In article , Ron Wanttaja says...

As far as the harm this alleged activity caused, Campbell claims that he
"...lost business, advertisers, subscribers and revenue in his business;
thus, substantially reducing his income and profits." He also claims
"...emotional distress, loss of reputation, credibility and standing," etc.


Ain't it amazing how he thinks he's been harmed after all the harm he's done to
others. Fact is he is responsible for his loss of reputation, credibility,
standing and finances. If he wasn't such a vindictive liar he could have had a
position in aviation other then that of which he now posesses.I hope the SnF
attorneys get to ask him some of the 100 questions on the zoom site .I would
love to see him explain the African food missions etc..


Sun-N-Fun's response: "It denies that Plaintiff is the owner of "Aero-News
Network"...."

Huh? Do they know something *we* don't? :-)

Maybe zoomy found another deep pocket to finance him again.That could explain
why he's been behaving himself lately. In the old days he would have been
bragging up his lawsuit actually if he's so right why is he ashamed to write
about it on ANN?

Actually, I think this is more intended to force Campbell to establish the
nature of his operation, as he describes it as a "magazine" throughout the
filing. I expect most people assume a "magazine" is a print-type
publication.

Just like he always uses "we" when describing himself ,therefore a net posting
can become a "magazine". What a phony!!

I suspect their denial of this statement means that SnF plans to present
the evidence that justified their banning Campbell. Campbell has the
uphill road of trying to prove the *motivation* for the banning in the face
of the documentation SnF has gathered to support its actions.


That's the part that become fun to watch. zoomy got real shook when his days of
pretending to be a Dr. and the transcripts of his FAA hearing were introduced at
his bankruptcy hearing. I just might have to fly down to Florida to watch that
part of the trial. I could wear my "I was Zoomed and survived shirt" . :-)


On a related note, looking at SnF's various filings in this case, it looks
to me like SnF is going *hard* after Campbell's claims of having lost
subscribers, advertisers, and income.

For instance, in the Interrogatories, SnF demands circulation and
subscription information necessary to prove Campbell's claim of lost
income. Campbell has refused to provide this information, claiming it is
proprietary.


That's when you know for sure he's got something to hide.


But unless he presents this data, it's going to be hard for him to prove he
suffered monetary losses. How is he going to prove that he lost
subscribers...unless he shows before and after subscriber lists? How is he
going to prove that he lost advertisers...without identifying which
advertisers he lost?

It would be interesting to know what kind of numbers he gives potential and real
advertizers in determining the ad costs. I hope his advertizers are watching and
tracking how much bang for the buck their getting by advertizing with ANN.

You'll always
find individuals who haven't heard the stories, but I suspect most
potential advertisers have heard them.

You'd think so but some still advertize and therefore become enablers for a
phony.


In his suit, Campbell claims three advertisers heard the alleged comments.
He identifies them in response to SnF's Interrogatories. One is listed as
a Seattle area business that I haven't heard of (I live just south of
Seattle), but it's apparently in a type of aviation I'm not involved in
(couldn't find them on the web, but the name might be misspelled). The
other "two" advertisers are actually two people associated with a single
company. They both left that company right after the events in question,
so their status as advertisers is questionable.


Well you gotta know ,in the world of jaun and jim if they said it it's true
..Therefore there were 3 advertizers.


As far as Campbell's claim that SnF's alleged actions caused ANN to lose
advertisers, remember Campbell's two recent lawsuits against kit companies
over advertising that they say they hadn't contracted for.

He's still billing advertizers for ads they didn't order.He ain't changed a bit.

Considering
that both these lawsuits were served at *that* particular SnF, how will
Campbell prove that any lost advertising was due to SnF's alleged actions,
and was NOT a reaction to what many consider bullying tactics by Campbell?

Very interesting point but my guess that any lost advertizing was a result of
zoom's actions not SnF or anyone else. It's the same as when he lost advertizers
in US Aviator .People got sick of the lies about circulation and for his
reckless portrayal of the truth.

It would appear tht SnF is not going to "settle out" on this one and I hope not.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret


"evil didn't triumph because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon