On 03 Oct 2003 16:19:03 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

As for Campbell wasn't he told he was persona non grata at SNF? If so his case
is going nowhere.

On 03 Oct 2003 16:19:03 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

As for Campbell wasn't he told he was persona non grata at SNF? If so his case
is going nowhere.

You are correct, but his lawsuit isn't *directly* about to the banning.
There are some interesting aspects, both to his suit and to Sun-N-Fun's
response to it.

Before I go any further, allow me to issue my standard disclaimer: I am
not a lawyer; I do not have any legal training or background. I have not
received any information from any party directly involved in this lawsuit.
This layman's analysis is based on the public papers filed in this case.
For those who are not aware, I was sued myself by Mr. Campbell about five
years ago (dismissed for lack of service).

Anyway, I began this thread by posting, in its entirety, Campbell's newest
suit against Sun-N-Fun. Basically, Campbell claims that Sun-N-Fun posted
his driver's license photos at the security stations at all entrances to
the fly-in "... with malice and with the express purpose of injuring and
damaging the Plaintiffs reputation and credibility as a news reporter", and
that Sun-N-Fun, "...under the express direction of the managerial personnel
of the Defendant [Sun-N-Fun], told numerous visitors to the air show when
they inquired about the photograph that the Plaintiff was "a known
terrorist, a trouble maker and was wanted." [Plaintiff's Complaint, Polk
County case 53-2003CA-00 2626-0000-WH)

As far as the harm this alleged activity caused, Campbell claims that he
"...lost business, advertisers, subscribers and revenue in his business;
thus, substantially reducing his income and profits." He also claims
"...emotional distress, loss of reputation, credibility and standing," etc.

[Again, this is a layman's summary of a seven-page legal document. Readers
are encouraged to read the original suit themselves and come to their own
conclusions.]

Sun-N-Fun's "Answer and Affirmative Defenses" was filed about a month after
Zoom's suit. The first section contains their responses to the specific
claims Campbell made in his original filing. Most are flat-out denials,
but some have fascinating subtleties.

For instance, in his suit, Campbell states:

"[5] Jim Campbell is a private citizen, a resident of the State of Florida
and the owner, editor of "Aero-News Network," a news magazine of general
distribution dedicated to general aviation news."

Sun-N-Fun's response: "It denies that Plaintiff is the owner of "Aero-News
Network"...."

Huh? Do they know something *we* don't? :-)

Actually, I think this is more intended to force Campbell to establish the
nature of his operation, as he describes it as a "magazine" throughout the
filing. I expect most people assume a "magazine" is a print-type
publication.

Campbell also made this claim, which SnF denies:

"11] Prior to the air show in April 2002, the Defendant began a course of
conduct toward the Plaintiff to refuse the Plaintiff admittance to the
public air show due to the Defendant's animosity toward the Plaintiff
generated by the Plaintiffs criticism of the Defendants safety record at
prior air shows."

I suspect their denial of this statement means that SnF plans to present
the evidence that justified their banning Campbell. Campbell has the
uphill road of trying to prove the *motivation* for the banning in the face
of the documentation SnF has gathered to support its actions.

After stating denials for all 34 of Campbell's allegations, SnF's response
swings into the Affirmative Defenses. Some are interesting:

"35. Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are barred for Plaintiffs failure
to join an indispensable party, DSI Security Services."

DSI apparently was the contractor supplying security; SnF's point is that
any lawsuit regarding the behavior of the employees of *that* company
should include the contracting company as a defendant. A few paragraphs
later, SnF then claims "....Pursuant to Florida Statute § 768.81, Defendant
is not liable for the comparative fault of these other joint tortfeasors,
whether or not they are named as parties to this action."

Campbell's suit describes DSI Security as "a non-registered and inactive
Florida corporation." But it does seem logical that the company should
have been named as a co-defendant.

Just because a company is "a non-registered and inactive Florida
corporation" doesn't mean it's not still in operation; remember that
Campbell's own company was in that condition when he sued Sun-N-Fun the
first time. The way I understand it, it merely reflects whether the annual
paperwork and fees are paid. Campbell's inactive company was removed as a
plaintiff in SnF #1, but I don't know whether that would prevent such a
company from being listed as a co-defendant. I suspect the company owner
can be included, listed as "doing business as..."

Participation of DSI is vital to Campbell's case...that's why I'm surprised
that they weren't included in the original filing. After all, even if Zoom
has people who will say that a DSI employee told THEM that SnF instructed
them to make the claimed statements, that doesn't prove that SnF so
instructed them. Zoom needs DSI and its employees to testify to that.

As far as the posting-the-driver's license complaint, SnF basically claims
that the material is public domain, and it wasn't used for commercial,
trade, or advertising purposes. Because of Campbell's being banned from
the grounds, and the nature of the allegations against Campbell that led to
it, I can't see the courts objecting to the use of public-domain material
in an attempt to prevent his entrance to the site.

SnF's reaction to the alleged statements by DSI's employees is contained in
Tenth through the Fourteenth Affirmative Defenses, each claiming that the
claims are barred because some or all of the alleged statements....

"...is/are matters of opinion and are not actionable."
"...was/were made in good faith or for good motives.
"...Defendant or its agents had reasonable or probable cause to believe
that one or more of the alleged statements was/were true."
"...constituted fair comment."
"... was/were, in fact, true."

One would assume that SnF will be presenting evidence backing this up.
That should be interesting. One of Campbell's damage claims is that the
alleged actions of SnF damaged his reputation. He is a controversial
figure, and has been so for years. It seems like it would be hard for him
to point out exactly how the alleged SnF actions made his situation worse.
His history wasn't exactly a secret prior to SnF 2002, which SnF would have
no trouble proving.

On a related note, looking at SnF's various filings in this case, it looks
to me like SnF is going *hard* after Campbell's claims of having lost
subscribers, advertisers, and income.

For instance, in the Interrogatories, SnF demands circulation and
subscription information necessary to prove Campbell's claim of lost
income. Campbell has refused to provide this information, claiming it is
proprietary.

But unless he presents this data, it's going to be hard for him to prove he
suffered monetary losses. How is he going to prove that he lost
subscribers...unless he shows before and after subscriber lists? How is he
going to prove that he lost advertisers...without identifying which
advertisers he lost?

Subscription to ANN is free, so any loss of subscribers doesn't have a
direct financial impact. Since ANN is a web-based operation, there is no
provable subscription list anyway...a print publication will have receipts
from the post office showing magazines mailed. Any claim that alleged
actions by SnF were the direct cause of the loss of subscribers and
advertisers would have to show that the subscribers and advertisers had no
other source of information about Campbell's activities. You'll always
find individuals who haven't heard the stories, but I suspect most
potential advertisers have heard them.

In his suit, Campbell claims three advertisers heard the alleged comments.
He identifies them in response to SnF's Interrogatories. One is listed as
a Seattle area business that I haven't heard of (I live just south of
Seattle), but it's apparently in a type of aviation I'm not involved in
(couldn't find them on the web, but the name might be misspelled). The
other "two" advertisers are actually two people associated with a single
company. They both left that company right after the events in question,
so their status as advertisers is questionable.

As far as Campbell's claim that SnF's alleged actions caused ANN to lose
advertisers, remember Campbell's two recent lawsuits against kit companies
over advertising that they say they hadn't contracted for. Considering
that both these lawsuits were served at *that* particular SnF, how will
Campbell prove that any lost advertising was due to SnF's alleged actions,
and was NOT a reaction to what many consider bullying tactics by Campbell?

A final note: It does appear that the appearance of his driver's license
at SnF did generate a Zooming of massive proportions. In his response to
SnF's interrogatories, Zoom says he called DSI Security, the DMV, the
Lakeland City Attorney, the Lakeland Police Department, the Polk County
Sheriff, the "U.S. E.A.P. Association" (I presume this is actually the
EAA... doesn't Campbell read this stuff before it goes out under his
name?), the FAA Chief Counsel's office, the Regional Counsel for the FAA,
and "other people."

Most of those actually seem logical, but the EAA? The FAA Chief Counsel's
office? The FAA Regional Counsel? To me, it sounds more like he was
trying to generate trouble for Sun-N-Fun than address a grievance.


Ron Wanttaja