ZZzz Campbell Lawsuits Dismissed ZZzz

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?

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

wrote

FH wrote: I am glad to be back, haven't used an alias just been busy
with
other business.

M wrote: This has been one of the lowest times on the rec.aviation
newsgroups since I have been reading them, IMHO. (more than 12 years, I'm
guessing) The Mxsmanic person pollutes every thread started, nearly. In
the days of the mini-500 flames, and the days of "he" (whose name shall
not be spoken, and perhaps even the zzzoom and juan wars, the crap was
easier to ignore, than this idiot.


absolute truth snipped...

Again, welcome, and it's good to see some old names back, again.
--
Jim in NC


Me too, what he said.

Al G

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 Jan 24, 5:28*am, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:
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

That will be the day that either one can use skis for landing gear in
Hell.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:


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

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

That will be the day that either one can use skis for landing gear in
Hell.

I think there is a chance wan's BD5j will fly but only long after wan
has sold it to someone that puts a better engine in it and has the
skill, time, and money to make sure it's all put together correctly. It
could happen but I won't bet on it.

There are 3 things to remember about this airplane:
1. wan didn't build it.
2. wan is afraid to fly it.
3. Last but not least, he has been trying very hard to unload it.

Another thing, I think wan as stopped sucking zooms ass or he would be
here supporting and defending zoom.

Tony

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

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)