FYI Bio zoom ZZZZZZZZ

My oh my but we do sue a lot of our former advertisers don't we. I
wonder if KitPlanes and AVWEB have to sue so many of their advertisers.



Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On 13 Dec 2006 05:01:04 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

This is the updated zoom bio from the RRL web site it's a hoot!!Just for grins
I'm going to contact National Geographic.Popular Science and Popular Mechanics
to see if zoom ever had a published article in them. Here's where it's at:

Tony had me do some research during the lawsuit, Zoom did get an article or two
published in PM during the '80s. Never found anything in National Geographic;
someone said they heard it had been a letter, not an article.

For those who'd like an update to the Zoom lawsuit situation, here's my current
understanding:

1. Zoom's lawsuit against SnF's security company has been dismissed.

2. One of the two main complaints in the SnF case was dismissed...the one
relative to SnF posting his driver's license to assist security personnel.
Turns out, in Florida, the license is public record.

3. In January of this year, Zoom agreed to a deposition in March. Two weeks
prior to the deposition, he backed out, with his lawyer stating, ""...Mr.
Campbell will be out of the state during the month of March and possibly April."

Long trip.

4. Another set of depositions were scheduled for November, with SnF having Zoom
deposed and Zoom having five people scheduled to give depositions. Since
nothing has been added to the docket regarding rescheduling, I assume the
depositions were held as planned.

(Read the docket at:

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...5&ascrttype=CR

5. In the lawsuits Zoom served at SnF 2005, Zoom gained a default judgement
against Powrachute for around $22,000. However, the company had been sold by
the time the suit was served, and judgement is thus against a Kansas company
that no longer exists (or if it still legally exists, it has no assets). It
seems that neither the sued version of Powrachute nor the current owner of the
aircraft line ever responded to the suit. This explains the default judgement,
and may indicate that it may be difficult to collect from either party.

6. Campbell also won a default judgement against Controlvision, but the
defendant's attorneys got it set aside in April. In August, Zoom said he was
ready to go to trial. A pretrial conference had been scheduled, and
Controlvision filed an objection. Zoom's attorney has since withdrew the notice
that they were ready for trial.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...3&ascrttype=CR

7. On the same date the motion was filed that indicated Zoom was ready to go to
trial with Controlvision, a similar motion was filed in Zoom's suit against
Liberty Aerospace. Zoom's attorney withdrew THIS notice a couple of days after
withdrawing the Controlvision one.

https://ori2.polk-county.net/ct_web1...4&ascrttype=CO

8. I don't know why the "ready for trial" notices were withdrawn. However,
they were both filed about the time the default judgement was being finalized in
the Powrachute case, and withdrawn about two months later. There are
undoubtedly good legal reasons why the notices were withdrawn, but note my
speculation about whether Zoom will actually ever collect anything from the
Powrachute default judgement. It may be that Zoom was anticipating using the
Powrachute judgement to fund his legal expenses in these trials. Alternately,
it may be that Zoom's attorney didn't want to be working on these cases with the
SnF depositions coming up.

Ron Wanttaja