Negative ANN article about Cirrus

jm0045 said:
I think whether there was a deal, other than in Campbell's mind, is still an open question.
Click to expand...

The answer to that question will be in the record.
If Cirrus received bank drafts from KSA or Campbell leading up to december 2010, there was no deal beyond him maybe getting a good buy on a factory demonstrator plane.

If the record shows that Cirrus never received external payments and simply booked the monthly writeoff on the loan against some marketing account......

Question for the lawyers: The judge denied his motion to dismiss without giving any further explanation.
Does that create any prejudice against the evidence he attached to his motion to dismiss ?
If not, he can still bring the marketing agreement into the trial, right ? While the written contracts Cirrus submitted dont allow for offsets, if Cirrus in fact allowed those offsets for 2 years it may weaken the enforcability of that contract provision.
 
Summary judgements or dismissals generally require there to be a compelling case that can't be argued the other way. It doesn't necessarily mean anything about the quality of the evidence or the point of law, just that it was not so compelling on it's face to prevent a trial.
 
bbchien said:
It just goes to show that when one has a borderline personality disorder, it's quite a handicap when working in aviation.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to stick to the FAA line that it's "borderline". In my humble opinion from everything I've seen and heard, I'd have a very hard time adding that word to your sentence.

I am not a Doctor and don't play one on TV, but I wouldn't get in a car with that fruitcake, let alone an aircraft.
 
weilke said:
Question for the lawyers: The judge denied his motion to dismiss without giving any further explanation.
Does that create any prejudice against the evidence he attached to his motion to dismiss ?
If not, he can still bring the marketing agreement into the trial, right ? While the written contracts Cirrus submitted dont allow for offsets, if Cirrus in fact allowed those offsets for 2 years it may weaken the enforcability of that contract provision.
Click to expand...

As of now, the marketing agreement is completely irrelevant. That agreement is between ANN and Cirrus.

For purposes of analogy, I agree to rent you a house for $1000 per month. Your mother pays the rent every month. If I do not receive the rent payment, for whatever reason, I start eviction proceedings. The real estate lease is between you and me. Your mother made payments on your behalf, but is not a party. You can't claim that I must let you live there because your mother has a fantastic reason why she stopped paying. It doesn't matter. I didn't get paid, so you're getting evicted. If your mother wants to become a party, or you want to drag her into it, there's a process for that called impleader. You implead mom as a third party defendant, because she was to make the payments for you. Now, as a party to the case, mom can argue her fantastic reason for stopping payment. But until she's a party to the case, her reason doesn't come in.

The agreement between ANN and Cirrus is like your mother's fantastic reason. But unless ANN is a party, it's irrelevant to the dispute between KSA and Cirrus.
 
I can't believe this thread is going on for this long! I lost interest a long time ago. :dunno:
 
denverpilot said:
Nice of you to stick to the FAA line that it's "borderline". In my humble opinion from everything I've seen and heard, I'd have a very hard time adding that word to your sentence.
Click to expand...

Actually 'borderline personality disorder' is a disease defined in the diagnostic and statistical manual used by psychiatrists and psychologists. It's not anywhere on the line between normal and crazy, it is just on the line between two different kinds of crazy.

It is the disease stalker ex-girlfriends tend to have ;) .

Here are the DSM criteria. Start counting, if you get to five call 'bingo':

Diagnostic criteria for 301.83 Borderline Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment.
Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.
(2) a pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and devaluation
(3) identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self
(4) impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex, Substance Abuse, reckless driving, binge eating).
Note: Do not include suicidal or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.
(5) recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior
(6) affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days)
(7) chronic feelings of emptiness
(8) inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights)
(9) transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms


'Borderline' is a subset of 'personality disorder'. The NTSB actually found that he had the 'narcicistic' subtype rather than the 'borderline' subtype. Below are the DSM criteria for that subtype. Again, count until you reach five and yell 'bingo':


Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
(4) requires excessive admiration
(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

All definition as posted on behavenet and owned by the various three letter organizations that made them up.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
If the record shows that Cirrus never received external payments and simply booked the monthly writeoff on the loan against some marketing account...
Click to expand...

