Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Dawkins Charity Scandal

By Gregon

The Richard Dawkins Foundation has accused its former website creator and administrator of embezzling $US375,000 from the organization over the last 3 years:

Josh Timonen was one of a small coterie of young protégés around Richard Dawkins, sharing his boss’s zealous atheism. But now he and the evolutionary theorist have fallen out spectacularly. Professor Dawkins’s charity has accused Mr Timonen of embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The two atheists had become close in recent years, with Dawkins, the best-selling author and Emeritus Professor of Biology at Oxford University, even dedicating his latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth, to him. But Mr Timonen and the Dawkins foundation are now preparing for a legal wrangle.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, has filed four lawsuits in a Californian court alleging that Mr Timonen, who ran its online operation in America, stole $375,000 (£239,000) over three years. It is claiming $950,000 in damages, while Mr Dawkins is suing him for $14,000 owed to him personally. Mr Timonen strongly denies the allegations.

In the 18-page complaint filed in a Los Angeles court, the foundation claims that Mr Timonen said the website he was running was just “squeaking by,” making only $30,000 in three years, when in fact it was grossing 10 times that sum. The charity alleges that Mr Timonen pocketed 92 per cent of the money generated by the store, with his girlfriend spending $100,000 of the charity’s money on upgrading her home before putting it on the market.

For those interested in learning more, the full complaint is available as a PDF. Timonen – who had been involved in an earlier controversy about the closing of the RDF forums – responded by calling the lawsuit “the ultimate betrayal“. Between the angst directed at him over the forum shutdown, and now these accusations that he stole their donated money, Timonen doesn’t have a whole lot of friends in the atheist community at the moment.

Ah well, what’s a religious group without the occasional scandal over donated money…

Greg
Editor
Greg is the owner-editor of The Daily Grail, as well as the author of a number of books including Stop Worrying, There Probably is an Afterlife.
Related

33 Comments

  1. Amusing – so much for Moral Superiority
    Hmmmm…funny considering the Harris article the other day about morals being the domain of scientists. Dawkins and most Atheists consider themselves to be morally superior to non-atheists – mainly in their allegiance to science and the scientific method. I guess embezzlement and theft aren’t considered moral breakdowns. Funny how things work out…

    1. Schadenfreude
      I find your comment, quite frankly, to be shallow and parochial.

      Dawkins has never asserted any moral supremacy as a basis for his arguments against God, or against theism. He is always incredibly reasonable and logical. He has discussed the fallacy of absolute morality that theism asserts, but he has never argued in favor of a counter absolute position on morality.

      In fact, neither did Stephen Harris, in his presentation. He merely stated a watered down version of what Kant said centuries ago: Reason is a better tool for the investigation of morality than are cultural dogmas, traditional beliefs, and superstitions.

      The fact that some person chose to steal money from Dawkins’ organization has nothing to do with the validity of his philosophical position(s) and making such an insinuation is at best a misguided red herring, and at worst an ad hominem and appeal to spite.

      1. I agree with you Lobotomatic
        Atheists are people too. Some do good, some do bad. Dawkins trusted someone, and was burned. It has happened to most of us. I feel sorry for him, as a fellow human, and seeker of truth. This is nothing that should take away from the validity of his philosophy. Laugh if you must. But its in spite. And does that make you a better person?

        1. Labels
          Prejudice is the problem here – whichever angle you approach this issue from.

          Organised religion is one thing; belief in a greater reality – including God – is another. I am not religious (indeed, the last time I attended a wedding in a church I had to walk out because I felt myself to be a hypocrite in those surroundings). Nevertheless I am pretty much convinced of the existence of God (at least my concept of God).

          Dawkins would have me put up against the wall (figuratively speaking – I hope!) with all the rest of the believers – be they fundamentalists or philosophers. Once you apply a label then you damn us all. Even within organised religion you will find considered arguments alongside fire-and-brimstone rhetoric. You will find good people and supremely good deeds alongside hatred and intolerance.

          My son admires Dawkins and I think I can understand why … he sees Dawkins as an anti-authoritarian hero; an iconoclast. I see him as quite the opposite: someone who is the standard bearer for the new authoritarianism: scientism. The popular media is the perfect mirror of where we are in this transition from religious authoritarianism to scientific authoritarianism. The news media can hardly report any new idea or discovery without inviting a scientist along to pass judgement on its scientific authenticity. If it doesn’t fit the materialist template then it must be discarded as nonsense, mumbo-jumbo, wishful thinking or worse.

