion, it's the obsession with focussing on religion above all else, and particularly the expectation that everyone else should do the same. Throw in a fair bit of ego, hypocrisy and unskeptical behaviour and I see little reason to respect Dawkins as a person, no matter how solid the arguments he makes on some subjects might be.

Jonnyclueless · 29th October 2010, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices?

First you started by saying militant Atheists (whatever that means) are out to destroy Theism. Nonsense. That's a complete strawman argument. People like Dawkins have no problem with people having their beliefs. What they reject is when those beliefs cause harm to others and that's what they voice their opinions on.

If you want to get into an issue of respect, then why not the issue of how most theists don't have this respect you speak of for others? No one has a right to respect. If someone comes along saying they believe Leprechauns are real, no one is obligated to respect that. This notion of one having a right to demand respect is absolutely absurd. And it's never expected outside of religion.

No one cares if you go around believing in Leprechauns. If you start taking away people's rights based on it, or start encouraging people to harm themselves based on this belief, then it's not something that should be respected. But more importantly,. simply speaking out against such things is not an issue of respect to begin with. Simply dismissing the arguments as disrespectful is simply a copout.

Jonnyclueless · 29th October 2010, 05:43 PM

BTW, I wonder how much of a hit the website took once they got rid of the forum.

arthwollipot · 29th October 2010, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

Josh's comments are still there (never deleted). What I wrote was he deleted people's comments on his statement, which included questions/comments about his earlier activities on the Dawkins website.

Fair enough. I misunderstood. My statement still stands though. Nothing's been proven, or even demonstrated. The hearings are not due to start until early next year. Is this guy going to get a Trial By Peanut Gallery?

preptic · 6th November 2010, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by KateHL

Tinomen is certainly in the wrong, but I found this a bit nauseating (from the article):

Seriously? He has the nerve to call himself the 'most respected atheist'? Best known I understand, but it takes cajones to call oneself the 'most respected' anything. My Dawkins love is falling a few major pegs.

Of course he didn't.

"I am plaintiffs' litigation counsel. I drafted all the material contained in its 18 pages. The Complaint's language and allegations are written and made by me on behalf of my clients. The Complaint does not contain any quotes from Professor Dawkins or anyone at RDFRS and should not be attributed to anyone else but me."

preptic · 6th November 2010, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by NiallM

He is directly and personally responsible for the contents of any writ he issues. Every word of it is there at his behest and agreement.

Really? Evidence of this claim, please.

It sounds to me like you already hate the guy, so you'll automatically say stuff that makes him look bad.

Emet · 6th November 2010, 11:23 AM

Hi preptic,

Is there any reason you're going through the thread and challenging early posts about who wrote what? It was pointed out a long time ago that Dawkin's lawyer claimed responsibility for composing the statement.

Originally Posted by stijndeloose

Richard Dawkins' (and the RDFRS') lawyer speaks up: http://richarddawkins.net/discussion...-greenberg-esq .

Since then, I don't think anyone has refuted that.

Respectfully,
Emet

davefoc · 6th November 2010, 02:25 PM

Interesting. It is hard to imagine how Josh Timonen is completely innocent in all this. This doesn't, in the main, sound like a fight over intellectual property to me. It sounds like Timonen was hired to run a web site and was paid for that function. I doubt that authorized him to take what he felt like from the proceeds.

And he could be in real big trouble if he made written misrepresentations about the operation of the website to the owners of the website. That sounds like straightforward embezzlement to me and people go to jail for that.

KateHL · 7th November 2010, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by preptic

Of course he didn't.

"I am plaintiffs' litigation counsel. I drafted all the material contained in its 18 pages. The Complaint's language and allegations are written and made by me on behalf of my clients. The Complaint does not contain any quotes from Professor Dawkins or anyone at RDFRS and should not be attributed to anyone else but me."

Originally Posted by KateHL

It doesn't really matter anyhow as it was Dawkins' lawyer who made the statement and not Dawkins (as everyone quite rightly pointed out to me).

But thanks for beating that dead horse. It really got what it deserved.

BenBurch · 7th November 2010, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by davefoc

Interesting. It is hard to imagine how Josh Timonen is completely innocent in all this. This doesn't, in the main, sound like a fight over intellectual property to me. It sounds like Timonen was hired to run a web site and was paid for that function. I doubt that authorized him to take what he felt like from the proceeds.

And he could be in real big trouble if he made written misrepresentations about the operation of the website to the owners of the website. That sounds like straightforward embezzlement to me and people go to jail for that.

Plus wire fraud or mail fraud.

geni · 17th April 2011, 11:52 AM

And it's still ongoing
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ne...4455-2420.html

Anyone know the US legal system well enough to give us a rough time to completetion? Next november say?

LashL · 17th April 2011, 01:25 PM

It looks like there are motions scheduled to be heard on May 6. Depending on the outcome of those, presumably the defendants will then file their answer to the complaint and the matter will proceed from there.

It appears that the matter was commenced in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, was later transferred to the U.S. District Court of California, then eventually transferred back to the lower court again, where the plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint, to which the defendants have responded with a motion to strike certain parts of the second amended complaint and a motion for sanctions. Those appear to be the motions scheduled for May 6.

So, the short answer to the question is: probably not any time soon.

Dunstan · 17th April 2011, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by geni

And it's still ongoing
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ne...4455-2420.html

Anyone know the US legal system well enough to give us a rough time to completetion? Next november say?

It's really hard to say.

It looks like they're still hashing out the pleadings, with the hearing on the latest demurrer (objection to the legal sufficiency of the complaint) and case management conference to be held on May 6, 2011.

At that point the court might or might not set a trial date. Some judges like to wait until the pleadings are all set before setting a trial date, others don't. If there is a trial set, I can't imagine it would be any earlier than late 2011, and more likely some time in 2012 -- it depends on the state of the court's docket, how much discovery the parties say they'll need, whether any of the discovery is going to have to take place overseas, etc. And of course trial dates get continued sometimes.

On top of that, there's nothing magical about the trial date as the end point. Most cases settle. (I expect the parties will agree to go to mediation, and the judge will set a deadline to complete the mediation process. Nobody should read anything into that if it happens, because that's pretty standard practice in California -- it's not a signal that settlement is any more or less likely in a particular case.) Sometimes cases get decided before trial on motions for summary judgment. And judgments (whether after trial or otherwise) get appealed.

So basically: any time between a couple of months from now and a couple of years from now. Your guess of next November is as good as any.

Rrose Selavy · 24th July 2011, 09:14 AM

Dawkins drops case:

Quote:

“We’d been litigating for nine months and estimated that it probably would cost at least another $100,000,” Dawkins’s lawyer, Blaine Greenberg, tells Mandrake. “I recommended not to continue, entirely on a cost-benefit analysis.”
Timonen, a web designer, claims that Dawkins dropped the case because of a lack of evidence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-employee.html

http://joshtimonen.com/post/78653684...missal-of-case

BenBurch · 24th July 2011, 10:29 AM

A shame that he got away with it.

pipelineaudio · 7th April 2012, 07:38 PM

Was there ever a release of the backstory of all this? I figured we'd have the details by now

26th October 2010, 06:23 PM	#122
KateHL Alleged Skeptic Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: climbing Mount Cleverest Posts: 1,699	Originally Posted by Delphinium The complaint says "....and perhaps the world’s best known and most respected atheist." I think it makes a difference having those few words there. It doesn't really matter anyhow as it was Dawkins' lawyer who made the statement and not Dawkins (as everyone quite rightly pointed out to me). But had it been Dawkins' own statement, the 'perhaps' would only seem to indicate a false sense of modesty on top of the hubris.
	__________________ "Every good woman needs a good man. A great woman, however, can get by with the Marquis." - Marquis de Carabas

26th October 2010, 11:45 PM	#124
PhantomWolf Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Lost Deimos Moon Base Posts: 9,962	Originally Posted by BenBurch Why should other people's wrong, superstitious choices be respected? Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My Apollo Page. 1 on 1 Debating Forum for Skeptics and sceptics.

