TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Yeah, I almost posted it, but it seemed more administrative than relevant to our interest in the case, so I didn't. But, here it is:
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Yeah, I almost posted it, but it seemed more administrative than relevant to our interest in the case, so I didn't. But, here it is:
I think the "generic" address on the filing information is to guarantee that any court correspondence goes through a defined process rather than just being dumped in some individual attorney's inbox. Law firms need to make sure that correspondence gets placed in the appropriate client file as well as maintaining an appearance calendar if the correspondence indicates that.
You'll notice the litcontrol@lowndes address as secondaries in Cirrus's attorney info.
You'll notice the litcontrol@lowndes address as secondaries in Cirrus's attorney info.
wanttaja
En-Route
Yes, good point. The weird thing is, Campbell's attorney's email address appears to have been changed back to the "lindelfarson.com" domain. Wonder if there had been a mistake at the clerk's office.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
Almost sounds like the activity is going to be a switch of lawyers...
That would be shocking and entirely unexpected.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
My guess is that it's related to this recent change in filing procedure in FL.
http://miamifrp.com/new-supreme-court-rules-re-service-documents-e-mail-service/
wanttaja
En-Route
Wow, the FL courts have leaped into the 21st century.
I bet a lot of law firms are working on moving their email service from 'joes crab-shack and website emporium' to companies that provide a auditable and certified secure email service.
I bet a lot of law firms are working on moving their email service from 'joes crab-shack and website emporium' to companies that provide a auditable and certified secure email service.
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
Because no single ISP can control email delivery, it doesn't really matter what requirements are placed on the receiving systems. Email delivery is a "best effort" system that no one is legally responsible for because it gets relayed from one privately owned entity to another, none of which provide any guarantees (except possibly to their own customers, and then only in regards to just their network equipment.) There isn't even any requirement that one ISP accept email from other systems. If email gets dropped enroute, tough. It is a federal crime to interfere with postal mail, but email is routinely and legally "interfered" with by a multitude of systems (e.g. spam filters that customers have no control over.)
A lot of private and government entities seem to treat email as somehow as having the same legal protections and reliability as postal mail. Dangerously stupid, IMHO.
Sorry for the thread drift.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Gotta keep the auditors in biz so the lawyers can bring more cases against the non-audited e-mail users.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
More filings - looks like this will drag on forever...
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce pltfs second to kindred spirit
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition james campbell 1/4/13 at 11.00 am
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition of corporate representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC on 1/4/13 at 2:00pm
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce pltfs second to kindred spirit
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition james campbell 1/4/13 at 11.00 am
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition of corporate representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC on 1/4/13 at 2:00pm
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
The reason they do so is that the benefits far outweigh the risks and nothing is fool-proof. The mail truck in our neighborhood was cleaned out by thieves at 1100 while parked at the curb two weeks ago. I couldn't think of anything that might have affected us, but by coincidence received a distribution from one of the real estate partnerships the next day.
wanttaja
En-Route
Campbell will probably be able to stretch it to at least the second anniversary. If he misses the deposition in January ("I had an emergency come up") it'll be another two months until the next date. If he ticks off his attorney again and the new one quits, he'll get another 120 days, easy (30 days to get a court hearing to approve departure, 90 days leeway to get a new one like last time).
I'll order the new filings tomorrow and post 'em.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Filings Attached. Note that the filings for Campbell and for KSA are almost identical (the only difference that I saw was the last item in the Requests for Production).
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Some new action today:
11/21/2012 Objection
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
11/21/2012 Objection
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
11/21/2012 Objection
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
11/21/2012 Objection
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I'll order these filings tomorrow afternoon (11/27), unless I hear someone else already has.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Sorry, got tied up today. Will order and post on Wednesday.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Ordered this morning. Still haven't arrived. Hopefully tomorrow.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Arrived earlier today:
wanttaja
En-Route
Thanks much. Curious about the wording of one of one of the responses to the Request for Production:
"3. Payments for the Aircraft were made, as contemplated by Campbell's agreement with Alan Klapmeier..."
"Contemplated" seems a curious word choice, from the language point of view. Is there a legal aspect to the term?
Ron Wanttaja
Well, I'm quoting myself, must have said something important :wink2:
Further up, I wondered about whether Cirrus forgave him part of the loan in exchange for his advertising work. In his recent response, he cites forms 1099C (cancellation of debt) issued by Cirrus for 2010. This would suggest that Cirrus at least at that time saw this as a barter deal and forgave him debt in exchange for advertising. This 1099C strengthens his argument that there was a quid pro quo deal, I doubt that Cirrus termination of the advertising arm of the deal in jan 11 means he can keep the plane for free.
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
I'm surprised defendant introduced a 1099C. That would indicate that a defendant owes a debt, some or all of which was canceled by the debtor.
A 1099C is not some kind of receipt for payment
A 1099C seems to support the plantief's claim that they are owed money by defendant.
A 1099C is not some kind of receipt for payment
A 1099C seems to support the plantief's claim that they are owed money by defendant.
steingar
Taxi to Parking
How does anyone ever sue anybody? We hear about our litigious society all the time, but by the time the court does anything we could all die of old age.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.
It also means that they acknowledge that there was a debt forgiveness for advertising deal, a fact that their original lawsuit filings didn't touch on.
