Negative ANN article about Cirrus

[flightwriter]

Well, I think I got close: Cirrus and Campbell have apparently agreed on a settlement:

04/08/2013 Response (Generic) to Defendants Notice Of Settlement & Motion For Enforcement Of Settlement Agmt
04/09/2013 Notice (Generic) 2nd Notice (Generic) Defendants' Not. of Setlmnt., Mot. for Enforce.of Setlmnt., Cancel. of Trial
04/09/2013 Notice of Hearing 2nd Notice of Hearing Defendants' 2nd Amended Notice of Hearing

From my layman's biased point of view, Campbell's attorney had a weak argument against the admission of the NTSB data. Campbell, during his deposition, accused Cirrus of extortion...likely, there'd been an offer already on the table. Facing the probability he'd be forced to testify about the NTSB case, Campbell may have decided to settle.

This may also explain the postponement of the hearing.

I'll order the filings, but I suspect they'll be a bit lacking in details.

Ron Wanttaja

The scenario you laid out is very likely, though the NTSB case isn't exactly a secret. It is certainly known of throughout the industry, and while his detractors bring it up regularly it apparently hasn't caused significant damage among his sponsor base. One wonders why Zoom would be so concerned about it being discussed here.

 

[weilke]

One wonders why Zoom would be so concerned about it being discussed here.

Why ? Because being a court declared pathologic liar would not have worked in front of a jury. While his history is well known in aviation (well, except to Klapmeier evidently), the somewhat random member of the pupblic in Green Cove springs who would sit on the jury for this case probably never heard of it. If your defense is 'they faked my signature on the documents' and the plaintiff has witnesses who saw you sign them, the defendants believability is quite important. He absolutely had to shut down every mention of the NTSB decision.

 

[jm0045]

Why ? Because being a court declared pathologic liar would not have worked in front of a jury. While his history is well known in aviation (well, except to Klapmeier evidently), the somewhat random member of the pupblic in Green Cove springs who would sit on the jury for this case probably never heard of it. If your defense is 'they faked my signature on the documents' and the plaintiff has witnesses who saw you sign them, the defendants believability is quite important. He absolutely had to shut down every mention of the NTSB decision.

Was this going to be a jury trial? I think I recall it was going to be before a judge only.

 

[wanttaja]

Why ? Because being a court declared pathologic liar would not have worked in front of a jury. While his history is well known in aviation (well, except to Klapmeier evidently), the somewhat random member of the public in Green Cove springs who would sit on the jury for this case probably never heard of it. If your defense is 'they faked my signature on the documents' and the plaintiff has witnesses who saw you sign them, the defendants believability is quite important. He absolutely had to shut down every mention of the NTSB decision.

You're 99% correct (OldTimer is right, it was going to be a judge-only trial), but I'm suspecting there's more to it than that.

In all honesty, consider: If *you* were involved in a trial, and had something like this in your past, you'd fight against its admissibility, too.

But when it was inevitable that you'd have to answer questions about it, you'd set your jaw and try to paint the best picture you could. Yes, the FAA said I had these psychological conditions. No, I didn't agree. Yes, I received treatment (see the NTSB transcript). No, the FAA hasn't had an issue with me in the ~27 years since I regained my medical.

You *could* just brush it off, minimize it. Frankly, I was surprised Cirrus used it, since it was so far in the past. Use your deposition time to undercut the assertion that the diagnosis applies to you, today.

But I think Campbell is now incapable of rational decisions about it. He would have known Cirrus was going to bring it up. Here's samples of his carefully-prepared responses:

"Go to hell."

"Cirrus officials have been attempting to blackmail me with that information..."

"I'm calling the FBI and have you charged with extortion..."

"Where...where is my Miranda?"

"I will not answer questions about my medical background."

"They have tried to threaten me..."

Note that these quotes aren't taken from Cirrus' court submissions: They're in what CAMPBELL submitted to the judge, in requesting that the NTSB material not be included.

Campbell was able to rationally try to explain it away during the first Sun-N-Fun case. But he has apparently lost the ability.

