ZZZ SE4661, Campbell's sanity hearing (LONG) (WAS: US Aviator Recommends)

[Dyogenese]

dyog...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

> I'll post the full text of the transcript here soon.
>
> Dyogenese

Here it is:

*****************************************************

BEFORE THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X
In the Matter of: :
:
LANGHORNE M. BOND, ADMINISTRATOR, : Docket Number
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, : SE-4661
Complainant, :
:
- against - :
:
JAMES RICHARD CAMPBELL, :
Respondent. :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X

Tuesday, November 18, 1980
26 Federal Plaza, Room 208
New York, New York

The above-entitled matter came up for hearing

pursuant to Notice at 9:15 a.m.

BEFORE:

The HONORABLE JOYCE CAPPS, Administrative Law Judge.

APPEARANCES:

For the Administrator:

SHARON HAUSELT, ESQ.
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue Southwest
Washington, DC 20591

For the Respondent:

JAMES RICHARD CAMPBELL
41 Stone Fence Road
Oakland, New Jersey

I N D E X
FUR. FUR.
WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS RD. RC.

Sandra Taylor 33 58 80 82

Thomas Powers 84
(Cont.)
133 162 181 183 184

Barton Pakull 187 202

James Campbell 209 224

E X H I B I T S

EXHIBITS NO. FOR IDENTIFICATION IN EVIDENCE
Administrator's No. 1 5
Administrator's No. 2 103 103

P R 0 C E E D I N G S

JUDGE CAPPS: This opens the hearing in the matter of Langhorne M. Bond,
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Complainant, versus
James Richard Campbell, Respondent, docket number SE-4661.
My name is Joyce Capps, the Judge who's been assigned to hear and
decide this case.
Will counsel for the Government represent herself, please.
MS. HAUSELT: Sharon Hauselt, H-A-U-S-E-L-T, 800 Independence Avenue
Southwest, Washington, DC 20591.
JUDGE CAPPS: Sir, you are Mr. James Richard Campbell, the Respondent
herein?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am, I am.
JUDGE CAPPS: And you have no counsel?
MR. CAMPBELL: No, ma'am, I couldn't afford it.
JUDGE CAPPS: all right, the Government does have the burden of proof in
this case.
Do you wish to give an opening statement?
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I have a couple of preliminary matters and then
I would give an opening statement.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, I'll entertain some preliminary matters.
MS. HAUSELT: The first one is I never received any information from Mr.
Campbell with regard to a discovery
request, so at this time I'd like to know if he intends to put any
witnesses other than himself.
MR. CAMPBELL: No, I do not.
MS, HAUSELT: Also, Your Honor, prior to giving my opening statement I
would like to introduce into evidence the record so that as I'm
speaking, you could refer to the record.
JUDGE CAPS: All right. Is this the packet of medical evidence and
applications that are involved in this particular case?
MS. HAUSELT: Right. I never certified a true copy of Mr. Campbell's
medical records which also includes copies of all his Interim
Certificates, and I would offer them as Administrator's Exhibit No. 1.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Mr. Campbell, have you seen this document?
MR. CAMPBELL: I believe I've seen most of them.
MS. HAUSELT: I have a copy for Mr. Campbell.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. I'll take it and mark it - This is the standard
packet of documents that comes into every medical case. The reason I ask
you to obtain a copy of it is usually a copy is furnished to the
Respondent in the case, and I want to make sure that was done.
MR. CAMPBELL: I requested my file sometime ago and I didn't receive it.
I believe that's all the information that's been gathered up until this
point.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. (Whereupon, the document described was marked
for identification as Administrator's Exhibit No. 1.
JUDGE CAPPS: Are you a member of the Bar? Are you an attorney?
MR. CAMPBELL: No, ma'am, I'm not.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Let me caution you to this, Mr. Campbell. You
have no attorney representing you, but yet I want everything that goes
on during these proceedings to be fully understood by you. So,
therefore, if anything occurs throughout this proceeding that you don't
fully understand, don't hesitate to ask me to explain it. I'll be happy
to do it. I want to do it, because this is your day in Court, and I want
you to fully understand just what is occurring as far as procedure is
concerned, because you're not being a lawyer, you know, some of these
things might be new to you. But I want to assure you that things will be
conducted according to the accepted modes of procedure around here, as
long as I'm sitting up here.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
JUDGE CAPPS: Now, don't be shy about it. You just pipe right up if
you've got a question.
All right, now, what we're doing now is what occurs in every trial. Both
sides have a chance to get up and tell the Court what their evidence
will show; their theory of the text; they're showing what evidence
they've got to support the allegations they have made.
You will have the same opportunity to explain to me what you will put
forth by way of evidence to convince me of your side of the case. Now,
this is called opening statement.
I'm going to hear the opening statement of the person having the burden
of proof here, which is the Government.
MS. HAUSELT: Judge Capps, as I speak, I'm going to refer to the record,
and I will try to give you the page numbers because it's quite a long
and lengthy record, and we're talking about a period of time here, I
believe going back as far as 1974.
First of all, the section that we're dealing with, as you know, is a
personality disorder which has been severe enough to have manifested
itself by repeated overt acts and by that the term, personality
disorder, you'll hear testimony from Drs. Pakull and Dr. Powers
indicating that a personality disorder is a deeply ingrained maladaptive
pattern of behavior. So, what we're talking about here is not just an
occasional lapse that any person might have. We are talking about a
pattern of behavior that has repeated itself over a period of time, and
it's something which is a serious mental illness, and because of that
has been found to be a specifically disqualifying trait under the
Regulations.
Now, there's two parts to what we have to show. We have to show you that
there's a personality disorder and, also, that it is of such a nature
that it's severe enough to have manifested itself by repeated overt
acts, and we'll be going into quite a bit of detail of over twenty
different episodes in time, which we will offer as the overt acts.
Just speaking to the file itself, and sort of the chronology of the
events here -- Mr. Campbell, I believe, graduated from high school in
1974 and from information which he gave Dr. Powers -- Dr. Powers is a
psychiatrist who saw him at FAA request. Now, from information that we
received from Dr. Powers, following high school Mr. Campbell went out to
Colorado, so that would be sometime in -- sometime in the summer of
1974. He remained there for approximately a year and a half. Having a
problem with a personal relationship which he related to Dr. Powers, he
then returned to his home in New York City and lived with his parents.
In November of 1977, Mr. Campbell attempted to jump off the World Trade
Center in New York. However, he was stopped by the guards at the top of
the World Trade Center, and he was not able to complete the jump, and at
that time he was arrested. He was attempting to parachute jump, I may
add. And that is documented -- the arrest, itself, is documented on
pages 94 through 101, which includes his arrest record in New York
State.
In the Fall of 1978, approximately the month of October, November and
December, Mr. Campbell resided in the area of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and at
that time, and I refer Your Honor to pages 46 and 47 -- Mr. Campbell
presented himself to friends and acquaintances as a doctor, and, in
fact, was giving friends and acquaintances drugs, and these people
complained to the authorities and that is how this problem came to
light.
Following that escapade, the authorities found out about it, and rather
than put him in jail or arrest him they requested that his family return
him to New Jersey where he could receive psychiatric care.
He did, in fact, return to New Jersey with his father, where he
underwent psychotherapy for about five months, about January to May of
1979, receiving treatment from a Dr. Dorsey, who was recommended to Mr.
Campbell by his grandfather, who is a doctor. And Dr. Dorsey's report is
included in -
JUDGE CAPPS: Dr. who?
MS. HAUSELT: Dorsey -- D-O-R-S-E-Y. And his report is included on page
54.
Mr. Campbell, then, in May of 1979, went to the area of Atlanta, Georgia
where he was employed by Brown Aviation, Incorporated, and we have
information in the file on page 36 from a Mr. Brown indicating that for
the first two months Mr. Campbell was an ideal employee and he had no
complaints whatsoever with him. However, in about the third month of his
employment his mood began to shift quite frequently and he was -- Mr.
Brown caught him in a number of fabrications and stories which were
preposterous and untrue.
He was subsequently fired from that position, and at that time, or
shortly thereafter in September and October of 1979 Mr. Campbell turned
up in New Hampshire, and there he received employment from Nashua
Aviation in Nashua, New Hampshire and that is how Inspector Taylor, who
will be testifying, came to meet Mr. Campbell.
While employed by Nashua Aviation, he was also temporarily employed by
Daniel Webster College, which is a small college nearby.
While in New Hampshire, Mr. Campbell indicated that he was qualified in
a variety of areas, including being a stuntman, being a member of the
Screen Actors Guild, having formerly taught in the Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association Ground School. All of those claims were subsequently
proved to be false. He also attempted to start up a parachute club while
up in New Hampshire, and in relationship to his employment at the
college, and at that time he indicated he was qualified as a parachute
rigger, which, under the Federal Aviation Regulations is regulated, and
you do need a certificate for that. He did not have such a certificate.
JUDGE CAPPS: Is he a parachute -
MS. HAUSELT: Parachute rigger.
JUDGE CAPPS: Rigger ?
MS. HAUSELT: You have to pack parachutes.
JUDGE CAPPS: What was his employment at Webster College ?
MS. HAUSELT: He was employed to teach, I believe, courses relating to
ground school type courses -- meteorology and some flying. He was also
doing some flight instructing at Nashua Aviation .
During the time he was attempting to set up this parachute club, he also
claimed to be a certified jump instructor, which is something regulated
by the U. S. Parachute Association. He claimed to be affiliated with
them. In fact, he was not current at the time he was attempting to set
up this program for parachuting. And a variety of other problems came to
light, including the newspaper article which I referred to on page 46
and 47, which is the account of his masquerade as a doctor in Oklahoma.
That article came to light on the campus at Daniel Webster. His
qualifications were subsequently brought into question and also due to
that question, various other discrepancies in his record turned up in
addition to those that I have mentioned with regard to teaching and not
being qualified as a parachute rigger, and various other claims made to
other people .
About this time the FAA got wind of a question with regard to Mr.
Campbell's medical qualifications for a first class, in particular,
medical certificate, and Dr. Cahill, who is the Regional Flight Surgeon
in New York, requested some information from Mr. Campbell, and at that
time Mr. Campbell was -- around this time Mr. Campbell was fired from
Daniel Webster and told people in the area he was leaving to go to
Florida.
He subsequently turned up in California where he managed to get
employment, again, with Webster & Piper Sales in Fresno, November of
1979, and in the record there's a letter from Dianne Stuart of Webster &
Piper Sale indicating problems, which again surfaced with Mr. Campbell's
employment, concerning false representations of qualification.
JUDGE CAPPS: When was this employment?
MS. HAUSELT: This employment was November of 1979 up through about
January 16th, 1980.
Various claims were made by Mr. Campbell in the area of stunts and
airman certification which were untrue. Stories surfaced with regard to
his past, and a tragedy having occurred in his past which he claimed,
which were untrue.
There were problems with his teaching, and he was also questioned as far
as having taken certain items from the company, so he was fired, again,
from Webster & Piper Sales.
And, he then managed to talk himself into another job in Nappa,
California, where he was employed in February -from February 4th to
approximately February 29th, 1980.
And, while there, the FAA had finally accumulated and traced down all of
these various leads and stories that had been going on from one side of
the country to the other, and at that time his medical certificates were
suspended for failure to provide, and, subsequently, on receiving more
information from him and having him evaluated by Dr. Powers, the FAA
issued an Order of Revocation which is the subject of this hearing
today.
I'd like to point out to Your Honor that in a case of this type it is
just virtually impossible for the FAA to subpoena all of the people who
have indicated that various stories and lies and behaviors of Mr.
Campbell's were abnormal, but there are letters from all of these people
in the file, and I have spoken to them myself, personally, as has Miss
Taylor.
JUDGE CAPPS: Who is Miss Taylor?
MS. HAUSELT: Miss Taylor is an Inspector from New Hampshire, GATO
Inspector, and she'll be testifying for the Administrator.
Your Honor, I would just caution you at this point that part of the
personality disorder -- part of the problem we're speaking of here is a
very adaptability to lie, and through the testimony of Dr. Powers, Dr.
Pakull and Miss Taylor
I will attempt to show the variety of inconsistencies which appear in
this file, and, also, Mr. Campbell is not just here because he
fabricates stories. We're talking about some stories which have gone
beyond the bounds of just a little white lie. We're talking about
stories such as pawning oneself off as being capable of rigging
parachutes for other people, when one is not qualified, such a claim
being something which could severely injure another person.
Also, we're talking about making a claim of being a doctor when one is
not qualified, and issuing drugs and whatnot; offering one's assistance
to people in need of medical when one is not qualified. So, we're
talking about a situation where a person consistently puts himself in a
position of being unable to resist the impulse to fabricate a story in
order to improve or to build up a grandiose self image, and this is not
something which is a mere personality trait which can be considered
fleeting. This is something which is an integral part of Mr. Campbell's
character. By that I mean it is a severe personality disorder, and the
various episodes around the country, I think, will support the fact that
there have been many overt acts in this case.
JUDGE CAPPS: Mr. Campbell, under the normal rules of courtroom
procedure, you are entitled to give your opening statement now, or, you
can do what we call reserve opening statement. That means let the
Government put on their case;
They've got the burden of proof; let them put on their case, and then,
when they have rested, we turn to you and you can give your opening
statement. It's up to you, whichever you prefer.
Do you wish to give it now or to reserve?
MR. CAMPBELL: I will give mine now.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
MR. CAMPBELL: First of all, I take -- I personally disagree with quite a
few statements, both contained on the written record, and exemplified by
Ms. Hauselt.
At any rate, first of all, the history up until, I would imagine
Christmas of '78, I imagine -- in other words it's up until my departure
from Tulsa, Oklahoma, is substantially correct except for a few factors.

Specifically, number one, I left Oklahoma of my own free will,
unbeknownst to me at the time that the authorities were aware of my
activities.
Number two, the authorities did not alert my parents to the problem.
Excuse me, my grandfather was first alerted to the problem by a young
lady I was familiar with, and at that point, as a matter of fact, it was
the evening of Christmas. My grandfather explained to me what was
happening; that this was abnormal and aberrant behavior and that he
would like to see something done, at which point plans for my return to
Tulsa, Oklahoma were canceled. The very next day we found out that the
police were aware of the activities.
Yes, I did represent myself, at times, as a physician; at times as a
medical student, and so forth. To the best of my knowledge I did not
dispense any type of -- I don't know what the proper word would be -- a
drug that would have to be prescribed. I did, at one period of time,
give several Tylenol capsules marked as Tylenol, in a Tylenol bottle, to
a young lady at the airport, while I was learning to fly at the time.
The article from the Tulsa World, I believe, appeared after,
approximately two weeks, maybe three weeks after my departure from
Tulsa. My father, in an attempt to find out what had happened and to
clear up matters in Tulsa, flew to Tulsa, met with this young lady who
had alerted my grandfather of the problem; Tulsa met with a
representative of the Tulsa PD, at which time it was apparently agreed
upon that they would let matters lie where they were and ][ would
receive psychiatric care.
You have to excuse me -- it's a little slow -- it's kind of hard to make
up as you go along. I really wasn't prepared for this today.
At any rate, at that point my father gathered up a great majority of my
possessions, made disposition of a few others, specifically an old car
and so forth, and I left Oklahoma with the understanding that nothing
would be done by Tulsa PD as long as I didn't show my face there again,
so to speak, and this was a quote from one of the detectives.
Now, the article in the Tulsa World contained quite a few inaccuracies,
although the basic content is correct.
Following Tulsa, Oklahoma I left to go home, stayed at home from
approximately two days before Christmas to May of, I guess that's '79,
and received some care from a Dr. Dorsey of Hopewell Junction, New York.
There were not a great deal of sessions. I did gain quite a bit, but
frankly I don't feel that a lot was done; more my fault than his. Dr.
Dorsey is a rather outstanding physician -- his qualifications certainly
bear that out. I received also a great deal of care, and I think the
majority of help from my grandfather. My grandfather is a physician with
a rather outstanding psychiatric background, although he is not Board
certified. He did run a psychiatric hospital for the Army during World
War II and held several high offices with the AMA in New York State. As
a GP, also, I think he had a rather rare, but vital insight into the
nature of the human mind. I have continued that consultation with him
throughout the past several years, and my opinion has been -- well has
produced the greatest benefit thus far.
In May of 19 -- I don't think it's '79, but at any rate -- May that year
when I left to go down to Perry, Georgia, I went first to Opeloca
Airport in Florida on a package deal for the CFI and Double I rating;
found out that they had changed their prices and was in the process of
returning home because I could not afford the rates. On the way back I
stopped in at Perry, Georgia. I had spoken to Mr. Brown on the phone. He
had stated the fact that he was an Examiner qualified to designate
Certified Flight Instructor of Airplane Instrument Multi-Engine. I
stopped in. After a period of time with him, explaining my difficulties
and so forth, he put me up in a small trailer there and volunteered to
give me the instruction necessary for the rating and to give me the
check ride.
A friend of his, who was a Principal of the local school and a certified
flight instructor, Mr. Bob McLendon, rendered instruction, as did Mr.
Brown, and Mr. McLendon recommended me for Certified Flight Instructor
rating. At the time I was made aware of the fact that Mr. Brown had gone
through quite a large amount of flight instructors in the previous year
-- I believe at least a half a dozen. There was a flight instructor
there at the time, who was also in the process of leaving. He was
part-time, working at Warner Robbins Air Force Base.
Shortly after I came on, also another flight instructor at the time,
John Williams, came onto the staff. Mr. Williams brought me a great deal
of experience and a great deal of insight into the nature of aviation
and how the so-called system worked while I worked there, and for the
first few months things were fairly good, despite the fact that I did
refuse several flights by Mr. Brown, considering the fact that his 135
Certificate was dropped, and these were of an air-charter nature. I had
also found myself in extreme disfavor just after July 4th -- I don't
know the exact date -when his daughter eloped with one of my students.
Mr. Brown accused me of knowing about the situation, which was true, but
only thirty minutes before the actual wedding, by which time I believe
Jim knew. I really don't know for sure; I do know he was aware very
shortly, via phone call, of his daughter's impending wedding.
Quentin, the gentleman who married his daughter, had just received his
private license, as recommended by me several weeks before. From that
point my situation in regards to Mr., Brown went steadily downhill.
Mr. Williams, the other flight instructor in residence, also had a great
deal of problems concerning policy, concerning pay, concerning promises
that were not kept and were not -well, they had made arrangements,
specifically, for a raise in pay which did not develop until
approximately a month later, although he did come through on it, and I
believe Mr. Williams was also asked to fly a few flights that would come
more under 135 than 91, and Mr. Williams refused. I believe his quote
is, "I'm not giving my ticket to anybody."
I developed a rather strong friendship with Mr. Williams. He gave me a
great deal of aid and help in obtaining my Certified Flight Instructor
Instrument Airplane, and during the latter part of August I had started
making phone calls, specifically with the idea and intention of leaving
Brown Aviation. Now, Nashua Aviation, my employer afterwards, can bear
this out -- that I did make contact with them in early and late August.
As a matter of fact, going as early as June, with the possible intention
of finding employment. Eventually, I believe, I spoke to Gary Stuart on
both occasions prior to my leaving Brown, and he had indicated, "Come on
up, we need instructors", and, in fact, when I did arrive there, they
were also still short at the time with the school semester already
starting.
I gave Mr. Brown what I thought was going to be two weeks notice. He
thereby informed me he did not want me around. Now, I quit. I have
witnesses to that effect. I can produce statements. You just have to
give me time, and this is, I think, easily verifiable; just a matter of
tracking the people down.
Also, and this is something I cannot prove, but I'm going to enter it
anyway -- Mr. Brown produced additional evidence of the fact that I had
been doing nasty things behind his back, simply because he had
recordings of his phone -- excuse me, of conversations made on his
telephone.
JUDGE CAPPS: What type of conversations? Seeking other employment?
MR. CAMPBELL: Seeking other employment; conversations with the Pastor of
my church; conversations with my parents; conversations with friends; he
had two lines, and apparently one of them had a full-time tape recorder
on it. In fact, he played back a recording I had with my Pastor which
was rather shocking. I don't know, really, how to prove that, because he
said that if I disappeared and didn't give him anymore trouble, he was
going to "destroy them".
At any rate -
MS. HAUSELT: I realize that Mr. Campbell's not a lawyer and doesn't
understand that a lot of this would be of the nature of testimony which,
I believe, should be given under oath, and I would prefer if he could
just summarize and then give the details of his testimony while he's
under oath.
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, that's true. Except so much has gone on, and this
appears to be the easiest way for him to do it. I may be able to ask
him, when he's under oath, if his testimony would be the same as the
opening statement, in narrative form.
MS. HAUSELT: I'd prefer to have it under oath at some point.
JUDGE CAPPS: Well, okay, we'll have to go through all of this, then. Do
you want to shorten it up?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am, if that would help the proceeding.
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes. Just tell me, generally, what you're going to show by
way of proof.
MR. CAMPBELL: Brown Aviation -- I resigned. He told me to leave
immediately, otherwise he had threatened me with arrest, and I did, in
fact, leave, by motorcycle from Perry, Georgia to Nashua, New Hampshire.

I arrive in Nashua, New Hampshire the first week of September. I assumed
employment shortly thereafter, employed both as a flight instructor for
Nashua Aviation and Supply Company and for Daniel Webster College.
During this period of time I felt I had represented myself in an honest
and fair manner, although, frankly, and things had followed me along
from my background that were very hard to explain, and frankly I had to
go along with what I had said in the past, whether or not it was true.
These statements, I felt, were of a minor nature. Anything else that I
thought was of major nature I corrected in the best way possible.
Frankly, to save my stature, and I guess I really don't know the words
-- save my pride, more likely.
I worked at Nashua Aviation and Supply Company uneventfully and with a
great deal of support from my students and from most of the people I
worked with, for several weeks, at which time a copy of the article that
had appeared in the Tulsa World appeared, first, on campus, at Daniel
Webster College, and then at Nashua Aviation and Supply Company; the
people at Daniel Webster College had supplied Nasco with that article.
It was given to the Chief Flight Instructor. At a flight instructor
meeting afterwards he asked, "Is this you?" and I said, "Yes, it is." I
offered what I felt was my justification at the time. He said, "Well,
until something else happens, just keep on going". At the time, they
were happy with my work, and for somebody to keep me after seeing an
article of that nature, I was rather flattered that they had that much
confidence.
The situation was extremely difficult -- the situation was extremely
confusing and culminated, eventually, in the appearance of the FAA and
two people, a Ms. Taylor, and another gentleman who I'm afraid I don't
remember his name. We did have a discussion; I presented log books, my
side of the story and so forth. Several days later Dr. Cahill from the
New England Region -- I believe he's the Flight Surgeon, showed up at
Nasco with a letter stating in effect, and I'm paraphrasing, we find
that you may or may not be qualified to hold a medical certificate. This
letter also stated he had received, on October 10th, the date of this
letter, that he had received information from Dr. Dorsey. Dr. Dorsey's
first communication to Dr. Cahill came two days later -- October 12th.
The letter from Dr. Dorsey was rather short, rather
sparse, and apparently this was intentional. Dr. Dorsey was not aware of
how much information was required.
When Dr. Cahill had presented himself at Nashua Aviation and supply
Company, he had said to my Chief Flight Instructor that I am grounded.
He had said specifically that this letter grounded me, period. And he
told Steve Rachelson that I was, in effect, grounded, although this
letter seemed to indicate differently. It only cast doubt; it was not an
actual suspension or revocation as far as I can see. I left the Nashua
Aviation and Supply Company. I left Daniel Webster College, rather
upset, greatly troubled, and specifically with the idea of finding
employment somewhere else and raising enough money to get the
evaluations and/or the treatment anybody felt I needed.
Frankly, at the time, I didn't feel that I did, and that situation has
since changed.
I had said to various people that I was heading south, west, east,
overseas, whatever was the case, specifically to throw them off the
track. Specifically I did not want anybody to know where I was going,
because Tulsa had already followed me to Nashua and I was going to be
damned if I was going to let anything else spoil things while I was
trying to rebuild what had already crumbled. I had left for California
after receiving a tip from a gentleman who had instructed me for my
Multi-Engine Instructor's Certificate, about Western Piper and Fresno,
California. I spoke to Mr. Dale Ewell on the phone.
Mr. Ewell said, "Fine, we need an instructor". Mr. Ewell also said that
he could get me out there by carrying a couple airplanes from
Harrisburg, which was where they were keeping several dozen Tomahawks,
to Fresno, and eventually San Jose. This I did.
JUDGE CAPPS: This is Harrisburg, Pennsylvania'?
MR. CAMPBELL: That's correct. That's where the departure was for
California. I eventually carried two Tomahawks from Harrisburg to Fresno

I arrive in Fresno; was told I would be getting $1,000 a month, a
minimum of 100 hours flight time, various benefits and so forth. This
was not to be the case.
My employment for Western Piper was rather difficult. I had some
immediate problems with another flight instructor, ego problems,
frankly. We did not get along. At first I took quite a liking to the
secretary, Dianne Stuart, which later turned into tolerance, I imagine
the word is. Mrs. Stuart and I have very divergent views on morality and
so forth. I did not get along with her, not in the slightest.
Also, at Western Piper things were catching up with me. I was really
running, frankly. Stories were popping up; some were too embarrassing to
specifically deny, and as a result I had to agree with them and say,
yeah, yeah, and drop it; not the case -- did not work that way.
Through an ad that appeared in the Fresno Bee, I believe, a daily
newspaper, there was an ad for flight instructors promising a rather
large salary at the time for a flight instructor, in Nappa, California.
I made an appointment to go up and speak to the people at the
International Air Service Company. At that time I went up and was
interviewed, I was given a flight check with one of Japan Airlines
Captains, and the Chief Flight Instructor for the International Air
Service Company, and I passed it. However, the check ride itself was
simply an introductory. I was given almost not quite a month's training
in addition to the check ride, to prepare me to be a flight instructor
for Japan Airlines.
I left -- I quit, actually, about the same time I was about to be fired
from Western Piper. There were a great deal of problems; a great deal of
differences; a great deal of difficulties.
I also would like to put in the record one specific point that I told
Mr. Ewell, at the time I was hired, that I had had previous psychiatric
consultations with a physician, and that I had had personality problems.
I did attempt to downplay them, and explained that, to me, they were not
all that serious.
In Nappa, California I started working for Japan Airlines. I started in
their first several days of ground school. As a matter of fact, it was
several weeks of ground school concerning job procedures, the IASCO
procedures, aircraft systems, teaching, just the gamut -- it was
absolutely incredible the range of matter that they had us digest in a
very short period of time, including memorizing five pages of checklists
and so forth. It was difficult, very enjoyable.
I was in the process of digesting this material when Mr. Ed Scarboro,
the Chief Flight Instructor from the International Air Service Company,
showed up; said these two gentlemen who would like to speak to you.
These two gentlemen identified themselves as the FAA and said, "We would
like to see your certificates", quote, unquote -- that is all I was
told. I said, "Well, they're in my car, if you'll follow me out". I had
my Torerro in the parking lot; we started walking out and I said,
"What's this all about?" He said, "Well, we just need to see your
certificate". I went into the glove compartment of my car, turned
around, I said, "Well, what's the problem?" And they said, "Let's just
see your certificate".
They examined my Pilot's Certificate, my Flight Instructor's
Certificate, my Medical Certificate, handed me back my Pilot's
Certificate, my Flight Instructor's Certificate and a letter from the
FAA indicating suspension; in other words, seizing my Certificate
without letting me know first exactly what was happening.
At that time I became extremely upset, almost --
JUDGE CAPPS: Which Certificate did they seize?
MR. CAMPBELL: The First Class Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Reynolds
of Fresno, California.
JUDGE CAPPS: Oh, I thought you said they gave that back to you.
MR. CAMPBELL: No, they gave me back my Pilot's Certificate, my Flight
Instructor's Certificate, but not my Medical Certificate, instead
handing me the letter of suspension.
This was February 7th, I believe the letter was dated, I believe,
January 29th. I may be incorrect.
I became extremely upset, almost to the point of tears; explained the
fact that I was in the process of trying to raise funds in order to get
the consultation and get the evidence I needed to refute this, and I
made exception with items on the form, and they said, "Look, there's
nothing we can do about this. We are just here to present the forms."
They accompanied me into Mr. Scarboro's office where they explained that
the process involved could be lengthy, but may, indeed, be taken care of
in a short period of time. They also explained what was needed,
specifically evidence to the contrary to prove that I was qualified to
hold the Certificate.
Mr. Scarboro and I were both of the impression and opinion that we could
clean this whole matter up rather shortly, so he kept me on the payroll,
kept me in flight training, at a great deal of expense to them, and I
proceeded for the next month, to undertake flight training and
eventually pass a very rigid check ride to Japan Airlines standards in
order to be a flight instructor for the Japan Airlines pilot training
program at the Flight Crew Training Center.
I saw two doctors, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The psychologist
gave me a battery of written testing, which was submitted to Dr. Sexton,
who told me that wasn't good enough and that I had to have other tests.
I went back a second time, at even more expense, got the tests done,
psychological written testing and oral testing, in addition to a bit of
discussion.
The psychologist presenting the test at the time said, "Frankly, there
is very little difference between the tests" and he was rather doubtful
about the fact that the FAA wanted to give my Medical Certificate back.
He felt that I was being stalled.
JUDGE CAPPS: Wait a minute, we're running out of tape.
MR. CAMPBELL: I also completed several visits with a psychiatrist. Both
reports were submitted. After some consideration by the Western Region
Flight Surgeon -- I hope that's the term, Dr. Sexton -- he said, "I'm
worried about your impulse control" and explained that he would have an
interview with one of his doctors. In other words, somebody that they
had said, now, he said, frankly, it would be several weeks.
The problem, at the time, was the fact that I was nearing the check ride
for Japan Airlines, at which point I was either going to pass and/or
fail, and if I passed, I was going to have to go to work, or go on
inactive list and not draw a paycheck, which was staring me in the face,
with additional expenses mounting at the time; I was getting a little
bit terrified.
I made numerous phone calls to various State and Government agencies
trying to get some help, specifically because there was a several-week
lapse between that phone call and the appointment made with Dr. Powers,
all to no avail, although the only concession I got was a gentleman from
a congressman's office in -- I'm trying to remember -- it's a county
just east of Nappa -- excuse me, west of Nappa -- I'm afraid I don't
know, and I can find out -- said that Dr. Sexton had promised, since the
appointment was on a Friday, he would evaluate it that evening and give
me the results as soon as possible, specifically that evening.
This gentleman also offered to provide a statement to that effect
because, frankly, at that time I did not believe it. That statement was
never taken. It was offered. He was willing to offer a notarized
statement or whatever the proper legal terminology is.
The appointment did take place with Dr. Powers. I spoke to him, in the
neighborhood, I believe, of less than two hours. I'm not quite sure if
it was more or less. During this period of time I gave him information
as he requested, although he apparently found great fault with the fact
that I did not respond until questioned about the World Trade Center
incident.
Now this incident has been a matter of FAA record for many, many, many
months.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay, you can tell me your side of that incident during the
testimony.
MR. CAMPBELL: Okay, fine, all right.
At which point I went home for the weekend, chewed a couple of
fingernails, waited for a decision and approximately two o'clock in the
afternoon, Monday, I called Dr. Sexton for I think the third time that
day, badgered the poor man, and at which time he apologized and said he
was going to have to deny my Certificate. After I calmed down, about
fifteen minutes later, I'd gone in to speak to Scarboro, told him what
had happened, my parents were in San Francisco that weekend,
specifically to see me. I told them, and I made preparations to go home,
specifically because I was broke, and I had to borrow money to go home.
I went home. I found employment as an electronics technician. I had been
doing that job for eight months now. I found employment, I think, four
days after I got home. I was helped a great deal by a letter of
recommendation provided by the International Air Service Company who had
said, at the time, although that situation may have changed because of
information they have received, that they would be glad to have me back
providing openings existed.
I went home. There is not a whole lot more to say, except for the fact
that I have recently -- first or second week of September -- enrolled
myself in the West Bergen Mental Health Center and am following the
prescribed program of treatment.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, when did you enroll there?
MR. CAMPBELL: It was in September. I don't have an exact date.
JUDGE CAPPS: Of this year?
MR. CAMPBELL: Of this year.
JUDGE CAPPS: And, what's the name of the --
MR. CAMPBELL: West Bergen Mental Health Center.
JUDGE CAPPS: Westberg?
MR. CAMPBELL: West Bergen -- Bergen County.
JUDGE CAPPS: West Bergen --
MR. CAMPBELL: Mental Health Center.
I spoke to one of their staff workers, and their psychiatrists who have
lined me up with a specific therapist, and, matter of fact, I've got an
appointment tomorrow night.
The idea here is no longer to gain just Medical Certificate, but
specifically to remove any doubt from my mind or anybody else's that I
have a problem or will have a problem or allow the problem to grow. The
idea here, specifically, is the problem has always existed. It's just a
matter of control. I believe my control's improved. It has a ways to go
yet. I do not feel that I am dangerous as a pilot. I think my record
bears that out. I've been a damned good flight instructor, and I'm proud
of my record.
I also feel that my acts, well, although I have not felt a great deal of
guilt over a great deal of them, that have happened recently; I offer no
explanation other than the fact that I was disturbed up until Tulsa,
Oklahoma, and even, for instance, afterwards. However, I do believe that
I am a competent pilot in command. I do believe I am a competent
flight, and I do believe I can prove that.
Thank you.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, we'll have a five-minute recess before the first
witness is heard.
(Whereupon, a five-minute recess was taken.)
JUDGE CAPPS: Miss Hauselt, you may call your first witness now.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I call Inspector Sandra Taylor.

Whereupon,
SANDRA TAYLOR
having first been duly sworn by Judge Capps, was examined and testified
as follows:
JUDGE CAPPS: At this point, let me give some more of my Law School
instructorship to Mr. Campbell.
What is going to happen now is we've got a witness on the stand under
oath. This witness has been called by the Government. The Government is
now going to conduct what we call the direct examination.
Listen carefully, because you will have the right to cross-examine this
witness on any of the testimony brought out during the direct
examination. Do you understand?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, ma'am.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MS. HAUSELT:
Q. Can you state your name for the record?
A. Yes. My name is Sandra Ann Taylor.
Q. And what is your business address?
A. My business address is the Portland General Aviation District Office,
Portland International Jetport, Portland, Maine, 04102.
Q: And you're employed by FAA?
A. Yes,

Q: In what capacity?
A: I am a Aviation Safety Inspector.
Q: What is your employment background with regard to aviation?
A. I have worked as a flight instructor.
Q: For how long?
A: For approximately two years. I have held a Flight Instructor's
Certificate for about five years. I have worked as an Air Traffic
Controller for one year, and my present job for two and a half years.
Q. And could you just give us what your ratings certificates are?
A. Yes. I hold a Commercial Pilot's Certificate with an instrument in
Multi-Engine Rating; a Flight Instructor's Certificate, instrument and
multi-engine.
Q. And you know Mr. Campbell, who is the Respondent in this case?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. How did you come to know him?
A. I was called by Steve Rachelson, who was, at the time, the Chief
Flight Instructor for Nashua Aviation. He called and -
JUDGE CAPPS: Wait. He was Chief Flight Instructor?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: For what?
THE WITNESS: Nashua Aviation and Supply Company. He called and told me
of the problem that Daniel Webster College was having with Mr. Campbell
and asked me if I would call Oklahoma City and verify that he did have
valid Pilot's Certificate.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. What was the problem that he described with regard to Mr. Campbell?
A. He told me that Mr. Campbell was, at the time, working for Nashua
Aviation and Daniel Webster College as an instructor and he wanted to
form a parachuting club and he had approximately two hundred people
interested in this club, and they found out through the newspaper
article from the Tulsa Tribune that he had some past problems, and they
were concerned.
Q. Did they question his qualifications?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with regards to Mr. Rachelson's request?
A. I called Oklahoma City and found out that the Certificates that he
holds right now are valid certificates.
Q. And in the course of that investigation, did you ascertain whether or
not Mr. Campbell was qualified as a parachute rigger?
A. I didn't at that point.
Q. But at a later time?
A. I did, yes.
Q. And what was the result of that? Was he qualified?
A. No, he was not qualified. Oklahoma City had no record of him having a
Parachute Rigger's Certificate.
JUDGE CAPPS: Why didn't you ascertain that at the time you ascertained
the validity of his current certificates?
THE WITNESS: Because at the time that wasn't the problem. That never
entered into it.
JUDGE CAPPS: Nobody told you anything about parachute rigging
intentions?
THE WITNESS: No. That it was just to form a parachute club
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, did that parachute rigging activity or intended
activity subsequently come to your attention from someone?
THE WITNESS: Yes, from Mr. Campbell.
JUDGE CAPPS: From Mr. Campbell, himself.
THE WITNESS: That was the first time I heard about it.
JUDGE CAPPS: So you had contacted Mr. Campbell; is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Getting back to your initial check on Mr. Campbell's rating -- did
you make any phone calls to persons who had given him the tests?
A. Yes, I did. One of the Certificates that Mr. Campbell held was a
temporary certificate for flight instructor certificate, which meant
that he just recently took his flight instructor flight test, so I
contacted a James Brown, who was the examiner, and I talked to Mr. Brown
about Mr. Campbell.
Q. And where does Mr. Brown reside?
A. I -- Georgia.
Q. And what did Mr. Brown relate with regard to Mr. Campbell's
employment?
A. Mr. Brown said that Mr. Campbell worked for him for approximately
three months. When Mr. Campbell first came there, he was given the
necessary instruction and the flight test to get his flight instructor's
certificate, and then began working for Mr. Brown, and two out of the
three months that he was there he was an ideal employee, and Mr. Brown
said the third month it was like someone pushed a button. That's a quote
from Mr. Brown. His personality changed completely and he had to be
fired.
Q. Okay, did Mr. Brown relate any other information with regard to Mr.
Campbell?
A. Yes, he told me that one of the reasons he had to be fired was
because Mr. Campbell was telling his students stories about his
parachuting while they were supposed to be getting flight instruction,
and his students were beginning to complain that they weren't receiving
the flight instruction that they were paying for.
Q. At that time Mr. Brown did not relate anything with regard to -- I
refer you to page 36 -- do you have a copy -- at that first phone call
that you had with Mr. Brown, he did not relate anything with regard to
Mr. Campbell's conversation with a minister on the telephone which is
embodied in the second to the last paragraph, that letter on page 36?
A. Not my first conversation, no.
Q. At a subsequent time, did you speak with Mr. Brown?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And at that time did he relate anything with regard to this story?
A. Yes, he told me the story that is written in his letter here.
Q. Okay, could you just relate what that was?
A. Okay. He said that a friend -- a girl -- from Alabama had come up to
Georgia to visit a friend out there, and while she was there, the girl
and Mr. Campbell met and they went out a couple of times. One day Mr.
Campbell came in to speak to James Brown, and he said that the girl had
to go home immediately because her house had burned down the night
before, and so he made sure that she got on a bus, home to Alabama. He
discovered shortly afterwards that that never occurred. She did go home
on the bus, but she went home because her stay was over. She was just
going home; that was all. Her house had never burned down.
Later Mr. Campbell said that on the way to Alabama the bus that the girl
was taking had an accident and the girl was in critical condition in the
hospital, and Mr. Campbell went to see her a couple of times in Alabama.

One afternoon Mr. Campbell was talking to the minister on the telephone,
and he was in Mr. Brown's office or building there in Georgia, and Mr.
Brown went to make a phone call, and he didn't realize that Mr. Campbell
was on the phone, and he picked up the telephone and overheard Mr.
Campbell telling the minister about the girl in the accident, and he
said, frankly, he just decided to continue listening rather than put the
phone back down again, and he heard Mr. Campbell tell the minister that
he was there in Alabama with his girlfriend and she was right down the
hall from him and he proceeded to tell the minister of the injuries, the
head injuries and she was in critical condition; I can't recall all the
injuries that he said.
Q: Well, at the time he was telling the minister he was in Alabama, he
was sitting in his office in Georgia?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Brown, in either conversation you had with him, relate any
other information with regard to Mr. Campbell?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Okay.
JUDGE CAPPS: Let me ask you this. Was the girl, in fact, ever involved
in a bus accident?
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Go ahead.
BY MS. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. Getting back to the problems at Nashua and Daniel Webster College,
after you checked out Mr. Campbell's ratings and spoke with Mr. Brown,
what did you do at that time?
A. I arranged to have a meeting with Mr. Campbell and myself and another
inspector in the office, Mr. David Greensbach
We went to Nashua Aviation and met with Mr. Campbell and Steve
Rachelson.
Q. And during the course of that conversation, what did Mr. Campbell
relate to you?
A. Okay. The first thing that we did was to tell him why we were here
and of the problems with Daniel Webster College. And, immediately Mr.
Campbell says that what Daniel Webster College is doing to him was a
felony and he currently engaged an attorney in Nashua and had a lawsuit
against Daniel
Webster College. He also said that he had a student rally in the
auditorium of Daniel Webster College, with approximately two hundred
people there and it made the faculty look foolish because the students
were on Mr. Campbell's side.
He was questioned about the newspaper article, about the doctor in
Tulsa, and Mr. Campbell said that that did happen; however, it happened
at a time in his life when he was not himself, and the reason for it was
because he had lost his wife and his child in a car accident.
Q. That's what he told you was the reason for this behavior in Oklahoma?

A. Yes.
Q. Were you ever able to ascertain whether or not Mr. Campbell had been
married?
A. No, I wasn't.
JUDGE CAPPS: You were not able to ascertain that?
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MS. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. You could not find any proof that he had been married; is that
correct?
A. Right, that's correct.
Q. In the course of your investigation, did you ascertain whether or not
Mr. Campbell had related the story of his wife and child being killed to
other people?
A. Repeat that question.
Q. In the course of your investigation, did you ascertain whether or not
Mr. Campbell had told this story of his wife and child being killed to
anyone other than yourself during the course of your interviewing?
A. Yes, he told that to very many people.
Q. And, in fact, he told that to the Dean of the College; did he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And that information is set forth in the file, Your Honor, pages 16
to 33, which is a compilation of information from the Dean of Daniel
Webster College.
Did you, at anytime, speak with Dean Schultz of Daniel Webster College?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, what did he relate to you with regard to Mr. Campbell's problems
at the school?
A. DR Schultz had told me that he had hired Mr. Campbell to teach a
meteorology and a private pilot ground school course there at the
College, and during the course of his teaching he became concerned
because he was receiving some complaints that Mr. Campbell was spending
the time talking about parachuting rather than teaching the course.
And, about the same time Dr. Schultz said that a Howard White, and I
cannot recall his title -- New England Conference of some kind, I can't
remember -
Q. Would it be the New England Conference Coordinator for the US
Parachute Association?
A. Yes. He came in to see Dr. Schultz and he told him there were a
couple of things that he should know about Mr. Campbell, and that is
when the problem started.
Q. And this information is set forth in Dr. Schultz' report on pages 27
through 33.
What did Mr. White indicate was the problem with Mr. Campbell's
parachuting; his certificates?
A. Mr. White did not say anything that I recall, at least
Q. Okay, you spoke to Mr. King?
A. Yes.
Q. It was Mr. White that first brought the problem to Dr. Schultz'
attention?
A Yes.
Q. And in the course of your investigation, you, yourself, did not speak
to Mr. White -- you spoke to Mr. King?
A. Yes.
Q. Who is Mr. King?
A. I cannot remember without looking it up.
Q. Okay, go ahead and take a look at your notes.
A. He is the Executive Director for the United States Parachuting
Association.
Q. And, in your conversation with Mr. King, what did he tell you
concerning Mr. Campbell's affiliation with the U.S. Parachuting
Association?
A. Mr. King told me that Mr. Campbell did belong to the U.S.P.A., the
United States Parachuting Association, at one time, but he was currently
suspended from it for various reasons
The first reason is because he tried to parachute off the top of the
World Trade Center.
The second reason was Mr. Campbell was using the U.S.P.A., insasfar as
saying he was a current U.S.P.A., instructor, and he was not.
He had also rented several films from the U.S.P.A. which Mr. King could
not get Mr. Campbell to return.
So, for these reasons he was suspended.
Q. At the time you began -- you were investigating this part of the case
and the parachuting aspects of the case, did you ascertain at this time
whether or not Mr. Campbell had a Parachute Rigger's Certificate?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And, what was the result of that search?
A. Oklahoma City has no record of Mr. Campbell ever having a Parachute
Rigger's Certificate.
JUDGE CAPPS: Had he ever applied for one?
THE WITNESS: They have no record of him ever doing that in any respect.
BY MR. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. I want to refer you to pages 39 and 40 in the record, and Miss
Taylor, could you tell us what those pages are?
A. These are the application for employment which Mr. Campbell filled
out before he started to work for Nashua Aviation.
Q. And, at the bottom of page 39, what did he indicate with regard to
his parachuting skills?
A. He put down that he was an FAA Senior Parachute Rigger, an instructor
certified in parachutes.
Q. And as a result of your investigation, you ascertained that neither
of those claims were correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Also, referring to this application, on page 40, at the top of the
page, Mr. Campbell indicated there that he was employed by the Screen
Actor's Guild in Burbank, California. Did you make any inquiries with
regard to that?
A. Yes, I did, and they have no record of him ever belonging to the
Screen Actor's Guild.
Q. And, as a result of your investigation, did you ascertain whether or
not Mr. Campbell had indicated to people that he had been a stuntman in
various James Bond movies and different television series such as
Charlie's Angels?
A. Yes, he has.
Q. And that information was also encompassed in Dean Schultz' report on
pages 16 through 33O
Did Dr. Schultz indicate to you that those types of claims had been made
to him?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And did Dr. Schultz indicate whether or not he, himself, had
attempted to verify whether or not Mr. Campbell was employed by the
Screen Actor's Guild?
A. Yes, he, himself, called and got the same answer as I did.
Q. Did Dr. Schultz indicate that Mr. Campbell had made any other claims
with regard to his teaching in the past?
A. Yes. Dr. Schultz said that Mr. Campbell had told him that he was an
instructor for the Aircraft Owner's and Pilots Association, a ground
school instructor.
O And did Dr. Schultz attempt to verify that information?
A: Yes, he did.
Q. And what was the result of that search?
A. The AOPA does not have any record of Mr. Campbell ever working for
them?
JUDGE CAPPS: What's the name of that company?
THE WITNESS: Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
BY MS. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. Did you, yourself, make any efforts to verify whether
he was employed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association?
A. Yes, I called, also.
Q. And what did they tell you?
A. He was never employed.
Q. As a result of your investigation, what action did the FAA take?
A. After my investigation, I wrote a memo to Dr. Cahill, the Regional
Flight Surgeon, and Dr. Cahill wrote a letter to Mr. Campbell
requesting further medical records from him
Q. About this time Mr. Campbell was also fired from Daniel Webster
College; was he not?
A. Yes, he was fired from Daniel Webster College, and he was suspended
from Nashua Aviation from teaching until this matter was cleared up.
Q. And eventually what was the result of his teaching position at Daniel
Webster? What happened with regard to the teaching position? Did he keep
it?
A. No. No, he lost that.
Q. Then he was fired by the College?
A. Yes.
Q. When he left the area, where did he indicate that he was going?
A. He indicated that he was going to fly for Air South in Florida.
Q. And was he ever traced to their company in Florida?
A. No.
Q. And this was about the same time that he was told that he was under
investigation by the FAA?
A. Yes.
Q. I just want to ask you -- concerning your interview with Mr.
Campbell, the interview that you had -- questioning him about the
certificate -- what was your first impression of him when you met him?
A. My first impression of Mr. Campbell was that he was very convincing,
and I believed everything that he was telling me, and I did believe that
he was a victim of other people's prejudices.
Q. And he told you about his wife and child and you believed that part
of the story?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And as a result of your investigation -- strike that - what did your
later investigations reveal about what Mr. Campbell had told you during
the interview?
A. My later investigation as to what he told me revealed that nothing
that he told me was correct or undistorted. It was basically untrue.
Q. With the exception of the fact that he did have, to the best of our
knowledge, valid FAA Certificates, except for his medical?
A. Yes.
Q. After Mr. Campbell left the area and went to California, in the
course of preparation for this hearing and your investigation, did you
speak with anyone at Western and Piper Sales in Fresno?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was their title?
A. I spoke with the bookkeeper at Western.
Q. And that is someone other than Dianne Stuart?
A. Yes.
Q. Dianne Stuart's letter appears on pages 34 and 35.
What did the bookkeeper at Western and Piper Sales tell you with regard
to the employment of Mr. Campbell with Western and Piper?
A. She told me that Mr. Campbell worked with them for approximately two
to three months and he was fired, eventually, for several reasons.
The first reason was he was suspected of taking money from the petty
cash drawer.
Another reason was his wild stories and she related only one of those to
me.
Q. What was the story that she related to you?
She told me that Mr. Campbell was asked to shave off his beard. It is
part of the dress code for Western Air, and Mr. Campbell said he would
rather not because while he was in Vietnam he got a shrapnel wound in
the jaw, and the beard was hiding that.
Q. How old was Mr. Campbell at that time?
A. He was approximately seventeen.
Q. During the Vietnam War?
A. Approximately seventeen.
Q. What else did the bookkeeper at Western and Piper tell you, if
anything?
A. Yes, she did.
She had also said that Mr. Campbell started to give away their
instructional supplies and books to his friends as Christmas gifts
around Christmas time. She also told me that Mr. Campbell made
approximately $200 worth of long distance telephone calls, and when
later confronted with it for payment, he denied that he ever made the
calls.
Q. I want to refer you to page 34 and 35, which is the letter from
Dianne Stuart at Western and Piper, and ask you, what does she -- in
that letter, is there any indication that Mr. Campbell has ever had a
problem in flying, actually in flying situations?
A. Yes. Mr. Campbell would claim that he had more than one malfunction
in the aircraft which forced him to make emergency landings on more than
one occasion, and when inspected by the mechanics and the FAA, they
could find nothing wrong with the airplane.
Q. And this happened on more than one occasion?
A. Yes.
Q. And did Mrs. Stuart indicate that Mr. Campbell also related the story
of his wife and child being killed in a car accident to people at
Western and Piper, on page 34?
A. She did.
Q. And, on page 35, does she also indicate that Mr. Campbell had a
problem with regard to some friends being killed while skydiving?
A. Yes.
Q. And what was that?
A. Mr. Campbell had told her that five of his friends were killed in a
skydiving accident, and he was quite upset about that.
Q. And what did the investigation by local authorities come up with?
A. The skydiving accident happened several years earlier.
Q. And does Mrs. Stuart also indicate that Mr. Campbell represented
himself as a parachute rigger out at Western and Piper?
A. Yes, she did.
Q. And, with regard to Mr. Campbell's attempt to jump off the World
Trade Center, what did he tell people out in Western Piper Sales
concerning his jump?
A. He told people at Western Air that he did jump off the World Trade
Center.
Q. And he had the article referrals to back it up?
A. Yes.
Q. When you spoke to the bookkeeper at Western Piper, what did she
indicate were some of the problems that students had with Mr. Campbell
as an instructor?
A. One problem in particular the students had was a lot of students had
complained that they did not want to get into the same airplane with Mr.
Campbell because of his grooming.
JUDGE CAPPS: That is very general. Did she get more specific?
THE WITNESS: Yes, she did.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay, I'd like to hear it.
THE WITNESS: She said that the students did not want to get into the
same airplane with Mr. Campbell because of his odor.
BY MS. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. And did they attempt to verify where he was residing at that time?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. And were they able to?
A. No, they weren't able to find out.
Q. And, what did she relate -- did she indicate whether or not she knew
whether he had a place to live?
A. She indicated to me that she did not know, but she had suspected that
he did not have a place to live.
Q: Did she give you any opinion with regard to Mr. Campbell's behavior?
A. Yes, she had told me that, as an example, when Mr. Campbell was
confronted with the telephone calls, he became very angry, and -
JUDGE CAPPS: Confronted with what telephone calls?
THE WITNESS: The telephone calls that he made all over the country and
charged to the company.
JUDGE CAPPS: Oh, I see; the long distance calls.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Campbell became very angry, and it was her opinion and
other people's opinion that he could become very violent, and they were
actually afraid of him going out to the flight line and deliberately
breaking and smashing airplanes on the front line.
BY MS. HAUSELT (Resuming):
Q. At the time he made all these phone calls, was there any effort made
to trace the phone calls?
A. Yes, there was. The telephone company, themselves, traced the phone
calls and did find out that Mr. Campbell did make the phone calls.
Q. So, it was verified by the phone company, through the people who
received the phone calls that Mr. Campbell had made them?
A. Yes.
Q. And when he was confronted with this, he denied it?
A. Yes, he denied it.
Q. Did the bookkeeper relate any other information, or did she give you
an opinion as to -- did she give you her opinion as to Mr. Campbell's
behavior?
A. Yes, she did.
JUDGE CAPPS: Now, the bookkeeper is not Mrs. Stuart?
THE WITNESS: No, she's not.
JUDGE CAPPS: all right, now we're back on the bookkeeper. This other
stuff, Mrs. Stuart told you?
THE WITNESS: No, no, no. The bookkeeper told me. I have never spoken
with Mrs. Stuart.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.
MS. HAUSELT: The references to what Mrs. Stuart said are in a letter on
page 34 and 35.
JUDGE CAPPS: I've got that down, yes.
MS HAUSELT: Conversation that I had with Mrs. Stuart.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Okay, you can continue.
A. It was her opinion that Mr. Campbell could not take care of himself.
Q. In the course of your investigation, did you ascertain where я--
JUDGE CAPPS: Wait -- I'll need some more explanation along those lines.
THE WITNESS: That's all she said. I didn't pursue | it any further.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Did she make any comment with regard to his medical state?
A. Not that I -
Q. Did she make any comments as to whether she thought Mr. Campbell was
mentally stable or unstable?
A. Yes, she did. She said -- not her exact words, but she did say that
she thought Mr. Campbell was not stable.
Q. I think, for the purposes of the Judge, you should tell the Judge, to
the best of your knowledge, or the best of your recollection, what words
she used.
A. Exact words?
Q. Yes.
A. Okay. She said Mr. Campbell was looney tunes.
Q. In the course of your investigation, did you find out where Mr.
Campbell went after he left Western Piper in Fresno?
A. Yes. He went up to work for IASCO.
Q. And, did you speak to -
JUDGE CAPPS: What is IASCO?
THE WITNESS: I'll have to look that up, too.
JUDGE CAPPS: Is that International --
THE WITNESS: Air Service Corporation.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. And they are affiliated with Japan Airlines?
A. Yes.
Q. And what -- did you speak to anyone at IASCO?
A. Yes. I spoke to a Mr. Scarboro.
Q. And he's the Chief Flight Instructor?
A. Yes, he is.
Q. And, what did he relate were Mr. Campbell's duties at the time?
A. Mr. Campbell was assigned to teaching single engine airplane
students, primary students.
Q. And at anytime was Mr. Campbell involved in operating Boeing 747's or
any other air carrier jets?
A. No, he wasn't.
Q. And Mr. Scarboro's statement is summarized in a letter, Your Honor,
on page 7.
After Mr. Campbell's Medical Certificate was suspended, he then returned
to his home; is that correct? To the best of your knowledge?
A: He returned to Nashua.
Q. Did you receive any information from people in Nashua?
JUDGE CAPPS: Now, is Nashua -- is that New Hampshire?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. That they had seen Mr. Campbell?
A. Yes. Mr. Campbell had talked to several people who I did get
statements from. Mr. Campbell was at both the campus of Daniel Webster
College and Nashua Aviation School in a Japan Airlines uniform, and was
telling people that he was either captain or co-pilot. He has used both
terms -- on a Falcon Jet, and was flying from California to Boston to
England to Japan, and he was, at that time, in Boston, overnight at a
layover.
Q. And those letters -- are those letters the letters that we find in
the file on pages 11 through 15?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And did you speak with any of the people who wrote these letters,
personally?
A. Yes, I spoke to two of them.
Q. Who were they?
A. A Robert Swift, who is now the Chief Flight Instructor for Nashua
Aviation.
Q. And Mr. Campbell related to him that he was the captain of a Falcon
20 and the co-pilot on a 747?
A. Yes.
Q. And he was wearing his Japan Airlines uniform?
A. Yes.
Q. Who else did you speak to?

A. I also spoke to a flight instructor there, Don Conlon.
Q. And what did he relate with regard to Mr. Campbell?
A. He said that Mr. Campbell told him he was a captain on a Falcon Jet
and he was going to school to become co-pilot on a 747.
Q. And at that time he was wearing his uniform?
A. Yes, he was.
Q. When you spoke to Mr. Scarboro from IASCO, did he indicate whether or
not Mr. Campbell properly retained his uniform when he left?
A. He never returned the uniform when he left.
Q. But he was asked to return it?
A. Yes, he was asked to return it then, and also afterwards.
Q. And, in fact, on page 8, which is a letter of Mr. Campbell, he
indicates to Mr. Scarboro that he would send the uniform back, did he
not?
A. Yes.
MS HAUSELT: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, you may cross-examine the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q. It seems we have quite a bit of material here to cover. I'm going to
have to start, I guess, in order, with the
documents presented and as the information presents itself, as questions
occur.
Specifically, the first question I have in reference to your
investigation, under what right of what legal process were you entitled
to make this investigation?
A. There was some question as to whether you were able, legally, to hold
a Medical Certificate, and it was our concern and the FAA, when it was
brought up, that you were going to teach two hundred people how to
parachute, whether you had the proper certificate and/or ratings
necessary to do it.
Q. What does the FAA require for parachuting instructor?
A. Nothing, but we do for a rigger.
Q. There is no license, whatsoever, actually required for the instructor
of parachuting?
A. Not by the FAA, no.
Q. Under any legal jurisdiction that you know of, is a parachuting
instructor certificate required?
A. No, not that I know of.
Q. Was it your understanding that I, at one time, had passed an
instructor's certification course and held, at one point, a valid
parachuting instructor's certificate?
A. No, you didn't.
Q. At no time did I hold a valid parachuting instructor's certificate;
is that -
A. There is no such thing.

Q. As issued by the United States Parachute Association.
A. Okay, yes, at one time you did.
Q. And, that -- strike that -- okay, going back to Daniel Webster
College, at that point in time you started investigation by calling some
people I had worked for. I would like to specifically go back to Mr.
Brown's letter, which is rather important.
Mr. Brown did state to you that no fire -- I repeat, no fire had
occurred in the home of the young lady I was seeing?
A. What page are you on?
Q. I believe that's 36.
A. That is what Mr. Brown told me last week.
Q. All right. Did Mr. Brown indicate at any time any problems with any
other instructor?
A. No.
Q. And Mr. Brown stated -- what did Mr. Brown state in reference to how
I left employment?
A. He said you were fired.
Q. He said I was fired?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Did he give any rationale whatsoever for the sudden change
in behavior that he described?
A. No, and I didn't ask him for it either.
Q. Did he, at any time, expound on any other incidents, specifically
involving his daughter?

A. No; I had never heard of that before.
Q. Now, he had stated that he was listening in on the phone during a
conversation with my pastor when, supposedly I was in Alabama; is that
correct?
A. Yes, but he said he did that accidentally, at first.
Q. Accidentally, at first. He made no mention of any other phone calls?
A. No, not to my knowledge. I did not question him very thoroughly.
JUDGE CAPPS: And he did not volunteer any other instance of overhearing
telephone conversations?
THE WITNESS: No, he really didn't volunteer anything. I had to
specifically ask him for everything, as I did with all the witnesses.
BY MR. CAMPBELL (Resuming)
Q. By any chance did you investigate Mr. Brown's background?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. To your knowledge, has Mr. Brown ever had any problems with the
Federal Aviation Administration or any law enforcement agency?
A. As far as -- the only thing that I had asked about Mr. Brown was when
I called the local Federal Aviation office down there, to get a
telephone number for Mr. Brown, and I did ask whether or not he was
considered a good examiner, and they said,
yes, we have no problems with him.
Q. I have some questions about the application for employment. I do not
take issue with statements concerning parachute rigging and so forth;
however, I would like to know under what circumstances was this document
reproduced?
A. Under what circumstances?
Q. Who reproduced it and how? I do take exception to something on here
that I know I didn't put down.
A. Steve Rachelson reproduced it while you were there watching him do
it, while you were there for the interview.
Q. I don't recall. Did you see me watching him reproduce this thing?
A. No, I don't remember that. We reproduced your application and your
Pilot's Certificate.
Q. In your conversations with the United States Parachute Association,
did they bring up a letter from Oklahoma from a Mr. Ken Hills in regards
to a rigger problem on a Rigger Certificate?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. Let me ask you something -- what is the -- under what circumstances,
under what FAA jurisdiction, how does the FAA control parachute rigging?
What parachutes are required to be packed, supervised or inspected by a
certified rigger?
A. The FAA -- okay -- a person cannot pack someone else's parachute or
his own reserve emergency chute without a rigger's
certificate.
Q: All right
A: You may pack your own, but you cannot pack your own reserve chute.
Q. Let me ask you this -- page 43, 44, 45 -- it is my understanding that
the removal or tampering with any piece of equipment directly covered or
directly controlled by the Federal Aviation Administration is a
violation; is that correct?
A. I don't really know what you're referring to.
Q. This is packing card, a packing data card, called PC
A. On page what?
Q. Page 44 and 45 -- would removal of such a certificate from a pack
reserve constitute a violation?
A. I don't know.
Q. It was my understanding that it is.
Page 44 -- would you please take a look at the owner' name and address
and please state.
A. The owner's name is Jim Campbell. There is no address.
Q. All right. Now, the configuration this is rigged in - let me ask you
this -- I realize that you're expertise not being parachuting, but I'm
just going to have to try this same tack because there's a problem here,
and I'd like to bring it out.
In what's called a cutaway rig, a rig containing a
total of three parachutes, only the actual reserve, the one used for
emergency purposes, would be covered by the FAR's; is that correct?
A. No.
Q. What other parachute would be covered?
A. Well, maybe I did not understand your question. It isn't that a
reserve chute is covered by the Regulations. The Regulations deal with
what a person can do and cannot do with or without a certificate.
Q. But that's not the question here. The question - may I expound on
this a little bit?
A. Certainly.
Q. Basically, this -- this rig is part of what's called an intentional
cutaway rig used for air shows, three parachutes. What happened was I
attached an extra set of D rings to the front end of what's called a
piggyback rig, where the main and reserve are in tandem on the back.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I'll object. Mr. Campbell is not under oath.
JUDGE CAPPS: He's establishing a premise right now to his question that
will be coming up. I think he's trying to make the import of his
question clearer to the witness, and that's why I'm going to allow this
premise to be established in the question.
MS. HAUSELT: The premise.

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, that's right. I'm not taking that as any sort of
statement.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. Okay, we're talking about an intentional cutaway rig, specifically
contains three parachutes, two mounted on the back of which
construction, in my opinion and as far as I know, really do not matter,
and the actual emergency parachute being carried on the chest mount.
Now, the -- under the circumstances the main is released, the reserve is
deployed, possibly released, and the third parachute, the chest mount,
becomes the actual reserve.
Would it be correct to state that the reserve, the chest mount, would be
the only one that would need to be covered under Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations?
A. I don't believe I have enough knowledge to say yes or no to that
question The only thing that I am going by is what the Regulations say.
JUDGE CAPPS: But the Regulations do say that if you pack another's
parachute or a reserve parachute, it requires the FAA Certificate.
THE WITNESS: Right, it does.
JUDGE CAPPS: So, the import of his question - is one of these three-part
parachutes is characterized as a reserve. Would that require -- even if
it's his own parachute -- the fact that it's a reserve, would that
require?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it would.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. In that case, if I am jumping with three reserve type manufactured
parachutes, all three would require certification and inspection and
packing by a certified rigger?
A. I don't know.
Q. Okay, let me expand a little on the premise The rig was used as an
intentional cutaway rig. The first, the main was a square-type canopy,
the second was a reserve -
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I object. I think that we understand that what
he's saying is he had one main chute and he had one or more "reserve"
chutes. The question is, do those reserve chutes have to be packed by a
parachute rigger. That's a legal question. I have a copy of the
Regulations. I'll look it up, but whether or not Miss Taylor can answer
that detailed a question about how the Regulation is interpreted, I
don't know, and I believe she's indicated that she doesn't. But what the
Regulation says is that you can't pack a reserve chute, and I'll look it
up, but I assume any -- a reserve chute is a reserve chute, whether you
have one or two.
JUDGE CAPPS: Well, the issue before me is really not his qualification
for an FAA Rigger Parachute Certificate. What I am concerned with is
this is one of many instances of certain statements made by the
Respondent as to his qualifications which, in fact, checking with
Oklahoma City records indicates an
application was never made for -- that's the only point I have to decide
here. It's not really, technically, what you would need this thing for
anything. She explained that that's how the FAA got involved in this in
the first place. That's all.
MR. CAMPBELL: Okay, well, my premise here is simply that this reserve
did not need a rigger to pack it. I packed it. I signed it, specifically
because it was set up as a reserve and I was curious to see how it would
work. It was also specifically marked as an intentional cutaway rig;
this card was removed at some time. I don't even remember losing it, to
be frank, because I lose them rather easily, and my supposition is this
-- that this rig did not need a rigger to be packed.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, that is not really one of the allegations being
made, that you rigged a parachute in violation of an FAA requirement
that you have a certificate before you did that. The thing that's before
me is that you have stated you were an FAA certified parachute rigger,
when, in fact, you were not. That's all.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I believe that the card, and I will take this
up on re-direct, there is a question as to whether or not Mr. Campbell
did sign his own reserve chute when he was not qualified to do so, and
I'll bring that up on re-direct.

BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. I'm just going to have to leave that because it's rather complex.
46, 47, the newspaper article -- let me ask this from your point of
view or from the FAA's point of view, as far as you are concerned, what
part did this newspaper article play in the investigation and
conclusions on the part of Dr. Cahill and your report to Dr. Cahill?
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I'll object. She's not qualified to speak.
She's not a medical doctor. She's only here to give what her
investigation revealed. She can't say how this medical determination was
made in Mr. Campbell's case. That's what we have the FAA doctor for.
JUDGE CAPPS: Sustained.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. Let me ask you this -- what was your impression of the newspaper
article?
A. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Q. What was your impression of the newspaper article?
A. As with any newspaper article, take it with a grain of salt.
Q. Did you make any attempt to verify any of the statements or speak to
anybody in Oklahoma concerning the article itself?
A. No, I did not. The only person that I talked to
about it was you.
Q. Did you speak to Dr. Dorsey at all?
A. No, I never did.
Q. Let's go back a moment. In your conversations with Dr. Schultz, Dr.
Schultz said that one time or another his words were, "instructed for
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Ground School"?
A. Yes, he told me you told him that you worked for the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association on those weekend ground school courses.
Q. I had worked on, not taken one?
A. You had taught one.
Q. Okay, I had physically taught one. Was there any verification of that
in the form of a written resume'?
A. From the AOPA?
Q. No, from me to Dr. Schultz, saying, for one thing, for one reason or
another, that I had taught for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association?
A. Not that I know of, but I do not know --
Q. In your investigation of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Associations,
were you able to ascertain whether I had taken any of their clinics?
A. No, I never asked that. That wasn't the issue.
Q. It can be an issue, dismissing the standards.
Now, Dr. Schultz, did he indicate during the period
of time that this was being questioned, during the time that I was still
in the area, did he indicate any desire to quickly get the matter over
with or to resolve the matter in a quiet disposition or take care of it
as -- or on the QT, I guess would be -
A. No, I don't recall him making those statements.
Q. Are you aware of any other problems he's had with any other faculty?
A. Yes.
Q. By any chance, could you repeat what you know of that?
A. Problems that he has with his faculty have been recent problems, the
past six to eight months, with instructors quitting and leaving.
Q. What about any problem where an instructor of the College was let go
or fired?
A. No, I don't know about that.
Q. In your investigation, did you check with -- strike that -- I have an
excuse, not being -- this is difficult - what I'd like to do is just --
we've talked quite a bit of Steve Rachelson, and as a matter of fact, I
think you've known him for quite some time.
A. Yes, he's also a friend of mine.
Q. Yes, he talked about you before.
What was Steve's general attitude toward my
employment? At the time he called me, what was his general attitude
toward my employment and his judgment of the job I had done?
A. He did not say what his opinion of your performance was. The only
thing -
Q. He'd never say that I did a good job, a bad job, mediocre?
A. No, he never did; not that I remember. He was willing to keep you
there until matters could be cleared up.
Q. Okay, about the last thing I have here is -- now, this is going to be
very important, I think -- we have a situation where I was at Nashua in
the past several months, well, actually, going backwards, but several
months after I originally left, and apparently a statement said that I
had showed up in uniform and so forth; what time did this occur? What
day?
A. April 18th and 19th, 1980.
Q. April 18th and 19th.
A. Yes.
Q. You're absolutely sure of this? There's no doubt in your mind?
A. No doubt.
Q. Absolutely? All right. And, also, there is a statement from one
person here -
JUDGE CAPPS: April 18 and 19 what year?

THE WITNESS: 1980.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. Okay, there's a statement here from Richard T. Sweet. Did you speak
to him, specifically?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. If I may repeat it -- " I am writing by request of Robert Smith, who
is my flight instructor, concerning Mr. James Campbell; I'm not sure
what the date was exactly at the time he had been around. In his exact
words, he told me that he flew for Japan Airlines over the route that
went from California to Japan and England. He also said he was in 747
training for one week a month and that he flew Falcons the other three
weeks. Who is Richard Sweet?
A. I believe he was just a student there.
Q. I don't know the gentleman. That's why I'm asking. Let me ask you who
Jimmy Cotes was?
A. I believe he's also a student. I would have to double check.
JUDGE CAPPS: Did you speak to him?
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. A student at Nashua or at Daniel Webster?
THE WITNESS: No, Nashua Aviation.
JUDGE CAPPS: And, the same Ray Cote and Sweet?

THE WITNESS: No, all the statements are from Nashua Aviation.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.
MR. CAMPBELL: I have a question for the Judge.
Do I have a right to question Miss Taylor in the future or is this my
only opportunity?
JUDGE CAPPS: Well, this is your only opportunity to question her, unless
there is re-direct, and then you'd have a chance at re-cross.
MR. CAMPBELL: I see.
JUDGE CAPPS: Do you want to recess to enable you to look through some of
that stuff and get your thoughts in mind?
MR. CAMPBELL: I was not aware that Miss Taylor would be here. The
possibility apparently had existed, although some doubt was cast on
that.
JUDGE CAPPS: Do you want a ten-minute recess to --
MR. CAMPBELL: I'd appreciate five or ten minutes. I really would.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, we'll take a ten-minute
(Whereupon, a ten-minute recess was taken.)
JUDGE CAPPS: You may continue your cross-examination.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. In reference to your conversations with Western
Piper personnel, specifically the bookkeeper and whatever knowledge you
may have concerning Mrs. Stuart, number one, the bookkeeper who rendered
various opinions, for instance, by any chance is she a psychologist or a
psychiatrist?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Does she have any type of medical training which would enable her to
make such a judgment?
A. No, not that I know.
Q. What about Mrs. Stuart?
A. Not that I know.
Q. By any chance, did Western Piper indicate to you any of the problems
I had with them concerning their maintenance procedures?
A. No.
Q Now, specifically the statement from Mrs. Stuart concerning a landing
that I had to make in a Tomahawk on a highway during a period of
inclement weather in November last year, in fact, about this time last
year if I remember correctly. There is a statement here that said that
-- just a moment and I'll read it back -- "Mr. Campbell arrived at that
location by ferrying a Tomahawk from our factory in Pennsylvania, which
provided him with free transportation from his home on the East Coast to
our place of business in central California. Then inflight a sort of
emergency arose, forcing him to set the aircraft down on a Maryland
interstate highway.
Investigation by the FAA and the aircraft factory representatives could
find no cause for the incident." Are you aware of any investigation?
A. No, just what I read here.
Q. Would any investigation of this nature be brought to your attention?
No, there's no reason for it to be.
Q. Would something like this be easily verified?
A. No, it would be very difficult to verify it.
Q. All right. Okay.
She also stated, producing newspaper articles and photos, -- Well, In
reference to World Trade Center escapade; I guess that's the best word
for it -- "Producing newspaper articles and photos to back up his
claim". Specifically, the only newspaper articles I'm aware of were
published in this area. Did she state anything about the content of
those newspaper articles?
A. No, she didn't. You are referring to Mrs. Stuart?
Q. Mrs. Stuart, that's right.
A. I did not talk to Mrs. Stuart, personally.
Q. Okay. In your conversation with the bookkeeper, was any reference
made to any such article?
A. No, this was never brought up at all.
Q. Okay.
A. Oh, I'm sorry, yes, it was.

Q. All right. Specifically what?
A. She had told me that you did tell her and others that you did
parachute off the World Trade Center.
Q. All right. Did she mention anything about producing newspaper
articles and so forth?
A. No, it wasn't mentioned.
Q. In reference to the International Air Service Company, and I take a
great deal of interest in this, for two reasons. One, because I hope to
resume employment there someday, which may or may not be possible.
Exactly, during your request of information from the International Air
Service Company, what information did you give them concerning my
situation?
A. Are you referring to a page in particular?
Q. There is a letter from the International Air Service Company, right
here, page 7, and here is some other documentation that goes with it,
from Ed Scarboro concerning my employment with the International Air
Service Company, my responsibilities and my performance. In order to get
this information, I'm sure you had to make a request. What information
was given to Mr. Scarboro during this request?
A. I did not make the request for this particular letter.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I would state for the record that I made the
request and I made the initial contact
with Mr. Scarboro.
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, the letter is addressed to Ms. Hauselt.
MR. CAMPBELL: My mistake, I'm sorry.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. In other words, you had nothing to do with the International Air
Service Company, then?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You did? Did he characterize my performance during my brief time at
International Air Service Company?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. Specifically what did he say?
A. He said you a very good employee.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I would state that I would object. This is
irrelevant. We do not claim that Mr. Campbell is not a technically
qualified pilot. What we were after is his judgment that goes to his
personality.
JUDGE CAPPS: Well, she has testified, though, about conversations -- a
conversation with Mr. Scarboro, so I'm going to allow him to go into
this. I think you were in the process of his characterization of the
Respondent's performance while he was employed by International Air
Service Company, and what was that characterization?
THE WITNESS: Mr. Scarboro had no problems with Mr. Campbell. He said he
was a very good employee, and a good
pilot.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. Just for a point I'll be bringing up later, could you please tell me
protocol involved in the seizure of that Medical Certificate?
A. Say that again.
Q. What is the protocol involved in the seizure of the Certificate?
A. I couldn't answer that. I don't know.
Q. Going back to Mr. Brown -- did you make any attempt to verify any of
the statements in that letter, specifically did you check with the young
lady involved concerning her situation and her plight?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. And, in reference to a statement by the United States Parachute
Association, did they or did they not state that they suspended my
instructor privileges in relation to the United States Parachute
Association?
A. All they said was you had been suspended from the U.S.P.A. by them.
Q. I had been suspended from the U.S.P.A.?
A. Yes.
Q. When did they say they did this? This is very important.

A. I talked to them last week.
Q. Okay. Did they specifically say when they had done that?
A. No, they did not.
Q. And, just as a point here -- Miss Taylor has some qualifications that
will be of use to me, a great deal, and I have a question which has
nothing to do with the testimony. It's an aircraft problem. I would
like, if possible, for her to venture an opinion.
JUDGE CAPPS: Off the record.
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion was held.)
JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. Western Piper made statements concerning some problems with aircraft
when they were not able to find "problems". In reference to one of those
problems which involved a Seminole, let me ask you, in your opinion what
would be the result -- the Seminole -- this was a '79 Mott Turbo -- it's
not fuel injected or anything to that extent, with an overly rich engine
in combination with intermittent carb heat control which kept the
carburetor heat on -- could that or couldn't that not result in a very
rough engine?
A. Yes, it could.
MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much. That's all I have to ask.

JUDGE CAPPS: Any re-direct?
MS. HAUSELT: Yes, Your Honor.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HAUSELT:
Q. When you spoke to Mr. King of the U.S. Parachute Association, did he
indicate whether or not Mr. Campbell was using the U.S.P.A. name?
A. Yes, he said he was.
Q. And, at the time he was using that name, was he current?
A. No, he was not.
Q. I want to refer you to page 43, 44 and 45. This is the parachute log
of Mr. Campbell that was forwarded to the FAA by Mr. Hill, who is the
President, I believe, of a parachute group out in Talequa, Oklahoma.
Specifically, you're referring to page 45 -- did Mr. Campbell sign for
his reserve chute on page 45?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. And, the column marked, "remarks" -- it says emergency there?
A. Yes, it does.
Q. Now, under the heading of "Single" there is the initials JRC and also
JRC again. Of what significance would those be in ascertaining whether
or not Mr. Campbell was qualified?

A. The symbol was a three letter identification symbol. Whether it is
issued by the FAA or the U.S.P.A. I cannot remember. However
Q. It's FAA.
A. It's FAA, okay -- however, checking with the U S P A. and also a
parachute rigger in my office, I have learned that the three letter
symbol is never the person's own initials.
Q. So, in this case we have a card indicating that Mr. Campbell signed
his own emergency chute?
A. Yes.
Q. And he did not have a parachute rigger's certificate from the FAA
which would be necessary to do so at that time?
A. Correct.
Q. With regard to the article printed in the Tulsa Tribune, as appears
on pages 46 and 47, did you ever speak to anyone from the Tulsa Tribune
about that article?
A. Yes, I did. I spoke to the City Editor.
Q. And did they verify that the article was published in their paper?
A. Yes, they did.
Q. At the time you spoke to Mr. Campbell in your interview with him, did
he indicate to you that he had taken any action against the Tulsa
Tribune?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What did he say?

A. He said he currently had a lawsuit against the Tulsa Tribune.
Q. And, from the letter of Dr. Schultz; He apparently told the same
thing to Dr. Schultz, is that correct?
A. Yes
Q. And when you spoke to the City Editor, did he indicate whether not
Mr. Campbell had ever filed an official lawsuit?
A. Yes, he said Mr. Campbell never did.
MS. HAUSELT: I have no further questions.
JUDGE CAPPS: Do you have any re-cross?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: Just limit it to her -
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, just limit it to her re-direct.
JUDGE CAPPS: -- redirect, all right.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CAMPBELL:
Q. With reference to the United States Parachute Association, they
stated that I was using their name. Now, did they say in what fashion
and what occasions did I use them?
A. They did not say what occasions. They said using their name in saying
that you were a U.S.P.A. parachute instructor.
Q. Did they say U.S.P.A. parachute instructor or U.S.P.A. certified
parachute instructor

A. Well, I don't remember that.
Q. All right. And, in reference to the Tulsa Tribune
JUDGE CAPPS: You don't remember that -- it could have been either way
that they stated it?
MISS TAYLOR: Yes, it could've been either way.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
BY MR. CAMPBELL: (Resuming)
Q. In reference to the Tulsa Tribune, first of all, did they state where
they got their information?
A. No, they didn't.
Q. And, the City Editor stated that he had no knowledge of any legal
action?
A. Right, he said -
Q. Specifically, he did not speak of a phone call between my father's
attorney and the Tulsa Tribune?
A. No, he did not. The only thing he did say was that you, yourself,
called and said that you were going to sue them, but it never happened.
Q. I called them?
A. Yes.
MR. CAMPBELL: That's the last of my questions.
JUDGE CAPPS: You may call your next witness.
MS. HAUSELT: The Administrator will call Dr. Thomas Powers.

Whereupon,
THOMAS ROBERT POWERS

having been first duly sworn by the Administrative Law Judge, was
examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. HAUSELT:
Q. Would you state your name, for the record?
A. My name is Thomas Robert Powers.
Q. And what is your business address?
A. I have - my principal business is now at 680 Bancroft in San Leandro.
I have an office also at 350 Parnassas in San Francisco.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. I am a psychiatrist.
Q. Could you briefly summarize what your education was in the medical
field?
A. I had taken my undergraduate and medical school training at
Northwestern University in Evanston and in Chicago, Illinois. I
graduated in 1966. Following that I did an internship in straight
medicine at the Northwestern University Medical School at various
hospitals. After that period of time, I was taken into the United States
Public Health Service where I was detailed to the Peace Corps. I served
for two years in Malowi which is in Africa doing volunteer help and
public health work for that country. I then returned to spend about
a year and a half as the Chief Medical Officer of the Peace Corps
program in Washington, DC During that time I did some volunteer work as
a physician with the Georgetown Free Clinic. On leaving Washington I
went to a small town in Colorado where I was in general practice,
setting up a private health clinic. Following that I went to California
where I entered the University of California residency in psychiatry at
London Quarter which is in San Francisco. During that time, also, I
obtained a masters degree in public health from the University of
California School of Public Health at Berkeley.
Since that time I've been engaged in the practice of psychiatry. For the
first three years I was in a part-time private practice. I was between
three-fourths and two-thirds time a faculty member at the University of
California Medical School in the Department of Psychiatry.
Since that time I functioned as a faculty member for about three years,
then went into full-time private practice of psychiatry and I've been in
full-time private practice of psychiatry since that time.
Presently I continue to maintain a faculty position at the University of
California Medical Center in San Francisco, where I'm an Assistant
Clinical Professor. I'm also presently Chief of Psychiatry at Eden
Hospital in Casper Valley, California.
Q. And you still have a private practice?

A. Yes, and also full-time private practice.
Q. And are you Board certified in any others?
A. I'm Board certified in psychiatry.
Q. Did you ever meet Mr. Campbell?
A. Yes. I met Mr. Campbell on the occasion of his coming to my office
after he had scheduled an appointment to be seen at the request of the
FAA. That was in March 1980 and I believe the specific date was the 3rd.
No, I'm sorry - March 7th, 1980.
Q. Okay, before we get into the substance of your interview with Mr.
Campbell, I want to ask you a few preliminary questions.
Could you briefly explain as best you can, in layman's terms, what is
meant by a personality disorder?
A. Yes, well, I think, first of all, it would be important to define
what is meant by personality because we have a general understanding of
personality which we're all, more or less, familiar with. But, then
there's the more specific definition of personality that we use in
clinical psychiatry.
Personality is that complex of deeply ingrained patterns of behavior
which include the way that one perceives and thinks about the entire
outside world and one's environment and oneself.
Then, there are also personality traits, and these are the more
prominent aspects of personality, and do not in
themselves imply any kind of psychopathology. We all have personality
traits that are identifiable.
Personality disorder, however, implies an inflexible and maladaptive
pattern or patterns of sufficient severity because significant
impairment in adaptive functioning or subjective distress on the part of
the individual, and it's only when the personality traits become so
rigid and maladaptive as to cause significant impairment in social or
occupational functioning that is adaptive functioning, that they can be
considered to constitute a personality disorder.
Q. Okay. As a result of your interview with Mr. Campbell, did you come
to a conclusion as to whether or not he suffered from a personality
disorder?
A. I did.
Q. And -
A. And, he does have a personality disorder.
Q. I'd like to refer Your Honor to pages 48 through 53 which is Dr.
Powers report of his interview with Mr. Campbell, and I would like to
ask Dr. Powers to relate, in his own words, the substance of his
interview with Mr. Campbell, pointing out what occurred which was of
clinical significance to him in the course of the interview.
A. As I indicated, Mr. Campbell was seen in my office in San Francisco
on March 7th. He was seen for an extended period of time, which was
necessary to do a reasonable job of
thorough or complete psychiatric evaluation. We had to pause about
midway through the session. We were there about two and a half hours.
During that time it was my objective to obtain as complete a psychiatric
history, including family history, history of childhood, early
development, occupational history, mental history and so forth, as well
as history of the immediate problem for which he was seeking this
evaluation. During that time, also, I collected information pertaining
to his own personal psychiatric history, medical history and also did a
mental status examination.
Now, let me just review, I think, the essentials of that exam so that I
can convey to the Court what my impression was at the time. He came in
for the appointment He was on time.
JUDGE CAPPS: Wait, let me -- before you go into that -- how many times
did you see him?
THE WITNESS: I saw him on one occasion, on day only.
JUDGE CAPPS: Just this one time?
THE WITNESS: One time only for approximately two and a half hours.
JUDGE CAPPS: all right, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Campbell identified himself as a twenty-three year old
single Caucasian male who was presently employed as a private flight
instructor for the International
Air Service Company in Nappa, California, Japan Airlines Flight
Department. He indicated that he was seeing me at the request of the FAA
because he had received an emergency Order of Suspension of his second
class Airman's Certificate, and that that had previously been granted by
the FAA.
JUDGE CAPPS: Let me interrupt here. Isn't it an Order of Revocation?
MS. HAUSELT: Originally there was an Order of Suspension which required
further information because Mr. Campbell could not provide medical
information. Then, once he submitted to the interview and more data was
obtained, it was subsequent that the Order of Revocation was issued.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, that is what is before me now, the Order of
Revocation.
MS. HAUSELT: That's correct.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, continue, doctor.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Campbell described his present problem as dating back,
approximately a year and a half prior to that time. He stated at that
time, "I had a problem which I dealt with in a socially unacceptable
manner." He then gave extensive background for that event. He also gave
a family history and indicating he was the oldest member of a large
family from the metropolitan New York City area. He described himself,
his early childhood as being a socially isolated student in high school
and at that time becoming interested in flying, largely
through participating in the Aviation Explorers.
It was in that connection in the summer of '72, he attended a meeting of
that organization at which he met a young girl, Ellen, to whom he became
romantically attached.
Now, on completing high school, he decided to move to Colorado to pursue
this relationship with the girlfriend and to attempt to find work. He
did so. He found a job working as a Jack-of-all-trades in an airport in
Colorado, and then developed a working relationship with a Rocky
Mountain Para-center as an instructor and demonstrator of parachutes. He
described the relationship with the girlfriend in some detail, in
particular that it was very close, they were very much in love and that
this was an extremely important relationship to him; in fact, had been
the most serious relationship in his life up to that time.
He also described that the relationship ended rather abruptly in June of
'76 which Mr. Campbell attributed primarily to interpersonal problems
between himself and the girl's father, and of that broken relationship
he said at that time, "I was frankly shattered. To this day I don't
understand what happened
At that time he returned home to live with his parents, continued his
parachute jumping, was trying to save money to go to flight school, did
some odd jobs in electronics and security work and line work at an
airport.
He states that during this period of time he was
emotionally upset, largely due, he felt, to the breakup of his romance
and the unexpected deaths of several friends who were killed while
skydiving. And, during that time he began to date a female student at
the Naval Academy, whom he states was killed in a motorcycle accident
while home on leave in Texas. Another friend was lost about that time in
a hang gliding accident. He states that at this time he was quite
depressed, began talking with his own mother about dying, but strongly
denied any suicidal ideation at this time. He also denied
hallucinations, unusual thoughts, excessive use of alcohol or any drug
Then, a short time later he became a job prospect at Talakoff, Oklahoma,
which offered him the opportunity to fly and work as an instructor.
During that time he describes a very active social life with much dating
and partying and an abundance of female companionship. He did not
chemical abuse at that time or at any other time, except occasional
beers and that berg on social occasions.
At about that time he decided to visit his girlfriend back in Colorado
and he described driving, I think, straight through overnight to visit
this girlfriend, and he was quite shocked and dismayed to find that she
had undergone what he estimated as being a personality change and that
her opinions had become quite negative towards him; she was very bitter
and really was a quite different person, and this left him feeling
very bad.
Next, he decided to move to Tulsa, Oklahoma, feeling, again, very
depressed and guilty for everything that had happened to Ellen and in
this relationship, and then he said that after moving to Tulsa, in an
attempt to deal with these, he had increasing feelings of social
isolation. He stated he began to feel a closer identification with his
grandfather who is a M.D. That's when the masquerade thing started, and
that's a direct quote. Mr. Campbell said that at that time, "I first
began to describe myself as a medical student. Then I was a resident,
and then, finally, I was Dr. Campbell. I had a coat and an I.D. tag that
I got from my grandfather's clinic, and I just did it to get social
recognition. I really didn't think about it."
In explaining this masquerade, Mr. Campbell stated that, "My grandfather
has been my ultimate model in life. He's been a G.P. for many years. He
goes down to the Caribbean one weekend a month, or did so in the past,
to take care of poor people. I wanted to be like my grandfather, and
then the whole thing blew up in my face. Two weeks later it got
published in the papers, but the article was full of a lot of garbage."
By this I think he meant that the statements in the article were untrue.
"I then went home, and my grandfather referred me to Dr. Dorsey, a
psychiatrist. From January to April of that year I went to see Dr.
Dorsey." Mr. Campbell feels that he made
considerable progress in therapy during that time, resolving whatever
psychiatric problems he had.
Next he found employment in Georgia with a charter airlines, which he
described as a shaky operation. Initially he was quite enthusiastic
about this job and the man he worked for, whom he referred to as "Jim".
After a few months, though, because he suddenly changed his feelings
about this man and his flight school or the airlines, he quit the job
and then went to New England to take another position at a flight school
as an instructor in meteorology and instrument ground school. At that
point he stated he was feeling very good. "I was ecstatic", he said, and
I quote. "I flew forty nine point seven hours in one week. I felt very
much in control of things. Then one day this article hit the campus, and
to quote an old expression, the fit hit the shan." He then went on to
describe a situation in which he was the center of a turmoil, apparently
about whether or not he should be suspended, fired or some other
official action taken.
Specifically, at that time, his adequacy as a teacher was in question.
He stated that, "Some of my methods may have been a bit theatrical, but
then when some of these hundreds of articles hit the campus, there was
an attempt to get rid of me. The President of the college was running
for governor that year. Then the FAA got ahold of it, and that's why I'm
here
now." The patient, at that time, apparently was instructed by the FAA
Regional Office to supply additional medical information.
Mr. Campbell states he complied with this order, however, "The
information wasn't what they wanted. Of course, they didn't bother to
tell me that."
Mr. Campbell then went on to indicate that the above described events
were, in his estimation, the only reason that his Medical Certificate
had been called to closer scrutiny by the FAA. However, on closer
questioning, and this was in the later part of the interview, just in
kind of going through the review of systems and hitting on some points
that I thought I wanted to have, for sure, clarified, in asking him
about a history of arrests, he suddenly recalled that he had omitted
mentioning an event which, on reconsideration, he thought would perhaps
be of some significance. While this appeared at the time to be a blatant
prevarication, he apologetically indicated that he simply forgot to
mention the item as he didn't think it would be of much consequence. He
then described the event for which he was arrested in New York City on
November -- in November of 1977, for attempting to jump off the World
Trade Center Building in downtown Manhattan with a parachute. He
attempted to downplay the event as simply a technical challenge, but he
then went on to quickly explain how he had spent six months researching
the project and had
written several hundred pages of notes and had also surveyed the site by
having friends flying around the tower in a helicopter and dropping
smoke bombs to assess the wind directions and currents.
He attempted to further explain his own reasons for attempting this jump
by stating that a friend of his, by the name of Owen, whom he referred
to as a hero, had successfully jumped from the other of the two towers
of the World Trade Center. He stated further, he was going to be a real
big gag, and that's a quote. Continuing his quotation, "I was looking
for a peak experience. When I landed, I was going to disappear and leave
a note, 'The phantom of the World Trade Center was here'." He stated he
was apprehended by the security police at the top of the building just
as he was about to jump. He stated he was then charged with trespassing,
resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. He was taken to the police
station, booked and held in a jail cell. He went on, in quotation, "I
got stuck in this clink with a group of homosexuals, murderers and petty
thieves. One transvestite said, "and parenthetically he added, "And this
was really funny; see that guy there -- he's crazy, he tried to jump off
the World Trade Center building." Mr. Campbell indicated that these
charges were later dropped.
When I asked him about the comment that his cellmate had made, whether
he thought that this behavior might seem crazy, he responded by saying,
"It wasn't crazy; it was just
against the law." He went on to say that, you know, he had this whole
thing carefully planned; he was going to do a five second delay, which
would give him plenty of time to get clear of the building and get his
chute open, and he went on then to describe in his own terms, similar
events that had been attempted by various dare devils. For example, a
man by the name of Philip Critique who he said had walked across between
the two towers on a tight wire in 1974. Mr. Campbell said to me at the
time, "Now, he's crazy." Then he said, "There was a guy who climbed up
the side of the building with some devices which he designed which
worked very well. He wasn't crazy."
I just point this out to the Court because I'll refer back to this later
on.
In getting a more complete past psychiatric history, Mr. Campbell stated
that he had seen a psychiatrist, a Dr. Dorsey, in early 1979, which I
had referred to earlier, after he returned from Oklahoma to his home in
New Jersey. In addition, I had a copy of a letter at that time, from the
FAA which indicated that Mr. Campbell had been treated with
psychotherapy from January to May of 1979 and that, basically, what was
indicated in that letter was a bare bones description of a personality
disorder.
BY MS HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Excuse me, doctor, that was in the letter of Dr. Dorsey which appears
in the file?

A. Yes; I'll refer back to that also later on.
JUDGE CAPPS: What number is that; page number?
MS. HAUSELT: That would be page 54, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: In addition, there was some history of a possible subdural
hematoma which was some significance and importance to evaluate. That
had been sustained while parachute jumping. At the time Mr. Campbell
indicated that he was rendered unconscious and taken to a hospital and
that there was a pretty thorough evaluation of that injury and no
indication at the time of any brain damage of consequence.
He, also, in giving a history of whom he had seen, for whatever reasons
psychiatrically, indicated he had seen a psychiatrist and a psychologist
recently, a Dr. McKnight, who is a psychiatrist, and a Richard Landine,
who is a psychologist, for psychiatric and psychological evaluation.
Past medical history at that time, Mr. Campbell stated that he had had a
diagnosis of duodenal ulcer and it became irritative, for which he was
hospitalized when he was in the fourth grade. He also stated that he had
sustained a broken nose approximately five years ago, and he referred
again to the head injury which took place in '76, and he said that at
that time he could not recall any other illnesses or injuries.
Asking about medications, Mr. Campbell told me that he occasionally
takes Chlortrimeton which is an antihistamine,
for a problem with his nose which had developed subsequent to the time
of his fracture which he sustained in high school.
Asking about personal habits, Mr. Campbell indicated that he does not
use any type of street drugs; his alcohol use was described as limited
to two or three beers a week, and that he'd only been intoxicated once
in his life.
Asking about social, educational and military history, Mr. Campbell
indicated that the only other time he had been arrested or cited for
traffic regulations was six years ago when he received a speeding
ticket. His formal education included completion of high school, as well
as some considerable training in flying and parachuting skills. Mr.
Campbell indicated he spent time in the Air Force, about which a
detailed history was not obtained.
Under personal habits he mentioned sky diving and scuba diving.
Family history, he gave some more details there, indicating both his
parents were forty-five years old and had been in good health. His
father is a representative for a pharmaceutical company, and he said his
mother's pursuing a Ph.D. in psychology.
He indicated he had six siblings ranging in age from twenty-one to ten
years of age, all of whom he thought to be in a good state of physical
health and he told me one of the siblings had had any kind of
psychological history and had been
seeing a child psychologist, so basically there was no family history of
any kind of mental illness.
Developmental history was taken, and he indicated he was a product of a
normal pregnancy and delivery and that there were no particular problems
in his early childhood or during the school years, with the exception
that in high school he had some problems with his father. He described a
pretty much normal sexual developmental history.
In the review of central nervous system symptoms, which is always
relevant to a psychiatric history, Mr. Campbell indicated that he was
sleeping normally; he had had no fluctuations in weight; and his sex
drive was normal, and he had no particular problems of a sensory nature
or anything that might suggest a, either an organic brain problem or a
psychosis.
Mental status examination -- this is gathered throughout the entire
course of the interview and also by asking whatever necessary specific
questions. Mr. Campbell presented himself in an outgoing, and I think,
grandiose manner, with a kind of quality of seriousness that he was in a
lot of difficulty, he wanted very much for me to understand and believe
him, and I felt, initially, that I really should believe him, but then,
and that I wanted to believe him, but then, as the interview went on I
began to question myself, and I found myself asking, well, just why is
it that you feel you want to believe this man. That question continued
in one corner of my mind as we went
along.
There was only minimal anxiety noted in the course f the exam, which was
somewhat discrepant with the circumstances.
His vocabulary was average. His speech, on one or two occasions, seemed
to me to be pressured.
JUDGE CAPPS: What do you mean by pressured?
THE WITNESS: Well, that means that he was really intent upon getting a
point across, so much so that it was hard to interrupt his flow of
speech, and that's an important clinical sign when we're looking for
certain types of feeling disorders.
JUDGE CAPPS: But does it show compulsion or something on that part, or
what does it signify to you, as a psychiatrist?
THE WITNESS: It shows that a certain possibility of an affective
disorder or, also, a number of other things, but the particular
significance is that it sometimes, and, in fact, typically is frequent
in the presence of affective disorder, which is a primary disorder of
mood.
There was, however, no looseness of associations; no blocking or
idiosyncratic thinking present. He denied hallucinations, and there was
no delusional material present at the time of this examination.
His recent and remote memory were intact. He was
oriented in three spheres; able to extract appropriately in the ordinary
context of conversation.
His defense mechanisms employed included excessive use of denial and
rationalization, the mood although somewhat anxious
MS HAUSELT: Could I just stop you for a second?
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. When you make comments concerning delusional material,
hallucinations, in that part of your exam, what type of disorder are you
focusing on, when you discuss that?
A. Well, here, again, would be an effort to confirm the presence at that
time or historically of a psychotic process.
As I say, he employed defense mechanisms extensively, particularly
excessive use of denial and rationalization. The mood, although somewhat
anxious, the affect was fairly mobile, however, at times depressed.
At one point he became outwardly angry and furious, demanding, and this
was near the end of the exam, that the examiner was supposed to phone
the FAA to give an oral report to the physician who'd requested this
evaluation. When I pointed out that the hour was late -- it was just a
few minutes to five o'clock, he stated that he had in his possession a
notarized statement from a Congressional aide who had assured him that
immediate action would be taken following completion of my evaluation.
When I asked him to produce the document, he
just kind of suddenly shifted the topic and quickly cooling his rage,
and implying that, well, he had enlisted the support of the offices of
several Congressmen or two Congressmen in the area and a Senator, and
that they had promised him that they would help him obtain a speedy
resolution of this bureaucratic snafu which had caused his Medical
Certificate to be suspended.
Q. So he never produced the notarized statement from this party?
A. No, he did not.
It was my observation that his insight was markedly impaired and that
his judgment was extremely limited.
Well, basically, then, my diagnosis was that of a personality disorder,
a mixed type with predominantly narcissistic and borderline features and
I thought it also important to consider a bit further, perhaps, the
possibility of a primary affective disorder which I had mentioned
before.
Q. Let's just stop right there a minute.
At this time I'd like to have marked a copy of - Doctor, let me first
ask you -- your diagnosis is based on criteria set forth in the DSM-3;
is it not?
A. Yes.
Q. And what is a DSM-3?
A. Well, a DSM-3 is the most recent edition of the official diagnostic
and statistical nomenclature for psychiatric
diagnosis that is published by the American Psychiatric Association and
it's the official nomenclature or diagnostic nomenclature that's in use
in the clinical practice of psychiatry in this country today. The DSM-3
just came out; it's a further refinement of DSM-2, but basically it's
the same nomenclature and there are only minor differences between the
two.
MS HAUSELT: Okay, Your Honor, at this time I would have marked as
Administrator's Exhibit Number 2 pertinent pages from DSM-3 for the
criteria as set forth for a mixed personality disorder with borderline
and narcissistic features, and offer that into evidence.
I have a copy for Mr. Campbell.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, I'll note that -- I'm familiar with this
publication from other cases I've heard. It is received in evidence as
Exhibit A2.
(Whereupon, the document described was marked for identification as
Administrator's Exhibit A-2, and
received in evidence.)
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, excuse me for a minute - we're looking for a
copy so that Dr. Powers can refer to it.
THE WITNESS: I think I have a copy here. I've got the most relevant
materials here in my notes.
BY MS HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Could you explain what is meant by the term mixed
personality disorder?
A. Well, the nomenclature is such that in this area there's quite a
likelihood, in fact, even a probability that you will have overlap or,
in some cases, a mixture of the criteria for the various categories of
personality disorder, and the protocol there calls for making a
diagnosis of a mixed - personality disorder of a mixed type when you
have significant number of elements from more than one category. So that
means that there's some overlap, and it should be individual shared
features from more than one category of personality disorder.
JUDGE CAPPS: Which categories, in his case, were mixed, in your opinion?

THE WITNESS: Well, this was, as I pointed out, mixed narcissistic and
borderline type. I'll elaborate on what those are
JUDGE CAPPS: So you were unable to diagnose this as a narcissistic
personality disorder, as opposed to any other type such as borderline
and vice versa?
THE WITNESS: No, actually he meets the criteria for both narcissistic
and borderline.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
THE WITNESS: And, then he also, you know, he has features from some of
the other categories too, but it's predominantly narcissistic and
borderline

BY MS HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Can either one of those, in the hypothetical type of question -- if a
person met all of the criteria for narcissistic then that person would
be diagnosed as having a personality disorder, had a psychiatrist
interviewed them and gone through the proper consultation that is here?
A. That is correct.
Q. And the same would be true for borderline?
A. That's correct.
Q. What are the features of the narcissistic personality?
A. Well, the essential feature is a personality disorder in which there
is a grandiose sense of self-importance or uniqueness, a kind of special
quality that this person perceives about himself. It's a very special
quality. There's a preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success and
there is an exhibitionistic need for a constant attention and admiration
and the behavior of an individual is driven to that end, obtaining this
kind of attention and admiration. There are characteristic responses to
threats to that individual's self esteem and characteristic disturbances
in interpersonal relationships. These might be feelings of entitlement
or deserving, you know, special consideration because, after all, this
is a unique set of circumstances which just, you know, really hasn't
happened before; this is the kind of approach that the individual might
take. There would be a tendency for exploiting
interpersonal relationships, and also relationships would be
characterized as being really kind of split, and that is that initially
the individual would overly idealize the other, the person in the
relationship, and then at some point there would be a sudden reversal,
and at this point the relationship would turn completely around and
probably not be able to continue, and that there's a particular kind of,
well, persistent and pervasive lack of empathy on the part of the
individual with this type of personality disorder, and by that I mean,
it's as if he doesn't or she doesn't realize that other people have
feelings and what those feelings are, or that others have rights or that
others have their own personal integrity which has to be expected.
Q. What are the traits of a borderline personality disorder?
A. Well, they are quite similar, and I would indicate just briefly that
they are fewer in number, but they encompass some of the same features
that I've already discussed.
Essentially what happens in borderline personality is that this is a, I
think, less healthy or less well developed type of personality, and that
there's instability in a variety of areas which include interpersonal
relationships and behaviors, mood, self image. There's no single feature
that you can say is invariably present in a borderline personality, but
it does generally tend to include one aspect which is that of
transient psychotic episodes. At that time there may be brief loss of
contact with reality. Also, more mood fluctuation than say in a
narcissistic personality disorder, where you may have depression lasting
for longer periods of time than say, just a few hours or a few days. In
the borderline type of individual this may go on for longer periods of
time, but usually not for months as we see in a depressive state.
Q. Dr. Powers, is it uncommon or common for a person to have a mixed or
-- when a person has a personality disorder, to have a mixture of
traits?
A. Yes, it's very common. In fact, I think it's, you know, close to half
the time one finds a mixture of personality traits rather than a pure,
well, a diagnosis that you could fit exactly to one of the individual
categories. After all, you know, we're talking about something that's
extremely complex which is human behavior and human psychology, and you
know, each of us are individuals and it's very difficult to describe an
individual or diagnose an individual in terms of just a category which
is defined as a constellation of characteristics.
So, that, really, I think that almost the rule is that there will be a
mixture of elements from one or more of the categories of personality
disorder.
Q. Okay. You listed on your diagnostic impression on page 53, number 2,
rule out primary affective disorder bipolar-type; could you explain what
that means?

JUDGE CAPPS: We have to change the tape.
THE WITNESS: Could you repeat that question.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. On page 53 of your report in your diagnostic impressions, you listed
under number 2, rule out primary affective disorder bipolar type; what
is that and how does it relate to Mr. Campbell?
A. Yes, that specifically is the most severe type of disorder, and it's
characterized by periods of very high ion, or as we say, manic periods,
and also by periods of re depression, and that's the so-called bipolar,
both -- you know, the upswing and the downswing of the mood to the
extremes of the spectrum.
JUDGE CAPPS: Just peaks and valleys all the time?
THE WITNESS: Well, not just peaks and valleys. I think we all tend to
experience emotional peaks and valleys. I'm talking about displacement
of the mood to the extreme, which at the high end of the spectrum means
acute mania, which most oftentimes a psychotic manifestation. An
individual speaks with pressure, rapidly, is very -- is likely to be
very convincing, may be able to be very successful in sales or in other
type of endeavor at that time. And, at the other extreme is depressed to
the extent that usually one has to be concerned about a psychosis at
that end of the spectrum where there is a pervasive feeling of
worthlessness, hopelessness,
and oftentimes suicidal ideation and intent.
JUDGE CAPPS: But you ruled these out in his case?
THE WITNESS: Well, I felt that I had pretty much ruled it out when I
made the primary diagnosis of personality disorder. However, there were
things that he had told me about his history and there were some things
that I observed in the interview which I mentioned earlier, the pressure
of speech, that caused me to think that perhaps it might be an
individual with an affective disorder who I was seeing at a period of
time when the mood was relatively normal. But my primary diagnosis,
really, was that of a personality disorder.
Also, according to DSM-3 now, you are asked to make diagnoses in both
categories, as I did in this case.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. I'd like to now talk specifically about the criteria of DSM-3 as they
relate to Mr. Campbell's interview with you and information that you had
at that time, and referring to Administrator's Exhibit Number 2, as you
feel you need it, could you explain what aspects of Mr. Campbell's
behavior fit the guidelines set forth under DSM-3 for narcissistic
personality disorders?
A. Yes, well, as I pointed out, in the narcissistic personality disorder
you have this grandiose sense of self or uniqueness, a special
attribute. This to me was conveyed in his presentation in the interview
situation. He also made
reference to it in terms of his historical data. There's one other thing
that happened that I think I'd want to include here because it's of
significance in this kind of work to observe what happens in the entire
transaction with the individual, beginning from the first telephone
call, and, as in my case, I have somebody working in the office who does
telephone work - it's important to know what happens when the individual
calls and talks with that person, and we have a woman who works in our
office who's been doing this for a number of years and she's quite good
at it. In fact, she's just about concluded her master's degree in
psychology and, herself, is pursuing a career in psychology.
On her first or second or third telephone contact with Mr. Campbell,
indicated to me that he was at first very insistent and then forceful
and then persistent in trying to obtain an early appointment with me. He
began calling a week or so prior to the time that I was able to see him,
and that she said also, "You know, Dr. Powers, he became very angry with
me over the telephone". And that's not an ordinary occurrence, but when
that happens, Betty Kerr, she's my receptionist, will draw that sort of
thing to my attention, and she did on this occasion.
So, in that sense, you know, he was trying to convey to her that this
was really an unusual situation that demanded that I change my schedule
which was solidly booked. In fact, I
gave him the first possible hour that I had available in my schedule for
the interview.
Again, in support of the element of the grandiose sense of self or
uniqueness, the historical data that he gave me, he described himself as
a dare devil, a would-be dare devil, and a pilot who had done some
rather unusual things.
Also, specifically, the way in which he described his masquerade. "I
became Dr. Campbell. I did it to get attention." Also, the World Trade
Center incident, he described with great enthusiasm, and in a somewhat
convincing way that he'd done months of research, with extensive notes
which consisted of hundreds of pages, and that he'd even gone to the
trouble of getting a friend to fly him around the World Trade Center in
a helicopter and drop smoke bombs to see which way the wind was blowing
around the building so that he'd be able to execute his jump safely,
presumably. And in the way in which he described the events that had led
up to his coming to see me, which was a really highly unusual set of
circumstances.
As I mentioned before this, in the narcissistic personality disorder,
there's a preoccupation with fantasies of either success or power or
brilliance or beauty or sometimes ideal love. This he related to me in
the history of his relationship with Ellen and that this was a really
perfect love kind of relationship which had started in the high school
years and blossomed for many years and was very strong until it ended
suddenly and abruptly.
Also, he described himself in what was his fantasy of how the jump from
the World Trade Center building would be completed, "the phantom of the
World Trade Center". And, then, also his description of his function as
a teacher at Daniel Webster College, he described himself as being a
very, very successful and popular teacher and that he enjoyed that very
much and the students enjoyed him and he got a lot of positive
reinforcement about the terrific job that he was doing, despite the
problems that he'd had with these other matters.
Then, there's this quality of exhibitionism which is really a driven
need and a continuing need. I would point out that all of these elements
persist, not just at times of illness or difficulty, but they persist
pretty much all the time in the individual, and there's this particular
need for exhibitionism in the aim of gaining attention and admiration
from his surroundings. And, this, paradoxically as we understand it
psychologically, is really to support a somewhat less conscious
perception of the self as being really needy and kind of hollow or empty
on the inside.
Along this line he told me about his performance as a skydiver. He was a
showman, a stuntman, a dare devil. Also, in this category would be the
incident that he described as impersonation of a M.D. where he really
played the role of another person to get social recognition.

JUDGE CAPPS: I think I've heard enough example that gave rise to his
conclusion, so do you want to get to the next question?
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Okay -
JUDGE CAPPS: In fact, I think I understand the basis for his diagnosis
from the history -- I must say the very detailed history, and you should
be complimented for it, Dr. Powers.
THE WITNESS: Can I just go on to include one or two from each of the
main categories, because that, then, would establish the diagnosis. You
do have to have features present
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay, just mention them, because I've heard these in the
history portion that you gave.
THE WITNESS: Okay, then, when challenged or finding some kind of stress,
the individual responds with either cool indifference or marked feelings
of rage, or feelings of inferiority or shame of humiliation or defeat.
This is typified in two examples right in the context of my work with
him, and that was with my receptionist on the telephone and with me
directly. Also, in his relationships with many other people, where he
would get suddenly infuriated.
Then there's characteristic disturbances also consequent in all
interpersonal relationships. Again, the
relationship with Ellen and with Ellen's father; possibly also, although
we don't have sufficient data, with his own father. There's a lack of
empathy, a lack of respect for the feelings of people who are ill, and
this goes on to effect situations of employment, dealings with agencies,
with family members and it's a kind of pervasive quality of
impoverishment of interpersonal relationships.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Okay, just briefly, I want to ask you if you could touch on the
features of the borderline personality disorder which you feel were
indicated to you in your interview with Mr. Campbell
A. Borderline personality disorder, as I pointed out, is again -- it's a
constellation of enduring personality features that render the
individual likely to be unstable and vulnerability in terms of function
or even possibly transient psychotic episodes. There's a certain quality
of impulsivity or unpredictability. You really cannot guess what the
individual's likely to do next, and in this case I'd point out the World
Trade Center event and the impersonation of a physician.
There's a pattern of, again, unstable and intense interpersonal
relationships. This overlaps with the narcissistic, as I pointed out.
There is, oftentimes, inappropriate and intense anger. This, again, you
know, was reflected towards the examiner
and my receptionist, and this overlaps with narcissistic.
There is a more specific disturbance in identity in the case of the
borderline disorder then in the narcissistic, and this would be
evidenced in Mr. Campbell's case by his wanting to be "Just like my
grandfather" and then, "I became Dr. Campbell". This also, as I pointed
out earlier, more affective instability and more marked mood shifts,
maybe in terms of depression, maybe in terms of irritability. Again,
these were evidenced in the interview, and he gave me a history of
episodes of rather severe depression from childhood to the teens and
into his early adult life.
There is, in particular, a kind of intolerance to being alone, and this
could be seen in Mr. Campbell's description for his rationale for
impersonating a physician. He said at the time, "I was very lonely and I
needed friends", and there may be also and typically, or physically, or
personally self-damaging acts, and I would point out here, again, the
World Trade Center event and perhaps even the injuries sustained while
skydiving, and other injuries, although the history of other injuries is
not clear at this point. And, then, also in the borderline configuration
there are more or less chronic feelings of emptiness or boredom which is
again a more serious manifestation of what you see in the narcissistic
personality disorder which is almost unconscious, this feeling of
emptiness, and is compensated for by the grandiosity, which is much more

pervasive in the narcissistic form.
Q. Then Mr. Campbell fits both the categories of borderline and
narcissistic?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. Would Mr. Campbell be classified as having a personality disorder
under DSM-2?
A. Yes, he would.
Q. Based on your interview with him, does Mr. Campbell have a
personality disorder which is severe enough to have manifested itself by
repeated overreaction? Yes, he does.
Q. Could you just briefly summarize what overt acts -- would those overt
acts be the same type of things which you have mentioned in going
through the DSM-3 criteria?
A. Yes, they are, and, well, are you speaking with reference to my
evaluation at this point?
Q. Just, at this point up to what you knew at the time of your
evaluation?
A. Yes. I was speaking in what preceded from this basis of my
information at that time in my interview with him at that time.
Q. Just based again, on your information at that time and assuming for
some reason legally there were not sufficient overt acts under the
regulations, do you have an opinion as to whether or not Mr. Campbell
has a personality disorder of the
type which would, in the now, within the next two years, make him unable
to safely perform as a pilot?
A. I think he does.
Q. Could you just explain, mostly in layman's terms, what is the nature
of Mr. Campbell's personality disorder which makes him -- which, in your
opinion, makes him unable to safely perform the privileges of an airman?

A. There are a number of features, but I think I would focus primarily
upon the impairment of judgment and, likewise, I think that one would
have to mention the sudden and unpredictable mood changes, and I think,
also, his excessive use of denial and rationalization to explain to
himself, I think at times quite convincingly, as well as to other
people, how certain things happened to occur to him and what his
accounting for those events is or might happen to be.
I think, also, that although in his case he has evidenced some
considerable insight, that there is a significant defect in insight or
impairment of insight in that he sees only part of the problem, at the
same time acknowledging that he has a problem, so that he, in effect,
hides the problem from himself, thinking, yes, well, I have this problem
and I have to attend to it, but I don't think he really realizes how it
affects his judgment at times, particularly in an emergency type of
situation. This is why I feel that it's unlikely that he can be
considered reasonably safe to fly an airplane,
because there will be times when things will occur which he will be
convinced he is doing his absolute level best, and perhaps in that
immediate situation, he would be doing his best to manipulate
circumstances or people or situations to solve the problem, but he would
be doing so at great risk to himself, to other people or to property.
Q. You have heard all the testimony here today; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have reviewed the rest of the medical file and events which
came to light after your initial interview with Mr. Campbell?
A. Yes.
Q. When you interviewed Mr. Campbell, did he tell you anything
concerning whether or not he had prescribed drugs for people out in
Oklahoma while he was posing as a doctor?
A. No, he did not, and as I recall, he even said that he'd done nothing
wrong at the time. He just passed himself off in the identity of a
physician, perhaps giving some first aid, but had not prescribed drugs
and had not performed surgery or anything of that kind.
Q. So he didn't tell you that he had assisted a woman who had suffered a
heart attack and, in fact, ridden in an ambulance with her to the
hospital posing as Dr. Campbell?
A. I think he may have recalled that incident, however,
he didn't describe it quite so specifically.
Q. He did not mention that he had scheduled his girlfriend for a
hysterectomy?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Did he mention, or did he indicate to you, how he came to return to
New Jersey from Oklahoma?
Well, he said he went by himself, voluntarily, or that was the
impression that I had.
Q. Did he state whether or not he had been in the Service?
A. He indicated that he had spent some time in the Air Force.
Q. Did he indicate that he had ever been married?
A. I'd say he was not married and had not been married.
Q. He never said anything to you concerning very traumatic events of the
loss of a wife and child?
A. No, in fact, I asked him also if he had any children, and he said,
no, I have no children.
Q. Did he ever tell you that he had been fired by his employers in
Georgia?
A. No, he didn't. In fact, if that's, I think, the job that he referred
to as working for a man by the name of Jim in Georgia, and I believe
that's the only job in Georgia that I've heard described today, he said
that he left that job voluntarily because he was disenchanted with the
man and his
operation, after being initially very enthusiastic about working for
him.
Q. Now, I want to refer you to Mr. Brown's letter on page 36, and I'd
like to ask you if there is anything of clinical significance in what is
related to the FAA by Mr. Brown?
A. Sorry, can you repeat that question?
Q. Yes. Referring you to the letter of Mr. Brown on page 36, is there
anything of clinical significance in that letter which would bear on
your diagnosis of a personality disorder?
A. Yes. In the third paragraph where Mr. Brown describe getting
complaints from students and customers, that he is no longer teaching
them to fly the airplane himself -- teaching them to fly, flying the
airplane himself, and telling them how great it was.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, I have to object to this line of questioning,
specifically, number one, no one has verified Mr. Brown's statement. I
believe I can disprove Mr. Brown's statement given the opportunity, and
on top of that, commenting about the observations of a non-professional
observer.
JUDGE CAPPS: Mr. Brown's letter is in evidence and it can be commented
upon by any witness. You'll have the opportunity in your case to attack
certain portions of it that you feel are not true or accurate.

MR. CAMPBELL: I see. Thank you.
JUDGE CAPPS: At this point, I think we're going to have to take about a
five-minute recess. I want to make a few phone calls.
(Whereupon a five-minute recess was taken.)
JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Okay, I believe we were on page 36, Mr. Brown's letter; is there
anything else of clinical significance with regard to what he's related?

A. Well, this letter points out one of the primary diagnostic features
for the narcissistic personality disorder, and one of the important
associated features, and that is that what is described in the letter is
the kind of thing that the individual with the narcissistic personality
does, to support this grandiose sense of self, and later on in the
second from the last paragraph, in describing this apparent outright
contradiction of what has been said, with the facts and circumstance in
order to support or rationalize this sense of self there may be
distortion, fabrication or outright lies, and I'm inclined to believe
that this is an example of that.
JUDGE CAPPS: Let me ask you something at this point, There has been a
tremendous amount of evidence thus far in the case of what are purported
to be untruths. At the time of these utterances by the Respondent, is it
your
professional opinion that he, in fact, believed the things he was saying
at the time?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is, and it's convincing not only to the individual
but also those surrounding him. And, it's usually -- and this is really
an important part of the problem -- it's a mixture of truths,
half-truths, more severe distortions and outright lies, and as the web
becomes more complex and intricate, the individual with this disorder
really loses track of where he or she might be in that web, and they
don't know, themselves, the difference between fact and fan
JUDGE CAPPS: The fabrication just rolls like a snowball?
THE WITNESS: That's right. And then it becomes, you know, usually the
response to that when the individual is confronted is a kind of
emotional outburst or a sudden cooling and almost unbelievable kind of
emotional distance or indifference.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. I want to refer you both to the testimony of Inspector Taylor and
also the letters from Dean Schultz at Daniel Webster which are on pages
16 through 33, and ask you what, if any medical or clinical significance
is there to Mr. Campbell's claim of being a stuntman in the Screen
Actor's Guild and in various movies?
A. Well, this, again, would, I think be probably, at
best, an exaggeration or very possibly a prevarication or an outright
lie in support of his need for the recognition and esteem.
Q. And is there any clinical significance to his claim of teaching for
the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association? Would that be the same type
of thing?
A. This would be the same kind of thing.
Q. What about his style of teaching and his failure to follow the orders
of Dean Schultz with regard to not showing up at particular classes
after he had been suspended?
A. Well, this would be both, you know, need to fulfill the grandiose
sense of himself and the need for exhibitionistic kind of outlets.
Q. What clinical significance is there to his having claimed to be a
parachute rigger, and, in fact, signing his own emergency chute when not
qualified to do so?
A. Well, again, I think that this would be, perhaps a kind of slip-up on
his part I'm not sure. It doesn't seem that in that situation that he
would be particularly trying to impress someone, although it may have
been at the time. I don't have enough information, but I think it is an
example of the kind of behavior which, at the very least, but also,
perhaps the most dangerous, it is inclined to trip up the individual who
has this disorder.
Q. What does such behavior say with regard to Mr.
Campbell s judgment?
A. That his judgment is severely impaired.
Q. And this would be similar for his claim of being a U.S.P.A.
instructor, when he is not; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. I want to ask you about the story which has been related to a variety
of people and apparently first originated when Mr. Campbell was
confronted with the newspaper article of his behavior of pretending to
be a doctor, that is posing a story of the reason for that behavior
being his wife and child were killed in a car accident; of what clinical
significance is this fabricated tragedy about his wife and child?
A. Well, this, again, would be one of the associated features found
quite commonly in that there would be distortions, fabrications or
outright lies in support of whatever set of circumstances at the time
needs to be maintained to continue the kind of state of uneasy
equilibrium with the need for gratification and admiration from others
and also the problem with maintaining consistency and validity in the
truth.
Q. I want to refer you to pages 34 and 35, which is a letter from Dianne
Stuart at my request, and ask you if there is anything of clinical
significance in the information set forth in that letter.
A. I think quite possibly so. I don't know fully what happened. Again,
there's something that I was told in the
course of my conversation with Mr. Campbell which appears to relate to
the incidents that are mentioned here. I recall at the end of the
interview he was wanting to state the case for all the things that he
was capable of doing that reflected his skill, his ability as a pilot
and his judgment and function under pressure, and he said, at the time
that, and I think he said in the last month or so, he had had three
emergencies, one of which consisted of he was taking someone up for
skydiving and that the individual had jumped out and his parachute had
gotten caught in the tail assembly and Mr. Campbell was able to maintain
the aircraft and maneuver so that the skydiver got free of the tail
assembly.
He also mentioned that he had an engine failure in a single-engine plane
that required a forced landing on a highway which he executed safely and
also that he had engine failure or some kind of mechanical problem in a
multi-engine aircraft which he had also solved without incident. And he
was, at the time, attesting that these were examples of the kind of
behavior that he wished that the FAA knew about so that they'd give him
credit for, and, I think, it sounds to me like that's what is being
referred to here, although, again, the time framework has been distorted
and these things apparently happened sometime earlier and also they were
described a little bit differently to me than they are described in this
letter. In fact, they were described quite differently to me than
they're
described in this letter.
Q. Is it quite possible that in Mr. Campbell's mind there was some kind
of emergency?
A. I think it's quite possible and quite likely. I want to point out,
again, that in the last paragraph on that page there's another incident
which is changed slightly, but also important. In this occasion Mr.
Campbell described he had a wife who was pregnant at the time, who was
killed, and so you have a sort of constantly changing story; one time --
well, when he was seen by me, he indicated he wasn't married, he had no
children. On other occasions he reportedly has a wife and child who were
killed, and then on this occasion he had a wife who was pregnant, who
was once, at a time, killed in an automobile accident which he uses as a
way of accounting for some unusual situation or behavior.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, at this time I have a problem with regard to a
letter which I have not received that would explain the circumstances.
There is a Detective Larry Brown with the Fresno Police department that
I have spoken to on a couple of occasions, and he had some dealings with
Mr. Campbell which are pertinent to this case. When I first spoke to him
in May of 1980, when the case was originally set for hearing, he had
promised to send me a letter similar to those in the file with regard to
his dealings with Mr. Campbell. He was subsequently, I learned from the
Police
Department, injured in the line of duty and has been recovering for some
time. I did manage to get a hold of him last week through his superior,
and he has promised to send me a letter with regard to his dealings with
Mr. Campbell. Those are referenced in the FAA file on page 77. However,
I clearly acknowledge that this is somewhat weak hearsay of a notation
in our file, and I would ask that the record be kept open for me to
submit this letter at a later date so that at this time I could ask Dr.
Powers some hypothetical questions based on what I believe that letter
will relate.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, no. I'm not going to allow that at this late
date.
MS. HAUSELT: Okay.
JUDGE CAPPS: Because I will be rendering an oral decision today in this
case. I think the Respondent is entitled to a decision in his case as
soon as possible, and I'm going to render that decision and order today,
so, no, I cannot allow the record to remain open.
Is there any way you can get the hypothetical based on other facts in
evidence?
MS. HAUSELT: I will refer to the record as it is currently constituted.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, and I'll just give that the weight that I think
it should be entitled to.
MS. HAUSELT: Okay.

BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Dr. Powers, I want to refer you to page 77 which represent notes to
both Dr. Sexton and his office, which is the Regional Flight Surgeon's
Office of the western region, relating information that they received
from the Fresno GATO and there is information there indicating that, and
I ask you this in terms of were you to have information concerning Mr.
Campbell that he had told someone that he was qualified as a scuba diver
and asked them to give him certification without any test, and when the
person refused, then got into the water with them and subsequently
proved that they did not know how to scuba dive; of what clinical
significance would that be?
A. This, again, would point out, if so, that the individual has a defect
in judgment and also engages, in terms of the problem with interpersonal
relationships engages in manipulation of others to serve needs of the
moment; so much manipulation that the rights and the well being and the
integrity of the other person may be really severely overlooked or
neglected.
Q. And I would ask you of what clinical significance it would be should
Mr. Campbell have made the claim that he -- when asked about a gunshot
wound in his leg, which was noticed at the time of the scuba lesson,
asked how he received that, indicated that while flying John Connolly
and others, Governor Reagan, and President-elect Reagan was now
included, around for Swift-Air in Nevada -

MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor, I object. I don't know where they got this
information from. It's ridiculous, and unless they can provide some type
of substantiation, I don't see how this can even be read into the
record.
First of all, I know nothing about this, and it's just caught me
completely by surprise. In fact, it's kind of hysterical, especially
considering the fact I was in Fresno working the entire time. Mr. Brown
knew where I was working the entire time and he had seen me working at
that time. I wasn't working for, what it is -- Swift-Air -- or something
to that extent. Everything I've seen so far, it may be a
misunderstanding or somebody's attempt or for that matter, just
blatantly and absolutely true, but this is science fiction.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right, you will have a chance in your case in chief to
attack the contents of page 77. It is in evidence. I'm allowing her to
go ahead and pose her hypothetical question on that. As I said, I'll
give it the weight I think it's entitled to.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I would merely state the good faith basis for
my questions, that I have spoken to Sergeant Brown on the phone and had
conversations where this information was -
JUDGE CAPPS: Of course, that can't come into evidence. I can't consider
that as evidence.
MS. HAUSELT: I just wanted to indicate that I have
a good faith basis for my question, Your Honor.
JUDGE CAPPS: Well, Ms. Hauselt, I've had you in enough cases. I don't
think you would do anything improper along those lines. But, as far as
ruling on his objection is concerned, I am going to allow you to frame
your hypothetical question to this expert using the facts from page 77
of the exhibit that is in evidence, and as I've explained to the
Respondent, he is entitled in his case in chief to state under oath that
these facts were never supplied to these people by him, which is the
basis of his objection.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Again, Dr. Powers, referring you to page 77, and assuming that Mr.
Campbell had told someone that he was engaged in flying Governor
Connolly and Reagan and during the course of that -
MR. CAMPBELL: Excuse me, where does it state Reagan? I mean, let's keep
this to the facts, and I hate to be nit-picking, but at this stage of
the game it's the only defense I have.
JUDGE CAPPS: Is Reagan included?
MS. HAUSELT: Connolly and Reagan to Reno from Swift Air -- while he was
there, he saved an eleven-year old girl from being raped and was shot in
the leg in the process.
BY MS. HAUSELT: (Resuming)
Q. Of what clinical significance would such a fabrication
be?
A. Well, again, it would be an example of how the individual distorts,
fabricates, outright lies to support his inflated sense of self. It
would also be of significance to me in that if, in fact, it were a
gunshot wound, this would be an important omission from the historical
data that I have obtained from Mr. Campbell at the time of my interview.

Q. Mr. Campbell did not indicate he had ever been wounded?
A. No, he did not.
Q. Referring you to pages 7 through 10 and 11 through 15, we have some
information there with regard to Mr. Campbell's employment by Japan
Airlines and his subsequent use of a uniform following his being
suspended from their employment. Of what clinical significance is such
behavior?
A. Well, this would be, I gather, the most recent or more recent example
of a kind of bending of the facts, distortion and then outright lies,
including in this specific instance again, a masquerade, a confusion of
identity, adopting the role of a pilot for the airlines that the
insignia and the uniform represent. And it's not only a questionable
example of his judgment, but an example of where the boundaries of self
and reality become so blurred as to be crossed back and forth with
relative ease and grace and, I think, probably convincingly so.

JUDGE CAPPS: Off the record.
(Whereupon, an off the record discussion was had.)
JUDGE CAPPS: At this time we are going to suspend the proceedings in
order to take some time off for lunch. We'll recess now and reconvene at
a quarter to three.
(Whereupon, a lunch recess was taken.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
You are still under oath, Doctor.
Whereupon,
DR THOMAS POWERS

having been on the witness stand at the time of the recess, resumed the
stand and was examined and testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt) I believe where we had left off, we had gone through
information which had come to light after your interview with Mr.
Campbell.
In regard to the line of questioning we just went over , were -- did the
incidents of lying and behavior which we have just gone through
constitute overt acts which were manifested as a result of Mr.
Campbell's personality disorder?
A. Can you remind me of exactly where we were, and what documents we
were referring to?
Q. Okay. Well, I believe the last question was the clinical significance
of Mr. Campbell's using the Japan Airlines uniform back in Nashua, New
Hampshire, and his claim with regard to his employment past, and we had
gone through a series of questions concerning his employment in Georgia
and his claims in Nashua to
have been in the Screen Actor's Guild, his methods of teaching, his
failure to follow the orders of the dean at the school, his claims or
being a parachute rigger - those questions.
A. Yes.
Q. Were those types of behavior be overt acts manifested as a result of
a personality disorder?
A. Yes. All of these are examples of overt acts.
Q. I'd like to ask you a similar question to what I asked you earlier --
now, are these episodes and acts which we discussed consistent with your
diagnosis of a mixed personality disorder including both narcissistic
and borderline features?
A. Yes, they area.
Q. And could you just briefly summarize how they fit into that criteria
of DSM-3?
A. Well, all of these manifestations for which we have a written record
or direct observational evidence or second-hand information would be
examples of the kinds of features that are required to make specific
diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder, on the one hand, where
we have to meet the requirement of making observations of the individual
having a grandiose sense of self or uniqueness, and a need to support
that sense
of self.
This may be done in various ways -- through masquerading, through
manipulating, through distortion and fabrication, or outright lies.
Also there is a preoccupation with a fantasy life, which may involve
fantasies of success -- in this case, for example, we could think of an
individual masquerading as a successful airline pilot, wearing the
uniform, discussing with other people the kind of work that the
individual in involved .
Or he could be masquerading as, let us say, a physician and introducing
himself as a physician, prescribing medications, wearing the white coat
of a physician, a name tag indicating that he is a physician.
Likewise, with these kinds of examples of attention-seeking behavior
that are very obvious of exhibitionistic, we fulfill another requirement
in the diagnostic realm of criteria, in that there is a constant need
for attention and admiration on the part or the individuals surrounding
the person with the personality disorder of the narcissistic type.
Likewise, when challenged or threatened, if there is a direct threat
made or if the individual is called into question and account for his
behavior, there may be a response of cool indifference which is
sometimes quite remarkable or just the opposite of that may occur -- he
may fly into a rage -- an explosive rage.
There may be extreme feelings of shame, humiliation, or defeat.
Q. Where do we see evidence of this in the file?
A. Well, I think the account of the dean at Webster College -- when
confronted with certain facts of the situation which developed there; in
the letter and notes that the dean supplied, I think -- on Page 32, on
the top of the page, paragraph goes on to say, "I wrote a letter to Mr.
Campbell that afternoon, which he received personally.
"After reading, it, he stormed into my office. He was obviously
infuriated, especially about the prohibition against the parachute club
meeting. He accused me of taking away his livelihood and he screamed
that; he was going to sue me and the school, following which he slammed
the door violently and he left the building."
Other examples would be those that I referred to in my direct
observation, and that of my perceptions.
For example, if there was a failure of response to efforts to manipulate
or move in the direction that Mr. Campbell wanted to go, there was
anger. In my case, there was a kind of threat. And then there was a
sudden
cooling and change.
Q. Wouldn't you expect a person to be somewhat angry, under those
circumstances?
What is abnormal about that?
Well, I think anger certainly is to be considered a normal response. But
it is a question of the context and the way in which it is handled.
I think one does not try to force an issue when it is obvious: that
there is no way that the outcome is likely to be changed -- or very
unlikely that the outcome is going to be changed.
For instance, when he was told by my receptionist that I had no time --
I really had no time -- I had given him the first available hour, and I
think it was because I had some cancellations that I was able to move
his time up.
Likewise, if we consider the accounting of the events at Daniel Webster
College, I think that the dean pointed out, as I recall he gave a very
good explanation as to why he could not allow Mr. Campbell to meet with
the classes -- either the classes he'd been asked to teach or the
organization that Mr. Campbell wanted to do, I guess on a voluntary
basis, which was not required as part of his teaching assignment.
But there was a very serious question as to
his having the proper certification to engage in that type of activity.
And when confronted with those facts -one might, I suppose, feel the
normal frustration and some degree of anger.
But one would not respond by threatening lawsuits, screaming and
slamming doors. That is not normal behavior.
Q. Is there any significance to the fact that the behavior occurred in
several different situations?
A. Yes. In fact, as I pointed out, I think early on you have to see an
on-going pattern of this kind of manifestation in the individual, that
is present pretty much all of the time, to make a diagnosis of
personality disorder.
This is not an occasional event; it is a constant recurrent type of
manifestation.
JUDGE CAPPS: It is just when the individual does not get his way?
THE WITNESS: Well, it can be that, or I think anytime that the
individual is threatened in terms of the sense of self or in terms of
his functional capabilities
It might come -
JUDGE CAPPS; You mean his ego is threatened, or his self image?
THE WITNESS: His self image, his --

JUDGE CAPPS: And the image he is trying to project?
THE WITNESS: Right.
JUDGE CAPPS: Oh, I see.
THE WITNESS: Who he is, or at the time -- who he may think he is or who
he is trying to convey that he is.
But it also might be simply in -- it could happen in driving a car, and
someone bumps into your car and causes a dent. And sure, it's an
unfortunate circumstance, but there might be a sudden angry outburst of
temper that is kind of a miniature psychosis.
During this period of time, there is such an angry outburst that you
almost have to consider that this is a transient psychotic event. It is
a very short duration and it is not the same as an ongoing process of
psychosis such as we have in schizophrenia, which is another diagnosis
entirely.
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) I didn't mean to throw you off the track,
but getting back to the DSM-3 criteria, what events support those
criteria with regard to the narcissistic personality?
JUDGE CAPPS: He has been through this already.
Are you asking for just events that were brought
to the doctor's attention subsequent to his meeting with the Respondent?

M5. HAUSELT: Right.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right.
Just limit it to those.
THE WITNESS: All right. There are more, and I can definitely go about it
in a fairly organized and speedy fashion.
I reviewed the file , and beginning with the information, we have -- and
these are all incidents which came to my attention outside of the
context of the interview -- beginning with Pages 81 and 82 -- however,
in some cases, they relate to things that I learned in the interview,
but they may be appearing in slightly modified form.
In Pages 81 and 82, we have memorandum from the chief of Portland GADO
15, Mr. John Van Horn that's the October 5th, 1979 -- and the last
paragraph on the first page, at the end of the description that is
rendered there, of Mr. Brown's description of Mr. Campbell's performance
for the first two months.
He was an excellent employee. The third month it was like someone pushed
a button. He did a complete turn-around and caused quite a bit of
trouble.
This would be the kind of thing that one expects
to find -- if the need that this type of individual has to exaggerate --
well, I'm sorry - what happens in the inter-personal relationships of
the person who has a personality disorder.
There is an overidealization in the beginning, and then for some very
small or perhaps even significant reasons, there is a sudden dramatic
change. And it's like night and day. And there is no going back. It's
what we call "splitting."
And this is an example of that kind of psychological operation.
On Page 82 there is a reference to Mr. Campbell telling several others
that he had spent -- that he was at one time a stunt pilot and did the
flying in the movie, "Hooper."
Well, I gather from the preceding testimony that that's of questionable
validity. Again, a distortion, fabrication, or twisting of the facts, to
support an exaggerated sense of self.
There's the description of Mr. Campbell as a very flamboyant individual.
This, I think, is a layman's way of saying that this individual is
exhibitionistic
That is another one of the criteria.
One Page 76, there is a notation from someone's
notes that Mr. Campbell had -- is observed to undergo very marked and
quite wide mood swings, all within 30 minutes. This is kind of affective
disturbance which is observed in the borderline individual, and also can
be observed in the narcissistic type of personality configuration.
On Page 73, we have a notation from Sandy Taylor at the bottom of the
page. By the way, he owes the flight school in New Hampshire $165 in
phone bills. This would be an example of the kind of lack of empathy and
the manipulation of others to accomplish one's ends.
On Pages 55 and 56, this is the copy of the psychiatric evaluation from
Dr. McKnight, which I think I must say I disagreed in terms of his
overall conclusions and I found much lacking, particularly from the
history.
But it certainly occurred to me that Dr. McKnight was not in possession
of all the facts of the history of this individual, much the same as
myself, when I had the chance to interview the individual.
It was only by having some additional time and by going back and
carefully questioning, that I began to see that there were some holes in
the information that he had given me.
JUDGE CAPPS: What page are you referring to in Dr. Knight's -

THE WITNESS: McKnight -- that's pages 55 and 56.
Again, here is an example of information which is slightly distorted, in
that -- at least in Dr. McKnight's accounting -- of Mr. Campbell's
account of his World Trade Center episode, that he was only thinking
about jumping off the World Trade Center.
So I think that, well, there's none other mention in his concluding
paragraph under "impressions" -Dr. McKnight says that he observes that
this is a young man who is somewhat of an over-achiever in his chosen
field, that of air science for piloting.
It seems to me that this is what Mr. Campbell would like others to
believe of him. And he was successful in conveying and portraying that
kind of image, and that is basically a successful young pilot pressing
the outer limits, and in all ways achieving success.
Here again, this is the over-exaggerated and exhibitionistic driven
empty self, and the failure - the failure of jobs -- the broken
relationships -- the shortcomings, the mismatching of stories and facts
-these were left out of the interview with Dr. McKnight.
Also, that occasion, he saw a psychologist who performed a number of
tests. I think in many ways I can agree with the description of some of
the dynamics.

However, again, in this case, the psychologist just did not go far
enough, and probably because he didn't have adequate historical
information or correct historical information.
Also, there was, I think, a very important omission, and that is that is
that no standardized personality test as such -- no personality
inventory, for example, was given.
There were other types of tests of personality functions, but in terms
of the best kind of a survey test which would be likely to turn up
evidence across the board, of problems in personality functioning, one
would think of giving the classical Minnesota MultiPhasic Inventory of
Personality, or the California Personality Inventory, or other such
similar tests.
And this test was omitted from this evaluation. And I really don't
understand, because he had several tests done, and these were observed
to be incomplete, and then he was sent back and given a couple more.
But he still didn't get what I would consider to be a very important
test, and that is the basic MMPI -- Minnesota MultiPhasic Personality
Inventory. So I would disagree with the overall findings that this is a
psychiatrically normal individual, principally
on the thoroughness of the testing, and the inadequacy of historical
information.
And the psychologist has to go on that in attributing his tests.
On Page 54 -- I'm sorry -
Q. And the presentation of one's self in the psychiatric interview in
such a matter that one withholds valuable information about one's past
-- would that be consistent with the personality disorder which we are
talking about?
A. Yes, it would be.
As I have pointed out before, at times, consciously withholding and
other times being kind of drawn in to the role that one has created, and
maybe only being semi-consciously aware that there is distortion of
facts, but in either cased this is part of the dynamics of the
personality disorder.
Then there is on Page 54 the letter from Dr. Dorsey. Again, he mentions
in the second paragraph, without specifically giving a diagnosis of
personality disorder, he gives the bare bones of that diagnosis.
Likewise, the end of the last paragraph, he indicates that treatment was
terminated not by mutual agreement, as is the case in psychotherapy,
when such has been completed successfully, but that the treatment
was terminated by Mr. Campbell finding employment out of the area.
This means that the treatment was not probably - and I think in fact
most likely insufficient even in Dr. Dorsey's eyes. And I think later
evidence would attribute it to the fact that it was incomplete.
On Page 46 and 47, there is an article from the Tulsa trip, again this
indicates that here is an individual who has a tremendous need to gain
support from his surrounding environment. And this need will drive the
individual to extreme lengths including, in this case, masquerading as a
physician without license or education or any of the requirements for
being a physician, except the kind of externals -- the garb, the nametag
and a very convincing demeanor.
Also, here again we have an example how there is a disregard for the
rights and integrity of others, and this contributes all the way along
the line to impoverishment of interpersonal relationships.
In this case, he shows a flagrant lack of empathy by not only
introducing himself as a physician to people who are ill, but he also
prescribes medications for them, indicating that he is a physician.
On Pages 44 and 45, we have the parachute rigger's card entries which
were inappropriate and
distortions of qualifications. Again, this shows such a blurring of
distinctions, and poor judgment that here he may have been endangering
his own life or property of others.
On Page 43 we have the letter from someone who recognized this behavior,
and was trying to do something to kind of shore up the gap that he saw
in this individual's reality testing.
And he was saying to an authority in the parachute organization, in
essence, "please do something about this individual because he doesn't
have what he says he has, and he is going to get himself in trouble and
he is going to get other people in trouble."
On Page 40, we have an application for employment which I thought
curious in that there is an indication that he was a member of the
Screen Actor's Guild,, which was not mentioned in my interview with him
-also that he left that job because he had too many injuries.
That information was also omitted from the history that I obtained from
Mr. Campbell.
We have on Pages 37 and 38 -- this is a letter or memorandum "to whom it
may concern" from Mr. Steve Rikelson to Sandy Taylor.
He is described by Mr. Rikelson in that
correspondence as having a pronounced tendency towards extroversion. And
then he goes on to specify the kinds of things that he -- that had come
to his attention - claims that Mr. Campbell has made that were never
really confirmed.
There was some question of their validity, and there appears again to be
a confusing mixture of fact -- somewhat -- slight distortion, serious
distortion to outright fancy and prevarication.
On Page 36, we have again the letter from Mr. Brown to Dr. Pakull, an
indication that there was both in terms of his work performance -- which
was not in accord and appropriate to the situation -- but that he was
beginning to do things which basically were directed at again the need
to fulfill this grandiose sense of self.
And again, an incident was accounted, which was apparently an outright
lie, and the fact that he was terminated from that job -- which again
points out the difficulty in interpersonal relationships.
On Pages 34 and 35 we have an accounting of the emergency landing and
some other similar kinds of events -- hasty landings due to serious
aircraft malfunctions.
I think these are hard to evaluate, but certainly
they can be examples of the kind of situation that would predictably
develop with an individual who has difficulty sorting out fact from
fantasy.
It is possible in the press of circumstances, whether it is a real
emergency or whether the facts have been distorted, that something
impulsive, hasty and dangerous may be done.
Again, the story -- at least inconsistent with the facts that I was
given in my interview with Mr. Campbell -- of a wife who was pregnant
and who was killed in an automobile accident -- a confusion of fact with
fantasy -- either that or outright lying.
In the second to last paragraph of that letter, there is again a
notation of Mr. Campbell's response in a situation where he was
confronted --- where his self image was called into question, at that
time with the apparent charging of $130 worth of long-distance phone
calls to relatives.
And at that time, according to this description, Mr. Campbell became not
only totally unreasonable but also completely irrational.
On Pages 16 through 33, we have again a series of events that took place
at Daniel Webster College which show how Mr. Campbell was caught up in a
situation where he had apparently told some tall tales about himself.

This situation gradually escalated into kind of a full community crisis.
And in the course of trying to work his way out of what I suppose he
thought at the time was a perfectly righteous and explainable and in his
best interests, matters became even more complicated and ended up in an
explosive outburst in the dean's office, and he was terminated from his
position there.
And then there is the question of his function as a teacher --- again,
the kind of relationships he had as a teacher with his students, and the
questions of identity and boundaries come up in that context -- and also
in his relationship with the dean, where it appears in the record that
he directly disobeyed written orders.
On Page 19, -- well, I could go through and point out more specific
items, but we've already been over that. So I would move on to Pages 7
to 15, which appear to be the most recent example in the record.
Again, extremely poor judgment and inability to suspend a drive to feed
this empty and needy self with exaggeration and distortion and again, a
kind of role-playing that I think amounts to really a confusion of
identity.
And here we have -- first at Page 9 -- this is a memorandum from Mr.
Scarborough, written, I think, shortly after the time that Mr. Campbell
left JAL IASCO
in Napa, saying "somehow it seems to me I didn't get back from you a red
jacket, wings and epaulettes. Would you please stick these items in a
box and mail them to me. Thanks, Ed S."
And he has enclosed, or someone has enclosed in the record, an inventory
which was made of items checked out on the date of employment. And that
includes, sure enough, a uniform with a red windbreaker, a cap, wings,
shoulder boards and stripes. And these items were noted at the bottom of
the page either returned or not returned on 3/11/80, and in this case
the uniform, was not returned on 3/11/80, which I gather is when Mr.
Campbell left, or about the time that he left working for this
organization.
JUDGE CAPPS: What page was that?
THE WITNESS: That is on Page 10.
You see that the top of the page, it is initialed "EMD," and date of
employment, "February 4th, 1980."
And the items were checked off, I gather, when he received them, and
then at the bottom of the page there are zeroes next to the items that
were returned on 3/11/80.
And unreturned items included I guess the Jeppson manual and the uniform
and some of the others

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, I see that.
THE WITNESS: Then following that, on Pages 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, with
dates some of seven or eight weeks later, accountings of individuals who
had met Mr. Campbell and spoke with him dressed fully in the uniform,
with insignias that depicted Japan Air Lines.
And also they indicated that Mr. Campbell had specifically said that he
was working for Japan Air Lines and had flown into Boston the night
before. He said he was a captain on the Falcon 20 and a co-pilot on a
B747.
Again, here is an example -- I think it is evidence now that this is a
continuing process, that the identity does become confused because of
the need that this individual has to fill this tremendous void within
Such distortions occur as really a question not only judgment but
occupation functioning, social functioning, and really, I think if not
to cause significant subjective distress on the individual, to certainly
raise questions in that individual as to why it is that all the world
seems to be turning against or finding fault.
JUDGE CAPPS: Let me ask you this -- do you
know, when you see a movie with Danny Kaye playing all these characters,
it is funny as the devil.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: And you look and you say, "Well, there's nothing wrong with
somebody blowing their own horn -- you know, good con man. He puts his
best foot forward."
Some people look up to that.
Obviously this Respondent was able to do that; he was able to talk
himself into many, many jobs right in the same industry.
What differentiates the behavior here to make it dangerous to air safety
for this man to go up in the air?
THE WITNESS: Well, I think generally speaking that there is evidence of
a serious impairment of judgment such that I would wonder if in judging
that it was safe and appropriate to do what he indicated to me he did --
that is, to plan to jump off the World Trade Center Building -- to get
-- just at the last minute as he is going over the side, albeit with a
parachute on and he is an experienced parachutist.
But this is taking a real risk with his own life

JUDGE CAPPS: Well, are you saying that we can't
tell, because of his unpredictable nature, what he might do when he once
got up in the clouds?
THE WITNESS: That's right.
You don't know what is going to happen next. I think I can go further to
say that given pressing circumstances that he could be counted on to
make faulty judgments
JUDGE CAPPS: If there is the slightest bit of pressure brought to bear?
Is that it?
THE WITNESS: If there is pressure of if - even if there is not pressure
-- if it just happens to fit with a particular kind of scheme or scam or
fantasy that is going on at the moment,
For instance -- I don't know that there was any particular pressure
involved when he says -- and I don't know whether to believe this or not
-- that is one of the problems -- but he says that he went up with a
friend and they flew around the World Trade Center Building and they
were dropping smoke bombs out to see which way the wind was blowing.
I believe that that is a violation of air safety. It is at least doing
something that I think is probably likely to meet with the disapproval
or the authorities, both of the city and of the state if not
the FAA.
Also, I was think of another example of that - but in any event,
basically it is difficult to predict, except to say you are not sure
what is going to happen next, but like as not there is going to be
faulty judgment, because there has been such faulty judgment in the
past.
And there has been lack of insight as to how that judgment was faulty.
So therefore there is no learning from continued experience.
JUDGE CAPPS; So in your testimony is he has removed himself from being a
charming, lying rascal -
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: -- to a person who doesn't even know himself who he is.
That affects his judgment and causes defects in that judgment?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
And in his perception of reality and what is appropriate and what is
inappropriate.
You mentioned Danny Kaye, and the kind of madcap things we see in the
media and on television and in the movies -- you know, it's quite
likely, I think, that perhaps there is a place for Mr. Campbell in the
Screen
Actors Guild.
It would certainly be more appropriate for him to do this type of thing
on the stage or in a controlled setting where no one is going to suffer
-- where there is a net at the bottom when the person goes off the top
of the World Trade Center, in case something goes wrong.
He would not smash himself as a result of faulty judgment.
Now, on Page 7, I think finally the last example is that we began
confirming information that while at - I asked if Mr. Campbell was not
involved in the operation of Falcon Aircraft. "We do not operate Boeing
747's or other air carrier jets."
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) Dr. Powers, you were present during Mr.
Campbell's opening statement, were you not?
A. Yes
Q. I want to ask you if -- I noticed you took notes at that time.
Was there anything of clinical significance stated during those opening
remarks?
A. Well, I was making note of some discrepancies that I was hearing,
between what I had been told or I had been led to believe, and what I
was hearing then.
But I think that - most of those I have been
over -- there are one or two things I would care to comment on, in that
Mr. Campbell said that with respect to his treatment with Dr. Dorsey
that he had relatively few sessions, that he felt that little progress
had been made.
However, he felt that he had been seen by his grandfather and had been
spending some time talking with his grandfather, who has had some time,
I gather, directing a state hospital, but who is a GP, and therefore not
specifically trained in dealing with psychopathology or personality
disorders which I think are probably some of the most difficult kinds of
cases to work with.
And he at the time conveyed to the Court that he was getting what he
needed, in this relationship with his grandfather.
Well. I would submit to the contrary -- that he was getting what he was
seeking, which is evident from other examples of his behavior. But he is
not about to get the appropriate kind of psychotherapy that is required
for the treatment of the personality disorder.
JUDGE CAPPS: Did I read somewhere in the record -- refresh my
recollection -- that his grandfather thought he was schizophrenic?
THE WITNESS: Well, I don't remember reading that per se. I just don't
remember.

JUDGE CAPPS: I thought I saw something in there.
THE WITNESS: Well, somewhere in the record it was noted that somebody at
one time or another thought that he was schizophrenic and then
confronted him with that, at which time he did not respond with anything
except kind of tacit agreement.
And I don't know what else to place that time, but he indicated that he
had had some mental problems and it stopped at that -- that particular
point.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, just to clear that up -- I believe there is a
reference in the Tulsa Tribune article that his parents have said that.
However, we are not alleging that Mr. Campbell has a psychosis.
JUDGE CAPPS: Which would be schizophrenia, right.
Okay. I knew I had read that somewhere. Okay. You were going to give us
other examples from his opening statement .
THE WITNESS: Well, Let me just review those notes for a minute.
(The Witness examined his notes.)
To give us an example of the kind or thing that happens to him, when
describing what to place at
the Daniel Webster College -- and this I wrote down from his statements
here earlier today -- "I went along with what had been said in the past,
even though some of it was not true, to save my pride."
This is the way he explains it to us, and this is the way he explains it
to himself, and I think he believes it himself. I think he believes it
himself more than we are able to believe it.
Likewise, he said, "When I left there, I wanted to throw them off the
track, so I told them I was going in all directions." And that to him
made a lot of sense at the time.
But what it amounted to was that he was telling people different things
at the same time. And that is inconsistent with the truth.
JUDGE CAPPS: Tell me, what is your professional opinion as to what the
prognosis for the Respondent is, with your -- with the diagnosis you
have found and all you know from this case, from having been in here
today and having studied all the records, plus your own interview and
personal observation of him?
What is your prognosis for his condition?
THE WITNESS: At this point in time I would say that I consider his
prognosis extremely guarded.
The reason for that is because he is -- has
not conveyed to the court today, in my observation, that he is really
involved in psychotherapy for its own sake, to really get at the
personality disorder which he is suffering with.
JUDGE CAPPS: He doesn't have the proper motivation
THE WITNESS: Well, I think his motivation is to clear up the problem -
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes. To get his certificate back.
THE WITNESS: I don't think it is so important, really, whether or not
this man flies an airplane again.
He may be able to, at some time in the future, if he really gets into
treatment and stays at it for sufficient time and intensity to change
his behavior and therefore to change his personality.
That is what is going to be required, and this is going to take a long
time and a lot of work and effort on his part.
JUDGE CAPPS: But it can be done with proper treatment?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it can.
JUDGE CAPPS: Under a proper doctor that knows what he is doing?
THE WITNESS: Yes.

Q (By the Board) And as long as there is the proper desire to be cured,
on the part of the Respondent -is that about it?
A. Yes. The proper desire and motivation.
And there is one other thing that is in his favor. He is relatively
young, which not only means that he has got more time to work on it, but
that his personality is in some ways still in the formative phases.
And that gives him statistically a little better prognosis. Otherwise it
would be even worse, if he were ten years older.
Q. You can teach a new dog new tricks?
A. That's right.
Q. Yes.
Go ahead, I'm sorry I interrupted, but that was really uppermost in my
mind there -- this prognosis deal.
A. That was really the end of what I wanted to say about the notations
that I made on what Mr. Campbell had said earlier.
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) Okay, Doctor, just in conclusion I would
ask you -- based on the regulations and as a result of all the testimony
and your own background with this case -- do you have an opinion as to
whether or not Mr. Campbell has a personality
disorder which is severe enough to manifest itself by repeated overt
acts?
A. Yes, I do.
He does have such a personality disorder.
Q. And as pertaining to the second regulation at issue, and putting
aside the question of the overt acts, do you have an opinion as to
whether or not Mr. Campbell has a personality disorder which now or
within the next two years may reasonably be expected to make him unable
to safely perform his duties of his certificate?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is your opinion?
A. That he is unlikely to change without sufficient and appropriate and
complete treatment of his problem.
MS. HAUSELT: I have no further questions.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay. Would you like a brief recess -- maybe five minutes
-- before we go into your cross-examination?
MR. CAMPBELL: That's not necessary.
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Go ahead.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
(By Mr. Campbell) I am going to have to run over some material in here,
specifically about your evaluation.

The first question I have is specifically how much information did you
have a chance to look over, or how much information had you received
from the FAA at the time of my evaluation?
A. I had had a conversation with Dr. Sexton, at which time he gave me
some of the information that I later received in a written form, in
terms of letters and the evaluation from Dr. Knight and the
psychologist, Lundey.
There were some other notes that had been made in his office, that he
sent me copies of. I received those prior to the time that I saw you.
Q. By any chance did this information include any data on the attempted
World Trade Center --
A. It did.
Q. We talked for several hours. During this time, there were some
disagreements over what specifically happened.
You stated pretty much close to the end of this that with reference to
my request to get some information concerning the outcome for any
results that you might be able to give me -- and I am reading from the
mental status examination that I came up "angry and furious, demanding
that the examiner was supposed to phone the FAA at the exam and give an
oral report to
the requesting physician."
"When the examiner pointed out that the hour was late, he stated that he
had in his possession a notarized statement -- that immediate action
would be taken.
"When asked to produce the document, he shifted the topic, quickly
cooling his rage, and informing me that he had enlisted the help of a
congressman in dealing with the bureaucratic snafu that resulted in his
suspension."
Now, you are specifically stating that I said that I had in my
possession the notarized statement. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. And I became outwardly angry and furious.
That is also correct?
A. Yes.
Q. All right. Let me ask you sir --- is frustration a normal reaction?
Is that within the normal realm?
JUDGE CAPPS: I hope it is, as frustrated as I get sometimes.
Please say it's normal.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it certainly can be.
(By Mr. Campbell Continuing) Would you consider
the period from early October to early March an easy time to get
frustrated in -- specifically over having one's career killed over his
head?
A. I think some frustration was to be expected.
Q. And if a person was promised second-hand certain results, and had
expected those results, and did not receive them after he built up some
dependence on getting that information/that would specifically inform
employers, parents and so forth, wouldn't that be - or would that be --
normal reaction?
A. Well, let's not lose sight of the context. The context is late on
Friday afternoon, and demands are being made in the office of the
physician which cannot be responded to, and an explanation is given as
why.
I told you, as I can recall, that I really had to look over the data and
think about it and write a report, and if from that report there would
be forthcoming some action on the part of the FAA.
But it was not really my position to decide anything, but merely to give
an evaluation, write a diagnosis, to submit a report and the rest of it
would be handled by the FAA. That was out of my realm.
That kind of explanation should have been given appropriate
consideration, and utilized in holding some
of the anger in check. And specifically I would refer I don't know
whether you had a notarized statement in your pocket or not -- maybe you
did.
But it seemed to me to me -- you know, I was being intimidated and
somewhat threatened and coerced in that situation, to do something that
I was not prepared to do.
And it was inappropriate of you to require me to do it.
Q. So at that time you said you were not capable or prepared to give any
impressions or judgments in relations to my medical.
A. Well, I think I gave you some feedback right at the time.
Q. No, sir. I can't recall.
A. We had an exchange of information at that time as I recall.
Q. Well, please refresh my memory as to what that was.
Well, I can't remember my exact words, but I think I did indicate at
that time that there were some real problems in what you had told me.
And I think you then said something -- you had copies of the regulations
with you, that you referred to. You had them in your attach‚ case --
your flight kit.
And you, I think, had also at the time to some extent pretty much
appraised the situation and you said something to the effect, "You-
don't think I could be considered under Section -- whatever it was --
referring to psychosis, which is automatically disqualifying; or
alcoholism, which is automatically disqualifying.
Q. At the time, I think you zeroed in on a section which specifies that
a medical certificate for an airman can be disqualified for having an
history of personality disorder with -- overaxed.
And I think you read to me out of the manual at the time, saying
something to the effect that it looks like it will be this, which is
Catch-22.
Do you recall that?
Q. That I do. That was during the course of the examination itself; not
at the conclusion.
A. Well, it was near the conclusion.
In any event, I thought to leave well enough alone at that point, as far
as you were concerned.
Q. All right. Let me ask you this:
You put a lot of faith in a lot of hearsay evidence, specifically
letters and reports from various people from non-professional
backgrounds, who may or may not be associated or may or may not really
have the knowledge of the situation.
Would your opinion change very greatly if you were to find out that a
great deal of this information is misleading?
Well, I suppose I could change my opinion. However, I think it would
require some doing to explain this whole pattern of events, in addition
to what I observed at the time that I spent with you, and -this business
about you wanting to be given an appointment ahead of anybody else that
I wanted to see.
Q. Doctor, we aren't talking about explaining.
I'm talking about producing irrefutable evidence to the contrary of
these statements.
A. Well, yes, if you could refute point by point all of the items that
have been presented today, then I would have to reconsider, but I don't
think I could reconsider -- I could reconsider, including the other
information that is in addition to what I learned about you in my
interview.
I would not change my diagnosis.
Q. Okay. Let's talk about one thing.
You had a great deal to say about, and have indicated a great deal of
interest during the course of the interview, and frankly, it caused me a
few problems here
Specifically, going back to the World Trade
Center -- and there has been a great deal of disagreement on this --
specifically, the act of jumping off of a tall building with a parachute
and with preparation is in your mind not a stable act?
A. I think that my point there was in terms of evaluating judgment, that
that is the example of extremely poor judgment.
Q. Doctor, are you a parachutist?
A. I am not.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of parachuting?
A. Very little.
Q. Are you aware of what general -- at terminal velocity -- for instance
a term used to describe an average velocity after acceleration -- are
you aware that it takes approximately -350 feet for a parachute to open,
max., and that the building is 1,377 feet tall?
A. I don't know these particular facts. But I would guess that it is
possible to jump off the building with a parachute on, and survive.
Q It is more than possible. It's been done twice.
Now, in that respect, you also made a statement - and this is something
I take a great deal of exception to -- that there were flights in the
World Trade Center, there were smoke rings.
However, do you still maintain that objects were dropped from the
aircraft?
I don't know, but that is what you told me. That you had a friend fly
you around the building in a helicopter and you dropped smoke bombs to
see what way the wind currents were -- to see what the wind was doing
around the building.
Q. Are you absolutely sure, now, of dropping objects from the machine?
A. That's what you told me.
Q. Around the Center?
In relation to the fact that I have two substantial -- not rather
substantial, but I could feel complete evaluations by a psychiatrist and
a psychologist, a letter from another psychiatrist and a letter -- for
what good it may do and whatever attention it may be paid -- from my
grandfather, who we will grant is not a psychiatrist, but I often wonder
if a general practitioner does not have a little bit more insight than
the average psychiatrist into people -- how did you find one man's
testimony able to refute four?
A. Well, I don't. I am just stating my opinion. I will leave it to the
Court to decide which -
Q. Personally, I wouldn't give myself that much credit for being able to
fool four professionals, especially
one that has been acquainted with me all of my life.
A. I did say why I thought that the evaluations submitted by Drs.
McKnight and Lundey were incomplete, insufficient, and therefore wrong.
I think I can substantially agree with what Dr. Dorsey had to say, in
that he basically is giving the bare bones of the personality disorder
in his letter.
And I don't remember exactly what your grandfather had to say but I
would insist that it is not appropriate for you to seek or obtain
treatment for a personality disorder from your grandfather.
Q. Well, I maintain nobody would know me quite as well.
A. Well, that is in fact of the problem.
He would know you so well as to again fall into this kind of blind spot
that you have created, where issues of reality and judgment come into -
Q. I think his judgment is extremely important.
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I would ask that you explain to Mr. Campbell
that during the course of his cross-examination, he is not to interject
his own comments.
JUDGE CAPPS: That's right.
This is not a time for commentary from you, Mr. Campbell. All this is is
the opportunity for you
to ask questions and to elicit answers.
That is all. You make no comments, other than to voice a question.
MR. CAMPBELL: All right. Thank you.
In reference to your opinion concerning my suitability as a pilot, let
me ask you first if you have any flight experience, specifically a
license or any type of rating or any type of instruction, upon which to
base a judgment from a practical standpoint?
THE WITNESS: I have no experience or pilot certification of any kind in
that regard.
I've flown in a lot of airplanes, though.
Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) Can you tell me specifically when Dr.
Sexton came to you?
I think he -- I don't know Dr. Sexton. I think I am known to the FAA
regional office in Los Angeles. I have worked with some of the staff
there.
I think it is likely that someone else there - possibly one of the
attorneys that I have worked with on other cases somewhat similar to
this case -- might have said that I was in their area and would be
available perhaps to do an evaluation on behalf of the FAA of yourself.
That is my guess. I really don't know. I don't know Dr. Sexton.

Q. Okay. In reference to your comment concerning Dr. Lundey's
psychological testing, you seemed to indicate that there are some
omissions.
Are you aware that the tests taken were the exact tests that the FAA had
requested, and apparently this was on a form letter, so this is
established procedure?
A. No, I wasn't-aware of that at all. But I will repeat that they were
deficient in two respects one, I think in respect that there was
insufficient historical data given at the time on the part of the
individual being examined; and then I would have myself wanted to see
the results of one very important additional instrument -- which is the
MMPI.
Q. All right. In what ways are these tests deficient?
I would just like to clarify that just a little bit, and specifically
since the psychological written testings seemed to come out in my favor,
how does one fool a piece of paper and a pencil?
A. It's not easy.
But I think that it is possible, and we see it happen again and again.
And most often it is for lack of the sufficient and correct clinical
information which in reading the evaluations and summaries written
up by Dr. McKnight and Dr. Lundey -- there was just insufficient data
available to them.
They didn't go far enough with their inquiry
Q. Well, from the information you just gave me, and some statements you
made during the interview back in March, it seemed to indicate to me
that you didn't have a whole lot more information than they did.
A. Well, I didn't. But I had a little more, and in this case it might
have been the critical difference.
Q. You had more information at the time this report was made,
approximately five days later?
A. Well, I knew that for one thing that -- that those reports had been
done and that they had been considered to be perhaps lacking and that
they did not sufficiently explain all that was going on.
So I found myself with the question in my mind shortly after the
beginning o_ the interview -- for instance, why it was that I really
wanted so much to believe what you were telling me.
Q. I'm going to go back to the World Trade Center here, because
according to your diagnostic formulation you stated "this is a young-
man with a history of two dramatic examples of severe impairment of
judgment."
First of all, would you consider the World Trade Center as one of those?

A. Yes.
Q. I take it you consider the events in Tulsa, Oklahoma as the other?
A. Yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: What events in Tulsa, Oklahoma?
THE WITNESS: Well, this is the series of events at which time he was
impersonating a physician.
JUDGE CAPPS: Oh, right. Okay.
Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) Well, let me ask you this, and if I seem
to be repeating myself, I am sorry.
I am just trying to reach an understanding of the rationale behind your
title of "severe impairment of judgment" in respect to the World Trade
Center.
First of all, the severe impairment of judgment does that lie more in
the fact that it was an illegal enterprise or something where a
possibility o_ risk presented itself?
A. Well, I think both.
As I recall you telling me about that situation, you said that "they
caught me with one leg over the side of the building,"
It doesn't seem to me that those are the optimum circumstances for even
the best of daredevil parachutists to successfully leap from the top of
a tall building.
If you've got security guards hanging on to one arm, how are you going
to pull a ripcord? And at the same time, yes, it was against the law.
Had you gained permission from those who owned the building and the
thing had been properly carried out legally, I suppose that that would
be a different set of circumstances .
But again, you didn't do that. You disregarded the fact that you Were in
violation of the law to trespass and jump off somebody else's building .

Q. By any chance did you have an opportunity to get a little bit more
information about the attempt itself, specifically the incidents leading
directly up to the arrest ?
A. The only thing I knew was what you told me about that, except that
this had allegedly had occurred and that this was omitted from your
description of it until the very end.
Q. Were you aware that the attempts stopped not at the arrest but simply
because the attempts stopped when another person entered the immediate
area?
A. No, I was going to go on what you told me, which was that it stopped
when you had one leg over the side of the building.
Q Correct. That was the point at which it
stopped.
Are you aware -- and this is a matter of police record -- are you aware
of the fact that the attempt stopped when the danger presented itself to
a person other than myself -- that the attempt stopped when another
person had crossed the fence and was in the process of trying to stop me
from making the jump?
I think this makes a big difference in impairment of judgment.
JUDGE CAPPS: Put a question mark on that, and I will allow it.
Otherwise, it's going to be a form of testimony which I don't allow.
Does that have a question mark on it?
MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, it does, Your Honor.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.
He put a question mark on it.
THE WITNESS: I really can't -- I don't recall that you told me that.
But you did explain some of the circumstances; my recollection is that
the security guards were there and you said, as I recall, that you had
one leg over the side of the building.
Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) All right, sir. By any chance does that
make any difference to you in
the --
All right, now, in relation to some statements I had made during my
opening statement, you had ventured some opinions about them,
specifically in respect to some comments I had made about being caught
and having problems with pride and so forth.
In your opinion, does this fit into a situation where there were
deliberate fabrications or fabrications simply based on the fact that
one's back was up against the wall?
A. I honestly don't know, Mr. Campbell.
All I know is that the stories don't match with the facts, and when we
have this kind of discrepancies then usually there is either distortion,
outright lying, or there is an even more serious thing going on, which
the individual isn't aware of -- that there is a real distortion of
reality, such that you don't know when you are telling the truth and
when you are not telling the truth.
And I think that you are at risk for getting into kind of situation on
that day-to-day basis.
Q. So it is your opinion that at this point I not aware of the
difference between right and wrong?
A. I don't know that. It could possibly be so, in a given situation.

Do you find your qualifications any better or equal to, or even lacking,
with respect to Dr. McKnight, Dr. Lundey, or Dr. Dorsey?
What I am getting here is we've got three different opinions, and I
would just like to know the rationale which says "you are right, they
are wrong."
A. Well, as I said before, I disagree with two of them. I don't know
what their qualifications are, so I can't really answer that question.
Q. Oh, yes -- one other question.
This, I think is going to be rather important. I am sure that as a
practicing psychiatrist you have had the opportunity to speak to people
about this, but do you find a lot of prejudice toward mental illness or
people who have experienced any type of mental health problem, or people
who have consulted with psychiatrists, psychologists?
A. There is considerable prejudice and much of it is irrational and
unwarranted.
Q. Would that -- would some of those feelings manifest themselves at
times in trying to either damage someone or make false statements
concerning someone?
Is that within the realm of possibility?
A. It certainly is.
Q. What is -- throughout this procedure, there
has been some references to "con man."
Is that an accurate characterization in this particular circumstance?
JUDGE CAPPS: I was the only one who used that phrase, and you've just
voiced it out of context.
THE WITNESS: You would have to be more specific, because I don't know
what you are referring to.
I don't remember the incident which the Court has referred to -- the
Judge introduced that notion by way of seeking further explanation of
something I had said.
Could you be more specific?
Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) Well, what I am trying to establish is
the absence of a malicious intent.
Was there any evidence of malicious intent through the fabrications --
that you have seen?
A. Malicious? In what way malicious?
Q. Hurt somebody else.
Did you know of any deliberate attempt on my part to hurt anybody else?
A. I would say that what I was aware of was a conspicuous absence of
feeling of that sort, when it would have been appropriate to consider
that possibility that someone might be hurt, that someone might be

deprived of their rights -- individual rights, property rights and so
forth.
There was a lack of empathy and a total absence of feeling of that kind,

That would be the kind of point that I would
make.
Q. Okay. No more questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE CAPPS: Redirect?
MS. HAUSELT: I have a couple, Your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Dr. Powers, is there any indication from the record that at the time Mr.
Campbell attempted to jump off the World Trade Center, that the area
below was cleared of pedestrians, vehicles and other obstructions?
A. None that I am aware of.
I would gather not, because it seemed to me that this was a kind of a
surprise on his part, and there were no preparations made, except that
he had a parachute on.
Q. Had there been a person who as claimed by Mr. Campbell came over the
fence in an effort to stop Mr. Campbell from jumping over the edge of
the World Trade Center -- what did that indicate about Mr. Campbell's
understanding of other people's feelings and well-being?
A. Well, I fail to see the point that he is driving at. I don't see
that it really makes a shred of difference but apparently to him it
does.
And that he can make those kinds of distinctions, I think is part of the
problem, It's like what I referred to earlier today, in his accounting
of the difference between a man who walks across from building to
building on a tightwire, and one climbing the side like a mountain
climber.
And the one was questionable judgment or and the other was not. I can't
make those kinds of distinctions either, which Mr. Campbell apparently
is able to.
And I don't share his point of view in that regard.
Q. Would you make, or would you be able to make a diagnosis of a
personality disorder based on psychological testing?
A. No
Q. Is that the theory you had, without all the information of the
individual's past history ?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. If you had received no information about
Mr. Campbell, and merely relied on what he told you, do you think you
could have diagnosed him as having a personality disorder?
A. It would have been difficult.
I think I could have done it, had I been given more time. But that would
have been difficult. I think Mr. Campbell has shown us today here that
he is extremely verbal and adept at portraying his intelligence and his
ability to stand on his feet and speak for himself and to be entirely
convincing in a role which is, I gather, rather unfamiliar to him -- and
that is defending himself in a court of law.
MS. HAUSELT: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
JUDGE CAPPS: Thank you, Dr. Powers.
MR. CAMPBELL: Your Honor?
JUDGE CAPPS: Do you have another one --
MR. CAMPBELL: I have still one question.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay. Go ahead.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
Q. You had mentioned some personality tests -- I believe the MMPI.
Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would those -
MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, this goes beyond
the scope of the Redirect questioning.
JUDGE CAPPS: That is outside of -
MR. CAMPBELL: She asked questions about psychological testing.
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, way back on Direct.
MR. CAMPBELL: She just asked questions on psychological testing.
She asked specifically if -
JUDGE CAPPS: Oh go ahead and ask it. It will save time.
Go ahead and ask your questions. You are allowed to ask. Go ahead.
Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) Sir, would those tests have any bearing
on your opinion at this time, or could they make a difference?
A. Can you ask the question again.
I'm not sure what it is that you are asking about.
Q. Could the MMPI possibly make a difference in your decision, at this
time?
A. No, it would not.
All right. Thank you.
FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt) But in your opinion, that might have made the
difference in the evaluation of
Dr. Lundey and Dr. McKnight?
A. Yes. That was my point.
MS. HAUSELT: I have no further questions.
JUDGE CAPPS: Let me ask you this;
Dr. Dorsey -- he didn't make any diagnosis,
THE WITNESS: No.
JUDGE CAPPS: Because his treatment was ceased before it's natural
culmination, in his opinion, because the Respondent moved out of the
area.
Is that right?
THE WITNESS: It was terminated for that reason. I don't know if that is
the reason why he didn't venture a diagnosis.
What he did do was -- in more descriptive language - gave some of the
essential elements of a personality disorder, in that letter.
JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, I noticed in that letter he did cite certain things -
THE WITNESS: Right.
JUDGE CAPPS: -- and that leads you to think that that was an inherent
diagnosis -- I mean, coming from a psychiatrist like it was.
THE WITNESS: If we had Dr. Dorsey here today, and asked him, he would
agree that that was the
diagnosis -- the diagnosis of personality disorder was correct.
JUDGE CAPPS: He would that these are symptoms -these things that he --
or characteristics.
THE WITNESS: These are the manifestations and the characteristics, yes.
JUDGE CAPPS: That DSM
THE WITNESS: The Diagnostic Statistical Manual is a standard in the
field.
Q. (By the Board) That is so you all will know what each other is
saying, and talking about, right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Much less, us --
A. More importantly, you, I would say -- in this case.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay. I have no further questions
Thank you, Dr. Powers. We will take a five minute recess before your
next witness.
(The witness was excused.)
(A five-minute recess was taken.)
JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
MS. HAUSELT: We call Dr. Barton Pakull.
Whereupon,

DR. BARTON PAKULL

assumed the witness stand, and having been duly sworn by the
Administrative Law Judge, was examined and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt) Would you state your name for the record?
A. Barton Pakull. First name, B-a-r-t-o-n, last name, Pakull,
P-a-k-u-l-l.
Q. What is your business address?
A. 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C.
Q. A. And you are -- where are you employed?
A. I am employed for the Federal Aviation Administration in the office
of Aviation Medicine.
Q. In what capacity?
A. I am the chief psychiatrist on the staff of the Federal Air Surgeon.
Q. Are you Board certified in psychiatry?
A. I am Board qualified in psychiatry.
Q. Dr. Pakull, could you briefly summarize what your medical education
is, or was?
A. Yes. I am a graduate of Syracuse Medical School, in 1961. I took the
prescribed residency in psychiatry, in the Department of Psychiatry in
Syracuse, completing that in 1965

I also parenthetically in 1965 received training as a flight surgeon in
the Army, and served as an Army flight surgeon in Viet Nam in 1965-66.
Q. When did -- what did you do after 1966?
A. After serving in the Army as both a flight surgeon and with the
Special Forces and paratroopers, I served in the Peace Corps for three
years.
I served as Deputy Chief Psychiatrist in the Peace Corps. Following
that, I was staff psychiatrist -chief psychiatrist -- currently -- with
the Federal Aviation Administration, since 1970.
Q. And do you have any aviation and flying background?
A. I am a licensed hot air balloon pilot and a parachutist.
Q. And you have reviewed the-file in this case?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Could you just explain briefly what personality disorder is?
A. Well, much the same as has already been testified to by Dr. Powers
quite eloquently and quite directly.
He referred to the fact that there are different types of personality,
and that a personality disorder is an extreme and maladaptive pattern of
behavior that is ingrained, that occurs and usually is seen to manifest
early in life -- in adolescence -- and persists throughout out life.
It is a pattern of behavior and a constellation of behavior that is
recognizable, so that you see what the person is like -- it's a
personality disorder when that is both extreme and maladaptive.
In that sense, a personality disorder is in some instances more clearly
observable, or just as clearly observable by lay people as it is by
professionals. It is just that we can articulate and explain or
categorize it, but the manifestations are things that are within the
purview of all lay people.
Q. Okay. What are the characteristics of a person suffering from a
personality disorder?
A. Well, they vary, depending on the personality disorder.
However, with reference to the Aviation Medical Certification
Regulations, part 67, which although I have not written, I am quite
familiar with -- we are referring to overt acts related to personality
disorder.
We are referring to those types of personality disorders specifically
that bear upon judgment that bear upon the kind of judgment involved in
aviation and in aviation safety. This is not with specific
reference to intelligence or proficiency
Personality disorders of certain types, that manifest themselves in
overt acts, are related to safety because they are related to kinds of
judgment that people will make
Q. Okay. Let me ask you a general question.
In your opinion, based on the file and all the testimony that you have
heard today, does Mr. Campbell suffer from a personality disorder?
A. Yes, he does.
Q. And has that personality disorder manifested itself by repeated overt
acts?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could you outline briefly what some of those overt acts were?
A. Yes In general it has been testified to and observed and is in the
record and is acceded to, to some extent, by Mr. Campbell himself, that
he has shown poor impulse control.
He has shown poor judgment. He has shown an inability to take
responsibility for his acts, with a tendency to blame other people. And
he has evidenced that he does not understand; that he feels little guilt
for some of the things that he has done.
Some of these overt acts - they've been gone
into in quite detail, and they are quite numerous. But they can be
grouped, and at least they could be referred to in certain individual
cases.
For instance, the incident about the World Trade Center, which in itself
is an irresponsible action because obviously someone jumping off a tall
building is doing something that is illegal, first of all, which makes
it an irresponsible act by itself - one of many that would manifest
itself in this.
But secondly, he did not understand that this involved danger to other
people, when you land on other people in a parachute.
Posing as a doctor -- now I understand from some of the comments not
under oath by Mr. Campbell that he would take issue with some aspects of
the article written in the Tulsa newspaper.
Be that as it may, whether or not he in fact did -- and I don't know
that he didn't do it -- I mean, as far as I know, he did attempt to
treat people -- the posing as a doctor is an irresponsible act because
it can pose a risk to the life and safety of other people.
This is poor judgment. If a person and these experiences have occurred
to me -- I have become familiar with experiences such as this, where a
person suffering from a heart attack or incapacitating situation,
other people rush to the wrong person, thinking he is a physician,
instead of taking proper action of calling for proper servicing.
This is a life-threatening kind of situation, an example of possible
irresponsibility.
His claims of being an instructor for -- that's AOPA -- it is in
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association organization, where he made a
claim to have done some ground school that was not -- he had made claims
to credentials he doesn't have, and his - the credential of having a
parachute rigger, are examples of poor judgment where he puts people at
risk.
I myself in the purview of being a student parachutist know that I would
not want to put my life and my safety in the hands of somebody who would
be impulsive or who would not be completely qualified, or would do these
things without being qualified.
Certainly in my responsibilities of chief psychiatrist at the FAA I am
concerned, and let this concern be manifested throughout the office of
Aviation Medicine at the FAA, that we are concerned with lapses of
judgment because this -- if it reflects itself in this kind of
personality, we expect it might reflect itself in aviation activity and
impinge upon the safety of others.

In fact, in this case it did impinge on itself in aviation activity. But
even without that, I would consider having this personality and having
these overt acts -- even outside of aviation -- would be sufficient for
us to want to take action under part 67, which we have a right to do.
Again, there are other aspects that reflect on this kind of acting-out
personality disorder, such as taking things. It has been alluded to
films; in one case, educational materials in the case of one of the
other employment - places he was employed at.
These are examples of an acting-out personality - irresponsible actions,
financial irresponsibility. The business with the phone calls; also the
business with non-payment-on Page 73, non-payment of bills.
Again, these are overt acts that are not in aviation, hut they don't
necessarily have to be in aviation to be overt acts that reflect an
acting-out personality.
And an acting-out personality is a person with poor impulse control,
poor judgment, who we would not want to have responsibility within
aviation.
Misrepresenting himself as a JAL pilot, including taking the uniform and
not returning the uniform, also reflects overt acts of the nature which
has already been alluded to.
But I feel that it is important, although it would seem minor, to --
perhaps to other people -- it is important within the evidence there are
at least two occasions where one of the reasons why there was objections
to what he was doing was not in the technical sense proficiency, but was
his digressions from his responsibilities to students - digressions that
in some cases may have involved showboating in the air and on the ground

Such cases -- at least in two of the parts of the evidence -- I think it
was Brown Aviation as well as at Webster College, where there was
evidence that some students were falling away from him because of these
kinds of behaviors.
Sometimes, in a young person, you might consider it immaturity. But
continuing on into early adulthood, and under the pressures of
responsibility, it begins to he what we call a personality --"character
- personality disorder."'
And these are the kinds of- overt acts that we would associate with this
behavior.
And finally I would point out that he does manipulate people; he tried
to manipulate Dr., Towers; he tried to manipulate the student body at
Daniel Webster
College against the administration.
And frankly, I, as a bureaucrat can very much identify with the
administrator of a college or an administrator or someone running a
school -- a training school for pilots -- where you have a great deal of
responsibility and legal liability to make sure that the person that is
representing yourself has proper credentials and is acting in a proper
way.
You are liable, and you worry about it, and the notes there reflect the
worry that the administrator at the college had. He asked for
credentials and they weren't forthcoming. There were promises and he was
told there were credentials, and he was worried even before he received
the copy of the article about this person -- the Tulsa article.
Even before that, he was worried about this man's employment.
And I think these are examples of the things that you see in this kind
of -- these kinds of acting - out personalities, that make them
unreliable and therefore unsafe.
And of course I don't know-he has perhaps alluded, not on the testimony,
that he didn't actually treat people. But for a person that treats
somebody even with a non-:prescription drug, it is a dangerous
thing - an act of irresponsibility that when reflected with all these
other acts, on the personality, is the kind of personality that FAA,-I
feel, cannot be represented as an airline pilot, as an instructor of
pilots, as an instructor of parachutists.
Q. Is the problem something that he will Outgrow? it a function of
immaturity?
A. Generally speaking, the answer would be "no." But I wouldn't want to
say the prognosis is impossible for him to change.
I would like to see a number of years of stability in employment,
stability in his relationships with people, an absence of the kinds of
behavior that he has shown before - which is impulsivity, prevarication,
blowing himself up, avoiding responsibility for what he does, not paying
his debts, conning people, et cetera, et cetera, and making
rationalizations.
A few years of absence of this might convince the FAA and psychiatrists
that perhaps this is ameliorated, for whatever reason -- whether through
therapy, or through experience .
JUDGE CAPPS: I love you psychiatrists.
You're the only branch of medicine that never uses the word "hopeless."
You all don't think any case is hopeless, do you?

THE WITNESS: No, I think there is always room for hope for everything.
Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) Taking all you know of this case, and
based on the personality disorder that Mr. Campbell has, do you think
that he understands what the truth is?
A. I am not sure that I can answer that question, directly that way.
For instance, I don't think -- I think he understands the facts, but he
doesn't give them the way I would give them, in terms of judgment.
So I can only compare him to myself , and I think he understands the
truth at times. Although I can understand -- I'm not sure, I haven't
examined him directly-- where there is a possibility that he lacks even
the ability at times to tell the truth from not truth.
I'm talking about that aspect of his personality that deals with this
prevarications and elaborating more and more stories.
At some point he begins to understand or believe his own stories, and he
confuses them.
Q. Okay. Based on your own experience as a parachutist and also your
position with FAA, what in your opinion is irresponsible about his act
of attempting
to jump off the World Trade Center with a parachute.
A. Well, if you are asking -- you are including my own personal feelings
when you ask "in my experience as a parachutist," because I can recall
my experience as a novice parachutist, before I was in the military,
putting my life in the hands of people who were the earliest parachute
instructors.
Its very important these people be -- and in my knowledge and my
familiarity with these people -- be very responsible people, not
dare-devils.
The act of transgression of law, in itself, is irresponsible. The act of
doing something spectacular like that, may be nice, but it doesn't go
along with the kind of personality, especially if it is extreme, and
reflects a personality disorder of the kind of person who would be
instructing people in flying -- instructing people in parachute jumping.

So it is irresponsible to make the attempt, and of course I worried
about the people down below. He may be okay, but we are now in the
neighborhood of the World Trade Center, and I don't want to be walking
around looking up to see if someone is dropping a smoke bomb or someone
is descending in a parachute.
Q. Okay. You reviewed the report of Dr. Dorsey in the file on Page 54.

A. Yes, I have.
Q. Are Dr. Dorsey's comments consistent with the personality disorder?
A. Yes, very much so, when they describe -- I would say they describe
what I feel I see in the whole record.
Let's read the second paragraph - yes - the end of the middle paragraph,
It very much describes it.
Q. Okay. with regard to the psychiatric and psychological evaluation
done by Dr. McKnight and Dr. Lundey, do you agree with them?
A. Oh, no. First, it's already been mentioned that both of them seem to
be convinced that he will never do this again. And I can't see how they
can say this.
I take that back. I was thinking about Dr. Dorsey's report. In order to
make an accurate assessment of a behavior disorder or a behavior and
personality disorder -- personality disorders are called "behavior
disorders" because much of what is manifested is behavior that is
observable
You have to know what the person is doing. It is extremely difficult to
make an accurate diagnosis -you may make very strong inferences, but to
make an accurate diagnosis of an acting-out type personality
disorder, which is what we are concerned with -- without knowing what
the behavior is, because characteristics of some of these and many of
these disorders is the person is also facile in making explanations and
prevarications and doesn't tell you what happened.
So if you don't know what happened and can't measure up what happened,
to what they say, it is very difficult to make the diagnosis

JUDGE CAPPS: When you say "behavior" when you've just used it now --
that term -- do you mean the pattern of behavior?

THE WITNESS: And specific acts.

JUDGE CAPPS: Not just -- oh, specific acts --

THE WITNESS: And specific acts.

JUDGE CAPPS:--that constitute a pattern.

THE WITNESS: That is correct.

JUDGE CAPPS: That are recognizable by even lay people.

A. And that is why parenthetically I do place some credence on comments
-- colloquial comments such as they are -- by lay people who have come
in contact with him, as we have seen in the record.
That tells me something, because someone says "he is loony," they are
responding to something. They may not be psychiatrically trained, but
they are lay people who are responding to something. There is something
wrong.
I can say as a psychiatrist that this is not psychosis, this is not
schizophrenia. But I understand what they mean, and it helps me to
understand, "yes, this is a personality disorder that manifests itself
this way," even though at the same time, many people -- including some
psychiatrists and psychologists -- could be fooled because they don't
see all the parts of the behavior.

Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) Okay. So in your mind, is there any
question that Mr. Campbell suffers from a personality disorder?

A. Not at all.

Q. And that disorder has been manifested by repeated overt acts?

A. Yes.

Q. If you put aside the question of the overt act, in your opinion and
based on the record, does Mr. Campbell have a personality disorder which
may reasonably be expected now or in the next two years to make him
unable to safely perform the duties of his certificate?

A. That is correct. He does have a personality disorder and I could not
predict that he could not continue to manifest that personality disorder
continually over the next two years.

MS. HAUSELT: I have no further questions, Your honor.

JUDGE CAMPBELL: Cross-examination.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Q. (By Mr. Campbell) In line with the previous question, Dr. Power,
might I get you to venture some ideas on a prognosis of the future?

A. I don't know.

Q. I would say -- I know this sounds self-serving but the very act of
losing your medical certification may motivate you and say make enough
impact to make you understand or begin to understand how people like
myself and others think and act, and begin to modify one's behavior .

JUDGE CAPPS: Can that sometimes work on an individual suffering from a
personality disorder?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it does happen.

JUDGE CAPPS: You mean, all of the talking to him by friends and parents,
and the cajoling and trying to make him understand, won't do it.
But something that he wants very badly -- if he is denied that -- it can
make him sit up and take notice?

THE WITNESS: Something that really slaps you in the face.
The trouble with friends and relatives is that they are too kind and not
tough enough. You need to be slapped in the face to really realize. That
is what perpetuates this personality disorder -- if you can't pin them
down.
You have to nail them to the floor. They keep running away to other
parts of the country and starting all over again. They keep fooling
people. They keep getting away with it.
So it perpetuates the personality. They have not learned enough that it
is not in their best interests, that they have to earn and work for
release of basic character development that most of us undergo
That needs to be learned at a much later age. It does happen. It happens
in prison, and through prison.

Q. (By Mr. Campbell continuing) Also in line with the previous question:

In the event that you were to discover that: a great deal of the
information presented in the form of various hearsay testimonies on the
part of various non-professional people were discovered to be incorrect
erroneous, misleading or false, would that have any difference on your
judgment?

A. It is inconceivable to me that all of these people, who don't know
each other, just keep coming up
with the same kinds of feelings about this person that "I don't want him
working for me. I don't want him teaching my students. I don't trust
him. He is not reliable. He doesn't pay his bills, "et cetera, et
cetera.
Those opinions, alone, help me to make up my mind about what the
personality is, even though there may be distortions. There are always
going to be distortions. There are so many stories I don't know which is
true and which isn't true.
Now I still can't make up my mind whether the person described here
actually was in the service, or was in the reserves, did receive certain
kinds of training in the Air Force, or didn't, or did have somebody that
they knew who may have died in a parachute accident, did have a close
friend, did have a wife, didn't have a wife -- there are all kinds of
distortions of people hearing messages from one to another, They do
distort.
But the basic pattern is certainly evidenced throughout the record.
Okay. would you also agree with Dr. Powers in respect that many people
in the "outside world" hold great deal of prejudice in relation to any
type of mental health problem or mental illness?
Yes, that is certainly a generalization that is hard to disagree with.

Q. Now, one question I have -- you have indicated or have started to
talk a little bit about what you would like to see before granting a
medical certificate in the future.
I am just curious if you would expound on that just a little bit.

A. Just a little bit -- may I say that this would be in terms of the way
the regulation is set up; the way we have set up that to operate in the
FAA.
This is in terms of granting an exemption to a denial for certain
mandatory denials. And in the case, the mandatory denial for a
personality disorder manifesting itself by overt acts, it has been in my
experience quite rare that our medical consultants -- psychiatric
consultants -- have recommended an exemption, but it does happen.
And what I know they will want to see, and I want to see it -- many
years, a number of years of stable behavior.
It is not something that you need to be a psychiatrist to understand,
because you don't -- don't need to he a psychiatrist to understand the
issues of why a person like that, no matter what label you give it,
should not have the responsibilities of a pilot or a commercial pilot,
and what it takes for us to be convinced that they could have the
responsibilities,
These are not difficult concepts for an educated Lay person to
comprehend.

Q. Well, are you aware that several years, or many years, as the case
may be, in the competitive environment that is currently in the job
market in aviation, pretty much would put the end to a person's career
in that area especially if that would put someone near the 30-mark by
the time the situation like this would be resolved?
And I mention this specifically just to call your attention to the
gravity of what is happening here.

A. I don't know what job market you are referring to.
In my opinion, your chances of being an airline pilot are zero. I mean,
if I worked for an airline and I know that doctors have worked for
airlines -- why in a competitive market would they ever want anyone, if
we cut off the last eight months, the last three jobs, they just don't
want -- they have no right to take that kind of chance in hiring you to
fly a 747, past the age of 40.
When you are talking about the job market for commercial aviation and
flight instruction, there is always room for people. When you are
talking about other kinds of Class 2 commercial responsibilities, it
depends upon the job market.
I think reflected in your question is your lack of understanding. My
concern is not with your career; my concern is with public safety.
If I had your background, my concern was in my reputation and changing
my reputation by my acts, not in getting my certificate.
We think differently and see things differently.

Q. We do think differently. However, is what you are saying pretty much
that the FAA has no concern for the individual?

A. We have a great deal of concern for the individuals in the air and on
the ground below the planes that are flying above them, as well as the
individual who is being carried by the pilots.

Q. Well, how do you explain the FAA's actions up to now have been all
punitive and were never a request for information or request for help of
one type or another -

MS. HAUSELT: Object to this form of the question.

JUDGE CAPPS: Sustained. You don't have to go through it.

Q. (By Mr. Campbell Continuing) I have no other
questions, Your Honor.

JUDGE CAPPS: Any Redirect?

MS. HAUSELT: No , Your Honor.

JUDGE CAPPS: Thank you, Dr. Pakull.
(The witness was excused.)

MS. HAUSELT: That concludes the case for the Administrator, Your Honor.

JUDGE CAPPS: All right. The Government has rested. That means they have
put on all of their evidence that they have to present.
Now, we turn to the Respondent's case in chief. You have indicated that
you have no other witnesses other than yourself.
Is that correct?

MR. CAMPBELL: That is correct.

JUDGE CAPPS: All right. If you will step up here, and be sworn, I will
hear your testimony.

MR. CAMPBELL. Am I allowed to bring this up with me, just to refer to?

JUDGE CAPPS: Certainly.

Whereupon,

JAMES R. CAMPBELL assumed the witness stand, and having been duly sworn
by the administrative Law Judge, was examined and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION

Q. (By the Board) Okay, I am going to ask you a few preliminary
questions.
For the record, state your name and current address?

A. My name is James Richard Campbell. I am currently residing at 41
Stone Vance Road, Oakland, New Jersey.

Q. Mr. Campbell, are you the respondent named in this case?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. At the commencement of this trial, you availed yourself of the
opportunity to give an opening statement, which was a rather detailed
opening statement in narrative form.
In the interest of saving time, and to avoid for you having to repeat a
lot of the stuff that you told me in your opening statement, I'm going
to ask you this question:
Is there anything in that opening statement that you told me that you
would not be willing to have considered said under oath?

A. I stand by everything that I said.

Q. You did not tell me any untruth?

A. As far as I know, that is correct.

Q. All right. So if I were to ask you to start telling me your side of
the story, of necessity you would have to repeat a lot of the things you
said in that opening statement?

A. Yes, m'am.

Q. And do you want to stand by that now that you're under oath?

A. Yes, m'am.

Q. All right. Then what I am going to do is accept that opening
statement and the information you put forth in that opening statement as
testimony sworn to under oath by you.

A. All right.

Q. I am going to ask you now if there is anything that you failed to
tell me in the opening statement, that you think I should know?

A. Quite a bit.

Q. Okay. I am going go try it this way I'm going to let you start in a
narrative form to bring out some of this stuff.
If I see that it's not working, I'll let you know. You will be the first
to know. And then I'm going to start asking specific questions.

A. Okay. Well, I'll do my best to be brief.

Q. Okay.

A. I think the smartest thing right now is simply to attack the
literature as I see it, and any comments I can render -- I will keep
those down.
In reference to the International Air Service Company, page 7 --
everything there is correct as is -as is all the information presented
from the International Air Service Company.

Q. Let me ask you this, specific question;
There was a press release that came out when you were at Daniel Webster
College.

A. There was a press release prepared. It was never released.

Q. All right. There was a press release prepared.

A. Correct.

Q. Did you give them the information for that press release?

A. Some of that information I did.

Q. Did you look over the press release after it had been prepared?

A. I had the opportunity to look it over. They had asked me if there
were problems. I said, "Yes,' and that was as far as they'd gotten.
Shortly thereafter, things blew up.

Q. So you never made the corrections that should have been made on that?

A. There was some opportunity -- very little.

Q. Was there anything in that press release that you maintain now was
just pulled out of the air, that was not gotten from you?
Now, the reason that I am asking the question this way is if I was going
to prepare somebody -- a press release on somebody -- on you -- I'd go
to you and I'd say, "Here, Campbell, I've got to prepare this darn press
release. I've got to get information from you."
'So, you feed it to me and I'll take it down."
All right. That is the way it is generally done. Are you saying that it
is not the way it was done in this case?

A. To a certain extent, yes, and to a certain extent, no.
A lot of the information was "I have this and this and this. I'm going
to write it up. Give me a little bit more information on your flying; a
little bit more information on your family; a little bit more
information on the World Trade Center; a little bit more information
about where you are from," and so forth.
A lot of the information they had gotten from students. A lot of
information was done either over the phone or in person. It was a rather
hectic atmosphere the first few days, because we were preparing for
students and we were preparing the flight program - in addition to
preparing classes.
There was very little time for any kind of dialogue.

Q. Let me ask you this - have you ever been a stuntman in the movies?

A. In the movies -- no.

Q. You didn't work on the "Moonraker" or "Hooper." You didn't do any of
those movies, did you?

A. Well, they make the mention of flying in "Hopper." There is none, so
I certainly couldn't have done that.
And "Hooper" -- I know who did it. I am a buddy of the guy who did
filming and in fact he used to show up at IASCO a lot, but no, that is
not me.
And in the past I had claimed -

Q. Did you ever do any stunt work or flying or anything in "Charlie's
Angels?"

A. M'am, nothing in organized media --

Q. Nothing in television or movies?

A. There was a news broadcast in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where a gentleman from
News Center 8, or some such, came in to take his parachute jump. It was
his first in a year. That was televised, and during that period of time
there was some pictures of him and me in free-fall, turning a back loop
and things like that.
However, there was nothing of any commercial nature such as films,
television.
I have recently been involved with a few things that might be
commercial, but God only knows how they will work out.

Q. I'll tell you - the issue before me is whether or not you are now
suffering from a personality disorder that has manifested itself in
certain overt acts that laymen and psychiatrists and virtually everybody
would not consider exactly normal acts of normal people.
Now, you have told me about -- I mean, you've owned up to it -- you have
admitted that you did pose as a doctor.
Was that for three months?

A. Something around that neighborhood -- yes.
Keep in mind that during that period of time, I was escalating from one
end to the other. It was either as a medical student or as a resident or
as a doctor, or whatever would work at the time.

Q. Work to do what?

A. Well, for instance of people who knew a little bit more of my
background, it was obvious that I was not a doctor.
However, it was more suitable, it was easier to believe that I was a
medical student.

Q. Tell me this -- just out of curiosity, why did
you want anybody to think you were either a medical student or a
doctor? when you were in fact not?

A. At the period of time, I was hurting a great deal. The only person
who has never disappointed me, the only person who has ever proven
themselves to be absolutely unimpeachable as far as his wisdom and as
far as his guidance, as far as judgment, the only person that I have
ever known who just exceeds the basic tenants of being good, is my
grandfather.
He has been --

Q. Well, wait. I know what you are saying --
You want to emulate him -- you have such respect for him.

A. Well, not emulating, but I see how he deals with people and I see
what people look to him as. I see the way he is able to help people.
I don't know so much if I wanted the emulation so much as the
interaction, if that makes any sense at all.

Q. Well --

A. Well -I wanted the involvement, the vitality, the

Q. But don't you see -

A. I wanted to be needed.

Q. -- he worked for all that, He sure did. I didn't.

Q. He got his degree,

A. I went back. I said, "Yes, that's me." and it's not over yet.

Q. All right. Tell me this: Have you ever been married?

A. No, m'am.

Q. Have you ever had any little kids?

A. No, m'am.

Q. That evidence that's come out about you saying something about a girl
came out there to Tulsa -- did her parents' house really burn?

A. There was a young lady by the name of Gayle, in Georgia. she was
visiting her uncle, and I believe his name was Frank.
Her house, and it is a matter of record, was burned out -- not burned
down -- burned out. And I saw this house, because immediately after
leaving Brown Aviation, I drove four hours -- it's about 240-245 miles
from that area to -- this was out near Birmingham, -just south -- I
forget the name of the town.
And I drove out there while they were in the process of knocking out the
windows and the frames were charred -- knocking out the middle of the
living room.
What had happened, apparently was her little brother -- and I may be
incorrect in this - apparently
was playing with matches,

Q. Okay. Let's go say that's true, then. The hoes did burn out.

A. That is true. I can prove that.

Q. She wasn't in a bus accident, thought was she?

A. No, m'am. I never stated that. I don't know

Q. Somebody made that up?

A. That, or a misunderstanding. Jim Brown and I did not get along, and
when I left it was ugly.

Q. Well, how could he misunderstand you saying a girl is in a bus
accident and is in critical condition, and you were there next to her --
and you weren't?
How could he misunderstand all that?

A. The best person you could speak to on her circumstances would be my
pastor, and I am sure he has no knowledge of such a conversation.
I'll tell you this much -

Q. You are saying that that entire conversation with your pastor never
took place?

A. I had a conversation with my pastor about a lot of things,

Q. But not about Gayle?
I had a great deal to say about Gayle. Gayle was the first casual
relationship I had had in a long time.

Q. but you never told your pastor that Gayle was hurt, or anybody else
that Gayle was hurt and critically injured?

A. The only thing I said about Gayle was that was worried about Gayle --
specifically with what she had to go back to.

Q. All right. Let's get on that bit about the Japan Air Line pilot and
co-pilot and the 747's and all that jazz.
Did you do all that?

A. I was at Nashua Aviation. -- I don't know the exact date.- I am sure
I can figure it out -- in a Japan Air Lines uniform..
However, on the weekend, when I was still working for Japan Air- Lines,
I managed-to bum a ride out there. It was a kind of a crazy deal where
we busted every rule in the book.
And I was out there, and it was just before I left, and to be very
frank, a lot of this is a surprise. I'm not really prepared with any
real information, other than the fact that I was out there.

Q. You know, we got a lot of statements that You went there --

A. However, two of these people I don't even know.

Q. Well, they knew you, according to their statements

A. Everybody knows me out there.

Q. I know. I imagine you make an impression.
They said -- a lot of them -- that you were there dressed up in this
Japan Air Line pilot uniform, after Japan Air Line said you no longer
worked for them.

A. I think that is incorrect.

Q. Are you telling me right now -- looking me eyeball to eyeball.

A. Eyeball to eyeball.

Q. That you have never worn a Japan Air Line uniform, when you were not
in their employ?

A. I can't say that, because I was -- the end of my employment occurred
February 29th. I was around for several weekends -- several weeks
afterwards, just hanging around and hoping, waiting for Dr. Powers and
waiting for Dr. Sexton, waiting for various things.
I had a lot of time on my hands with absolutely nothing to do except
occasionally ride observer --

Q. You mean you were still wearing the uniform, though?

A. Oh, sure. At work, though. Back and forth, at home and so forth
The legal fine if -- I don't know how much of IASCO's records you have,
and I am rather distressed to find out how much you do have, including
personal correspondence.
But they kept me around for weeks afterwards, I don't know. Maybe they
felt sorry for me. I don't know.
All I know is that God love them, they really were quite supportive and
quite helpful and I came in every morning in the uniform, hoping to have
a word, hoping -- it was the last -- I don't know, I guess it was my
last stand.
I couldn't give it up quite -that easily, and yet it was valid. It was
real.
And while I was there, I thought I did a good job. They wrote me a
letter of recommendation that was beautiful. It got me hired when I came
back here, in about 20 minutes flat, in a very good company.

Q. Let me ask you this -- why did you have somebody from a New Jersey
congressman's office call me late Friday afternoon, and try to change my
mind about: denying you a second request for containment?

A. Oh, boy, that's a kettle of -

Q. You should have known better than that.

A. M'am, I had early in October written a letter saying "I have just
received a letter saying my hearing is November 18th. Nobody has checked
with me on that date. I am not prepared to defend myself upon November
18th

Q. Yes, but I had already denied that request.
Don't you know that after a judge rules, that is the end of it?

A. I do know that now.

Q. So you thought you could get that congressman -

A. I was desperate.

Q. -- to judicially intervene and try to strong-arm me into changing it?

Well, he found out differently - I can clue you into that. I was ready
to report him for attempting any type of judicial intervention.
Now, you have heard some of this testimony today? Does that sound like
to you what these two psychiatrists have said is evidence of some of
this manipulative characteristics?

A. M'am, what does a person do when drowning? They clutch at-

Q. You say it was an act of desperation?

A. Yes, it certainly was.

Q. Okay.

A. If this goes down here, I am finished in aviation. Now, it's just not
a job. I have got a good job -- in fact, .it's paying more than I had
been used. to, on an average. But you're talking about a fellow who is
sitting on the airport fence at age, 8, after peddling a bicycle 16
miles out to the airport, just looking at people and saying, "Give me a
ride, Mister."
This is not a living. This is a way of life. And I have kept up with
every form of aviation. I built myself a motorized hang glider and I
have been flying the absolute hell out of that thing ever since, simply
because it doesn't require a license.
It is the only thing I am going to be able to fly for years.

Q. Well, let me give you some Dutch aunt advice.

A. Thank you.

Q. If you are ever involved in a judicial proceeding again, don't ever
either you yourself or urge somebody else on your behalf to intervene in
that judicial decision process, ever.

A. I have no idea how the system works.

Q. Because we are rather proud of the judicial system, and the fact that
it is inviolate from any type of pressure.
That's what makes us independent. That's what makes the system work.

A. Yes, m'am.

Q. And it's resented terribly by the judge -- him or herself -- and I am
asking you this question because it still disturbs me so much that I
want it on a record somewhere that I was incensed and that it didn't --
it certainly didn't have the effect that you intended.
In fact, it had the reverse effect. I would have died before I would
have changed my mind.
I have been trying to get a continuance for six or seven weeks. The
original hearing was delayed for a great period of time, during which
the Federal Aviation Administration accrued a great deal of information
which at the time I was not prepared to fight.
However -

Q. All right. You had gone into that with just about every member of my
staff, at the office.

A. I sure --

Q. That's all been related to me.

A. I sure have.
Okay. I have asked all the specific questions I want to ask.
Do you nave any questions that you want to ask?

MS. HAUSELT: Yes, I do, Your Honor.

CROSS- EXAMINATION

(By Ms. Hauselt) Mr. Campbell, where are you now employed?

A. M'am, that is none of your business.

JUDGE CAPPS: I beg your pardon.

(By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) It is my business,
Mr. Campbell.

A. I refuse to answer. I've had my jobs taken away from me. This is a
non-aviation job. I do not believe the FAA is entitled to that
information, and if they find out they've got a problem or if they have
a person who has had a problem, I'll wind up on the street.
And I can't afford that. I'm broke now.

Q. Mr. Campbell, I want to ask you a question --
Are you aware that a lot of the testimony today has been to the effect
that you do have a personality problem -- a personality disorder?

A. I am very aware.

Q. And part of the problem that you have is that you deny these things
to other people.
Now, I'm going to ask you again where you are employed?

A. Do I have to answer that question?

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes, you do, or else not take the stand.
If you take the stand, you open yourself up to cross-examination. And if
you've got a non-aviation job that does not involve any of your
certificates as an airman, an instructor, or parachutist or any other
type of FAA certificate you have, there is nothing to fear.
Are you getting paranoid on us?

THE WITNESS: Yes, m'am.
I've lost my living. What do you expect?

JUDGE CAPPS: She has asked you a perfectly valid question.
And yes, you must answer it. Taking the stand is not a one-way street.
You don't get up there and just answer the questions you want to answer
and then refuse the questions you don't want to answer.
You have opened the door to answer a question. And I am instructing you
to answer the question posed.

THE WITNESS: May I ask a question?

JUDGE CAPPS: I'll tell you what --

THE WITNESS: M'am, I'm scared to death --okay?

JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Look, I'll make a deal with you.
You said you were an electronics technician

THE WITNESS: Correct.

JUDGE CAPPS: You write down for me where you are working, because you
have stated under oath that it doesn't involve any of your FAA
certificates or aviation.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

JUDGE CAPPS: And you wouldn't lie to me, right?

THE WITNESS: I hope not.
I think I'm smarter than that.

JUDGE CAPPS: Okay -- You write .down here where you work, if you are
scared of those FAA people.
(The witness wrote down the name of his work place.)

JUDGE CAPPS: Off the record.
(Short discussion off the record)

JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record)
I can understand his fear a little bit, of what he has been through. He
has written down for me where he works, and it does have nothing
whatsoever to do with the entire aviation industry.
By no stroke of the imagination could it even be closely connected.

MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I was going to just note my objection for the
record, and there is no way of verifying what he wrote down. There is no
way of knowing, and I am going to note my objection.
I think that he should be instructed to answer my question. And I don't
think that -

JUDGE CAPPS: Usually -- listen, have I ever seen this type of thing
occur?
No, I haven't. But I have to play it by ear and I think in this
situation this is the best way to handle it. I am certainly keeping what
he wrote down here in my notes of the record. And I want to state that
I certainly wouldn't lie on the record --

THE WITNESS: Would it help if I produced a pay stub? I might even have
one with me, or a medical card or something.
(The witness produced two documents.)

JUDGE CAPPS: He has shown me two employment documents here, that
substantiate to my satisfaction the name of the employer he put down,
and he described what he does for that outfit.
So I am willing to state on the record that I am the first to admit that
I think this is unusual, but I think the circumstances here call for it,
and that's why I did it.

MS. HAUSELT: Okay. I'll move on.
Mr. Campbell, were you ever in the service?

THE WITNESS: Yes, m'am.
(By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) When?

A. It's a good question. The latter part of 1975 to June of 1975

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.

Q. What is your military service number?

A. It would be the same as my social security number - 146-52-4672.
Mr. Campbell, do you have a copy of the record which I gave you -- the
Administrator's copy of your medical file?

A. I've got quite a bit of information here. If you'll call my attention
to where it is -

Q. Mr. Campbell, I want to refer you to page 103 of that medical file.
Specifically, I want to draw your attention to Section Number 11, and
what did you indicate was your service?
Did you indicate on your application that you had served with the Air
Force or the Army at any time?

A. At the time, I wasn't, though.

Q. At any time did you indicate that you were part of the armed services
-- at any time?

A. During the period of time when I was a member

Q. On the application itself, you checked the blank, "None," under -

A. "Extended active duty" -- yes.

Q. And you also - you did not put down your military service number.
Is that correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. Now, the next application, on Page 105, you also did not put down any
military service number or indicate any prior military service, did you?

A. That's correct.

Q. And also on your application on Page 107, you again did not indicate
any armed service, did you?

A. Correct.

Q. Mr. Campbell, while you were in the service you were never at Viet
Nam, were you?

A. No, m'am.

Q. And you never received a shrapnel wound to your face, did you?

A. No, m'am. Tree branch, but not shrapnel.

Q. Mr. Campbell, have you ever been wounded in any way?

A. I have been hurt several times in various ways.

Q. Have you ever received a gunshot wound?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. Mr. Campbell, isn't it true that you had some scuba instruction from
a Detective Larry Brown?

A. I had no scuba instruction from Detective Larry Brown. Let me give
you a little background here --

Q. No, I'm not asking you for background.
I'm merely asking you -

A. I received no instruction from Detective Brown. I received an
evaluation, nothing more.

Q. And you are telling me that you did not tell Detective Brown that you
had received a gunshot wound while taking various dignitaries around
Nevada?

A. I did not state to Detective Brown that I was taking any dignitaries
anywhere.

Q. And you did not indicate to him at any time. that after he confronted
you with the fact that he could not verify your original story, you did
not indicate to him that you had been involved in an altercation between
a Mexican man and woman -- a domestic quarrel in which you were shot?

A. At the time, I was involved in an altercation. A gunshot did not
occur. An injury did occur. The altercation is past history.

Q. There was an injury to you?

A. That's correct.

Q. Didn't I just ask you if you were ever injured or wounded, and you
said no.

A. It's - you said - "gunshot." I said no.

Q. Where were you injured?

A. Upper right portion of the thigh.

Q. And that was in the course of an altercation in Nevada?

A. That was not exactly where it was.

Q. It was -- I believe you told the Detective Brown, at -- Field.

A. Detective Brown asked for information. Larry Brown was supposedly a
"friend." I supplied him -

Q. Did you ever tell him that, yes or no?

A. I told him that, yes. To throw him off the track, yes.

Q. So you felt he was asking you too many questions
and you made up a story to throw him off the track?

A. Oh, very definitely. I was scared to death.

Q. I see. Mr. Campbell isn't it also true that you never mentioned this
injury to Dr. Powers in your interview with him?

A. That's correct. I had frankly forgotten all about it. It was not that
serious and I haven't thought of it up until this point, or until it was
brought up today, which was why that statement was such a surprise.
And it very much was.

Q. Okay. But you never indicated that you had been injured in any way,
to Dr. Powers?
Isn't that correct? Other than the operations that are listed in his
report.

A. As far as I know, that is correct.

Q. Have you ever received any other injury other than the one we know
about, where you were sky diving and you injured your head?

A. There was one puncture wound to the face, in the cheek.

Q. And that was what you referred to, where you were hit with a tree
limb?

A. By a tree limb -- puncture. I was riding Reserve at the time.

Q. Okay, Mr. Campbell, I want you to take a look at Page 40 in the file
that we have, and under your employers at the top of Page 40, you listed
Screen Actors Guild, did you not?

A. That is correct. I did.

Q. And you listed as the reason for leaving, "too many injuries."'
Is that correct?

A. Correct. That is absolutely correct.

Q. Your episode in attempting to jump off the World Trade Center, in
November of 1977 -- you were involved in several helicopter flights
around the World Trade Center.

A. We were in the vicinity of the heliport, which is located not too far
from the base at the World Trade Center.

Q. Suppose I were to tell you that to be doing that, you would be in a
restricted area ?

A. We were within the regulations, according to the pilot.
I was not the pilot in command.

Q. Mr. Campbell, you never made any arrangements with authorities in
order to make that jump, did you? -such as clearing the street below of
pedestrians.

A. It was already cleared. Filming for "The Wiz" had been completed that
week. The entire area was barricaded. All doors to the plaza were locked
with chain and lock. It is a matter of police record.
As, a matter of fact, complaint was made with the Daily News for
printing different material than that. But there was nobody, not a soul,
in the plaza at the time the jump would have occurred.
It is in the police record.

Q. Okay. Mr. Campbell, that is a matter of police record, is it not,
according to you?

A. It would have to be. They finished filming "The Wiz" right then,

Q. And you didn't make any effort to bring any police records with you,
with regard to your jump, did you?

A. I had no idea that this was going to be brought up. However, a call
to -- a call to a Patrolman Al Hallker at the World Trade Center might
be able to clear this, up.
It's got to be record that .

Q. Mr. Campbell, I would prefer, and it is the proper protocol for you
to merely answer my question, not to volunteer extraneous information.

A. Excuse me,

Q Now, Mr. Campbell, I understand that there have been two successful
jumps off the World Trade Center?

A. That is correct.

Q. And one of those was by an unidentified person in the fall of this
year?

A. That is substantially correct.

Q. And that person wouldn't have been you, would it?

A. No, it was not. The person has been since identified, and used my
methods and is familiar with the research that I had done.

Q. But you yourself never made a successful jump off the World Trade
Center?

A. Not off the World Trade Center, no.

Q. But you yourself did tell other people on the West Coast that you had
made such a jump successfully, didn't you?

A. No. That is not true.

Q. In October and December of 1978, you were living in the Tulsa,
Oklahoma area.
Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you posed as a doctor at that time?

A. Occasionally, yes.

Q. And at that time, did you or did you not give people drugs?

A. Would you please define "drugs?''

Q. Any kind of over the counter or prescription
drugs.

A. An over the counter drug in the form of Tylenol, yes.

Q. And at that time you indicated that you were giving someone treatment
for "female problems," did you not?

A. That is incorrect. The offer was extended, the treatment never
occurred.

Q. But you offered the treatment, did you not?

A. It was -

Q. So what you say is that you offered to prescribe drugs, but you never
actually prescribed them?

A. No, no. No drugs were ever offered to be prescribed - not that I
know of. And my memory of this particular incident is fairly clear.
It has been dragged up many times.

Q. Mr. Campbell, isn't it a fact that you offered yourself as a doctor
to various acquaintances and friends?

A. I have offered to help them, yes,

Q. And in fact you offered to help a woman who'd had a heart attack?

A. That is incorrect.

Q. A woman who had suffered, shall we say, an incapacitating -
A. Pulmonary embolism.

I portrayed myself at time as a medical student. I rendered the proper
first aid. I didn't ride in the ambulance to the hospital.

Q. But you never -- to the scene, did you not?

A. That was where I was working.

Q. And you at that time told people that you were medical resident?

A. No, that is incorrect. I said "medical student."

Q. Medical student?

A. That is correct.

Q. Mr. Campbell, didn't you offer also some medical treatment to a young
girl who had received a severe cut by bumping her head on a propeller?

A. It was on a rotor blade on a helicopter. I offered to go get some
aspirin and instead got Tylenol.

Q. And you didn't indicate in any way that you would be offering her a
prescription drug?

A. No

Q. So what you are saying Mr. Campbell, is that this article that was
published in the Tulsa Tribune is substantially and largely based on
false information?

A. Its content is basically correct. Individually, there are quite a few
inaccuracies.

Q. Mr. Campbell, did you ever undertake to sue the Tulsa Tribune for
libel?

A. We had spoken -- my folks, had spoken to an attorney. I was under the
impression that suit was being undertaken.
At no time have I called the Tulsa Tribune, and such legal action is
still under consideration. It just needs somebody to pay for it.

Q. Mr. Campbell, what if I were to tell you that the Tulsa Tribune
stands by their article as being accurate and a fair representation of
fact?

A. Then they're going to have to produce their source, aren't they?

Q. Perhaps if you sue them.

A. I'd like to. I wish I could afford it.

Q. Mr. Campbell, after your masquerade as a doctor, you went home with
your father, didn't you?

A. I went home first. My father then went to Tulsa, Oklahoma, and
returned with a great deal of my belongings.
I went home before the incident became public knowledge.

Q. Okay, Mr. Campbell, I want to talk about what you were doing in the
summer of 1974, up through the summer of 1976.
What were you doing at that time and where were you living?

A. '74 to '76 --- good question --
I was in the neighborhood of Colorado -- most of it -- let me think.
Colorado until late summer of '76.
That is correct.

Q. And then where were you?

A. A combination of home and -- during the weekdays, and at the drop
zones on the weekends.

Q. Mr. Campbell, isn't it true that you never indicated that you were
anywhere other than living in Colorado, to Dr. Powers during that period
of time?

A. Could you restate it?

Q. Yes.
During the period of time from summer of 1975 up to the summer of 1976,
you told Dr. Powers that you were living in Colorado, attempting to
pursue a relationship with a girl named Ellen, did you not?

A. That is incorrect.
The girl's name was Evelyn, and I was attempting to pursue a
relationship with the young lady --

Q. And you at no time indicated to Dr. Powers that you were in any way
affiliated with the armed services, did you, during that time?

A. I was affiliated with the armed services at the time. I was stationed
at Lowry Air Force Base from
sometime in January of '76 to June 22nd, 1976.

Q. And you were living in the San Antonio area, were you not, for
awhile?

A. About six weeks, for basic training, yes.

Q. And you never mentioned that fact to Dr. Powers.

A. No. It did happen rather quickly, and I did forget about it.

Q. Everybody wants to forget basic training.
Mr. Campbell, it was during the fall of '77 you made your attempt to
jump off the World Trade Center, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And then you moved to Oklahoma in the fall of 1978?

A. No. I moved there in the spring of 1978, and I believe I left New
Jersey May 28th -- about three weeks after -

Q. But it was in December of 1978 that you finally returned from your
home, from Oklahoma to your home.
Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Okay, Mr. Campbell, I want to refer you again to your application for
employment.
And that is on Page 39 to 40 of the record.

A. Yes, m'am.

Q. Mr. Campbell, on that application for employment, did you not
indicate there that for the period of time from June of 1976 up through
December, 1978, you were employed by the Screen Actors Guild in Burbank,
California, and you left that because of too many injuries?

A. That is correct.

Q. And you mentioned nothing about the fact that you were in Oklahoma
during that time, you were in basic training during that time, you were
in Texas during that time?

A. It certainly wouldn't have helped my application

Q. It certainly wouldn't have. I'll agree with you there.
Mr. Campbell -- you haven't received any injuries during the stunts
performed for the Screen Actors Guild, did you?

A. I have already stated that -- no.

Q. Okay. Because you haven't worked for them.

A. That is correct.
Besides, nobody works for them.

Q. Mr. Campbell, you are not and you have never been a parachute rigger.

Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And on your application for employment with Nashua Aviation, you did
indicate that you were an FAA senior parachute rigger, didn't you?

A. I had intended to be, within two weeks, yes.

Q. But you were not, at the time that you filled out the application?

A. No, I was scheduled for a course.

Q. Mr. Campbell, referring to your use of the Japan Air-Lines uniform,
you were not employed by Japan Air Lines on April 18th and l9th of 1980,
were you?

A. That is correct.

Q. And in fact on April 9th, you sent a letter to Japan Air Lines
indicating that you would return your uniform at a subsequent date?

A, Yes, as soon as I got some stuff on the West Coast, yes.

Q. And have you ever returned that uniform to Japan Air Lines?

A. No. It is still sitting in an unopened box in the corner of my room.

Q. Mr. Campbell, did you ever tell anybody up at Nashua Aviation that
you had been flying 747's for Japan Air Lines?

A. I stated that I was one of the flight instructors involved in
teaching flight engineers for various aircraft, including Boeing 747,
how to fly, or was going to be.
And I was working at the time with captains and first officers who were
constantly flying those machines.

Q. Mr. Campbell, didn't you tell people at Nashua Aviation that you in
fact had come in on a plane from Boston, and that you were involved in
the Falcon Program at NASA?

A. It is no secret that I wanted to be in the Falcon Program; in fact,
while I was at IASCO, I made a couple of motions toward that area.

Q. Mr. Campbell, in your desire to attain that goal, isn't it possible
that you told people that you had already attained it because you
thought you would be attaining it soon thereafter?

A. I do not think so.

Q. Mr. Campbell, since you have been back in New Jersey living with your
family, what have you been doing in the aviation area?

A. I am very active in ultra light technology -- design and testing --
and a whole lot of flying.

Q. And have you been involved in anything else with regard to hang
gliders other than testing and designing?

A. Just flying.

Q. Flying them yourself?

A. Oh yes. Very much so.

Q. Any other kind of organized activities?

A. Not yet. I am hoping to get an air race going is spring. It's in the
planning stages.

Q. Mr. Campbell, at the time when you were down in Georgia, and you were
involved with the young woman by the name of Gayle, she was never in the
hospital for any injuries, was she?

A. No. I have stated that.

MS. HAUSELT: May I have a minute, your Honor?

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes.

Q. (By Ms. Hauselt Continuing) Isn't it true that when you left Western
Piper Sales, you had at least $100 or more of phone calls?

A. Which were paid for, yes. In fact, I may even have the receipts with
me.

Q. When were they paid for?

A. Prior to my leaving. In fact, by several weeks, in any case.

Q. Isn't it true that when you were originally confronted with those
phone bills, you denied that they
were yours?

A. I did not deny that they were mine. I denied the fact that I did not
have authorization for the calls.
I did not have a phone in my apartment. I had explained everything to
Diane and she said either use a HARTS line or write it down, which was
done.

Q. Mr. Campbell, isn't it also true that when you left Nashua, you left
over $165 of phone bills there?

A. That's absolutely correct,
They also owe me money.

Q. So those phone bills were never paid?

A. Neither was my paycheck.

Q. Mr. Campbell, just answer the question --
Were the phone bills paid?

A. Those phone bills -- no.

MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I have no further questions for Mr. Campbell.

JUDGE CAPPS: I have no further questions, either.
You will be able to give a closing argument now.
Did you have anything else that you wanted to state under oath?

THE WITNESS: Can you give me a moment, just to check through here? I've
got some notes here -- I just want to check with them.

JUDGE CAPPS: Okay. We can take a five-minute recess.
Off the record.

(A five-minute recess was taken.)

JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
What is it you feel should be brought to my attention?

THE WITNESS: Specifically, throughout the entire history has been
presented -- at no time, in my opinion, have I jeopardized the safety of
someone in my responsibility.

JUDGE CAPPS: Oh, that's a closing argument,

THE WITNESS: That's a closing --

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I didn't know if that was --

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes. That is a closing argument.
Why don't you hold that in advance and give it to me in the form of a
closing argument?

THE WITNESS: Okay. Fine.

JUDGE CAPPS: Does the Government wish to give any closing argument?

MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, I will just speak in rebuttal.
I don't have very much to say in closing.

JUDGE CAPPS: All right. I'll allow that.
All right.

THE WITNESS: My ball?

JUDGE CAPPS: Yes.

THE WITNESS: All right. I could probably go through each one of these
documents one by one and pick out inaccuracies. However, for every
inaccuracy there is going to be a truth as well, which is equally as
damaging.
The problem has been that each time after the awareness of a problem
came to me that it was always going to he the next place that was going
to be better; the next place was going to be different, and I was going
to make a change.
Slowly but surely, it's been happening little by little by little, the
problem is that during this process quite a bit of information has to
light, and a great deal of it is unfavorable, and unfortunately a great
deal of the unfavorable is also true.
This means that most probably I expect to lose my flight privileges for
the great majority of time after. What they are trying to prove--they
being Ms. Hauselt and Dr. Powers and Dr. Pakull--is that I am an unsafe
pilot, to which I can only rebut that I have handled -

JUDGE CAPPS: Wait. Let's get something straight.

THE WITNESS: Yes, m'am.

JUDGE CAPPS: I want you to know the issue here.
That is not what the Government is saying. That is not what this has all
been about. Nobody has said you were an unsafe or unqualified pilot, as
far as your piloting techniques go.
What they are saying is that you are medically unqualified to pilot an
aircraft, due to certain disorders here -- personality disorders.
But they tried to establish through evidence of overt acts -- and you've
sat here and listened to the overt acts -- that have been alluded to.
So I just want you to know: that nobody is arguing about piloting
techniques.

THE WITNESS: All right. Most specifically in response to being medically
unqualified, at one time I would have probably agreed with the FAA and
their investigation, especially in weight of the evidence, it is
certainly warranted.
However, I believe and I still believe now, that I can within the letter
of the law, as far as the medical certificate goes, safely and legally
execute the privileges as underlined by my medical certificate.
I realize that this disagrees with several learned gentlemen with a
great deal more training in the area of human behavior than I do, but I
like to think that I know my own mind.
There are several areas of contention throughout this entire proceeding,
which -- not the proceeding here, but over the past year -- which I find
questionable. Specifically they are Dr. Kagill's statement of having
received medical information on October 10th, when no information was
received until the 12th.
The seizure of a certificate when the certificate excuse me -- the
seizure of a certificate before that seizure was made known to me,
specifically taking the certificate and then giving me the order of
suspension; not offering me the opportunity to surrender the certificate
as ordered, within the letter of the law.
There are several statements -- Mr. Brown, Mr. Piper, Nashua -- and
statements related to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the
United States Parachute Association.
Briefly I worked for Mr. Brown. I did a good job for him as long as I
was able. The last month there was a big change, and the change was in
both of us. Specifically, I couldn't stand him and he couldn't stand me
The causes, in my opinion -- 1. my inability or my refusal to bend to
what he wanted; his extreme displeasure at the affair with his daughter;
his extreme displeasure with the fact that I had allied myself with John
Williams in response to several pay demands, and so forth; my refusal to
cover for him on a few matters with his wife; my refusal to cover on
some 135 instances, and so forth; also some questions on maintenance --
not many.
Western Piper specifically -- I was promised a lot and given very
little. Western Piper -- there were problems there, and most of them
were mine. However, Western Piper also provided aircraft with extreme
maintenance problems resulting in a forced landing in a Seminole, due to
the fact that right after a 100-hour inspection the right engine turned
rich -- the carburetor heat control on the right engine was inoperative,
going to "Full On" -- presenting myself with an aircraft with a right
engine so rich it was loading up, and running so rough that it made an
emergency landing necessary.
I cut the propeller and landed. But in evidence of that, there was
another pilot in the aircraft, a Ron Sterling, a multi-engine student,
and he was shaken all the way on down. So I am pretty sure that was not
my imagination.
In response to Western Piper's accusation concerning the Tomahawk, to my
knowledge the FAA did not inspect the aircraft at the scene,
specifically because of a city .and a truck stop right next to route
whatever it was -- I think it was 51 -- and it was in West Virginia, and
not Maryland.
The factory certainly never saw the aircraft. That is a fact
Nashua -- there is very little I can say about Nashua except for the
fact that there was a lot of confusion and a lot of misunderstanding, I
loved it there and leaving it was very hard.
However, I created a great deal of situations on my own, simply because
of my -- not being able to swallow my pride enough to say what had been
following me was not true.
AOPA -- I never worked for them; I did attend many of their ground
schools. United States Parachute Association -- in my resumes and
publicly, I have represented myself as a USPA-certified Instructor. I
did attend, complete, and pass the United States Parachute Association
certification course, for the jump master/instructor certificate, in
addition to competing at the Nationals and being a staff member at the
Nationals, and competing in several conference meets, and so forth.
The USPA also made statements concerning -- about a reserve. The reserve
listed on the card -- whatever
it was -- was a secondary reserve. It was the one meant to be cut away.
It was kind of a joke to write down a packing card. Emergency
deployment means it is deployed under emergency circumstances -- exact
same thing -- a cutaway followed by a short period of free fall,
possible instability and a subsequent reserve pull with deployment.
Both came out beautifully. The card was removed unbeknownst to me, which
indicates to me a serious problem, because anytime anybody tampers with
a rig, whether it is the reserve or not, that indicates a grave problems
to me.
And if anybody ever -- if I ever catch anybody messing with my reserve,
they've got some problems.
Psych evaluations done by Dr. McKnight and Dr. Lundey, Dr. Dorsey, and
Dr. Schwartz would seem to downplay a problem, and I would seem -- well,
personally I don't downplay it as much as they did, to be very frank.
However, I do not see myself in as bad a situation as Dr. Powers
portrays, to my apologies.
Throughout this situation there has been a great deal of questions
raised, and I believe a great deal of information covered under the
Privacy Act that has been given to the various people in the course of
this investigation, and I am very curious about that.
If you are trying to ground everybody that ever jumped off a building or
similar -- you're going to have to ground about ten pilots, and two of
them are flying for major airlines.
And as far as the World Trade Center is concerned, I have not attempted
it. I had the opportunity a short time ago, when called by a gentleman
saying, "Hey, let's go do it."
And the temptation was very great, but I have no desire to spend another
night in jail like I did then. I have no desire to get myself in the
same kind of problems as the failure -- and it was a very real failure
to me -- presented itself after the World Trade Center.
And it was a defeat, not so much because I didn't do it, but because
that it was done for all the wrong reasons -- under all the wrong
circumstances.
Under a legal situation where there would be no legal encumbrances, I
would love to try it. However, I do not see that happening.
I do believe that a great amount of statements issued; a great amount of
the testimony simply has been prejudiced by the fact that anybody having
a mental health problem or mental illness in this country takes on the
proportion of social leper.
Mental illness has become a social disease, and I expect to spend quite
a bit on the ground in the next few years, maybe trying to do something
about it.
I don't know. I have no idea how, but I would like to get involved.
Tulsa Tribune -- a lot of that is ridiculous. And it is so easily
disproven. For instance, I never had a grandfather who lived in
Massachusetts. That's one thing.
Riding in an ambulance to a hospital -- well, there were three people,
as well as two people in the room where I was working as a desk clerk in
a motel, trying to raise enough for the rent while I was flying on my GI
bill and so forth. And there were three people from the hotel, two
people in the room and two people in the ambulance, and they know damn
well I didn't follow them in the ambulance.
Other situations -- I am going to keep it short - specifically, the
.newspaper article leaves a great deal to be desired. Its basic content
is true.
I have found throughout the entire situation with the FAA, and maybe
this is a little self-centered -- in fact it is a little self-centered,
but right now I've got nobody else -- and I really wonder how much
damage has been done to me personally, specifically whether or not I
deserved it.
People are aware of situations; people are aware of things that may or
may not have happened. And that worries me a great deal. I object to a
personal letter being used in evidence, especially one that was sent to
a friend.
And I would appreciate it if the Court would please understand one thing
-- there is a great difference here between mental illness and trying to
get yourself out of an unsavable situation.
My fabrications were bouncing down on me. They were rolling up like the
proverbial snowball downhill. And it's so hard to escape. And it's so
hard to deal with it.
And until you have dealt with mental illness, you have never had a fight
in your life like that. Specifically, I didn't know how to stop. I am
beginning to have an inkling. But I am in control when necessary,
specifically when I step inside an airplane.
And nobody will ever believe I can separate the two. But all I know is
through eight parachute malfunctions, over a thousand jumps which are
logged and verified, through a couple of thousand hours of, flight time,
and a total three incidents requiring some type of emergency or sudden
correction, no damage has been done to an aircraft.
I've not damaged anybody else. And I personally haven't hurt myself,
other than walking into a wingtip.
Airplane problems -- I've never had an airplane problem that wasn't
justified -- I have made more than one precautionary landing, simply
because the engine was running weird; didn't call emergency to land it,
just to play it safe.
I consider that to be fairly smart, and something I taught my students
-- if they had a problem, come on hack, we'll talk about it, we'll look
at it. feel silly, but don't -
Scuba diving -- Larry Brown -- I received instruction from a Mr. Bill
Dailey on Route 17 in Ramsey, New Jersey, several years ago. Mr. Dailey
is no longer employed by that same firm. I do know roughly where he is.
I never received my license from Mr. Dailey, having paid for the course;
completed the course and have been on almost a dozen dives since, total.

I did complete the written exam and so forth. Mr. Dailey has
disappeared. And we know roughly where he is and so forth. I never
received a license, but I did go through the course.
It is not required When I met up with Larry
Brown, I had indicated a desire to be an instructor in that area.
In fact, he and Conrad were in the process of trying to find me a
course. And I don't know what happened to Larry. I thought he was a good
friend. He may be my best friend, maybe, by trying to help me. I really
don't know.
There were certainly quite a bit -- there was certainly quite a bit of
misunderstanding. I'm not a con man. I've had problems. And I'm still
going to have problems and I've got the biggest fight ahead of me that
I've ever had, especially if I'm going to have to do it on the ground.
But let's not look at this with a malicious intent. I'm not a malicious
person -- I don't go around kicking puppy dogs and knocking little girls
off door steps or whatever you want to call it, whatever the case may
be.
My problems -- in fact, very often the only control I ever had was
simply to avoid somebody being hurt. And Tulsa came to a very rapid
conclusion when I hurt my parents and my grandfather, which was the
ultimate slap in the face.
There have been -- I really question the methods and how this
information was accrued, specifically
the FAA has made several statements with names wrong, dates wrong,
places wrong and so forth.
And that does accumulate over a period of time.
Just to reiterate one thing-- the World Trade Center plaza was cleared.
They had just finished filming "The Wiz" the week before. It was a great
amount of damage done in the plaza; I tried to get in the plaza,
frankly, to get pictures from the bottom looking up. I couldn't. All the
doors were locked, number one. The plaza was barricaded off, number two.

There were police barricades and everything else. It was barricaded off.
I am sure you can verify this. I know you can verify this, because of
the fact that something I brought up because one of the policemen took
this whole thing as a personal vendetta for about 20 minutes, and I
heard a few words I had not heard before.
I explained to him my research. There was a great deal of research
done. It was a wrong thing, because it was illegal and because there was
a possibility of hurting people to the extent that my family was shamed.

I was shamed and I wound up in jail. That was the wrong -- well, landing
in jail was not wrong. It was the stunt itself. It was illegal.
-I did go through a great deal of preparation,
Flying in the neighborhood of the World Trade Center - it is not a
restricted area below 1,100 feet, as long as you are in communication
with the heliport nearby.
And you would be surprised what you can find out in a chopper. We were
curious to find out a few things, in that general area.
The general idea was to drift away from the Trade Center toward the
river; land by the road next to the river or in the river where a boat
was going to be, and disappear. It was not an ego stunt.
It was just to do it.
Going back to one other thing -- Daniel Webster College, which made so
many charges, and so many things -- first of all, several of the letters
in here that Dr. Schultz supposedly sent to me, "Jim, we need your
resume, Jim, we need this, Jim, we need that."
I never got them. In fact, I didn't even find out I had a mailbox at
that place until October 4th. somewhere -- 3rd or 4th -- I'm not ever
quite sure because I remember something happening about then.
I never got a great deal of information; in fact, Dr. Schultz, very few
times. I did enjoy quite a bit of support among the students, partially
because of the fact that I was carrying on a bit of a charade,
and partially because of the fact that I had hoped to give them
something. I had really wanted to do it. It was my intention to run a
safe and non-profit parachute operation .
I really wanted to teach these kids to jump. I love it and I like to
share something I like.
DWC certainly was in a large hurry to finish this whole thing up. Under
Federal regulations, the college receiving Federal funds -- specifically
bank loan funds and so forth - I was supposed to get a hearing in 10
days, which I never got..
There were quite a few irregularities on the part of DWC, so I certainly
throw very little weight to their testimony because simply I think they
are covering themselves in a lot of respects.
Granted, there is a lot true, but there is a lot of prejudice in there
as well. And they did wind up paying me for the entire semester. I got
almost $800 -$800 or $600 some odd dollar check from them to my lawyer.
So I'm sure they felt they had goofed somewhere along the line, when
they made that settlement.
Finally, the only thing that I've ever wanted to do -- I've talked about
sitting on an airport fence when I was high as a grasshopper, and it is
not kidding.
And I'll still fly, for the rest of my life, in one form or another.
I've got a little ultra light hang glider, and I'll be flying the hell
out of that, and that's about all I can do.
I would appreciate not losing my privileges. Frankly, if I keep my
medical certificate, I will not be going straight back into the air. I
will be staying with the West Bergen Mental Health Center. I will be
speaking with my grandfather and I will be consolidating some cash
assets, simply because the job I have right now is doing fairly well and
I am due for a promotion and and I have no reason to think that I won't
get it.
At any rate, my intention to improve the situation. I have finally taken
the big step. I think the hardest step is to do something that I didn't
have to do.
Maybe that is the key to it, because I am a person motivated simply by
what I have to do. And when I don't have to do something, it doesn't get
done, frankly.
JUDGE CAPPS: What did you do that you didn't have to do?
THE WITNESS: Submit myself for treatment at the West Bergen Mental
Health Center.
JUDGE CAPPS: Okay.

THE WITNESS: They say that the mind is a terrible thing to waste and I
couldn't agree more in this one particular circumstance.
Everything that I have ever done has been geared to aviation, from model
airplanes running on up to pacing the local - for citations, whatever
the case may be.
I have pulled my ratings pretty much all by myself. The GI did help me
out with some of them; however my benefits were limited.
I have spent a great deal of money and a great deal of time and a great
deal of emotion packed into this whole line :of process -- I have
learned a lot about flying, but added to it some discipline.
Some of them obviously didn't work out too well. I really believe that
at this time I can keep my stuff straight. Sometimes maybe a mental
problem is as hard a monkey to carry as any.
But the fact of the matter is that I do not want to be a social leper.
The fact of the matter is that I am a marked man with a waiver. If I get
this waiver on me, that pretty much rules out any possibility of Federal
employment. I can pretty much rule out any type of airline employment. I
can pretty much rule out just about anything.
Now, frankly my desires are not with airline employment. I was too much
of a teacher. I enjoyed it too much.
But my options are extremely limited and this leaves me practically
nowhere to go, even if I eventually get it back.
And from the situation described, it's going to be many years. I really
don't know how many years he says -- Dr. Sexton at one time in an
interview said six months. That has long since gone by the wayside. The
fact of the matter is that I don't believe I will be flying for many
years.
I don't want to lose that. Even if I can hold just a normal third class,
I don't want to lose it. It is the motivational force in my life. More
than one the funny thing was, about Tulsa, Oklahoma, and coming hack --
it was work with Dr. Dorsey, work with my grandfather, and work on those
readings.
And slowly but surely a few things changed. Not all of them -- no. It
is a long, slow process, but they did change. There was change, there
was improvement. Maybe not enough.
I don't want to lose this. This is not a living, it is a lifestyle, it
is a way of life that has been since that high
However, I do believe that I am not a danger to anybody. I do believe
that I am not dangerous to myself, at least in an aircraft.
I may still wind up destroying my own mind. That's a possibility I won't
rule out. The whole point is that I know the problem exists. It has been
shoved up my nose all evening, and for the past year.
And you have never had to do anything until you go to the man you love
most in this world and say "Hey, I've got a problem," especially when he
comes back and says, "you have one hell of a problem."
I want nothing more than to fly and to know that I've got my stuff
straight. Maybe I can't do both right now, But, eventually I hope to.
And if this court does rule against me, I would appreciate one
particular courtesy, and that is that the responsible people will please
enable some type of aid or guidance to enable me to take a place in the
so-called normal outside world eventually, instead of telling me what I
can't do or what I did do or what is wrong.
Tell me what I can do to make it right; how to correct the situation.
That is all I have to say.
JUDGE CAPPS: Ms. Hauselt?
And the record will reflect that this is rebuttal.
I, say this because I don't usually allow rebuttal. But since you didn't
have any direct argument -

MS. HAUSELT: Your Honor, while I did not make any objections to hearing
Mr. Campbell's closing argument, I would point out that much of his
statements concerning his desire to fly are really irrelevant.
And while he does have the sympathy of people involved here, I think
that we have to look at the medical issue.
Throughout his testimony ,and also again in his closing statement, while
he says on the one hand to us that he recognizes the problem, in the
course of cross-examination and in the course of his questions it is
clear that he fails to understand the significance of his mental
illness.
Just -- I think one question I asked him, which in particular capsulizes
this failure to understand, is when I inquired of him concerning his
falsification - his application to Nashua Aviation and why he did not
put down anything in regard to his living in Oklahoma; why there are
various discrepancies there.
His response was "Well, I wouldn't have gotten the job if I put that
down." That is the whole point. This is the person who with the illness
he has, is quite capable of manipulating the systems in which he
operates and manipulating the people that he meets.
He attempted to do this with Dr. Powers. He has attempted to do it
today. He has attempted to do it in talking to people on the telephone
to get interviews. He attempted to do it from what you have said, with
indirectly -- to you.
This is the type of behavior we are talking about, and this is again
further manifestations of the problem and further indications that the
problem is not understood by him.
But even were we to conclude that he understands that he has a problem,
we have to look at what we have before us in the record. And I chose to
just do a rebuttal. I don't think it is necessary for me to list all of
the acts and all of the behavior that Dr. Powers detailed in his
testimony.
They are a matter of record. The fact that there may be some minor
inconsistencies in what some of the people said, none of us can prove.
It is a miracle that we have the evidence we have, based on the trail
that had to be traced around the United States.
The interviews that he spoke of, with the other doctors who interviewed
him, I submit to Your Honor that these doctors simply had a version
which Mr. Campbell handed them -- a version he would like them to
believe.
And close scrutiny of those reports shows that those doctors were not
aware of Mr. Campbell's complete history.
There is a pattern that appears in the record. It is a pattern of
recurring behavior and that pattern is not something that is likely to
change, and I think even Mr. Campbell's behavior here today is
indicative of that problem.
He has admitted some of the falsehoods; denied others. I think the point
is not whether a little particular fact A is true or false. What we have
here is a pattern.
And all of these parties have not - people who don't know each other;
people who live all over the United States have not come together in a
huge conspiracy to point out that Mr. Campbell has a problem.
These incidents are things which Mr. Campbell must take responsibility
for, and I think his testimony indicates that he is not clearly ready to
do that.
That is why I say that it is clear that his personality disorder
persists and is severe and does manifest itself in these behaviors which
Dr. Powers set forth.
On the issue of Mr. Campbell's operation of an aircraft, we are talking
about medical qualifications, And they are numerous -- as Dr. Pakull
relates -things in the file which indicate that Mr. Campbell has poor
judgment.
But there are also indications that he has poor judgment with regard to
his own personal safety and with regard to the safety of others.
You do not open -- or hold yourself out as a person who can operate a
parachute club when you are not currently certified by the U.S.
Parachute Association.
You do not sign in an emergency chute when you are not a parachute
rigger, you do not put down on an application that you are a parachute
rigger, when you are not.
These are the kinds of behaviors that show us that this person in an
airplane simply cannot be trusted. His judgment is just inadequate.
Mr. Campbell is not just here because he attempted to jump off the World
Trade Center. While that event is one of many and while it points out
the pattern of behavior we are talking again about a variety of
incidents.
We are talking about an incident which is one of many. Mr. Campbell
said, I believe, that there are two questions here -- his mental illness
versus an unsolvable situation that he spoke of -- and referring to this
unsolvable situation, saying that that is why he felt the necessity to
fabricate all these stories.
The unsolvable situation was kind of snowballing as the effect of all
these stories that he was trying to get away from.
Well, the fact that he would interpose those two things as separate
things is again an indication he does not understand that those
fabrications are an integral part of his mental illness.
It is not two separate things. So your Honor, I would submit to you that
the evidence is overwhelming. There is no medical evidence from Mr.
Campbell. He is simply someone that in good faith we cannot put in the
air and cannot allow to be instructing other people in the air.
And I would ask Your Honor to uphold the Administrator's order of
revocation.

INITIAL DECISION AND ORDER
JOYCE CAPPS,- Administrative Law Judge:
This is a proceeding under the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended,
wherein James Richard Campbell, Respondent herein, has appealed the
Emergency Order of revocation dated April 11, 1980, which has been filed
herein as the Complaint.
The Administrator is alleging that Respondent, due to an established
medical history and clinical diagnosis of a personality disorder that is
severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts, is not
qualified for an airman's medical certificate under sections 67.13,
67.15 and 67.17 (d) (1) (i) (a) and Sections 67.13, 67.15, and
67.17(d)(1) (ii) of the Federal Aviat,ion regulations,
After due notice to the parties, this matter was heard on November 18,
1980 in New York, New York, at which time the Administrator was
represented by Sharon Hauselt, Esquire, and Respondent elected to
procede pro se.
There has been a lot of evidence presented by the Government:-in
furtherance of establishing its claim in this case. Said evidence came
in the form of testimony by Sandra Ann Taylor, an aviation safety
inspector in the Portland, Maine, General Aviation District Office, who
testified as to the results of a rather extensive investigation
conducted by here in connection with this case.
There has testimony from two well-qualified and Board-certified
psychiatrists, Dr. Thomas R. Powers from San Francisco and Dr. Barton
Pakull from Washington, D.C.
There is little doubt in my mind, from the evidence that has been
presented in this case, and in many instances from the Respondent's own
admissions and testimony, that there is sufficient overt acts to
convince me that they were the result of a personality
disorder which the two psychiatrists who testified agreed the Respondent
now has -- and has seemed to have for quite a while.
The Respondent first bit of what I would call rather unusual or bizarre
behavior did occur when he made the very foolish attempt to parachute
off the top of the World Trade Center.
I say this was foolish, despite the testimony of the Respondent of the
precautionary measures that had been taken for several months prior to
the jump itself.
He should be commended for taking some of the safety precautions he did
take. On the other hand, it disturbs me that such an action was so long
in the planning stages, and it was something that the Respondent
obviously at the young age of just 21 wanted to do.
He has said it wasn't to prove a point or to get any attention or
anything of that sort. It was just something he wanted to do, and he
thought at the time it could be performed safely, both to himself and to
others.
He has testified that the area or the landing site was in a closed-off
area. That testimony is uncontradicted. I don't know whether that is
true or not, but I am going to give the Respondent the benefit of the
doubt.
Despite that fact, though, even if it were cleared off, it was still not
in my opinion constitute, a safe jump, without having first secured the
permission of the management of the World Trade Center, to let them know
that such a feat was going to be attempted.
I do not think it was safe without having first notified the FAA of the
attempted feat, in order to make sure that no special authorizations
were required by the FAA under the particular circumstances that this
jump was going to he made.
It may be that the FAA would have still considered this a congested
area, just due to the close proximity of buildings and structures in the
very confined area of the World Trade Center.
That was the first instance of an overt act that I think establishes
this mental condition of a personality disorder,
Then we turn to his time in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where for three months he
posed as a medical doctor. I have not heard any type of satisfactory
explanation or reason for doing this, and I can't find that it is
anything other than a manifestation of the disease he is suffering from.

Some of the characteristics of the disease were exhaustively testified
to by Dr. Pakull and Dr. Powers. Some of the characteristics of what Dr.
Powers diagnosed as a mixed personality disorder with narcissistic and
borderline features are such things as an inappropriate and intense
anger shown by the Respondent on occasion, unpredictable actions, some
instances of transient psychosis even, where he would be completely out
of touch with reality.
Such a person suffering from this mixed personality disorder would have
illusions of grandeur, is the way I've always heard it. Dr. Powers said
it. was a grandiose sense of self importance and of one's own image of
himself as being an unique person.
Such a person constantly is seeking attention and admiration. A lot of
the instances of overt acts in this case illustrate and give credence to
many of these different characteristics that have been cited.
I think we've got a lot of examples in the evidence where in various way
-- either through applications for employment of in statements to fellow
employees or an employer or even during the conduct or his teaching--
the Respondent alleged certain things that simply were not true.
For instance, he claimed that he had taught ground school for AOPA,
which is Aircraft Owners Pilots
Association, when in fact he never did
He -- I think this grandiose behavior would be exemplified be keeping
the Japan Air Lines pilot uniform beyond the term of his employment, and
going back to a prior place of employment and telling certain people
there about these Falcon jets he was flying.
This seems to be more wishful thinking that I think perhaps the
Respondent was hoping would be true, and it wasn't true at the time.
But it sounded good and it made him look good in front of his friends
and former co-employees,
Another characteristic of the personality disorder syndrome would be the
ability of the Respondent to manipulate others, many times through very
devious devices -- either by outright lies, by charm itself, by some
time intimidation.
I think he did intimidate Dr. Schultz at the Daniel Webster College, or
at least he tried to, in order to effect something he very much wanted,
thereby evidencing another characteristic of the disorder -- and that is
a failure or refusal to recognize that others have rights, and to
appreciate the rights or others.
Some or these untruths that were told by the Respondent, I think were
very serious -- this business of saying he was an FAA certified
parachute rigger, and
that he wanted to form this parachuting club or some sort of parachute
organization at the Daniel Webster College at the time he had lost his
certification by the U.S. Parachute Association.
And yet he continued to lead others to think that he was still certified
by that association, which is the real pinnacle of parachute jumping. I
mean, it s really something to be certified by that organization and
whether it was true or not at the time, at least we find it recognized
that that was a "status symbol," at least among parachutists, to belong
there.
I think another serious action on the part of the Respondent was that
three-month period of posing as a doctor.
One can look back on it, and think it was rather amusing that here a guy
that looks so young, fooled so many people, which really illustrates
just how persuasive the Respondent can be when he wants to be, and when
he wants to make a certain impression on others and at the same time
build up his own self-image and buttress his own ego -- which obviously
the Respondent, because of his personality disorder, must have.
This evidences a lack of responsibility on the part of this Respondent,
as did saying he -was a certified instructor with the U.S. Parachute
Association.

This misled people, who he in turn still wanted to put their trust in
him. It's a bad circle that was started by the Respondent -- a circle
that can lead to no good.
I think we have no evidence here of any actual harm being done to anyone
by any of the masquerades, machinations or any other manifestation of
grandiose conduct on the part of the Respondent.
But I think that is just because we have been rather lucky. I think as a
result of his personality disorder the Respondent, as testified to by
both Dr. Powers and Dr. Pakull, has and will in the future - at least
for the next two years and somewhat beyond - exercised poor judgment.
He has shown a lack of impulse control, feels little guilt or
willingness to assume responsibilities for his own acts, and would
prefer placing that blame on something else or someone else, rather than
accept the responsibility himself.
I agree with the Government counsel that it is irrelevant to hear
closing argument from a Respondent where he mentions how much he loves
flying and what a jolt it would be to lose his right to fly.
I agree -- that is irrelevant But whenever I hear the argument, it just
makes my job as a judge that much harder, because there is nothing in
the world that I hate worse than issuing the type of order that I am
going to issue here.
I have no alternative with the evidence -- or the overwhelming evidence
that I have heard today - but to affirm the Emergency order of
Revocation that has been filed in this case, and to hold that Respondent
is not medically qualified to exercise the privileges of any class of
airman medical certificate now or for the next two years, due to the
fact that he does have a personality disorder that makes him unable to
safely perform those duties at the present time or within the next two
years.
Therefore he is disqualified for airman medical certification under the
sections of the Federal Aviation regulations herein before cited.
It is therefore ordered that any airman certificate held by the
Respondent is hereby revoked.
Entered this 18th day of November, 1980, in New York, New York.

JOYCE CAPPS, Administrative Law Judge

Edited on December 15, 1980
JUDGE CAPPS: All right. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE CAPPS: Back on the record.
Mr. Campbell, I am handing you a copy of the appeal proceedings that you
can pursue. I am giving it to you in writing now, and that will be
attached to the decision when it is sent to you.
But I am handing that to you now, because there is a time limitation
attached to this.
All right. There being nothing further before me, we stand adjourned.
(Whereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter was closed.)

APPEAL
Any party to this proceeding may appeal this initial decision or order
by filing with the Board a notice of appeal within 10 days after this
date. Such appeal must be perfected within 40 day after this date by
filing with the Board a brief in support of such appeal. Appeals may be
dismissed by the Board in cases where a party fails to perfect its
appeal by the timely filing of the brief. Attention is directed to
Sections 821.43, 821.47, and 821.48 of the Board's rules of Practice in
Air Safety Proceedings for further information regarding appeals. An
original and four copies of each document must be filed with the
National Transportation Safety Board, Docket Section (LJ-10), Waterfront
Center, 1010 Wisconsin, Ave., NW, Suite 301, Washington, D.C. 20007, as
provided in Section 821.7 of the Board's Rules, with copies served upon
the other party. The timely filing of an appeal herein shall stay the
order in this initial decision.

SERVICE: James R. Campbell
41 Stone Fence Road
Oakland, NJ 07436

Sharon Hauselt. Esq.
Enforcement & Proceedings Branch, AGC-250
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20591

[Tony P.]

"Dyogenes":

Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
here. Moreover, you can get cussed out by those who download all of the
newsgroup posts before reading them -- as I learned when I posted the
Airedale Press Bankruptcy Schedules. Seems they get this lump of text,
desired or not.

Still, it may be a public service, despite the silly position taken by
Campbell in his counterclaim, that it is defamatory to transmit the
contents of his mental illness adjudication. That's the "it may be true
but I'm not really like that" claim. In other words, "I did it but I
don't have to accept responsibility for how it makes me look, you do."
This is creative. Equally creative is his claim that, because NTSB
files are destroyed after 15 years, a copy gotten before then is now
illegal, or a forgery, or whatever. As is his claim that, because he got
his medical certificate back after enough years of good behavior, this
adjudication was somehow rescinded.

Tony Pucillo

[Alan Staats]

On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:45:05 -0400, "Tony P." <To...@pucillo.com>
wrote:

>"Dyogenes":
>
> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
>here. >

> Still, it may be a public service, despite the silly position taken by
>Campbell in his counterclaim, that it is defamatory to transmit the
>contents of his mental illness adjudication. That's the "it may be true
>but I'm not really like that" claim. In other words, "I did it but I
>don't have to accept responsibility for how it makes me look, you do."
>This is creative. Equally creative is his claim that, because NTSB
>files are destroyed after 15 years, a copy gotten before then is now
>illegal, or a forgery, or whatever. As is his claim that, because he got
>his medical certificate back after enough years of good behavior, this
>adjudication was somehow rescinded.
>
> Tony Pucillo
>
>

...or as well like to refer to it, "that's life in the ding-dong
lane."

staats

"reality? we don't need no steenking reality..."

[Bertie the Bunyip]

Alan Staats <alan.staats@*nospam*cwix.com> wrote

> ...or as well like to refer to it, "that's life in the ding-dong
> lane."

Hey Alan, I gotta bone to pick with you. There I was having fun with my
favorite toy and YOU chased him away!

Bastard.

Bertie

[Alan Staats]

On 9 Oct 1998 20:45:43 GMT, "Bertie the Bunyip" <i...@t.tarver.sigh>
wrote:

...ever so sorry, bertie. any idea where he's gone to?

al

[Bill Shields]

Tony P. wrote:
>
> "Dyogenes":
>
> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
> here.

<snip>

Is this really true? Public records are just that - public - no matter what
venue they may be distributed in. I'm not a lawyer but common sense says
that once "public" they are there for the world to see and I don't see how
one could be sued for merely passing along copies. Am I wrong in this regard?

HOWEVER - I have to say that publishing something like this in such a public
venue is, at the very least, mean-spirited. I'm not taking any side one way or
the other. I realize that some of you guys have a bone (or two) to pick with
Campbell - but this is really WAY over the top! I know that many of you will
justify this based on "well, HE said" and "to clear the record", etc. - but I
have never seen anyone crucified in this manner, and to this extent, on the
'net. Perhaps it's a record?

I'm sorry that this person may have the kind of personal problems so
excruciatingly detailed here in public - perhaps we could all just move on to
other issues? The guy has been humiliated and ridiculed beyond words, and
his private problems have now been aired for the world to see. Isn't that
enough? I have alot of respect for you guys (e.g. the RAH-15) but let's
call it quits. Whatever things you have claimed about "zoom", and whatever
arguments have been made here - you've been vindicated, okay?

I hope that "the zoomer" can get on with his life - and that you guys can
get back to offering the kind of great input and advice that many of us
"lurkers" hope to find in this news group...

Take care,

Bill

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <361EBD...@cts.com>, Bill Shields <bshi...@cts.com> wrote:

>Tony P. wrote:
>>
>> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
>> here.
>

>Is this really true? Public records are just that - public - no matter what
>venue they may be distributed in. I'm not a lawyer but common sense says
>that once "public" they are there for the world to see and I don't see how

>one could be sued for merely passing along copies. Am I wrong in this regard?

Yep. You can *sue* anyone for anything you feel like. *Winning* the
suit is another matter...but in many cases, the plaintiff just wants to
cause someone so much trouble that they stop doing a perfectly legal
thing that the plaintiff doesn't like.

Campbell's suit against the RAH-15 is a prime example. It's an attempt
to intimidate his critics to stop discussing his and his magazine's
failings. If you scanned through the NTSB transcript far enough, you'll
see that the judge felt his use of such intimidation was symptomatic of
a personality disorder that disqualified him from flying.

Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

[Don Campbell]

Just the other day, I believe it was about Monday if you want to look it up, Bad
Water Bill offered to give Jim back part of his life for his own life back. See
Bill said some things, none false, to and about Jim and sued Bill. In fact Jim has
sued him and 14 others. Some of those 15 people are the best people in this area to
get accurate information (No, Bill I will not libel you by saying you are one of
those). When I first came on here about 1 1/2 years ago, I said that Jim was
helping out a lot 'because he was the only one telling it like it is'. After
reading things like the report that you believe should not have been posted, and
seeing Chuck (the very evil man that takes money and gives nothing in return) help
people where he can etc.. I started looking again at US Aviator. I saw that the
man that was trying to destroy others owed more money then all of the good people
in this area combined. I found things like Chuck's plane is said to be up of the
best of its type in the air (this is from all I have seen that bought the plane
from him).

Giving back his life is not hard to do. I know that Bill would love to do just
that, and I believe that others here would like to do the same. I believe all it
would take is for Jim to drop the suits, and put a one page in his last issue about
how he did then wrong.

I am not speaking for any of them, all that I said is what I believe to be true,
but none of it is speaking for any of them. By now I know a few of the 15 is so
pissed off that they want to see Jim doing a song and dance before a judge.

