ZZzz Campbell Lawsuits Dismissed ZZzz

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Jim "Captain Zoom" Campbell and ANN entered 2007 with three ongoing lawsuits.
By the end of the year, all were dismissed. Most of the action occurred over
the past five months, and I've held off posting updates since things have been
fluid. It's been a month since the last court order, so the flurry is probably
over.

First, a couple of points. Please realize that I am *not* a lawyer, nor do I
have any legal background (beyond being sued by Mr. Campbell myself, of course
:-).

It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

Matt

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:01:13 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
Jim "Captain Zoom" Campbell and ANN entered 2007 with three ongoing lawsuits.
By the end of the year, all were dismissed. Most of the action occurred over
the past five months, and I've held off posting updates since things have been
fluid. It's been a month since the last court order, so the flurry is probably
over.

First, a couple of points. Please realize that I am *not* a lawyer, nor do I
have any legal background (beyond being sued by Mr. Campbell myself, of course
:-).

It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

IIRC, somewhere between $2 and $5. :-)

(I had to mail Tony some documents)

This makes it far easier to be lighthearted about it, of course. But the sued
companies, win or lose, are out thousands of bucks. Four companies were
actually willing to spend that kind of money to fight Zoom. You wonder how many
others were informed that they owed ANN money because of their "verbal
contracts", and how many just forked over the money figuring it was cheaper than
hiring a lawyer to fight it.

And we must remember, SnF isn't out a dime in legal expenses...but I bet their
insurance premiums went up. Wonder what other fly-ins will fold, because
insurance is too expensive....

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Matt Whiting says...

It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

Matt

The 15 of us who were sued (the famous RAH-15) had no real expenses to speak of
other then some postage costs to send stuff to Tony.Like the pictures of zoom
being escorted from SnF by a Motorcycle cop. It was too funny ...the cop on his
motorcycle and zoomie on a small electric cart with his leg in a portable cast.

Tony took care of everything else. It was typical zoom tactics sue or threaten
to sue someone to get the to be silent or pay for ads tey didn't want.

It cost me in lost sales more then it would have cost in lawyers fees. Later
people got smart and found zoom to be a phoney but it took a while and cost me
plenty in lost sales. Fortunately it's been about 5 years since a potential
buyer asked me about zoom but I have no idea how many I don't know about.

But the 15 of us who were sued made history LOL!!!And even tho one turned
traitor and went over to the dark side leaving us the RAH-14. We the RAH-14 have
remained friends and still share a common bond :-)...and that's worth something.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people none of
the time but he can always fool jaun" ;-) anon

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Matt Whiting says...
It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

Matt

The 15 of us who were sued (the famous RAH-15) had no real expenses to speak of
other then some postage costs to send stuff to Tony.Like the pictures of zoom
being escorted from SnF by a Motorcycle cop. It was too funny ...the cop on his
motorcycle and zoomie on a small electric cart with his leg in a portable cast.

Tony took care of everything else. It was typical zoom tactics sue or threaten
to sue someone to get the to be silent or pay for ads tey didn't want.

It cost me in lost sales more then it would have cost in lawyers fees. Later
people got smart and found zoom to be a phoney but it took a while and cost me
plenty in lost sales. Fortunately it's been about 5 years since a potential
buyer asked me about zoom but I have no idea how many I don't know about.

But the 15 of us who were sued made history LOL!!!And even tho one turned
traitor and went over to the dark side leaving us the RAH-14. We the RAH-14 have
remained friends and still share a common bond :-)...and that's worth something.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people none of
the time but he can always fool jaun" ;-) anon


Speaking of whom, where is yawn?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Matt Whiting says...
It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

Matt

The 15 of us who were sued (the famous RAH-15) had no real expenses to speak of
other then some postage costs to send stuff to Tony.Like the pictures of zoom
being escorted from SnF by a Motorcycle cop. It was too funny ...the cop on his
motorcycle and zoomie on a small electric cart with his leg in a portable cast.

Tony took care of everything else. It was typical zoom tactics sue or threaten
to sue someone to get the to be silent or pay for ads tey didn't want.

It cost me in lost sales more then it would have cost in lawyers fees. Later
people got smart and found zoom to be a phoney but it took a while and cost me
plenty in lost sales. Fortunately it's been about 5 years since a potential
buyer asked me about zoom but I have no idea how many I don't know about.

But the 15 of us who were sued made history LOL!!!And even tho one turned
traitor and went over to the dark side leaving us the RAH-14. We the RAH-14 have
remained friends and still share a common bond :-)...and that's worth something.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people none of
the time but he can always fool jaun" ;-) anon


Speaking of whom, where is yawn?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Let's just let that dead dog rot can we?

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:50:15 -0600, Dan wrote:

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Matt Whiting says...
It still sounds like Zoom has cost several people a fair bit in legal
charges even though the cases were dismissed. That is still very
unfortunate. What did it cost you to defend yourself against Zoom? :-)

Matt

The 15 of us who were sued (the famous RAH-15) had no real expenses to speak of
other then some postage costs to send stuff to Tony.Like the pictures of zoom
being escorted from SnF by a Motorcycle cop. It was too funny ...the cop on his
motorcycle and zoomie on a small electric cart with his leg in a portable cast.

Tony took care of everything else. It was typical zoom tactics sue or threaten
to sue someone to get the to be silent or pay for ads tey didn't want.

It cost me in lost sales more then it would have cost in lawyers fees. Later
people got smart and found zoom to be a phoney but it took a while and cost me
plenty in lost sales. Fortunately it's been about 5 years since a potential
buyer asked me about zoom but I have no idea how many I don't know about.

But the 15 of us who were sued made history LOL!!!And even tho one turned
traitor and went over to the dark side leaving us the RAH-14. We the RAH-14 have
remained friends and still share a common bond :-)...and that's worth something.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

"zoom can fool some of the people some of the time and all of the people none of
the time but he can always fool jaun" ;-) anon


Speaking of whom, where is yawn?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


************************************************** ***

Did he ever get his BD to fly?

Big John

In article , Big John says...

************************************************* ****

Did he ever get his BD to fly?

Big John


I bet the Moeller air car will win the "first to fly" contest any takers LOL!!!

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

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