Somebody 'splain to me how he can own this aviation company and airplanes without having a valid medical. Who flies the planes?
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
He does have a medical. The decision in '80 only barred him from reapplying for 2 years. As the revocation was based on his 'overt acts' as signs of the underlying personality disorder, he was probably fine by '83 (as he hadn't done anything really crazy in those two years).
Being a bad businessman and a pain in the azz are not disqualifying conditions.
wanttaja
En-Route
It's impossible to tell if he has a medical. People can opt out of the publicly-released FAA listing. He did regain his medical after the FAA pulled it in 1980.
Ron Wanttaja
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,625
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
So, as long as you can avoid getting treatment for your mental problems, you are good to go?
Yea, sounds like the FAA we all know and love...
p1l0t
Line Up and Wait
LOL I wish more govt ran like the FAA and less like the TSA.
<---<^>--->
wanttaja
En-Route
Well…I can understand the FAA’s position here. As much as we tend to think it, they do NOT have a huge staff sitting around trying to get folks’ licenses pulled. They only take action based on a complaint by someone with standing, or where the safety of the public is obviously threatened.
Take another look at SE-4661, where the FAA pulled his license 30 years ago. The primary sources of information that triggered the investigation were the employers and co-workers in his aviation jobs. These people were in daily contact, and had the best opportunity to observe erratic behavior, and little reason to make up stories. It’s in an employer’s best interest to hire honest, truthful, and competent employees, so there’s little to gain by falsely claiming an employee is otherwise. For the most part, they generally just arranged to get rid of him…but most of them didn’t talk about him to the FAA until the FAA specifically asked.
Campbell, of course, tried to claim these multiple crooked employers were out to get him BECAUSE of his supposed honesty. But Occam’s Razor was as valid then as it is now.
So, how many aviation employers has Campbell had since he got his medical back in the mid ‘80s? Darn few…and probably none at all in the 25 years he’s been a publisher. So there’s no one with standing to trigger an investigation.
There are a lot of people who claim to have observed erratic behavior, but then we get into the second issue regarding FAA investigation: Few of the complainants make claims specifically related to aviation. Claiming he’s beset by terrorists may make folks think he’s wacko, but the fact is, unless it can be directly tied to aviation safety, the FAA won’t get involved.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
FCC "fixed" this problem in the Amateur Radio Service by adding a clause that someone needs to be of a particular "character" befitting the International nature of the Service to have the privilege of an Amateur Radio license.
It sounds ultra-discriminatory on the surface, but when used with extreme discretion by the FCC Counsel such that the overall moral character of a particular individual is so low that no one will come to their rescue and the line of people willing to testify the opposite way is out the door and around the block, it seems to work well as a catch-all.
Hasn't been a slippery slope at all. Tack it on as the clincher after a few documented and usually wanton violations of FCC regulations, and it nails the coffin shut on the ultra-bad on Appeal, if they even bother.
It sounds ultra-discriminatory on the surface, but when used with extreme discretion by the FCC Counsel such that the overall moral character of a particular individual is so low that no one will come to their rescue and the line of people willing to testify the opposite way is out the door and around the block, it seems to work well as a catch-all.
Hasn't been a slippery slope at all. Tack it on as the clincher after a few documented and usually wanton violations of FCC regulations, and it nails the coffin shut on the ultra-bad on Appeal, if they even bother.
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
But even then K1MAN has been on the air for how long?
Unfortunately, they CAN NOT. The FAA improperly considers the opt out to be solely limited to the address records. There was a few months when the opt out bit stopped all release of information, but they regressed pretty quickly.
I've beat my head against the FAA, the DOT IG, and my congressmen with no avail to this illegal activity. It's going to take a federal lawsuit.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Heh heh... yeah, well... there is that... I'm glad you guys keep that idiot out East with y'all... our local home-grown doofuses are too poor/stupid/lazy to put up real antennas, so only we hear them on ground wave.
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Who dat?
denverpilot
Tied Down
Not worth explaining. A real piece of work. Every community has to have a village idiot.
Wasn't there a clause in the ATP or CFI that required good character?
I was reading a brochure for SPEBSQSA (Society for the Preservation and Encouragement of Barber Shop Quartet Singing in America) that said membership was open to CONGENIAL GENTLEMEN of GOOD CHARACTER.
I figured that ruled me out in three ways.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
At least you're still a character.
wanttaja
En-Route
14CFR 61.153 (c) says an ATP must be of "Good moral character," no equivalent phrase for any other rating. Don't believe Campbell has an ATP. Friend of mine was once contemplating getting one, and was talked out of it by a friend at the local FAA. He said the FAA always had to come down hard on even minor transgressions by an ATP (i.e., "an airline pilot"), where they had some leeway with someone with just a commercial.
But the FAA has nailed "lesser" pilots for perjury. This might explain why Campbell bargained his way out of the perjury lawsuit, rather than fighting it like any decent journalist. Losing the lawsuit would have put the perjury on his record, and the FAA might have had to take notice.
