ZZzz Campbell Lawsuits Dismissed ZZzz

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:57:12 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

So, what next? Zoom can certainly re-file this case, or bring an entirely
separate suit over SnF banning him in 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007. The
information in the above order, plus the circumstances of the loss of his
attorney, will make it more difficult to find a new lawyer. But it certainly
wouldn't be impossible.

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...5&ascrttype=CR

As I doubt SnF would bother to keep up their involvement, this may well be new
lawyer for Zoom. If so, it's likely the case is going to be re-opened. Stay
tuned!

Ron Wanttaja

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 07:57:12 -0800, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

So, what next? Zoom can certainly re-file this case, or bring an entirely
separate suit over SnF banning him in 2004, or 2005, or 2006, or 2007. The
information in the above order, plus the circumstances of the loss of his
attorney, will make it more difficult to find a new lawyer. But it certainly
wouldn't be impossible.

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...5&ascrttype=CR

As I doubt SnF would bother to keep up their involvement, this may well be new
lawyer for Zoom. If so, it's likely the case is going to be re-opened. Stay
tuned!

Ron Wanttaja

What was that definition of insanity...something about doing the same
stupid thing repeatedly and expecting a different result? Wonder if
this would be a classic case?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:37:32 -0800 (PST), BobR wrote:

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...5&ascrttype=CR

As I doubt SnF would bother to keep up their involvement, this may well be new
lawyer for Zoom. If so, it's likely the case is going to be re-opened. Stay
tuned!

What was that definition of insanity...something about doing the same
stupid thing repeatedly and expecting a different result? Wonder if
this would be a classic case?

Well, it depends on whether he intends to continue non-support of his own
lawsuit (e.g., not responding to discovery, canceling his depositions, etc.).
One common thread you see in folks' experience with him is that everything is
just rosy and lovely at first, then starts turning sour after a number of months
(see the NTSB transcript for at least one example).

With a brand-new lawyer on a five-year-old case, if things are still at the
"honeymoon" stage, Zoom may be more willing to provide proof of his claims. If
I were a new Zoom attorney, I'd immediately provide responses to the discovery
requests and schedule depositions, quick.

One thing that makes me chuckle is the fact that Campbell identified, in early
court documents, several people that would be available for depositions to
support his contentions. In the interim, several folks on the list are
apparently gotten "on the outs" with Zoom--including one guy whose company he
has sued. If I were SnF, I'd schedule THESE people for depositions....and if
Campbell objects, he can explain to the judge why he'd changed his mind.

There's a small possibility that the recent filing is from SnF--with the case in
limbo, the law firm handling their defense might be switching to a more-junior
lawyer as attorney-of-record. I think it's unlikely, though. If you check the
above link occasionally, you can check to see whether a name is added under the
"Attorney" column across from Zoom's name, or if SnF's attorney changes
(currently John Wendel).

Ron Wanttaja

On Jan 25, 11:05*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 07:37:32 -0800 (PST), BobR wrote:
The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...archType=Party....

As I doubt SnF would bother to keep up their involvement, this may well be new
lawyer for Zoom. *If so, it's likely the case is going to be re-opened. *Stay
tuned!

What was that definition of insanity...something about doing the same
stupid thing repeatedly and expecting a different result? *Wonder if
this would be a classic case?

Well, it depends on whether he intends to continue non-support of his own
lawsuit (e.g., not responding to discovery, canceling his depositions, etc..).
One common thread you see in folks' experience with him is that everything is
just rosy and lovely at first, then starts turning sour after a number of months
(see the NTSB transcript for at least one example).

With a brand-new lawyer on a five-year-old case, if things are still at the
"honeymoon" stage, Zoom may be more willing to provide proof of his claims.. *If
I were a new Zoom attorney, I'd immediately provide responses to the discovery
requests and schedule depositions, quick.

One thing that makes me chuckle is the fact that Campbell identified, in early
court documents, several people that would be available for depositions to
support his contentions. *In the interim, several folks on the list are
apparently gotten "on the outs" with Zoom--including one guy whose company he
has sued. *If I were SnF, I'd schedule THESE people for depositions....and if
Campbell objects, he can explain to the judge why he'd changed his mind.

There's a small possibility that the recent filing is from SnF--with the case in
limbo, the law firm handling their defense might be switching to a more-junior
lawyer as attorney-of-record. *I think it's unlikely, though. *If you check the
above link occasionally, you can check to see whether a name is added under the
"Attorney" column across from Zoom's name, or if SnF's attorney changes
(currently John Wendel).

Ron Wanttaja

Rom,

It is amazing to me how zzzoom history repeats itself. When he filed
the Assault and Battery charges against me Amy Jones was his witness
that I chased and struck him (for the record I would have to but he
ran away from me). By the time my court date rolled around he and the
Jones',mother Ruth and daughter Amy were on the outs. When questioned
by the States Attorney about the incedent she couldn't remember
anything about it.

Frank M.Hitlaw at my secret world Hq

Ron Wanttaja schreef:

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

Funny place, them U.S. of A.
How do they process attorneys?
Why is it done? Make them lighter to digest?

(sorry Ron, couldn't resist)

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:22:48 +0000, jan olieslagers
wrote:

Ron Wanttaja schreef:

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed.

Funny place, them U.S. of A.
How do they process attorneys?

Much like how they process dairy products to make Velveeta, only they use 50%
more raw sewage... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

On Jan 25, 8:54*pm, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:22:48 +0000, jan olieslagers

wrote:
Ron Wanttaja schreef:

The Docket shows a letter from an attorney recently being processed. *

Funny place, them U.S. of A.
How do they process attorneys?

Much like how they process dairy products to make Velveeta, only they use 50%
more raw sewage... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

I remember someone who would have had a good laugh at that statement.