![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:59 GMT, "Gerry Caron" wrote:
"Ben Sego" wrote in message ... Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again. Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to **** on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up. Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old "conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit. And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal: Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's thus banned from all of them. After the initial flurry of activity on his current suit, the Polk County Clerk web page hasn't shown any activity on that case in the last two months. It looks to me that SnF has yet to file a response to Campbell's interrogatories. This may mean SnF just has the case on a back burner, but it may indicate there's some negotiations going on for an out-of-court settlement. Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case. But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a couple of years.... Ron Wanttaja |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Ron Wanttaja says...
Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case. But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a couple of years.... I'd sure be disappointed if they settle with him.It will only be a matter of time before he acts up again. See ya Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
ChuckSlusarczyk wrote in message ...
In article , Ron Wanttaja says... Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case. But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a couple of years.... I'd sure be disappointed if they settle with him.It will only be a matter of time before he acts up again. See ya Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret ================================================== ============================== Chuck; You are correct leopards don't change their spots,and neither will zzzzoom. After all the hassles the he put me through I also hope that SnF doesn't settle it is a better show without him.A settlement would only strenthen his position and do nothing else. Frank; |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:28:59 GMT, "Gerry Caron" wrote: "Ben Sego" wrote in message ... Thanks for the update. I didn't realize that this one had reared again. Does this mean he can't find anybody else (S'NF aside) to try to **** on? I really do have to hit the archives and catch up. Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old "conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit. Good God. I suppose it could happen. Does he really have nothing else to do? You'd think someone of his stature, esteem, and past accomplishments would be engaged in more fruitful pursuits. Perhaps the furtherance of his aeronautical, literary, and medical pursuits. And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal: Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's thus banned from all of them. Still, this baffles me. Why go to the trouble of another suit? As things stand, he can "report" whatever he wants. It's not as though actual attendance would further inform his writing, is it? When you have such a highly polished way with words, what would the encumberance of facts contribute? After the initial flurry of activity on his current suit, the Polk County Clerk web page hasn't shown any activity on that case in the last two months. It looks to me that SnF has yet to file a response to Campbell's interrogatories. This may mean SnF just has the case on a back burner, but it may indicate there's some negotiations going on for an out-of-court settlement. Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case. But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a couple of years.... Ron Wanttaja Sounds like settlement to me. When dealing with meaningful disputes between rational actors, settlement is a wise course. How that applies here..., well, you do the math. B.S. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 05:25:13 GMT, Ben Sego wrote:
Ron Wanttaja wrote: Conceivably, he could amend his current SnF case to include his old "conspiracy to defame" chestnut, and again name a batch of random co-defendants, a'la his RAH-15 countersuit. Good God. I suppose it could happen. Does he really have nothing else to do? You'd think someone of his stature, esteem, and past accomplishments would be engaged in more fruitful pursuits. Perhaps the furtherance of his aeronautical, literary, and medical pursuits. There are a number of possibilities. He could do it just to try to gum-up SnF's legal team....Tony once told me that Zoom's attorney had privately implied that the only reason for the RAH-15 suit was to increase Tony's workload. Or, some of Campbell's ex-employees and associates describe him as vengeful; filing lawsuits would just be another form of harassment. Campbell has already sued at least five former employees, editors, or writers. Another possibility would be to establish a "history" to use against that person should they ever testify against Zoom in another case. For instance, why was Nauga Hyde one of the RAH-15? It would have been because flight testing is his profession, and he'd already publicly pointed out that one of Zoom's claims was not realistic. Vern Barr was probably named because he was a former associate editor, Al Staats because he was a former marketing manager. By naming them in a suit, Campbell had an argument ready if any of these people testified as experts in any case against Campbell ("They're not unbiased experts!"). One interesting bit of speculation regards Zoom's financial relationship with the lawyer for SnF #2. Did the attorney take the case on a contingency basis (he apparently specializes in civil-rights cases) or is Campbell being billed for services rendered? If the attorney is working on contingency, naming additional co-defendants would significantly increase his workload but the amount of any potential settlement would probably be about the same. If he's billing Campbell for his time, you have to wonder how much of a 'war chest' Zoom has. As I mentioned years ago on the RAH-15 case, just taking depositions from all 15 co-defendants would probably have added $50,000 or more to his legal bill. And now Sun-n-Fun wants to expand to be a year-round draw. Wonder what Zoom's response will be. Here's the story from the Orlando Sentinal: Stuff like this could be why Zoom finally hit SnF with a second suit...too many aviation events are taking advantage of the SnF facility, and he's thus banned from all of them. Still, this baffles me. Why go to the trouble of another suit? As things stand, he can "report" whatever he wants. It's not as though actual attendance would further inform his writing, is it? When you have such a highly polished way with words, what would the encumberance of facts contribute? There are three basic reasons one might file a lawsuit. 1. To obtain regress for valid damages 2. To harass the defendant in order to force them to take a certain action 3. To gain publicity or sympathy Number 3 seems to be right out, since Zoom apparently hasn't mentioned this on his own web page. So we're left with #1 and #2. Ron Wanttaja |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his
news service....... I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties was illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals.... Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Scott Correa says...
Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his news service....... I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties was illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals.... Scott Hmmm,seems like it might be a duck trying to find a row...That's in code son...if you know what I mean..... Seriously there are two problems with trying to sue zoom et al .First he 's poor and has no assets.Secondly it costs money to bring suit. However someone may be willing to sue his butt for principle not money and secondly maybe a fund could be established as a pool for funds so that one person could bring the law suit and the fund could help support it.Sort of a reverse "defense fund" I just don't know if it's legal to do it that way or not but I'll check. Chuck RAH-15/1 ret "first you line your Ducks up, then ya count 'em, then..." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chuck,
Send me an e-mail that works if you would. Regards, Dave Driscoll ChuckSlusarczyk wrote: In article , Scott Correa says... Has anybody considered the possibility of filing a SLAPP suit against his news service....... I was under the impression that strategic litigation against private parties was illegal and the little guys had recourse from harassment suits brought by businesses to silence them as critics or outspoken individuals.... Scott Hmmm,seems like it might be a duck trying to find a row...That's in code son...if you know what I mean..... Seriously there are two problems with trying to sue zoom et al .First he 's poor and has no assets.Secondly it costs money to bring suit. However someone may be willing to sue his butt for principle not money and secondly maybe a fund could be established as a pool for funds so that one person could bring the law suit and the fund could help support it.Sort of a reverse "defense fund" I just don't know if it's legal to do it that way or not but I'll check. Chuck RAH-15/1 ret "first you line your Ducks up, then ya count 'em, then..." |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ron Wanttaja wrote:
There are three basic reasons one might file a lawsuit. 1. To obtain regress for valid damages 2. To harass the defendant in order to force them to take a certain action 3. To gain publicity or sympathy Number 3 seems to be right out, since Zoom apparently hasn't mentioned this on his own web page. So we're left with #1 and #2. You neglected to mention a fourth possibility: 4. The plaintiff is unreasonable (i.e. does not have a "basic reason [to] file a lawsuit."). Russell Kent |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:26:26 GMT, Ron Wanttaja
wrote: Campbell would probably settle for the right to be re-admitted to SnF. It would probably be the most cost-effective way for SnF to settle this case. But then, they'd probably have to go through the whole process again in a couple of years.... You really think it would take that long? I'll put a buck on him being ejected (re-ejected, rejected?) before the second year is over. - J.O.- |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|