It *is* a bit curious how Campbell managed to get his (short-lived) job at JAL without an ATP.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
Punzomatic
Filing Flight Plan
JAL Human Resource official: One more thing Mr. Campbell ... I need to copy your Pilot Certificate for our files.
Captain Zoom: Ah, you see ... I don't have it with me right now, so I'll have to show it to you later.
JAL: Oh?
Captain Zoom: Well, I lost it at gunpoint while I was being robbed by terrorists.
JAL: Terrorists?
Captain Zoom: There I was, trying to save this young girl from being raped by this group of terrorists when suddenly, I was viciously attacked by a golf cart from behind. When I regained consciousness, they were all long gone along with my pilot's certificate.
JAL: I see, did you report this to the police?
Captain Zoom: I tried, I really tried, but my legal counsel informed me that local law enforcement was actually part of a world-wide plot to destroy my future journalistic credibility and that all of these terrorist activities were a conspiracy being funded by the Chinese government and future employees of ANN.
JAL: No matter Mr. Campbell, I guess we don't really need your pilot certificate anyway.
Captain Zoom: Why not?
JAL: Janitors don't need type ratings for brooms or buffers ... so I guess it's official, welcome to JAL!
Captain Zoom: Ah, you see ... I don't have it with me right now, so I'll have to show it to you later.
JAL: Oh?
Captain Zoom: Well, I lost it at gunpoint while I was being robbed by terrorists.
JAL: Terrorists?
Captain Zoom: There I was, trying to save this young girl from being raped by this group of terrorists when suddenly, I was viciously attacked by a golf cart from behind. When I regained consciousness, they were all long gone along with my pilot's certificate.
JAL: I see, did you report this to the police?
Captain Zoom: I tried, I really tried, but my legal counsel informed me that local law enforcement was actually part of a world-wide plot to destroy my future journalistic credibility and that all of these terrorist activities were a conspiracy being funded by the Chinese government and future employees of ANN.
JAL: No matter Mr. Campbell, I guess we don't really need your pilot certificate anyway.
Captain Zoom: Why not?
JAL: Janitors don't need type ratings for brooms or buffers ... so I guess it's official, welcome to JAL!
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Campbell never worked for JAL. He did have a very brief stint working for IASCO which provided ab initio training for potential JAL crewmembers. The phase of training that IASCO was doing was the basic training, i.e. SEL/MEL piston engine training. Campbell has alleged in his earlier writings that he taught in the B747, which is false.
In the NTSB report it is alledged that he misappropriated the JAL uniform he was loaned for that job after he was separated and used it to pass himself off to some college girls as a JAL pilot.
(This is my opinion only and based on possibly faulty recollection of the NTSB transcript)
Hejsan raring, jag har en tolv tums penis.
p1l0t
Line Up and Wait
Good moral character.. hmm that's going to be the toughest part of my checkride.
<---<^>--->
Panew
Pre-Flight
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 63
- Display Name
Display name:
Panew
agreed
wanttaja
En-Route
The docket was updated today to note receipt of a "Motion to Dismiss/Vacate" in Cirrus' lawsuit. Campbell still doesn't have an attorney listed, so may have filed the motion himself.
[Edit: Docket also notes that Campbell and Kindred Spirit have been served ("notice of appearance, and agreement to file an answer or other response on hehalf of defendant").]
Ron Wanttaja
[Edit: Docket also notes that Campbell and Kindred Spirit have been served ("notice of appearance, and agreement to file an answer or other response on hehalf of defendant").]
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
If his pro-se response is as rambling and delusional as his personal statements at the 1981 hearing (and the recent writings on his little website), I dont see him getting the plane for free quite yet.
wanttaja
En-Route
Someone pointed out in a PM that the attorney listing may well lag a bit. Less urgency on updating that information vs. more-recent filings. I'll probably order a copy of the motion, that'll let us know if it's pro-se or not.
Remember, it's not important that the filing make sense. It just basically establishes that the defendant is contesting the action, and may inhibit Cirrus taking other action until the judge hears the arguments.
Ron Wanttaja
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
I have a single owner LLC with an EIN.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I don't believe he can represent the LLC, although I think some states allow it. Let me know if your order anything. I think it's a buck a page plus another buck for processing. I've thought about ordering the exhibits that were attached to the complaint.
Found this on http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/faq.shtml#k
Yep, while it's a diresgarded entity for taxes, it doesn't mean you can't get an EIN for it. You may not need one, but you can get it easily.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
In TX, an LLC is not required to have a business purpose, so you can hold your plane (or your share of one) or boat or whatever in an LLC for liability shield purposes. In those cases, it's better if you don't have a separate #, since no separate return is required, per the lawyers.
wanttaja
En-Route
The trial docket listing is a bit unusual...at least, as of tonight (26 October). Here's the listings regarding acceptance of service:
10/25/2011 Acceptance of Servicenotice of appearance, and agreement to file an answer or other response on hehalf of defendant, James R Campbell, individually
10/25/2011 Acceptance of Servicentoice of appearance, and agreement to file an answer or other response on behalf of def
Yes, the second notice (which we must assume refers to the LLC) cuts off in the middle of the word, "defendant." It's like the person typing it in suddenly realized something wasn't right.
Personally, I'm guessing Campbell does have a lawyer now. The filing for dismissal came right on top of the service, like the lawyer was ready for it.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
My guess is they waited until the motion to dismiss was ready before filing the notice of appearance. They probably also waited for the retainer check to clear. Once you file a notice to appear, you can't simply walk away unless the court says you can.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
It was really interesting listening to ANN's take on Sun 'n Fun's letter to people whose airplanes were moved after the tornado, asking them to contact their insurance companies to ask them to cover the cost. They really slammed SnF, trying to make them sound like sleaze bags. Given Campbell's run-ins with SnF, it didn't surprise me in the least. It was interesting contrasting it to AVWeb's interview with SnF's Jim Bernegger on the same subject.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Did you ever order the copy, or shall I?
wanttaja
En-Route
wanttaja
En-Route
What's kind of surprising, with Campbell's obvious animus against SnF, is how limp his last legal assault against them was.
As I posted a while back, Campbell's lawyer was released from the case due to Campbell not meeting his financial obligations. When the Judge finally dismissed the case several months later (after Campbell was unable to get a replacement lawyer), the Judge's order stated:
"9. That Plaintiff was set for deposition on March 16, 2006 and November 13th, 2006. On both occasions after agreeing to be present for the purpose of being deposed, Plaintiff gave notice of his unavailability and did not appear for his deposition.
"10. That Plaintiff has failed to participate his the discovery process, and, as well, has failed to participate in this litigation."
"Failed to participate"? For all the ways Campbell publicly proclaims that SnF harmed him, you'd think he'd be absolutely quivering to prosecute his own legal action. Yet he filed the lawsuit and then ducked away. Kinda like a kid who throws an egg at a house and then, when a light comes on, runs home and hides under the bed.
It'll be interesting to see if Cirrus can get him to a deposition....
Ron Wanttaja
Jaybird180
Final Approach
O-Ren-Ishi-i and the Krazy-88s can take care of that
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I'll bet they dismiss the case once they get their plane back.
wanttaja
En-Route
wanttaja
En-Route
I prefer to post documents separately from my comments. Here's some of my initial reactions after reading the motion:
Campbell *did* get legal representation. This is Campbell's third set of lawyers in the past four years.
Campbell claims the suit should be dismissed because ANN is not a named party. It refers to an alleged agreement for advertising services between ANN and Cirrus. It includes the supposed agreement as Exhibit A (pages 4-10 in the PDF).
Exhibit A is not a contract. It reads like a proposed marketing campaign. It is undated, unsigned (even by Campbell himself), and doesn't even include page numbers.
Apparently, the alleged advertising agreement was...wait for it... verbal.
In the past ten years, Campbell has sued five companies for allegedly violating verbal advertising contracts. In the out-of-court settlement in one (Rotary Air Force) the disputed amount was $6,500.
In contrast, Campbell claims that Cirrus owes him almost three-quarters of a million (ANN said the amount was $700,000), and hasn't sued them yet. Why pull the trigger so fast on five little companies, and let Cirrus slide for 100 times the amount?
Finally, please re-read the Marketing proposal included in Campbell's filing. Ask yourself if you could trust ANN coverage of Cirrus, if such an agreement were in place.
Now, ask yourself: How many OTHER companies have similar marketing agreements with ANN? How can you trust what Campbell says about THEM?
Ron Wanttaja
Campbell *did* get legal representation. This is Campbell's third set of lawyers in the past four years.
Campbell claims the suit should be dismissed because ANN is not a named party. It refers to an alleged agreement for advertising services between ANN and Cirrus. It includes the supposed agreement as Exhibit A (pages 4-10 in the PDF).
Exhibit A is not a contract. It reads like a proposed marketing campaign. It is undated, unsigned (even by Campbell himself), and doesn't even include page numbers.
Apparently, the alleged advertising agreement was...wait for it... verbal.
In the past ten years, Campbell has sued five companies for allegedly violating verbal advertising contracts. In the out-of-court settlement in one (Rotary Air Force) the disputed amount was $6,500.
In contrast, Campbell claims that Cirrus owes him almost three-quarters of a million (ANN said the amount was $700,000), and hasn't sued them yet. Why pull the trigger so fast on five little companies, and let Cirrus slide for 100 times the amount?
Finally, please re-read the Marketing proposal included in Campbell's filing. Ask yourself if you could trust ANN coverage of Cirrus, if such an agreement were in place.
Now, ask yourself: How many OTHER companies have similar marketing agreements with ANN? How can you trust what Campbell says about THEM?
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Agreed, depending on the condition of the aircraft. They're not suing him to make Campbell look like an idiot (that's HIS job), they want to recover a valuable asset.
After having Cirrus' prop lock removed, Campbell (or a representative) demonstrated that the aircraft was airworthy as he retook possession. If the aircraft isn't airworthy at the time Cirrus recovers it, I'd expect the lawsuit to continue.
Ron Wanttaja