          Dawkins’ atheism doesn’t make him a better person any more than the faith of the Pope makes him – or his predecessors – good. Even in a single person there is a mixture of good and bad. My own history is littered with deeds I am either proud of or ashamed of. Nevertheless, I think it is helpful to have a compass which guides us when in doubt. Faith provides that for some. Faith presupposes there is a point to our lives. Dawkins insists there isn’t and therefore removes the compass.

          Dave.

    3. Since When?
      [quote=Greg H.]

      Dawkins and most Atheists consider themselves to be morally superior to non-atheists – mainly in their allegiance to science and the scientific method.[/quote]

      Greg H.,

      Show me your statistics!

      Most scientists consider themselves to be scientists! Hollier-Than-Thou hypocrits come from all persuasions. With no disrespect intended, I think that you are shooting invalid broad generalizations out your exhaust pipe!

      1. Oh, please …
        [quote=cnnek]

        … Hollier-Than-Thou hypocrits come from all persuasions. With no disrespect intended, I think that you are shooting invalid broad generalizations out your exhaust pipe![/quote]

        Talk about hypocrites. If you are going to be disrespectful – as you clearly are here – what is the point of attempting to disclaim it in advance by saying “no disrespect intended”?

        1. Exactomundo

          “If you are going to be disrespectful […] what is the point of attempting to disclaim it in advance by saying “no disrespect intended”?”

          Thanks for noting the masked bludgeoning, lol. I was wondering about that myself.

        2. To Be Polite!:)
          Kamarling,

          My use of “no disrespect intended” is a meaningless way to be polite!:) It covers my ass; because, it implies that there is no overt intention on my part to be impolite!:)

          It’s a very useful technique that has many practical and social applications.

          1. Giving the devil his due…
            cnnek,

            We may not agree on many… er, okay, any of a million-or-so points of faith and religion but, I will confess that I appreciate your ability with the English language.

            It is difficult these days to find a patriot or an opponent so worthy of reading.

            A fist cloaked in the velvet glove of the written word is indeed far more dangerous than any old rusty dagger in the hand of a fool, no?

            This fleeting moment of glory is genuine and it is yours.

            See ya around 🙂

  2. Shallow and Parochial
    Reply to Lobotomatic:
    Admitted – my comment WAS shallow and parochial – no question. I wasn’t attempting an intellectual discourse on the matter. I was attempting to point out the absurdity of atheism’s intellectual arrogance and resultant situation. You say Dawkins “is always incredibly reasonable and logical” – spoken like a true fanboy. I’m sure others would disagree, meaning that is your subjective opinion and as meaningless as my initial posting.

    Science, Scientists and Atheism are inextricably linked, and I see few atheists making efforts to tone down Atheism’s vitriolic attack against religion and the religious. Any time I read an article related to anything religious and peruse the commentary – the anger and insults put forth by atheist are truly close-minded and hateful. In comparison I find my brief missive above not a red herring, nor spiteful, but a tongue-in-cheek musing on human nature’s need for ego gratification and our inherent foibles regardless of our philosophical positions.

      1. From what I hear in
        From what I hear in interviews and read in magazines, books and blogs, a majority of scientists are atheists – but not all. And in many cases the ones that are not atheists, who either believe in a God, or are open-minded to the concept, though hold no firm beliefs – for the most part keep their beliefes to themselves for fear of retribution and professional suicide if they publish any research or opnions in support of anything other than the evolutionary Godless paradigm.

        I don’t presume to know what anyone thinks. And yet the lack of outspokeness by atheists about calming the rhetoric between Atheist and the Religious is somewhat akin to the lack of outspokeness by Muslims condemning terrorist acts committed by radical Muslims around the world. Though we choose to believe the majority of Muslims are peaceloving the fact is few speak out against the radical elements causing the problems – is this out of fear of retribution or quiet condonement? I do not claim to know their mind nor yours. However the silence may be more telling than the noise.

        1. silence
          The silence doesn’t really tell you anything in the case of the scientists. You use it to confirm your own conclusions to yourself, that seems to be about it.

