Negative ANN article about Cirrus

In law school I think they mentioned something about documents that were "signed by the party sought to be charged" as the moist desirable but that contemporaneous notes or writings by one or more of the parties were also admissible although of lesser value. Looks to me like he's angling for such a defense by introducing the alleged agreement.
wanttaja said:
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
Click to expand...
 
- So much for the 'editorial independence' he proclaims with oh so many words.

- I wonder what the IRS has to say about this barter deal and the intent to get the plane delivered before 1/1/09 for the 'tax bennies' (can you depreciate a plane you ddn't pay for in the first place ?)

- Is ANN on the note, the security agreement or anything else related to the Cirrus ? Why should they be party to the lawsuit then ?
 
weilke said:
- So much for the 'editorial independence' he proclaims with oh so many words.

- I wonder what the IRS has to say about this barter deal and the intent to get the plane delivered before 1/1/09 for the 'tax bennies' (can you depreciate a plane you ddn't pay for in the first place ?)

- Is ANN on the note, the security agreement or anything else related to the Cirrus ? Why should they be party to the lawsuit then ?
Click to expand...

The last point, I think, is one of the key factors that'll work against Campbell on this approach. The airplane is registered to ANN, but all the financial paperwork points towards Campbell and Kindred Spirit Aviation, the LLC he apparently set up specifically for ownership of the airplane. The marketing proposal submitted as the "agreement" makes no mention of the LLC.

The marketing proposal says the aircraft should be registered to ANN in Hilton Head, South Carolina. Sounds like Campbell was trying to dodge Florida taxes! In any case, the plane ended up registered at Campbell's home address in Florida.

The actual motion itself was to dismiss the suit (without prejudice) and force Cirrus to re-file with ANN as a co-defendant. I would think Cirrus wouldn't accept this without a fight; the aircraft repossession seems pretty straightforward. The only SIGNED paperwork allows Cirrus to repo the airplane if payments aren't made.

I appreciate Wayne's insight as to why the marketing proposal was submitted as part of the motion. The wording ought to amuse the judge, in any case..."...in order to take advantage of tax 'bennies'..." "...CD to pay ANN $25K ASAP..." "... completion of associated agreements (contained within this document) 'Clears the Decks' between CD and ANN..." "...concepts designed to turn this 'Announcement' into an 'Event'..." "...Absolutely our most coveted Sponsorship level!..." I suspect the Judge has seen contracts before, and will probably say, "This ain't one." :)

One last point: Campbell claimed on ANN that Cirrus owed him $700,000. Considering the level of payment identified in the marketing proposal, this implies that Cirrus never paid one red cent in accordance to this alleged "agreement". Kind of argues that Cirrus never accepted it.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
wanttaja said:
...
One last point: Campbell claimed on ANN that Cirrus owed him $700,000. Considering the level of payment identified in the marketing proposal, this implies that Cirrus never paid one red cent in accordance to this alleged "agreement". Kind of argues that Cirrus never accepted it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Why would Alan have sent him a plane without any kind of real, honest to FSM written agreement?
 
mikea said:
Wow. Why would Alan have sent him a plane without any kind of real, honest to FSM written agreement?
Click to expand...
By maintaining a lien on the aircraft, obviously. From Cirrus' point of view, they HAVE a written agreement: Campbell and his LLC have contracted to make payments on the airplane, and by defaulting on the contract, Cirrus is permitted to repossess the aircraft. Hence the lawsuit.

A better question would be, "why would CAMPBELL have committed to the financial obligation without any kind of real, honest to FSM written agreement in regards to the marketing proposal?"

Considering his poor track record in court in suing aviation companies over supposed verbal advertising contracts, you'd think he'd learned to get it in writing. What's that line about, "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results"?

Ron Wanttaja
 
This is one of the examples of how "personality disorder, multiple acts" is unsuitable to be operating in the aviation environment.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't know this guy from Adam, and his diatribe against CD was one heck of a rant. OTOH, I kind of enjoy reading a little summary of the day's aviation news each morning in ANN. It doesn't cost me anything.
 
