Juan E Jimenez wrote:

Russell,

Civil courts do not adjudicate guilt or innocence, only criminal courts do
that.

You will note that my response quoted "guilt". I am perfectly aware of the
differences between US civial and criminal courts. My intention in quoting
"guilt" in my summary was to connote the "in-the-wrong" flavor of having damages
awarded in a civil court; obviously in your case I failed to communicate that.

As for claims and counter-claims about "successfully sued", the answer lies in
the definition of "successfully sued". It appears to me that there are three
reasonable interpretations of that phrase: "has filed suit in civil court", "has
reached a settlement in a civil suit", "has been heard and awarded damages in a
civil suit". The first interpretation clearly has no connotation that the
respondent has "done harm". The third interpretation pretty clearly
communicates that the respondent has done harm. The second interpretation is
ambiguous: there may be external pressures on the respondent to settle even when
they have done no harm to the plaintiff.

I have seen (on the web, for what that's worth) evidence that interpretations #1
and #2 are true and that Chuck admits to. I have not seen evidence that
interpretation #3 is true, and have seen no admission from Chuck. And Chuck
pointed out in the original posting that spawned this thread that "succesfully
sued" is ambiguous.

Since you apparently asked an ambiguous question that could reasonably be
answered yes or no (depending on the interpretation), I think you have little
standing to accuse Chuck of lying (based on that evidence, at least).


The issue is very simple: Chuck claimed he has never been successfully
sued and is not currently defending himself from lawsuits,

I've seen no claim from Chuck that he is not currently in litigation. In fact,
in this very thread he said "I am in fact involved in 2 more that are still
pending."

and that Jim and I were both lying about that.

Actually, he said that if "successfully sued" means prevailed, then who
prevailed against him? (paraphrased; he actually wrote it from the losing
respondent's point of view). I haven't seen any evidence that his statement is
untrue. Do you have evidence that Chuck, acting as CGS's respondent to a civil
plea, lost a civil action?

I called his bluff, and Chuck now admits he wasn't being very truthful about
the legal record of CGS Aviation.

I saw no such admission. Perhaps my newsfeed is slow today.

End of story.

Not hardly. I expect this thread will continue to roll merrily along,
accomplishing nothing.

Here's an interesting thought: ANN presumably portrays itself as an unbaised
source of news about all things aviation (I can't confirm this/quote ANN at the
moment since the ANN website seems to be broken). Assuming this is true, why
would ANN permit "a number" of people (here in the newsgroup) to continue to
believe that it *is* biased against CGS aviation and/or Chuck Slusarczyk? I
mean if Chuck really is a bad guy, don't simply demonize him by calling him
names ("con-artist"), but publish the facts of Chuck's badness so that ANN's
readers can be informed. Calling him names ("Clown") seems to support some
people's perception that ANN has some personal bias against Chuck, whereas
publishing unshaded facts would seem to portray ANN as an unbiased news source.

Just my own ramblings...

Russell Kent