On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 16:54:39 GMT, "Bob Knot" wrote:

About this time of year, I like visit the ANN site and see Zoom rant about
how we shouldn't fly within 200 miles of SNF because of the dangers
involved. And how I will be killed just by parking in the dangerous parking
lot! Was he finally silenced? Not only was he banned from the grounds, but
now, (hopefully) can't talk about it? What? No more 10 part series?

Zoom's lawyer has been busy over the past three months. I'm not a lawyer,
but in going through the filings, it appears to me that Zoom has a decent
attorney this time. I suspect he has strongly suggested that Zoom leave
SnF alone until this case is settled.

The papers filed included a couple that provided some answers to SnF's
interrogatories, added another defendant to the case, and claimed that
SnF's attorney was being too slow in responding to filings.

There are been one or two amusing points in Campbell's responses to SnF's
interrogatories.

He claims, for instance, that SnF's actions have caused him financial
injury. As part of its interrogatories, SNF thus requested..."Plaintiffs
financial statements, profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and all
other financial documents of Plaintiff for the years, 2000,2001, and 2002."

Campbell's response: "There are no documents relevant to [the] request."

Seems odd that he has *no* financial records for ANN. Could be hard to
prove the financial damages he claims in his suit. He also gives the same
response when asked for circulation figures... "No documents showing the
circulation" of ANN.

(Plaintiff's Response to Request to Produce by Defendant, 4 February 2004)

Sun-N-Fun also requested the names of advertisers who dropped their
advertising with ANN because of SnF's alleged transgressions. Allow me to
quote from Zoom's response:

"The names of the advertisers who were influenced not to advertise with the
Plaintiff s business as a result of the slander alleged in the complaint
a
.....
"4] Pulsar Aircraft Co. in El Monte, California for $3,500.00."

(Additional and Amended Answers to Interrogatories, 3 Feb 2004)

Keep in mind that Campbell's lawsuit is based on actions taken by the
Fly-In during SnF 2002...and Campbell sued Pulsar that same week, claiming
they'd ordered advertising but hadn't paid for it.

Pulsar won that case, of course. But I don't really imagine Zoom will ask
them to testify in his behalf....

This has an odd echo in another area, where Zoom has identified an
individual as one who would attest to some of SnF's actions. Rumor has it
that this person had a falling-out with Zoom. Just speculation based on
one or two external signs. But it might be interesting, if SnF insists
that he be deposed.

There have been a couple of interesting filings in the past two weeks (a
Motion to Compel and a Consent Order), but I haven't got copies of them
yet. If there's anything interesting, I'll post it. I wouldn't be at all
surprised if these were filings made in an attempt to get admittance this
year. Could happen, depending on whether SnF's attorney wants to make the
Fly-In look "reasonable" to the judge and thus not fight the request.

BTW, another judge recently ruled in favor of SnF in an unrelated case, the
one involving the overrun crash at the ultralight runway several years ago
that killed the pilot and injured a teenager. The kid's family had sued
the estate of the pilot and SnF, but SnF was quickly dismissed from that
case. The estate settled out of court, then turned around and sued SnF.
The judge ruled in favor of SnF in February, but the pilot's estate has
filed an appeal.

Ron Wanttaja