It's quite possible that Cirrus and Campbell never really had an agreement for advertising. It was a common strategy of Zooms back to the US Aviator days to invent advertising contracts that never quite really existed.
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Could very well be, but Campbell himself has a long history of retaliating against those who "harm" him by threatening, harassing, and taking legal action against them. So now he gets to see what it's like to be on the receiving end of such retaliation (if indeed Cirrus' actions can be characterized that way).
Of course, he claims he has special immunity from any retaliation because he's a "journalist" and is protected by the 1st Amendment, which he doesn't seem to realize protects him only from the government, not from Cirrus.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Not just in the US Aviator days. ANN has sued at least five companies failing to pay for advertising allegedly covered by verbal contracts:
Aero-News Network Inc. vs. Pulsar Aircraft Corp
Aero-News Network Inc. vs. Rotary Air Force
Aero-News Network Inc. vs. Powrachute Corporation
Aero-News Network Inc. vs. Controlvision Corporation
Aero-News Network Inc. vs. Liberty Aerospace Inc
The results? Powrachute never responded to the suit, and Campbell won a default judgement for $22,000. However, I believe the company he sued was actually dissolved about the time of the judgement (to be started in another state) and I doubt he actually received anything.
Rotary Air Force settled out of court, amount was $6,500 (and did not have to pay Campbell's legal fees). The Agreement stated that the settlement was "... the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim and the payment is not to be construed as an admission of liability... said RELEASES deny liability and intend merely to avoid further litigation...."
The Controlvision and Liberty cases were dismissed with prejudice when Campbell fired his attorney and failed to obtain new representation. The attorney had been the same one handling his second Sun-N-Fun lawsuit, and had been granted a motion to dismiss because Campbell was not meeting his financial obligations. It's likely the attorney would have filed the same motion in these two cases, but Campbell precluded that by firing him.
ANN vs. Pulsar was the only case that went to trial, and Campbell lost ("greater weight of evidence supports defendant"). However, Pulsar was denied its court costs.
These are only the cases where he went on public record with a lawsuit...we don't know how many companies have paid to avoid trouble.
Ironically, Campbell has now gone the longest he ever has without suing anyone since he became a publisher (seven years vs. four years previously). He (mostly) stopped suing in the late '90s, too, when Airedale press got into financial problems.
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Shocked! Shocked, I am!!!
wanttaja
En-Route
Interesting. When Campbell lost his attorney in the Sun-N-Fun case, the judge gave him 60 days to find a new one. This judge is only giving him 30 days...kind of surprising, since Campbell is the defendant and I would have thought the judge would be more lenient. Perhaps the judge is getting a bit fed up.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
I was not quite precise, here, which leads to a question.
Campbell and his LLC are co-defendants. The judge gave Campbell 30 days to find an attorney for Kindred Spirit Aviation LLC, but Campbell himself has the option to represent himself.
For the legal minds, what happens in a month if Campbell announces that Kindred Spirit was unable to obtain counsel, but James Campbell will be his own attorney for the case against him, personally? I can't see the judge signing off on the Lis Pendens against KSA alone, so how might this be handled when there is one asset between two separate defendants?
Ron Wanttaja
The judge could give him more time, or treat it as a nonappearance. Cirrus asks for a default judgement against the absent party.
wanttaja
En-Route
Yes, but what are the practical ramifications of this? Cirrus gets KSA's half-interest in the airplane, but would Campbell still retain possession? I don't expect the judge to sign-off on the Lis Pendens on a KSA default. Would the judge instead enter a monetary value judgement against KSA, instead? But if that's the case, how is the aircraft handled if Campbell loses his individual case as well?
Ron Wanttaja
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Campbell does not personally have any interest in the property. He's only the co-signer, so is liable on the note.
The complaint lists four counts:
- One for the return of the aircraft (replevin)
- one for an order directing the defendants to deliver the aircraft
- one for money damages against KSA
- one for money damages against Campbell
wanttaja
En-Route
Ah, the first sign of spring.
His 30 days to get a new lawyer runs out next week. We should either see a filing by his new counsel, or a court date requested by Cirrus if he doesn't have one. If the latter, he'll ask for more time, of course.
The last five cases where he lost his attorney, he didn't get another one.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Ah, the first sign of spring.
His 30 days to get a new lawyer runs out next week. We should either see a filing by his new counsel, or a court date requested by Cirrus if he doesn't have one.
Filing added today, "Motion for Extension of Time." My guess is that Campbell has a new lawyer... Campbell himself couldn't make such a filing on behalf of the LLC.