Look around and read the old messages, if you don't what to do a lot of digging
just read the messages that have the letters between Bill and Jim in the last
week. Let us know what you think then.

Don

[Richard R Ilfeld]

On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 18:50:13 -0700, Bill Shields <bshi...@cts.com>
wrote:

>SNIP>
Bill - When the suit is dismissed, & the threats stop it'll be easier
to let go. But as long as "getting on with his life" maintains
someone as a defendant in a court of law for posting public
records....
"what we have here, is a failure to communicate"
rri

[B25flyer]

>Whatever things you have claimed about "zoom", and whatever
>arguments have been made here - you've been vindicated, okay?

NO way!!! Not until this is done the way the zooomer wantes it, "in a court of
law". He sued me and by God he will have to prove it, and pay when he loses. I
want to see him dance in front of a judge and prove all the s**t he has lied
about. This is as close to war as you can get.

Walt
RAH15/2 And damn proud to serve.

[Bruce A. Frank]

Bill,

The problem has been that there are many who have protested that
anythings said about Campbell's history are " dirty, rotten lies". They
require proof.
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAF...@worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding

While trying to find the time to finish mine.

[Richard Riley]

On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:45:05 -0400, "Tony P." <To...@pucillo.com>
wrote:

>"Dyogenes":
>

> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around

>here. Moreover, you can get cussed out by those who download all of the
>newsgroup posts before reading them -- as I learned when I posted the
>Airedale Press Bankruptcy Schedules. Seems they get this lump of text,
>desired or not.

For anyone who still downloads all content - for God's sake, get a ppp
account and Free Agent! Working through a shell these days is one
step above sephamore!

>
> Still, it may be a public service, despite the silly position taken by
>Campbell in his counterclaim, that it is defamatory to transmit the
>contents of his mental illness adjudication. That's the "it may be true
>but I'm not really like that" claim. In other words, "I did it but I
>don't have to accept responsibility for how it makes me look, you do."

Isn't that the Paul Rubins Doctrine - usually stated, "I'm rubber,
you're glue"?

>This is creative. Equally creative is his claim that, because NTSB
>files are destroyed after 15 years, a copy gotten before then is now
>illegal, or a forgery, or whatever. As is his claim that, because he got
>his medical certificate back after enough years of good behavior, this
>adjudication was somehow rescinded.
>
> Tony Pucillo

Does anybody, anywhere, know how he got it back? I'd think that would
be a good thing to find out in discovery

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <361f98f9...@news.cwix.com>,

Richard Riley <berk...@Spamloop.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 11:45:05 -0400, "Tony P." <To...@pucillo.com>
>wrote:
>

>>This is creative. Equally creative is his claim that, because NTSB
>>files are destroyed after 15 years, a copy gotten before then is now
>>illegal, or a forgery, or whatever. As is his claim that, because he got
>>his medical certificate back after enough years of good behavior, this
>>adjudication was somehow rescinded.
>

>Does anybody, anywhere, know how he got it back? I'd think that would
>be a good thing to find out in discovery

Well, one of the effects of Campbell's retaliatory personality is that
if someone *does* have the story, they're not likely to say anything
unless they have notarized copies of government documents, signed
statements from the doctor involved, etc.

Having none of those, I'm forced to speculate. :-)

1. Zoom's powers of pursuasion are massive. Reread Dr. Powers'
testimony and the Judge's decision.
2. I talked to the FAA (generic terms, not mentioning Zoom), and they told
me that a psychiatric evaluation would NOT necessarily be required for
someone trying to get their medical back after a two-year suspension.
3. So the Zoomer may have had to convince only an ordinary AME that his
condition was no longer severe enough to warrant denial of a medical.
4. This would be ONE person, getting *only the information that
Campbell provided*. The doctor would probably not have talked to Zoom's
co-workers or anyone who Campbell didn't want him or her to see.
5. Finally, Campbell's grandfather was a doctor. Campbell says he was
highly regarded...if so, he probably would have known several AMEs. It
would not have been difficult to find an AME willing to go to bat for
"Doc Campbell's grandkid."

All speculation, of course.

[dyog...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <361E2F81...@pucillo.com>,

to...@pucillo.com wrote:
> "Dyogenes":
>
> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
> here. Moreover, you can get cussed out by those who download all of the
> newsgroup posts before reading them -- as I learned when I posted the
> Airedale Press Bankruptcy Schedules. Seems they get this lump of text,
> desired or not.

Large files appear in newsgroups from time to time, I think this one is
important. It's at least as important as Bertie's sound bytes.

Just to make sure SE-4661 will remain available to the public, even if
Private Peckerhead (Corporal Carbunkle? Sargent Psychopath?) gets Zoomland
and Nutflight closed, I'm going to keep posting it and the other important
files from the sites. About once a month should be enough. I'll put them in
one of the groups that no one reads, like
alt.aviation.bill-mulcahey.screech.babble.drool That way they'll be
available for an infinity server but no one will complain about the
bandwidth. I'll just put up a notice in all the other groups that the
documents have been posted again.

FWIW, all the RAH-15 I've met are honest men. :)

Dyogenese

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <6vop8u$i54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

<dyog...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
>FWIW, all the RAH-15 I've met are honest men. :)
>
>Dyogenese

But on the plus side, Diogenes, some of us probably know how to
spell Greek names.... :-)

Ron "Where's that lamp?" Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

[Bob U.]

On 10 Oct 1998 16:55:28 -0700, want...@halcyon.com (Ronald James
Wanttaja) wrote:

>In article <6vop8u$i54$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <dyog...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>>
>>FWIW, all the RAH-15 I've met are honest men. :)
>>
>>Dyogenese
>
>But on the plus side, Diogenes, some of us probably know how to
>spell Greek names.... :-)
>
>Ron "Where's that lamp?" Wanttaja

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Obviously, you hold no PhD in "fonetics". <g>

Signed,
Dr. Bahb Erbin

[Tony P.]

Bill:

I didn't say you could be SUCCESSFULLY sued for posting public
records. Just that Zoom Campbell seems to think he has a right to sue
those who do so, for it. And you're right about common sense, and the
law agrees. You cannot be guilty of defamation for posting a public
hearing transcript. It's an idiotic assertion. But people have
capitulated often when threatened by Campbell with the possibility of
idiotic litigation.

I was being facetious, but I guess those who haven't followed this much
didn't realize it.

Tony Pucillo

Bill Shields wrote:
>
> Tony P. wrote:
> >

> > "Dyogenes":
> >
> > Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
> > here.
>

> <snip>

>
> Is this really true? Public records are just that - public - no matter what
> venue they may be distributed in. I'm not a lawyer but common sense says
> that once "public" they are there for the world to see and I don't see how

> one could be sued for merely passing along copies. Am I wrong in this regard?
>
> HOWEVER - I have to say that publishing something like this in such a public
> venue is, at the very least, mean-spirited. I'm not taking any side one way or
> the other. I realize that some of you guys have a bone (or two) to pick with
> Campbell - but this is really WAY over the top! I know that many of you will
> justify this based on "well, HE said" and "to clear the record", etc. - but I
> have never seen anyone crucified in this manner, and to this extent, on the
> 'net. Perhaps it's a record?
>
> I'm sorry that this person may have the kind of personal problems so
> excruciatingly detailed here in public - perhaps we could all just move on to
> other issues? The guy has been humiliated and ridiculed beyond words, and
> his private problems have now been aired for the world to see. Isn't that
> enough? I have alot of respect for you guys (e.g. the RAH-15) but let's

> call it quits. Whatever things you have claimed about "zoom", and whatever

> arguments have been made here - you've been vindicated, okay?
>

> I hope that "the zoomer" can get on with his life - and that you guys can
> get back to offering the kind of great input and advice that many of us
> "lurkers" hope to find in this news group...
>
> Take care,
>
> Bill

--

Castigat ridendo mores. <Laughter succeeds where lecturing won't.>

I speak only for myself unless otherwise stated. One personality is
enough, thank you.

[Tony P.]

Don:

This may sound selfish, but the best thing that could have happened was
for him to file a lawsuit himself. I say that even thoughand I truly
hated to see of other 14 get sued by Campbell in retaliation for my
suing him for libel.

Putting aside the fact that most of these people have no business in
the litigation and were apparently selected only on the basis of having
told him to ^&*&% himself when threatened with suit, he really did us.
Campbell is doing his level best to avoid ever having to testify under
oath, about anything. He's tried to evade the bankruptcy suit by
writing letters and calling everyone he can, and trying to get his
readers to do the same. He's incessantly bugging the Florida Bar and
its officers with nonsense calls, calling any federal official who will
listen, trying to pressure the Trustee and myself to drop the case. He's
refused to agree to a date for his deposition and will probably try to
dispose of the case without a trial.

But by filing a lawsuit claiming that his reputation and his
truthfulness and accuracy have been questioned in a defamatory way, he
will have to testify. No excuses. He will have to be cross-examined on
the facts. No more evasions.

Tony Pucillo

[Tony P.]

Ron:

And maybe it's even similar to his constant calls to law enforcement
officials, the Florida Bar, justice department people (the U.S. Trustee
is apparently under their jurisdiction), repeated calls to the Trustee
despite being ordered to stop, and even duping his readers into the same
tactics.

What it is, is terror of facing a judicial proceeding in which his
credibility will be tested in the crucible of truth. Mr. Campbell wants
to run off his mouth in any forum where he can't be challenged, and in
which there is no penalty for lies. But he wants just as badly to
remain mute on the record of judicial proceedings. He'll spew
accusations and commentary until the judge is weary, but get him to
raise his right hand and state facts? He won't do that any more than
he'll do anything else that subjects him to scrutiny of others in the
glaring light of reality.

And he has the nerve to call others "cowards" as he hurls lies and
libels to a captive audience of cultivated ignorance.

Tony Pucillo

Ronald James Wanttaja wrote:
>
> In article <361EBD...@cts.com>, Bill Shields <bshi...@cts.com> wrote:
> >Tony P. wrote:
> >>

> >> Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around
> >> here.
> >

> >Is this really true? Public records are just that - public - no matter what
> >venue they may be distributed in. I'm not a lawyer but common sense says
> >that once "public" they are there for the world to see and I don't see how

> >one could be sued for merely passing along copies. Am I wrong in this regard?
>
> Yep. You can *sue* anyone for anything you feel like. *Winning* the
> suit is another matter...but in many cases, the plaintiff just wants to
> cause someone so much trouble that they stop doing a perfectly legal
> thing that the plaintiff doesn't like.
>
> Campbell's suit against the RAH-15 is a prime example. It's an attempt
> to intimidate his critics to stop discussing his and his magazine's
> failings. If you scanned through the NTSB transcript far enough, you'll

> see that the judge felt his use of such intimidation was symptomatic of
> a personality disorder that disqualified him from flying.

>
> Ron Wanttaja
> want...@halcyon.com
> http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

--

[Tony P.]

Dyogenes:

I knew a buy named Genovese once. I think there was a Greek named
Diogenes too, wasn't there? Ever in search of an honest man? :)

Anyway, I don't disagree. Just cautioning you about the possible flak
if you didn't know already. It's a shame that it's so much smaller as a
Zip file, but many people don't know what to do with one.

Tony Pucillo

dyog...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <361E2F81...@pucillo.com>,
> to...@pucillo.com wrote:
> > "Dyogenes":
> >

> > Careful, there, you can get sued for posting public records around

> > here. Moreover, you can get cussed out by those who download all of the
> > newsgroup posts before reading them -- as I learned when I posted the
> > Airedale Press Bankruptcy Schedules. Seems they get this lump of text,
> > desired or not.
>
> Large files appear in newsgroups from time to time, I think this one is
> important. It's at least as important as Bertie's sound bytes.
>
> Just to make sure SE-4661 will remain available to the public, even if
> Private Peckerhead (Corporal Carbunkle? Sargent Psychopath?) gets Zoomland
> and Nutflight closed, I'm going to keep posting it and the other important
> files from the sites. About once a month should be enough. I'll put them in
> one of the groups that no one reads, like
> alt.aviation.bill-mulcahey.screech.babble.drool That way they'll be
> available for an infinity server but no one will complain about the
> bandwidth. I'll just put up a notice in all the other groups that the
> documents have been posted again.
>

> FWIW, all the RAH-15 I've met are honest men. :)
>
> Dyogenese
>

> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

--

[dyog...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <3620FBE6...@pucillo.com>,

to...@pucillo.com wrote:
> Dyogenes:
>
> I knew a buy named Genovese once.

A buy named Genovese? Maybe you make a typo, eh'? You mean to say a guy named
Genovese?

There was a girl named Kitty Genovese. Maybe she's why I don't stand by
quietly when I see a psycho at work.

>I think there was a Greek named

> Diogenes too, wasn't there? Ever in search of an honest man? :)

Yes, but diog...@my-dejanews.com was already taken. And in the Greek, the
"y" is also a correct spelling.

As I said, I've found a bunch. They're the RAH-15.

>
> Anyway, I don't disagree. Just cautioning you about the possible flak
> if you didn't know already. It's a shame that it's so much smaller as a
> Zip file, but many people don't know what to do with one.

I haven't had any yet, except from Lt. Loon. Jimmy! Are you reading this?
How about I post your brutality complaint against the Lakeland PD! Those
brave boys in blue that put their LIVES on the line every day? The ones that
you want to RUIN with your highly questionable quazi-legal maneuver ? Just
so you can go BACK to the show that you DEFRAUDED with your FORGED passes? I
have it on good authority that some FEDS are looking into your case right
now... and they aren't happy... as are some OTHER journalists... who will be
taking a VERY CAREFUL look at you...

D

[Tony P.]

And I promise, without fail, to READ me next post for typos before
hitting "send." TP

[John Ousterhout]

On Sat, 10 Oct 1998 19:48:23 GMT, BerkutDIE...@loop.com (Richard
Riley) wrote:

>He's recently tried to take the lead on behalf of the Mini-500 builders against
>Mr. Fetters.

ZOOM Lexicon, part 1.

Leadership: 1) Find out where the crowd is headed. 2) Run to the
front. 3) Yell "Follow Me" over and over.

- John Ousterhout -

read se-4661 on my home page

http://www.cyberis.net/~jouster

[Alan Staats]

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 19:19:41 -0400, "Tony P." <To...@pucillo.com>
wrote:

>And I promise, without fail, to READ ****me***** next post for typos before

>hitting "send." TP
>
> Castigat ridendo mores. <Laughter succeeds where lecturing won't.>
>
> I speak only for myself unless otherwise stated. One personality is
>enough, thank you.

...yes but will you corect them furst?

allen statz

[Don Campbell]

I must hurry and catch up because I r the leader

Don

[Jim Campbell]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 18:50:13 -0700, in <361EBD...@cts.com>,

...snip...

> In our world you're right. In Zoom's world posting public records about him is a
> federal offense. Once I made the mistake of posting one, thinking it might get
> him to leave me alone. Instead he used a pre-existing lawsuit to create a
> subpoena to get my address and credit card numbers from AOL. (note - the suit
> didn't have anything to do with me, AOL or the internet, it was just handy. After
> I complained to AOL they promised they'd never do it again. 3 months later they
> did exactly the same thing, again, giving Mr. Campbell access to the records of a
> half dozen of his "enemies."

I want to acknowledge Mr. Riley's apparent (partial) admission of previous
wrong-doing... while we have evidence to show that it was Richard Riley who
impersonated an NTSB Inspector, an FAA Employee, a Lawyer and even Bob Hoover (among
others), it is interesting to see him apparently admit to same. Of course... when
all this was happening, we were accused of making it all up. Ah well... it's not the
first time that we've been accused of such things... and I'm sure it won't be the
last.
It sure would be nice if we could deal with the real issues facing us all. I know we
are a flame magnet at this point, but I still haven't seen anyone post anything
remotely concrete about our REAL STORIES that disputes the facts that were
exhaustively detailed in same. I would welcome a polite and constructive discussion
of that (especially if we can learn something from it) without the vicious names, 20
year old character assassination and constant threats.
Note... before any of the self-styled RAH-15 goes on crying about lawsuits and how
we've been mean and vicious to them... remember it was you who wanted Tony to file
his (frivilous, IMO) suit, libeled the hell out of us, contributed to the attacks,
and it was we who were sued first... we simply COUNTER'ed. If we hadn't been sued,
we wouldn't have had to counter-sue... nuff said.
More important, if some of you folks have a problem with what we're doing, I'd
really like to entertain constructive suggestions about how you might do it
better... it might be a refreshing change to see what we can do to support each
other rather than tear each other to pieces.
I'm up for that... does anyone else have the guts to try it?

***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise the NGs much,
if at all)

--
Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
http://www.av8r.net
http://www.kindredspirit.com
http://www.sportplane.com
"To sin by silence when they should protest,
makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln

[Jim Hall]

Can someone diagram Mr. Rileys paragraph and show me where he admitted
to doing anything remotely wrong?
Is there another version of the English language I'm not aware of?

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:39:02 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

Jim Hall
Flybaby Builder
"Keep thyn airspeed up lest the ground rise up and smite thee"

[Jim Hall]

By the way "Zoom" you left out the ZZZzzzz's in your header!

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:39:02 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 18:50:13 -0700, in <361EBD...@cts.com>,
>

Jim Hall

[Mark Mallory]

Jim Campbell (usa...@gate.net) wrote:
: ***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise

: the NGs much, if at all)

You can bet all responses will be forwarded to "Federal Law Enforcement" :^)

[Daniel Grunloh]

In article <3624FDD6...@gate.net>,
Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:

>***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise
the NGs much,
>if at all)
>

Still using the royal "we" like the Queen of England, or the Pope.

Actually both "my" and "we" in the same sentence. Figure that.

:-)

--------------
Daniel Grunloh (gru...@uiuc.edu)
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~grunloh

[Rich Ahrens]

Jim Campbell wrote:
> I want to acknowledge Mr. Riley's apparent (partial) admission of previous
> wrong-doing... while we have evidence to show that it was Richard Riley who
> impersonated an NTSB Inspector, an FAA Employee, a Lawyer and even Bob Hoover (among
> others), it is interesting to see him apparently admit to same.

What have you been smoking? He admitted to no such thing. Only in your
feverish mind did those alleged impersonations even come up in this
discussion.

> ***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise the NGs much,
> if at all)

Yeah, right. And the pope isn't Catholic. And if you're going to insist
on using the first person plural (are you Mark Twain's "those afflicted
with tapeworms?"), try to be consistent about it. Changing in a single
sentence - sheesh.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alan Staats]

On 14 Oct 1998 20:46:21 GMT, n4...@worldnet.att.net (Jim Hall) wrote:

>Can someone diagram Mr. Rileys paragraph and show me where he admitted
>to doing anything remotely wrong?
>Is there another version of the English language I'm not aware of?
>

...yes. it's called Zoomese. If a sentence does not start off with
"Zoom, you're the greatest, I believe EVERYTHING you say..." it is
libelous, scandalous, proof positive of tortious interference,
terroristic tendencies and cabalistic cadres of commitable kooks (i
love alliteration), harassment worthy of federal enforcement,
goonishness, and a general admission of the commission of local, state
and federal crimes, ar at least the intent to do same.

However, in the same "Lingua Zooma" it IS ok, if you are the self
appointed saviour of aviation, to press specious charges against
ex-employees in the same local, state and federal jurisdictions, to
make spurious (and false) allegations of child neglect and abuse
against the same ex-employees to various child protective agencies, to
fall over yourself calling ex-employees ex-wives attornies to offer
all manner of information, to send, (with a bogus AOL address),
threats to rape and murder the children of ex-employees while said
ex-employee watches, and then kill the ex-employee; it's ok to call
the head of volunteer organizations and claim that ex-employees are
insane and that they better be careful.

DO YOU GET IT NOW? IT THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?

al "go ahead and sue me, you moron, i'd love for my attorney to get
you on the stand to talk about JAL and Lord Vox" staats

[ptid...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <3624FDD6...@gate.net>,
usa...@gate.net wrote:

> Note... before any of the self-styled RAH-15 goes on crying about lawsuits
and how
> we've been mean and vicious to them... remember it was you who wanted Tony to
file
> his (frivilous, IMO) suit, libeled the hell out of us, contributed to the
attacks,
> and it was we who were sued first... we simply COUNTER'ed. If we hadn't been
sued,
> we wouldn't have had to counter-sue... nuff said.
> More important, if some of you folks have a problem with what we're doing, I'd
> really like to entertain constructive suggestions about how you might do it
> better... it might be a refreshing change to see what we can do to support
each

Who the hell is "we" Got a mouse in your pocket? ....or is "our" illness
expanding to multiple personalities now, too?

--
Paul Tidball
Luscombe 8A
100mph on 4gph

[garf...@pilgrimhouse.com]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:39:02 -0400, in rec.aviation.homebuilt Jim
Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:

>***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise the NGs much,
>if at all)

You lying scumbag pieceOshit, why don't you just do the sport the
biggest favor possible and ONLY contribution you will EVER make to it,
and make that "much, if at all" a "never ever" and just disappear. Don't
talk about it, just DO it. Face it, bozo, the VAST majority of the
sport, those unfortunate enough to even know about you anyway, simply
wish you had never been born.

Of all the charlatans and absolute creeps/jerks this sport has EVER
known, you TOP them all. Effluent like you belongs in a sewage treatment
plant, not in our otherwise most eXcellent sport.

Do the most beneficent thing you will ever do for the sport (and probly
the human race), and LEAVE it alone.

Garfield

[Dan Brown]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:39:02 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> In our world you're right. In Zoom's world posting public records about him is a
>> federal offense. Once I made the mistake of posting one, thinking it might get
>> him to leave me alone. Instead he used a pre-existing lawsuit to create a
>> subpoena to get my address and credit card numbers from AOL. (note - the suit
>> didn't have anything to do with me, AOL or the internet, it was just handy. After
>> I complained to AOL they promised they'd never do it again. 3 months later they
>> did exactly the same thing, again, giving Mr. Campbell access to the records of a
>> half dozen of his "enemies."
>

>I want to acknowledge Mr. Riley's apparent (partial) admission of previous
>wrong-doing... while we have evidence to show that it was Richard Riley who
>impersonated an NTSB Inspector, an FAA Employee, a Lawyer and even Bob Hoover (among

>others), it is interesting to see him apparently admit to same. Of course... when

Jim, do you want to know why just about everybody who's been
paying attention thinks you're a lunatic? Didn't think so, but I'll
clue you in anyway. Just look at your writing above, and look at the
text you quoted to "support" it. Absent some sort of secret insiders'
handshake or some such, there's just no connection. None. Nada.
Zip. Zilch. The only "admission" in the statement you quote is that
he posted a public record about you (presumably the justly-famous
SE-4661). Last I heard, posting hearing transcripts was not
impersonating anybody.

Yep, I'm another of the many people who thinks you should be
institutionalized. I don't think so because of anything Tony or
Richard or Bill or John or any of the rest has said, nor even because
of the NTSB hearing--you've proved it yourself, beyond any doubt. I
suppose this now makes me some sort of terrorist or something--oh
well...

--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, da...@accex.net
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

[Matt Vogel]

Richard Riley wrote in message <362513c6...@news.loop.com>...
<snip>

>>It sure would be nice if we could deal with the real issues facing us all.
I know we
>>are a flame magnet
>

>"I know we are a flame magnet"? I still don't think he's mpd, but you
never
>know.
<snip>

Richard, I agree with you: he doesn't have MPD. I have another theory,
however:

"I am Zoom of Borg. Logic is futile. Prepare to be litigated...."

Would explain some things, dontcha think? ;-)
Matt

[Jim Campbell]

Richard Riley wrote:

> The new, improved, and no longer silent Richard Riley

...Who STILL impersonated an attorney, impersonated an FAA Inspector, and an NTSB
official, and Bob Hoover... and that's just the short list. Care to hear what else has
been tracked back to you, Richard? The list is ponderous. And I guess it's time to do
what we can to bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us into silence.
Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, Richard... and keep playing with 20 year
old, twisted data resulting from a process that literally violated the constitution...
and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that we know enough and
can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case against you... and sooner or later
you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a coward. Richard, of all the
unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the strongest and most
troublesome (to you).
You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it? And... we won't
resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.

[Jim Campbell]

Alan Staats driveled:

> However, in the same "Lingua Zooma" it IS ok, if you are the self
> appointed saviour of aviation, to press specious charges against
> ex-employees in the same local, state and federal jurisdictions,

BULL!!!

Some of the verifiable and documented history of Mr. Staats...

Mr. Staats was previously contracted to write two stories for the
SportPlane Resource Guide, for which he was paid in advance, and for which
he did not perform. Despite numerous promises, Staats NEVER provided the
stories
and unnecessarily delayed this arduous project. He has repeatedly promised
to pay us back for the fees advanced to him (both verbally and in writing)
and has never done so. Numerous agreements and schedules offered to
reimburse us
have never been fulfilled.

Mr. Staats, asking for consideration based on difficult personal
circumstances, wanted additional consideration and the opportunity to work
for us as an advertising salesman. He asked us... we did not ask him. We
gave him the chance despite considerable advice against same... but since
we, ourselves, have been victims of negative rumors and because we know
that Staats was in poor straits, decided to give him the chance and very
much wanted to believe that
he would do well for us both.

We drew up a detailed employment contract, which Staats signed and sent
back to us.

Mr. Staats did not perform according to the signed agreement he had with
us. His required daily reports were NEVER submitted (not even once) on time
and only two reports (out of over 20) were ever filed during the few weeks
he allegedly worked for us. Weekly summaries were never completed. He
failed to return calls and respond to requests in a timely manner. Numerous
other violations of that agreement occurred.

Staats repeatedly reported great success and optimism about the process of
ad sales but never furnished specifics that could be substantiated. At no
time did he indicate that he thought he was being poorly received or that
he was going to have exceptional difficulties (though he was warned to
expect some). At NO time did he indicate any problems with his
responsibilities or any doubt about his ability to fulfill them or his
sales targets. We have numerous written messages that confirm and verify
our assertion(s).

In an E-Mail message (about Staats anti-USA postings) generated by frequent
USA harasser, Ron Wantajja, Ron intimates that Staats was unsuccessful in
working for us because no one was interested in advertising in US Aviator.
This is a false assertion and Mr. Wantajja has had no contact with us to
verify, investigate or corroborate such a published statement. Publishing
is publishing... whether it be on paper or the web. If you publish
something as fact, you
have the responsibility and the legal imperative to make sure that it is...
and checking with the object of a report, to verify the veracity of the
report is not just accepted practice, it is a mandatory practice. If you do
not, you run the risk of
legal penalty, especially if you have a history of malicious behavior
toward the subject of your report... they call this LIBEL. As someone who
purports to be an aviation writer, I find this conduct is wholly
unprofessional and highly questionable.... especially when you consider the
FACT that examination of Staats phone contacts shows a very low volume of
calls (i.e., very few) were made to solicit said advertising, and that few
of the potentially "legitimate" calls
appear to have had sufficient duration to allow for a serious sales effort.
Wantajja knew none of this because he never checked with us to verify his
assertions. Further, Mr. Staats own records (what little there were) and
the statements he
made (via both written and verbal communication, as well as statements made
to fellow USA staffers) shows nothing of the kind. Mr. Wantajja's
assertions are false and I would venture to say that he knows it... as he
has repeatedly ventured forth in negative and misleading ways to disrupt
and defame our efforts, this magazine, and even my personal life... I
personally find Wantajja's conduct reprehensible, unprofessional and
unconscionable. In my opinion, Mr. Wantajja's statement was an outright
lie.

After a series of problems involving poor or non-existent communications,
numerous instances in which what we were told (by Staats) was later found
to be untrue, numerous inconsistencies in his stories and reports, a lack
of performance, and other difficulties, we terminated his relationship with
us. We attempted to do so in a fairly benign manner, but Staats did not
take it that way and became verbally abusive and threatening. FACT.

Shortly thereafter; we received the phone bill for the phone number that we
set up in order for him to make sales calls. The first bill was a little
over $250 and of that, over $200 in charges were found to be questionable
or directly determined to be personal and not related to company business,
even though the company contract that he signed specifically dictated that
NO personal calls were to be made using this phone. We had previously
suspected this (and have had this problem with several other persons) and
asked him several times if unauthorized uses were taking place, and he
repeatedly denied it. This was later found to be totally untrue. We are not
the only company that has had this problem with Staats (i.e., making
personal calls with company phones).

Mr. Staats signed a confidentiality agreement with US Aviator, which he has
violated. He has broken his word... period. US Aviator is not similarly
bound and has NO such agreement with Staats, though we would not have made
any of
these statements or responses without having been motivated by Staats'
unrelenting attacks and harassment. We do so only to offer a correction to
statements made by Staats that are rife with error and falsehood.

Mr. Staats, upon termination, became verbally abusive, threatening and
malicious. Thereafter, he was reported to have sent communications to my ex
that were not complimentary and admitted to same in other conversations.
Pardon
me, but what possible reason could anyone have for such an action? It's
inexcusable, in my opinion.

Mr. Staats claims to be the recipient of threats because of his association
with US Aviator... we do not dispute that this has taken place as many
others with relationships to this organization have been similarly
victimized, and Staats was
reportedly harassed by Richard Riley and Charlie Porter in late 1996 (as
reported to us by E-Mail). It is possible that these threats took place. If
they have, we feel bad for Staats, but he was warned that this has taken
place previously to a number of USA staffers.

These threats were allegedly directed at him... and others. We have reports
from other parties in which Staats (and Pucillo) has errantly reported that
I was the sender of threats directed at a prominent person, despite NO
proof or evidence to support such a statement. A recent statement from the
responsible organization for such investigations (the United States Secret
Service) described Mr. Pucillo's statements as "puffery". I assume that
applies to Mr. Staats errant assertions, as well. Please note that these
alleged threats occurred just days after Staats was released from all
employment with US Aviator... anybody see anything suspicious here?
Coincidence?

For the record (and to correct Staat's total falsehood), I have never made
any threat of harm to Staats, or anyone else.

We received an unrequested and unexplained e-mail message, with a file
attachment, from Staats, that was highly critical of yet another employer
and his co-workers. This letter was laced with racist terminology (he used
the horrible word "nigger" repeatedly), profanity, and other language that
was highly defamatory and quite questionable. Subsequent conversation with
him indicated that he had sent it to others besides US Aviator. Staats
continued to be highly negative and defamatory about this other employer to
us and when we finally met and interacted with this other employer, we came
away with a far different opinion. We were impressed with this other entity
quite strongly and not a single negative detail given us by Staats about
this other entity appeared even remotely valid.

Later; having been personally victimized by "stabs in the back" by other
entities, and after having become concerned about the potential damage such
communications might present to the other employer, who is an important and

productive member of the general aviation community, we had a conversation
with them. When requested to do so, we sent them a copy of the
communication sent by Staats, both by Fax as well as by E-Mail (forwarding
the original
message just as it was received). This company indicated that they
appreciated the courtesy and did not feel, at any time, that my actions
were unprofessional or unethical.

Mr. Staats also indicated to me, after his termination, that he expected me
to portray the Copperstate Fly-In in a negative light. This was a horrible
and unprofessional suggestion, and I made it a point to converse with my
friend, Bob
Hasson, to assure him that Staats' problems would in no way affect my
support for, or admiration of, the immense contribution made to the sport
aviation movement, each year by the staff (who have also been repeatedly
demeaned by
Staats in a variety of communications) and volunteers of Copperstate.
Please note that Staats used to be involved with Copperstate as well... and
is no longer.

Staats did use the Copperstate E-mail address to send negative information
about us to other entities (including my wife) and Copperstate officials
agreed that was an unauthorized use of their facilities and indicated that
Staats would be required to terminate these actions... whereupon Staats
resigned and decided to broadcast same to the world via the Internet.
According to those I consulted at Copperstate, they do not feel that any of
my communications were unwarranted or unprofessional and that our
association with Copperstate remains positive and uninterrupted. Obviously,
they are best qualified to determine that.

In other communications Staats has stated that I bragged about carrying a
9mm Beretta firearm at the Sun 'n Fun Fly-In. This statement is blatantly
false. I do not own even own a Beretta and at no time did I carry a firearm
at any time during that Fly-In. None of the people that worked for us ever
recall anything of the kind. After I posted a pretty tame news item about
Lancair some time ago, Staats again used this as an opportunity to attack
me.
Part of that statement was VERY bizarre... he stated,

>"...and furthermore, had a chat with Chip Beck today, who had a chat with
>Delmar Benjamin up at Arlington, who has no idea where the story about him
>having problems with "the feds" (as our very best favorite fiction
>writer describes them) came from. but i most likely do. could it be the
same >person who goes around saying bob hoover wants him to fly right seat
in an >aerobatic sabreliner? hmmmmmmmmmm... i wonder who that could be?"

For the record, Mr. Staats was not dealing with the facts here at all...
These are the true facts... Mr. Benjamin did not even fly at Arlington that
year... he was scheduled to fly Wed/Thur... but weather prevented him from
doing so and he had
other airshow commitments for the weekend. So... he did not fly at
Arlington (note... this was in '97, NOT '98).
FACT: The facts about Delmar's fight with the FAA are well documented and
are on our web site. One of the actual FAA Letters of Investigation is
posted to our web site. So... look at this... somebody allegedly talked to
Delmar at Arlington... who did not fly there... And there is supposedly no
problem with the FAA (though I reported there was). Yet, Delmar got a
letter of suspension and had to fight it (he won!). Who's LYING here???
Further; Chip Beck did not even recall who Al Staats was when we checked
into the above statement and he indicated that he had said no such thing
and had no knowledge of the above statement.
So... Who's LYING?
NOT US Aviator. And that's a FACT.

Another libelous post indicates that he was not paid properly for the work
he did for US Aviator. That is untrue and we have payroll records to prove
it. Further; we have his own written statements in which he promises to pay
back money
to us that he knows he owes us. Kind of a contradiction, eh? Further
statements indicate that he's upset that we called his employers and
family. We have had contact with some people he works with for purposes
related to stories in US
Aviator... and these are the same people that Staats has repeatedly defamed
and derided to US-and those folks don't seem a whole lot more happy with
him than we are (they brought the subject up as much as we did). Further;
as to the
calls to his family... this may be true... as we called a number of phone
numbers on the phone bill he left with us for numbers we did not recognize
(in order to check the bill) and wound up with a plethora of improper calls
to his friends
and other contacts-none of which were authorized... ALL ON OUR PHONE BILL!
One of these people answered the phone as "Mrs. Staats" and I assume that
this is the family member he alludes to. Great... we call to find out he
ripped us off for personal calls and then he blames us for harassing HIM? I
don't get it. And don't forget... this is the guy who was using
Copperstate's E-Mail address to send nastigrams to my ex... What kind of
sleazeball has to dig into a guy's marriage to get even? Who's the bad guy
here?

We advised Mr. Staats to honor his signed contract and all it's terms, to
apologize for, and retract his attacks, and stay out of our business in the
future. We believe that he has some potential but that he remains his own
worst enemy as his inability to follow through with his agreements and
commitments has been a continual difficulty for him. We hope his life takes
a turn for the better and that he and his family prosper... and that he
stays the hell out of our life and business. However; we had to take action
to insure that this happens. We did this reluctantly and only after giving
him the chance to pay his debts, leave us alone and apologize for his
transgressions.

To be truthful, we exhibited poor judgment in allowing Staats to represent
us... even for such a short period of time... but, he did talk a great
game, and there was something very attractive about being able to help a
guy down on his luck as well as dealing with someone that we thought was
oh-so-supportive of our mission and our commitment to aviation. It is
interesting to note that the minute that he had a problem with us, that he
immediately proceeded to cast negative aspersions on us to those that he
knew had harassed us for several years, those that were creating other
problems for us, and to my ex and associates. This is not a proper and
civil way to resolve a dispute with a former employer. I find this
offensive and wholly unprofessional... at a time when I was trying
everything I possibly could to reconcile difficulties with my wife, I find
it awfully low to note that he would attempt to involve my wife in his
smear campaign. Further; we are not the only persons that he has had a
break with, that have been similarly abused by Mr. Staats. FACT.

> to make spurious (and false) allegations of child neglect and abuse
> against the same ex-employees to various child protective agencies,

YOU HAD BETTER BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT... but YOU CAN'T... and you will find
it has no basis in fact. Keep making such statements and you will make my
attorney's life much easier.

> to fall over yourself calling ex-employees ex-wives attornies to offer
> all manner of information,

The only attorney for an ex-wife we have "called" sent us a court order,
ordering us to do so in regards to a child support issue... and we
cooperated as ORDERED. Cut the nonsense and the lies...

> to send, (with a bogus AOL address), threats to rape and murder the
> children of ex-employees while said ex-employee watches, and then kill
> the ex-employee;

Look Alan... you are LYING and you know it. If anyone had proven I had done
anything wrong, I would not be able to write this to you. The Secret
Service is not only NOT in agreement with you, they're sick of dealing with
this issue and will not even discuss it anymore... they've got better
things to do, I would imagine. For the record; I had nothing to do with
that and marvel at how such a message was transmitted right after you
screwed up your job with us, threatened me in no uncertain terms and acted
like a total loon.
Your statement is false, actionable, and has been forwarded to our counsel.

> it's ok to call the head of volunteer organizations and claim that
> ex-employees are insane and that they better be careful.

Actually... the head of a certain volunteer organization seemed to think
that YOU were the one who was acting a little "off".

Alan... do you know how many people/companies/organizations have told me
that YOU SCREWED THEM OVER? Lots... but you won't catch me posting
anonymously about it.. or attacking you ceaselessly, and trying to screw
you at every opportunity... get a life, get some HELP and get the hell out
of my life.
See you in court... because that's the only way that I think I will ever
get your vengeful, inaccurate personality out of my life.

[Jim Campbell]

Capt.Doug wrote:

> Mr. Campbell,
> It has been alleged that you are publishing warnings about the Mini500
> only after RHCI dropped their advertising in your publication. What is your
> side of the story?
>
> D.

At last... someone is actually asking us about the facts of something... though
I note that the aspersion was cast publicly, rather than privately, as courtesy
might have dictated. Ah well...

That is untrue. The last contract they had was run til it ended. It was not
renewed... and we're kinda glad it wasn't. That was a LONG time ago.
As a matter of fact, Fetters tried to buy new ads after we notified him we were
looking into the problems with his machines... and we refused.
Not all contracts we have are renewed and you will note that no such articles
have so appeared about others who have been in similar circumstances. The fact
of the matter is that at one time or another, most of the sport a/c industry
has done some ads with us... and many still do. If we find fault in a company,
it's not going to be unusual if they have advertised with us... as a mater of
fact, statistically, it's probable that they will have or may even be doing so
currently. Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
readers. That's a fact.

[Raydar]

Mr. Campbell,

>Some of the verifiable and documented history of Mr. Staats...

You typed a lot of stuff, but you didn't really provide us with any
information.

Could you by any chance provide me the web addresses of the information that
can be documented? IE. A scanned copy of the contracts that were signed by
Mr. Staats, signed affidafits by witnesses of some of his behavior, perhaps
a copy of the phone bill, any proof other than your word. (Which is in doubt
in some circles)

Thank you for your cooperation,

Ray

[Jerry Springer]

Jim Campbell wrote:
>
>We did this reluctantly and only after giving
>him the chance to pay his debts, leave us alone and apologize for his
>transgressions.

Hay Jim have you paid back John Ammeters subscription money yet
after saying you would?

--
Jerry Springer RV-6 N906GS First flight July 14, 1989 :-) Hillsboro, OR
jsf...@ix.netcom.com

[ra...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <3624FDD6...@gate.net>,
usa...@gate.net wrote:

"He who has evidence and is not in court has nothing but bluff and bravado>"
Richard

[Badwater Bill]

>
>Who the hell is "we" Got a mouse in your pocket? ....or is "our" illness
>expanding to multiple personalities now, too?

I was thinking the very same thing. I wonder who we is??? How many
other people are there in that pointed head???

Badwater Bill

[Don Campbell]

That is what I was thinking. What did he read here that I over looked and how did he get
the part

>wrong-doing... while we have evidence to show that it was Richard Riley who
>impersonated an NTSB Inspector, an FAA Employee, a Lawyer and even Bob Hoover

from reading that?

[Don Campbell]

I have asked questions like this before. You will get no responce or he will
say that in his mag. it was stated that he droped them not the other way
around. That is what he stated about two issues ago. I wonder what the other
side of the story is.

Don

[David Logan]

Dear Jim,

Please Please Please just "get your hand off it". It might make you feel
good but it's going to drop off in the end.

8-)

Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>
> > The new, improved, and no longer silent Richard Riley
>
> ...Who STILL impersonated an attorney, impersonated an FAA Inspector, and an NTSB
> official, and Bob Hoover... and that's just the short list. Care to hear what else has
> been tracked back to you, Richard? The list is ponderous. And I guess it's time to do
> what we can to bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us into silence.
> Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, Richard... and keep playing with 20 year
> old, twisted data resulting from a process that literally violated the constitution...
> and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that we know enough and
> can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case against you... and sooner or later
> you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a coward. Richard, of all the
> unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the strongest and most
> troublesome (to you).
> You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it? And... we won't
> resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.
>

[Don Campbell]

There is a lot of room left over for more. After all most of the space is not
used.

Don

[Alan Staats]

POT, KETTLE, BLACK:

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:51:26 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Richard Riley wrote:
>
>
>...Who STILL impersonated an attorney, impersonated an FAA Inspector, and an NTSB
>official, and Bob Hoover... and that's just the short list. Care to hear what else has
>been tracked back to you, Richard? The list is ponderous. And I guess it's time to do
>what we can to bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us into silence.
>Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, Richard... and keep playing with 20 year
>old, twisted data resulting from a process that literally violated the constitution...
>and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that we know enough and
>can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case against you... and sooner or later
>you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a coward. Richard, of all the
>unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the strongest and most
>troublesome (to you).
>You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it? And... we won't
>resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.
>
>--
>Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
>Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
>http://www.av8r.net
>http://www.kindredspirit.com
>http://www.sportplane.com
>"To sin by silence when they should protest,
>makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln
>

THE SAME WORDS, WITH JUST A LITTLE EDITING:

...Who STILL impersonated [AS RECENTLY, AS I WITNESSED, AT SUN N FUN
IN 1997] a [JAPAN AIRLINES 747 INSTRUCTOR/CHECK CAPTAIN, FALCON 20
CAPTAIN, MEDICAL DOCTOR, FATHER, AFRICAN RELIEF PILOT, FAA CERTIFIED
MASTER PARACHUTE PACKER]... and that's just the short list. Care to
hear what else has been tracked back to you, [JIM]? The list is
[UNBELIEVABLY] ponderous. And I guess it's time to do what we can to

bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us into

silence. [A-F**KING-MEN}

Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, [JIM] ... and keep
playing with 20 year old, [ACCURATE SWORN TESTIMONIAL] data resulting
from a process that [HAD IT] violated the constitution [MY PARENTS
WOULD HAVE HIRED SOME LAWYERS AND GOTTEN THE WHOLE THING OVERTURNED]

and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that
we know enough and can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case
against you... and sooner or later you'll have to quit ducking

subpoenas and acting like a coward. [JIM], of all the

unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the
strongest and most troublesome (to you).

