Negative ANN article about Cirrus

Dave Siciliano

Dave Siciliano

Final Approach
Joined
Feb 27, 2005
Messages
6,434
Location
Dallas, Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Siciliano
Seems to be a big peeing contest between Cirrus and ANN; just wanted to make folks aware. Part two of this was released today. Kind of a crazy read.

Best,

Dave

=======================================================


http://tinyurl.com/3w7555u
 
Dave Siciliano said:
Seems to be a big peeing contest between Cirrus and ANN; just wanted to make folks aware. Part two of this was released today. Kind of a crazy read.
Click to expand...
I'm unconcerned of anything that psychopath has to say.
 
I'm not a huge Cirrus fan, but I don't understand why an innovative company, building NEWLY designed GA planes is so demonized.

They're fast, comfy, and just because rich, unqualified pilots buy them doesn't mean they aren't good planes.
 
Why not sue.

That alone shows that ANN is full of **** here. If the story were true as told, a lawsuit would be open and shut, and ANN would have won.
 
flyingron said:
I'm unconcerned of anything that psychopath has to say.
Click to expand...
Look, psychopath or not, it should be easy to answer this: did employees of Cirrus broke into FBO's hangar and disabled ANN's airplane, or did they not. There is a police report, right?

-- Pete
 
zaitcev said:
Look, psychopath or not, it should be easy to answer this: did employees of Cirrus broke into FBO's hangar and disabled ANN's airplane, or did they not. There is a police report, right?

-- Pete
Click to expand...

Police? That would be a FEDERAL OFFENSE.
 
SkyHog said:
Why not sue.

That alone shows that ANN is full of **** here. If the story were true as told, a lawsuit would be open and shut, and ANN would have won.
Click to expand...

This linked article is the announcement of the lawsuit and the explanation why the lawsuit is occuring. You just weren't paying attention.

-- Pete
 
zaitcev said:
This linked article is the announcement of the lawsuit and the explanation why the lawsuit is occuring. You just weren't paying attention.

-- Pete
Click to expand...
I read the whole story. Reads like this:

1. Cirrus screwed us, and here's why.
2. Here's some details of how shady they are
3. They made veiled threats against us
4. Part 2 coming soon

I see nothing about a lawsuit. If they're suing, good for them, but why did it take 2 years to start the process, if it was really as bad as they say?
 
SkyHog said:
I read the whole story. Reads like this:

1. Cirrus screwed us, and here's why.
2. Here's some details of how shady they are
3. They made veiled threats against us
4. Part 2 coming soon

I see nothing about a lawsuit. If they're suing, good for them, but why did it take 2 years to start the process, if it was really as bad as they say?
Click to expand...

Dude... Read part 2.

They are suing them. With all the expense involved in a lawsuit, its no surprise they have waited until all other options have been exhausted.
 
Because of the way legal cases work, esp in a complicated situation like this, it is going to be a very expensive ordeal. Possibility of a counter-suit, appeals and et cetera make a lawsuit literally the last possible option.
 
dell30rb said:
Dude... Read part 2.

They are suing them. With all the expense involved in a lawsuit, its no surprise they have waited until all other options have been exhausted.
Click to expand...

I finally found part 2. Now the "zooming" comes out. Someone stole his satchel.

Oh - and he called the cops.

And people are defrauding him, and fabricating documentation that he 'didn't' sign.

Wow - you'd think he might have some sort of personality disorder if this stuff wasn't true.....

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/se-4661.html
 
ANN has filed a lawsuit against Cirrus.

I can do it!

Pleez 'scuze my verbage
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
I finally found part 2. Now the "zooming" comes out. Someone stole his satchel.

Oh - and he called the cops.

And people are defrauding him, and fabricating documentation that he 'didn't' sign.

Wow - you'd think he might have some sort of personality disorder if this stuff wasn't true.....

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom/se-4661.html
Click to expand...

Any chance you can provide a quick summary of that? Watching monday night football and did not have a chance to read.. from a quick glance that is a very long court transcript about campbell attempting to base jump the WTC, representing himself in court, and something about a shrink.
 
dell30rb said:
Any chance you can provide a quick summary of that? Watching monday night football and did not have a chance to read.. from a quick glance that is a very long court transcript about campbell attempting to base jump the WTC, representing himself in court, and something about a shrink.
Click to expand...

Sure -

Plaintiff: Jim Campbell has a personality disorder in which he impersonates other people, claims to possess certificates he doesn't possess, and is the center of a global conspiracy in which large organizations are out to screw him.

Defendant: I did not pack that parachute wrong.

Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant is ****ing crazy.
 
I don't know anything about ANN, and don't really care much about this ****ing match, but when I read "that's how good journalism is practiced," I wonder what journalism school suggests you get in bed with the subject that you are writing about, either in mutual marketing agreements, buying one of their planes, etc.
 
nddons said:
I don't know anything about ANN, and don't really care much about this ****ing match, but when I read "that's how good journalism is practiced," I wonder what journalism school suggests you get in bed with the subject that you are writing about, either in mutual marketing agreements, buying one of their planes, etc.
Click to expand...

ALL of the aviation publications have that conflict of interest. Some manage it better than others.

Campbell is the only publisher/writer/whatever I can remember who has repeatedly found himself in peeing contests with advertisers, potential advertisers, events, customers, newsgroup participants, employees, ex-employees, a spouse, etc. over the years.
 
I've never even heard of ANN prior to this.

With some exceptions, anyone representing themselves in court is probably a dumbass
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
Guess Ron Wanttaja hasn't seen this thread yet - or if he has, has chosen to remain silent.

There does seem to be a common thread in James Campbell 's dealings with people; read for example:

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm
Click to expand...
Has Ron had personal dealings with JC?

I enjoyed, as in was entertained, in his Sun N Fun series, but he always struck me as a little off. This Cirrus thing sounds, well fishy, and I am not ready to jump onto the ANN bandwagon to support their side of story.
 
dell30rb said:
I've never even heard of ANN prior to this.

With some exceptions, anyone representing themselves in court is probably a dumbass
Click to expand...

What's the expression; a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?
 
Jim Logajan said:
Guess Ron Wanttaja hasn't seen this thread yet - or if he has, has chosen to remain silent.

There does seem to be a common thread in James Campbell 's dealings with people; read for example:

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

http://www.wanttaja.com/zguide.htm
Click to expand...
Just saw it, after getting a few emails from folks. Don't have any insight into this particular case. However, about a month ago, Cirrus served Campbell with a "Notice of Lis Pendens", basically informing Campbell that Cirrus intended to repossess Campbell's airplane (PDF attached).

Ron Wanttaja
 

Attachments

  • Cirrus Repo Filing.pdf
    159.6 KB · Views: 179
ScottM said:
Has Ron had personal dealings with JC?
Click to expand...
Snort. Former "Contributing Editor" for one of his past publications ("Gulf Coast Aviator"). Also former defendant in one of his lawsuits.

Anybody got word on where Campbell supposedly sued Cirrus? The docket for his county in Florida doesn't show it yet.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Teller1900 said:
What's the expression; a man who represents himself has a fool for a client?
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to see the "official" paperwork, but if "ANN" is suing Cirrus, I don't think Campbell can act as attorney. He can represent himself in a lawsuit, but not a corporation.

Cirrus' filing was against one of Campbell's companies and himself, personally. I suspect he'll have to get an attorney in this case. If that is the case, it would make sense if the same lawyer handled his own suit.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Just saw it, after getting a few emails from folks. Don't have any insight into this particular case. However, about a month ago, Cirrus served Campbell with a "Notice of Lis Pendens", basically informing Campbell that Cirrus intended to repossess Campbell's airplane (PDF attached).

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

I did it, I read the second part of his ramblings. 20 minutes I dont get back.

It sounds like Cirrus tried to repossess the plane on Aug 19th, the 'Notice of Lis Pendens' is from september 2nd.

I was only familiar with this type of notice in the setting of real estate foreclosures. When it comes to 'portable' real property like cars, construction equipment or titled trailers, the holder of the note can just show up and repossess without filing a prior notice with the court (resumably this is allowed to restrain the person holding the real property from hiding or selling it for cash). Does anyone know whether Florida law requires this notice for something portable like a boat or plane ? Paging Henning !

So even if this notice was required as part of the foreclosure/repossession process on an aircraft, I doubt the FBI and the local courts will treat an error of form as any of the felonies the article writer is trying to make it out to be.
 
What really got me was when he seemed to be accusing Cirrus and the Chinese of "terrorist" tactics in their attempted seizure of his plane. Really?
 
Reading through the ANN articles, I was struck by the similarity to an old George Carlin routine..

"Hmm, he seems intelligent..... HAH! He's full of ****!"

The article started off in a measured, rational "tone", with facts laid out, and then devolved into a frothing, chaotic mess.

What I got out of it that I can rely on:
Cirrus and ANN had an agreement.
That agreement is no longer being respected
Cirrus tried to repossess ANNs airplane
ANN (Campbell) is angry.
 
TMetzinger said:
R
What I got out of it that I can rely on:
Cirrus and ANN had an agreement.
That agreement is no longer being respected
Cirrus tried to repossess ANNs airplane
ANN (Campbell) is angry.
Click to expand...

I got sort of the same thing with the following edits:

Jim Campbell believes that Cirrus and ANN had an agreement.
If there was an agreement something is happening with it
Jim Campbell claims Cirrus tried to repossess ANNs airplane
ANN (Campbell) is angry.
 
ScottM said:
I got sort of the same thing with the following edits:

Jim Campbell believes that Cirrus and ANN had an agreement.
If there was an agreement something is happening with it
Jim Campbell claims Cirrus tried to repossess ANNs airplane
ANN (Campbell) is angry.
Click to expand...

You're so close

Jim Campbell is a nutjub.
Cirrus is a bad company....but Jim Campbell is a nutjob.
 
gprellwitz said:
What really got me was when he seemed to be accusing Cirrus and the Chinese of "terrorist" tactics in their attempted seizure of his plane. Really?
Click to expand...

That's a fairly standard accusation of his.

The first time you see this act, it is somewhat believable.

The second time, not so much.

After that, it is the little boy who cried wolf.
 
He does tend to ramble on a bit. Should be interesting for the jury to figure out the "he said, she said" mess that will be dropped in their laps. That assumes, of course, that he actually has filed the suit.
 
ScottM said:
I got sort of the same thing with the following edits:

Jim Campbell believes that Cirrus and ANN had an agreement.
If there was an agreement something is happening with it
Jim Campbell claims Cirrus tried to repossess ANNs airplane
ANN (Campbell) is angry.
Click to expand...
Campbell's airplane was registered to Cirrus for several years. In the past, Campbell has traded advertising space for hardware, and I suspect that's the basis for the current dispute.

The question is, how formal was the agreement? During the mid 2000s, Campbell sued five former advertisers, claiming they had violated verbal contracts for advertising (Pulsar, Rotary Air Force, Powrachute, Controlvision, and Liberty Aerospace). He lost the only one that actually went to trial (Pulsar), settled out of court with another (Rotary Air Force payed the disputed amount, but not Campbell's attorney fees..."the compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim"), two were dismissed with prejudice. His only "victory" was a default judgment against a company that had already closed down.

One would think that, due to the value of the aircraft, there had been more-formal documentation of the agreement. But it's possible that neither side has any paperwork to back their claims.

My guess is that Campbell believes the duration of the free advertising was over, and expected Cirrus to start paying for ads again. I suspect this agreement may have been the cause of a 2009 lawsuit by ANN's former marketing manager. It's likely that his agreement with Campbell said that he received a portion of any advertising sales, and he didn't get a piece of the Cirrus deal. The lawsuit was settled out of court with a confidentiality agreement, so there's no way to tell.

Ron Wanttaja
 
He keeps implying how the promissory note must be a forgery based on some inconsistencies in the wording of the document. For anyone who has read the NTSB transcript this sounds soo familiar as it was the same argument he used in 1980 to explain away all the different incidents that led to the medical revocation as one giant multi-state conspiracy to make him look bad.

I am pretty certain Cirrus has a valid promissory note secured by a lien on the plane. They are not in the business of giving away planes for free. A typical way to structure such a quid pro quo (plane for service/ad-space) would be to give someone the plane in return for a note on the value. Every year of the multi-year committment, the service provider can charge his services against the value of the note and the holder will forgive the amount (and issue a 1099 on the forgiven amount). In this particular case it sounds like they had the note made out to 'Kindred Spirit' and had Campbell either give a personal guarantee or they are naming him in an attempt to disregard his single-member LLC.

As this would be a common way to handle a situation like this, I find it quite likely that it was done in this particular case as well.
 
weilke said:
He keeps implying how the promissory note must be a forgery based on some inconsistencies in the wording of the document. For anyone who has read the NTSB transcript this sounds soo familiar as it was the same argument he used in 1980 to explain away all the different incidents that led to the medical revocation as one giant multi-state conspiracy to make him look bad.

I am pretty certain Cirrus has a valid promissory note secured by a lien on the plane. They are not in the business of giving away planes for free. A typical way to structure such a quid pro quo (plane for service/ad-space) would be to give someone the plane in return for a note on the value. Every year of the multi-year committment, the service provider can charge his services against the value of the note and the holder will forgive the amount (and issue a 1099 on the forgiven amount). In this particular case it sounds like they had the note made out to 'Kindred Spirit' and had Campbell either give a personal guarantee or they are naming him in an attempt to disregard his single-member LLC.

As this would be a common way to handle a situation like this, I find it quite likely that it was done in this particular case as well.
Click to expand...

That would explain the "fishy" 1099 he refers to in the first part.

What a sleazebag.
 
SkyHog said:
That would explain the "fishy" 1099 he refers to in the first part.
Click to expand...

He is quite upset that the 1099 was made out to him personally when it should have been made out to Kindred Spirit. If he indeed obtained a TIN or EIN for Kindred spirit, that should indeed be the entity the 1099 should be made out to. The way how those property deals often happen, the entity is only formed during the purchase process and the seller may not have received the form W9 from the purchasing entity in time before all the paperwork is being done. So when it came time to issue 1099s against the forgiven loan amount (which is probably what Cirrus is doing here to forgive the loan piecemeal in exchange for ad space on ANN), the accountant just issued it against the person.

Accounting oversight, not terrorism.
 
kyleb said:
ALL of the aviation publications have that conflict of interest. Some manage it better than others.

Campbell is the only publisher/writer/whatever I can remember who has repeatedly found himself in peeing contests with advertisers, potential advertisers, events, customers, newsgroup participants, employees, ex-employees, a spouse, etc. over the years.
Click to expand...

Probably because he's the only one who airs his dirty laundry quite so often. Man, he sure has a need to feel "publicly vindicated". And for as much as he has "his lawyers" involved, he sure talks a lot. Seems every other time I've heard of lawyers getting involved, a company says "no comment at this time, on the advice of my attorney." JC doesn't seem to follow that rule.

I unsubscribed from ANN a long time ago--got tired of his whining about S&F and other "injuries". Now the Chinese government is after him, or so he fears? Delusions of grandeur.
 
SkyHog said:
Sure -

Plaintiff: Jim Campbell has a personality disorder in which he impersonates other people, claims to possess certificates he doesn't possess, and is the center of a global conspiracy in which large organizations are out to screw him.

Defendant: I did not pack that parachute wrong.

Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant is ****ing crazy.
Click to expand...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Best Cliff Notes ever....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top