Sun & Fun lied? B.S.!! was ZZZZzzzz Another long zoom rant...
Tony P
Note that Sun & Fun never even HAD to show that they have a 2" thick
file on Campbell, and that his ejection was perfectly justified; he
hadn't
a prayer of actually winning the case anyway. But he never got that
far,
despite the tactic of waiting a year to file a last-minute "emergency"
suit. As usual, he diverts attention from his own failures by attacking
the adversary.
Attempting to explain the humiliating defeat in his trumpeted,
grandiose "Constitutional rights" lawsuit, Jim Campbell has repeatedly
accused Sun & Fun of lying at trial (see below for an example of such a
claim). It's time somebody published the reality reflected by the Court
file, and here it is. Campbell seems quite smug in his attacks on Sun &
Fun, knowing they have a policy of silence in light of his repeated
distortions of their previous statements.
In essence, Campbell claims Sun & Fun lied about getting public funds
and that he only discovered the true facts AFTER trial. Both claims are
demonstrably false, but also both are irrelevant since since the Court
didn't even rely on this issue (the Court ruled that since airshows
aren't a government function, funding didn't matter).
Here's the question asked by S&F's lawyer, Wendel, and the answer:
Q. Does the city, the State of Florida, or the United States
Government contribute any money directly to Sun 'N Fun?
A. No, sir.
[see additional excerpts below]
After losing the case, Campbell and his lawyer filed a Motion and
affidavit referring to the following described-but-nonexistent
testimony:
"at the hearing, Respondent presented sworn testimony that Sun & Fun
... was a private organization which did not receive public funds or
revenue"
and: "Respondent's testimony that it received no Federal, State,
County or local funding"
They claimed to have: "newly-discovered evidence that Sun & Fun in fact
received funds
directly from the public" Campbell swore to the truth of his attorney's
claims regarding public
funding.
IN fact, Campbell and his lawyer took a careful
statement that no "direct" funds were received from the "City"
(Lakeland), the "State of Florida" or the "United States Government" and
distorted it into a denial that Sun & Fun ever received ANY "public
funds" or "County or local funding". Then they falsely claimed to have
"newly discovered" that it got Tourist promotion funding from a
completely different
entity (i.e. not city, state or federal).
Fortunately, as Judge Lazzara said: "You know, I can read."
Campbell's lawyer presented a letter from the "Central Florida
Visitor's and Convention Bureau" acknowledging that the "Tourist
Development Council" had budgeted some $40,000 for Sun & Fun-related
advertising and promotion in '98-99, and over $400,000 in a decade.
[The TDC uses special tourist-event sales taxes to promote local
conventions and
tourism. Sun & Fun draws local taxable revenues of hundreds of million
annually, which is taxed at 6% (sales tax) to 10% (motels, car rental,
etc.), and this is what the TDC is for -- millions in taxes, millions in
profits
to the Central Florida region.]
Despite muchhetoric about everything from police and fire protection
and roads to
FAA occupancy and airport FAA funding, Campbell's lawyer had never even
RAISED the issue of Visitor's Bureau/Tourist Development promotional
funding. Either he thought it was unimportant or else Campbell was too
dumb
to mention it to him.
But it didn't matter. In his Order Denying the Rehearing Motion, U.S.
District Court Judge Lazzara stated:
"Plaintiffs assert that they discovered after the
hearing...that...Defendant receives direct tax dollars or funding for
the event."
"Defendant responds that assuming the ... Defendant receives funds from
the Polk County Tourist Council/Visitor's Bureau, those entities are not
the 'City [of Lakeland], the State of Florida or the United States
Government'."
"In any event, Defendant argues that the mere receipt of public funds
does not necessarily equal State Action [citations omitted].... The
Court is persuaded by the arguments made based on the caselaw cited."
Even a quick review of other documentation reveals that
JIM CAMPBELL WAS WELL AWARE OF THE ANNUAL TDC FUNDS EXPENDITURE FOR AT
LEAST 5 YEARS PREVIOUSLY. Not only has that funding been mentioned in
his magazine, but in a letter of October, 1994, Campbell said:
10/28/94
"Our research has turned up the fact that Sun 'n Fun has received over
$99,065 in Tourist Development Tax monies, so far, in just the last
three years. .... ...I believe it is my right ... to attend the
upcoming Wings & Wheels event held at the S&F grounds." [This was after
his two ejections in 1994.]
In short, Mr. Campbell had previously made precisely the same argument
to justify being readmitted to Sun & Fun after his earlier ejections for
misbehavior. "Newly discovered"? Another Campbell lie. Sun & Fun
falsehoods?
Another Campbell lie. I can only HOPE that his lawyer was unaware of
these facts
and that he also misrepresented the witnesses' statements inadvertently,
without
benefit of the transcript.
REFERENCES:
Campbell wrote:
> Remember now... Sun 'n Fun is the organization that, under extensive
> questioning, denied (under oath) every question about public funding
> and thereafter stated that they received NO public funding.
> Thereafter, they were found to have accepted over $439K worth of Polk
> Country tax dollars (according to PUBLIC RECORD).
Excerpts from trial testimony:
(By S&F counsel, to S&F witness)
4 Q. Does the city, the State of Florida, or the United States
15 Government contribute any money directly to Sun 'N Fun?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Is there any benefit to the airport itself that is not
18 shared by the general public?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Does Sun 'N Fun have any direct relationship with the
21 City of Lakeland other than being a lease holder?
22 A. No.
[by the Airport Manager, City of Lakeland]
2 Q. Does the City of Lakeland contribute any funds directly
3 to Sun 'N Fun?
4 A. Not directly.
15 Q. Has Sun 'N Fun ever received any funds from Polk County,
16 Florida, in terms of roads that go -- lead into Sun 'N Fun or
17 are on Sun 'N Fun premises?
18 A. Not to my knowledge, no.
19 Q. Sun 'N Fun has paid for all the roads that are out there
20 on the Sun 'N Fun premises to your understanding?
21 A. On the Sun 'N Fun site, yes.
From the Judge's original ruling (see transcript)
20 ... based on the evidence before me, I don't find
21 that utilizing the tests that were set out by the Eleventh
22 Circuit in the -- I'll call it the NBC case, utilizing those
23 tests, that Sun 'N Fun is a state actor. One test is the
24 public function test.
25 Obviously, putting on air shows is not a function of
1 Government, never has been. There's no evidence that the
2 Government has coerced or significantly encouraged the action
3 alleged to violate the constitution in this case. Then there's
4 the -- whether -- then there's the third test is whether are
5 not there's a symbiotic relationship between the -- between Sun
6 'N Fun and the City in terms of the alleged constitutional
7 violation.
10 MR. MOODY: Your Honor --
11 HE COURT: Mr. Moody, time for argument is over,
12 okay. You may disagree, that's why we have got the Eleventh
13 Circuit.
9 THE COURT: But I'm making, based on the evidence
10 before me, it's my conclusion that there is no state action
11 here on behalf of Sun 'N Fun, and therefore, I need proceed no
12 further. And for those reasons, I'm going to deny the
13 Petitioner's petition for emergency temporary injunction.
Questions? Anybody who wants a copy of the court filings referred to
above, just ask. The transcript itself has already been posted by
others.
Tony (the truth is out there)Pucillo
Castigat ridendo mores. <Laughter succeeds where lecturing won't.>
I speak only for myself unless otherwise stated. One personality is
enough, thank you.
Ronald James Wanttaja
> Look who lied -- and it WASN'T Sun & Fun!
You go, Dude! (Whoops...guess that means Zoom will sue me again, because
I posted a message that supported Tony.)
> Questions? Anybody who wants a copy of the court filings referred to
>above, just ask. The transcript itself has already been posted by
>others.
I don't think the transcript has actually been posted to the group, but
I've put a copy at:
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/sunnfun.txt
Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/
John H Ousterhout
> I don't think the transcript has actually been posted to
the group, but I've put a copy at:
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/sunnfun.txt
I'll put a copy on my Web page with the other Captain Zoom
information. http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster/
Here's my favorite part (excerpted from the transcript):
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.
- John Ousterhout -
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
B25flyer
>
Go Tony. You go my man.
So I just wonder what the little moozer and his attorney have to say about
this?
Walt. RAH 15/2 and damn proud to serve. And still in the battle.