For the recordZZZZZJJJJJJ [Archive]

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 26th 03, 12:36 PM

For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest from the
court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along that I was
not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just more
"proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info. conn has
14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and drink a
little ML. I'll post any new news.

Still putting my ducks in a row.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

IN THE GARFIELD HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COURT
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

GEORGE R. CONN, JR. Case No.: CVH0300308

Plaintiff,

CGS AVIATION, INC., MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
WITH FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendant. AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter came before the Court when Plaintiff filed an Aid in
Execution as well as a Motion to Enforce a Florida judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk. Defendant filed a motion in response to quash the debtor's
exam. Both Plaintiff and Defendant were asked by Magistrate Richard A. Kray
to brief the issue of whether or not Charles Slusarczyk should be held
personally responsible for a judgment rendered in 1984 against CGS
Aviation, Inc.

FINDINGS OF FACT
On December 12,1984 a default judgment in the amount of $2,980.05
was granted in favor of Plaintiff George Conn against Defendant CGS
Aviation, Inc. in Lake County. Florida. On February 3,2003, Plaintiff
transferred this judgment to the Garfield Heights Municipal Court and
proceeded to file an Aid in Execution and Motion to Enforce Judgment
against an officer of CGS Aviation, Inc., Charles Slusarczyk. Plaintiff, in
his brief, indicated Mr. Slusarczyk should be held personally liable
because he was a principle of the corporation and he continued, after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation, to do business as CGS
Aviation. As justification for holding Mr. Slusarczyk personally liable for
this corporate debt. Plaintiff cited two cases which interpret R.C. 1701.88
of the General Corporate Act. Both cases held that when articles of a
corporation are cancelled, the authority of the corporation to do business
ceases and after such termination, officers who carry on new business do so
as individuals and lose the protection of the corporate shield, making them
personally liable for such obligations as they occur.
Defendant, in his response brief, interpreted the cases cited by
Plaintiff to mean that an officer, once the articles of incorporation are
cancelled, loses the protection of the corporate shield if this officer
continues to do business in the corporate name and is personally
responsible for any new debt incurred. Applying this reasoning to the
instant case. Defendant took the position that since the judgment
originally entered in 1984 was against (lie Defendant's Corporation while
it was still in existence and not Mr. Slusarczyk personally, Mr. Slusarczyk
cannot be held responsible for this debt. Mr. Slusarczyk could only be held
responsible for debts incurred under the corporate name after the Articles
of Incorporation were cancelled or if Mr. Slusarczyk personally guaranteed
payment on the original debt and judgment at that time was rendered against
him in the original Complaint. Therefore, any Aid in Execution and Motion
to Enforce Judgment against Mr. Slusarczyk must fail.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CGS Aviation, Inc. was a corporation formed in Michigan in 1979. A
judgment was obtained only against CGS Aviation, Inc. on December 12,1984.
At the time this judgment was obtained, CGS Aviation, Inc. was a valid
corporation in good standing in both Michigan and Ohio. Evidence presented
by the Defendant showed the Corporation dissolved in Michigan on May 15,
1989. The issue before the Court is whether or not, based on Ohio law, a
judgment rendered against a corporate entity can be enforced against an
officer of the now defunct corporation because of Mr. Slusarczyk's active
role in operating CGS Aviation after the cancellation of the Articles of
Incorporation of CGS Aviation, Inc.
The case law which was presented in Plaintiffs brief and which
interprets R.C. Section 1701.88 is clear that officers of a dissolved
corporation can only be liable for debt incurred in the corporate name
after the date of dissolution. Chatman v. Day (Ohio App.2d 1982), 7 Ohio
App.3d 281. Additional cases cited by Plaintiff interpret R.C. Section
1701.88 in the same way and make a determination that if an officer of a
dissolved corporation continues to transact business in the corporate name,
that officer loses the protection afforded by the corporation and must be
held liable for any debt arising out of that transaction. Nabakowski v.
5400 Corp., (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1986), Allied Pipe Products. Inc. v. Petina,
1988 WL 3741 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan. 14, 1988), Unreported. These three
cases, cited by Plaintiff, held that personal liability does attach, once
the corporation was dissolved, to debts incurred by officers continuing to
use the corporate name.
In the present case, a judgment was taken against CGS Aviation,
Inc. A review of the Plaintiffs initial Complaint shows that the corporate
entity was the only Defendant listed. At no time was there any attempt to
include Mr. Slusarczyk as a party defendant. Whether or not Mr. Slusarczyk
continued doing business as CGS Aviation, Inc. or CGS Aviation after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation is irrelevant. The judgment,
which is the subject of tills case, was obtained before the Articles of
Incorporation were cancelled. Therefore, in keeping with Ohio law, as cited
above, an individual cannot be held liable for this corporate debt. Mr.
Slusarczyk can only be held liable for debts as they occur, after the
cancellation of the corporation. Whether the Defendant agreed, at a later
point in time, to work out a payment on behalf of this corporation on this
debt, does not validate the debt to be assigned to him personally. If
Plaintiff thought Mr. Slusarczyk responsible for this debt, he should have
included this individual in his original complaint against CGS Aviation,
Inc.

DECISION
Based on oral arguments and case law provided to the Court,
Defendant, Charles Slusarczyk's Motion to Quash the Aid in Execution is
granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk personally is denied.
All objections to the Magistrate's Decision must be filed with the
Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of the filling of this Decision.
If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
objections not later than ten (10) days after the first objections are
filed. The filing of timely objections shall operate as an automatic stay
of execution of the judgment. A party shall not assign as error on appeal,
the Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the
party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as
required by Civ. R. 53(E)3.

(Signed) Richard A. Kray
Magistrate

11/18/03

- Barnyard BOb -

November 26th 03, 02:37 PM

On 26 Nov 2003 04:36:07 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

> DECISION
> Based on oral arguments and case law provided to the Court,
>Defendant, Charles Slusarczyk's Motion to Quash the Aid in Execution is
>granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Judgment against Charles
>Slusarczyk personally is denied.
> All objections to the Magistrate's Decision must be filed with the
>Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of the filling of this Decision.
>If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
>objections not later than ten (10) days after the first objections are
>filed. The filing of timely objections shall operate as an automatic stay
>of execution of the judgment. A party shall not assign as error on appeal,
>the Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the
>party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as
>required by Civ. R. 53(E)3.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?

Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice

Ben Sego

November 26th 03, 04:11 PM

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest from the
> court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along that I was
> not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just more
> "proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info. conn has
> 14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and drink a
> little ML. I'll post any new news.
>
> Still putting my ducks in a row.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s
>
Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again.
Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to ****
on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up.

B.S.

RobertR237

November 26th 03, 05:13 PM

In article >, - Barnyard BOb -
> writes:

>
>Say, Chuck...
>
>Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
>although none was owed by you then... as now?
>
>Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
>and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?
>
>
>Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice
>
>

Maybe Conn should sue ZOOM for interference and queering the deal.

Now that would be justice.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

November 26th 03, 05:13 PM

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk
> writes:

>
>For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest from the
>court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along that I was
>not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just more
>"proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info. conn
>has
>14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and drink a
>little ML. I'll post any new news.
>
>Still putting my ducks in a row.
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s
>
>

Good for you Chuck! Happy Thanksgiving and one hell of a Merry Christmas.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Gerry Caron

November 26th 03, 06:28 PM

"Ben Sego" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again.
> Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to ****
> on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up.
>
And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what
Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal:

Aviation fans want to expand in Polk

By Christopher Sherman | Sentinel Staff Writer
Posted November 23, 2003

Organizers of Polk County's Sun 'n Fun Experimental Aircraft Association
Fly-In want to make that aviation event the best in the world and capitalize
on the fly-in's fame to attract visitors to the group's other programs
throughout the year.

In its nearly three decades, the fly-in at Lakeland Linder Regional Airport
has grown in size and reputation, offering aviation fans and newcomers a
chance to buy, sell, study or just look at a variety of aircraft. A recent
University of South Florida-Lakeland study put its annual economic impact at
$27.4 million and suggested it still has plenty of room to grow.

"We want to be the aviation event of choice in the world," said John Burton,
Sun 'n Fun Inc. president. "If we strive to offer the best, the numbers will
take care of themselves."

Those attendance numbers have been the subject of debate in recent years,
spurring Sun 'n Fun to commission the study in search of credible figures.

Investigators estimated last year's fly-in had 57,000 visitors, many of whom
visited more than once and boosted the count of people passing through the
gates to 160,000.

The attendance figures were a launching pad for the real question of
economic impact for the seven-day event that draws pilots, vendors and the
curious.

The best way to capitalize on an event with that kind of name recognition
and drawing power is to try to extend its benefits beyond just a week every
spring, the study concluded.

"When you do something that has a $27 million impact [in Polk County], that
is huge," said Jack Walters, director of the school's College of Business
Administration, who led the study. "They would like to develop a larger
calendar of events throughout the year to leverage the high visibility of
the event."

That is in line with Sun 'n Fun's strategic plan, Burton said.

Sun 'n Fun recognized years ago that it was not using all of its assets by
hosting an event only one week out of the year, said Burton, who was hired
to expand the organization from the fly-in to a year-round operation.

The organization is expanding the fly-in's core with year-round workshops
and seminars, and by providing outreach programs to the public.

A monthly Aviation Expressions lecture series during the fall and winter is
drawing a good crowd as well, Burton said.

Christopher Sherman can be reached at or
863-422-3395.

Ron Wanttaja

November 27th 03, 01:26 AM

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:59 GMT, "Gerry Caron" > wrote:

>"Ben Sego" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>> Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again.
>> Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to ****
>> on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up.

Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old
"conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random
co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit.

>And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what
>Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal:

Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too
many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's
thus banned from all of them.

After the initial flurry of activity on his current suit, the Polk County
Clerk web page hasn't shown any activity on that case in the last two
months. It looks to me that SnF has yet to file a response to Campbell's
interrogatories. This may mean SnF just has the case on a back burner, but
it may indicate there's some negotiations going on for an out-of-court
settlement.

Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
couple of years....

Ron Wanttaja

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 27th 03, 03:55 AM

In article >, - Barnyard BOb -
says...

>Say, Chuck...
>
>Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
>although none was owed by you then... as now?
>
>Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
>and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?
>
>
>Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice

Yeah after about 10 or 11 years since I had any contact with conn he surfaced
and started making demands and threats. He said he would "expose" me to the
aviation press if I didn't pay up. To make a long story short I didn't want to
give zoom any ammo and I thought it would be a good public relations act if I
worked some kind of refund for him .I didn't legally have to do it and told both
conn and zoom that. I was being blackmailed but I tried to turn a lemon into
lemonade.

My offer was to refund the original deposit or put the original deposit plus
interest toward a new kit. Conn would have had to ante up about $4000
difference. conn then said I should give him a kit at my cost and that he
shouldn't have to pay anything. That's when Tony got involved ,then zoom got
involved and the big zoom expose on me was published.

After my name was smeared in zooms magazine and his web site I felt that doing
anything for conn was pointless.I basically felt I was being blackmailed and
when zooms article was published both in his magazine and on his web site I said
what can I gain at this point by trying to help conn out. They took their shot
and conn still wanted a plane as well.

I had no legal obligation towards conn and since he and zoom blew the deal I
wasn't going to give conn a nickle. zoom queered the deal for conn and now conn
is out and has zoom to thank for it. Soon I'll be taking steps to seek relief
from zoom ,conn and jaun for actions over the years trying to hurt me
financially and personally but thats in the future. I got a few more ducks to
get in a row before I make that move. I don't like to make threats but they'll
know it when it happens.

See ya Unka Bob

neefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, but I don't want vengence ,I want Justice.."

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 27th 03, 04:01 AM

In article >, RobertR237 says...
>Good for you Chuck! Happy Thanksgiving and one hell of a Merry Christmas.
>

>"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
>pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
>(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Thank you kindly Robert , I will have a very Happy Thanksgiving . As far as
Christmas goes I'm not sure but it's looking good so far.Apology's to Top Gun
:-)

See ya
Happy Thanksgiving

Chuck(honest I'm not a Turkey,I just play one on TV) S

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 27th 03, 04:06 AM

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
>Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
>would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
>But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
>couple of years....

I'd sure be disappointed if they settle with him.It will only be a matter of
time before he acts up again.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

sleepy6

November 27th 03, 04:39 AM

In article >,
says...
>
>For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest fro
>m the
>court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along tha
>t I was
>not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just
>more
>"proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info.
>conn has
>14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and
>drink a
>little ML. I'll post any new news.
>
>Still putting my ducks in a row.
>
>See ya
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

That should shut 'em up for a while. Happy Thanksgiving Chuck.

red12049

November 27th 03, 01:19 PM

Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
but probably its' your ducks....

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, - Barnyard BOb -
> says...
>
> >Say, Chuck...
> >
> >Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
> >although none was owed by you then... as now?
> >
> >Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
> >and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?
> >
> >
> >Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice
>
> Yeah after about 10 or 11 years since I had any contact with conn he
surfaced
> and started making demands and threats. He said he would "expose" me to
the
> aviation press if I didn't pay up. To make a long story short I didn't
want to
> give zoom any ammo and I thought it would be a good public relations act
if I
> worked some kind of refund for him .I didn't legally have to do it and
told both
> conn and zoom that. I was being blackmailed but I tried to turn a lemon
into
> lemonade.
>
> My offer was to refund the original deposit or put the original deposit
plus
> interest toward a new kit. Conn would have had to ante up about $4000
> difference. conn then said I should give him a kit at my cost and that he
> shouldn't have to pay anything. That's when Tony got involved ,then zoom
got
> involved and the big zoom expose on me was published.
>
> After my name was smeared in zooms magazine and his web site I felt that
doing
> anything for conn was pointless.I basically felt I was being blackmailed
and
> when zooms article was published both in his magazine and on his web site
I said
> what can I gain at this point by trying to help conn out. They took their
shot
> and conn still wanted a plane as well.
>
> I had no legal obligation towards conn and since he and zoom blew the deal
I
> wasn't going to give conn a nickle. zoom queered the deal for conn and now
conn
> is out and has zoom to thank for it. Soon I'll be taking steps to seek
relief
> from zoom ,conn and jaun for actions over the years trying to hurt me
> financially and personally but thats in the future. I got a few more ducks
to
> get in a row before I make that move. I don't like to make threats but
they'll
> know it when it happens.
>
> See ya Unka Bob
>
> neefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, but I don't want vengence ,I want
Justice.."
>
>
>
>
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 27th 03, 01:43 PM

In article >, red12049 says...
>
>Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
>Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
>but probably its' your ducks....

I don't know if it was the Ducks or not but your "Journalists Credo" should be
must reading not only for zoom and jaun but for the entire media in general.
zoom probably told jaun to back off and like the faithful sock puppet he is ,he
did. Frankly I'm enjoying the peace and quiet :-)

See ya
Happy Thanksgiving

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

Frank Hitlaw

November 27th 03, 03:29 PM

ChuckSlusarczyk > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
> >Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
> >would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
> >But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
> >couple of years....
>
> I'd sure be disappointed if they settle with him.It will only be a matter of
> time before he acts up again.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
================================================== ==============================

Chuck;

You are correct leopards don't change their spots,and neither will
zzzzoom. After all the hassles the he put me through I also hope that
SnF doesn't settle it is a better show without him.A settlement would
only strenthen his position and do nothing else.
Frank;

Ben Sego

November 28th 03, 05:25 AM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:59 GMT, "Gerry Caron" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Ben Sego" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again.
>>> Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to ****
>>>on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up.
>>
>
> Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old
> "conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random
> co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit.

Good God. I suppose it could happen. Does he really have nothing else
to do? You'd think someone of his stature, esteem, and past
accomplishments would be engaged in more fruitful pursuits. Perhaps the
furtherance of his aeronautical, literary, and medical pursuits.

>
>
>>And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what
>>Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal:
>
>
> Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too
> many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's
> thus banned from all of them.

Still, this baffles me. Why go to the trouble of another suit? As
things stand, he can "report" whatever he wants. It's not as though
actual attendance would further inform his writing, is it? When you
have such a highly polished way with words, what would the encumberance
of facts contribute?
>
> After the initial flurry of activity on his current suit, the Polk County
> Clerk web page hasn't shown any activity on that case in the last two
> months. It looks to me that SnF has yet to file a response to Campbell's
> interrogatories. This may mean SnF just has the case on a back burner, but
> it may indicate there's some negotiations going on for an out-of-court
> settlement.
>
> Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
> would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
> But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
> couple of years....
>
> Ron Wanttaja

Sounds like settlement to me. When dealing with meaningful disputes
between rational actors, settlement is a wise course.

How that applies here..., well, you do the math.

B.S.

Ron Wanttaja

November 28th 03, 09:14 PM

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:25:13 GMT, Ben Sego > wrote:

>Ron Wanttaja wrote:

>> Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old
>> "conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random
>> co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit.
>
>Good God. I suppose it could happen. Does he really have nothing else
>to do? You'd think someone of his stature, esteem, and past
>accomplishments would be engaged in more fruitful pursuits. Perhaps the
>furtherance of his aeronautical, literary, and medical pursuits.

There are a number of possibilities. He could do it just to try to gum-up
SnF's legal team....Tony once told me that Zoom's attorney had privately
implied that the only reason for the RAH-15 suit was to increase Tony's
workload. Or, some of Campbell's ex-employees and associates describe him
as vengeful; filing lawsuits would just be another form of harassment.
Campbell has already sued at least five former employees, editors, or
writers.

Another possibility would be to establish a "history" to use against that
person should they ever testify against Zoom in another case. For
instance, why was Nauga Hyde one of the RAH-15? It would have been because
flight testing is his profession, and he'd already publicly pointed out
that one of Zoom's claims was not realistic. Vern Barr was probably named
because he was a former associate editor, Al Staats because he was a former
marketing manager. By naming them in a suit, Campbell had an argument
ready if any of these people testified as experts in any case against
Campbell ("They're not unbiased experts!").

One interesting bit of speculation regards Zoom's financial relationship
with the lawyer for SnF #2. Did the attorney take the case on a
contingency basis (he apparently specializes in civil-rights cases) or is
Campbell being billed for services rendered?

If the attorney is working on contingency, naming additional co-defendants
would significantly increase his workload but the amount of any potential
settlement would probably be about the same. If he's billing Campbell for
his time, you have to wonder how much of a 'war chest' Zoom has. As I
mentioned years ago on the RAH-15 case, just taking depositions from all 15
co-defendants would probably have added $50,000 or more to his legal bill.

>>>And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what
>>>Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal:
>>
>>
>> Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too
>> many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's
>> thus banned from all of them.
>
>Still, this baffles me. Why go to the trouble of another suit? As
>things stand, he can "report" whatever he wants. It's not as though
>actual attendance would further inform his writing, is it? When you
>have such a highly polished way with words, what would the encumberance
>of facts contribute?

There are three basic reasons one might file a lawsuit.

1. To obtain regress for valid damages
2. To harass the defendant in order to force them to take a certain action
3. To gain publicity or sympathy

Number 3 seems to be right out, since Zoom apparently hasn't mentioned this
on his own web page. So we're left with #1 and #2.

Ron Wanttaja

Scott Correa

November 29th 03, 12:02 AM

Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his
news service.......
I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties
was
illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by
businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals....

Scott

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 29th 03, 01:27 AM

In article >, Scott Correa says...
>
>Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his
>news service.......
>I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties
>was
>illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by
>businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals....
>
>Scott

Hmmm,seems like it might be a duck trying to find a row...That's in code
son...if you know what I mean.....

Seriously there are two problems with trying to sue zoom et al .First he 's poor
and has no assets.Secondly it costs money to bring suit. However someone may be
willing to sue his butt for principle not money and secondly maybe a fund could
be established as a pool for funds so that one person could bring the law suit
and the fund could help support it.Sort of a reverse "defense
fund" I just don't know if it's legal to do it that way or not but I'll check.

Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"first you line your Ducks up, then ya count 'em, then..."

Dave Driscoll

November 29th 03, 06:45 PM

Chuck,

Send me an e-mail that works if you would.

Regards,

Dave Driscoll

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

>In article >, Scott Correa says...
>
>
>>Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his
>>news service.......
>>I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties
>>was
>>illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by
>>businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals....
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>
>
>Hmmm,seems like it might be a duck trying to find a row...That's in code
>son...if you know what I mean.....
>
>Seriously there are two problems with trying to sue zoom et al .First he 's poor
>and has no assets.Secondly it costs money to bring suit. However someone may be
>willing to sue his butt for principle not money and secondly maybe a fund could
>be established as a pool for funds so that one person could bring the law suit
>and the fund could help support it.Sort of a reverse "defense
>fund" I just don't know if it's legal to do it that way or not but I'll check.
>
>Chuck RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"first you line your Ducks up, then ya count 'em, then..."
>
>
>

John Ousterhout

November 30th 03, 05:27 AM

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:26:26 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
>would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
>But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
>couple of years....

You really think it would take that long?

I'll put a buck on him being ejected (re-ejected, rejected?) before
the second year is over.

- J.O.-

Ron Wanttaja

November 30th 03, 07:07 AM

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:27:40 -0800, John Ousterhout
> wrote:

>>Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It
>>would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case.
>>But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a
>>couple of years....
>
>You really think it would take that long?
>
>I'll put a buck on him being ejected (re-ejected, rejected?) before
>the second year is over.

Ah, well, this is where it gets fun. Campbell would be an idiot to accept
such a settlement if it *didn't* have some sort of provision to prevent SnF
from just throwing him out the next time he shows up. And SnF would be an
idiot to *grant* such a provision, since it would give Campbell carte blanc
to do *whatever* he wants with no fear of penalty.

If there is negotiation under way, one might suspect it is probably similar
in tone to that which took place after Campbell's last ejection. To quote
the questioning of Bill Eickhoff, from the transcript of Campbell's first
suit against SnF:
-------------------------------------------------
Q. And for what reason were you unable to resolve matters with Mr.
Campbell?

A. [Eickhoff] Basically, everytime we got to the point where we thought
we could have a meeting, Mr. Campbell escalated his activities in calling
county commissioners and city officials and putting basically, we felt,
lies on the internet and trying to force things to happen. We were trying
to get to a point where we could sit down, but at no point did he offer any
resolution, he only offered demands.

Q. On the one occasion when you flew to Winter Haven with Mr. Henderson
and met with Mr. Campbell, did you believe you had resolved the problem
between you?

A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Campbell keep his word?

A. No.
-------------------------------------------------
[Transcript, CASE NO: 99-799-Civ-T-26C]

Ron Wanttaja

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 30th 03, 09:02 PM

In article >, John Ousterhout says...

>I'll put a buck on him being ejected (re-ejected, rejected?) before
>the second year is over.
>

Pretty safe bet John LOL!! I don't know about ejected ,re-ejected and rejected
but "stay the hell out of here" sounds good enough to me :-)

see ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

ChuckSlusarczyk

November 30th 03, 09:07 PM

In article >, Ron Wanttaja says...
> Ah, well, this is where it gets fun. Campbell would be an idiot to accept
>such a settlement if it *didn't* have some sort of provision to prevent SnF
>from just throwing him out the next time he shows up. And SnF would be an
>idiot to *grant* such a provision, since it would give Campbell carte blanc
>to do *whatever* he wants with no fear of penalty.

Right Ron I can't think of any "compromise" that would work with zoom. He needs
to "win" or appear to win ,not a compromise. A compromise would indicate that he
possibly had some "blame" in the problem and we know he's always right...just
ask him :-)

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

Juan..E..Jimenez

November 30th 03, 11:20 PM

Wishful thinking.

Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big mouth.
Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.

Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the Chukster
is about nothing but hot air... :)

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
> Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
> but probably its' your ducks....

red12049

December 1st 03, 12:21 AM

Juan,

I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter.... and
that proof, or lack of response to the request, is to you the full measure
of the man. And you Juan? What is your measure? Would you prefer to be
measured as a person, who, at least on the internet (including ANN), called
himself a journalist, but failed to adhere to the ethics we expect from a
journalist? Is your persona here your full measure? Your military service?
And what of your occasional employer, Mr. Campbell? What are his verifiable
bona fides? What is his measure? I suspect that the answer to the question
about yourself would be much different than what you seem to expect from
Chuck and all those who detest Mr. Campbell. You decide what you wish to be
remembered for.

Red

"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
> Wishful thinking.
>
> Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
mouth.
> Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.
>
> Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
Chukster
> is about nothing but hot air... :)
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
now....
> > Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with
it,
> > but probably its' your ducks....
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

Juan..E..Jimenez

December 1st 03, 01:39 AM

"red12049" > wrote in message
...
> Juan,
>
> I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter....

Let me make this crystal clear for you, whomever you happen to be. I don't
care what you think is or is not inconsequential, or what your overactive
imagination churns up as a very, very lame comeback. Nor do I care what you
think is the measure of anyone, let alone me. You think the whining little
children who make up the RAH Gaggle are of any consequence? You think what
they think of me, or of Jim Campbell, or of anyone else, is of any
consequence? On what reality? Better yet, on what planet? <chuckle>

What really gets the gaggle is that no matter how hard they try, ANN
continues to grow and grow and grow... and become more and more and more
successful.

That makes the gaggle furious, and they stomp their feet, and they whine
like stuck pigs, and they scream like little monkeys...

....and nothing they do, or will do, or can do, works. In the end, whom do
you think will be remembered, period? The whining boys of the gaggle? Or the
people who work so hard to bring so much information and news to the
aviation world? I'll give you one guess.

Got it?

Good! Have a nice day. :)

ChuckSlusarczyk

December 1st 03, 02:45 AM

In article >, red12049 says...
>
>Juan,
>
>I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter.... and
>that proof, or lack of response to the request, is to you the full measure
>of the man.

Hi Red

The proof jaun wanted to see was proof that I owned my vehicles that I took/will
take to Sun n Fun. Here's the post I made on 11/12/03 showing my
truck registrations with my name on them.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: jaun is a liar/ truck titlesJJJJJJ
Author: ChuckSlusarczyk >
Date: 12 Nov 2003 21:18:17 -0800

I gave jaun enough rope to make a fool of himself .So just for the record you
can go to the following sites and see copies of my registrations for my 97 ,00
and 03 Dodge Ram trucks, all with my name listed as the owner. Everyone knows
that you can't get plates and registrations without titles.

I did this just to show that I have nothing to hide and jaun has no
credibility.

http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck97.JPG

http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck00.JPG

http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck03.JPG

Case closed slam dunk.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

And you Juan? What is your measure? Would you prefer to be
>measured as a person, who, at least on the internet (including ANN), called
>himself a journalist, but failed to adhere to the ethics we expect from a
>journalist? Is your persona here your full measure? Your military service?
>And what of your occasional employer, Mr. Campbell? What are his verifiable
>bona fides? What is his measure? I suspect that the answer to the question
>about yourself would be much different than what you seem to expect from
>Chuck and all those who detest Mr. Campbell. You decide what you wish to be
>remembered for.
>
>Red
>
>"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
>news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
>> Wishful thinking.
>>
>> Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
>mouth.
>> Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.
>>
>> Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
>Chukster
>> is about nothing but hot air... :)
>>
>> "red12049" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
>now....
>> > Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with
>it,
>> > but probably its' your ducks....
>>
>>
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003
>
>

Eric Miller

December 1st 03, 04:03 AM

"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
> Wishful thinking.
>
> Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
mouth.
> Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.
>
> Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
Chukster
> is about nothing but hot air... :)
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
now....
> > Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with
it,
> > but probably its' your ducks....

Delayed reaction much, Juan?

I mean I can understand biding your time to come up with something really
juicy, but this is all you came up with?

I'd suggest going away until you came back with something better if I
thought it'd do any good. Instead, I'll just say... better luck next time!

Eric

sleepy6

December 1st 03, 05:06 AM

In article <qZwyb.268461$275.961167@attbi_s53>, b*d&5^@-*bd5+.!c#o$m
says...
>
>

snipped usual garbage

>
>What really gets the gaggle is that no matter how hard they try, ANN
>continues to grow and grow and grow... and become more and more and mo
>re
>successful.

Does that mean that Mooz can finally pay off the judgement that his old
lawyer has?

Maybe he can now pay for articles in the rag? Sure would be better
than just reprinting crap off the news wire or filling up space with
TFR reprints.

red12049

December 1st 03, 05:23 AM

Juan,

Funny you should say what you did..... Indirectly, ANN is why I am here.
You are right... we don't amount to anything in anyones life but those we
touch directly. and you are right again... ANN WILL be
remembered.....unfortunately probably not in the way you seem to
indicate..... I ended up reading RAH because, after reading ANN for awhile,
I came to the conclusion that it violated everything I knew about good
journalism, and I decided to do a little background reading about its'
writers. I never had the pleasure of knowing Tony Pucillo, but in my
research I found a post he made back in the mid nineties about why ANN could
never work (I believe back then it was Jims' print magazine), no matter WHO
was running it, let alone soneone with Mr. Campbells' problems. Tony was
right then, and still is. You are right Juan, it doesn't matter what we
think. It will matter what YOU ultimately think, and those close to and
important to you. You figure out what you would like.

Red

"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:qZwyb.268461$275.961167@attbi_s53...
>
> "red12049" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Juan,
> >
> > I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter....
>
> Let me make this crystal clear for you, whomever you happen to be. I don't
> care what you think is or is not inconsequential, or what your overactive
> imagination churns up as a very, very lame comeback. Nor do I care what
you
> think is the measure of anyone, let alone me. You think the whining little
> children who make up the RAH Gaggle are of any consequence? You think what
> they think of me, or of Jim Campbell, or of anyone else, is of any
> consequence? On what reality? Better yet, on what planet? <chuckle>
>
> What really gets the gaggle is that no matter how hard they try, ANN
> continues to grow and grow and grow... and become more and more and more
> successful.
>
> That makes the gaggle furious, and they stomp their feet, and they whine
> like stuck pigs, and they scream like little monkeys...
>
> ...and nothing they do, or will do, or can do, works. In the end, whom do
> you think will be remembered, period? The whining boys of the gaggle? Or
the
> people who work so hard to bring so much information and news to the
> aviation world? I'll give you one guess.
>
> Got it?
>
> Good! Have a nice day. :)
>
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

B2431

December 1st 03, 09:36 AM

>From: "Juan..E..Jimenez" b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m

>> Juan,
>>
>> I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter....
>
>Let me make this crystal clear for you, whomever you happen to be. I don't
>care what you think is or is not inconsequential, or what your overactive
>imagination churns up as a very, very lame comeback. Nor do I care what you
>think is the measure of anyone, let alone me. You think the whining little
>children who make up the RAH Gaggle are of any consequence? You think what
>they think of me, or of Jim Campbell, or of anyone else, is of any
>consequence? On what reality? Better yet, on what planet? <chuckle>
>
>What really gets the gaggle is that no matter how hard they try, ANN
>continues to grow and grow and grow... and become more and more and more
>successful.
>
Etc..etc..etc.

Juan, you pressed for proof about Chuck's truck for some reason I will never
understand. You demand all kinds of information from him, yet refuse to provide
the equivillent when asked in return.

Personally I couldn't care less about ANN or any other magazine. You are a
bully, and like any other bully, you are a coward who incapable of admitting
fault. You are also incapable of trying to find a middle ground. I have learned
all this by watching your ungentlemanly behaviour in this NG.I have seen zero
integrity on your part. You have made no attempt at adult debate.

If, as Chuck and others have contended, you wind up getting slammed in court
you will have no one to blame but yourself.

Would I say all this to your face? Come on over and find out.

Have you flown your BD-5 yet or moved to PR as you gave as a reason for selling
it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

RobertR237

December 1st 03, 06:43 PM

In article >,
(sleepy6) writes:

>
>>
>>What really gets the gaggle is that no matter how hard they try, ANN
>>continues to grow and grow and grow... and become more and more and mo
>>re
>>successful.
>
>
>Does that mean that Mooz can finally pay off the judgement that his old
>lawyer has?
>
>Maybe he can now pay for articles in the rag? Sure would be better
>than just reprinting crap off the news wire or filling up space with
>TFR reprints.
>
>

I wonder if the IRS knows how successful he has become and that he can now pay
all those back taxes he owes. Maybe they should be told along with all his
creditors who were never paid. How about all the subscribers to the USAviator
who never got their refunds or magazines?

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Russell Kent

December 1st 03, 07:12 PM

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

> There are three basic reasons one might file a lawsuit.
>
> 1. To obtain regress for valid damages
> 2. To harass the defendant in order to force them to take a certain action
> 3. To gain publicity or sympathy
>
> Number 3 seems to be right out, since Zoom apparently hasn't mentioned this
> on his own web page. So we're left with #1 and #2.

You neglected to mention a fourth possibility:
4. The plaintiff is unreasonable (i.e. does not have a "basic reason [to] file a
lawsuit.").

Russell Kent

Juan..E.-Jimenez

December 2nd 03, 06:14 AM

Wrong, Duckboy. Proving the trucks were yours does not close the case, not
even in your wildest putz dreams.

Did you forget you had to provide proof you took them to SNF?

It's all about the credibility you don't have, boy.

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, red12049 says...
> >
> >Juan,
> >
> >I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter....
and
> >that proof, or lack of response to the request, is to you the full
measure
> >of the man.
>
> Hi Red
>
> The proof jaun wanted to see was proof that I owned my vehicles that I
took/will
> take to Sun n Fun. Here's the post I made on 11/12/03 showing my
> truck registrations with my name on them.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
>
> Title: jaun is a liar/ truck titlesJJJJJJ
> Author: ChuckSlusarczyk >
> Date: 12 Nov 2003 21:18:17 -0800
>
>
> I gave jaun enough rope to make a fool of himself .So just for the record
you
> can go to the following sites and see copies of my registrations for my 97
,00
> and 03 Dodge Ram trucks, all with my name listed as the owner. Everyone
knows
> that you can't get plates and registrations without titles.
>
> I did this just to show that I have nothing to hide and jaun has no
> credibility.
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck97.JPG
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck00.JPG
>
> http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck03.JPG
>
> Case closed slam dunk.
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> "credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And you Juan? What is your measure? Would you prefer to be
> >measured as a person, who, at least on the internet (including ANN),
called
> >himself a journalist, but failed to adhere to the ethics we expect from a
> >journalist? Is your persona here your full measure? Your military
service?
> >And what of your occasional employer, Mr. Campbell? What are his
verifiable
> >bona fides? What is his measure? I suspect that the answer to the
question
> >about yourself would be much different than what you seem to expect from
> >Chuck and all those who detest Mr. Campbell. You decide what you wish to
be
> >remembered for.
> >
> >Red
> >
> >"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> >news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
> >> Wishful thinking.
> >>
> >> Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
> >mouth.
> >> Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.
> >>
> >> Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
> >Chukster
> >> is about nothing but hot air... :)
> >>
> >> "red12049" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
> >now....
> >> > Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do
with
> >it,
> >> > but probably its' your ducks....
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >---
> >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003
> >
> >
>

Juan..E.-Jimenez

December 2nd 03, 06:14 AM

"Eric Miller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Delayed reaction much, Juan?

Nope. Too busy to play. You miss me? :)

Juan..E.-Jimenez

December 2nd 03, 06:17 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>
> Juan, you pressed for proof about Chuck's truck for some reason I will
never
> understand. You demand all kinds of information from him, yet refuse to
provide
> the equivillent when asked in return.

Don't blame me for not following the thread to its beginning. The Duckboy
got stomped because he decided to stick his foot in his mouth and poke the
wrong person. I don't have to provide anything for him, because I don't need
to prove anything to him.

<remainder of BS snipped>

Eric Miller

December 2nd 03, 07:14 AM

"Juan..E.-Jimenez" <b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:D5Wyb.277978$275.996892@attbi_s53...
>
> "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Delayed reaction much, Juan?
>
> Nope. Too busy to play. You miss me? :)

Give you one guess :-)

Eric Miller

December 2nd 03, 07:19 AM

> "Juan..E.-Jimenez" <b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> news:D5Wyb.277978$275.996892@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "Eric Miller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Delayed reaction much, Juan?
> >
> > Nope. Too busy to play. You miss me? :)
>
> Give you one guess :-)

Better yet... I wish you a long, happy, successful and BUSY life :-)

Eric

red12049

December 2nd 03, 12:08 PM

Juan,

If I've read the correct thread, Chuck referred to you as "Zoom's toady,
Jaun". Could that be construed as a personal attack? Sure. But Chucks'
claim to fame is as an aircraft manufacturer, nothing else. He hasn't, to
the best of my knowledge, claimed to be anyone or anything else. You on the
other hand, claim to be a journalist. As a journalist, you are
automatically held to a higher standard, in ANY forum.

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public
enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy.
The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and
providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.
Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the
public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the
cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a
dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's
principles and standards of practice.

I'd repost the whole thing, but you've already seen it. If you are not
acting in this manner, then you've already lost, even if you win this small
battle. Worse, you are helping your opponent win, and demeaning the term
"journalist" in everyones' eyes (and not just in RAH). This is a part of
what I was asking you about how you wanted to be remembered, and the measure
of a man.

Red

"Juan..E.-Jimenez" <b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:Y7Wyb.276876$9E1.1459437@attbi_s52...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Juan, you pressed for proof about Chuck's truck for some reason I will
> never
> > understand. You demand all kinds of information from him, yet refuse to
> provide
> > the equivillent when asked in return.
>
> Don't blame me for not following the thread to its beginning. The Duckboy
> got stomped because he decided to stick his foot in his mouth and poke the
> wrong person. I don't have to provide anything for him, because I don't
need
> to prove anything to him.
>
> <remainder of BS snipped>
>
>

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

- Barnyard BOb -

December 2nd 03, 12:08 PM

>> > > Delayed reaction much, Juan?
>> >
>> > Nope. Too busy to play. You miss me? :)
>>
>> Give you one guess :-)
>
>Better yet... I wish you a long, happy, successful and BUSY life :-)
>
>Eric
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A 'BUSY life' would have more than sufficed. 8+D

Barnyard BOb --

ChuckSlusarczyk

December 2nd 03, 12:10 PM

In article <_4Wyb.277973$275.997197@attbi_s53>, d says...
>
>Wrong, Duckboy. Proving the trucks were yours does not close the case, not
>even in your wildest putz dreams.
>
>Did you forget you had to provide proof you took them to SNF?
>
>It's all about the credibility you don't have, boy.

My ,my, my your getting as good as zoom, lets see ...Duckboy,putz,and boy.You
called me 3 names in 3 sentences .Now my feelings are hurt.

"Had to"? I don't have to prove anything to anyone least of all you. Common
sense would tell you if I was at SnF with my trailers I must have used something
to get them there. Like maybe a truck? Logic is not your strong suit.

Seems like the only person who doubts my credibility is you .But your
credibility and opinion are so insignificant as not to matter to me or anyone
else. And there in is your problem, no one takes you seriously anymore,not here,
not anywhere, except zoom and ANN. So you bully, whine and cry like the immature
person you are, seeking attention by attacking those who have truly achieved
something in aviation.Whether building AND flying their own planes or designing
planes or doing pioneering work you are envious of those who have achieved.

Like zoom you have some talent but both of you have personality flaws that cause
you to self destruct.

All the time and effort you expended ranting against me and others achieved
nothing ,you simply showed your true colors and personality. Then you lost your
credibility which believe it or not extends to more then this group.

You say you don't care what anyone thinks of you but find it necessary to answer
any perceived slight with a torrent of crude name calling and insults.
Oh you care all right if you didn't you wouldn't be here on this group.You'd
leave and stay away or not respond. You need to act out your macho fantasy's
here for some reason only you know and we laugh at. Calling yourself a
Journalist is like calling the Jerry Springer Show serious TV.

I predict you will answer this post with the usual diatribe of name calling
,insults and demands for more "proof" and it will roll off my back like water
off a Ducks back :-)

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"envy it seems to be about envy" chuck s

Model Flyer

December 2nd 03, 12:35 PM

"Juan..E.-Jimenez" <b*d&5^-@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
news:_4Wyb.277973$275.997197@attbi_s53...
> Wrong, Duckboy. Proving the trucks were yours does not close the
case, not
> even in your wildest putz dreams.
>
> Did you forget you had to provide proof you took them to SNF?
>
> It's all about the credibility you don't have, boy.
>

You really do go on and on with your bull**** don't you, over here in
Ireland we call you a Gob****e, that describes you childish petulance
very well.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)

> "ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in
message
> ...
> > In article >, red12049 says...
> > >
> > >Juan,
> > >
> > >I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential
matter....
> and
> > >that proof, or lack of response to the request, is to you the
full
> measure
> > >of the man.
> >
> > Hi Red
> >
> > The proof jaun wanted to see was proof that I owned my vehicles
that I
> took/will
> > take to Sun n Fun. Here's the post I made on 11/12/03 showing my
> > truck registrations with my name on them.
> >
> > See ya
> >
> > Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> ------
> >
> > Title: jaun is a liar/ truck titlesJJJJJJ
> > Author: ChuckSlusarczyk >
> > Date: 12 Nov 2003 21:18:17 -0800
> >
> >
> > I gave jaun enough rope to make a fool of himself .So just for
the record
> you
> > can go to the following sites and see copies of my registrations
for my 97
> ,00
> > and 03 Dodge Ram trucks, all with my name listed as the owner.
Everyone
> knows
> > that you can't get plates and registrations without titles.
> >
> > I did this just to show that I have nothing to hide and jaun has
no
> > credibility.
> >
> > http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck97.JPG
> >
> > http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck00.JPG
> >
> > http://www.wanttaja.com/chuck03.JPG
> >
> > Case closed slam dunk.
> >
> > See ya
> >
> > Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
> >
> > "credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > And you Juan? What is your measure? Would you prefer to be
> > >measured as a person, who, at least on the internet (including
ANN),
> called
> > >himself a journalist, but failed to adhere to the ethics we
expect from a
> > >journalist? Is your persona here your full measure? Your
military
> service?
> > >And what of your occasional employer, Mr. Campbell? What are
his
> verifiable
> > >bona fides? What is his measure? I suspect that the answer to
the
> question
> > >about yourself would be much different than what you seem to
expect from
> > >Chuck and all those who detest Mr. Campbell. You decide what
you wish to
> be
> > >remembered for.
> > >
> > >Red
> > >
> > >"Juan..E..Jimenez" <b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m> wrote in message
> > >news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
> > >> Wishful thinking.
> > >>
> > >> Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with
his big
> > >mouth.
> > >> Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that
the
> > >Chukster
> > >> is about nothing but hot air... :)
> > >>
> > >> "red12049" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for
weeks
> > >now....
> > >> > Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something
to do
> with
> > >it,
> > >> > but probably its' your ducks....
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >---
> > >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > >Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date:
11/27/2003
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

ChuckSlusarczyk

December 2nd 03, 02:28 PM

In article >, red12049 says...
>
>Juan,
>
>If I've read the correct thread, Chuck referred to you as "Zoom's toady,
>Jaun". Could that be construed as a personal attack? Sure.

But more importantly what I said was "true" not a vague accusation or innuendo
or a generality. What you say about Journalism is true and jaun fails the test
as a journalist.He hinted in previous posts that I had children in the juvenile
justice system ,that I was hiding things and didn't own a vehicle with my name
on the title. None of it true but all designed to damage me and my
reputation.Just because I called him "zoom's toady" he feels he has the right to
insult me and my children personally. I could have gone to the gutter with him
and asked for proof of a lot of things but didn't.

> But Chucks'
>claim to fame is as an aircraft manufacturer, nothing else. He hasn't, to
>the best of my knowledge, claimed to be anyone or anything else.

That's correct ,if I said I designed the Hawk I can prove it,if I said I had a
patent I can prove it ,same for Junk Yard Wars ,Hall of Fame and my other
accomplishments. From what I can see jaun hasn't finished anything ,test flown
anything or done anything worthy of note, the same for as his hero zoom .Yet
both of those guys feel that they have some right to judge the works of others.
Boy what a case of inflated egos. Problem is they believe their own hype and
think we do too...NOT!!

> You on the
>other hand, claim to be a journalist. As a journalist, you are
>automatically held to a higher standard, in ANY forum.

jaun can't fill a journalist's shoes he lacks the credentials and integrity.
Nuff said..

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"envy it seems to be about envy" chuck s

RobertR237

December 2nd 03, 04:52 PM

In article >, "Eric Miller"
> writes:

>> >
>> > Delayed reaction much, Juan?
>>
>> Nope. Too busy to play. You miss me? :)
>
>Give you one guess :-)
>
>

Like someone would miss a bad case of the runs.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

RobertR237

December 2nd 03, 04:52 PM

In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk
> writes:

>>
>>Did you forget you had to provide proof you took them to SNF?
>>
>>It's all about the credibility you don't have, boy.
>
>My ,my, my your getting as good as zoom, lets see ...Duckboy,putz,and boy.You
>called me 3 names in 3 sentences .Now my feelings are hurt.
>
>"Had to"? I don't have to prove anything to anyone least of all you. Common
>sense would tell you if I was at SnF with my trailers I must have used
>something
>to get them there. Like maybe a truck? Logic is not your strong suit.
>

He doesn't have a strong suit just a strong smell.

>Seems like the only person who doubts my credibility is you .But your
>credibility and opinion are so insignificant as not to matter to me or anyone
>else. And there in is your problem, no one takes you seriously anymore,not
>here,
>not anywhere, except zoom and ANN. So you bully, whine and cry like the
>immature
>person you are, seeking attention by attacking those who have truly achieved
>something in aviation.Whether building AND flying their own planes or
>designing
>planes or doing pioneering work you are envious of those who have achieved.
>
>Like zoom you have some talent but both of you have personality flaws that
>cause you to self destruct.
>

You give them both too much credit...I fail to see where either of them have
any talent for anything other than running at the mouth.

>All the time and effort you expended ranting against me and others achieved
>nothing ,you simply showed your true colors and personality. Then you lost
>your
>credibility which believe it or not extends to more then this group.
>
>You say you don't care what anyone thinks of you but find it necessary to
>answer
>any perceived slight with a torrent of crude name calling and insults.
>Oh you care all right if you didn't you wouldn't be here on this group.You'd
>leave and stay away or not respond. You need to act out your macho fantasy's
>here for some reason only you know and we laugh at. Calling yourself a
>Journalist is like calling the Jerry Springer Show serious TV.
>

You hit it right on the proverbial "Nail Head".

>I predict you will answer this post with the usual diatribe of name calling
>,insults and demands for more "proof" and it will roll off my back like water
>off a Ducks back :-)
>
>Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret
>
>"envy it seems to be about envy" chuck s

In many ways it do believe it is about envy. Both Jaun and Zoom envy the
respect and recognition that you have received for your work and can only try
to build themselves up by tearing you down.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Jerry Springer

December 3rd 03, 01:56 AM

wrote:
> In article >, ChuckSlusarczyk says...
>
>>You say you don't care what anyone thinks of you but find it necessary to answer
>>any perceived slight with a torrent of crude name calling and insults.
>>Oh you care all right if you didn't you wouldn't be here on this group.You'd
>>leave and stay away or not respond. You need to act out your macho fantasy's
>>here for some reason only you know and we laugh at. Calling yourself a
>>Journalist is like calling the Jerry Springer Show serious TV.
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2003 04:10:29 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> > wrote:
>
> :You say you don't care what anyone thinks of you but find it necessary to
> answer
> :any perceived slight with a torrent of crude name calling and insults.
> :Oh you care all right if you didn't you wouldn't be here on this group.You'd
> :leave and stay away or not respond. You need to act out your macho fantasy's
> :here for some reason only you know and we laugh at. Calling yourself a
> :Journalist is like calling the Jerry Springer Show serious TV.
>
> That's an insult to the Jerry Springer Show.
>
> For years, the show has had consistant, reliable ratings. It delivers exactly
> what it says it will - eyeballs, looking at TV screens during ads. Jerry
> doesn't say it's high culture, he says it's a circus (hence, the semi-fictional
> "Ringmaster"). The Jerry Springer Show is as serious as any reality TV show.
>
> We will never see "Juan Juimenez - The Opera" playing in the west end.
>
> And there's one other major difference. Jerry Springer gets paid for what he
> does in media. Juan does not.
>
> It's more like calling a local cable access show "serious TV."
>
Plus he has a damn good name also:-)

Jerry(the real one)Springer