zzz Speak for yourself Zoom

http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, April 8, 1999
THE COURT: Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, United States District Judge
THE WITNESS: James R. Campbell

=============================

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but
you're in a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want anymore flippant remarks like that.

===========================

- John Ousterhout -

Free RAH 15, number 1 (Walt)

http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1



Seems our capn zoom has another ignorant puppet who will do his dirty work for
him and once again, only one side of the story is told. Are we surprised?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Just when we throught zoomer died down to a bearable level, again he rears
his ugly head. like a pimple that must be poped to go away. I too many moons
ago was a zoomie, but like others,i have walked into the light, out of the
dark shadow cast by the lieing, selfserveing,twofaced S.O.B


"RobertR237" wrote in message
...


http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1



Seems our capn zoom has another ignorant puppet who will do his dirty work
for
him and once again, only one side of the story is told. Are we surprised?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:22:07 -0500, "Randall Robertson"
wrote:

Just when we throught zoomer died down to a bearable level, again he rears
his ugly head. like a pimple that must be poped to go away. I too many moons
ago was a zoomie, but like others,i have walked into the light, out of the
dark shadow cast by the lieing, selfserveing,twofaced S.O.B


And that's the good side of him......

John



"RobertR237" wrote in message
...


http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1



Seems our capn zoom has another ignorant puppet who will do his dirty work
for
him and once again, only one side of the story is told. Are we surprised?


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:36:54 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:


http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, April 8, 1999
THE COURT: Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, United States District Judge
THE WITNESS: James R. Campbell

=============================

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but
you're in a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want anymore flippant remarks like that.

Odd you should quote this case, John. Last month, SnF's attorneys in
Zoom's current case responded to Campbell's shotgun request for documents.
SnF's response to each request was basically, "...Defendant specifically
objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad, burdensome,
unduly vague, ambiguous...", etc.

HOWEVER, just to show they're good guys, anyway, they provide copies of two
documents: Stuff from the Federal case (quoted above) and from the NTSB
hearing where he lost his medical back in '80s. These have been formally
entered as exhibits.

A good article on Campbell's entry to the SnF grounds this week is in the
Lakeland Ledger, under the title, "Aviation Critic Buys Sun 'n Fun Ticket,
Eludes Efforts to Eject Him":

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...404160391/1134

(Oddly enough, while the reporter says Zoom is *trying* to refile his
original case, he doesn't mention the current one.)

How this will affect the current case is unknown. The Fly-In president
says that Campbell violated the law by entering the grounds, even if a
mistake was made in selling him a ticket. If this is the case, this would
seem to strengthen SnF's case...after all, they claim they're worried he'll
engage in illegal activities, and here he is, violating a trespass order.
It sure seems to justify any actions they take to prevent his entry.

Wonder if Zoom's attorney knew about this stunt? Wonder how the judge
will view his violation of the trespass order coupled with the past
behaviors documented in the NTSB case?

Ron Wanttaja

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 01:20:12 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote:

A good article on Campbell's entry to the SnF grounds this week is in the
Lakeland Ledger, under the title, "Aviation Critic Buys Sun 'n Fun Ticket,
Eludes Efforts to Eject Him":

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...404160391/1134

(Oddly enough, while the reporter says Zoom is *trying* to refile his
original case, he doesn't mention the current one.)

How this will affect the current case is unknown. The Fly-In president
says that Campbell violated the law by entering the grounds, even if a
mistake was made in selling him a ticket. If this is the case, this would
seem to strengthen SnF's case...after all, they claim they're worried he'll
engage in illegal activities, and here he is, violating a trespass order.
It sure seems to justify any actions they take to prevent his entry.

Wonder if Zoom's attorney knew about this stunt? Wonder how the judge
will view his violation of the trespass order coupled with the past
behaviors documented in the NTSB case?

Gee, the less than objective story on ANN reports that right triumphed
as the Sun 'n Fun Administraton finally realized the error of their
ways and admitted Zoom.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-eeb2da1fd2d5&

Other than the names "Sun 'n Fun" and "Jim Campbell" one wouldn't
realize it was the same event as The Ledger reported.

I wondered if Zoom was really dumb enough to jeopardize his legal
action against Sun 'n Fun with this stunt, but then I realized who
we're talking about.
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/ousterj/zoom/se-4661.html

- John Ousterhout -

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 05:04:05 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:

I wondered if Zoom was really dumb enough to jeopardize his legal
action against Sun 'n Fun with this stunt, but then I realized who
we're talking about.

Yep... the situation regarding his current suit is going to be *very*
interesting.

For those who didn't see my posting of the original suit last year,
Campbell's suit basically claims that SnF went too far to ensure Campbell
didn't get on the grounds...posting his picture at the entries, warning
security people specifically about him, etc.

Probably on the advice of counsel, SnF didn't take the same precautions
this year...and Campbell made it inside.