Lance F said:
I wouldn't know this guy from Adam, and his diatribe against CD was one heck of a rant. OTOH, I kind of enjoy reading a little summary of the day's aviation news each morning in ANN. It doesn't cost me anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. I admit that I listen to ANN. But now with a healthier dose of skepticism.
 
Easier just to get the same thing from AvWeb and avoid giving ANN any web-traffic at all. Same thing with USA Today and their staff of aviation attack dogs. The advertising world online runs on server logs and web views.
 
denverpilot said:
Easier just to get the same thing from AvWeb and avoid giving ANN any web-traffic at all. Same thing with USA Today and their staff of aviation attack dogs. The advertising world online runs on server logs and web views.
Click to expand...

Same here. I won't go to ANN, just because the ultimate result will be another dime (or whatever) in Zoom's pocket. The editorial content isn't trustworthy, and the factual content is available elsewhere.
 
The unsubscribe link in the ANN emails doesn't work.

It must be another conspiracy.

"For the WHOLE story (which you just read) ..."

I just put in a filter to trash the messages but Zoom still has my email to add to his subscriber count.

I hope I don't get sued.
 
BTW, I'm told the action with Cirrus was immediately preceded by a row involving the Cirrus owner's association. Apparently, the owner's group was scheduled to use ANN to stream its convention, and Cirrus told the group that if they did, Cirrus would not participate. This occurred a couple of weeks before Cirrus put the prop lock on Campbell's airplane.

There's a bit of an explanation here, but most of the discussion was within the members-only pages:

http://www.cirruspilots.org/forums/t/125715.aspx

I'm told that this write-up of mine got VERY popular about then....

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I'm told that this write-up of mine got VERY popular about then....

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

As one who has been Zoomed, I can state just how valuable Ron's write-up was to me at the time and can certainly understand the rush to review it by a few members of the Cirrus owner's organization.

Ron, I'm not sure what prompted you to create that guide, but I do believe its put quite a number of minds at ease. Thanks for a super piece of work!

BTW, should all the advertisers on ANN ever get together and compare their individual rates ... that really would be a party because of what happens when you refuse to publish an actual rate card and make up the rates as you go. Some get it for nothing while others pay through the nose.

Credibility has never been his strong suit. I classify ANN's editorial content in much the same vein as the daily comic strips. Pure entertainment.
 
wanttaja said:
The last point, I think, is one of the key factors that'll work against Campbell on this approach. The airplane is registered to ANN, but all the financial paperwork points towards Campbell and Kindred Spirit Aviation, the LLC he apparently set up specifically for ownership of the airplane. The marketing proposal submitted as the "agreement" makes no mention of the LLC.
Click to expand...

According to the FAA, the aircraft is registered to Kindred Spirit Aviation LLC of Glen Cove Springs,FL . Not unusual to hold a plane in a separate LLC for whatever reasons.

The marketing proposal says the aircraft should be registered to ANN in Hilton Head, South Carolina. Sounds like Campbell was trying to dodge Florida taxes! In any case, the plane ended up registered at Campbell's home address in Florida.
Click to expand...

The marketing proposal is an unsigned piece of paper on ANN letterhead spelling out a proposed marketing arrangement.

If this piece of paper started with 'Aviation news network, a South Carolina Corporation and Cirrus Design, Wisconsin corporation in yadayadayadaa..... and was signed by Alan Klapmeier and Jim Campbell

the plane would probably end up being his.

One last point: Campbell claimed on ANN that Cirrus owed him $700,000. Considering the level of payment identified in the marketing proposal, this implies that Cirrus never paid one red cent in accordance to this alleged "agreement". Kind of argues that Cirrus never accepted it.
Click to expand...

Well, he ran a lot of advertising and editorial ads for Cirrus in that timeframe, the Cirrus complaint states that he stopped paying on the note at some point (january 2011), presumably that is the point when he turned on them, stopped running the banner ads and started bashing anything they did. So yes, there was some handshake deal to count the ads as payment on the note, but I doubt that that is enough to include it into the litigation (chances are the note and security interest state 'this represents the entire agreement between the parties, any amendments have to be agreed to by both parties in writing'. I know I can't expect to get my house for free because I said nice things about the mortgage company.
 
weilke said:
According to the FAA, the aircraft is registered to Kindred Spirit Aviation LLC of Glen Cove Springs,FL .
Click to expand...

Heavens to Betsy, you're right. I had confused this with the Glasair he previously owned, which *was* registered to ANN. Curiously, that airplane was registered to a NORTH Carolina address (vs. the South Carolina address he had wanted the Cirrus registered to).

weilke said:
,,,(chances are the note and security interest state 'this represents the entire agreement between the parties, any amendments have to be agreed to by both parties in writing'.
Click to expand...

During his ANN diatribe, didn't Zoom make some sort of claim that the paperwork was altered or different from what he claims he signed? Could it be that he was trying to lay the groundwork for having clauses such as this discredited?

Guess I'll have to order the Cirrus exhibits and we'll see if there's a clause like that in there.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
During his ANN diatribe, didn't Zoom make some sort of claim that the paperwork was altered or different from what he claims he signed? Could it be that he was trying to lay the groundwork for having clauses such as this discredited?
Click to expand...

Sure did. Although I doubt he thinks that far ahead. The only 'groundwork' he could possibly do are things he can put in front of a judge. I doubt his zoominations are admissible as evidence in a simple repossession proceeding.

Guess I'll have to order the Cirrus exhibits and we'll see if there's a clause like that in there.
Click to expand...
My wild guess is that the exibits show a perfectly legible standard boiler-plate note and security instrument with personal guarantee between KSA, him and Cirrus. It'll be signed and initialed by the zoom himself in about 22 different locations. As Wouters was the CFO at the time, it would also make perfect sense if he is somehow mentioned as the responsible corporate officer/delegate, no conspiracy necessary.

How much do they charge you for the copies ? I'll chip in if it is a measurable expense. This entertainment is cheaper than the movies.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
How much do they charge you for the copies ? I'll chip in if it is a measurable expense. This entertainment is cheaper than the movies.
Click to expand...

.001 AMU per page.

The copy of the complaint cost me about a gallon of (expensive) 100LL, and less than the cup of Guinness I had at the Pats game Sunday . ($1 per page plus $1 processing).

If Ron Wanttaja hasn't ordered the exhibits yet, I will, otherwise, I'll just wait and order the response by Cirrus.
 
Steve Foley said:
.001 AMU per page.

The copy of the complaint cost me about a gallon of (expensive) 100LL, and less than the cup of Guinness I had at the Pats game Sunday . ($1 per page plus $1 processing).

If Ron Wanttaja hasn't ordered the exhibits yet, I will, otherwise, I'll just wait and order the response by Cirrus.
Click to expand...
An order for the exhibits is going in the mail today, and will post when received. Mail order is a bit of a pain, since the docket doesn't list the number of pages. So I had to query them on cost before sending a check. Like Steve says, though, the cost is pretty trivial and it's not necessary to have anybody else chip in. Save the money for my legal defense fund. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
Well, it's cheaper than green fees and you can have your fun indoors.

wanttaja said:
An order for the exhibits is going in the mail today, and will post when received. Mail order is a bit of a pain, since the docket doesn't list the number of pages. So I had to query them on cost before sending a check. Like Steve says, though, the cost is pretty trivial and it's not necessary to have anybody else chip in. Save the money for my legal defense fund. :)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
 
wanttaja said:
An order for the exhibits is going in the mail today, and will post when received. Mail order is a bit of a pain, since the docket doesn't list the number of pages. So I had to query them on cost before sending a check. Like Steve says, though, the cost is pretty trivial and it's not necessary to have anybody else chip in. Save the money for my legal defense fund. :)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I simply called and gave them my credit card number. They told me how many pages it was.

What legal defense fund? Aren't you governing yourself accordingly?
 
Steve Foley said:
I simply called and gave them my credit card number. They told me how many pages it was.
Click to expand...

Ha! I got so used to snail-mail requests that I never even considered they might take credit cards. Thanks for the tip, I'll do it that way next time.

One interesting aspect of hard-copy requests: At least one of mine has been entered in the official case docket. Wonder if Campbell spent a buck to find out what it said?

Steve Foley said:
What legal defense fund? Aren't you governing yourself accordingly?
Click to expand...

I haven't played an accordion in nearly fifty years. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I haven't played an accordion in nearly fifty years. :)
Click to expand...
I still own three accordions (which my wife says is three more than anybody needs).

My funniest story is still having my friend tell me he inadvertantly forced Zoom into a puddle at Airventure while driving one of the tram tractors.
 
flyingron said:
I still own three accordions (which my wife says is three more than anybody needs).
Click to expand...
Accordion joke:

A musician stops at a rest area to get something to eat. While in the restaurant he remembers he left his accordion uncovered and in full view on the back seat of his car! He rushes back to the car and discovers his worst fears had come true: someone had broken a window and thrown in three more accordions!
 
Last edited:
Do you know the difference between an accordion and a banjo?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The accordion burns longer. :D
John
 
What's the difference between porn and prostitution?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The camera.

<---<^>--->
 
A "gentleman" is defined as someone who CAN play the accordion, but doesn't....

Ron Wanttaja
 
jsstevens said:
Do you know the difference between an accordion and a banjo?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The accordion burns longer. :D
John
Click to expand...

I have a banjo, too. There's a family set of bagpipes around as well, but we lent them out and mercifully they have not returned.
 
wanttaja said:
A "gentleman" is defined as someone who CAN play the accordion, but doesn't....

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Is this some sort of innuendo that one needs to be a "gentleman's gentleman" to understand?:yikes: I certainly don't get it.



And if it is, don't explain it to me.:no::rofl:
 
weilke said:
...(chances are the note and security interest state 'this represents the entire agreement between the parties, any amendments have to be agreed to by both parties in writing'.
Click to expand...
You nailed it.

I got the copy of Cirrus' exhibits today, and the agreement Campbell signed says,

"Borrower acknowledges and agrees with Lender that this Agreement, the Note, and all of the other documents referenced herein are the entire agreement between the parties, and there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, and Borrower acknowledges receipt of a true and complete copy of this Agreement and such other documents, instruments, and agreements as Borrower shall have requested from Lender on or prior to the date of this Agreement." (Page 13)

So Campbell signed that there WERE no other agreements...but now is claiming there were.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
So Campbell signed that there WERE no other agreements...but now is claiming there were.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like there is a standard written agreement about the aircraft and its financing and a handshake deal regarding the advertising.

Cirrus says that he paid the note until january or thereabouts, I wonder whether there are actual payments against the note or whether those were just forgiven payments based on him doing their bidding. If they were forgiven, it would strengthen his assertion that there were agreements beyond what is on paper.

I guess if all fails, he'll just have to claim that the contract, the note etc. are forgeries. Everyone knows the chinese can copy and fake anything.....

Does the note mention Wouters ?
 
weilke said:
I guess if all fails, he'll just have to claim that the contract, the note etc. are forgeries.
Click to expand...

Hence, his hints on ANN that the paperwork is somehow altered. I figure when he stopped making payments and told Cirrus that it was because they owed him money on the alleged oral contract, they pointed out that phrase in the contract. So his screed on ANN was specifically aimed at that.

weilke said:
Does the note mention Wouters ?
Click to expand...
The only signatures on the paperwork are Campbell's. There's a block for Cirrus on the Promissory note, but no signatures. The Aircraft Security Agreement and the Guarantor Acknowledgment only have blocks for the borrower to sign.

A cursory look found only one mention of Wolters, listing him as the receiver of process should Campbell decide to sue Cirrus.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
A cursory look found only one mention of Wolters, listing him as the receiver of process should Campbell decide to sue Cirrus.
Click to expand...

Which wouldn't be too unusual as he was CFO of the company at the time.

I wonder what Cirrus rebuttal of zooms motion will look like, it'll probably reference the contract language you posted above.
 
Campbell keeps complaining about the pressure Cirrus is putting on him and ANN, in large part through the aircraft deal he got from them; but by entering into that deal he himself handed Cirrus the means to pressure him. This is a textbook example of why journalists should remain at arms length from those they cover.
 
Last edited:
You seem to made the mistake of thinking that Jim is a journalist. He only keeps the ANN around to feed his personal ego.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top