Negative ANN article about Cirrus

[flyingron]

Doubtful if it's costing Florida much. There were filing fees initially of close to $2000 in this case I suspect. Some of these motions,etc... probably had additional small fees associated with them. So far there hasn't been much that hasn't proceeded other than on brief written motions / decisions.

 

[mikea]

You still click and charge his advertisers to keep him going? I haven't clicked on an ANN link in years, and won't be starting. Nothing there EVER worth viewing, that wasn't already somewhere else...

It's just a coincidink that you can't successfully unsubscribe from the ANN email list, too, right? (The unsubscribe link never works.)

If he gets busted under the CAN-SPAM act it'll be another case of the guvmint picking on a poor small businessman.

 

[flyingron]

Unfortuantely CANSPAM act doesn't apply to "relationship" messages. You should have known better than to establish a relationship with that psycopath.

 

[wabower]

Can a guy run that scam forever, or will somebody finally call BS?

Yes, but expect the attorney, if he finds one, to immediately ask for more time.

 

[kyleb]

Can a guy run that scam forever, or will somebody finally call BS?

A lot of people have, but the legal process is based on the assumption that a plantiff wants to resolve the issue, not drag it out.

So an individual like the zoomer can fight a rearguard action seemingly forever. It probably helps that his story probably sounds good in the first sit-down with a new lawyer. After about the third sitting, I bet the conversation gets interesting.

 

[Jim Logajan]

A lot of people have, but the legal process is based on the assumption that a plantiff wants to resolve the issue, not drag it out.

So an individual like the zoomer can fight a rearguard action seemingly forever. It probably helps that his story probably sounds good in the first sit-down with a new lawyer. After about the third sitting, I bet the conversation gets interesting.

Unless I missed something, Campbell is the defendant, not the plaintiff. A legal process with rules set up under the assumption that a defendant in a civil action wants to resolve the issue would be a magnificently naive judicial system. Our system may be bad, but not that bad (I think.)

For that matter it would be naive for the rules to be set up with the assumption that a plaintiff wants their case resolved, since that incorrectly assumes the plaintiff wont use the system as a means of perpetual harassment.

 

[wanttaja]

So an individual like the zoomer can fight a rearguard action seemingly forever. It probably helps that his story probably sounds good in the first sit-down with a new lawyer.

His last lawyers' motion to withdraw has a statement that might hint at this:

"Defendants have failed to substantially fulfill their obligations to the law firm under the agreement..."

My first impression, considering Campbell's past history, is that this is referring to financial obligations. That he hasn't been paying his legal bills.

But...consider, what might Campbell tell a prospective attorney? The same thing he has told many of us in the course of his accusations: That he has hard evidence such as receipts, contracts, "signed affidavits", and masses of people who are leaping to testify on his behalf.

His new attorney might then slant the course of the case towards presenting this hard evidence. Evidence that their new client can't seem to come up with, that he keeps claiming he'll give them in a week or so.

It seems to me an attorney might view Campbell's reticence in supplying this promised evidence as a failure to fulfill obligations....

I figure at some point, the judge will get frustrated with the repeated delays caused by Campbell's antagonizing his own attorneys and will push things along. There's a tantalizing bit of detail in the judge's latest order permitting the withdrawal of Campbell's last lawyer.

The form is obviously written for this case (naming defendants and attorneys) but has a blank in the area which specifies how long Campbell has to get another attorney (e.g., "Defendants shall have ____ days from the date hereof....", with "10" hand-written).

The previous motion had "thirty (30)" typed in with the rest of the text, as did his one from the last Sun-n-Fun case.

Maybe this just reflects the practice of this particular law firm vs. the previous one. Maybe Campbell's lawyer knew Campbell already had a replacement, and thus the judge might grant less time than usual.

Or, maybe, the judge is getting a little ticked and no one wanted to anticipate how much time he was going to allow....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[kyleb]

Unless I missed something, Campbell is the defendant, not the plaintiff. .

Ya got me on a technicality. Or maybe not. But the system is predicated on clients responding to the process with something other than "I lost my council.", lather, rinse, repeat.