I just can't wait for Campbell's attorney to stand up in court and explain
why SnF's actions in previous years weren't necessary to enforce the ban.
Or hear him claim Campbell always behaved himself at Sun-N-Fun, when he
can't even obey Florida state law.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:36:54 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:



http://www.aero-news.net/Community/D...1021&Refresh=1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, April 8, 1999
THE COURT: Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, United States District Judge
THE WITNESS: James R. Campbell

=============================

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but
you're in a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want anymore flippant remarks like that.

How about the flippant remarks? Where are they, what are they, and were
they spoken in the presence of a jury or was this during just a hearing
before the judge?


Odd you should quote this case, John. Last month, SnF's attorneys in
Zoom's current case responded to Campbell's shotgun request for documents.
SnF's response to each request was basically, "...Defendant specifically
objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad,
burdensome,
unduly vague, ambiguous...", etc.

Typical because apparently what he is trying to do is overwork them and run
them ragged with onerous requests. This sort of excess usually backfires
later on. But maybe his opponents are doing it to him too, in which case
there's a dogfall and the judge finally gets angry and fines both sides.


HOWEVER, just to show they're good guys, anyway, they provide copies of
two
documents: Stuff from the Federal case (quoted above) and from the NTSB
hearing where he lost his medical back in '80s. These have been formally
entered as exhibits.

A good article on Campbell's entry to the SnF grounds this week is in the
Lakeland Ledger, under the title, "Aviation Critic Buys Sun 'n Fun Ticket,
Eludes Efforts to Eject Him":


http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...EWS/404160391/
1134

(Oddly enough, while the reporter says Zoom is *trying* to refile his
original case, he doesn't mention the current one.)

Inform him, Mr. Wanttaja. You are excellent at info. You shoulda been a
lawyer.


How this will affect the current case is unknown. The Fly-In president
says that Campbell violated the law by entering the grounds, even if a
mistake was made in selling him a ticket. If this is the case, this would
seem to strengthen SnF's case...after all, they claim they're worried
he'll
engage in illegal activities, and here he is, violating a trespass order.

Would this be a court order? Or just a notice by the management that he is
not to come on the grounds?

It sure seems to justify any actions they take to prevent his entry.

Wonder if Zoom's attorney knew about this stunt? Wonder how the judge
will view his violation of the trespass order coupled with the past
behaviors documented in the NTSB case?

Ron Wanttaja

A few days in jail for contempt might be a good bromide for the Zoomer.

" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:36:54 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:

[...] Ron Wanttaja

A few days in jail for contempt might be a good bromide for the Zoomer.



Well, I read the article Ron published a link to. Campbell's argument is
that the airshow can't keep him out because of the First Amendment. But
First Amendment violations are state actions. Sun'n'Fun keeping the
paunchy menace out is not state action, and besides he's still full of lip.
The federal judge ruled that Sun'n'Fun is not state action. It has the
right to refuse entry.

Betcha $100 to a nickel they are trying to take a criminal trespass warrant
against Campbell.

" jls" wrote in message
.. .

" jls" wrote in message
. ..

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:36:54 GMT, John Ousterhout
wrote:

[...] Ron Wanttaja

A few days in jail for contempt might be a good bromide for the Zoomer.



Well, I read the article Ron published a link to. Campbell's argument is
that the airshow can't keep him out because of the First Amendment. But
First Amendment violations are state actions. Sun'n'Fun keeping the
paunchy menace out is not state action, and besides he's still full of
lip.
The federal judge ruled that Sun'n'Fun is not state action. It has the
right to refuse entry.

Betcha $100 to a nickel they are trying to take a criminal trespass
warrant
against Campbell.


OTOH, I have been reading in ANN and it is really good reading, especially
that informative article about Superior's certified IO-360 by Sow'sass
O'Brien. So. Campbell is NOT going away. There's nothing on the
internet that I can see which fills the niche he's filling, so why not go
ahead and acknowledge him. And even the old sow too.
*****************************
GLOUCESTER:

His breeding, sir, hath been at my charge: I have so often blush'd to
acknowledge[3] him, that now I am braz'd to't.

KENT:

I cannot conceive[4] you.

GLOUCESTER:

Sir, this young fellow's mother could: whereupon she grew round-womb'd, and
had, indeed, sir, a son for her cradle ere she had a husband for her bed. Do
you smell a fault[5]?

KENT:

I cannot wish the fault undone, the issue of it being so proper[6].

GLOUCESTER:

But I have, sir, a son by order of law, some year elder than this, who yet
is no dearer in my account[7]: though this knave came somewhat saucily into
the world before he was sent for, yet was his mother fair; there was good
sport at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged.
(from Shakespeare's _King Lear_)
********************************

So, back to the hangar for a baffling problem, whereby the baffling is
baffled and its lips are sealed.