Negative ANN article about Cirrus

[weilke]

The statute of limitations for contracts is five years in Florida. That means that if someone breaches the contract, you've only got five years to sue. After that, you've lost your chance.

So it's 5 years after the breach, not 5 years after the contract is inked.

Now it gets interesting. If Cirrus uses the stop of him praising them unconditionally last january as the point in time when the breach occured (which iirc what they claimed in the initial filing), they have to basically admit that the 'marketing agreement' was part of the deal. Once that agreement is 'in', he can start arguing about the monetary value of his drivel.

I am still somewhat incredulous how someone like Klapmeier who started out in the experimental kit business could not have been aware of JCs history when it comes to business deals and allowed himself to get roped into a poorly documented handshake agreement with him.

 

[jm0045]

If Cirrus uses the stop of him praising them unconditionally last january as the point in time when the breach occured (which iirc what they claimed in the initial filing), they have to basically admit that the 'marketing agreement' was part of the deal.

I guess a good question would be, Did Cirrus accept advertising in lieu payment up to January 1? If so, it might strengthen Campbell's claim that the two were related, but it certainly doesn't prove that there was any agreement that Cirrus was required to continue to advertise enough to cover the payments.

 

[weilke]

I guess a good question would be, Did Cirrus accept advertising in lieu payment up to January 1? If so, it might strengthen Campbell's claim that the two were related, but it certainly doesn't prove that there was any agreement that Cirrus was required to continue to advertise enough to cover the payments.

Yes. Cirrus did not include whatever agreement they had with him in their initial filing for the lawsuit, they just treated this as a plain vanilla aircraft financing transaction. In his response, he provided his own marketing proposal as proof of the contract he had with cirrus regarding the 'marketing blather in exchange for plane' deal. While the aircraft related paperwork does state that 'all amendments have to be in writing', if they in fact agreed to offset his payments for the plane with a monetary valuation of his blather, it would sure strengthen his case that he had a valid contract for the length of his plane ownership (contract = meeting of minds + exchange of consideration, doesn't require the written form outside of limited real estate situations).

 

[wanttaja]

The "answer" filed was in response to the complaint, not the request for admissions. The complaint was posted back in message #91 of this thread.

Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how they provided a response to the R for A so soon after requesting an extension due to their motion to withdraw. My apologies to Ms. Carter.

Interesting, looking at the Affirmative Defenses. Campbell accuses Cirrus of delaying the action ("Latches"), waiting too long to file (Statute of Limitations), and of forging Campbell's signature to the finance agreement.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

I guess a good question would be, Did Cirrus accept advertising in lieu payment up to January 1? If so, it might strengthen Campbell's claim that the two were related, but it certainly doesn't prove that there was any agreement that Cirrus was required to continue to advertise enough to cover the payments.

According to Cirrus' original complaint, the promissory note was dated 30 December 2008, and that Campbell failed to make the principal and interest payments starting about two years later (January 2011). No mention of a payment in kind or other sort of deal.

Of course, Campbell claims the Cirrus finance agreement is a forgery. The judge will have to decide whether a large company made up documents submitted to the court, or whether someone over-borrowed themselves into debt and is trying to weasel out of it.

I wonder which he sees more often?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

Interesting, looking at the Affirmative Defenses. Campbell accuses Cirrus of delaying the action ("Latches"), waiting too long to file (Statute of Limitations), and of forging Campbell's signature to the finance agreement.

Since his affirmative defense is that the signature is forged, I believe he must testify to that on the stand.

If this thing ever goes to trial, I may just head to Florida for the entertainment.

 

[weilke]

If this thing ever goes to trial, I may just head to Florida for the entertainment.

If history is an indicator of future behaviour he wont show up.

 

[wanttaja]

Since his affirmative defense is that the signature is forged, I believe he must testify to that on the stand.

Even more fun, remember that his current attorneys have requested to be allowed to withdraw from the case, and thus don't have to worry about what went into to his affirmative defense. Can you imagine their handover briefing to the new lawyer?

"You're claiming that Cirrus waited too long to sue [8 months], that there's an verbal agreement with a third party [ANN] that means they gave the $400,000 plane to him for free in exchange for web ads, and...what else... Oh, yeah, that the plaintiff forged your client's signature on the only physical documentation. Good luck! Oh, by the way, your client is a [XXXXX] that we couldn't work with."