          Perhaps you don’t make assumptions about what other people think, but you do say that you know it. It sure makes it look as if you actually do come to these conclusions – not because of silence, but because you say so.

  3. Well Hardy Har Har. . .
    Just goes to show . . if you hold that there is no morality other than what comes from the mind of man and that there is no authority higher . . . then you can do what you bugger well please . . .

    No God, no Hell, no Hell, no eternal punishment, no eternal punishment then whatever you can get away with is fine . . . “As long as you don’t get caught” seems to be the mantra.

    Enjoy your medicine Mr. Dawkins, from where I sit it seems to me you’re going to have to swallow a whole lot more of it.

    Oh well, when things get really bad, you can always ask yourself for help, since you are your own highest authority, and maybe in your depths you’ll even answer yourself too . . . now that would be a sight to see.

    ASM

    1. You Don’t Need A God To Have An Orderly Society!!!
      AncientSkyMan,

      You need rules to have an orderly society, not abstract moral values. Abstract moral values are too interpretable; whereas, strict rules need no interpretation! For example, a basis for a good set of strict rules can be found in Spell Number 125 in the Egyptian Book Of The Dead and it’s not the only place! Although I don’t agree with everything in it, there are some excellent rules in the Koran, too!

      1. Thou shalt not opine
        Perhaps… but the human factor remains regardless. People who are inclined to making poor, personal behavioral choices may not respect the laws of man any more than those of God.

        However, if you have a society that is more or less religious and the laws of both God and man parallel, you may have less of this by virtue of the overlap.

        There was an instance here in Alabama a few years back where there was a dispute over the placement of a large display of the Ten Commandments. The issue was not that the message was particularly wrong but because it was quoted from the bible.

        That seemed a little nit-picky to me, in the same way that some people judge a point or comment by the person who speaks it, rather from the value it contains.

        Religion itself is nothing but a concept. Alone, it can do neither good or evil. It requires a person to apply it in either of those directions. Unfortunately, we have a rather limited ability in understanding this and tend to blame the inanimate for ills that emanate from the living, breathing and individually animated.

        Have a nice day 🙂

        1. In My Opinion, Religion Is A Concept Supported By Fairy Tales!
          Redoubt,

          The spiritual fairy tales of various religions have been the main causes of death and destruction in human history. Look at the Middle East! Without religion, the suffering of the Palestinian people wouldn’t be possible. Yes, people are very greedy; but, with strict rules combined with strict punishments, undesired practices can be effectively discouraged. People need to understand that if they abide by the rules they can say, write, or do anything that they want. But, if they break the rules, the punishments will be strictly enforced. We need strict rules with equally strict punishments, not common law! Common law is too interpretable and it gives criminals too much wiggle room. Enforced moderation and toleration are essential in society! A little greed is good; but, too much greed is detrimental to society.

          1. The devil made me do it!

            “The spiritual fairy tales of various religions have been the main causes of death and destruction in human history. Look at the Middle East! Without religion, the suffering of the Palestinian people wouldn’t be possible.”

            You suggest that minus religious beliefs, humanity might be privy to the paradise that we were presumably tossed out of?
            You go so far as to ascribe the entirety of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to religion alone?

            I would like to test your theory. I am going to place a Christian Bible, a Muslim Koran and a Hebrew Torah in a locked room and leave them for a month. If you are correct, when I unlock the door, there will be carnage. (But don’t worry, I won’t include a gun in the same locked space so… we won’t have to worry about any actual blood… er, book-shed.)

            *sigh*

            There are no doubt many truly bad people of all faiths and political leanings, across the broad expanse of history, who would appreciate your theory because it would release them from personal responsibility for their behaviors. The devil or God… whether they actually exist or not, made them do it. The concept is guilty and the human is exonerated.

            You’re not freeing mankind, my friend… just the criminal.