I agree it would have harmed his case, considerably. But I think his response to even being ASKED about it would have told the judge even more.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

But when it was inevitable that you'd have to answer questions about it, you'd set your jaw and try to paint the best picture you could. Yes, the FAA said I had these psychological conditions. No, I didn't agree. Yes, I received treatment (see the NTSB transcript). No, the FAA hasn't had an issue with me in the ~27 years since I regained my medical.

This would not have had any more influence on the current case than a 'nolo contendere' on a drug or prostitution charge from 30 years ago. 'Yes I had a pretty crazy period in my life that I am not proud of, but now lets talk about that aircraft.' would have probably worked better than 'go to hell'

 

[wanttaja]

In all honesty, consider: If *you* were involved in a trial, and had something like this in your past, you'd fight against its admissibility, too.

The other aspect is that Campbell couldn't *afford* to have a judge rule whether the NTSB issues are relevant to a trial 30 years later. If the judge's ruling went the wrong way, it would establish that it's still admissible. Opposing counsel on any later cases could then easily add it. By settling before the judge ruled on it, any future cases have to repeat the entire process.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

This would not have had any more influence on the current case than a 'nolo contendere' on a drug or prostitution charge from 30 years ago. 'Yes I had a pretty crazy period in my life that I am not proud of, but now lets talk about that aircraft.' would have probably worked better than 'go to hell'

I looked at the SnF transcript again. Campbell actually handled this issue quite well, there:

Q. Mr. Campbell, do you recall an administrative law proceeding before the National Transportation and Safety Board held on Tuesday, November 18, 1980, before the Honorable Joyce Capps, an Administrative Law Judge?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present at that time?

A. Yes.

Q. Were you present when Judge Capps permitted the testimony of two psychiatrists who had evaluated you?

A. Actually, sir, that's untrue.

Q. All right, sir, then correct me, please.

A. One psychiatrist for the FAA had evaluated me, one read his report. Five of ours said there was nothing wrong. I wouldn't say nothing wrong, but nothing medically objectionable.

Q. Do you recall --

A. I think the major phrase was I needed to grow up a little, and I'm not going to argue with that at that time.

So how did Campbell get from this to "Go to Hell", "I'm calling the FBI and have you charged with extortion", and claims that the NTSB case somehow violated his Miranda rights? Not to mention a complete and utter refusal to discuss the case....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

So how did Campbell get from this to "Go to Hell", "I'm calling the FBI and have you charged with extortion", and claims that the NTSB case somehow violated his Miranda rights? Not to mention a complete and utter refusal to discuss the case....

Maybe a remitting relapsing course of his medical issue ?

 

[flyingron]

That transcript also has this pearl that I spit coke all over my monitor when I read:

THE COURT: He asks the questions, you give an answer. Do not editorialize, do not characterize.

THE WITNESS: Oops. It's my job. Sorry, sir.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but you're in a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.
​

 

[agedwingless]

Based partly on Zoom's reluctance to talk about the NTSB record of his craziness, I think it's possible that Mercer took the current case without knowing the history. About now Mercer would have been demanding some real money from Zoom before attending trial. This late in the game, and considering that the NTSB findings were mentioned in the current filings, Zoom's chances of hiring lawyer #5? were about zero. Hence, settlement. Soon to be described on Aero News as total victory.

 

[flightwriter]

Soon to be described on Aero News as total victory.

Right up until the question, "So... where's your airplane?"

 

[jm0045]

Right up until the question, "So... where's your airplane?"

My airplane!? I wouldn't own an airplane produced by a Communist owned company! I gave it back and told them where they could put it.

 

[wanttaja]

Got the word on the settlement agreement, will post it tonight (dunno how to access files for attachment on my smart phone). Agreement is solely for return of the aircraft; both parties are responsible for their legal costs. Keys were turned over last week.

However, there's a bit of a hangup over the exact terms. It was worked out in a short time after the depositions on Thursday, and there's now some disagreement as to what was actually agreed to. Cirrus is threatening to continue with the trial date.

There's also continued rancor between the attorneys involved, with an even higher level exchange of compliments. Never seen the F-word in a legal document before, nor a lawyer's comparison of another with an common bodily orifice. Tune in again tonight...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wabower]

You're right, they normally try to omit any public reference to the Fee.

Got the word on the settlement agreement, will post it tonight (dunno how to access files for attachment on my smart phone). Agreement is solely for return of the aircraft; both parties are responsible for their legal costs. Keys were turned over last week.

However, there's a bit of a hangup over the exact terms. It was worked out in a short time after the depositions on Thursday, and there's now some disagreement as to what was actually agreed to. Cirrus is threatening to continue with the trial date.

There's also continued rancor between the attorneys involved, with an even higher level exchange of compliments. Never seen the F-word in a legal document before, nor a lawyer's comparison of another with an common bodily orifice. Tune in again tonight...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[steingar]

Can't imagine a used Cirrus being worth as much as those lawyers must be charging.

 

[weilke]

There's also continued rancor between the attorneys involved, with an even higher level exchange of compliments. Never seen the F-word in a legal document before, nor a lawyer's comparison of another with an common bodily orifice. Tune in again tonight...

I think the sentiment is common, it is just rare that it makes it into a transcript.

I wonder if the settlement includes all counterclaims from his supposed marketing agreement.

 

[wanttaja]

I wonder if the settlement includes all counterclaims from his supposed marketing agreement.

Good call. You'll notice that Cirrus claims that, as part of the settlement, Campbell was to waive all future claims by ANN on Cirrus. This has not been done at the time of the filing. Also, Campbell has supposedly refused to sign off on Kindred's interest in the aircraft for the bill of sale.

Attached filings have the details, as well as quotes of the pleasantries exchanged between counsel.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Hence, settlement. Soon to be described on Aero News as total victory.

Right up until the question, "So... where's your airplane?"

Rob, Rob, Rob. You're the person here with the most-recent experience with him. It's been 25 years since I wrote for him, and *I* know how he'll probably spin it:

"We have been troubled for years by the quality and safety issues regarding Cirrus aircraft, and have taken the opportunity to turn ours back to the company. We recommend other owners do that same. At least we're not selling it to an unsuspecting private buyer...our conscience is clear."

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flightwriter]

Rob, Rob, Rob. You're the person here with the most-recent experience with him. It's been 25 years since I wrote for him, and *I* know how he'll probably spin it:

"We have been troubled for years by the quality and safety issues regarding Cirrus aircraft, and have taken the opportunity to turn ours back to the company. We recommend other owners do that same. At least we're not selling it to an unsuspecting private buyer...our conscience is clear."

Ron Wanttaja

LOL, touche!

 

[TangoWhiskey]

"Cirrus will...pick up and take possession of the aircraft at its current location in its current condition at Cirrus' expense..."

That's a mighty big loophole I'm surprised wasn't reworded by Johnson or King or Klapmeier. Sure hope Campbell didn't pay a visit to the hangar on April 5th with a chainsaw before turning over the keys and logbook.

 

[weilke]

Good call. You'll notice that Cirrus claims that, as part of the settlement, Campbell was to waive all future claims by ANN on Cirrus. This has not been done at the time of the filing. Also, Campbell has supposedly refused to sign off on Kindred's interest in the aircraft for the bill of sale.

That'll all shake itself out.

The dogs bark but the caravan moves on.

Attached filings have the details, as well as quotes of the pleasantries exchanged between counsel.

I have tears running down my cheeks, the secretary just checked on me, probably wondering about the hysterical laughter from my office:

 

[wabower]

At this point do you really think they care?

"Cirrus will...pick up and take possession of the aircraft at its current location in its current condition at Cirrus' expense..."

That's a mighty big loophole I'm surprised wasn't reworded by Johnson or King or Klapmeier. Sure hope Campbell didn't pay a visit to the hangar on April 5th with a chainsaw before turning over the keys and logbook.

 

[wanttaja]

"Cirrus will...pick up and take possession of the aircraft at its current location in its current condition at Cirrus' expense..."

