Negative ANN article about Cirrus

Minor action on the docket Tuesday: It's described as a "Designation of Primary E-Mail Address." I don't have a copy of the filing...

Yeah, I almost posted it, but it seemed more administrative than relevant to our interest in the case, so I didn't. But, here it is:
 

Attachments

  • Designation of Primary Email Address.pdf
    24.1 KB · Views: 8
I think the "generic" address on the filing information is to guarantee that any court correspondence goes through a defined process rather than just being dumped in some individual attorney's inbox. Law firms need to make sure that correspondence gets placed in the appropriate client file as well as maintaining an appearance calendar if the correspondence indicates that.

You'll notice the litcontrol@lowndes address as secondaries in Cirrus's attorney info.
 
I think the "generic" address on the filing information is to guarantee that any court correspondence goes through a defined process rather than just being dumped in some individual attorney's inbox. Law firms need to make sure that correspondence gets placed in the appropriate client file as well as maintaining an appearance calendar if the correspondence indicates that.

Yes, good point. The weird thing is, Campbell's attorney's email address appears to have been changed back to the "lindelfarson.com" domain. Wonder if there had been a mistake at the clerk's office.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
A second "Designation of Primary E-Mail Address" filing was made Thursday. Wonder if this is an indication that things are going to pick up again?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Wow, the FL courts have leaped into the 21st century.

I bet a lot of law firms are working on moving their email service from 'joes crab-shack and website emporium' to companies that provide a auditable and certified secure email service.
 
Wow, the FL courts have leaped into the 21st century.

I bet a lot of law firms are working on moving their email service from 'joes crab-shack and website emporium' to companies that provide a auditable and certified secure email service.

Because no single ISP can control email delivery, it doesn't really matter what requirements are placed on the receiving systems. Email delivery is a "best effort" system that no one is legally responsible for because it gets relayed from one privately owned entity to another, none of which provide any guarantees (except possibly to their own customers, and then only in regards to just their network equipment.) There isn't even any requirement that one ISP accept email from other systems. If email gets dropped enroute, tough. It is a federal crime to interfere with postal mail, but email is routinely and legally "interfered" with by a multitude of systems (e.g. spam filters that customers have no control over.)

A lot of private and government entities seem to treat email as somehow as having the same legal protections and reliability as postal mail. Dangerously stupid, IMHO.

Sorry for the thread drift.
 
Wow, the FL courts have leaped into the 21st century.

I bet a lot of law firms are working on moving their email service from 'joes crab-shack and website emporium' to companies that provide a auditable and certified secure email service.

Gotta keep the auditors in biz so the lawyers can bring more cases against the non-audited e-mail users. :)
 
More filings - looks like this will drag on forever...

10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce pltfs second to kindred spirit
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition james campbell 1/4/13 at 11.00 am
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition of corporate representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC on 1/4/13 at 2:00pm
 
The reason they do so is that the benefits far outweigh the risks and nothing is fool-proof. The mail truck in our neighborhood was cleaned out by thieves at 1100 while parked at the curb two weeks ago. I couldn't think of anything that might have affected us, but by coincidence received a distribution from one of the real estate partnerships the next day.

Because no single ISP can control email delivery, it doesn't really matter what requirements are placed on the receiving systems. Email delivery is a "best effort" system that no one is legally responsible for because it gets relayed from one privately owned entity to another, none of which provide any guarantees (except possibly to their own customers, and then only in regards to just their network equipment.) There isn't even any requirement that one ISP accept email from other systems. If email gets dropped enroute, tough. It is a federal crime to interfere with postal mail, but email is routinely and legally "interfered" with by a multitude of systems (e.g. spam filters that customers have no control over.)

A lot of private and government entities seem to treat email as somehow as having the same legal protections and reliability as postal mail. Dangerously stupid, IMHO.

Sorry for the thread drift.
 
More filings - looks like this will drag on forever...
Campbell will probably be able to stretch it to at least the second anniversary. If he misses the deposition in January ("I had an emergency come up") it'll be another two months until the next date. If he ticks off his attorney again and the new one quits, he'll get another 120 days, easy (30 days to get a court hearing to approve departure, 90 days leeway to get a new one like last time).

I'll order the new filings tomorrow and post 'em.

Ron Wanttaja
 
More filings - looks like this will drag on forever...

10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce pltfs second to kindred spirit
10/29/2012 Notice of Serving Interrogatories
10/29/2012 Request for Production/To Produce
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition james campbell 1/4/13 at 11.00 am
10/29/2012 Notice of Taking Deposition of corporate representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC on 1/4/13 at 2:00pm
Filings Attached. Note that the filings for Campbell and for KSA are almost identical (the only difference that I saw was the last item in the Requests for Production).