          2. You Missed My Point And Paradise Has Nothing To Do With It!
            Redoubt,

            [quote=Redoubt]

            You suggest that minus religious beliefs, humanity might be privy to the paradise that we were presumably tossed out of?
            You go so far as to ascribe the entirety of the Palestine-Israel conflict to religion alone[/quote]

            I’m saying that religion provides a potent and easy to use vehicle for truly bad people to inflict injustices on others and commit crimes aginst humanity which they can then justify in the name of their religious beliefs. I’ll give you one example that is in the New Testament and it was used by pre-civil war preachers, i.e. Cotton Mather, to justify slavery. This comes from the “Book Of Philemon”. The preachers were proof texting “Philemon”. Paul did, however, tell Philemon’s run away christian slave Onisimos that he should return to his master Philemon; because, it was right, God’s will, for him to do so. Now, Paul’s intent, as can be seen in the context of “Philemon”, was for Onisimos to convert his master Philemon to christianity, not to justify slavery. From Paul’s perspective, Philemon would free all of his slaves after his conversion to christianity. But, pre-civil war pro-slavery christian preachers never explained this. They just preached that,” Paul said that onisimos should return to his master: because, it was god’s will for him to do so.” If you want to do a little more research, you will find out that slave owners were famous for using “Philemon” to justify their ownership of slaves and that includes some of the founding fathers.

            {I used this example; because, it should be easy for you to cross reference and research.}

            [quote=Redoubt]

            There are no doubt many truly bad people of all faiths and political leanings, across the broad expanse of history, who would appreciate your theory because it would release them from personal responsibility for their behaviors. The devil or God… whether they actually exist or not, made them do it. The concept is guilty and the human is exonerated.[/quote]

            I catagorically disagree with your theory about personal responsibility. Religion always has a loophole, copout, or whatever you want to call it. You can always avoid eternal punishment and end up being forgiven or attaining enlightenment.
            With the system that I’m suggesting, everyone is totally responsible for their actions and, if people violate the rules of society, they will be responsible for paying the penalty. Furthermore, no wealthy relative, lawyer, or bunch of bleeding heart liberals is going to be able to get the penalty changed! People will bear the full responsibilty of their actions!

          3. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning…
            I did agree with your views at one time.

            Back around 1970, I took a friend of mine to church with me; a Baptist church. My family had been attending this church for a long time.

            He, my friend, was black.

            Upon being seated, several ushers came in and asked him to leave. The congregation had voted NOT to integrate itself. My mother was sitting in the choir at the time. She wept, we left.

            I hated religion for may years after that. I blamed it for ruining so many people. But then as I grew older, I began to understand that those people in that church… they were racists first, with or without the faith. And in fact, they were very poor Christians, too.

            Anything can be misused and abused.

            As a species, we are almost a death sentence to anything we touch. You could ban religion, ban free speech, ban politics and you would still have the human condition boiling away like a raging infection.

            Treating a symptom will not cure the ill.

          4. Strict Rules With Strict Penalities For Breaking Them
            [quote=Redoubt]

            As a species, we are almost a death sentence to anything we touch. You could ban religion, ban free speech, ban politics and you would still have the human condition boiling away like a raging infection.

            Treating a symptom will not cure the ill.[/quote]

            Redoubt,

            We can keep the disease/ill in remission in the short run and cure it in the long run with by implimenting strict rules with strict penalities for breaking them.

            Religion has never worked and, in my opinion, it never will work! Samuel Becket, in his play “Waiting For Godot”, illustrated this point very well. Godot never came and, in my opinion, Jesus isn’t coming either! There is no disrespect intended; but, in terms of the christy christians, I say, “Put up or shutup! In my honest opinion, the only reasons to organize a religion are to either gain political power or creat national unity and both can be accomplished without religion. Furthermore, there is no tangable evidence that there is a God! So, why fool with religion?

            Have a couple drinks and call me in the morning!:)

          5. Make that a double…

            “There is no disrespect intended; but, in terms of the christy christians, I say, “Put up or shutup! In my honest opinion, the only reasons to organize a religion are to either gain political power or creat national unity and both can be accomplished without religion. Furthermore, there is no tangable evidence that there is a God! So, why fool with religion?”

            Don’t worry. If there is no God, then neither you nor those who do believe will be any worse in the end.

            Your obvious disdain for people of faith… those, um, Christy Christians, is a little troubling, though. My initial impression was that you were working from some point of logic, not a prejudice.

            My bad.

            But be that as it may, whether God exists or not really has no bearing on the argument… unless you subscribe to the idea of removing the right to believe as one chooses. The former Soviet Russia worked very hard at forcefully eliminating religion but showed no hint at all that a godless (or even semi-godless) society was in any way superior or more liberated from man’s inhumanity to man than any other.

            To free mankind, you must release him not from his God, but from himself.