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Not yet he doesn't. This appears to be a handwritten plea by Campbell himself. His note says it was sent certified mail to "Jason Ward Johnson", who is listed as an attorney in Florida. Has Mr. Johnson been listed in this action to date?
Last edited:
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
See post 43 for a mention of Jason Ward Johnson.
wanttaja
En-Route
Oh, man... was I off on this one. On his last three cases, after he lost the attorney, he waited until the next court date and pleaded for more time there. Since this one was actually filed as a motion, and actually *beat* the judge's deadline, I figured it was filed by an attorney. The big difference is that he's the defendant on this one; I figure he got scared that Cirrus would file for a default judgement if Campbell didn't make SOME response.
Jason Ward Johnson is one of Cirrus' attorneys of record. Campbell would have to notify them as well as the court.
For the cognoscenti, there are three classic Zoomisms in that single hand-written sentence. Here's the best one:
"Just obtained copy of withdrawal motion on 03/19/12 - undertaking careful search for counsel + will need additional time to coordinate & advise."
"Just obtained copy of withdrawal motion..." Heck, just imaging him writing that up in ANN: "I received a copy of the withdrawal motion just a day before the deadline expired!"
In other words, he implies that he didn't *know* his attorney had been released. You see that a lot from him..."I have no record of that" sounds like a denial, but isn't, really. But a casual reader may interpret it that way.
The implication in this case, of course, is poppycock. The judge told him at the court date last month that his attorney was released, and the attorney filed the motion a month before that. Campbell has plenty of experience with losing his legal counsel...eleven lawyers filed for release on cases prior to this, and every motion was granted by the judge. He had no reason to expect that the judge would turn this one down.
If I'm understanding things correctly, he can't file for an extension for Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC. So Cirrus could file for a default judgement.
Ron Wanttaja
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
That would make me smile.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,665
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
I assume the Zoommeister would be happier with a default judgement than actually losing in court - that way it's not his fault - he was robbed - it's a conspiracy - he wasn't able to get his day in court - judge was out to get him - etc.
See, he doesn't claim that he didn't KNOW that his attorneys bailed, he states that he 'just obtained a copy of the motion' which may be factually correct
.Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Hey Fred, go make a copy of this for me will ya? Thanks, now I can honestly say "Just obtained copy of withdrawal motion".
Someone toss me a fish so I can tell my wife I caught it.
wanttaja
En-Route
Actually, it doesn't really make a difference....Campbell is probably in his don't-answer-the-door mode. Even if the judge signs off, Cirrus can stand on the doorstep waving the court order, but unless Campbell opens the door, he never gets served. Remember, it took them almost two months just to serve him with the original suit, and service didn't actually happen until he had a lawyer ready to handle the case.
It'll be easy enough for Campbell to delay things for months. It'll take a few weeks for Cirrus to file a motion; a month or so more to schedule a court date, they'll waste two months trying to catch him and serve an order. By that time, he will have finally found a lawyer, who'll file a motion to quash the court order ("after all, he didn't have legal representation") and the whole process starts anew.
By that point, the plane'll probably be sitting in a South Carolina hangar, and Campbell will pull up stakes and relocate ANN.
Ron Wanttaja
denverpilot
Tied Down
In the EAA newsletter this morning.
Note the last line...
UPDATES FROM AEA CONVENTION ALL WEEK
Nearly 1,500 avionics manufacturers, dealers, installers, and other GA professionals have converged at the 55th annual Aircraft Electronics Association International Convention & Trade Show, which opened Tuesday at the Gaylord National Hotel & Convention Center in Washington, D.C. The four-day event takes place through Friday, April 6, and is the largest gathering of avionics manufacturers, distributors, and government-certified repair stations in the world. EAA will feature updates and product introductions all week courtesy of AEA and its media partner, Aero-News Network.
http://www.eaaonline.org/link.cfm?t...aa.org/news/2012/2012-04-04_aeaconvention.asp
Note the last line...
UPDATES FROM AEA CONVENTION ALL WEEK
Nearly 1,500 avionics manufacturers, dealers, installers, and other GA professionals have converged at the 55th annual Aircraft Electronics Association International Convention & Trade Show, which opened Tuesday at the Gaylord National Hotel & Convention Center in Washington, D.C. The four-day event takes place through Friday, April 6, and is the largest gathering of avionics manufacturers, distributors, and government-certified repair stations in the world. EAA will feature updates and product introductions all week courtesy of AEA and its media partner, Aero-News Network.
http://www.eaaonline.org/link.cfm?t...aa.org/news/2012/2012-04-04_aeaconvention.asp
wanttaja
En-Route
Oh, nothing much to that. AEA wanted positive media coverage, and that's something ANN sells. Maybe it was even free, as long as AEA stroked Campbell's ego (by, for instance, making ANN the "official media partner").
