Negative ANN article about Cirrus
- Thread starter Dave Siciliano
- Start date
Utah-Jay
Pre-takeoff checklist
I don't recall the judge warning Campbell's attorney, I believe it was Cirrus' attorney that gave the warning.
Had they done the repossession in a less clumsy way, none of this would have happened (probably the result of cirrus handling the financing and not cirrus finance. cirrus finance would have indeed sent a repossession agent with a set of spare-keys).
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
Cirrus finance may have backed away from involvement in this deal due to all of the inconsistencies with documentation and other actions by current and former execs.
Who underwrites the loans for Cirrus Finance? It's possible that they wouldn't in their right minds issue Zoomy a loan of this magnitude. The fact that corporate held the note was just them being kind to Jim without an indication that they didn't expect him to pay.
I would like to read the contents of the Klapmeier deposition. This sounds like a handshake deal with some cursory documentation signed on a trunk-lid.
(what I really would like to hear is the side of the underling at Cirrus who was told by the CEO 'make this happen' and knew that this was a dumb idea but was not in a situation to speak up or spoke up and wasn't listened to)
Who said that option hasn't been exhausted? I've done that job, you don't find em all. The reality is 95% of repos are voluntary. If he's got it hidden in a locked hangar somewhere or has painted a different tail number on it, the chances of recovery are slim.
Presumably it's in a locked hangar somewhere. As long as Zoomy pays the rent the repo man can't just go busting the door down.
Depends on the state. Busting down doors isn't allowed, but cutting locks sure is.
Steve Foley
Pattern Altitude
wanttaja
En-Route
I believe you're right. The comments about the warning was in Campbell's first motion for a protective order, and it refers to statements Cirrus' attorney had supposedly made: "I am further concerned about your implying, albeit loosely, that the Court may hold my client in disfavor or be irritated at my client at one level or another."
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
And again:
03/28/2013 Notice of Taking Video Deposition
defts 2nd amended notice of taking videotaped depo to Cirrus Design
Ron Wanttaja
I'd love to see that video lol.
wanttaja
En-Route
I believe that's for the deposition of several Cirrus employees, not Campbell himself.
Ron Wanttaja
PW_Plack
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 377
- Location
- West Valley City, UT
- Display Name
Display name:
Paul Plack
It's one thing to dupe readers and viewers in a society which clearly suffers from a education gap regarding the scope of Constitutional protections. But a defense attorney (who knows he's the fourth to take the case) says of plaintiff's counsel...
"Mr. Johnson...appears to be spending a great deal of energy with discovery tactics and at hearings apparently attempting to inflame the passions of the Court toward disliking the Defendants...rather than allowing the case to proceed upon the merits and the evidence."
Even here, in what you'd expect to be a cynical venue, especially after all the drama to this point, this diversion tactic is attempted. Is this just a ploy, or is Mercer actually buying into the victim thing?
The commentary on Airborne is hard for me to watch, especially the references to Cirrus "playing games" with the process.
Last edited:
Presumably, the aircraft is still in Florida somewhere. You can not breach the peace to recover it, which would include forcing or cutting locks. Not only does it make the repo invalid there, but it opens the repossessor up to civil and criminal claims.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
"Beats hell out of me. When we arrived for work it was sitting on our ramp. I assumed that Zoom dropped it off."
That's not what we were taught in class for the repo license here. If they are there and start raising a fuss before I have possession, I have to cease and desist. If I have it already, I can keep on going. Pulled a boat off a guys back yard dock while he was having a party, had it 3" off the dock and under tow when he noticed. I waved the papers and told him to call his banker.
If Zoom owned the hangar I couldn't cut the lock, if it's a leased hangar I can because the lease contracts state that you can't use them for illegal activities and sequestering property from a legal order is an illegal activity.
Last edited:
There is not YET a legal order of repossession here.
Further, just because Campbell may be in violation of the lease doesn't give you the right to burglariize the property. The owner would need to evict him.
In most states, and for a mobile piece of property, the lender doesn't have to go to the court to get an order. It is simply the lender who orders repossession and the repo agent executes it.
The laws governing repossession and bail enforcement are at times a remarkable deviation from what is allowable in the realm of public law enforcement. A mixture of medieval common law and wild-west self-help.
By entering into a secured loan contract you implicitly give the lender certain rights. To enter your property and repossess the collateral is one of them.
Had Cirrus sent a professional repossession agent when the plane was sitting on a publicly accessible ramp and flown it to their secured facility, there would be no court case. Instead, they asked the A&P to put a prop-lock on the plane, did not affix their 'this is now ours' note to the plane and left it right where it it was. A prop-lock is only a stop to someone without a bolt-cutter and the A&P wasn't really an agent of Cirrus, so Zoom managed to snatch the plane back from them forcing them to go the court route. The only thing the courts get you is an order that can be executed with the help of the sheriff.
wanttaja
En-Route
During an email discussion of the case, I realized that I could easily be wrong: Campbell's attorney may not ask the court to be released, but Campbell could fire the guy.
Assume the hearing on the 9th goes against Campbell and the judge says questions about the NTSB case are permissible. One way for Campbell to delay resumption of his deposition would be to fire his attorney. I doubt the judge can refuse, if the client wants the relationship ended.
And I'm betting attorney #4 won't fight too hard.....
Ron Wanttaja
The 'legal order of repossession' is just a letter from the title holder. Cirrus is the legal owner of the plane as soon as the terms of the loan contract are broken, all I need is a letter from them. Repo's are not court orders like seizures. No eviction necessary, just permission from the property owner to cut the lock, never been refused at a marina or airport yet.
Last edited:
PW_Plack
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 377
- Location
- West Valley City, UT
- Display Name
Display name:
Paul Plack
Is it an option for the judge to refuse to reschedule? Could the court warn the defendant that the June date stands, and that he needs to be ready?
If the trial date came and KSA had no attorney of record, would it be declared in default?
wanttaja
En-Route
The timeline doesn't work out well.
The hearing on the NTSB transcript issue is 9 April, the pre-trial conference is less than two months later (6 June). A hearing with the judge will be required for a motion to withdraw... in Campbell's suits against Controlvision and Liberty (where he fired his attorney) it took two weeks for the judge to grant the motions to withdraw.
So if Campbell loses the 9 April hearing and waits a week to fire counsel, it might be the first of May before it's granted. Campbell was given ten days to find new counsel last time; if the same amount is granted this time, the deadline would be less than a month before the pre-trial conference. Can't believe the judge would hold the trial date, in this case.
However, I suppose the judge does NOT have to grant the motion to withdraw. From Attorney #4's complaints, Cirrus' attorney has supposedly been hinting the judge is ticked at Campbell. If that is so, the judge may not accept a delay. Of course, that makes him more liable to be overturned by appeal.
Doing a quick Google search, I see several cases where such motions have been denied, including at least one example where the defendant in a civil case had fired their attorney.
KSA would lose by default, but Campbell could act as his own attorney since he's also a defendant (personally). Not sure what would happen if KSA lost by default but Campbell won at trial. Suspect it's not likely to come up....
Ron Wanttaja
ElPaso Pilot
En-Route
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,510
- Display Name
Display name:
ElPaso Pilot
Hmmmmm......
Arkansas Airports on Alert for Fugitive Pilot (in a Cirrus)
Where's Zoom today? (or is someone from the board just avoiding a ramp check)
Arkansas Airports on Alert for Fugitive Pilot (in a Cirrus)
Where's Zoom today? (or is someone from the board just avoiding a ramp check)
wanttaja
En-Route
Busy week:
03/28/2013 Response (Generic)
(Plaintiff's) to Defendants' 2nd Motion for Protective Order
03/28/2013 Exhibits Filed into Evidence
Exhibit A Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' 2nd Mt Protective Order
03/28/2013 Objection
(Plaintiff's) and Motion for Protective Order - Defendants' 2nd Nt Deposition
"Defendant's 2nd motion for Protective Order" was triggered when Cirrus asked Campbell about the NTSB case during the deposition. First two items above are Cirrus' response to Campbell's motion. Any guesses as to what "Exhibit A" is?
The third item is interesting: "Objection (Plaintiff's) and Motion for Protective Order..." Kind of implies that Cirrus is requesting a Protective Order, now. Could just be a typo; maybe the "and" should be "to".
Figure any rebuttal motions by Campbell's attorney will probably be entered before the Cirrus depositions start Thursday. I'll wait until then, and order the above and any others added.
Ron Wanttaja
wanttaja
En-Route
The motion for Protective Order is from Cirrus' attorney. Campbell's attorney filed papers requiring the Cirrus deponents to bring certain documents to the deposition, but did not allow the 30 days of notice required for demanding such documents. Cirrus is also objecting to the deposition of two Cirrus employees that had nothing to do with the loan.
The Response to Campbell's request for a Protective Order (to prevent Cirrus from asking about the NTSB case) notes the history of trying to get Campbell to depose, and the problems during the attempted deposition last month. As part of its motion, Cirrus is asking the judge to require Campbell to complete the deposition within 20 days.
The Exhibit is basically the first 10 pages of the deposition transcript, where Campbell's attorney refused to have Campbell give his legal address because of "threats and other things happening." Note that this portion of the deposition does NOT include any address for Campbell...which the clerk's office would have redacted, in any case.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
A summary of the other additions to the case files in the last week or so. It had Campbell's notice that a videographer would be present during the Cirrus deposition. It also had Campbell giving Cirrus notification of the hearing next week, plus an amended version due to a typo in the original filing.
Cirrus filed a Motion to Compel yesterday, which I've attached. Campbell has objected to providing as many signature samples as Cirrus' handwriting expert wants in order to have confirmed samples to compare the loan signature to.
Finally, an amended notice for the hearing next week was filed...just after my data request this morning (sigh). I'm guessing that Cirrus' attorney is just ensuring that the judge consider their motion for a Protective Order at next Tuesday's hearing.
Ron Wanttaja
Cirrus filed a Motion to Compel yesterday, which I've attached. Campbell has objected to providing as many signature samples as Cirrus' handwriting expert wants in order to have confirmed samples to compare the loan signature to.
Finally, an amended notice for the hearing next week was filed...just after my data request this morning (sigh). I'm guessing that Cirrus' attorney is just ensuring that the judge consider their motion for a Protective Order at next Tuesday's hearing.
Ron Wanttaja
TangoWhiskey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Point 8 in that second document, Plaintiff's Motion and Objection for Protective Order, is very interesting. Implies Cirrus believes Campbell is gearing up to file a new lawsuit against Cirrus, on a totally separate but undisclosed matter, in an attempt to force them to settle on this current case.
15min to NOT answer the question where he lives
. Between the attorneys and the court reporter, that's $500 wasted right there.
wanttaja
En-Route
Cirrus objected to the inclusion of two people in the depositions, Pat Waddick and John Strohl. Waddick (misspelled Waddich in the motion) is the newly-named President of Cirrus (less than a month ago), and was VP for engineering before that. Not sure what involvement he would have had on an aircraft loan.
John Strohl, whom Point 8 specifically refers to, is apparently the local field service manager. I'm guessing he was involved in the repossession attempt.
Ron Wanttaja
Last edited:
wanttaja
En-Route
Deja moo. From the NTSB transcript:15min to NOT answer the question where he lives
(By Ms. Hauselt) Mr. Campbell, where are you now employed?
A. M'am, that is none of your business.
JUDGE CAPPS: I beg your pardon.
(By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) It is my business, Mr. Campbell.
A. I refuse to answer. I've had my jobs taken away from me. This is a non-aviation job. I do not believe the FAA is entitled to that information, and if they find out they've got a problem or if they have a person who has had a problem, I'll wind up on the street. And I can't afford that. I'm broke now.
Q. Mr. Campbell, I want to ask you a question --Are you aware that a lot of the testimony today has been to the effect that you do have a personality problem -- a personality disorder?
A. I am very aware.
Q. And part of the problem that you have is that you deny these things to other people. Now, I'm going to ask you again where you are employed?
A. Do I have to answer that question?
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, you do, or else not take the stand. If you take the stand, you open yourself up to cross-examination. And if you've got a non-aviation job that does not involve any of your certificates as an airman, an instructor, or parachutist or any other type of FAA certificate you have, there is nothing to fear.
Are you getting paranoid on us?
THE WITNESS: Yes, m'am. I've lost my living. What do you expect?
JUDGE CAPPS: She has asked you a perfectly valid question. And yes, you must answer it. Taking the stand is not a one-way street. You don't get up there and just answer the questions you want to answer and then refuse the questions you don't want to answer. You have opened the door to answer a question. And I am instructing you to answer the question posed.
THE WITNESS: May I ask a question?
JUDGE CAPPS: I'll tell you what --
THE WITNESS: M'am, I'm scared to death --okay?
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Look, I'll make a deal with you. You said you were an electronics technician
THE WITNESS: Correct.
JUDGE CAPPS: You write down for me where you are working, because you have stated under oath that it doesn't involve any of your FAA certificates or aviation.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
JUDGE CAPPS: And you wouldn't lie to me, right?
THE WITNESS: I hope not. I think I'm smarter than that.
Ron Wanttaja
Utah-Jay
Pre-takeoff checklist
wanttaja
En-Route
The hearing has been cancelled, and had been rescheduled for the 25th of April. No idea as to cause.
Ron Wanttaja
So Campbell could attend Sun 'n' Fun?
wanttaja
En-Route
Well, I think I got close: Cirrus and Campbell have apparently agreed on a settlement:
04/08/2013 Response (Generic) to Defendants Notice Of Settlement & Motion For Enforcement Of Settlement Agmt
04/09/2013 Notice (Generic) 2nd Notice (Generic) Defendants' Not. of Setlmnt., Mot. for Enforce.of Setlmnt., Cancel. of Trial
04/09/2013 Notice of Hearing 2nd Notice of Hearing Defendants' 2nd Amended Notice of Hearing
From my layman's biased point of view, Campbell's attorney had a weak argument against the admission of the NTSB data. Campbell, during his deposition, accused Cirrus of extortion...likely, there'd been an offer already on the table. Facing the probability he'd be forced to testify about the NTSB case, Campbell may have decided to settle.
This may also explain the postponement of the hearing.
I'll order the filings, but I suspect they'll be a bit lacking in details.
Ron Wanttaja
alaskaflyer
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,544
- Location
- Smith Valley, Nevada
- Display Name
Display name:
Alaskaflyer
Hmmmmm......
Arkansas Airports on Alert for Fugitive Pilot (in a Cirrus)
Where's Zoom today? (or is someone from the board just avoiding a ramp check)
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130406/articles/130409633
Certainly worthy of its own discussion though....