            Barkeep, I’ll have a Sailor Jerry’s and Coke 🙂

          6. My First Three Sentences Gave A Logical Basis
            [quote=cnnek]

            “There is no disrespect intended; but, in terms of the christy christians, I say, “Put up or shutup! In my honest opinion, the only reasons to organize a religion are to either gain political power or creat national unity and both can be accomplished without religion. Furthermore, there is no tangable evidence that there is a God! So, why fool with religion?”

            [/quote]

            Redoubt,

            My first three sentences of the paragraph that you quoted were:
            [quote=cnnek]
            Religion has never worked and, in my opinion, it will never work! Samuel Becket, in his play “Waiting For Godot”, illustrated this point very well. Godot never came and, in my opinion, Jesus isn’t coming either![/quote]

            These three sentences give a logical basis for the end of the paragraph. I was not being prejudice! I was stating an opinion based on the fact that: [quote=cnnek]Religion has never worked.[/quote]

            [quote=Redoubt]
            Your obvious disdain for people of faith… those, um, Christy Christians, is a little troubling, though. My initial impression was that you were working from some point of logic, not a prejudice.[/quote]

            I have a distain for people of faith who can’t keep it to themselves and have to go around telling everybody about their belief systems. I have a distain for most belief systems, not all belief systems; because, most belief systems claim that the object of the belief system will solve all of the problems. Budhism, however, focuses of personal responsibility for attaining enlightenment. I’m not a Budhist; but, I don’t have a distain for their belief system. In Japan, christians drive non-christians up the side of the wall sometimes; because, they come around knocking on your door anytime that they please asking, “Doooo yoooou beeeelieeeeve!”, christy christians! In Japan, door to door anything is not appreciated. Japanese society has a don’t ask don’t tell policy about religion. Nobody cares about whether a person has religious beliefs or not, except some of the christy christians. Furthermore, the Japanese are very democratic about religion. Usually, the shintoists hatch, the christians batch, and the budhists dispatch!

            [quote=Redoubt]
            But be that as it may, whether God exists or not really has no bearing on the argument… unless you subscribe to the idea of removing the right to believe as one chooses. The former Soviet Russia worked very hard at forcefully eliminating religion but showed no hint at all that a godless (or even semi-godless) society was in any way superior or more liberated from man’s inhumanity to man than any other.

            To free mankind, you must release him not from his God, but from himself.[/quote]

            I am not and never have advocated removing the right to believe as one chooses. The problem is humankind and the only way to slove the problem is to have freedon within the context of very strict rules and equally strict punishments. I’m advocating freedom with responsibility.

            As a side note, Stalin closed the churches in the USSR {Russia} except during the second world war when he attended church! After Stalin, the churches were opened again and, in the 1960’s, the largest baptist church in the world in terms of membership was in Moscow, Russia!

            You need a triple!:)

          7. Cup-O-Joe

            “I have a distain for people of faith who can’t keep it to themselves and have to go around telling everybody about their belief systems. I have a distain for most belief systems, not all belief systems; because, most belief systems claim that the object of the belief system will solve all of the problems.”

            Yet, you have a system of belief yourself… or disbelief, as it may be, that you are now supporting (and spreading?) like a little gospel. You are applying your system, your beliefs, against others in much the same way religions and politicians work to reduce their competitors.

            Perhaps there is something to any concept that denies others, that makes it like all those others?

            (Nah, couldn’t be, lol)

            Welcome to humanity bro.

            – Coffee, black.

          8. I Don’t Believe Anything That Can’t Be Objectively Proven!
            Redoubt,

            I have no system of belief. Rules have worked most of the time. It is my concerted opinion that religion is at the root of most of the problems of the world, especially the suffering! So, I’m arguing for rules as the lesser of evils.

            I think that all religious origanizations, except charities, should be classified as businesses and taxed accordingly!

          9. Can’t agree
            At what point do you (a hypothetical you, btw) determine what qualifies as a disease that should be eradicated, vs an imperfect social construct created by an imperfect species in an imperfect world?

            Many, many human establishments have been bent and twisted for questionable purposes; government, science, social programs, the military, banking industry. We can contain ills (disease) spawned by some of these with laws and human effort but shouldn’t our ultimate goal be to completely eradicate them? Why not? These establishments, and the power and influence granted to their respective leadership, could be labeled “a potent and easy to use vehicle for truly bad people to inflict injustices on others and commit crimes against humanity”. What makes religion a unique case that justifies elimination when secular establishments have been (mis)used for the same ends?

            The problems existing within religion are a reflection of human flaws, not the cause of them. Until we recognize that human nature is the potential “disease” we seek to treat or eradicate we’re only bandaging a broken leg and trying to kiss it better.

            The idea of treating religion as disease inspires other questions as well. How would you eradicate religion completely? By ostracizing (quarantine) or “re-educating” followers using force? How do you justify such actions in a society that values human rights and free speech? If you do eliminate all modern religions, how do you prevent new ones from taking their place?

            —–
            Personally, I view claims of religion’s “pernicious effect on society” much the way I view claims of violent video games, comic books, and Death Metal music causing the wholesale degradation of human society; with a healthy degree of skepticism. It’s quite possible for a person to partake in all of those things and be a productive, law abiding citizen.

            While the complaints voiced by concerned soccer moms and anti-theists can indeed be sincere, solutions to the “problem” aren’t always forthcoming, and if they are provided they are usually vague and unproven or require dispensing with personal responsibility and the creation of, or nomination of some preexisting authority, to “Save ME from the OTHER”. I can’t really agree to that.

  4. We’re all dogmatic…..
    Its just that the new paradigm includes a subjective component that the old folks ain’t comfortable with.

    Unfortunately according to
    THEM subjectivity = ‘religion’.

    Gimme Ken Wilber, he strenuously avoids being ‘new age’ and distances himself from all that channeled stuff.

    The natural truth, to which we all have access transcend the words and symbols and has little to do with ‘religion’ (which has come to mean frozen dogmas and blind faith in words—-a natural human trait evident on all sides of every argument)

  5. Culpability
    Regardless of the truth in this matter (as obviously the case is yet to be heard), the one thing that does raise eyebrows is how the Richard Dawkins Foundation ran their online ‘business’. From the official complaint:

    The Creation and Operation of “The Store”

    21. In 2007, RDFRS and Timonen agreed it would be a good idea to create an online store (“The Store”) to help market the “Growing Up in the Universe” DVDs, T-shirts, caps, mugs, pins and other merchandise related to RDFRS’ mission and charitable goals.

    22. At the time, RDFRS’ Trustees believed that legal requirements (particularly controls imposed on Richard Dawkins and the UK Foundation by the British Charities Commission) made it legally impermissible for The Store to be operated by RDFRS. This information was shared with Timonen and he agreed to use his personal corporation UBP to operate The Store for RDFRS’ benefit.

    23. Plaintiffs and Timonen agreed that (i) Plaintiffs would fund the creation and operation of The Store (primarily with seed money generated by the sale of “Growing Up in the Universe” DVDs), (ii) The Store would operate as a component of RDFRS’ website (from a virtual, online perspective), (iii) all proceeds from the operation of The Store belonged to RDFRS and would be remitted by UBP to RDFRS when earned, (iv) UBP would be operated honestly and appropriately according to generally accepted accounting principles and applicable Federal and State laws, (v) Timonen was already being adequately compensated and would not receive additional
    compensation for operating The Store or developing any of the merchandise or marketing materials it used and (vi) any copyrights, trademarks, logos or other intellectual property developed
    for The Store and any inventory of Store merchandise would belong to RDFRS.

    *snip*

    28. During all the years Defendants operated The Store through UBP, they never provided Plaintiffs financial records, general ledgers, revenue statements, profit and loss statements or any other accounting of the activities they were engaged in for the supposed benefit of RDFRS.

    Defendants knowingly concealed from Plaintiffs the fact that The Store was actually generating hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, most of which Defendants were misappropriating for
    themselves and Norton’s family members.

    So the RDF basically set up a proxy business to receive income from an online store (to circumvent UK law), which would then be ‘donated’ to them by the proxy business. But more bizarrely, they were receiving money from their ‘constituency’ in good faith via this webstore, but didn’t check the proxy business’s accounting records for 3 years (simply accepting a $30,000 ‘donation’ from it)?

    1. I Don’t Believe In Anything; But, If I Did,…
      Live,

      I’d make Gold, Silver, or some other precious metal god instead of money! Better yet, I could be a polytheist and make all precious metals gods.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal