FYI Bio zoom ZZZZZZZZ

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:

www.rocketracingleague.com/bio_jim-campbell.html


Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

and now heeeerrreeesss the bio!!!
__________________________________________________ _____________________________


Jim Campbell
Advisor, Pilot, Aviation
James R. "Zoom" Campbell may be the world's busiest aviation journalist having
had his adventures and/or stories documented in US Aviator, Popular Science,
Popular Mechanics, Time, Air Progress, Sport Pilot, Kitplanes, National
Geographic, Private Pilot, Pacific Flyer, The Aero-News Network and over 100
other publications. The author of over 2000 magazine articles, tens of thousands
of news dispatches, the photographer of over 200 magazine covers, and arguably
one of the most experienced general and sport aviation journalist/test pilots in
the sport and general aviation writing business, Jim Campbell is driven by a
passion for aviation that few can match.
A commercially rated pilot, Campbell has earned Flight instructor Ratings
(CFI/A/I/ME/H) in fixed and rotary wing aircraft, and logged over 17,000 flight
hours in over 1100 different ultralights, jets, multi-engine A/C, helicopters,
gyroplanes, autogyros, sailplanes, seaplanes, kit aircraft and general aviation
birds.
Among Campbell's many other lofty accomplishments are his 1981 Ultralight World
Record High Altitude flight to 21,210 feet over Lakehurst, New Jersey; flying on
behalf of President Ronald Reagan as an airshow pilot during the 1981-82 Air and
Space Bicentennial; several years of film and TV aviation stunt work; his 1981
Ultralight Flight Across America; 17 published books in the aviation field (with
three more in the works for '06-'07); the first aviation journalist to solo and
evaluate the awesome Russian Sukhoi SU-26 and SU-31, the FEW P-51 Mustang, the
Unlimited 10-300 and many other high performance aircraft. Jim was also the
first fly-writer to sample and document the intriguing capabilities of the BD-10
Jet, the Glasair III, the Van's RV-6 and dozens of other pivotal aircraft.
The Editor-In-Chief and Chief of Flight Test Operations for the Aviation World's
Most Comprehensive DAILY News Service, the Aero-News Network; he is hard at work
on the next edition of the "SportPlane Resource Guide" and some aggressive
aerospace book projects. He is also heavily involved in a number of television,
radio and other media projects utilizing his aviation expertise.
More recently; Campbell led the news and photography team that provided primary
media pool services for the Ansari X PRIZE competition, including most of the
SpaceShipOne air-to-air photos that were published all over the world following
the three successful suborbital flights of Burt Rutan's world-changing
spacecraft. He has also served as principal Zero-G photographer during several
hundred parabolas for the Zero-G Corporation's Zero-Gravity flights. A graduate
of the National Test Pilot School, he is the CEO/Publisher of what has become
one of the aviation world's most widely read news services, the Aero-News
Network (http://www.aero-news.net).

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

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

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...

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.


I heard back from PM they said they have no searchable author data base.
National Geographic had a James Campbell who wrote an article about canoe trips
and the Everglades.Their base goes back to 1888. Hmmmm

Snip

..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.

Can we get transcripts of the depositions? I'd love to see it.

See ya

Chuck RAH-14 ret and proud of it

On 13 Dec 2006 13:53:59 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

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.

Can we get transcripts of the depositions? I'd love to see it.

Normally, yes. But Zoom has filed papers with the court that include claims SnF
has been "leaking" material to...wait for it...the Internet! He stated that he
wants some information kept from public records. Odd view for a journalist,
but, heck, he objected to the very *presence* of the news media at his FIRST SnF
trial.

My guess is that he's trying to keep the testimony of SnF's witnesses from the
record, as this would be the first public documentation of the reasons SnF
banned him.

Ron Wanttaja

In article , Ron Wanttaja says...

Can we get transcripts of the depositions? I'd love to see it.

Normally, yes. But Zoom has filed papers with the court that include claims SnF
has been "leaking" material to...wait for it...the Internet! He stated that he
wants some information kept from public records. Odd view for a journalist,
but, heck, he objected to the very *presence* of the news media at his FIRST SnF
trial.

Sounds exactly like something he would do.What a phoney he sure likes to report
about other people but when it's about him somehow he thinks he's "special".


My guess is that he's trying to keep the testimony of SnF's witnesses from the
record, as this would be the first public documentation of the reasons SnF
banned him.

I'm sure he doesn't want the truth revealed about the depositions he wants only
his version of the story told .If he so innocent he has nothing to hide....or
does he?? Credibility it was always about credibility.

Chuck S RAH-14/1 ret

snipped I heard back from PM they said they have no searchable author
data base.
National Geographic had a James Campbell who wrote an article about
canoe trips
and the Everglades.Their base goes back to 1888. Hmmmm

Past life experience ala Shirley MacLaine. He saw a couple of guys in
a sinking canoe and yelled at the to "Pull Up! Pull up! For God's
sakes Pull Up!"

The last moments of their lives were spent staring at Campbell with a
really puzzled look on their faces...you know...like Deja Vu, only it
had been advanced to them in this case...

Holy smoke... 87 hours without power, another 24 before Comcast comes back
online, and there's just a *few* new postings on RAH since my last visit.

Didn't read much closely, but let me chime in a bit on a couple of things.

Let me address some of the stuff that came up as I scanned the postings.

1. "Govern yourself accordingly": I saw a comment that Zoom had learned this
phrase from one of his recent court cases. Not true...This has been one of the
Zoomer's perennials; one he's used for decades. It was used AT him by the
Federal judge in his first lawsuit against Sun-N-Fun:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT (i.e. The Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, Unites States District Judge):
Excuse me, excuse me, he asks the questions --

THE WITNESS (i.e., James R. Campbell): I do know Mr. Jones.

THE COURT: Excuse me, I'm not through yet.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I apologize.

THE COURT: He asks the questions, you give an answer. Do not editorialize, do
not characterize.

THE WITNESS: Oops. It's my job. Sorry, sir.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but you're in
a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want anymore flippant remarks like that.

---Transcript, Case# 99-799-Civ-T-26C, 8 April 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Zoom's holding a license/medical. As others posted, the FAA pulled his
medical in the early '80s. Zoom did get it back, in about 1984. It was listed
in the FAA pilot database in the late '90s. At one point the FAA gave pilots
the option of not having their data included in the public release of the
databases. Zoom was not listed in the next release.

The aircraft registration database still shows an amateur-built aircraft
registered to the Zoomer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Zoom's discharge from the Air Force: I happen to believe that Zoom's
military service ended with an honorable discharge.

Why? 'Cause the Zoomer says so.

Fear not... t'was Helena, Montana that froze over last night, not the infernal
regions. I've got a perfectly rational explanation why I believe Campbell in
this case: Because it was the only POSITIVE thing he could say about himself at
the time.

To understand the circumstances, let's step back to that courtroom in New York
City twenty-seven years ago. Jim Campbell is being questioned, under oath,
about his military service:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Q. And where were you stationed?
A. First in San Antonio, Texas, for basic training. Upon completion of basic
training, to the Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado.
Q. And you were only in the service for approximately six or eight months?
A. There was a period of time before that -- it was called "inactive." That was
from October of '74, early in my senior year of high school with the United
States Army National Guard, 3rd/104 Armed CAB, that was at the time -- they've
since been reassigned. I made a switch from Army to Air Force in June of that
year. I didn't go until November. I was trying rather hard, and in -fact even
succeeded in getting a nomination to one of the service academies, which was the
reason for the period of time with the military. That attempt was unsuccessful
Q. And Mr. Campbell, you were terminated from the armed services. What was the
reason for that?
A. It was an honorable discharge.

--- NTSB SE-4661
--------------------------------------------------------------
Note the classic evasion: "Why were you terminated?" Zoom doesn't answer the
*why*, he just says he received a discharge... after just eight months of
service. If he'd been RIF'd...why not say so? Obviously, what brought about
the discharge is not something Zoom wanted to talk about.

I was suspicious about the claim to an honorable discharge, too...until I asked
a buddy who has been an Army company commander.

The upshot is that an honorable discharge is the *easiest* way to get rid of
someone you don't want. Endless paperwork on any of the others, and the danger
that the person will come back with a lawyer and sue. If you've got someone you
DON'T want, the quickest solution is to give them an honorable discharge. Every
other type involves yards of paperwork, in comparison.

In any case, I don't think even Zoom would have dared to lie, in that situation.
It was very likely that the government's attorney had obtained a copy of his
discharge paperwork, as part of the investigation.

4. Someone commented about Zoom seeming to be worse right now. If so, there's a
very good reason for it...one I recall mentioning to a fellow RAH-15'er a couple
of months back. Told ya so. :-)

Ron Wanttaja

("Ron Wanttaja" wrote)
1. "Govern yourself accordingly": I saw a comment that Zoom had learned
this
phrase from one of his recent court cases. Not true...This has been one
of the
Zoomer's perennials; one he's used for decades. It was used AT him by
the
Federal judge in his first lawsuit against Sun-N-Fun:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE COURT (i.e. The Honorable Richard A. Lazzara, Unites States District
Judge):
Excuse me, excuse me, he asks the questions --

THE WITNESS (i.e., James R. Campbell): I do know Mr. Jones.

THE COURT: Excuse me, I'm not through yet.

THE WITNESS: Oh, I apologize.

THE COURT: He asks the questions, you give an answer. Do not editorialize,
do
not characterize.

THE WITNESS: Oops. It's my job. Sorry, sir.

THE COURT: You know, Mr. Campbell, maybe it hasn't dawned on you, but
you're in
a Federal Courtroom now.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir, I understand that.

THE COURT: Okay, and you're going to conduct yourself accordingly.

THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: All right?

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: I don't want anymore flippant remarks like that.

---Transcript, Case# 99-799-Civ-T-26C, 8 April 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------


I found no issue with 'this' answer. I thought the remark was lucid ...and
funny - not forcibly clever, or flippant.

(From the web)
Lucid:
1. rational, and mentally clear, especially only for a period between
episodes of delirium or psychosis


Montblack
"forcibly clever" ...??

snipped 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

Ron, I have irrefutable evidence that Zoom committed Federal Perjury
against me. I notice that you have a letter submitted to the Court.

Is it possible for me to submit evidence in regards to Zoom's failure
to uphold a sworn oath not to lie? Even a letter to the Court?