27th October 2010, 12:07 AM	#125
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller I read Josh's perspective on his website ( http://joshtimonen.com ) the other day and it allowed people to comment. Josh has now deleted the comments and removed the comment box. People raised some interesting issues to Josh, but alas they have been deleted. Or maybe his lawyer and common sense said that he shouldn't be making public comments about the action at this time. I would suggest that everyone else should follow suit, but people will be people, and people will gossip. The only thing I will say, again, is "alleged". Nothing's been demonstrated or proven yet. We shouldn't be pre-judging.
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

27th October 2010, 03:51 AM	#126
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices? They're wrong.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

27th October 2010, 09:12 AM	#127
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,196	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices? So, if you choose to commit Genocide because you believe your god mandates that, I have no right to disrespect that choice?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

26th October 2010, 06:06 PM	#121
Delphinium Scholar Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: New Zealand Posts: 77	Originally Posted by KateHL Tinomen is certainly in the wrong, but I found this a bit nauseating (from the article): Seriously? He has the nerve to call himself the 'most respected atheist'? Best known I understand, but it takes cajones to call oneself the 'most respected' anything. My Dawkins love is falling a few major pegs. The complaint says "....and perhaps the world’s best known and most respected atheist." I think it makes a difference having those few words there. As for me, I'll be watching this with interest to see how it pans out. Seems from the complaint there was a serious lack of oversight there which would have given plenty of opportunity for fraud to happen if someone so desired to do so.

26th October 2010, 08:54 PM	#123
Delvo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Posts: 3,889	Isn't asserting that one has/had a certain reputation necessary in order to make a legal claim that someone else has damaged it?

28th October 2010, 09:44 PM	#128
Questioninggeller Illuminator Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 3,030	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Or maybe his lawyer and common sense said that he shouldn't be making public comments about the action at this time. Josh's comments are still there (never deleted). What I wrote was he deleted people's comments on his statement, which included questions/comments about his earlier activities on the Dawkins website.
	Last edited by Questioninggeller; 28th October 2010 at 09:46 PM.

29th October 2010, 05:19 AM	#129
Chaos TAM Chocolate Dispenser Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: The Heart of Old Europe Posts: 9,779	Originally Posted by BenBurch So, if you choose to commit Genocide because you believe your god mandates that, I have no right to disrespect that choice? That´s not a belief. That´s acting on a belief. Big difference.
	__________________ Grand Master, Knights of the Question Mark Illusion: too good to be true - Reality: too true to be good Authors build castles in the sky, readers live in them and publishers collect the rent. - Maxim Gorki Folks enjoy a witch-hunt as long as they are on the blunt end of the pitchfork. - Suezoled You can't use logic to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use logic to get himself into - passed down by Nyarlathotep Kids these days are better than their parents since they constitute the newest edition, the beta version of our societies - Cleopatra YouÂ´ll have to accept the fact that some people are just plain nuts. - Paul C. Anagnostopolous

29th October 2010, 05:45 AM	#130
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	Stamp out Thoughtcrime or we will kill you. The unofficial slogan of US lefty-libs.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,507	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

29th October 2010, 06:00 AM	#131
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,596	Originally Posted by BenBurch I cannot fathom why people react so negatively to Dawkins. Are Atheists supposed to politely "get along" and hope that nobody notices them? Or is the objection that he is publicly an Anti-theist? Is that not an issue one is supposed to moot? You cannot destroy religion (or begin that process) without pissing off religionists. This isn't really the thread to for it, so I won't go into things here. Suffice to say that my problem with Dawkins is not with his attacks on religion, it's the obsession with focussing on religion above all else, and particularly the expectation that everyone else should do the same. Throw in a fair bit of ego, hypocrisy and unskeptical behaviour and I see little reason to respect Dawkins as a person, no matter how solid the arguments he makes on some subjects might be.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

29th October 2010, 05:42 PM	#132
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Because its the right of every human being to believe whatever they want to believe, whether you personally disagree with them or not. If you can't respect people's choices because you think they are wrong, then you aren't respecting the person that makes them. What gives you the right to disrespect other people's choices? First you started by saying militant Atheists (whatever that means) are out to destroy Theism. Nonsense. That's a complete strawman argument. People like Dawkins have no problem with people having their beliefs. What they reject is when those beliefs cause harm to others and that's what they voice their opinions on. If you want to get into an issue of respect, then why not the issue of how most theists don't have this respect you speak of for others? No one has a right to respect. If someone comes along saying they believe Leprechauns are real, no one is obligated to respect that. This notion of one having a right to demand respect is absolutely absurd. And it's never expected outside of religion. No one cares if you go around believing in Leprechauns. If you start taking away people's rights based on it, or start encouraging people to harm themselves based on this belief, then it's not something that should be respected. But more importantly,. simply speaking out against such things is not an issue of respect to begin with. Simply dismissing the arguments as disrespectful is simply a copout.

29th October 2010, 05:43 PM	#133
Jonnyclueless Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,360	BTW, I wonder how much of a hit the website took once they got rid of the forum.

29th October 2010, 06:03 PM	#134
arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: The other side of your screen Posts: 43,038	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller Josh's comments are still there (never deleted). What I wrote was he deleted people's comments on his statement, which included questions/comments about his earlier activities on the Dawkins website. Fair enough. I misunderstood. My statement still stands though. Nothing's been proven, or even demonstrated. The hearings are not due to start until early next year. Is this guy going to get a Trial By Peanut Gallery?
	__________________ Jadey (in RvB game thread): I just want to take a moment to commend Arth on his role as Parasitic Alien Tumor. I think he really connected with the character and there were times when I forgot that he was just acting. That's the kind of talent that you can't teach.

6th November 2010, 10:37 AM	#135
preptic Student Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 27	Originally Posted by KateHL Tinomen is certainly in the wrong, but I found this a bit nauseating (from the article): Seriously? He has the nerve to call himself the 'most respected atheist'? Best known I understand, but it takes cajones to call oneself the 'most respected' anything. My Dawkins love is falling a few major pegs. Of course he didn't. "I am plaintiffs' litigation counsel. I drafted all the material contained in its 18 pages. The Complaint's language and allegations are written and made by me on behalf of my clients. The Complaint does not contain any quotes from Professor Dawkins or anyone at RDFRS and should not be attributed to anyone else but me."
preptic Student Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 27

6th November 2010, 10:56 AM	#136
preptic Student Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 27	Originally Posted by NiallM He is directly and personally responsible for the contents of any writ he issues. Every word of it is there at his behest and agreement. Really? Evidence of this claim, please. It sounds to me like you already hate the guy, so you'll automatically say stuff that makes him look bad.
preptic Student Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 27

6th November 2010, 11:23 AM	#137
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395	Hi preptic, Is there any reason you're going through the thread and challenging early posts about who wrote what? It was pointed out a long time ago that Dawkin's lawyer claimed responsibility for composing the statement. Originally Posted by stijndeloose Richard Dawkins' (and the RDFRS') lawyer speaks up: http://richarddawkins.net/discussion...-greenberg-esq . Since then, I don't think anyone has refuted that. Respectfully, Emet
Emet Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 3,395

6th November 2010, 02:25 PM	#138
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,261	Interesting. It is hard to imagine how Josh Timonen is completely innocent in all this. This doesn't, in the main, sound like a fight over intellectual property to me. It sounds like Timonen was hired to run a web site and was paid for that function. I doubt that authorized him to take what he felt like from the proceeds. And he could be in real big trouble if he made written misrepresentations about the operation of the website to the owners of the website. That sounds like straightforward embezzlement to me and people go to jail for that.
	__________________ The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