It's just like prostitution... money is exchanged, services are rendered, but that doesn't mean either side respects the other.
But AEA had better keep paying the Danegeld, or....
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Newest filing (today); Plaintiff's response to Defendent's Motion for Extension of Time...
Ghery
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2005
- Messages
- 10,903
- Location
- Olympia, Washington
- Display Name
Display name:
Ghery Pettit
It will take a lot to get to the end of this soap opera.
Yeah, nobody could have seen that one coming.
wanttaja
En-Route
I'm suspecting that Campbell hasn't even *tried* to find an attorney, yet. No urgency to do so. Now he can start dialing, and he should be able to find someone, ANYone, to represent him in the next few days. They'll wait until a court date is scheduled, file a response stating that Campbell and KSA are now properly represented, and requesting more time to prepare. I doubt the judge will refuse.
Ron Wanttaja
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Motion to Strike / Request for Default Judgment also filed, against Kindred Spirit:
That default judgement will be another worthless piece of paper to wallpaper the office of some lawyer when he absconds with the plane to a different jurisdiction forcing the rightful owner to go through the whole rigmarole there again.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Domesticating a foreign judgment is far from 'the whole rigmarole again'. You walk to a court and ask the judge to domesticate the judgment.
Also, if he absconds with the property that a court has determined belongs to Cirrus, he could be facing Federal criminal charges for larceny or embezzlement across state lines.
I suspect Cirrus has already taken steps to keep the plane from moving...
even if not, once they have an order of possession, if it is subsequently moved out of Florida, I still think they can take it if they can get to it.
Now trying to recover the additional money might be near impossible. Don't think Jim has any assets.
even if not, once they have an order of possession, if it is subsequently moved out of Florida, I still think they can take it if they can get to it.
Now trying to recover the additional money might be near impossible. Don't think Jim has any assets.
Last edited:
Who holds the title to the airpark property or would that be homesteaded if he owns it?
That's why you you go to court first, file the papers, pay the $2500 and have the plane seized by the US Marshals who hold the plane in custody until the case settles. You do this BEFORE you warn the party in possession that you are going to take action. You do the same with boats. That's what those White, red and blue US Marshals Service, Do Not Touch stickers you'll see are about.
Does that apply to a in-state seizure as well?
Let's say tomorrow, the judge grants cirrus motion for default judgement. Does he then issue a warrant or order to secure the plane? Who executes this for an in-state seizure, the county sheriff I assume. Zoom lives on an airpark and has a habit to not answer the door to avoid being served. Would a repossession order allow them to break a lock etc.
Yes, since aircraft are handled in Federal Court.
The way it works is that you go to the judge first before anything happens. You show your evidence of your complaint and if the judge determines that a case exists he will sign a seizure notice that you have the USMS execute for $2500 (might have gone up). That is the first thing the other party should learn about your action.
Within the state seizures are handled by the local Sheriff typically.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Those US marshals stickers are for assets seized or "protected" under federal law, usually as part of an asset forfeiture case. That wouldn't apply to the aircraft in this discussion.
Now, as Weilke says, there may be an equivalent state action, but I kind of doubt it. The federal gov't pretty much has a monopoly on taking your property as they accuse you of a crime, instead of waiting until they convict you of it.
Now, as Weilke says, there may be an equivalent state action, but I kind of doubt it. The federal gov't pretty much has a monopoly on taking your property as they accuse you of a crime, instead of waiting until they convict you of it.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
I don't think this is true. Note that this aircraft ownership dispute is not being handled in federal court.
If the law in question is federal, then the case is handled at the federal level and the USMS take custody of property. Doesn't matter what it is.
When I was in the Coast Guard we found marijuana on a boat we were doing a courtesy inspection on. In those days (late 80s) we had no discretion. Every adult on the boat was arrested, we took the boat in tow, and about a week later the Marshals showed up and took the boat away to their facility.
Untrue, to the best of my knowledge any lien or contract dispute involving an N-tail aircraft is automatically eligible to be pursued in federal court and have the asset placed in protection of the USMS through a court order. These orders are proforma in cases where the judge sees the requisite evidence to make a case and the asset is mobile. This happens in both aircraft and boat civil disputes on a regular basis. There is an entire industry built around custodial contracts with the USMS.
This case is litigated in circuit court.
Unless he absconds with the aircraft accross state lines, I dont see how the feds would get involved in seizing this aircraft.
Last edited: