They do it on request, it costs $2500. If you don't request, it doesn't happen. If it's a mobile asset, they normally grant the request.
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
They do it on request, it costs $2500. If you don't request, it doesn't happen. If it's a mobile asset, they normally grant the request.
Once the order of possession is issued, they're free to take the plane if they can find it and get to it. Most likely they know where it is and if they're smart they're working with the FBO or airport authority to both keep it from moving by anybody else and to get it when they have the order.
Once they attach the order of possession to the aircraft, it's illegal (grand theft) for Zoom to move it.
Once they attach the order of possession to the aircraft, it's illegal (grand theft) for Zoom to move it.
JB1842
En-Route
The USMS can and will seize property if it is ordered to by a federal judge. It can be either a criminal or civil seizure. Usually we (I am a Deputy U.S. Marshal, by the way) contract with someone to hold the property for us until the case is resolved or the property is returned/or given back to the owners. We use a local car auction company for vehicles, a marine company for boats, houses we leave as is, and I have no idea about aircraft (never seized one yet). I have placed a few stickers on cars and boats. We seized former NBAer Latrell Sprewell's yacht and sold it at auction a few years ago. A few weeks ago I took one of our admin staff to the post office so she could mail over $100,000.00 in seized jewelry to the auction company.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Quick! Go arrest Tom's ASI!
On a serious note, I think the point of dispute is at what point in an aircraft dispute like this the Federal judge gets involved. If it's as easy as Henning says to get a Federal judge to issue an order, I'm surprised that it wasn't done in this case and many other cases.
JB1842
En-Route
I'm no lawyer, by the way, and not really sure how they got the federal courts involved, but my guess would be the whole "interstate commerce" that is written in federal statutes. Since the Cirrus is now owned by China, and their plane is located somewhere outside of their control, it would make sense to me they would go through the federal courts to get their property back. I've only scanned through the article, so I'm only vaguely familiar with the issues, but almost anybody can file a case against somebody in federal court.
It costs money, $2500 to the USMS plus the daily custodial fee to the company the USMS contracted, loser pays all costs, at least in Admiralty cases; I never caught the dispositions on the aircraft side, just taking custody from the Marshal.
I haven't been involved in the custody business for 3+ years, it was $2500 then, IIRC that covered all the USMS costs, but I'm not positive that more aren't tossed in to the final bill ( I didn't work that department, I'm the guy that signs your paper, does the photos & videos and takes it to storage). Anyway, it cost $2500 to get the process started at that time.
Last edited:
Love this forum. If you have a discussion about rocket-surgery, you will probably find a rocket-surgeon to chime in.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Admiralty Courts handle boat disputes at the Federal level, but do not handle aircraft, although it has been tried.
The US has no 'Admiralty Court' I am aware of. All the cases I know are handled by a Federal Circuit Court judge under Admiralty Law. The only difference I am aware of in how the cases are handled is that in Admiralty it's always 'looser pays costs'.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Courts of equity, law, and admiralty all share the same space.
JB1842
En-Route
Correct. There is no Admiralty Court, but there are Admiralty laws. I was just talking to one of our older-timers here. He said he seized 2 DC-8's years ago.
JimNtexas
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,259
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Display Name
Display name:
Jim - In Texas!
JB1842
En-Route
Repossession and a court-odereder seizure are just a little different. Even if we seize something that has a lien on it, the lien holder is usually SOL until the court process is done. That can take years.
Cirrus already tried that. They weren't assertive enough and Zoom managed to snag the plane back. Had they sent an expert, they would already be in possession of the plane.(as manufacturer and sole service provider, recreating the logs would not cost them much).
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Cirrus is busy this week. I think they're tired of the games. New filing today:
Don't forget, one of the items in the discovery request was the Aircraft itself.
Repossession is an entirely different ball game from judicial seizure. All I need for a repo is a letter from the bank and a repo license. There is no law enforcement involved unless I need the sheriff for safety.
Unless the lienholder is the one taking him to court, he may be SOL anyway. If the property ends up forfeited to satisfy the judgement, IIRC, he receives clear title. If the property gets sold through the courts, then any overage goes to settle other liens. From my recollection, the only time the government doesn't issue clear title is when the IRS sells something to settle a tax bill, then all liens (except theirs) still exists.
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Thanks for posting that...I ordered it, but didn't get home early enough to post it myself.
I think Campbell has stretched his neck to the full extent over the chopping block, and Cirrus' attorneys are taking advantage of it. With Campbell acting has his own attorney, the plaintiff is sowing the field with multiple legal traps in the form of these motions. If he responds to any of the Cirrus motions, he's likely to make the same kinds of mistakes and make himself look like an even larger idiot.
Cirrus has even used a bit of inflammatory phrasing that should goad Campbell's ego: "It is incredulous that Defendant just obtained a copy of the Withdrawal Motion..." "KSA's wanton and ongoing failure..." "...undersigned counsel has attempted to confer with Defendant..."
There another aspect here, too: Anytime someone gives an excuse, they're saying it's someone ELSE's fault ("the dog ate my homework" "The alarm clock didn't go off.").
So... with Campbell's excuse for not getting a new attorney within the time limit, who is he blaming?
His former attorney? She was dismissed a month earlier; she had no further obligation.
Cirrus' attorney? They've got no responsibility to help the other side, as long as they follow the law.
There's only one entity left: The court itself. In other words, it's the judge's fault.
Bet that won't fly.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
Just realized an interesting implication in Cirrus' filing in response to Campbell request for an extension of his attorney-hunt time limit.
Cirrus says:
1. Campbell's attorney filed for withdrawal in January.
2. The Judge granted the motion at the court date on 21 Feb, and
3. The order was served on Campbell at his home.
What is missing in here? A statement that Campbell was *present* and heard the judge grant the order during the February court date.
It seems to me that if Campbell had heard the order granted in person, Cirrus would have said so. That would have been an overwhelming argument in their favor.
The implication, then, is that Campbell WASN'T there...that he blew off the court date. That's a classic Campbell tactic: Deniability. He wasn't there, so it didn't happen.
On the other hand, if Campbell WAS there, he can expect even less sympathy from the Judge....
Ron Wanttaja
Cirrus says:
1. Campbell's attorney filed for withdrawal in January.
2. The Judge granted the motion at the court date on 21 Feb, and
3. The order was served on Campbell at his home.
What is missing in here? A statement that Campbell was *present* and heard the judge grant the order during the February court date.
It seems to me that if Campbell had heard the order granted in person, Cirrus would have said so. That would have been an overwhelming argument in their favor.
The implication, then, is that Campbell WASN'T there...that he blew off the court date. That's a classic Campbell tactic: Deniability. He wasn't there, so it didn't happen.
On the other hand, if Campbell WAS there, he can expect even less sympathy from the Judge....
Ron Wanttaja
If you're represented, you can usually blow off most of the appearances. However, the hand written "I just found out" motion is pure Jim. Maybe the judge will tell him to govern himself accordingly.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Anyone taking bets that the new attorney will ask for a continuance, as he will have only been retained the preceding day?
Attachments
heilmanbw
Pre-Flight
I just saw this thread and have spent the last couple of hours going through everything. This thing reads like some kind of movie script or soap opera. I vaguely recall the Tulsa incident. This dude is crazy! I used to live not far from he does now never knew I had someone that full of himself that close.
Is there anything in FL procedure rules that would require the judge to grant such a motion or could he just say 'enough of the shenanigans, you had 5 months to get an attorney, motion denied'.
wanttaja
En-Route
I think the judge would grant additional time, just out of pure fairness. It's not the new attorney's fault. If Campbell shows up with a lawyer, I suspect the judge will deny Cirrus' motion for immediate judgement and establish a ~30-day deadline to file responses to the discovery requests.
Remember, there's no real immediacy to this...it's just a property dispute. I expect the judge's attitude is that, if the final ruling is in Cirrus' favor, Cirrus will be compensated for the delays by a higher damage award.
Of course, "award" doesn't necessary translate to receiving the money....
Ron Wanttaja
IIRC, not that long ago Campbell was bemoaning Cirrus' seeming abandonment of "the Jet", and also predicting gloom and doom because of its new Chinese ownership. Now, when that new ownership resurrects the Jet, he steps up and congratulates Cirrus and the Chinese for getting the program back on track and adding American jobs in Duluth in the process -- no wait, just kidding.
Read this nifty piece of journalism: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=761eec86-5ebb-41f8-ae8b-8521218c7306
Read this nifty piece of journalism: http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=761eec86-5ebb-41f8-ae8b-8521218c7306
Last edited:
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
That's nothing, but what I notice is that ANN is getting slow in breaking stories. The last time Campbell even tried to scooping anyone was the price increase of C-162. Ever since AVweb and other stolid pieces of online aviating deliver the reporting ahead of him.
dell30rb
Final Approach
Well then Cirrus needs to get you to go all Raylan on him.
Best show on TV
'Fairness' would be a judicial process that returns property to the rightful owner in an expedited manner.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Aww dang it. You suckered me into clicking. I've avoided that for a long time now. I have to reset my "We've been Internet Accident Free for X Days" flip sign on the wall. 
Here's the sad part. *Some* of what he said was true. Usually is.
We won't hear anything but Rah Rah Rah from AOPA, EAA, or any of the other more stable journalistic sources.
There will be another puff piece about a tiny jet that cost 8 times my house, roughly... and lots of added ooh and ahh buzzwords like "innovative" and "economical" tossed in for good measure.
Maybe J. Mac will get to fly the darn thing and gush about it in Sport (cough) Aviation too. Regale us all with his autopilot at FL210 prowess.
He may be biased, but Cirus' Corporate priorities are a shame nevertheless...
Here's the sad part. *Some* of what he said was true. Usually is.
We won't hear anything but Rah Rah Rah from AOPA, EAA, or any of the other more stable journalistic sources.
There will be another puff piece about a tiny jet that cost 8 times my house, roughly... and lots of added ooh and ahh buzzwords like "innovative" and "economical" tossed in for good measure.
Maybe J. Mac will get to fly the darn thing and gush about it in Sport (cough) Aviation too. Regale us all with his autopilot at FL210 prowess.
He may be biased, but Cirus' Corporate priorities are a shame nevertheless...
I think Cirrus' corporate priorities, which are about the same as any other company's, are:
1. Survive.
2. Make some money.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3,903,365,123. Meet Jim Campbell's expectations.
denverpilot
Tied Down
That looks like the Underpants Gnome's business model!
The fact that Zoom is usually on the righteous side of most issues makes his angry diatribes all the more frustrating.
I guess you could say that, in that he attacks villains. But his villians always seem to start out as pretty normal people who happen to cross, or won't kowtow to, him, and then he pours barrels of ink on them, painting them as the exaggerated dastardly fools he considers them to be.
Last edited: