For the recordZZZZZJJJJJJ

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.

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

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

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;

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.

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

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

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..."

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..."

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.-