Good point re the form of payment and its implying whether an offset deal really existed; but, even if ANN had made the payments up until January, they apparently stopped at that point, and even if Cirrus had accepted the ANN payments before then, that doesn't mean there was any agreement for Cirrus to keep advertising in the amount of the payments, or even at all.

My guess is that Alan might have said something like, "Heck, Jim, our advertising will probably cover the payments anyway." Or, more likely, Campbell might have asked, "Would you offset the payments by the amount of your advertising?" with Alan sayiing, "Sure. That's just an accounting thing." Whether either of those scenarios could be considered a contract for advertising in the amount of the payments, for the life of the loan, is for the court to decide.
 
Last edited:
jm0045 said:
Good point re the form of payment and its implying whether an offset deal really existed; but, even if ANN had made the payments up until January, they apparently stopped at that point, and even if Cirrus had accepted the ANN payments before then, that doesn't mean there was any agreement for Cirrus to keep advertising in the amount of the payments, or even at all.
Click to expand...

Even if ANN rather than KSA or JC were making actual payments up to december, it wouldn't mean that the 'marketing proposal' was part of the overall deal. If NO actual payments were made, it would make for a good case that the 'marketing proposal' was part of the agreement even if some blurbs in the note paperwork state otherwise.
 
a) Some folks here were permanently traumatized by being sued by this guy. They'll forever hate him and be enamored with tracking this loser's every step.

b) People still get sucked into his shenanigans. The Internet gets the word out, but "you can't save 'em all".

c) It's the Internet. It's all stocked up on crazy, and tracking and documentation of same. At no time in human history has it been so easy to see how screwed up humans are. ;)
 
Court approved the original plaintiff's request to appear telephonically. A second copy (appears to be identical to the Feb 2nd filing) of the request for permission for plaintiff's counsel to appear telephonically was also filed again on Feb 6th.
 

Attachments

  • Generic Order Plaintiff Telephonic Approved, Feb 6 2012.pdf
    1.1 MB · Views: 13
  • Motion to Appear Telephonically, Feb 6 2012.pdf
    413.4 KB · Views: 9
steingar said:
He's been at it how long? How long does one have to pursue an activity that keeps one in house and home before we call them a failure?
Click to expand...
Gotta agree with Steingar, here... lot of companies have gone under in the past ten years, but ANN is still operating. It's like the dilapidated used-car lots you see on many street corners. The complaints to the BBB may come flying in, but the companies manage to stay in business.

How successful is ANN? A few years back, ANN's Director of Marketing, Bruce Samulin, sued Campbell and ANN over unpaid commissions. Samulin's complaint said he was supposed to be paid 15% of all advertising contracts entered into between ANN and the advertisers. To support his claim, Samulin submitted a spreadsheet showing ANN's advertising revenue, by month, for the year he held his position.

Couple of things surprised me about the spreadsheet. One is the relatively low total advertising revenue: For the year Samulin lists, ANN's total ad revenue is about $50,000 for a total of nine advertisers. I frankly expected it to be higher. Curiously enough, Cirrus isn't listed.

Perhaps Samulin doesn't list every advertiser... it was a small claims case limited to $5,000. But Samulin's tally of unpaid commissions was over $7,000, so he just didn't stop at the limit. His complaint said he had not been paid anything.

The case ended in an out-of-court settlement, featuring a confidentiality agreement.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Gotta agree with Steingar, here... lot of companies have gone under in the past ten years, but ANN is still operating. It's like the dilapidated used-car lots you see on many street corners. The complaints to the BBB may come flying in, but the companies manage to stay in business.

How successful is ANN? A few years back, ANN's Director of Marketing, Bruce Samulin, sued Campbell and ANN over unpaid commissions. Samulin's complaint said he was supposed to be paid 15% of all advertising contracts entered into between ANN and the advertisers. To support his claim, Samulin submitted a spreadsheet showing ANN's advertising revenue, by month, for the year he held his position.