7th November 2010, 03:58 PM	#139
KateHL Alleged Skeptic Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: climbing Mount Cleverest Posts: 1,699	Originally Posted by preptic Of course he didn't. "I am plaintiffs' litigation counsel. I drafted all the material contained in its 18 pages. The Complaint's language and allegations are written and made by me on behalf of my clients. The Complaint does not contain any quotes from Professor Dawkins or anyone at RDFRS and should not be attributed to anyone else but me." Originally Posted by KateHL It doesn't really matter anyhow as it was Dawkins' lawyer who made the statement and not Dawkins (as everyone quite rightly pointed out to me). But thanks for beating that dead horse. It really got what it deserved.
	__________________ "Every good woman needs a good man. A great woman, however, can get by with the Marquis." - Marquis de Carabas

7th November 2010, 07:50 PM	#140
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,196	Originally Posted by davefoc Interesting. It is hard to imagine how Josh Timonen is completely innocent in all this. This doesn't, in the main, sound like a fight over intellectual property to me. It sounds like Timonen was hired to run a web site and was paid for that function. I doubt that authorized him to take what he felt like from the proceeds. And he could be in real big trouble if he made written misrepresentations about the operation of the website to the owners of the website. That sounds like straightforward embezzlement to me and people go to jail for that. Plus wire fraud or mail fraud.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

17th April 2011, 11:52 AM	#141
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,575	And it's still ongoing http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ne...4455-2420.html Anyone know the US legal system well enough to give us a rough time to completetion? Next november say?

17th April 2011, 01:25 PM	#142
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,240	It looks like there are motions scheduled to be heard on May 6. Depending on the outcome of those, presumably the defendants will then file their answer to the complaint and the matter will proceed from there. It appears that the matter was commenced in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, was later transferred to the U.S. District Court of California, then eventually transferred back to the lower court again, where the plaintiffs have filed a second amended complaint, to which the defendants have responded with a motion to strike certain parts of the second amended complaint and a motion for sanctions. Those appear to be the motions scheduled for May 6. So, the short answer to the question is: probably not any time soon.

17th April 2011, 01:26 PM	#143
Dunstan Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sunnyvale Trailer Park Posts: 4,292	Originally Posted by geni And it's still ongoing http://www.rationalskepticism.org/ne...4455-2420.html Anyone know the US legal system well enough to give us a rough time to completetion? Next november say? It's really hard to say. It looks like they're still hashing out the pleadings, with the hearing on the latest demurrer (objection to the legal sufficiency of the complaint) and case management conference to be held on May 6, 2011. At that point the court might or might not set a trial date. Some judges like to wait until the pleadings are all set before setting a trial date, others don't. If there is a trial set, I can't imagine it would be any earlier than late 2011, and more likely some time in 2012 -- it depends on the state of the court's docket, how much discovery the parties say they'll need, whether any of the discovery is going to have to take place overseas, etc. And of course trial dates get continued sometimes. On top of that, there's nothing magical about the trial date as the end point. Most cases settle. (I expect the parties will agree to go to mediation, and the judge will set a deadline to complete the mediation process. Nobody should read anything into that if it happens, because that's pretty standard practice in California -- it's not a signal that settlement is any more or less likely in a particular case.) Sometimes cases get decided before trial on motions for summary judgment. And judgments (whether after trial or otherwise) get appealed. So basically: any time between a couple of months from now and a couple of years from now. Your guess of next November is as good as any.

24th July 2011, 09:14 AM	#144
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,930	Dawkins drops case: Quote: “We’d been litigating for nine months and estimated that it probably would cost at least another $100,000,” Dawkins’s lawyer, Blaine Greenberg, tells Mandrake. “I recommended not to continue, entirely on a cost-benefit analysis.” Timonen, a web designer, claims that Dawkins dropped the case because of a lack of evidence. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-employee.html http://joshtimonen.com/post/78653684...missal-of-case

24th July 2011, 10:29 AM	#145
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,196	A shame that he got away with it.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th April 2012, 07:38 PM	#146
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Wickenburg, AZ Posts: 3,670	Was there ever a release of the backstory of all this? I figured we'd have the details by now
	__________________ Can someone give me a better name for SLAG FAIRY?