ZZZooommm rant latest

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...

Give way past time to give proof to backup your claims, otherwise all of
your
ranting above remains "just your opinion" and yours alone. An opinion
which,
from where I view it, looks very much like an attempt to slander someone.

Slander is not possible in the face of facts.

"Badwater Bill" wrote in message
...

Settling out of court, pretrial, is not an admission of guilt.

Civil lawsuits are not about guilt.

"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

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)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:58:35 GMT, "Juan E Jimenez"
wrote:


"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...

Yes to the "sucessfully sued" part but being sucessfully sued doesn't
denote
guilt or a loss as you and zoom are attempting to imply. Be credible for a
change .

So finally you admit that you have been in fact been successfully sued for
negligence in the design of one of your aircraft. It's about time. Looks
like Jim was not lying after all, was he?

Juan

Bzzzzt, clear foul Juan. Your original post mentioned nothing about
what the suits were for. You cannot add content after the statement
that wasn't originally there and claim Chuck has admitted to it.

By the way, didn't you at one point sit down with Chuck and view all
the material he had that proves he had nothing to do with Jim's
original complaint? My recollection is that you stated after that
meeting that it sure looked like Jim was a bit over the top on that
subject.

Am I remembering incorrectly?

Corky Scott

Juan E Jimenez wrote:

You're entitled to your opinion. It can also mean that the defendant
realized there was no way he was going to win because the evidence simply
didn't support his arguments, and didn't want to take a chance with a judge
who, after listening to three knowledgeable expert witnesses, might give the
plaintiff a lot more than what would be acceptable to the plaintiff in an
out-of-court settlement. The circumstances in this case seem to point to the
latter, and that's not just my opinion.

Juan,
I have no knowledge of any court cases involving CGS (and frankly don't want any
at this time), but I'd like to point out that your assertion may not be true.
You wrote:

[A legal settlement] can also mean that the defendant realized there
was no way he was going to win ... The circumstances in this case seem
to point to the latter, and that's not just my opinion.

I believe that a settlement merely means that both parties decided that it was
in their interests to settle their dispute outside the court. I am of the
opinion that this *usually* means that the plaintiff gets enough money (which
may be nowhere near the filed claim amount), and the respondent pays less than
they fear they *might* have to pay at trial (awards plus legal fees). In some
cases, the settlement amount paid by the respondent is *less* than the legal
bill from the defending firm if the case went to trial. In those cases, it may
make sense to settle even in cases where the plaintiff's cause of action is
completely without merit.

In summary, I believe it is very unwise to assume any "guilt" on the part of the
respondent if they chose to settle out-of-court on undisclosed terms.

Russell Kent

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)

In article Lo26b.365019$Ho3.53747@sccrnsc03, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Yes to the "sucessfully sued" part but being sucessfully sued doesn't
denote
guilt or a loss as you and zoom are attempting to imply. Be credible for a
change .

So finally you admit that you have been in fact been successfully sued for
negligence in the design of one of your aircraft. It's about time. Looks
like Jim was not lying after all, was he?


Where the **** did you read that in his statement? Damn if you are not worse
than Zoomer on being able to read.

Boy how little you know and as Sister Mary Pontius Pilot used to say
"empty cans
make the most noise". If you knew anything about lawsuits you would have
known
that both sides know who the expert witnesses are months before a
trial.There
was no dramatic "two weeks " before the trial incident I should know I was
there
you weren't.It's only in the movies and in zooms head.
Settlements don't count as losses ,once again you show your ignorance as
to how
it works. I guess using that logic when zoom sued the RAH-15 and none of
us went
to jail I guess zoom "lost".

If you knew anything about the civil court system in this country you would
know that guilt is for criminal matters. No civil court judges do not assign
guilt.

Paying $750,000 are a result of a lawsuit is not a loss. Unhuh. You keep
saying that to yourself, someday maybe someone will believe it.

Juan

And if you knew anything about the civil courts in this country you would
realize that anybody can sue anybody for virtually anything and end up with a
settlement. That settlement may or may not be based on a ligitimate claim. In
most cases the settlement is an agreement between the parties to avoid the
costs of further litigation. It does little good for any company to fight and
win a case based on lack of merit, if the win will cost far more than the
settlement. In fact, with todays litigation system and its endless appeals, it
is far smarter to settle than to win.

Now go blow smoke up somebody elses ass.



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 mi26b.367262$uu5.70059@sccrnsc04, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Thank God...

snip

Go whine somewhere else.



NO!

I was here long before you showed up and I will be here long after you have
tucked you tain between your leggs and run home to mama.


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 Zj26b.367281$uu5.70933@sccrnsc04, "Juan E Jimenez"
writes:


Give way past time to give proof to backup your claims, otherwise all of
your
ranting above remains "just your opinion" and yours alone. An opinion
which,
from where I view it, looks very much like an attempt to slander someone.

Slander is not possible in the face of facts.



What facts? You have never produced one single fact to support you
allegations. Either produce them or shut up and go away.


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)