That's a mighty big loophole I'm surprised wasn't reworded by Johnson or King or Klapmeier. Sure hope Campbell didn't pay a visit to the hangar on April 5th with a chainsaw before turning over the keys and logbook.

I suspect that, if he had, Cirrus' most-recent filing would have mentioned it. I can certainly see the logic in the language, Campbell's attorney wouldn't want them to be liable because the airplane was out of annual or other minor issues. Beyond ordinary wear and tear would have easily been grounds for claiming bad faith on behalf of Campbell. I'd expect the judge would not look fondly on such an event.

By the way, I should mention the contents of some of the other paperwork filed recently. On the 8th, Campbell filed a Notice of Hearing Settlement, stating that the judge would be asked to rule on the Settlement at the 9 April hearing, rather than on the various other motions.

However, PRIOR to that was the Cirrus motion re-scheduling the hearing to the 25th. Cirrus' notice of re-scheduling was filed at 1:43 on the afternoon of the 8th, while Campbell's notice was filed at 9:01 on the morning of the 9th...just 90 minutes before the hearing was originally going to take place.

Cirrus' notice states that the purpose of the re-scheduled hearing is the same as previous: Getting rulings on the issues regarding admissibility of the NTSB case, Campbell's motion for a protective order, Cirrus' motion to compel Campbell is provide discovery, etc.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

"Cirrus will...pick up and take possession of the aircraft at its current location in its current condition at Cirrus' expense..."

That's a mighty big loophole I'm surprised wasn't reworded by Johnson or King or Klapmeier. Sure hope Campbell didn't pay a visit to the hangar on April 5th with a chainsaw before turning over the keys and logbook.

As long as this litigation has been dragging on, the plane is out of annual and things like timed-out backup batteries and maybe a flat tire have occured. This language is there to make clear that Campbell is not responsible for getting the plane airworthy or ferryable. Looking at the transcript of the verbal settlement, finding the plane chainsawed would go pretty close to contempt of court.

 

[Sam D]

Ron -- as it looks like this matter is coming to a close, I want to be the first to thank you for continuing to update this thread. It was always a little bit like Christmas when "negative Ann article about cirrus" would show up under recent threads. Great entertainment. Thank you (and all the others who joined in the discussion).

Sam

 

[PW_Plack]

...Cirrus' notice states that the purpose of the re-scheduled hearing is the same as previous: Getting rulings on the issues regarding admissibility of the NTSB case, Campbell's motion for a protective order, Cirrus' motion to compel Campbell is provide discovery, etc...

This doesn't sound "over" quite yet.

...MR. JOHNSON: I mean, it's a walk away. There is nondisparagement provisions or anything like that......

I'm guessing he actually said "there is NO nondisparagement provisions." If there was such a clause, it would have been interesting to see how the matter was treated by ANN. It's hard to imagine there won't be plenty of disparagement ahead, especially after the rant on Airborne's "Barnstorming" commentary in which Zoom emphasized, "we don't quit."

 

[agedwingless]

In my previous post I forgot to thank all participants (especially Ron W.) for this galactically hilarious and informative thread. At the risk of sounding greedy I hope that Zoom uses every cockamamie trick he can think of to extend his agony.

I would also like to note that the later portions of the thread might have inspired readers to make some mocking comments on the contact page of Mercer's web site. Not that I would ever do such a thing.

I am more convinced than ever that Mercer hadn't read the NTSB findings before taking on Zoom as a client. Therefore the next time I see a Smoking Gun news item about somebody getting fooled by a transvestite, I'll be checking for Mercer's name.

 

[wanttaja]

In my previous post I forgot to thank all participants (especially Ron W.) for this galactically hilarious and informative thread. At the risk of sounding greedy I hope that Zoom uses every cockamamie trick he can think of to extend his agony.

The problem, of course, is that every Zoom squirm runs Cirrus' legal bill higher. And regardless of any award of legal fees if this case runs to trial, I doubt Campbell will end up paying them. *If* they settle this month (and there seems to be some doubt), Cirrus probably will end up saving $50,000 or so.

*If* the sides refuse to agree on the settlement, I expect Cirrus will really go for broke.

I would also like to note that the later portions of the thread might have inspired readers to make some mocking comments on the contact page of Mercer's web site. Not that I would ever do such a thing.

And folks really shouldn't. Mr. Mercer is an attorney, and as such, it's his job to provide the best representation he can. I really think he's done what he was supposed to. If the current settlement holds, he's probably saved his client hundreds of thousands of dollars in liabilities. He's not a Renfield, he's a hired advocate. There's a difference.

Besides, 90% of the entertainment value of this case has occurred since he came on board....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[steingar]

Are all such cases so full of histrionics? It is a pretty normal thing for lawyers to represent parties who don't see eye to eye. You would think they could do their thing without all the expletives and drama.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Ron -- as it looks like this matter is coming to a close, I want to be the first to thank you for continuing to update this thread. It was always a little bit like Christmas when "negative Ann article about cirrus" would show up under recent threads. Great entertainment. Thank you (and all the others who joined in the discussion).

Sam

Hear, hear. Or is it "here, here"?

 

[weilke]

Are all such cases so full of histrionics? It is a pretty normal thing for lawyers to represent parties who don't see eye to eye. You would think they could do their thing without all the expletives and drama.

No. Most are taken care of with one or two depositions, some exchange of paperwork and a settlement conference. But then, most defendants are rational and have an interest to see litigation to a conclusion in the shortest possible time and at the lowest cost.

 

[wanttaja]

By the way, I should mention the contents of some of the other paperwork filed recently...

Oh, man. I missed the delicious irony in Cirrus' latest filing.

It's attached. Cirrus is asking for signed, NOTARIZED statements that release Cirrus, Campbell, Kindred, ANN, and any other "Campbell Entities" from any obligations.

Campbell is claiming that the verbal agreement of last week is sufficient.

Why does this sound familiar....?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

I guess they're not done playing:

04/17/2013 Notice of HearingDefendants' Notice of Evidentiary Hearing

04/17/2013 Response (Generic)(Supplemental) of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion For Enforcement of Settlement

04/17/2013 Exhibits Filed into Evidenceas to Supp. Response of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion for Enforcement

04/17/2013 Motion (Generic)for Entry of Order Compelling Defendants Performance Under Settlement Agreement

04/17/2013 Motion to compelExhibits to Motion for Entry of Order Compelling Performance under Settlement Agree

 

[wanttaja]

I guess they're not done playing:

04/17/2013 Notice of HearingDefendants' Notice of Evidentiary Hearing

04/17/2013 Response (Generic)(Supplemental) of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion For Enforcement of Settlement

04/17/2013 Exhibits Filed into Evidenceas to Supp. Response of Plaintiff to Defendants Motion for Enforcement

04/17/2013 Motion (Generic)for Entry of Order Compelling Defendants Performance Under Settlement Agreement

04/17/2013 Motion to compelExhibits to Motion for Entry of Order Compelling Performance under Settlement Agree

Geeze Louise. You have to wonder how much of this is true legal issues vs. the apparent antagonism of the two lawyers. Another possibility: Campbell took a big ego hit in agreeing to give back the airplane, and he may be refusing to "play" anymore (eg, sign additional papers).

Gonna have to start buying popcorn by the truckload....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

Geeze Louise. You have to wonder how much of this is true legal issues vs. the apparent antagonism of the two lawyers. Another possibility: Campbell took a big ego hit in agreeing to give back the airplane, and he may be refusing to "play" anymore (eg, sign additional papers).

Gonna have to start buying popcorn by the truckload....

Ron Wanttaja

Based on the comments at the deposition, I got the impression that Campbell's attorney was drinking Campbell's Kool-Aid and fallen hook, line, and sinker into Campbell's delusional world.

Cirrus' lawyer is simply trying to save him.

 

[livitup]

I don't get it... The release that they're asking Campbell to sign would seem to be a GOOD thing for him... in fact, I'm surprised that Cirrus even suggested it.

Why fight a release that basically says, "we agree never to sue you for anything related to this, ever again, no matter what we find out next week, next month, or next year."

If I were Campbell, I'd sign that in a heartbeat. But then again, I'm sane.

 

[wanttaja]

I don't get it... The release that they're asking Campbell to sign would seem to be a GOOD thing for him... in fact, I'm surprised that Cirrus even suggested it.

Why fight a release that basically says, "we agree never to sue you for anything related to this, ever again, no matter what we find out next week, next month, or next year."

If I were Campbell, I'd sign that in a heartbeat. But then again, I'm sane.

But as part of the written settlement Cirrus is pushing, Campbell must waive the right of "All Campbell entities" to sue Cirrus. Check the transcript of the verbal agreement: "Aero News Net" is not prevented from suing Cirrus... that only applies to an entity called "Arrow News Net".

Of course, if "Aero News Net" DID subsequently sue Cirrus over the supposed unpaid advertising, it would eventually be thrown out. But Cirrus would still have to retain counsel, etc. And we don't know if Campbell has any OTHER legal entities that (surprise!) he might use to sue Cirrus. Cirrus wants a definitive agreement that this is all over.

This may seem ridiculous, but Campbell claimed the right to sue Chuck Slusarcyk as an asset in the Airdale Press bankruptcy. With that and his suing past "advertisers" over supposed verbal contracts, he apparently views lawsuits as an income source. He would thus be loath to cut off leverage over an asset-rich company like Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

I don't get it... The release that they're asking Campbell to sign would seem to be a GOOD thing for him... in fact, I'm surprised that Cirrus even suggested it.

Why fight a release that basically says, "we agree never to sue you for anything related to this, ever again, no matter what we find out next week, next month, or next year."

If I were Campbell, I'd sign that in a heartbeat. But then again, I'm sane.

Just my thought. Cirrus now has their plane back, if he allows this to continue he will lose and owe them lawyers fees, back interest etc. Maybe he thinks that he can still sue them for nonperformance under his unsigned freehand 'marketing concept'.

 

[weilke]

But as part of the written settlement Cirrus is pushing, Campbell must waive the right of "All Campbell entities" to sue Cirrus. Check the transcript of the verbal agreement: "Aero News Net" is not prevented from suing Cirrus... that only applies to an entity called "Arrow News Net".

Of course, if "Aero News Net" DID subsequently sue Cirrus over the supposed unpaid advertising, it would eventually be thrown out.

Do you think such a suit would make it past a motion for summary judgement based on a spelling error ?

I wonder how many of his attorneys he actually had to pay retainers for. He may have bamboozled some of them into giving him free legal services with the promise of a cut in his soon to be filed countersuit.

 

[wanttaja]

Do you think such a suit would make it past a motion for summary judgement based on a spelling error ?

Cirrus would still have to go through the expense of responding to the suit... good 'nuff reason to be sure it doesn't happen. Campbell would probably pick a new lawyer for that (like he had a choice....) or even file it as a small claims court case.

Assume that Campbell's goal by this point is to just cost Cirrus money. Wouldn't we see exactly what we've seen so far? Will Cirrus be willing to spend the legal expenses needed to really swat him HARD?

I kind of doubt it Remember, the settlement (such as it is...) happened when Dale Klapmeier was physically present for his deposition the next day. What's the chance he told Cirrus' attorney to wrap this up at minimal additional expense?

So I expect Cirrus' attorney at this point is trying to craft a formal settlement that doesn't leave much of a gap for Campbell to come back with a suit.

I wonder how many of his attorneys he actually had to pay retainers for. He may have bamboozled some of them into giving him free legal services with the promise of a cut in his soon to be filed countersuit.

I'd lke to think lawyers are smarter than that. This isn't a physical injury suit where they can show their client in a neck brace. This isn't a foreclosure where Gramma is going to lose the home she's lived in for sixty years. At the heart, it's over the reposession of an object that a typical juror will equate with a luxury yacht. The sympathy just ain't there, and I expect a lawyer would look long and hard before taking such a case.

I think Attorney #4 took the case because he believed in Campbell to start with. He is a pilot; he was probably familiar with ANN. There are folks who take Campbell's rants at face value....

Ron Wanttaja