Cases like this actually make me respect attorneys more. Sure, the new attorney will get a big retainer in advance, but you have to respect how much he or she will have to work for it.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Since his affirmative defense is that the signature is forged, I believe he must testify to that on the stand.

If this thing ever goes to trial, I may just head to Florida for the entertainment.

The trial would probably also offer employment to a host of handwriting analysts, too. It struck me that I probably had other examples of Campbell's signature in my files, and sure 'nuff...I found two more examples, both from public records. I compared them to the alleged forgery on the Cirrus paperwork...

And NONE of them really resembled any other. Based on any one signature, an expert could probably convince me the other two were both forgeries. I saw similarities among all three, too, but I am not a handwriting expert. I doubt three examples are a large enough baseline.

It also occurred to me that Cirrus should have the evidence whether both sides believed an advertising-for-airplane deal was in place. Cirrus' complaint said that Campbell made the principal and interest payments for the first two years of the loan.

*How* he made those payments is key. If he sent a check in, or performed an electronic transfer from his bank account, Cirrus should have records.

And if they do...then it shows that Campbell did not act as if an advertising-for-airplane deal was in place.

If Cirrus' records show that Campbell's payments were made by Cirrus' own marketing department, then Campbell would have a stronger case.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

The trial would probably also offer employment to a host of handwriting analysts, too.

True, but Campbell is the only one who really needs one. A lay witness can testify to the authenticity of a signature. (One of five 'opinions' a non-expert can give - Speed, Signature, Sobriety, Sanity and Something else starting with an "s").

If Zoom claims the papers are forged, how does he explain his possession of the aircraft? Did Cirrus give him the plane, and later decide to falsify a note to obtain payment?

I don't think the forged signature claim will hold up to cross examination.

Cirrus' complaint said that Campbell made the principal and interest payments for the first two years of the loan.

Actually, the complaint never states that payments were made. It claims "14. KSA failed to make principal and interest payments that were due from January 2011 through July 2011"


I think the proper procedure would be for KSA to implead ANN under the theory that ANN assumed liability for the payments, and ANN can set up a counter-claim against Cirrus for money owed under the invisible agreement.

 

[weilke]

If Zoom claims the papers are forged, how does he explain his possession of the aircraft?

And how does he explain that there is a lien on it and he didn't challenge that 'clearly fraudulent' lien over the course of two years that he had knowledge of it being there ?

I don't think the forged signature claim will hold up to cross examination.

I wonder whether that was the cause for the breakup with his attorneys.


[artistic representation of hypothetical conversation ]
Attorney: Mr company president , you are about to perjure yourself if you go on the stand and claim that these documents are fraudulent.
company president: But its not fair and a conspiracy by the chinese.
Attorney: I am sorry, I wont be able to represent you in this matter if you plan to go on the stand and perjure yourself. My petition to withdraw my appearance will be in with the court tomorrow.
[/artistic representation of hypothetical conversation]

Actually, the complaint never states that payments were made. It claims "14. KSA failed to make principal and interest payments that were due from January 2011 through July 2011"

So it is possible that they will say that he never made any payments under the note but that for the purpose of the suit they limited their claim to the last 6 months.

If they forgave him the substantial amount of money owed during the first two years, there would have to be accounting records for that time period to support that (and 1099s issued to KSA for that time period). You can't just make debts disappear in a company.

I think the proper procedure would be for KSA to implead ANN under the theory that ANN assumed liability for the payments, and ANN can set up a counter-claim against Cirrus for money owed under the invisible agreement.

Lol.

That wouldn't change KSAs obligation to return the plane to Cirrus, right ?

 

[TangoWhiskey]

A couple of new documents today...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

And through accident, omission or otherwise, they forgot to answer question 20 on KSA's reply.

 

[weilke]

A couple of new documents today...

He is denying items that are matters of public record, e.g. the fact that he is the manager of KSA

Remarkable that he admits that he exists.

I was looking something up today and got redirected to his website which promply bought me a W32.Trojan virus on my laptop .

 

[kyleb]

Is Campbell's strategy just to drag this out for as long as possible, costing Cirrus time and money? Presumably, using the money from the "ANN Legal Defense Fund" to pay his legal bills?

I look forward to the day when he gets to answer the questions under oath and in front of a judge.

 

[wanttaja]

Is Campbell's strategy just to drag this out for as long as possible, costing Cirrus time and money? .

I think it's a bit deeper than that. Let me explain a theory of mine. Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, or any sort of mental health professional.

Every time Campbell blows up, I seem to get emails from former employees and associates (somehow my name seems to come up when folks search Google about Zoom....).

Anyway, I got email a couple of months back from an ex-employee. Didn't get a lot of specific insight (ex-employees are VERY nervous about their emails getting back to Campbell), but I did pose one question: There was one school of thought that believed Campbell was still suffering from the lack of impulse control discussed during the NTSB hearing thirty years ago. The thought was that he would make these wild accusations publicly (such as accusing Cirrus of Terrorism) while really wound up, realize the next day that he'd gone too far, but his ego wouldn't let him retract the accusation.

I asked the ex-employee about that. Did Campbell ever act worried, or regretful after having some time to think about what he'd written?

The answer: Absolutely not. Once he made the accusation, it was totally true, in Campbell's eyes, and nothing could persuade him otherwise.

Think about it. This means that Campbell absolutely believes Cirrus forged his signature. That they agreed to trade the airplane for ANN advertising.

And that Cirrus was engaging in terrorism against him.

Reflect on that a moment.

Now...ignoring the validity of his beliefs, imagine it's you. Most of us have had situations where someone has accused of not paying for something when we know we had. Tends to get most of us a bit riled. If someone took one of our possessions on such a false claim, we *might* be tempted to steal it back. If they sued you over it, by God, you'd fight it to the end, in court.

The difference is, most of us would base these actions on sound evidence. We'd have canceled checks or bank records. We'd hunt around for the right attorneys, and seriously consider their advice.

Campbell apparently has none of that. But he has convinced himself that Cirrus had a valid contract for advertising with him, and he is going to act on that belief no matter what his lawyers tell him. Cirrus owes him. And he'll fight it to the end.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

Is Campbell's strategy just to drag this out for as long as possible, costing Cirrus time and money? Presumably, using the money from the "ANN Legal Defense Fund" to pay his legal bills?

I look forward to the day when he gets to answer the questions under oath and in front of a judge.

My understanding of a "Request for Admissions" is that it is intended to keep down the cost of litigation. You get to have your opponent "admit" to certain facts, so you don't have to spend the money to prove them. The good part is that if you force your opponent to prove something that you denied, you bear the cost of that proof.

So whatever costs Cirrus incurs proving that Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Aircraft Security Agreement will be added to whatever Campbell is found liable for (assuming the court finds for Cirrus and finds that Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of the Aircraft Security Agreement).

 

[wanttaja]

I look forward to the day when he gets to answer the questions under oath and in front of a judge.

A "Motion to Appear Telephonically" just showed up in the docket. As both the defense and plaintiff have two lawyers, I suspect Mr. Campbell doesn't want to appear in person.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[TangoWhiskey]

A "Motion to Appear Telephonically" just showed up in the docket. As both the defense and plaintiff have two lawyers, I suspect Mr. Campbell doesn't want to appear in person.

Ron Wanttaja

Actually, it was Cirrus that wants to appear telephonically at the hearing. See attached.

 

[flyingron]

Actually, it was Cirrus that wants to appear telephonically at the hearing. See attached.

And the only matter at that hearing appears to be Campbell's attorney requesting to run for the hills.

 

[wanttaja]

Actually, it was Cirrus that wants to appear telephonically at the hearing. See attached.

Ah, thank you. Should have checked, but in his last case, Campbell made all of the final court appearances by phone (until he didn't call in at the last date). Jumped to conclusions.

Does anyone know...do we get transcripts from the hearing the same way to request other docket items?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[jm0045]

In Campbell's affirmative defense he claims he should be given credit offsets for payments made by non-parties (presumably ANN for advertising provided). Yet the Loan Guaranty (Cirrus Exhibit D) specifically states that no offsets are allowed. (See attached.)

(Recognizing, of course, that the document is an obvious fake. :wink2: )

 

[Steve Foley]

Does anyone know...do we get transcripts from the hearing the same way to request other docket items?

According to this site, they don't automatically generate transcripts.

http://www.firstjudicialcircuit.org/programs-and-services/court-reporting

Transcripts are not automatically produced. They are produced when (1) ordered by a judge, (2) upon written request by an attorney, or (3) upon written request by any interested party (forms available upon request) and when financial arrangements have been made for payment of the transcript.

The cost of a transcript is based on the number of pages at the rate of $4.25 per page. The number of pages depends upon the length of the proceeding held. (A close estimate of pages can be calculated at nearly one page per minute of a proceeding; for example, 1 hour will yield approximately 60 pages.)

 

[weilke]

According to this site, they don't automatically generate transcripts.

http://www.firstjudicialcircuit.org/programs-and-services/court-reporting

In Maryland they record all proceedings into a database and you can order a copy of the soundtrack on CD for relatively little money.

 

[wanttaja]

According to this site, they don't automatically generate transcripts.

That's too bad. I guess I got spoiled by Tony, getting the transcripts for anything involving Campbell. Got pretty entertaining. For instance, during a bankrupcy hearing in 1998, Campbell compared himself to Chuck Yeager... with Chuck coming out second.

This next meeing ought to be interesting, even if it is just a hearing on the attorneys' motion to withdraw. Might be a tad more information "live", beyond the "irreconcilable differences."

When I was digging through my files looking for those signature samples to compare, I found the motion to withdraw filed by Campbell's bankruptcy attorney in 2000. It also cites "irreconcilable differences," but does provide some more background:

"6. There are substantial outstanding fees due the undersigned for prior representation.
"7. The Undersigned has withdrawn from the general case by order of this court entered March 5, 1998.
"8. Defendant, James R. Campbell, has threatened the undersigned with a grievance to the Florida Bar, if Movant does not agree to continued representation...."

In this case, "irreconcilable differences" apparently refers to threats.

I presume (due to its 10:45 starting time) that the hearing next week is only scheduled for fifteen minutes. Getting the transcript will cost less than a tank of Fly Baby gas... I'll check into it.


Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

In Campbell's affirmative defense he claims he should be given credit offsets for payments made by non-parties (presumably ANN for advertising provided). Yet the Loan Guaranty (Cirrus Exhibit D) specifically states that no offsets are allowed. (See attached.)

(Recognizing, of course, that the document is an obvious fake. :wink2: )

Exhibit B, the Aircraft Security Agreement, also states that there are no other agreements, which Campbell contradicts by claiming that there was an advertising-for-airplane deal.

Idiotic as it may seem, after the judge threw out the marketing proposal submitted as a contract, claiming forgery is Campbell's ONLY defense.

Which brings up a question I've had: Where is the burden of proof, here? Does Cirrus have to prove that the signatures are real, or does Campbell have to prove that they're forgeries?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

Idiotic as it may seem, after the judge threw out the marketing proposal submitted as a contract, claiming forgery is Campbell's ONLY defense.

I still think that Kindred and Campbell should implead ANN, as ANN should indemnify them because ANN agreed to make the payments on their behalf.

Which brings up a question I've had: Where is the burden of proof, here? Does Cirrus have to prove that the signatures are real, or does Campbell have to prove that they're forgeries?

The burden of proof is on Cirrus to prove, more likely than not, that the defendants owe the money, and to prove how much they owe. One thing they will have to prove to a jury is that the signature belongs to Campbell. Campbell is claiming it's a forgery. Whoever the jury believes will prevail. Cirrus can claim the signature is authentic, and since you are familiar with Campbell's signature, they could call you to testify that it appears, to you, to be his signature.

On the other side, Campbell can bring in all of his employees, who are probably all familiar with his signature, to claim that it is not his signature. Both sides can bring in expert witnesses to testify that the signature is/is not authentic.

The question is will a jury believe that Campbell got the use of the plane, but that Cirrus never got a signature from him, so they decided to fake one?

 

[weilke]

One thing they will have to prove to a jury is that the signature belongs to Campbell. Campbell is claiming it's a forgery. Whoever the jury believes will prevail.

It would probably make little difference if the documents didn't carry any signature at all.

What illustrates the best that both parties had a contract is the fact that both parties acted as if they had exactly the contract that is described on the piece of paper. Cirrus gave Campbell a plane and Campbell allowed Cirrus to put a lien for a set amount of money on the plane.

 

[gprellwitz]

On the other side, Campbell can bring in all of his employees, who are probably all familiar with his signature, to claim that it is not his signature. Both sides can bring in expert witnesses to testify that the signature is/is not authentic.

It would be interesting to get Paul Plack's view on this, but, if he's smart, he'll stay WAY AWAY from this thread!

 

[Jim Logajan]

It would probably make little difference if the documents didn't carry any signature at all.

What illustrates the best that both parties had a contract is the fact that both parties acted as if they had exactly the contract that is described on the piece of paper. Cirrus gave Campbell a plane and Campbell allowed Cirrus to put a lien for a set amount of money on the plane.

My understanding is the same as yours, since something as simple as an X is a valid signature. Absent uncontested written documents, then what generally matters in a dispute like this is how the parties acted.

 

[wanttaja]

Cirrus can claim the signature is authentic, and since you are familiar with Campbell's signature, they could call you to testify that it appears, to you, to be his signature.

Better have a cardiac card ready for Mr. Campbell when he hears THAT news...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

My understanding is the same as yours, since something as simple as an X is a valid signature. Absent uncontested written documents, then what generally matters in a dispute like this is how the parties acted.

So it looks like the key point is if Campbell *ever* made a payment on the airplane. If he did, that's an acknowledgement that an agreement similar to that of the contested documents existed, and that Cirrus is within its rights to demand return of the aircraft.

Cirrus' lawsuit says he didn't make a payment after January 2011, but as Steve pointed out, it doesn't say he DID make a payment prior to that.

Still, should be records.

Wonder if Cirrus will subpoena Campbell's tax records to see if he listed the aircraft as income? If it was traded for advertising, like Campbell says, it should have been so listed. Be interesting to see if they ask him during a deposition.

I *really* don't envy Campbell's new lawyer, when and if he or she shows up or doesn't show up.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

Wonder if Cirrus will subpoena Campbell's tax records to see if he listed the aircraft as income? If it was traded for advertising, like Campbell says, it should have been so listed. Be interesting to see if they ask him during a deposition.

Isn't it ANN who would have to show the barter 1099 as they were the ones bartering the service ? If campbell wants ANN to be in, he opens himself up to the records of the financial relationships between KSA and ANN to be dragged out into the open.

Klapmeier really created a mess when he agreed to this deal. Now, 350k is small potatoes in a company the size of cirrus, makes you wonder how many other handshake deals from his era the company is trying to disentangle at this point.

 

[bbchien]

It just goes to show that when one has a borderline personality disorder, it's quite a handicap when working in aviation.

 

[steingar]

It just goes to show that when one has a borderline personality disorder, it's quite a handicap when working in aviation.

If you say so. Sounds from what everyone is saying like this guy has been kicking around for quite some time.

 

[weilke]

If you say so. Sounds from what everyone is saying like this guy has been kicking around for quite some time.

I would argue that his aviation career has not been successful at all.

On the publication side, he failed miserably when he ran a brick+mortar magazine and is doing soso with his dinky website.

 

[steingar]

I would argue that his aviation career has not been successful at all.

On the publication side, he failed miserably when he ran a brick+mortar magazine and is doing soso with his dinky website.

He's been at it how long? How long does one have to pursue an activity that keeps one in house and home before we call them a failure?

I have a brother who has never had a straight job. But he has been independent, housed, clothed and fed for decades. He may not be rich, but I hesitate at calling him a "failure".

 

[flyingron]

Well he's good at convincing people he's successful. It allowed people to think he was a doctor, test pilot, instructor pilot for JAL, etc...

Of course, he's managed also to cause another persons ultralight to crashb by grabbing the wing in an unwanted and unneeded attempt at something. Fortunately this shennanigan ended up not injuring the pilot (but it did break Zooms nose and jaw).

 

[jm0045]

He's been at it how long? How long does one have to pursue an activity that keeps one in house and home before we call them a failure?

If his aim is just to keep a roof over his head then I guess you could say he's been successful, but by that standard a thief is a success too, for as long as he eludes the law.

However, if by success you mean achieving one's goals, I don't think Campbell's goal was to be viewed as a clown.

 

[jm0045]

Klapmeier really created a mess when he agreed to this deal.

I think whether there was a deal, other than in Campbell's mind, is still an open question.