Remember, he believes Cirrus owes him 700k for his slanted positive 'reporting' before he went ape#### crazy on them.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Lawyers charge by the hour, that's all you need to know to figure that mystery out. Incentives = behavior.
The 1099-C doesn't indicate any agreement at all. It just means they've given up trying to collect (at least part of) the debt. It doesn't mean they're waiving their right to the security.
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,065
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
At the time it was happening, I couldn't figure out why ANN published pages and pages of discordant rants about Sun 'N' Fun...after reading the NTSB hearing transcript and this 27 page thread it's all much clearer. It took a while, though.
I'm curious to see if Campbell's behavior in this action will escalate to the point the FAA considers action against his medical again.
I'm curious to see if Campbell's behavior in this action will escalate to the point the FAA considers action against his medical again.
wanttaja
En-Route
I doubt it will. The NTSB case was about Campbell's aviation employers complaining of his actions related to aviation while he was employed professionally. Forced landings after "engine failures," students complaining, pretending to be an airline pilot, etc.At the time it was happening, I couldn't figure out why ANN published pages and pages of discordant rants about Sun 'N' Fun...after reading the NTSB hearing transcript and this 27 page thread it's all much clearer. It took a while, though.
I'm curious to see if Campbell's behavior in this action will escalate to the point the FAA considers action against his medical again.
None of which applies, in this case. Campbell is involved in a financial dispute that does not involve aircraft operations, especially commercial aircraft operations. The FAA doesn't really have a reason to get involved, and, considering past history, will probably shy away from it, anyway.
They'll only get involved if there's an incident related to the aircraft itself or something else directly associated with flying.
Ron Wanttaja
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,065
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
Ron, do you know the outcome of the bankruptcy trustee's lawsuit against Campbell? It alleged some very serious misconduct, and reading the transcript of hearings with the trustee it was pretty obvious Campbell had indeed acted as detailed in the pleadings.
A common thread in his dealings with authorities is the incredible amount of obfuscation and hyperbole. I imagine after listening to his nonsense for a while the trustee had a barely controllable urge to find a 2 X 4 and whack him over the head...
A common thread in his dealings with authorities is the incredible amount of obfuscation and hyperbole. I imagine after listening to his nonsense for a while the trustee had a barely controllable urge to find a 2 X 4 and whack him over the head...
wanttaja
En-Route
A negotiated settlement was approved on 10 August 2000. As you can see from the attached, Campbell agreed to a settlement of about $25,000, paid in increments of $562 per month. The agreement stated that no judgement would be entered (in the fraud and perjury lawsuit), unless Campbell failed to make the monthly payments.
Curiously, the Trustee's Final Report shows the payments starting a year later (August 22, 2001) than the settlement date. This may merely reflect the change in trustees about that date.
Initially, the monthly payments were made. But a year later, he missed a month. When payments resumed, they were from the Aero News Net checking account.
After that, the missed payments started to mount. By mid-2003, they were made only every other month. He finally quit entirely in April 2005.
The Bankruptcy Trustee closed out the account in July 2006. Campbell had paid $18,561 of the $25,571 owed. The Trustee did not enter the judgement on the fraud and perjury suit, as she could have. Probably considered it too much of a hassle; the Trustee at that point wasn't the one who had been lied to in court and would therefore have less interest in re-opening the case.
No doubt, but what happens is that it makes officialdom *very* cautious. Campbell will typically claim violation of his First Amendment rights as a journalist. This is unfamilar ground for most bureaucrats and even the police, so they become very cautious in their actions. This works to Campbell's benefit.
Ron Wanttaja
Didn't work so well in Federal court where he was told to govern himself accordingly.
wanttaja
En-Route
Doesn't work on lawyers, period. Back in the early days of the RAH scrap, people would read the copyright notice on Campbell's threatening emails and would think it meant that they couldn't even TELL anyone about them. Then Tony Pucillo came along....
Ron Wanttaja
Papa Foxtrot
Pre-takeoff checklist
From what has been filed so far, they did not consider him in default during those years and did not start any collection or repossession action against him. Given that this deal reached back to 2009, the fact that they did not move against him in 2010 and willingly cancelled the payments due bolsters his case that a quid pro quo existed.
wanttaja
En-Route
The other interesting thing is the wording of Campbell/KSA's recent response to the second request for production:
"3. Payments for the Aircraft were made, as contemplated by Campbell's agreement with Alan Klapmeier...."
Curious that Campbell's response referred to an agreement with Klapmeier, rather than an agreement with Cirrus. Klapmeier *was* the CEO at the time*, but you'd think Campbell's emphasis would be to show that Cirrus still had the obligation. "Alan Klapmeier acting for Cirrus Aircraft," that sort of thing. Almost implies it was a personal agreement.
(* Klapmeier was CEO at the time any agreement was made, but a lame-duck one. He'd already been informed of his dismissal.)
Pity we don't have access to the exhibits mentioned in the response. These were apparently introduced during Klapmeier's deposition.
Ron Wanttaja
3393RP
En-Route
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2012
- Messages
- 4,065
- Display Name
Display name:
3393RP
I'm going to guess that since the negotiated amount was insignificant, the IRS didn't come after him for taxes on the allegedly converted assets which paid his personal bills, and for the personal gain on sale of the Mooney...the trustee claimed the value as several hundred thousand dollars.