Zzzz Campbell's Second Lawsuit Against Sun-N-Fun Zzzz

On 5 Oct 2003 03:37:24 -0700, (Frank Hitlaw) wrote:

When I answered his claims against me I went to the Law library of
the Highlands County Court house.

Thanks, Frank, that was sufficient information. Found the case in the
Highlands County civil records, county case #93000102GCS.

http://www.clerk.co.highlands.fl.us/index_new.html

There were, indeed, three motions granted for counsel to withdraw.

Ron Wanttaja

A minor correction...

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 05:56:17 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

:Not including the RAH-15 case, the list includes two managing editors of US
:AVIATOR, at least five companies (or owners of companies) who were former
:advertisers, several individuals or companies I don't recognize (Kropp
:Enterprises, Bottom Line Sales, Steven Mann, Aircraft Refinishing Systems,
:Harry Smiley). And Sun-N-Fun twice, of course.
:
:Now, you add the RAH-15 case to that, and the totals come to:
:
:Two managing editors (Ken Cooke and Laurel Ramey)

Didn't Judy Wood ever sue?

:One other employee (Alan Staats, RAH-15)
:Two associate editors (the position is merely a title, no salary or
: employment is involved...RAH-15 defendants Vern Barr and myself
: fall in this category. But as I've mentioned in the past,
: I was never *asked* if I wanted to be an associate editor)
:Eight former advertisers (Three RAH-15, counting Richard Riley/Berkut)

We never advertised. Probably would have, but we were the
subject of a pre-emptive zooming.

:Nine other RAH-15 co-defendants.
:Five individuals or companies I don't know well enough to classify.
:One non-profit organization (Sun-N-Fun...twice!)

And, of course, he was sued by the Boy's and Girl's club.
That had to hurt.

:That's 28 people or companies that have had to defend themselves against a
:lawsuit by Jim Campbell or his controlled companies. Most were dismissed
:for lack of service, or lack of prosecution (e.g., Campbell filed the suit
:and just walked away). Three settled out of court.

Too bad it's not enough to get him classified as a vexatious
litigant.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:19:42 GMT, Richard Riley
wrote:

A minor correction...

:Two managing editors (Ken Cooke and Laurel Ramey)

Didn't Judy Wood ever sue?

No record of such in the online Polk County records.

Eight former advertisers (Three RAH-15, counting Richard Riley/Berkut)

We never advertised. Probably would have, but we were the
subject of a pre-emptive zooming.

Ah, my mistake then. I knew Chuck and Happy had advertised, and assumed
Berkut had as well. I suspect SnF used to advertise in the early days of
US AVIATOR, but didn't include them on my list.

One non-profit organization (Sun-N-Fun...twice!)

And, of course, he was sued by the Boy's and Girl's club.
That had to hurt.

Even more fun, one person is listed as a co-plaintiff with Campbell in a
suit he filed in March of 1993, and was listed as a co-defendant in a
lawsuit Zoom filed eight months later. Talk about blowing hot and cold....

In addition to the suit against Frank Hitlaw, I found another lawsuit that
had been filed against Campbell (The Printing House, Inc. vs. Airedale
Press, 1993). Campbell countersued, and they came to an out-of-court
settlement in December '93. The total count is now up to eleven suits with
Campbell or associated businesses as plaintiff, and 18 as a defendant.

One of the latter is a tentative. It was filed by a non-aviation entity
that had sued Zoom before, but I'm not entirely this one was against "the"
James Campbell. The first suit lists his business address, the second one
lists another address. But by that time US Aviator was closed down, and
the address listed on the filing may have been his home address.

On the other hand, the single case I listed as a "victory" because the suit
against him was dropped "with prejudice" may not have been correct. The
dismissal actually states the case had been "amicably settled." Sounds
more like another out-of-court settlement.

That's 28 people or companies that have had to defend themselves against a
:lawsuit by Jim Campbell or his controlled companies. Most were dismissed
:for lack of service, or lack of prosecution (e.g., Campbell filed the suit
:and just walked away). Three settled out of court.

Too bad it's not enough to get him classified as a vexatious
litigant.

Tony gave me considerable insight into this sort of thing. Basically,
judges dislike making such findings (ruling that the suit is frivolous,
etc.) so they don't happen very often. Even when they rule against a
plaintiff, there's always a slight chance there might have been some
validity in the suit.

However, if it was to have been tried, it should have been done in 1993.
In that year, Campbell filed six different lawsuits. After that, he was
(mostly) in the defensive mode (the first suit against SnF, and the RAH-15
countersuit).

He's picking up steam, again, though: he's filed three lawsuits in the last
eighteen months.

Ron Wanttaja

:That's 28 people or companies that have had to defend themselves against
a
:lawsuit by Jim Campbell or his controlled companies. Most were dismissed
:for lack of service, or lack of prosecution (e.g., Campbell filed the
suit
:and just walked away). Three settled out of court.

Too bad it's not enough to get him classified as a vexatious
litigant.


It might be enough to prove that he is filing SLAPP suits which have been
ruled
illegal. SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Private Parties.
These suits
were commonly filed by companies against persons to silence them as critics.

Might be worth a look.......