 

[wanttaja]

Ya got me on a technicality. Or maybe not. But the system is predicated on clients responding to the process with something other than "I lost my counsel.", lather, rinse, repeat.

Kind of hard to keep track for sure. For those keeping score, since 1990 I count 32 total lawsuits with Campbell or one of his businesses... 15 as a plaintiff, 17 as defendant.

He lost eight, won one (default judgment against a company that had been dissolved), had out-of-court settlements in eight, and 14 were dismissed. On eight of those 14 cases dismissed, he was the plaintiff (essentially counts as a loss, since he didn't get what he'd sued for).

Ron Wanttaja

 

[SCCutler]

This is like watching a car wreck in slo-mo, over and over. I wonder what Cirrus thinks they are going to get out of Zoom?

What a cluster.

 

[Steve Foley]

This is like watching a car wreck in slo-mo, over and over. I wonder what Cirrus thinks they are going to get out of Zoom?

What a cluster.

Hopefully, they'll get their plane back.

 

[steingar]

Hopefully, they'll get their plane back.

In itty bitty pieces no doubt.

 

[flyingron]

The form is obviously written for this case (naming defendants and attorneys) but has a blank in the area which specifies how long Campbell has to get another attorney (e.g., "Defendants shall have ____ days from the date hereof....", with "10" hand-written).

Hey Stella, hand me one of those James Campbell Motion To Withdraw forms. He lost another lawyer.

 

[wanttaja]

Hey Stella, hand me one of those James Campbell Motion To Withdraw forms. He lost another lawyer.

And another one's in the queue:

01/25/2013 Notice of Appearance of Mercer Law, PA for def

There's also a Certificate of Service for the deposition and withdrawal of certain interrogatories.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Henning]

Can a guy run that scam forever, or will somebody finally call BS?

Forever,the legal system is designed to profit lawyers.

 

[weilke]

And another one's in the queue:

01/25/2013 Notice of Appearance of Mercer Law, PA for def

There's also a Certificate of Service for the deposition and withdrawal of certain interrogatories.

Ron Wanttaja

There are 93,895 lawyers admitted to practice in Florida. He seems to keep each of them for an average of 6 months. At the rate he is going, he has about 47,000 years left to drag out this case.

 

[mikea]

There are 93,895 lawyers admitted to practice in Florida. He seems to keep each of them for an average of 6 months. At the rate he is going, he has about 47,000 years left to drag out this case.

Then you can look forward to 93,895 volumes of "This shyster lawyer is also part of the conspiracy persecuting me to get money."

 

[wanttaja]

There are 93,895 lawyers admitted to practice in Florida. He seems to keep each of them for an average of 6 months. At the rate he is going, he has about 47,000 years left to drag out this case.

Well, you're probably got the right order of magnitude. But the total number must be reduced by:

1. The number of his previous lawyers (About 25 over the past 20 years... some attorneys did represent him on multiple cases)
2. The number of lawyers who represented his previous lawyers in defending against complaints to the Florida bar (Don't know how many this is, but at least one of his former lawyers says Campbell threatened him with a complaint to the Bar). Or can lawyers represent themselves for Bar complaints?
3. The number of lawyers (roughly 20) who have represented the opposite side in Campbell lawsuits (some duplication, again, and several folks were pro se).

What's going to be interesting to see is whether the new attorney goes ahead with a Campbell countersuit. Zoom knew he'd be needed a new lawyer for the past several months, it's quite possible he's been working with the old and new lawyers to prepare it.

One bit of awkwardness is that Campbell claimed the oral contract was with ANN, and ANN was not named in Cirrus' lawsuit. Can Campbell add ANN to the current lawsuit and have it countersue Cirrus, or will he have to file a separate suit?

Ron Wanttaja

 

[flyingron]

Florida rules of civil procedure allows additional parties to be added during counterclaims. The only real issue and I've not been following where this case actually is, is that it would take specific permission of the court to make such claims late in the process.

 

[wanttaja]

Florida rules of civil procedure allows additional parties to be added during counterclaims. The only real issue and I've not been following where this case actually is, is that it would take specific permission of the court to make such claims late in the process.

I know it takes the judge's permission to add counter-defendants (beyond the original plaintiff), since that was one of the grounds for dismissing myself and several other RAH-15ers. Also, when Campbell sued Sun-N-Fun the second time, he added SnF's security contractor as a co-defendant a year or so later, and had to get the judge's permission.

What I'm curious about is whether Campbell can basically add ANN as a co-defendant to Cirrus' case, so ANN can then join in a countersuit against Cirrus.

OK, confusing. Let me try to explain my question.

In a normal case, the plaintiff, Party "A", sues the defendant, Party "B". The defendant then countersues "A". The defendant decides that Party "C" is liable, too, and adds Party "C" as a counterdefendant.

But in this case, Party A sued Party B. Party B countersues the plaintiff, but Party C joints in the countersuit. as a counter-plaintiff, not a counter-defendant. Is that common?

I can easily see a *separate* lawsuit by ANN against Cirrus, I'm just curious about whether adding an additional party as a counter-plaintiff is a standard tactic.

Seems to me that the best approach would be for Campbell file a countersuit against Cirrus, and add ANN as a co-counterdefendant. Campbell could claim that ANN was supposed to cover the cost of the airplane by its supposed agreement with Cirrus, and failed to ensure payments.

Depositions THAT case would be a lot of fun...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Well, this is an interesting addition to the docket... Campbell is asking for a protective order:

02/06/2013 Motion (Generic)
for protective order related to unilaterally scheduled depo

Right after Campbell apparently dodged his scheduled deposition then lost his third attorney (second law firm), Cirris' attorney rescheduled his deposition.

I'm kind of surprised Campbell's new attorney is going for a protective order; I would think lawyers more typically negotiate these things and just agree on a new date.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[weilke]

What is a 'protective order' in the setting of a civil lawsuit ?

 

[flyingron]

I'd love to see this one. To get a protective order you have to at least allege abusive contact. Of course, Jim's been known to randomly throw out allegations that people were trying to harm or kill him (I was on the receiving end of one of those).

 

[Steve Foley]

What is a 'protective order' in the setting of a civil lawsuit ?

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

RULE 1.280 GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY

(c) Protective Orders. Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending may make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; (3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters; (5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court; (6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court; (7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; and (8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.

 

[wanttaja]

Interesting new addition to the docket:

02/07/2013 Notice (Generic) to set for trial

Don't know if this is Cirrus trying to hurry things along, Campbell's attorney stating he's ready, or the judge saying "let's go." I'll order copies filings tomorrow, including the others over the past weeks.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Pilawt]

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure

In most jurisdictions a party has the right to set the time and place of a deposition of a party just by sending out a notice, however many days in advance the local rule requires. In practice, however, one lawyer (or his staff) phones the other, shoots the breeze about the Lakers for a while, then asks,
"How's the 27th for your guy's depo?"
"Ah, can't do it the 27th. How 'bout the 29th or 30th?
"30th is good. I'll send you a notice and schedule the reporter."
"'K. Bye."

Then the formal notice is sent out, confirming the phone call.

If one side isn't cooperative in scheduling a date ("Oh, I can't do it ... I have knitting classes every day between now and Thanksgiving ..."), the other side has no choice but to arbitrarily send out a notice. The receiving side then files a motion telling the judge why his knitting classes are more important, and asking for a "protective order" that the deposition not be set until some later time.

 

[cslane]

Does Campbell still have possession of the airplane?

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Does Campbell still have possession of the airplane?

The real question is: Is he still paying the hangar rent?

 

[wanttaja]

Does Campbell still have possession of the airplane?

Cirrus seems to think so. Some of their discovery refers to Campbell still having possession. A good question is whether the engine has been turned over in the year and five months since he flew it away from the repo attempt.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Copies of the Withdrawal of Interrogatories are attached. Not too much of interest; it just identified them by number so we don't know what was included in the full interrogatories.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

The attached are three related recent items from the docket: The original scheduling of Jim Campbell for a deposition, the notice of appearance for Campbell's new attorney, and the filing for the protective order.

Make sure to read the exhibits on the filing for the protective order...

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

Interesting new addition to the docket:

02/07/2013 Notice (Generic) to set for trial

Don't know if this is Cirrus trying to hurry things along, Campbell's attorney stating he's ready, or the judge saying "let's go."

Campbell's new attorney filed the motion. It is attached.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[wanttaja]

The attached are three related recent items from the docket: The original scheduling of Jim Campbell for a deposition, the notice of appearance for Campbell's new attorney, and the filing for the protective order.

Make sure to read the exhibits on the filing for the protective order...

Ron Wanttaja

My favorite quote: "I also do not appreciate your implying that I should re-consider representing the defendants."

Would have loved to have heard the original statement that led to this rebuttal....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[DaveA]

My favorite quote: "I also do not appreciate your implying that I should re-consider representing the defendants."

Would have loved to have heard the original statement that led to this rebuttal....

Ron Wanttaja

He also stated that Zoom was entitled to legal representation...

(until the retainer runs out)

What amount is considered reasonable and customary for a retainer in a case like this in FL? Just wondering how much $$ certain interested advertisers...oops...I meant Mr Campbell would have to come up with...

 

[weilke]

I wonder how many hours off the retainer have already been consumed over this little scheduling tiff.

Interesting, he is asking for a non-jury trial.

 

[wanttaja]

I wonder how many hours off the retainer have already been consumed over this little scheduling tiff.

Interesting, he is asking for a non-jury trial.

Need to schedule it mid-July, I think...that would put it right at the MTBF (Mean time before figuring it out) for Campbell lawyers.

Did you notice that the two time periods the lawyer said that Campbell can't appear are during Oshkosh...and Sun n' Fun? Campbell's banned from SnF, it's not like he won't be available. Campbell, in fact, has claimed that SnF's ban was based on his negative coverage of them....the same reason he's claiming Cirrus is suing him.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Steve Foley]

Interesting that the action is ready to be set for trial, but they are not ready for a deposition.

I also notice that no mention is made of the January 4, 2013 deposition of Campbell that was scheduled last October.

 

[wanttaja]

Interesting that the action is ready to be set for trial, but they are not ready for a deposition.

I also notice that no mention is made of the January 4, 2013 deposition of Campbell that was scheduled last October.

Note, too, that the new lawyer has strenuously objected to Cirrus trying to schedule separate depositions from Campbell and a representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation. Yet Campbell's own legal team refused to allow joining of the two parties in the first set of Request for Admissions. Remember, "Defendants cannot jointly admit or deny these statements... as these requests are not directed towards the defendants separately"?

It appears as if the defendants in this case have missed three deposition dates: Kindred Spirit the morning of January 4th, Campbell on the afternoon of the 4th, and Campbell again on the unilaterally-scheduled one on the 6th of February.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[livitup]

Note, too, that the new lawyer has strenuously objected to Cirrus trying to schedule separate depositions from Campbell and a representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation. Yet Campbell's own legal team refused to allow joining of the two parties in the first set of Request for Admissions. Remember, "Defendants cannot jointly admit or deny these statements... as these requests are not directed towards the defendants separately"?

This actually makes sense to me. Legally, Campbell and KSA can't both be in legal possession of the aircraft - only one of them can possess it. If the plaintiffs ask "do you possess the aircraft" in a single interrogatory directed at both parties, then there is no single answer to that question.

On the other hand, at deposition time, they can depose Campbell individually in the morning, and KSA in the afternoon. They can ask Campbell, "do you possess the aircraft" and he can answer for himself. Later they will ask KSA (in the form of Campbell, but he is answering for KSA) "do you possess the aircraft" and then Campbell can answer for KSA.

I don't believe that anyone ever proposed to depose KSA and Campbell jointly (i.e. in the same deposition), they just requested that the two depositions be scheduled back-to-back to reduce the burdens of travel.

 

[weilke]

Note, too, that the new lawyer has strenuously objected to Cirrus trying to schedule separate depositions from Campbell and a representative of Kindred Spirit Aviation. Yet Campbell's own legal team refused to allow joining of the two parties in the first set of Request for Admissions. Remember, "Defendants cannot jointly admit or deny these statements... as these requests are not directed towards the defendants separately"?

Yeah, but that was 'two lawyers ago'