Couple of things surprised me about the spreadsheet. One is the relatively low total advertising revenue: For the year Samulin lists, ANN's total ad revenue is about $50,000 for a total of nine advertisers. I frankly expected it to be higher. Curiously enough, Cirrus isn't listed.

Perhaps Samulin doesn't list every advertiser... it was a small claims case limited to $5,000. But Samulin's tally of unpaid commissions was over $7,000, so he just didn't stop at the limit. His complaint said he had not been paid anything.

The case ended in an out-of-court settlement, featuring a confidentiality agreement.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
I would be surprised (nay, shocked) if he weighed in on this thread. but I believe that our new member Paul W. Plack is one of ANN's employees. Were I he, I'd stay as far from this thread as possible!
 
gprellwitz said:
I would be surprised (nay, shocked) if he weighed in on this thread. but I believe that our new member Paul W. Plack is one of ANN's employees. Were I he, I'd stay as far from this thread as possible!
Click to expand...
Good advice for the Zoomies... What ever happened to Juan, Ron?
 
gprellwitz said:
I would be surprised (nay, shocked) if he weighed in on this thread. but I believe that our new member Paul W. Plack is one of ANN's employees. Were I he, I'd stay as far from this thread as possible!
Click to expand...

As well he should, presuming he signed the standard Aero-News Network Confidentiality and Non Compete Agreement:

"2. Good Will: The employee recognizes that the employer has a valid business interest in maintaining the good will of it's [sic] readers, information sources, and advertisers. The employee promises to do nothing which will in any way cast doubt upon the integrity and competency of the employer at any time."

Under normal circumstances, a reasonable clause. But I think it's a land mine when around someone of Campbell's personality. He has a thin skin; you don't know if he'll take umbrage at an anecdote that paints him in anything else but a glowing light.

And then, when a prospective employer calls Campbell about you, he can make comments like, "He violated our confidentiality agreement." Cheery prospect, that. Good reason to stay quiet, or only say nice things.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
Good advice for the Zoomies... What ever happened to Juan, Ron?
Click to expand...

Hadn't thought about him for a while, but it looks like Juan's still around... his last web page update was just a couple of months ago.

http://www.bd5.com/

Juan was OK. We had our arguments, but he never got nasty unless someone else got nasty first. He told me his Campbell story, and given the circumstances, one can't blame him for his loyalty.

Curiously, there doesn't appear to be an ANN link in the "Aviation Link" section of his web page. One has to wonder.

When one contemplates the Campbell controversy, one has to realize that this is not a story about one dragon and five thousand St. Georges. The RAHers remember Kevin O'Brian, one of Campbell's writers. He gleefully accepted most of the things said by the anti-Campbell camp, but saw US Aviator/ANN as a good venue for his writing.

On the same note, just because Campbell claimed someone was a bad person didn't automatically mean the guy was completely honest and decent.

There are many shades of gray at work here, and one has to understand that there are other points of view that can seem just as logical as our own.

Ron Wanttaja
 
New Court Posting: 2/9/2012 Objection to Defendants' Notice of Production from Non-Parties
 
Oh yeah, I forgot about Juan's slavish devotion to Jim Bede. He certainly has odd selection of idols.
 
TangoWhiskey said:
New Court Posting: 2/9/2012 Objection to Defendants' Notice of Production from Non-Parties
Click to expand...
Attached.
Click to expand...

Pretty much matches the points we raised in earlier postings. You *know* Campbell's motions are weak when a bunch of amateurs can spot the holes.

Something else Campbell's new attorney will have to deal with. If the judge releases them, of course. What are the chances that he'll deny their motion to be dismissed?

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Couple of things surprised me about the spreadsheet. One is the relatively low total advertising revenue: For the year Samulin lists, ANN's total ad revenue is about $50,000 for a total of nine advertisers. I frankly expected it to be higher. Curiously enough, Cirrus isn't listed.
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that Samulin listed ANN's monthly income through December 2008, the same time Campbell made the deal on the Cirrus.

I was a bit perplexed, at first. The payment on Campbell's Cirrus was $5,500 a month... who would give a loan to a company whose annual income was less than the annual loan payment? Even if Samulin was off by 100%, the airplane payments would still be 2/3rds of ANN's yearly income.

But this might explain why Campbell's loan was from Cirrus Design Corporation, instead of Cirrus Finance Inc, the company's usual lender. Was this directed by Alan Klapmeier, Cirrus' President and CEO?

The weird thing is the dates. Campbell's bought the airplane on 30 December 2008. However, a week and a half earlier, it was announced that Klapmeier was being relieved as President and CEO, effective in February.

It's an interesting coincidence. The deal had no doubt been under negotiation for a while, but one has to wonder if the new President/CEO would have struck the same deal. Did Klapmeier pass on information about a supposed verbal agreement to advertise with a third party (e.g., ANN)? Even if he did, seems like the new guy could just cancel it. Campbell certainly can't claim that Cirrus promised to advertise with him in perpetuity.

Klapmeier's deposition, when and if, should be interesting.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I hope Campbell didn't pay his lawyers too much, getting your subpoena plucked apart on errors of form can't be too pleasant.
Click to expand...

Cirrus' lawyers don't seem to be perfect either. One of the things they object to about the Klapmeier subpoena is that it should state "that the person will not be required to surrender the documents or things." In fact, at the top of page two of the subpoena, it states: "You will not be required to surrender the original items."
 
steingar said:
He's been at it how long? How long does one have to pursue an activity that keeps one in house and home before we call them a failure?

I have a brother who has never had a straight job. But he has been independent, housed, clothed and fed for decades. He may not be rich, but I hesitate at calling him a "failure".
Click to expand...

Here in america, that is apparently poverty.


We should start an ANN legal entertainment fund to purchase the transcripts.

I'd really like to see the language he used to compare himself to Chuck Yeager.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
I hope Campbell didn't pay his lawyers too much, getting your subpoena plucked apart on errors of form can't be too pleasant.
Click to expand...
Knowing Jim, he hasn't paid them PERIOD. That's probably one of the reasons they're trying to withdraw.
 
Steve Foley said:
Google "Noisy withdrawal" for more possible reasons.
Click to expand...

Does the mere fact that the lawyers petitioned the court for a withdrawal automatically make it "noisy"? Is there a quieter way to do it?
 
dell30rb said:
I'd really like to see the language he used to compare himself to Chuck Yeager.
Click to expand...

"Nobody has flown as many different types of aircraft on this planet besides me. My own little area. Call Chuck Yeager, he'll tell you. He's no where near that many."

It's from his testimony during the Airedale Press bankruptcy. Must be true; he was under oath at the time.

Ron Wanttaja
 
flyingron said:
Knowing Jim, he hasn't paid them PERIOD. That's probably one of the reasons they're trying to withdraw.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing they required a pretty hefty retainer, up front. I'm also guessing the retainer will be completely exhausted by 11 AM EST on Thursday.

Ron Wanttaja
 
weilke said:
I hope Campbell didn't pay his lawyers too much, getting your subpoena plucked apart on errors of form can't be too pleasant.
Click to expand...

Well... while lawyer-bashing is a fundamental portion of pilot DNA, I'm not sure how much we can actually blame the lawyers for this one.

Jim Campbell is the client, all decisions are ultimately his. His attorneys can recommend courses of action, apprise him of the likelihood of success of alternate approaches, etc. But it's Campbell who calls the shots. Up to the limits of legal ethics and Florida law, the lawyers have to do what Campbell tells them to.

I don't know if the lawyers recommended that Campbell claim that Cirrus' loan paperwork was forged, nor do I know if the lawyers recommended that they attempt to subpoena a third party's records in lieu of Campbell complying with the Request to Produce. But if Campbell wanted it that way, they'd have to comply, and make the strongest legal argument they could. If Campbell's demanded action doesn't leave them a lot, legally, to work with...well, it's the client's decision. I'm sure they hate it...it makes them look like idiots in front of the judge...but they have to abide by the client's direction.

All they can do is withdraw from the case, for which, of course, they've petitioned for permission. This latest batch means that over the past twenty years, at least ten lawyers have asked to be released as Jim Campbell's attorney. On one case, Campbell had three different lawyers, with the suit finally being dismissed for lack of prosecution about a year after the third moved for withdrawal.

So if the subpoena was weak, I don't blame Campbell's lawyers. I figure they're just trying to do what he's telling them to do, at least until the the judge releases them.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
So if the subpoena was weak, I don't blame Campbell's lawyers. I figure they're just trying to do what he's telling them to do, at least until the the judge releases them.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact that at least according to cirrus lawyers, the subpoena is full of errors of form, was petitioned for at the wrong court etc.
 
weilke said:
I was referring to the fact that at least according to cirrus lawyers, the subpoena is full of errors of form, was petitioned for at the wrong court etc.
Click to expand...
Well, you're right there. Old Timer pointed out that the Cirrus reply had a few form sort of errors, too, but Campbell's subpoena gave me the impression of a cut-and-paste job using a subpoena from another case as the basis. Maybe the retainer had already run out. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Well, you're right there. Old Timer pointed out that the Cirrus reply had a few form sort of errors, too, but Campbell's subpoena gave me the impression of a cut-and-paste job using a subpoena from another case as the basis.
Click to expand...

I am under the impression that 90% of legal work is cut+paste these days (or more likely the output of a legal verbiage processing system that is supposed to make the state specific conforming documents).

Maybe the retainer had already run out.
Click to expand...

And then there is the chance that the client said: 'what, you want me to hire another attorney in Brunswick, ME just to deliver a piece of paper ? Just send the subpoena already !'
 
I wonder how the hearing went yesterday.
 
Another "FAQ" about the Legal Defense Fund on ANN today. I'm sure they're innundated with questions about it.
 
Last edited:
jm0045 said:
Another "FAQ" about the Legal Defense Fund on ANN today. I'm sure they're innundated with questions about it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. His last two pleas for money on ANN have roughly corresponded with court dates. Judge throws out his unsigned/undated-marketing-proposal-is-as-good-as-a-signed-contract claim last month, and he's asking for money four days later. Now, when (presumably) the judge has approved his lawyers' motion to withdraw last Thursday, he's begging for money four days later again.

Assuming the judge told Campbell to get a new attorney, I presume that Campbell's previous counsel can't tell any prospective new counsel any details other than have been filed with the court. Is this the case? If so, what would motivate another attorney to take such a pig-in-a-poke?

Campbell has, at least twice, managed to get another lawyer after the previous one left, so there's got to be something that draws them in.

Ron Wanttaja
 
The FAQ for the defense fund is a doozy. More of a diatribe than a FAQ, but those are easy to confuse.

I'm still not sure I understand how Cirrus attempting to get their airplane back from Campbell is an attack on ANN's journalistic freedom.

But I'm frequently amused, confused, whatever...
 
wanttaja said:
Campbell has, at least twice, managed to get another lawyer after the previous one left, so there's got to be something that draws them in.
Click to expand...

The world is full of underemployed lawyers, what draws them in is a retainer.
 
kyleb said:
I'm still not sure I understand how Cirrus attempting to get their airplane back from Campbell is an attack on ANN's journalistic freedom.
Click to expand...

Here's my understanding (in a light most favorable to Campbell):

  • Cirrus and Campbell agreed to trade advertising for an aircraft.
  • Cirrus had Campbell and Kindred sign a promissory note and security agreement.
  • ANN provided the advertising.
  • They all lived happily ever after until....
  • ANN published something negative about Cirrus
  • Cirrus stopped advertising.
  • Campbell complained that they had an agreement and Cirrus cannot stop advertising.

    crickets



  • Six months go by and Cirrus announces that Kindred is in default.
    Fast forward to now.

So, in a roundabout way, Cirrus is trying to take back their plane because ANN published something they didn't like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top