Once while I was in Antarctica a spider emerged from some fruit that had been shipped down and was immediately adopted as a pet. The first thing it did was to spin a web. We all decided that had to be the most optimistic spider in the world, because there probably wasn't another insect within a thousand miles!
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
There's a new filing dated today:
I wonder if ANN is the nonparty.
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
See attached... (page 1 of 5)
Klapmeier was the founder and up until the summer of 2009, CEO of Cirrus. The Subpoena appears to be rather dubious. There's no way such a document "Sworn testimony of the purchase agreement" exists.
I'm sure what zoom wants is the head of cirrus to make a sworn deposition about such an agreement, but that's not what this subpoena says to produce.
I can almost guarantee the response is that no such document exists.
I'm sure what zoom wants is the head of cirrus to make a sworn deposition about such an agreement, but that's not what this subpoena says to produce.
I can almost guarantee the response is that no such document exists.
Last edited:
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Cool.
Google (also from California) is rumored to routinely ignore any out of state subpoena, forcing additional costs on the party to 'domesticate' the subpoena. This could cost zoom a few bucks.
Looks like he is trying to make the case that the agreement Cirrus produced in the lawsuit is not the one he and Klapmeier signed.
Does he have a new attorney ? The names seem to be different. Is there an appearance for his new attorney ?
Let me predict the answer from Klapmeier: 'In any dealings with Mr Campbell and Kindred Spirit Aviation LLC I was acting as an officer of Cirrus design corporation, all records for actions taken in that role are maintained by Cirrus design corporation and are not accessible to me at this time'.
Or maybe it's just another stall tactic.
Does he have a new attorney ? The names seem to be different. Is there an appearance for his new attorney ?
Let me predict the answer from Klapmeier: 'In any dealings with Mr Campbell and Kindred Spirit Aviation LLC I was acting as an officer of Cirrus design corporation, all records for actions taken in that role are maintained by Cirrus design corporation and are not accessible to me at this time'.
Or maybe it's just another stall tactic.
denverpilot
Tied Down
wanttaja
En-Route
Or he wants Klapmeier to confirm that there was a verbal contract with ANN to run advertising in exchange for the aircraft.
The subpoena is curious. IIRC, Campbell has always gushed about Klapmeier. I had assumed that they were on good terms, and that Klapmeier would be the first person Campbell went to for someone to back up for his claims.
Yet... Campbell seems to feel he has to *force* Klapmeier to help him.
I doubt Klapmeier will be of much assistance. Let's summarize things:
1. Klapmeier is the former CEO of Cirrus Aircraft.
2. Klapmeier is the CEO of a new company competing with Cirrus
3. Campbell is asking Klapmeier to admit, under oath, that he still has in his possession Cirrus internal marketing documents and copies of customer financial agreements dating from his time with the company.
Such an admission would probably get Klapmeier in serious trouble. It would leave him wide open to a lawsuit from Cirrus, and might even constitute industrial espionage.
I doubt Mr. Klapmeier will make such an admission.
I actually expected Campbell to have Klapmeier make a deposition; he could legitimately speak of his memories during that period. But then he's in the same point a half-dozen other folks have been... Four years ago, did he tell Campbell that he WOULD start advertising, or that he would think about it?
In any case, Cirrus' attorneys could argue that Klapmeier has an incentive to cause Cirrus trouble, and ask him why the agreement was never formalized.
As far as Klapmeier ignoring the subpoena, that probably wouldn't be a good move. He'd be liable to getting served by Campbell any time he entered Florida. He's likely to come to Sun-N-Fun to plug his new company, and, IIRC, Campbell's last five lawsuits over supposed verbal advertising agreements were all served at various Sun-N-Fun years.
No, looks like the same attorneys, Mr. Booth and Ms. Carter. It's interesting to speculate as to whether this may have been the genesis of the "irreconcilable differences" cited in their petition to withdraw.
No doubt the judge will wonder, at the mid-February court date, why Mr. Campbell cannot answer Requests for Admissions or Productions but can file subpoenas for other folk's records. I wonder what it would take to get a transcript of that February hearing?
Ron Wanttaja
Wouldn't he subpoena Klapmeier for a deposition then ? This one is for mail-in records only.
I doubt he would ignore it, but given the scenario it seems highly unlikely that he has a copy of the contract in his possession and if he does, the reasons you mention would keep him from admitting to that.
Let me speculate:
[my opinion]
They told him that he has no case and that it would be unethical to engage into any more delay tactics like harebrained subpoenas. He blew up, threatened to sue them for terrorizing him and they finally realized who they are dealing with.
[/my opinion]
But if he argues that there was a document, then he should subpoena that (which of course, he should have his own copy). If he argues there was some sort of oral contract (which I suspect is what he's getting after), then he needs to depose Klapmeier or whoever made such a contract on Cirrus's side. That's NOT what this subpoena asks for. It asks for the records of such a disposition which almost certainly none has been made.
And as I stated, the simple answer would be "I do not have the record listed in the subpoena as it does not exist."
The issue, I believe, is the proper way would be to have Klapmeier deposed, but that would take substantially more money that Campbell has in his legal defense fund. It would almost certainly require that he retain California counsel (which would want their money UP Front).
The records subpoena is much easier done (even if entirely ineffective).
The title of the Subpoena is
'Subpoena duces tecum without deposition'
In the body a paragraph heading states in bold:
This will not be a deposition and no testimony will be taken.
You either have to show up with the document in hand or you have to mail a legible copy.
Just re-read the subpoena. I have no idea what he is asking for. Sounds like he is asking for a sworn written statement by klapmeier about what went down. But wouldn't that require subpoenaeing him as a person rather than a document that would still have to be produced
.
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
This is clearly asking only for production of documents. No personal appearance or oral testimony is being sought, at least at this point.
In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with (Florida is not one of them), the only way to obtain documents from a non-party is via a Subpena Duces Tecum ("Duces Tecum" literally means "bring with you"). It often sets a time and place for production of the documents, which is canceled if the requested stuff is mailed in beforehand.
In the jurisdictions I'm familiar with (Florida is not one of them), the only way to obtain documents from a non-party is via a Subpena Duces Tecum ("Duces Tecum" literally means "bring with you"). It often sets a time and place for production of the documents, which is canceled if the requested stuff is mailed in beforehand.
wanttaja
En-Route
Yes, and that's what surprised me. I expected that in his original claim for dismissal, he would have stated that Mr. Klapmeier had committed to advertising in exchange for the aircraft. I expected Campbell to then schedule Klapmeier for a deposition. But neither happened.
Instead, we get a request for Klapmeier to supply records that Campbell, himself, already should have and that Klapmeier absolutely shouldn't.
Back in the '90s, Jim Bede worked Campbell like a master to ensure good publicity, and, the way Campbell gushed about Klapmeier, I assumed Klapmeier was doing the same. That's why this subpoena surprised me; I expected Campbell to ask him to testify and for Klapmeier to say, "Why, of course, I'll testify for you, Jim, and remember we expect that you'll be the first journalist to fly the new airplane." Instead, he gets a demand for records that would put his head in a noose if he were able to supply them.
This really does put Klapmeier in a bind. With a new company starting out, he risks being put in the People Who I thought Were My Friends (tm) category. A which point any glowing non-critical coverage of his company would end. His only cure would be to push a lot of money at Campbell...wonder if the new company will sign up for the " 'Lead Aero-TV Sponsor' program...absolutely our most coveted Sponsorship level!"
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Looking at the Wikipedia entry for "subpoena," sounds like Florida is the same:
"Some states (as is the case in Florida) require the subpoenaing party to first file a Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena, or a Notice of Production from Non-Party 10 days prior to issuing the subpoena, so that the other party may have ample time to file any objections."
In addition to the possibility of delaying the inevitable, another potential reason for this subpoena is a classic Campbellism: Spin Control. I'm wondering if Campbell thinks the judge might grant Cirrus' Lis Pendens petition at the February hearing, and he's is looking for SOMETHING to explain to his readers how he was cheated, justice was blocked, etc. "Alan Klapmeier was ready to show signed documents that proved ANN's case, but this vital information was kept away from the judge!"
I wonder if the attorney's request to withdraw due to "irreconcilable differences" prior to the filing of this subpoena was intended to protect themselves from any judicial wrath over this subpoena. Especially when the subpoena apparently took precedence over completing the overdue requests for admission and production.
I'm curious how Cirrus is going to react to this. The subpoena is suspended if Cirrus raises an objection (see the last paragraph on Page 4). They could just let it go, assuming that Klapmeier wouldn't be so stupid as to incriminate himself. Or they could object, stating that Klapmeier *shouldn't* have the documents, and putting him and his new company on warning of a theft of trade secrets accusation if he produces copies of internal Cirrus documents.
This just gets better and better....
Ron Wanttaja
While I do have to admit to a trainwreck type curiosity, the underlying fact remains that someone (cirrus) is forced to go to court for something that shouldn't have required that. With each of these frivolous procedural steps, the cost to the company goes up as their lawyers sure dont work for free.
He bought a plane, he didn't pay for it as agreed. It's not his plane anymore.
Just re-read the subpoena. I have no idea what he is asking for. Sounds like he is asking for a sworn written statement by klapmeier about what went down. But wouldn't that require subpoenaeing him as a person rather than a document that would still have to be produced
Exactly. Unless there's a sworn deposition already lying around, there's nothing to produce by the subpoena.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Not at all. It's common and reasonable to obtain and review the documents is possession of a witness before taking his deposition. If the witness has no documents to produce, then at least you know you haven't missed anything.
I know nothing of the merits of this case, but on the surface there appears nothing unusual or "frivolous" about this SDT.
Last edited:
In theory, and if the contracts between kindred, campbell and cirrus were worth the toner they were printed with, he would have made the agreed upon payments on the note until the plane was his to keep. When cirrus tried to hold him to the contents of the contracts he absconded with the plane.
That's fine, but that's not what this subpoena says. It doesn't request "all records" regarding the ANN agreements. It specifically asks for a sworn statement which almost certainly doesn't exist. It doesn't ask (nor is this sort of subpoena the proper way to request) for such a statement to be created.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,663
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
So, like, the guy is supposed to mail back an empty envelope?
Pilawt
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 9,485
- Display Name
Display name:
Pilawt
Now that is curious -- unless they have reason to believe there was some sort of deposition or affidavit in another proceeding.
wanttaja
En-Route
It's certainly hard for this layman to follow. "True and correct information in the form of sworn testimony" certainly implies that there as been a previous deposition or similar. While Klapmeier's departure from Cirrus probably generated a blizzard of legal paper, I somehow don't think that the agreement with Campbell was featured.
If they *were* produced as part of a previous legal case...why the subpoena? Why can't Campbell's lawyers just fetch them the way folks around here have been getting the papers in Campbell's own case?
It could be that the parties agreed to a Confidentiality agreement...which might mean, again, that this is more of a fishing expedition. Or, if the documents *do* exist and Klapmeier wants to help Campbell, he may have told them he couldn't give them up without a subpoena because of the agreement.
One other weird thing about the subpoena. On page 5 of the PDF, in bit letters, it says, "THIS WILL NOT BE A DEPOSITION". Yet, two paragraphs down, it refers to giving the plaintiff's attorneys "... a notice of taking this deposition...."
Ron Wanttaja
kyleb
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 7,566
- Location
- Marietta, GA
- Display Name
Display name:
Drake the Outlaw
Pardon the dumb question, but at what point does a judge have the authority to say "You've presented no case, give the airplane back."
wanttaja
En-Route
I think the judge has the *authority* anytime; it just depends on when he decides it's time to execute it. We don't know who scheduled the hearing on the 15 of February...but considering the history of delay, obfuscation, and distraction in the Campbell camp, it might have been Cirrus or even the judge himself. If it was the judge, he's probably fed up. If it was Cirrus, they'll probably explain to the judge that he SHOULD be.
If the judge does issue an order for the plane and the associated equipment to be turned over, things will probably get interesting. In all his prior lawsuits, Campbell has never been ordered to surrender any significant physical property. His wife waited until he left town before she left him, making sure that her airplane and other possessions were safely hidden before he came back.
All of the other cases involved monetary judgement, which he could shrug off with claims of being broke. This will be the first time that a large, significant chunk of property is at stake. It will be interesting to see how he reacts if the judge says, "hand it over." I sense an ANN editorial...
BTW, I'm curious about the person Klapmeier's subpoena was sent to. Was that Klapmeier's attorney when he left Cirrus?
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
New counsel, Sara J. Carter, now listed for the defendants.
And, this new filing:
And, this new filing:
wanttaja
En-Route
No, she was listed as co-counsel on Campbell's motion to dismiss back in October. Same two lawyers back then. Also, Ms. Carter was the addressee for Cirrus' Amended R for A on 19 December.
Did anyone notice that this single response to the Request for Admissions was for both Campbell and the LLC? Remember, "Defendants cannot jointly admit or deny....as these requests are not directed towards these Defendants separately"?
Is there a disconnect between Cirrus' Request for Admissions and Campbell's response? Cirrus' question #1 was "Defendant, James R. Campbell, is an individual who resides in Green Cove Springs, Clay County, Florida," and Question #2 was "Campbell is the sole Manager for Kindred Spirit Aviation."
Yet Campbell's response to #1 is "Defendants are without knowledge and therefore denied," and #2 is "Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only."
Seems like these are reversed.
Similarly, Cirrus' #3 question was, "A True and correct copy of the Promisary note is attached to the Complaint filed in this case as Exhibit A." and Campbell replies, "Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only."
Is there something I'm missing? Was there an amended set of R for A after the ones in late December? Or is this just sloppy work?
Also, Campbell says the Cirrus' claims "are barred by the applicable statute of limitations." Any idea where that would come into play?
Ron Wanttaja
Don't know anything, dont admit to nothing, the others are all liars, the documents are forged, they just gave me a plane from the goodness of their hearts
Me thinks his retainer ran out. Putting up with %%%%%% for $375/hr is easier than doing it for free.
Written contracts are barred after five years. Of course, that has no bearing on the secured property, but it may keep Cirrus from extracting further damages from Zoom depending on what exactly he timing is.
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
Where did he get the nickname "Zoom"?
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,765
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
It was posted in October on this thread. IIRC, it was his USENET handle. Do a Search This Thread for "zoom". Sorry, but some things are harder on an iPad.
wanttaja
En-Route
To do a quick recap, he started calling himself "Captain Zoom" back in the '80s. Never heard any specific story behind it.
Ron Wanttaja
I think he picked it up when he started on the computers. Used to spell it Cap10Zoom if I recall. Never heard him use it in USAviaitor before he showed up online.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
The five years starts at the cause of action, which in this case is the breach. The breach occurred when Zoom stopped paying.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
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.
Attached Files
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Thanks Ron; no name has been listed under attorneys for the defense on the filings page for the past week or two, then Ms. Carter's appeared... I presumed (incorrectly) that she was new counsel.
What is that, contracts are worthless in FL after five years are up ?
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
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.
I believe all states have a statute of limitations for contracts.