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • Oct 2012 - Notice of Serving Interrogatories - KSA.pdf
    120.9 KB · Views: 22
  • Oct 2012 - Second Request for Production - KSA.pdf
    429.4 KB · Views: 16
  • Oct 2012 - Second Request for Production - Campbell.pdf
    427.9 KB · Views: 17
  • Oct 2012 - Notice of Taking Deposition - KSA.pdf
    185.9 KB · Views: 10
  • Oct 2012 - Notice of Taking Deposition - Campbell.pdf
    179.2 KB · Views: 20
  • Oct 2012 - Notice of Serving Interrogatories - Campbell.pdf
    120.8 KB · Views: 13
Some new action today:

11/21/2012 Objection
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
11/21/2012 Objection
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
 
Some new action today:

11/21/2012 Objection
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production
11/21/2012 Objection
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories
11/21/2012 Response (Generic)
by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production

I'll order these filings tomorrow afternoon (11/27), unless I hear someone else already has.
 
Arrived earlier today:
 

Attachments

  • Objection by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories.pdf
    27.3 KB · Views: 32
  • Objection by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories.pdf
    28.2 KB · Views: 20
  • Response (Generic) by James R. Campbell to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production.pdf
    43.7 KB · Views: 28
  • Response (Generic) by Kindred Spirit Aviation, LLC to Plaintiff's Second Request for Production .pdf
    41 KB · Views: 22
Arrived earlier today:

Thanks much. Curious about the wording of one of one of the responses to the Request for Production:

"3. Payments for the Aircraft were made, as contemplated by Campbell's agreement with Alan Klapmeier..."

"Contemplated" seems a curious word choice, from the language point of view. Is there a legal aspect to the term?

Ron Wanttaja
 
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.

Well, I'm quoting myself, must have said something important :wink2:

Further up, I wondered about whether Cirrus forgave him part of the loan in exchange for his advertising work. In his recent response, he cites forms 1099C (cancellation of debt) issued by Cirrus for 2010. This would suggest that Cirrus at least at that time saw this as a barter deal and forgave him debt in exchange for advertising. This 1099C strengthens his argument that there was a quid pro quo deal, I doubt that Cirrus termination of the advertising arm of the deal in jan 11 means he can keep the plane for free.
 
I'm surprised defendant introduced a 1099C. That would indicate that a defendant owes a debt, some or all of which was canceled by the debtor.

A 1099C is not some kind of receipt for payment

A 1099C seems to support the plantief's claim that they are owed money by defendant.
 
How does anyone ever sue anybody? We hear about our litigious society all the time, but by the time the court does anything we could all die of old age.
 
How does anyone ever sue anybody? We hear about our litigious society all the time, but by the time the court does anything we could all die of old age.

A bad lawyer makes your case drag on for years. A good lawyer makes it last even longer.
 
A 1099C seems to support the plantief's claim that they are owed money by defendant.

It also means that they acknowledge that there was a debt forgiveness for advertising deal, a fact that their original lawsuit filings didn't touch on.

Remember, he believes Cirrus owes him 700k for his slanted positive 'reporting' before he went ape#### crazy on them.
 
How does anyone ever sue anybody? We hear about our litigious society all the time, but by the time the court does anything we could all die of old age.

Lawyers charge by the hour, that's all you need to know to figure that mystery out. Incentives = behavior.
 
The 1099-C doesn't indicate any agreement at all. It just means they've given up trying to collect (at least part of) the debt. It doesn't mean they're waiving their right to the security.
 
At the time it was happening, I couldn't figure out why ANN published pages and pages of discordant rants about Sun 'N' Fun...after reading the NTSB hearing transcript and this 27 page thread it's all much clearer. It took a while, though. :D

I'm curious to see if Campbell's behavior in this action will escalate to the point the FAA considers action against his medical again.
 
At the time it was happening, I couldn't figure out why ANN published pages and pages of discordant rants about Sun 'N' Fun...after reading the NTSB hearing transcript and this 27 page thread it's all much clearer. It took a while, though. :D

I'm curious to see if Campbell's behavior in this action will escalate to the point the FAA considers action against his medical again.
I doubt it will. The NTSB case was about Campbell's aviation employers complaining of his actions related to aviation while he was employed professionally. Forced landings after "engine failures," students complaining, pretending to be an airline pilot, etc.

None of which applies, in this case. Campbell is involved in a financial dispute that does not involve aircraft operations, especially commercial aircraft operations. The FAA doesn't really have a reason to get involved, and, considering past history, will probably shy away from it, anyway.

They'll only get involved if there's an incident related to the aircraft itself or something else directly associated with flying.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Ron, do you know the outcome of the bankruptcy trustee's lawsuit against Campbell? It alleged some very serious misconduct, and reading the transcript of hearings with the trustee it was pretty obvious Campbell had indeed acted as detailed in the pleadings.

A common thread in his dealings with authorities is the incredible amount of obfuscation and hyperbole. I imagine after listening to his nonsense for a while the trustee had a barely controllable urge to find a 2 X 4 and whack him over the head...
 
Ron, do you know the outcome of the bankruptcy trustee's lawsuit against Campbell? It alleged some very serious misconduct, and reading the transcript of hearings with the trustee it was pretty obvious Campbell had indeed acted as detailed in the pleadings.
A negotiated settlement was approved on 10 August 2000. As you can see from the attached, Campbell agreed to a settlement of about $25,000, paid in increments of $562 per month. The agreement stated that no judgement would be entered (in the fraud and perjury lawsuit), unless Campbell failed to make the monthly payments.

Curiously, the Trustee's Final Report shows the payments starting a year later (August 22, 2001) than the settlement date. This may merely reflect the change in trustees about that date.

Initially, the monthly payments were made. But a year later, he missed a month. When payments resumed, they were from the Aero News Net checking account.

After that, the missed payments started to mount. By mid-2003, they were made only every other month. He finally quit entirely in April 2005.

The Bankruptcy Trustee closed out the account in July 2006. Campbell had paid $18,561 of the $25,571 owed. The Trustee did not enter the judgement on the fraud and perjury suit, as she could have. Probably considered it too much of a hassle; the Trustee at that point wasn't the one who had been lied to in court and would therefore have less interest in re-opening the case.

A common thread in his dealings with authorities is the incredible amount of obfuscation and hyperbole. I imagine after listening to his nonsense for a while the trustee had a barely controllable urge to find a 2 X 4 and whack him over the head...

No doubt, but what happens is that it makes officialdom *very* cautious. Campbell will typically claim violation of his First Amendment rights as a journalist. This is unfamilar ground for most bureaucrats and even the police, so they become very cautious in their actions. This works to Campbell's benefit.

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • bankruptcy settlement.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 11
No doubt, but what happens is that it makes officialdom *very* cautious. Campbell will typically claim violation of his First Amendment rights as a journalist. This is unfamilar ground for most bureaucrats and even the police, so they become very cautious in their actions. This works to Campbell's benefit.

Didn't work so well in Federal court where he was told to govern himself accordingly.
 
Didn't work so well in Federal court where he was told to govern himself accordingly.
Doesn't work on lawyers, period. Back in the early days of the RAH scrap, people would read the copyright notice on Campbell's threatening emails and would think it meant that they couldn't even TELL anyone about them. Then Tony Pucillo came along....

Ron Wanttaja
 
The 1099-C doesn't indicate any agreement at all. It just means they've given up trying to collect (at least part of) the debt. It doesn't mean they're waiving their right to the security.

From what has been filed so far, they did not consider him in default during those years and did not start any collection or repossession action against him. Given that this deal reached back to 2009, the fact that they did not move against him in 2010 and willingly cancelled the payments due bolsters his case that a quid pro quo existed.
 
From what has been filed so far, they did not consider him in default during those years and did not start any collection or repossession action against him. Given that this deal reached back to 2009, the fact that they did not move against him in 2010 and willingly cancelled the payments due bolsters his case that a quid pro quo existed.
The other interesting thing is the wording of Campbell/KSA's recent response to the second request for production:

"3. Payments for the Aircraft were made, as contemplated by Campbell's agreement with Alan Klapmeier...."

Curious that Campbell's response referred to an agreement with Klapmeier, rather than an agreement with Cirrus. Klapmeier *was* the CEO at the time*, but you'd think Campbell's emphasis would be to show that Cirrus still had the obligation. "Alan Klapmeier acting for Cirrus Aircraft," that sort of thing. Almost implies it was a personal agreement.

(* Klapmeier was CEO at the time any agreement was made, but a lame-duck one. He'd already been informed of his dismissal.)

Pity we don't have access to the exhibits mentioned in the response. These were apparently introduced during Klapmeier's deposition.

Ron Wanttaja
 
A negotiated settlement was approved on 10 August 2000. As you can see from the attached, Campbell agreed to a settlement of about $25,000, paid in increments of $562 per month.

I'm going to guess that since the negotiated amount was insignificant, the IRS didn't come after him for taxes on the allegedly converted assets which paid his personal bills, and for the personal gain on sale of the Mooney...the trustee claimed the value as several hundred thousand dollars.
 
And.... Another One Bites the Dust:

12/03/2012 Motion (Generic)
of Lindell & Farson, P.A. to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendants


I'll order a copy of the motion this week.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Back
Top