Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Surprise! He refused to answer anything.
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
So the only answer they give to any of the statements is
Last edited:
Jim Logajan
En-Route
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 4,024
- Display Name
Display name:
.
When you haven't got a case, find any way you can to delay the day of reckoning?
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,481
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Where I practice (Washington and Oregon) judges really don't like that kind of gamesmanship. I don't know what the rules are in Florida, but around here on a motion by the propounding party (Cirrus) to compel further response, the judge might well order further response and make the responding parties pay the expenses of the motion; and if the judge is sufficiently ticked off he/she might order that the requests are deemed admitted. That would be game, set and match for Cirrus.
wanttaja
En-Route
Might be exactly what Zoom is looking for. If he doesn't win, he'll want as much ammunition for spin control as possible. "The judge didn't even give me a chance to respond...he just claimed that I had admitted everything." "I lost due to questionable legal tactics and a judge who inexplicably fell for them...."
I wonder if the response is tied in to Campbell's motion to dismiss because ANN is *not* listed as a co-defendant. If Cirrus re-files the Request for Admissions against both him and his solely-owned LLC, he'll probably refuse to answer again since they didn't treat ANN as a party.
Campbell has had some...umm, "dodgy" strip-mall lawyers in the past, but I'm told his current lawyer is part of a fairly well known, prestigious firm. Just seems like there probably should be more to this than another attempt to delay the inevitable.
Ron Wanttaja
I am trying to understand the point he is attempting to make. Is this just an idle argument to create another round of paperwork or is he indeed trying to claim that the actions of the LLC are not his own ?
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I've been following this thread since the beginning. Your post is the first refererence I've seen insofar as making a point is concerned.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
The request for admissions asks the defendants, individually, for answers. He replied that the defendants cannot jointly answer.
It seems he never read the instructions.
I hope the judge slaps him.
My favorite is that he can't admit or deny whether he is James R. Campbell. Sounds like a manifestation of the psychological identity disorder that has plagued him all his life.
David7700
Pre-takeoff checklist
I don't see the responses, but I would object to any request that is essentially a conclusion of law or that speaks for a document. Haven't read this whole thread--just a bit. Interesting.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Here is an abbreviated version:
Campbell gave the identical response to all 29 questions.
Is that the legal equivalent of "you didn't say 'Simon says'"?
David7700
Pre-takeoff checklist
I think pd is saying that based on his/her interpretation of the Florida statute, no request for admission can ever be answered!!
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
Just a couple of weeks ago I was wondering what happened to Jim Campbell. I remember amusing myself for two hours reading the NTSB transcript where he lost his medical.
Did he ever get his medical back? Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would let him get within a quarter mile of an aircraft after reading that transcript.
Did he ever get his medical back? Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would let him get within a quarter mile of an aircraft after reading that transcript.
At some point in the 80s he managed to show that he hadn't done anything crazy in 3 years and they gave him another one.
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
Sigh.
wanttaja
En-Route
He did get his medical back. It is unknown whether he still holds a valid medical (he isn't listed in the publicly-released databases, but he may convinced them to withhold his name).
This leads to one of three possible explanations:
1. He was not suffering from the personality disorders testified to by the government psychiatrists, or.
2. At the end of his suspension period, he was able to convince an AME that he didn't have the disqualifying personality disorders, or,
3. He was cured of the personality disorders.
For #1, I invite folks to read the transcript of his NTSB hearing, note the behavior referenced as the reason for the psychiatrists' diagnosis, and compare Cambell-Then against Campbell-Now.
For #2, read the transcript for the comment by the primary psychiatrist in the case, when he was questioning Campbell on the complaints about it.. "...I wanted to believe him, but then, as the interview went on I began to question myself, and I found myself asking, well, just why is it that you feel you want to believe this man? That question continued in one corner of my mind as we went along." Campbell almost convinced a trained professional, with full knowledge of what Campbell had done, that it was all other peoples' fault. What chance would an ordinary AME have?
As for #3, well... Campbell himself has repeatedly said that he never had the disorders. Seems like first stage of a cure would be to realize one has a problem. At about the same time Campbell was diagnosed, Government psychiatrists diagnosed John Hinkely Jr. with some of the same disorders. He's been under constant care, since, and HE hasn't been cured....
Ron Wanttaja
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,637
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,556
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Answer: Defendants cannot jointly admit or deny the statements
I think the reason they punched his ticket at the time was not so much that he has the personality disorder but rather the fact that it caused him to do crazy stuff ('overt acts'). Once he stopped doing crazy stuff for a while, he was good to go.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
More Court Filings yesterday:
You can bet your bottom dollar that he won't respond prior to the January 3rd scheduled hearing.
The last set I posted (answer to request for admissions), I gave the court my credit card number, and they emailed the documents to me. I had them in a few hours.
If someone else wants to step up and order these, let me know. Otherwise I will order them this afternoon.
You can bet your bottom dollar that he won't respond prior to the January 3rd scheduled hearing.
The last set I posted (answer to request for admissions), I gave the court my credit card number, and they emailed the documents to me. I had them in a few hours.
If someone else wants to step up and order these, let me know. Otherwise I will order them this afternoon.
wanttaja
En-Route
I'm guessing the Requests for Admission will be identical to the previous set, but split between Campbell and his LLC. The Requests to Produce could be interesting.
I'd be happy to order, if you haven't done it already. When you pose a question like that, give a bit more time...ever since some guys on RAH got into trouble posting about Campbell from their work addresses, I don't respond until I get home at night....
Ron Wanttaja
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
As it turns out, I didn't get the chance to order them yesterday, and won't today either, so I'll plan to order them 12/22 in the morning, unless someone else beats me to it.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
Ahhh yes, the Zoomer rides again....
Those of you who have not lived through a few of his escapades have NO clue...
Those of you who have not lived through a few of his escapades have NO clue...
I think he once was a skater in the escapades as well.
"Yes, I pretended to be a doctor but I never gave any harmful treatments."
wanttaja
En-Route
wanttaja
En-Route
TMetzinger
Final Approach
.... with everything still in/on/attached!Oh btw, see #12: we want out aircraft back.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,762
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Oh btw, see #12: we want out aircraft back
But if it isn't in his possession or control (out of control?) the best copy or replica thereof!
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
I suspect there will be a hearing, but it may be as brief as a simple statement from the lawyers that they are still working on/waiting for answers to interrogatories.
wanttaja
En-Route
Don't have any details yet, but the court docket shows that Campbell's motion to dismiss the Cirrus lawsuit was denied.
This could just be administrative...the listing on the docket describes it as "Order (Generic)".
But if it was the judge ruling on the merit of the motion, this is a big blow to Campbell's case. The motion called for dismissal because ANN wasn't listed as a co-defendant, and submitted the marketing proposal as proof of a relationship. By denying the motion, the judge apparently does not accept that there was a relationship between Campbell and his LLC's financing the airplane and any marketing agreement between ANN and Cirrus.
I'm not going to order this one quite yet. As a judge's order, it's likely to show up on the Official Records web page in a day or so.
Ron Wanttaja
This could just be administrative...the listing on the docket describes it as "Order (Generic)".
But if it was the judge ruling on the merit of the motion, this is a big blow to Campbell's case. The motion called for dismissal because ANN wasn't listed as a co-defendant, and submitted the marketing proposal as proof of a relationship. By denying the motion, the judge apparently does not accept that there was a relationship between Campbell and his LLC's financing the airplane and any marketing agreement between ANN and Cirrus.
I'm not going to order this one quite yet. As a judge's order, it's likely to show up on the Official Records web page in a day or so.
Ron Wanttaja
He's at it again on ANN, asking for more money for his legal defense fund, accusing Cirrus of infringing on his First Amendment rights,* and promising more dirt to follow very soon.
*I guess he doesn't understand that the First Amendment only says the government can't interfere with free speech; private parties can interfere all they want, as long as they don't break any other laws in doing so. For example, Campbell has no right to stand on my lawn and shout his views if I don't want him too, similarly I am perfectly free to say I won't advertise in his magazine (or I'll take back my airplane -- legally, of course) if he says things I don't like.
*I guess he doesn't understand that the First Amendment only says the government can't interfere with free speech; private parties can interfere all they want, as long as they don't break any other laws in doing so. For example, Campbell has no right to stand on my lawn and shout his views if I don't want him too, similarly I am perfectly free to say I won't advertise in his magazine (or I'll take back my airplane -- legally, of course) if he says things I don't like.
Last edited:
You think he would have learned that after the Sun'n'fun debacle where he was told to govern himself accordingly and that the first amendment doesn't mean that everybody has to roll over to him.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
aero-news.not said:
Gee, refusing to honor the warranty would be a valid reason to stop paying. I wonder why this wasn't mentioned in the answer filed with the court.
Another thing is that Campbell seems to think there's no difference between journalism and activism, but of course there's a huge difference. He's not content to simply report how a company is running its business, but rather seems to think it's his duty to badger that company into running itself the way he thinks it should be run or put it out of business altogether -- then claim First Amendment infringement if the company resists.
He seems to have some notion that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing, because he tries to fool his readers into thinking ANN is "reporting" by referring to himself in the third person (...in a letter to ANN's EIC, Jim Campbell, Cirrus said...), yet in the same article he'll slip up and refer to himself in the first person (...when I got the letter...).
The only good news is that this may bring down ANN, and with it his platform. Of course, that's happened before -- and he just finds a new platform to pontificate from.
He seems to have some notion that there's a difference between reporting and editorializing, because he tries to fool his readers into thinking ANN is "reporting" by referring to himself in the third person (...in a letter to ANN's EIC, Jim Campbell, Cirrus said...), yet in the same article he'll slip up and refer to himself in the first person (...when I got the letter...).
The only good news is that this may bring down ANN, and with it his platform. Of course, that's happened before -- and he just finds a new platform to pontificate from.
Last edited: