TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
New filings.
Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
wanttaja
En-Route
Thanks for posting that. For those playing at home, Campbell objected to producing the following items:
5. Any and all documents and things evidencing leases, storage agreements, or hangar agreements pertaining to this aircraft.
6. Any and all documents and things evidencing any and all payments by Defendant pertaining to the storage of the Aircraft, or the lease of space or hangars for the storage of the Aircraft.
11. Any and all documents and things constituting parts of the Aircraft, equipment related to the aircraft, and keys, locks, and other personal property related to or comprising part of the Aircraft collateral, as defined in the Complaint.
12. The aircraft.
13. Any and all documents and things constituting the following: (list of avionics, spare parts, etc.).
15. Any or all correspondence between Plaintiff and Defendants.
For the latter, Campbell says he'll provide all records from December 1st 2008 to the present. I'd presume this would include the negotiation period for the deal, but there may be earlier correspondence that Cirrus may want to reference.
Overall, not much of a surprise.
One question for those with a better legal background: Campbell's attorney also filed paperwork claiming the Plaintiff had been supplied with his answers to the Interrogatories. Do these get filed as public records as well, so we can see them?
Ron Wanttaja
Inmost states, you no longer file the actual discovery responses with the court (massive files!), only certificates of same.
So, no, the actual responses will not be filed.
So, no, the actual responses will not be filed.
wanttaja
En-Route
Pity...would have been interesting reading.
Guess I got spoiled, being a defendant when Campbell sued me. All the paperwork mine for the asking....
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
None of the folks with legal backgrounds have chimed in, and I'm suspecting that's because the course is hard to predict at this point.
Cirrus just got access to the data from their discovery requests, and one would assume it'll take a while to digest. If they find a huge smoking gun in it, one would expect that Cirrus would file appropriate motions for summary judgement.
However, it'd probably take a pretty poor attorney to let THAT happen. So I expect Cirrus' next step will be to get Campbell to go on the record for his side of the story so they can work at debunking it.
Campbell has claimed that Cirrus' purchase agreement is fraudulent, but hasn't said *how*. Are the signatures forged? Was a valid signature page grafted onto the back of a document that Campbell never saw? Cirrus can't rebut Campbell's story until Campbell gives his version of what happened.
To me (a non-lawyer), this leads me to speculate that the next step will be to get Campbell to depose... place him under oath and get his story. Since this is a situation where the defendant claims that the loan paperwork was forged and a verbal contract was in force, Cirrus' obvious approach would be to minimize the believability of the verbal contract claim by attacking Campbell's credibility.
This is only an issue, of course, if Campbell actually agrees to and shows up for a deposition. As I mentioned before, he cancelled both attempts to get a deposition in his last SnF case. He may not attempt to avoid this time, as the SnF case he would have been specifically grilled about his personal behavior and this case is more related to contracts. Still, he probably realizes Cirrus will be asking some tough, embarrassing questions about his truthfulness.
This may involve many approaches. Campbell claims that Cirrus failed to comply with an alleged verbal contract. Cirrus can point out that Campbell has repeatedly made similar claims regarding other companies. Cirrus has precedence on its side, as the only case that actually went to the judge was a loss for Campbell.
The fraud and perjury lawsuit dating back to a previous company's bankruptcy may come into play. Campbell paid a significant amount of money to have it settled out-of-court.
Finally, of course, Cirrus can bring up the NTSB case. Campbell's attorney will certainly claim that this 30-year-old incident has no bearing on Campbell's current credibility. But the Federal judge in the NTSB case ten years ago accepted it into evidence, and rather snarkily slapped away Campbell's attorney's attempt to discredit it:
Campbell's Attorney: "You know, I'm not even certain that this stuff wasn't sealed at one point in time according to some of the things that may have been mentioned."
Judge: "Well, if it was sealed, someone sure did a poor job of doing it 'cause Mr. Wendel [SNF's attorney] has it in his hands."
I've heard that courts tend to side with the physical evidence (e.g., Cirrus' contract) vs. claims of verbal agreements. Campbell will need to refute the legitimacy of Cirrus' Promissory Note, and I suspect he'll need more than just his own testimony.
Campbell's only real choice is to go on the offensive. Alan Klapmeier is probably his best hope. However, it remains to be seen whether Klapmeier will back Campbell's claim that there were no written agreements; it frankly seems a bit far-fetched, considering the value of the asset involved. That's if Klapmeier will even depose; there's not much benefit he can achieve from a deposition, and the potential for a lot of harm.
My guess is that in a month or so, we'll see Cirrus attempting to get Campbell scheduled for a deposition. Campbell may counter with a request to have Klapmeier deposed first. We might see some discovery requests from Campbell's side as well, for the harassment value if nothing else.
Ron Wanttaja
I suspect if Klapmeier was inclined to help Jim, he would have done so back when the goofily invalid subpoena was sent to him.
I suspect RonW's suggestion is right, the next sound will be Cirrus asking for a summary judgement. Campbell has yet to provide any evidence or even assertion that:
1. The promissory note is invalid,
2. That the payments were made, or
3. That some "in kind" agreement legitimately existed that would counter them.
Obviously, Jim's lawyers will counter the summary judgement denying the points.
My favorite part of the Federal SNF suit was this passage
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't
dawned on you, but you're in a Federal Courtroom now.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.
THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.
I suspect RonW's suggestion is right, the next sound will be Cirrus asking for a summary judgement. Campbell has yet to provide any evidence or even assertion that:
1. The promissory note is invalid,
2. That the payments were made, or
3. That some "in kind" agreement legitimately existed that would counter them.
Obviously, Jim's lawyers will counter the summary judgement denying the points.
My favorite part of the Federal SNF suit was this passage
THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't
dawned on you, but you're in a Federal Courtroom now.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.
THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
New filing... notice of deposition of Alan K, in Florida, July 10th.
So you think Klapmeier is going to show?
wanttaja
En-Route
Wow, that's a bit of a surprise, to me. Didn't really expect him to agree; seems like he'd be laying the groundwork for Cirrus to sue *him*, if he admits he committed the company to a poor investment after he'd been notified he was being fired.
What's interesting is what he'll say about Cirrus' Promissory Note. If he claims it's a forgery, that would be a big boost to Campbell's case. If he confirms that it's real, that probably would put the nail in the coffin. Campbell may be looking for him to provide the groundwork for an ANN suit over breech of a supposed verbal contract. Wonder if the judge would change his ruling excluding ANN, if Klapmeier's testimony goes the right way.
If I were Cirrus, I'd demand that Campbell depose first. Assuming Klapmeier says nice things about Campbell, having Zoom depose afterwards would mean he's just confirming what Klapmeier said. If Klapmeier followed Zoom that puts him in the position of having to confirm everything Campbell said. If he ever has to say, "Well, it wasn't EXACTLY like that..." it hurts the believability of both of their testimonies.
Admittedly I don't have a legal background, but how common is having a third party depose prior to either the plaintiff or defendant?
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Alan lives in California now, right? A court can't compel him to travel at his own expense for a deposition on a third party's suit, can it? Perhaps Jim is paying for his trip to FL? Can they do a remote video conferenced deposition, with Alan and a notary / witness in CA and the defendant's attorney in FL?
wanttaja
En-Route
Well... there's some fundamental information here that we lack.
The key question: Is the notice of deposition a surprise to Klapmeier?
I doubt it is. As you noted, it would be too easy for him to dodge it, if that were the case. I think a trip was arranged, or he was going to be in Florida for other reasons.
If the deposition gets cancelled, then we'd know that Klapmeier refused to participate. If July 11th rolls by and ANN has a scathing editorial about the perfidious Alan Klapmeier, we'll know he didn't show. Otherwise, I'd assume that Campbell and he discussed it and Klapmeier agreed to participate.
The second question: What does Campbell expect from Klapmeier's deposition?
The ideal thing, from Campbell's point of view, would be for Klapmeier to confirm that Cirrus' Promissory Note is a forgery or had been altered.
I think it's a relatively low possibility, for a variety of reasons. Klapmeier has little motive to declare that it's faked unless he truly knows that no such agreement was made. He's achieved plenty on his own; he has no need to curry favor with Campbell. His only possible motivations are the exact things Cirrus would point at to attempt to discredit his testimony...a desire for revenge over his firing, or to hurt a company that's a rival to his new start-up.
Campbell's goal anent Klapmeier to have him back up the claim in his 24 October motion to dismiss; to have Klapmeier declare that he, in his role as Cirrus' CEO, entered a verbal contract for Cirrus to advertise in ANN and the advertising bills would be applied to the aircraft payments.
The motion for dismissal claimed that ANN should have been a party to the suit. Campbell requested that Cirrus' claim be dismissed without prejudice in order to for Cirrus to add ANN as a co-defendant.
The judge turned the request down. It again, all boiled down to the only written, signed evidence, the Promissory Note, which is between Cirrus, Campbell, and one of Campbell's other companies...not ANN.
When Campbell is finally deposed, he'll probably state that the "Fradulent" claim about the agreement is because it does not reflect this alleged (apparently verbal) agreement. He may not even deny signing it (though he'll probably waffle a lot about it).
Assuming the judge believes Klapmeier and Campbell...will it make a difference? If Klapmeier says the Promissory Note is legitimate, but he and Campbell had a verbal agreement beyond it with a third company (with Cirrus pointing out both parties would have ulterior motives in making such a claim), will the judge go with the written contract or the supposed verbal addendum?
As the radio shows used to say: "Tune in again next week!"
Ron Wanttaja
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Wouldn't you love to get to watch this video tape? Newest document on the case file:
hopmedic
Cleared for Takeoff
Just out of curiosity... I've read a bunch of the posts on this thread, but nowhere near all of them (I don't have that many days left to live )... Am I getting the right impression if I am thinking that this guy at ANN is a real piece of work?
)... Am I getting the right impression if I am thinking that this guy at ANN is a real piece of work?
wanttaja
En-Route
Just out of curiosity... I've read a bunch of the posts on this thread, but nowhere near all of them (I don't have that many days left to live
"Work" is not the term I would have chosen, but the answer is "yes".
Ron Wanttaja
hopmedic
Cleared for Takeoff
"Work" is not the term I would have chosen, but the answer is "yes".
Ron Wanttaja
Gotcha.
wanttaja
En-Route
We'll get to see sound bites. Bet Campbell puts portions of the tape up on the ANN video blog to "prove" his case...basically any part where Klapmeier supports Campbell or his claims.
The Cirrus cross-examination won't be included, of course.
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
There was an amended notice of videotaped deposition posted today; a cursory glance revealed nothing substantial, but here it is nonetheless.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
This is identical to the previous filing, including the date/timestamp on the top of the page.
wanttaja
En-Route
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Nope. Was on today's filing list, with today's date in the filing record.
Looks like it's been deleted from the filing list.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Cirrus agreed to finance the purchase of a plane to Jim Campbell, and agreed to exchange advertising dollars for the payment on the note. Campbell wrote some unkind things about Cirrus, so Cirrus pulled their ads. Campbell didn't make the payments on the plane, so Cirrus sued.
It gets complicated because Campbell has two different corporations involved. Kindred Spirit Aviation ("KSA") purchased the plane and agreed to make the payments, with Campbell co-signing the note. Aero-News Network ("ANN") agreed to offer advertising in lieu of money.
Campbell claims the promissory note is a fake.
If you're really bored, post 587 has links to all the court documents filed to date.
http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=910725&postcount=587
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
First off, let me point out that I was sued by Campbell ~15 years ago (for "Conspiracy to Defame") and should not be considered an unbiased observer.
The short form:
1. Campbell bought a Cirrus
2. Campbell claimed that Cirrus had agreed to exchange advertising space in lieu of his making payments on the loan.
3. Cirrus attempted to repossess the airplane.
4. Campbell's coverage of Cirrus via ANN becomes extremely negative, to the point of accusing Cirrus of terrorism.
5. Cirrus sues Campbell for recovery of the aircraft.
The question is whether Campbell's coverage of Cirrus is tainted by his personal conflict with the company. There are a number of previous cases where companies started receiving negative publicity from Campbell after they get into a financial dispute with him.
Campbell apparently claims his advertising agreement with Cirrus was verbal. He has previously sued a half-dozen companies in the past over violations of alleged verbal contracts. He lost the only case that went to court (lost that one, got one default judgement, two out-of-court settlements, and two cases dropped when he fired his attorney and refused to hire another).
Cirrus has a Promissory Note, with what appears to be Campbell's signature, where he promises to make payments on the aircraft and makes no mention of any verbal or written agreement regarding advertising. Campbell claims the document is fraudulent.
From what I've read in this POA thread, several folks have had bad experiences with Campbell and, like me, do not trust his editorial judgement. You can see a collection of articles about Campbell (several written by myself) at:
http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html
Ron Wanttaja
RAH-15/7
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
Food for thought:
Campbell claims the agreement is verbal. The document Campbell produced to show the terms of the verbal agreement show that the monthly advertising amount will be about $10,000. Since the aircraft is valued at more than $120,000, it is not possible for this contract to be fulfilled within one year.
The Statute of Frauds prohibits enforcement of verbal agreements that cannot be completed in one year.
This makes the advertising agreement unenforceable.
wanttaja
En-Route
More food for thought. In March 2009, Bruce Samulin, Campbell's former Director of Marketing sued him for non-payment of commissions. As part of the proof of the money he was owed, he filed a spreadsheet that summarized ANN's advertising income for the year he worked for it. The filing is attached....
The alleged monthly advertising income that Campbell would have claimed from Cirrus was $10,000; over the period covered by this spreadsheet, $10,000 a month would have more than *doubled* ANN's income.
Note, too that the annual take for ANN was less than the yearly payment amount on the Promissory Note for the Cirrus....
Ron Wanttaja
hopmedic
Cleared for Takeoff
Hmmm... You'd think the guy would wise up and put his agreements in writing, wouldn't you?
Hmmm... You'd think the guy would wise up and put his agreements in writing, wouldn't you?
You're presuming the verbal contracts actually existed at some point. Many of those who Campbell claims he had verbal contracts would disagree that they had any contract at all.
wanttaja
En-Route
"Go hence without day" is going to be my new phrase of the week. It's sort of the legal equivalent of "Now get the hell out of my court."
hopmedic
Cleared for Takeoff
Point taken. :/
flightwriter
Line Up and Wait
Hmmm... You'd think the guy would wise up and put his agreements in writing, wouldn't you?
From what I read about narcissistic personality disorder in the DSM-V during my time in Zoomland, the likely thought processes at work here are a near-perfect display of circular logic:
-The narcissist initially believes the people he deigns to consider as "friends" hold the same moral and ethical values that he professes to have himself. Thus, an off-the-cuff verbal remark or conversation with one of his "friends" may be considered by the narcissist to be an inarguable statement of fact, and he assumes it to be as such.
-Conversely, the rest of the world is inferior, immoral, not nearly as virtuous as he sees himself, and not to be trusted.
-When the narcissist's "friends" inevitably betray him - more accurately, fail to live up to the narcissist's unrealistic expectations of them - they too join the ranks of the unclean, untrustworthy masses.
-Further, as the narcissist now considers this supposed disloyalty to be a supreme betrayal of a sacred pact, he himself no longer feels the need to adhere to his own professed code. He feel justified in "lowering himself" down to fight against those he thinks have betrayed him, while at the same time defending his own ability to remain above the fray.
-Logic has no place or value in this argument. No matter how much evidence there might be against the narcissist's viewpoint, he considers it all to be the work of the unclean masses who have 'corrupted' yet another poor soul. By this reasoning, the end result is a foregone conclusion.
Fun, huh?
wanttaja
En-Route
Klapmeier's deposition was scheduled last week, unless it was canceled at the last moment, it probably occurred.Any news? It's been quiet for almost two weeks.
Next step might be more depositions; I'd expect Cirrus to attempt to schedule Campbell for one. As I've mentioned before, Campbell showed an extreme reluctance to testify on the last SnF lawsuit (the attempts were described in the judge's order dismissing the suit). However, in that case, the depositions would have been specifically focused on his *behavior* (e.g., SNF justifying his banning) while here, it's more on whether or not an agreement existed. He might be a bit more willing to participate...but if so, why did Klapmeier get deposed first?
Or, depending what Klapmeier said, Campbell may move for dismissal.
Depending on what Klapmeier said, and the discovery released last month, Cirrus may move for summary judgment in *their* favor.
Conceivably, *both* the preceding might occur. And the hearing probably will decide the case then and there.
In any case, we're probably at a key crossroad, here. Klapmeier's testimony was probably expected to prove Campbell's assertions that A. the purchase agreement that Cirrus filed as an Exhibit is fraudulent, and B. A verbal contract was made between Cirrus and KSA/Campbell.
If the judge accepts these assertions, it seems to me that Campbell is *still* in trouble. Steve pointed out the the Florida Statute of Frauds; it requires any contract in excess of $500 or in excess of one year duration to be written and signed. So even if the judge accepts a verbal contract was made three years ago, it was no longer in effect for a year or more prior to when Cirrus filed its suit.
If no contract exists, and the lienholder (per title report) is demanding the return of its property, it seems pretty straight-forward to this non-legal type.
Cirrus may file for judgment on this basis, but the further aspects of any such motion probably depend on what they found in Campbell's records during discovery.
Did they find an identical copy of the purchase agreement? If so, this hurts Campbell's claim that it's fraudulent and brings the Rule of Parol into play (e.g., written contracts trump verbal ones).
Was there a purchase agreement that was DIFFERENT than the one filed by Cirrus? Then we have the question as to why it wasn't filed nine months ago with Campbell's initial response to the lawsuit, rather than submitting that marketing proposal. If this is the case, it may be what Klapmeier testified to this week, and Cirrus will need to start deposing its own personnel in rebuttal.
Was there no purchase agreement at all? Klapmeier may still have testified that Cirrus' agreement wasn't the actual one. But if he had had a copy of an alternate agreement, seems like he could have just given it to Campbell in the last several months. Otherwise, the one Cirrus filed has what appears to be Campbell's signature, and it seems like it would be hard to rebut without a hard-copy alternate version.
So, the potential roads ahead:
1. Cirrus or Campbell schedule more depositions, with plenty of delay getting Campbell to depose.
2. Campbell files for dismissal based on Klapmeier's testimony
3. Cirrus files for judgment based on Discovery and Klapmeier's testimony.
4. Campbell digs for more time by either firing his attorney or alienating them so they file for release like the last one.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
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, but on the Docket itself, J Michael Lindell, Campbell's lawyer, shows a new email address. It changed from "mlindell@lindellfarson.com" to "legal-service@athomaslaw.com".
The "athomaslaw.com" domain is owned by a legal firm led by Adrian Thomas. Mr. Lindell is still listed as a partner on the web page for Lindell and Farson, PA. It might be that the firms have just merged. He's not yet listed on Thomas' web page.
His new email address is odd...the other lawyer's email addresses are of the nature [name or initials]@athomaslaw.com", yet Mr. Lindell's is the generic "legal-service@athomaslaw.com".
Probably still just sorting things out with the new firm.
Ron Wanttaja
The "athomaslaw.com" domain is owned by a legal firm led by Adrian Thomas. Mr. Lindell is still listed as a partner on the web page for Lindell and Farson, PA. It might be that the firms have just merged. He's not yet listed on Thomas' web page.
His new email address is odd...the other lawyer's email addresses are of the nature [name or initials]@athomaslaw.com", yet Mr. Lindell's is the generic "legal-service@athomaslaw.com".
Probably still just sorting things out with the new firm.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
Or no one wants his e-mails in their inbox.