ZZZooommm rant latest

Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
and see what he says in response to my question.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Juan, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like your stats on
CGS. How
many suits, how many unsatisfied customers etc.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53, Juan E Jimenez says...

Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
and see what he says in response to my question.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
Juan, I don't have a dog in this fight, but I would like your stats on
CGS. How
many suits, how many unsatisfied customers etc.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Hi Dan
One thing about the ANN gang is that they are experts at twisting the truth to
create a perception when the reality is something different. An example are the
the words "sucessfully sued" used by both jaun and zoom.
Here's how it was used :

"Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in the
process of defending itself against same in other venues. "

The perception they are trying to create is that I or the company "lost"
lawsuits and am defending against others. The reality is that there were I
believe 3 lawsuits against either CGS Aviation Inc or CGS Aviation that were
settled out of court for obvious reasons. I am in fact involved in 2 more that
are still pending. Settling out of court is not a determination of guilt . The
use of "sucessfully sued" could have been replaced with "settled out of court"
but that wouldn't have created the perception that I "lostwhich is what they
were trying to do.

I was sucessfully sued but anyone who gets sued is "sucessfully sued" but it
doesn't mean anything about the case. 15 of us here on RAH were "sucessfully
sued" by zoom and zoom was "sucessfully sued" by a whole lot of creditors before
his magazine went bankrupt.They like to play word games to get back at any who
disagrees with them or asks for proof.

I don't know why they get so melodramatic about this ,as if I have something to
hide and I don't.Fact is I'm tied up this week end with our Annual Hawk Owners
Fly In at the airport and will be off line till monday. But I'll post the names
and case # of all the lawsuits since 1983 ,when CGS Aviation Inc. got it's
first. All that info is at the shop and I'll have to dig it up. I seem to recall
that from 1983 to date It's all a matter of court records nothing sinister here
or anything to hide from.

Off the top of my head I can recall 6 suits , 4 were settled out of court and 2
are pending. 2 of the 4 were settled for $5000 or less out of court and one was
awarded $750,000 and the one in 83 was I believe $10,000 .The difference being
the company had liability insurance at the time. They had nothing to do with the
fear of expert witnesses as jaun says.If jaun knew anything about the legal
system he wouldn't be making "babe in the woods" statements about the legal
system.

God I miss Tony at times like this.

I have always said my beef with ANN and zoom has always been about credibility
and that hasn't changed ,they still operate on distortion,half truths and
inuendo and zoom campbell is in my humble opinion a PHONY .

Now since we're all being truthful here I wonder if jaun can produce the dates
his hero zoom said he flew the Etheopian food missions.He published that as fact
in his now defunct magazine US Aviator .He also stated that he fathered a child
in his magazine and none exists yet he stated it as fact. Credibility it was
always about credibility.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

By the way my kid retired out of Barksdale AFB a couple years ago and my kid
brother retired out of Langley AFB about 5 yrs ago.

"evil didn't triumph because good men spoke and evil was nuts" anon

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

Hi Dan
One thing about the ANN gang is that they are experts at twisting the
truth to
create a perception when the reality is something different. An example
are the
the words "sucessfully sued" used by both jaun and zoom.
Here's how it was used :

"Fact: CGS has been successfully sued by unhappy customers and is still in
the
process of defending itself against same in other venues. "

Seems to me that a customer who crashes and suffers serious long term
injuries as a result of a design problem in one of your aircraft qualifies
as an "unhappy customer."

The perception they are trying to create is that I or the company "lost"
lawsuits and am defending against others. The reality is that there were I
believe 3 lawsuits against either CGS Aviation Inc or CGS Aviation that
were
settled out of court for obvious reasons. I am in fact involved in 2 more
that
are still pending. Settling out of court is not a determination of guilt .
The
use of "sucessfully sued" could have been replaced with "settled out of
court"
but that wouldn't have created the perception that I "lostwhich is what
they
were trying to do.

$750,000 qualifies as a loss in anyone's book. And you are in fact defending
against others. Jim told the truth.

I was sucessfully sued but anyone who gets sued is "sucessfully sued" but
it
doesn't mean anything about the case.

ROFLMAO! _EXACTLY_ as I predicted, rationalizations left and right! Am I
good or what?

I don't know why they get so melodramatic about this ,as if I have
something to
hide and I don't.

Because you implied you weren't, and you lied, again, just as you lied about
who started hurling insults at me with no provocation. Remember?

And now that I've proven that neither I nor Jim were lying about this, I'm
outta here and back to my airplane.

Go ahead Bob, you can regurgitate all the crap you normally put out on
subjects like this. plonk!

Juan

In article J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located the
details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's wait
and see what he says in response to my question.



PROOF! Where is your PROOF? Produce it or shut up.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.

Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
hero already admitted he lied.

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
In article J5V5b.266971$cF.84535@rwcrnsc53, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Only he would know the totals, Dan. I just know his claim that he's never
been successfully sued is a lie on at least two counts. I have located
the
details on one, and am awaiting the details on a second instance. Let's
wait
and see what he says in response to my question.



PROOF! Where is your PROOF? Produce it or shut up.

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article vC26b.367444$uu5.70843@sccrnsc04, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Richmond, Virginia Circuit Court: Case # LK-989-3.

Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
hero already admitted he lied.


Again, what are the specifics that prove your point. That doesn't tell anybody
anything. Did the case go to trial and was CGS found liable by a design fault?
If not, it proves nothing.

Now a question for you...even if the above case is fact and CGS has been sued,
how does that justify an ongoing personal and very public assult on Chuck and
CGS in USAviator and now into ANN? Is CGS the only aviation related company to
be sued, successfully or otherwise? How about your hero Bede, how many times
was he sued, how many bankruptcies has he been through, but does Jimbo
constantly rant on his past? What will it take for Jim to quit using ANN to
continue the attacks on CGS and Chuck or must he put up with it forever?

I don't really give a damn if Chuck has been sued, successfully or not, it is a
fact of doing business in this country. If you produce a product, you will
eventually get sued by somebody. Hell, even Jim's plane of the year is
produced by a company that is being sued for millions. Does he make a point to
repeatedly make that a newsworthy issue?

What I see as the problem is the use of a public news publication as a weapon
for personal use. Jim has used his position and his publications to attack
others, CGS is just one of a lengthy list, without providing factual
information and without providing any means for rebuttal by those charged. In
fact, any attempt at a rebuttle is met with threats of lawsuits if any further
contact is attempted. I find his actions and your support of those actions to
be unreasonable and unfair. It may not be illegal but certainly is unethical.


PS: If you are going to quote me, quote me entirely, not some out of context
quote that fits your warped sleezeball reporting style.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Juan wrote:

Now, close your trap before another fly gets attracted to the odor. Your
hero already admitted he lied.


Jeremy (from across the pond in the UK) adds:

As an observer from afar I'm a bit perplexed by all this. This debate (as I
see it) is really about truthfulness, or the lack of it. The following are
a matter of public record, both from statements on here and from various
legal documents that are freely available:

1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when it
has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large sums of
money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie, no-one
seems to have succeeded.

2) Jim Campbell has been proven to be a liar several times, including in
courts of law. From my own investigations into false claims he made in a UK
aviation magazine I know beyond any doubt whatsoever that he has fabricated
large areas of his personal history and experience. The magazine
independently checked his credentials and subsequently watered down his bio
as a result.

Irrespective of the details of the various court cases, personally held
prejudices and vendettas, those are irrefutable facts, Jim Campbell is a
proven liar, Chuck Slusarczyk is not. I've read every post from Chuck
Slusarczyk on here over the years, and cannot recall one single statement of
his that has been proven to be untrue. Unfortunately the same cannot be
said about Jim Campbell's writings on ANN and elsewhere, he seems to
consistently exaggerate and lie, almost as if he suffers from some form of
delusional disorder.

Just the view from a distant Brit who has watched the saga unfold over the
years. Feel free to ignore my ramblings, many do.................

Jeremy

"Jez" wrote in message
news

1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when
it
has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large sums
of
money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie, no-one
seems to have succeeded.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind of
thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flaming
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this excercise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.
Stu Fields
"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
news:y_t6b.278017$cF.86657@rwcrnsc53...

"Jez" wrote in message
news

1) Chuck Slusarczyk seems to have consistently told the truth, even when
it
has been an admission that he has settled law suits for fairly large
sums
of
money, which could reasonably be expected to cause a certain amount of
embarrassment. Despite many attempts to catch Chuck out in a lie,
no-one
seems to have succeeded.

You're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Stu Fields wrote:

It is impossible to believe the amount of energy going into this kind of
thing!!! I could build a house with the time and energy spent in flaming
each other in this newsgroup. What does everyone get out of this excercise?
What is the purpose or goal behind it?? I'm really curious.

To educate the uneducated as to the type of person the zoomer really is?