You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some [MORE
OF IT? SHALL WE FILE A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST AND SEE
WHAT "THE FEDS" HAVE TO SAY, LORD VOX?] of it? And... [YOU WILL
CONTINUE] to resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do
so.
>
>--

...every time i think this nonsense can't POSSIBLY get one iota more
bizarre than it already has, i see a post like this and realize that
there is simply no hope. this man needs to be institutionalized.
reality simply has no meaning for him.

al "you called me a moron, you threatened my children, i wouldn't pee
in your ear if your brain were on fire" staats

[Chris Hinch]

Folks, I know it's almost impossible to resist diving headfirst into this, but PLEASE
stop for a minute before you do so, and consider this hypothesis.

Look at the timing. Two days ago, AvFlash published the "Kitplane Guru" headline.

AvWeb received at least three emails that I know of, but probably more, questioning
their apparent endorsement of Mr Campbell. At least two of the three emails suggested
strongly that they might like to look into Mr Campbell's background and activities, and
at least one suggested that they look here as a starting point.

Parts of those emails were posted here, as were other observations similar in stance,
including one by myself.

Now, all of a sudden, out of the blue, we see the first post in a long time from Mr
Campbell to this group.

His post attacks a regular RAH contributor, with little apparent logic, in a manner that
*appears* to be designed to cause as much angry response as possible (hands up who else
saw the post and thought to themselves "Innnnnncccccooommmmminnngg!!!")

THEN he takes the opportunity to slip in a quick "we're open to constructive
suggestions, please discuss the real issues with us, you sued us, but we're willing to
discuss it, without name calling" appeal, which sounds all very nice to anyone who
hasn't seen this before.

This is a familiar tactic of Mr Campbells, but it appears to me that he only does it
when he thinks someone important is watching (yes, conjecture on my part). Given the
timing, can I suggest that maybe he thinks that AvWeb might be visiting the group, and
is *hoping* for a feeding frenzy?

I know I am offering unsolicited advice to those adversely affected by Mr Campbell - you
have EVERY right to respond to Mr Campbell and in any way you see fit, but here for what
it's worth -

PLEASE, everyone, if you do respond, pretend that he's just said that in a court of
law, and the judge has asked you, personally, for your considered, logical and
thoughtful response.

Sheesh. Now *I* sound paranoid. Hey, Judge Capp, if Jim's not going to have that
therapy, can I please have it?

Chris Hinch
chi...@arl.co.nz

[Richard White]

Jim Campbell wrote:

> You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF...
> shall I post some of it?

That would be an excellent idea Mr. Campbell. The more you post here,
the more obvious it becomes to anyone who reads it how truly lacking
your credibility and mental capacity has become. Please, say more.

Richard.

[Richard White]

Jim Campbell wrote:

> Some of the verifiable and documented history of Mr. Staats...

> [all allegations against Mr. Staats snipped]

Why should we believe you? You have a verifiable and documented history
of distorting the truth and of speaking outright lies. Why should we
even consider believing anyone with your lack of credibility?

> ...

> If you publish something as fact, you have the responsibility and the
> legal imperative to make sure that it is... and checking with the
object
> of a report, to verify the veracity of the report is not just accepted
> practice, it is a mandatory practice.

How come you don't follow your own advice?

> If you do not, you run the risk of legal penalty, especially if you
> have a history of malicious behavior toward the subject of your
> report... they call this LIBEL. As someone who purports to be an
> aviation writer, I find this conduct is wholly unprofessional and
> highly questionable....

That must be why you are being sued for libel. Further, I've never seen
any other aviation journalist or editor behave as unprofessionally or as
questionably as you have behaved. For example, what other
editor-in-chief of a national magazine exhibits the unmitigated
stupidity to get himself tossed out of Sun N Fun?

Richard White.

[Don Campbell]

One thing that I have seen was that the only words that can not be said "on the air" have
been said by Jim while he was saying that people were calling names. Lets keep this fight
clean!!!

Don

[tom c]

Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote in article
<36256235...@gate.net>...

> Alan Staats driveled:
>
> > However, in the same "Lingua Zooma" it IS ok, if you are the self
> > appointed saviour of aviation, to press specious charges against
> > ex-employees in the same local, state and federal jurisdictions,
>
> BULL!!!
>
> Some of the verifiable and documented history of Mr. Staats...
>

Snipperdoodles
To quote someone far more eloquent than I -

Baaaaaawhaaaahaaaaa!!
snicker, chortle, gafaw, snort, giggle, Damm it LOL.
I'm just having a hard time accepting this.
Tom "I'm not laughing with you, I'm laughing near you" Cooper

[ClearProp]

Jim,

I have been a mostly silent lurker in the "Zoom" wars from the beginning. In
that time I have gotten to know most of the people involved either personally
or via e-mail.

In your business credibility is the bottom line
and I am afraid that yours has suffered a fatal blow. I questioned the use of
the "Kitplane Guru" in the AvFlash article, but am now starting to see the
unique humor in this choice of words. You see I am finishing up my project and
have been a major builder on several others. I have spent enough time on the
homebuilt line at Oshkosh to have a pretty good idea of what I am looking at
and I would never pretend to have the engineering background or experience to
demand anything. I do know where the NTSB went to identify the remains of an
aircraft that crashed near the convention in 97 because I was there. They came
and found some hombuilders who not only told them the type, but gave them the N
number in less than 30 minutes.

Anyone that has the fortunate experience to spend time with any of these fine
people are free to make up their own mind on the issue of credibility. I have
a pretty good idea what they will decide.

Erik Anderson
President EAA chapter 18
Chairman Homebuilt Parking
Co-Chairman AirVenture Cup Race

[Badwater Bill]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:54:46 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Capt.Doug wrote:

>
>> Mr. Campbell,
>> It has been alleged that you are publishing warnings about the Mini500
>> only after RHCI dropped their advertising in your publication. What is your
>> side of the story?
>>
>> D.
>

>At last... someone is actually asking us about the facts of something... though
>I note that the aspersion was cast publicly, rather than privately, as courtesy
>might have dictated. Ah well...
>
>That is untrue. The last contract they had was run til it ended. It was not
>renewed... and we're kinda glad it wasn't. That was a LONG time ago.
>As a matter of fact, Fetters tried to buy new ads after we notified him we were
>looking into the problems with his machines... and we refused.

Yeah right! I wonder what Dennis has to say about that line?

>Not all contracts we have are renewed and you will note that no such articles
>have so appeared about others who have been in similar circumstances. The fact
>of the matter is that at one time or another, most of the sport a/c industry
>has done some ads with us... and many still do. If we find fault in a company,
>it's not going to be unusual if they have advertised with us... as a mater of
>fact, statistically, it's probable that they will have or may even be doing so
>currently. Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
>that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
>readers. That's a fact.

Give examples Jimbo!

Badwater Bill

[Badwater Bill]

Al:

I think it drove him over the edge at Copperstate when his ex-wife
Vicki Cruse stood up on the announcer's stand and was introduced as
the new National Aerobatics Champ. A mission she undertook in the
same Christen Eagle that he would never let her fly while they were
married. He was standing right there in the crowd as I walked to the
podium to embrace Vicki for her great victory. About an hour later he
walked by Bob Reed, Ric Lee, O'ring, me, Vicki and GooberB and just
shook his head. I think the poor man may have blown a fuse!

Then since he was in the next room at the Dobson Ranch Inn I'm sure he
heard the partying going on and Vicki laughing with us on Saturday
night as we all had a ball telling big lies, playing like we were at
Pinkneyville. And the Zoomer was left out. Poor Zoomer. I'll bet if
he could go back a couple years, he'd not have screamed at Vicki in
the office and made a fool out of himself right before Arlington.
Vicki was a big loss to him. You must cut him some slack Al. It's
all too bad.

Poor guy! Instead of repenting I think he's just decided to try and
make everyone else's lives miserable...as miserable as his own... you
know...declare war and take no prisoners! At this point I don't care
anymore. I tried to make some peace with this man a couple weeks ago
as you all know. He went nuts and misread it as a sign of weakness. I
can't bring myself to forgive him for his actions ever again. It's
over. There will never be another offer by me. I think he needs
professional help. It appears to me that he couldn't tell the truth
if it bit him in the ass.

Badwater Bill

[Badwater Bill]

He makes allegations that are absurd. He blames many of us for
supporting Tony's suit against him and that's why he named us in his
counter suit.

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW TONY WHEN TONY FILED SUIT.

Zoom is full of BS as usual. He'll dodge, duct and weave to make
someone who doesn't know the facts believe his bull shit.

However, I certainly support Tony's suit against his lying ass now.
He took a neutral guy like me (who even posted that I thought he and I
might have been able to become friends) and made an enemy out of me
for nothing. I think he's self destructive. He wants conflict and
suits. He loves the controversy. Don't be fooled. Read my public
posts of our private email a couple weeks ago if you don't believe it.
I offered him a truce and he slapped me in the face. What an idiot.

Now I have to fight him. And I will. In fact I'm going to kick his
ass.

Badwater Bill

[John Ousterhout]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:47:18 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

Publishing

>is publishing... whether it be on paper or the web. If you publish
>something as fact, you
>have the responsibility and the legal imperative to make sure that it is...
>and checking with the object of a report, to verify the veracity of the
>report is not just accepted practice, it is a mandatory practice. If you do
>not, you run the risk of
>legal penalty, especially if you have a history of malicious behavior
>toward the subject of your report... they call this LIBEL.

Damn ! I just laughed so hard that I spewed a mouthful of Black Butte
Porter all ove rmy keyboard and monitor.

Jim Campbell, not only are you a hypocrite, you're a joke as a
journalist.

- John Ousterhout -

[Badwater Bill]

>
>Now I have to fight him. And I will. In fact I'm going to kick his
>ass.

In court of course!

>
>Badwater Bill

[Alan Staats]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:54:46 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>Capt.Doug wrote:

>
>> Mr. Campbell,
>> It has been alleged that you are publishing warnings about the Mini500
>> only after RHCI dropped their advertising in your publication. What is your
>> side of the story?
>>
>> D.
>
>

>That is untrue. The last contract they had was run til it ended. It was not
>renewed... and we're kinda glad it wasn't. That was a LONG time ago.
>As a matter of fact, Fetters tried to buy new ads after we notified him we were
>looking into the problems with his machines... and we refused.

>Not all contracts we have are renewed and you will note that no such articles
>have so appeared about others who have been in similar circumstances. The fact
>of the matter is that at one time or another, most of the sport a/c industry
>has done some ads with us... and many still do. If we find fault in a company,
>it's not going to be unusual if they have advertised with us... as a mater of
>fact, statistically, it's probable that they will have or may even be doing so
>currently. Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
>that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
>readers. That's a fact.
>

ALLRIGHT. I HAVE HEARD, READ AND SEEN E-GOD-DAMNED-NOUGH

FACT? It's also a fact that back in april 97, when you wanted me to
sell ads for you, that you made sure to tell me over and over to get
fetters and rhci back under contract.

hypocritical bastard. i'm sick of your lying bullshit campbell.
you'd accept advertising for knives from jack the ripper.

don't take my word for it... ask fetters, i am sure he will remember
the persistent (former) us aviator salesman named...

staats

[Chasmo]

Damn it yet another mail filter.....
More of that sneaky cross-posting crap too. GROW UP!

Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>

> > On Fri, 09 Oct 1998 18:50:13 -0700, in <361EBD...@cts.com>,
>
> ...snip...
>
> > In our world you're right. In Zoom's world posting public records about him is a
> > federal offense. Once I made the mistake of posting one, thinking it might get
> > him to leave me alone. Instead he used a pre-existing lawsuit to create a
> > subpoena to get my address and credit card numbers from AOL. (note - the suit
> > didn't have anything to do with me, AOL or the internet, it was just handy. After
> > I complained to AOL they promised they'd never do it again. 3 months later they
> > did exactly the same thing, again, giving Mr. Campbell access to the records of a
> > half dozen of his "enemies."
>
> I want to acknowledge Mr. Riley's apparent (partial) admission of previous

> wrong-doing... while we have evidence to show that it was Richard Riley who

> impersonated an NTSB Inspector, an FAA Employee, a Lawyer and even Bob Hoover (among
> others), it is interesting to see him apparently admit to same. Of course... when
> all this was happening, we were accused of making it all up. Ah well... it's not the
> first time that we've been accused of such things... and I'm sure it won't be the
> last.

> It sure would be nice if we could deal with the real issues facing us all. I know we

> are a flame magnet at this point, but I still haven't seen anyone post anything
> remotely concrete about our REAL STORIES that disputes the facts that were
> exhaustively detailed in same. I would welcome a polite and constructive discussion
> of that (especially if we can learn something from it) without the vicious names, 20
> year old character assassination and constant threats.
> Note... before any of the self-styled RAH-15 goes on crying about lawsuits and how
> we've been mean and vicious to them... remember it was you who wanted Tony to file
> his (frivilous, IMO) suit, libeled the hell out of us, contributed to the attacks,
> and it was we who were sued first... we simply COUNTER'ed. If we hadn't been sued,
> we wouldn't have had to counter-sue... nuff said.
> More important, if some of you folks have a problem with what we're doing, I'd
> really like to entertain constructive suggestions about how you might do it
> better... it might be a refreshing change to see what we can do to support each
> other rather than tear each other to pieces.
> I'm up for that... does anyone else have the guts to try it?
>
> ***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise the NGs much,
> if at all)

>
> --
> Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
> Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
> Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
> http://www.av8r.net
> http://www.kindredspirit.com
> http://www.sportplane.com
> "To sin by silence when they should protest,
> makes cowards of men." -Abraham Lincoln

--
Charles Black

[Chasmo]

I guess asking you nicely to stay off this news group won't work, will
it?

[Chasmo]

One word gentlemen....SHUN!

[callisto]

Jim Campbell wrote:

> currently. Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
> that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
> readers. That's a fact.

Name three.

[Chris Hinch]

Chris Hinch wrote:

> [snip]

I take it all back. My post was sent before Jim's post about Al Staats arrived, based on
which I can only conclude that something inside Jim's mind has finally and irrevocably
snapped. Are you guys sure BWB didn't wedgie him at Copperstate?

Jim, if credibility were dynamite, you couldn't blow your nose.

Chris Hinch
chi...@arl.co.nz

(folks in rotorcraft - sorry to have bothered you, I didn't realise my first message was
crossposted)

[David Hyde]

Jim Campbell (usa...@gate.net) wrote:

[snip]

>Some of the verifiable and documented history of Mr. Staats...

Thanks for the comic relief, Jim.
I'm looking forward to hearing this and more given under oath.

Dave 'tired of waiting' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?

[ra...@my-dejanews.com]

In article <36256235...@gate.net>,
usa...@gate.net wrote:
<hack>

Perhaps I shouldn't be saying anything, being just Lennie the Lurker, not a
flier, just interested in anything that flies. However in your rediculously
long post, there was a statement something to the effect of "an important
menber of the aviation community". Claiming authority takes a lot of guts,
but little else. Mr.Campbell, you are no more important than I, your opinion
counts for no more than mine. I have been following this thread since the
beginning, merely because it is amusing, and it gives me some insite as to
what mags NOT to subscribe to, and sites to avoid. The only difference
between your opinion and mine is that you have enough of the coin of the
realm to be able to spew it wildly like chaff in the wind. I do not believe
that what you are posting is credible, nor that you are an honorable person.
Just another schmuck hiding behind the skirts of a lawyer in an attempt to
crush opposing views. Richard

[Gregory Travis]

In article <3625551D...@gate.net>, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:

>You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it?

Yes, please do.

greg
--
gregory travis |"If you're going to kill someone there isn't much reason
gr...@littlebear.com|to get angry. You just pull the trigger. We need to smile
|with Novell when we pull the trigger." MSFT's Jim Allchin

[Yoram Leshinski]

Badwater Bill wrote:
>
> >
> >Who the hell is "we" Got a mouse in your pocket? ....or is "our" illness
> >expanding to multiple personalities now, too?

>
> I was thinking the very same thing. I wonder who we is??? How many
> other people are there in that pointed head???
>
> Badwater Bill

Why... it's the royal WE, you silly simpelton.

Yoram Leshinski

[highflyer]

Jim Campbell wrote:
>

<snipped a bunch of rediculous bullshit>

Are you implying Jim, that you actually PAID someone who contributed
to your magazine? Then or EVER? How in the world did I ever get
the impression that you used submitted material without payment and
even extracted excerpts from it and claimed it as your own.

I guess I must be mistaken. You are obviously an honest, upright,
forthright, person who is beset by the entire world who insists on
telling lies about you and forcing you to refute their poisonous
terrorist acts.

[Badwater Bill]

It's worse than that Al. I talked with Fetters last week and he says
that Campbell has even called him lately to advertise. In fact DF
says that Campbell was so persistent at calling to solicit ads that
Dennis had to put some woman in charge of talking with him. Dennis
told me Campbell drives him crazy with his solicitations.

Come on Jim tell us some more lies. This is great fun. You can't
take a leak without posting about it. Do you get some sexual
adulation out of seeing your name in print and then having your face
rubbed in mud?

Badwater Bill

[highflyer]

Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> Capt.Doug wrote:
>
> > Mr. Campbell,
> > It has been alleged that you are publishing warnings about the Mini500
> > only after RHCI dropped their advertising in your publication. What is your
> > side of the story?
> >
> > D.
>

> At last... someone is actually asking us about the facts of something... though
> I note that the aspersion was cast publicly, rather than privately, as courtesy
> might have dictated. Ah well...
>

Says the guy who has never hesitated to publish an aspersion!

> That is untrue. The last contract they had was run til it ended. It was not
> renewed... and we're kinda glad it wasn't. That was a LONG time ago.
> As a matter of fact, Fetters tried to buy new ads after we notified him we were
> looking into the problems with his machines... and we refused.

You guessed it right, Don. He turned down his request for advertising!
See, it says it right here in black and white.

> Not all contracts we have are renewed and you will note that no such articles
> have so appeared about others who have been in similar circumstances. The fact
> of the matter is that at one time or another, most of the sport a/c industry
> has done some ads with us... and many still do. If we find fault in a company,
> it's not going to be unusual if they have advertised with us... as a mater of
> fact, statistically, it's probable that they will have or may even be doing so

> currently. Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
> that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
> readers. That's a fact.
>
>

Right, Jim. We believe you. We have seen all of the ads you have
cancelled. We have also seen all of the magazines you have delivered.
We are also aware of all of the subscription refunds you have mailed
to people who were unhappy when they didn't get the magazines that they
had paid for.

Please put ZZZZ in your header.

[highflyer]

Jim Campbell wrote:
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>

> > The new, improved, and no longer silent Richard Riley

>
> ...Who STILL impersonated an attorney, impersonated an FAA Inspector, and an NTSB
> official, and Bob Hoover... and that's just the short list. Care to hear what else has
> been tracked back to you, Richard? The list is ponderous. And I guess it's time to do
> what we can to bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us into silence.
> Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, Richard... and keep playing with 20 year
> old, twisted data resulting from a process that literally violated the constitution...
> and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that we know enough and
> can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case against you... and sooner or later
> you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a coward. Richard, of all the
> unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the strongest and most
> troublesome (to you).
> You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it? And... we won't
> resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.
>
> --

It doesn't do any good to argue with this character. I really
think he should be added to the shun list. He is so sick that he
really BELIEVES the rediculous nonsense that he spouts at the drop
of a hint. He no longer can maintain even a tenuous contact with
reality. It is too bad. Some of his writing was interesting reading.
Now it is all pointless and out of touch babel. It is a sad sad
thing to watch someone go totally crazy in public.

[Miss Twyla Geeter]

Oh my.

Alvin now you've done it again. You've caused Jimmy to prostrate
himself into an undefined puddle of protoplasm. I had to send Vicki
and Billy to the office nurse since they laughed so hard they wet
themselves. I've told you boys not to pick on Jimmy. His elevators
simply don't go to the top floors. When you get him all wound up like
this he's a mess for weeks. I'll bet he tells us tomorrow that he is
Jesus or even God like he did a couple months ago. And this Guru
thing is just the push he may need to completely lose it.

I think you boys take advantage of him because he's so simple minded.
It's not fair you know. I plead with you to show some kindness for
the less fortunate. I'm going to talk with his mommy about the
strength of his medications. I don't think he even takes them
anymore. Sister Mary Gorilla Breath told me she saw him in the school
cafeteria a week ago giving his meds away to Bimby Faulkwash in hopes
that she would show him her panties.

Alvin, I'm afraid he may have permanently blown some neuronic fuse in
his noggin. You boys stop picking on him now. You little brats.

Miss Twyla Geeter
Third Grade Teacher

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <362563F6...@gate.net>, Jim says...

> Do note that we have, several times now, canceled ads from companies
>that we felt weren't acting appropriately or in the best interests of our
>readers. That's a fact.

If what you say is true ,please post the names of the companies that you refused
to accept ad money from .I'll call them and post the results of the
conversations. Credibility ,it's always been about credibility.
While your at it please post proof of the threats you continually state I made
to you.When ,where and how???

Chuck(RAH-15/1)Slusarczyk

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

[Alan Staats]

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 15:44:54 GMT, Gee...@Getem.edu (Miss Twyla Geeter)
wrote:

>Oh my.
>
>Alvin now you've done it again. You've caused Jimmy to prostrate
>himself into an undefined puddle of protoplasm. I had to send Vicki
>and Billy to the office nurse since they laughed so hard they wet
>themselves.

dear miz geeter - i know that i was a bad, bad boy, and that little
jimmy is one crayola short of a rainbow, but gosh miz geeter, he keeps
threatenin to subpenis me. idn't that a sin?

little alvin

[David Hyde]

Jim Campbell (usa...@gate.net) wrote:

>...and sooner or later you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting
>like a coward.

Sooner or later you ought to try _serving_ the people you named. I'm
still waiting. If the whole process weren't so funny it'd be sad.

Dave 'yoo hoo, anyone home?' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

>>>In our world you're right. In Zoom's world posting public records about him is
>>>a
>>>federal offense. Once I made the mistake of posting one, thinking it might get
>>> him to leave me alone. Instead he used a pre-existing lawsuit to create a
>>>subpoena to get my address and credit card numbers from AOL. (note - the suit
>>>didn't have anything to do with me, AOL or the internet, it was just handy.
>>>After
>>>I complained to AOL they promised they'd never do it again. 3 months later they
>>>did exactly the same thing, again, giving Mr. Campbell access to the records of
>>>a
>>> half dozen of his "enemies."

Well it's as plain as the nose on your face,that's the worst "confession" I ever
saw. Only mooz could have found an admission of guilt in it. How truly clever.
I think the word "is " was the "proof positive" of alleged wrong doing by
Richard.However I felt Richard's use of the word "is" meant he was confessing to
the sinking of the Titanic and the Mercury Redstone explosion. I always felt he
was guilty of the Hindenberg explosion explosion as well.Well coming clean
is good for the soul ,,,OK jimmy it's your turn,what did you do???

Chuck(wondering about the Frisco earthquake)Slusarczyk

[Bill Robie]

In article <362563F6...@gate.net>, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>
>At last... someone is actually asking us about the facts of something... though
>I note that the aspersion was cast publicly, rather than privately, as courtesy
>might have dictated. Ah well...

While you are on a roll, then, what are the facts about your published
claims to have flown famine relief in Ethiopia? Since an earlier post
in this thread spoke of the need for verification of facts, how about
citing some places, organizations, and names that we scholars of aviation
history can use to verify your claims of playing a roll in that historic
humanitarian effort?

I've just asked for the facts of something.

Bill Robie

[Bill Robie]

In article <362565A2...@arl.co.nz>,
Chris Hinch <chi...@arl.co.nz> wrote:
>Folks, I know it's almost impossible to resist diving headfirst into this,
but PLEASE
>stop for a minute before you do so, and consider this hypothesis.
>
>Look at the timing. Two days ago, AvFlash published the "Kitplane Guru"
headline.
[...]

Yes, Chris, it is indeed likely that AVweb is reading this. If so, I
don't think they will see a "feeding frenzy" so much as they will see
how many former lurkers, and others not previously involved in this issue,
are now expressing their opinions of Jimmy's credibility. Nearly all,
I note, have real names attached to their statements. It's nice when
the owners of opinions can be verified.

If there was any doubt before, Jimmy's claims that Riley "admitted" to
things that were nowhere to be found within his posting may have forced
an entirely new batch of readers to come to the same conclusion already
reached by so many others. The next batch of those to be converted, or
convinced, will undoubtedly be those who remember the concilliatory offer
that Bill Phillips made to Jimmy--which has now been made to look like
Bill was begging for Jimmy's mercy.

Feeding frenzy though it may appear to a total newcomer, nobody active
in sport aviation today would walk into this and not recognize some of
the names and know their reputations. Whatever those reputations may
have been, I think this has solidly confirmed them. Jimmy created the
so-called "RAH-15" by naming them in a countersuit against an individual.
Now he says why he did so, and that explanation, to many, boils down to
the fact that we agreed that Tony Pucillo was right. It now appears that
Jimmy is well on his way to creating a RAH-1500, or higher, based upon
those whom he continues to convince that Tony is indeed correct.

Contrary to one person's apparent belief, a "conspiracy" does not
necessarily exist simply because a number of people share the same
opinions, or because they reach the same conclusions when they see
the same information sources.

Bill Robie

[David Munday]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

>Well it's as plain as the nose on your face,that's the worst "confession" I ever
>saw. Only mooz could have found an admission of guilt in it. How truly clever.
>I think the word "is " was the "proof positive" of alleged wrong doing by
>Richard.However I felt Richard's use of the word "is" meant he was confessing to
>the sinking of the Titanic and the Mercury Redstone explosion. I always felt he
>was guilty of the Hindenberg explosion explosion as well.Well coming clean
>is good for the soul ,,,OK jimmy it's your turn,what did you do???

Aww, come on folks, the "admission" was an inference, but it's not
that subtle. The admission was of posting or mailing under false
names through aol. Campbell abused the subpoena process to find out
who paid for said accounts. Riley complained about this abuse of
process, thus one may infer he admitted to using the false names.

Campbell's a nut and a fraud, but he's not that impenetrable.

--
David Munday - mund...@muohio.noise.edu
My email address is not noisy.
Webpage: http://www.nku.edu/~munday
PP-ASEL - Tandem Flybaby Builder - EAA-284 (Waynesville, OH)
"A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not the second time, before every other, who had been silent, shall have been heard, if he choose to speak upon the subject."
- Rules of the American Constitutional Convention, 1787.

[Dan Brown]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 21:51:26 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it? And... we won't

>resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that provable facts from you
would be a very welcome change...

--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, da...@accex.net
Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.

[Dan Brown]

On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:47:18 -0400, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:

>is publishing... whether it be on paper or the web. If you publish

>something as fact, you
>have the responsibility and the legal imperative to make sure that it is...
>and checking with the object of a report, to verify the veracity of the
>report is not just accepted practice, it is a mandatory practice. If you do
>not, you run the risk of
>legal penalty, especially if you have a history of malicious behavior

>toward the subject of your report... they call this LIBEL. As someone who

The obvious rejoinder of "Physician, heal thyself!" aside (and
with apologies for the double entendre), this is pure horse puckies,
at least as far as the law is concerned. Just for a bit of review
(you can ask your attorney about this if you don't believe me):

1. As far as anything regarding homebuilding, aviation, or your
magazine is concerned, you are a public figure. This means that you
don't get as much protection from libel as private people; that's the
price you pay for putting yourself into the public eye.

2. The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that a plaintiff
(that would be you) must prove either that the defendant made a
statement he knew to be false, or that he made the statement with a
"reckless disregard for the truth."

3. Federal appellate courts (possibly including the Supreme
Court, but I don't recall all the cases) have repeatedly ruled that a
failure to investigate can _NOT_ constitute a "reckless disregard."

[nat...@wwisp.com]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:47:18 -0400, in <36256235...@gate.net>, Jim
> Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >Alan Staats driveled:
> >
> >> However, in the same "Lingua Zooma" it IS ok, if you are the self
> >> appointed saviour of aviation, to press specious charges against
> >> ex-employees in the same local, state and federal jurisdictions,
> >
> >BULL!!!
> >
>
> <creative fiction snipped>
>
> When Mr. Campbell went to school, did he take the big bus, or the little bus?

Oh, now I get it! You and Alan are playing Jeckel and Hyde? He posts real crazy
stuff as Mr. Hyde, and you follow up with mild mannered Flames as Dr. Jeckel?

Or maybe Alan is hanging around the old Hangar, and sock puppeting Richard? Ah
well, the important thing is that we're all friends here, EH?

So, what's you boys next Intellectual Endevor on Usenet? So far after reading
real swell stuff from a Company that sells home built aeroplanes, teaming up with
an alleged Aviation Journalist to FLAME others, I'm wanting to run right out to
California and by one of them real cool Burt things, or get Alan to take some
swell Snap Shots with his Kodak Brownie! So are we going to do lunch or what?

Hay, cross posting really sucks, but one has to answer the original Posting, lest
someone be offended by being ommited. eh?

Roswell

[garf...@pilgrimhouse.com]

On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:35:38 GMT, in rec.aviation.homebuilt
mund...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday) wrote:

>The admission was of posting or mailing under false
>names through aol. Campbell abused the subpoena process to find out
>who paid for said accounts. Riley complained about this abuse of
>process, thus one may infer he admitted to using the false names.
>
>Campbell's a nut and a fraud, but he's not that impenetrable.

The only thing penetrating about this syllogism, unfortunately, is the
glaring error. WOW.

The statement "under false names through aol" is a complete RUSE. Anyone
actually USING their real name on AOL is an accident of fact *strongly*
recommended AGAINST by AOL, so the contrary cannot be used to
demonstrate "falsehood" or a "false name". Rather ALL names on AOL email
can be rightly assumed to be screen names from the outset. They are by
AOL! NO ONE has a right to demand or even expect persons to use their
actual given names on an AOL account, especially since it is strongly
urged against by AOL (presumably to protect AOL against lawsuits if the
privacy/protection of it's members should be abused. There was a recent
case of child molestation traced to putting true names on an AOL
account, IIRC). You might WISH people would/could, in order to take
responsibility for what they say, but it's a two-edged sword that cuts
both ways. This is a perfect case in point.

On AOL, there is NO such thing as true name and false name, since all
the accounts from the getgo are essentially screen names. Your "real
name" or bill-to name is NOT EVER used on your account's email address.
Not only is it not required, it's specifically recommended AGAINST by
AOL. For someone to actually FORGE an AOL account, they'd have to be
using a truly false name on a credit card or something like that.
Obviously this wasn't the case, cuz by using the subpoena, Richard's
privacy was violated. As damning as The Jerk was hoping the allegation
might sound to the neophyte or the uninformed, The Jerk is basically
saying that someone with an account on aol was posting things he didn't
like, so he talked some other poor dupe into granting the subpoena to
disclose the actual billed-to party's name, in this case Richard.

Don't play into this creep's pathological lying, by using such trite and
spurious logic as "if I swallow the hook, line, and sinker", then yup,
sure enough "the pathological liar" has spoken SOME truth. Yeah, maybe
it could happen, but it would be inspite of himself, not because of
himself, and at this point, a PURE fluke of nature. At this point, to
surmise ANYTHING, no matter how meager, from ANYTHING this creature
posts, is like listening to a waterfall in hopes of hearing Shakespeare.
Let's put it another way, if you begin to think this Jerk is making even
the slightest bit of sense or truth, just put it down as a given
commonplace that that's your CLUE you're being duped.

David, you shoulda known better. That spurious syllogism in your post is
beneath you, mate. I think you owe Richard a modest apology (and
yourself one, too B).

Garfield

[JStricker]

James,

It's certainly too bad you don't have anything left that Richard might want
to take from you.

John Stricker

--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:

jstr...@odsys.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"

Jim Campbell wrote in message <3624FDD6...@gate.net>...

[[[Meaningless drivel snipped]]]

>Jim Campbell, Publisher, US Aviator
>Copyright 1998, All Rights Reserved
>Author: SportPlane Resource Guide--Second Edition
>http://www.av8r.net
>http://www.kindredspirit.com
>http://www.sportplane.com

[JStricker]

Great,

Now Richard and Al get to split exactly, NOTHING.

John Stricker

--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:

jstr...@odsys.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"

Jim Campbell wrote in message <36256235...@gate.net>...

[[[Almost 19K of useless blathering removed]]]

>--

[JStricker]

James,

Please, do post your proof. Let's hear it. You cackled like an old hen,
now lay your egg (or whatever might come out of that end of you).
Otherwise, you continue to appear to be nothing but a lot of noise.

John Stricker

PS-For somebody that "rarely" if ever frequents the group, you sure post a
lot.

--
Remove the "nosp..........." Oh hell, you folks know what to do and
why I had to put it in. If one of you real humans wants to contact me:

jstr...@odsys.net

"I didn't spend all these years getting to the top of the food chain
just to become a vegetarian"

Jim Campbell wrote in message <3625551D...@gate.net>...

>Richard Riley wrote:
>
>> The new, improved, and no longer silent Richard Riley
>
>...Who STILL impersonated an attorney, impersonated an FAA Inspector, and
an NTSB
>official, and Bob Hoover... and that's just the short list. Care to hear
what else has
>been tracked back to you, Richard? The list is ponderous. And I guess it's
time to do
>what we can to bring an end to your attempts to terrorize us and harass us
into silence.
>Keep playing the "shoot the messenger" game, Richard... and keep playing
with 20 year
>old, twisted data resulting from a process that literally violated the
constitution...
>and keep lying about what we've said or done... but I assure you that we
know enough and

>can prove enough to make one hell of a legal case against you... and sooner
or later

>you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a coward. Richard, of
all the
>unfortunate persons we have had to fight, our case against you is the
strongest and most
>troublesome (to you).

>You are the real fraud... and we have PROOF... shall I post some of it?
And... we won't
>resort to anonymous cowardice and other nonsense to do so.
>

[Ronald James Wanttaja]

In article <705cmp$i...@umbc7.umbc.edu>, Bill Robie <ro...@umbc.edu> wrote:
>
>Feeding frenzy though it may appear to a total newcomer, nobody active
>in sport aviation today would walk into this and not recognize some of
>the names and know their reputations. Whatever those reputations may
>have been, I think this has solidly confirmed them. Jimmy created the
>so-called "RAH-15" by naming them in a countersuit against an individual.
>Now he says why he did so, and that explanation, to many, boils down to
>the fact that we agreed that Tony Pucillo was right. It now appears that
>Jimmy is well on his way to creating a RAH-1500, or higher, based upon
>those whom he continues to convince that Tony is indeed correct.

One of the things that made me laugh in Jimmy's posting was a claim that
the RAH-15 is "whining" about the suit.

I haven't seen a single bit of whining from any member of the RAH-15, either
publicly on the net or in email. No one seems particularly worried.

The only whining I *have* seen is from people complaining that they
*weren't* included. I haven't seen anyone clamoring to join Jimmy
as a defendant in HIS suit....

Ron Wanttaja
want...@halcyon.com
http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <36987ed0...@santaclara01.news.internex.net>,
garf...@pilgrimhouse.com says...

>Obviously this wasn't the case, cuz by using the subpoena, Richard's
>privacy was violated. As damning as The Jerk was hoping the allegation
>might sound to the neophyte or the uninformed, The Jerk is basically
>saying that someone with an account on aol was posting things he didn't
>like, so he talked some other poor dupe into granting the subpoena to
>disclose the actual billed-to party's name, in this case Richard.

I also had my identity revealed to zoom under the same subpoena as Richard.
On the advice of AOL legal dept I was told to use a name other than Chuck,
I did and zoom now says I used "false impersonations". I often wondered if
there were true "impersonations....

Chuck(RAH-15/1)Slusarczyk

[David Hyde]

Trimmed to rec.aviation.homebuilt only.

Some conehead wrote:

>Oh, now I get it! You and Alan are playing Jeckel and Hyde?

No, I'm playing Hyde. And you would be...?

>He posts real crazy stuff as Mr. Hyde

No, _I_ post as Mr. Hyde, and my stuff, while occasionally off the wall,
hasn't been called 'crazy' in a while.

>and you follow up with mild mannered Flames as Dr. Jeckel?

Nonono! Jekyll's been away for quite some time now. I know him well,
you'll know when he decides to come back.

Dave 'where are those trading cards?' Hyde
na...@glue.umd.edu
RAH15/?

[David Munday]

garf...@pilgrimhouse.com wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Oct 1998 18:35:38 GMT, in rec.aviation.homebuilt
>mund...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday) wrote:
>
>>The admission was of posting or mailing under false
>>names through aol. Campbell abused the subpoena process to find out
>>who paid for said accounts. Riley complained about this abuse of
>>process, thus one may infer he admitted to using the false names.
>>
>>Campbell's a nut and a fraud, but he's not that impenetrable.
>
>The only thing penetrating about this syllogism, unfortunately, is the
>glaring error. WOW.
>
>The statement "under false names through aol" is a complete RUSE. Anyone
>actually USING their real name on AOL is an accident of fact *strongly*
>recommended AGAINST by AOL, so the contrary cannot be used to
>demonstrate "falsehood" or a "false name".

* * *

>Don't play into this creep's pathological lying, by using such trite and
>spurious logic as "if I swallow the hook, line, and sinker", then yup,
>sure enough "the pathological liar" has spoken SOME truth.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. To assume everything
he says is false is as silly as to assume everything he says is true.

Semantic arguments over "screen names" and "real names" aside,
Campbell has some postings or e-mail he claims are defamatory,
fraudulent, or threatening. Whether or not they really are is a
matter for a jury of it ever comes to that, and I wish it would.
Campbell traced these posts or e-mail to Riley's credit card by use or
abuse of subpoena power, but heretofore Riley had not acknowledge
sending them.

Campbell infers that Riley sent the e-mails or postings he claims as
defamatory, fraudulent or threatening. He sees this as an admission
of authorship. If we accept his premise that the messages were
defamatory, fraudulent or threatening, then I, at least, must accept
also that this was an admission of wrong-doing. In ignorance of the
content of the messages, I can't speak to the premise.

Is that narrowly expressed enough for you?

Of course Campbell has shown an astonishing deafness to irony, parody
and sarcasm when it is directed towards him, and this may account for
his claim of threat or defamation. Since he (Campbell) won't share
with us what these mysterious messages contained, we have no way to
judge.

One might have expected them to be included in his pleading against
Riley, but that would have required some notion of how to write one.

If it comes before a jury I have great faith in one to discriminate
between a real threat, fraud or defamation and parody, irony, sarcasm
or mockery. A jury is theoretically composed of reasonable men and
women. It would be hard to empanel one less reasonable than Campbell.

If in fact the messages were not defamatory, fraudulent or
threatening, then I don't owe Richard an apology for recognizing that
he acknowledged their authorship. If they were, then the foul was
indeed his. I suspect the former, but I haven't seen the messages.
From what I have heard and seen, Richard has far more ingenious means
of insulting Campbell than anonymous or falsely attributed
nasty-grams.

Remember, even paranoids have enemies.

>At this point, to
>surmise ANYTHING, no matter how meager, from ANYTHING this creature
>posts, is like listening to a waterfall in hopes of hearing Shakespeare.

He has shown himself capable, on occasion, of accurately transcribing
press releases.

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

Bill:

I'd like details of the 1000 hours he claimed, in writing, to have flown
overseas. Assuming he's FLOWN 1000 hours, maybe it was all over Long Island
Sound (over "seas").

Tony Pucillo

In article <7059as$3...@umbc7.umbc.edu>,
ro...@umbc.edu (Bill Robie) wrote:
> In article <362563F6...@gate.net>, Jim Campbell <usa...@gate.net>
wrote:
> >

> >At last... someone is actually asking us about the facts of something...
though
> >I note that the aspersion was cast publicly, rather than privately, as
courtesy
> >might have dictated. Ah well...
>
> While you are on a roll, then, what are the facts about your published
> claims to have flown famine relief in Ethiopia? Since an earlier post
> in this thread spoke of the need for verification of facts, how about
> citing some places, organizations, and names that we scholars of aviation
> history can use to verify your claims of playing a roll in that historic
> humanitarian effort?
>
> I've just asked for the facts of something.
>
> Bill Robie
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

Mr. Livingston:

I take back everything NICE I said in asking you to stop embarrassing
yourself with your hysterical rants.

I now see that you are intentionally embarrassing yourself at Mr.
Campbell's invitation. Speak not of sock puppets when you have a doubleknit
mouth. I'm trying to visualize where Zoom's digits go, but I'm too queasy to
continue.

Why not confine yourself to something you know a little about, before you
screw up like Tarver and have to gag yourself? Can't you learn from HIS
mistake in believing Campbell?

Tony Pucillo

In article <36266D09...@wwisp.com>,

nat...@wwisp.com wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
>

> > On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 22:47:18 -0400, in <36256235...@gate.net>, Jim
> > Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Alan Staats driveled:
> > >
> > >> However, in the same "Lingua Zooma" it IS ok, if you are the self
> > >> appointed saviour of aviation, to press specious charges against
> > >> ex-employees in the same local, state and federal jurisdictions,
> > >
> > >BULL!!!
> > >
> >
> > <creative fiction snipped>
> >
> > When Mr. Campbell went to school, did he take the big bus, or the little
bus?
>

> Oh, now I get it! You and Alan are playing Jeckel and Hyde? He posts real
crazy

> stuff as Mr. Hyde, and you follow up with mild mannered Flames as Dr. Jeckel?
>
> Or maybe Alan is hanging around the old Hangar, and sock puppeting Richard?
Ah
> well, the important thing is that we're all friends here, EH?
>
> So, what's you boys next Intellectual Endevor on Usenet? So far after reading
> real swell stuff from a Company that sells home built aeroplanes, teaming up
with
> an alleged Aviation Journalist to FLAME others, I'm wanting to run right out
to
> California and by one of them real cool Burt things, or get Alan to take some
> swell Snap Shots with his Kodak Brownie! So are we going to do lunch or what?
>
> Hay, cross posting really sucks, but one has to answer the original Posting,
lest
> someone be offended by being ommited. eh?
>
> Roswell
>
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

Garfield:

Well, when you're right, you're right. Well said.

Tony Pucillo

In article <36bb28c9....@santaclara01.news.internex.net>,
garf...@pilgrimhouse.com wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998 15:39:02 -0400, in rec.aviation.homebuilt Jim
> Campbell <usa...@gate.net> wrote:
>
> >***(please address responses to my personal mail as we do not cruise the NGs
much,
> >if at all)
>
> You lying scumbag pieceOshit, why don't you just do the sport the
> biggest favor possible and ONLY contribution you will EVER make to it,
> and make that "much, if at all" a "never ever" and just disappear. Don't
> talk about it, just DO it. Face it, bozo, the VAST majority of the
> sport, those unfortunate enough to even know about you anyway, simply
> wish you had never been born.
>
> Of all the charlatans and absolute creeps/jerks this sport has EVER
> known, you TOP them all. Effluent like you belongs in a sewage treatment
> plant, not in our otherwise most eXcellent sport.
>
> Do the most beneficent thing you will ever do for the sport (and probly
> the human race), and LEAVE it alone.
>
> Garfield

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

Capitan Le Mooz groused:
[snip]

> sooner or later you'll have to quit ducking subpoenas and acting like a
>coward.

Ah, it is cowardice to refuse service of process in a frivolous suit?

This would be funny if it weren't so ridiculous. Le Mooz's ability to
perceive reality is wavering again.

I wonder if Mr. Campbell recalls these words:

"Blanca, tell him I'm not here!!"

Or maybe he'd like copies of all the court filings where process servers
had to leave the papers at the door because the Mooz was inside and wouldn't
come out. (Closing the door after the guy sees you isn't a very effective
tactic, nor is refusing to come to the door when you've been spotted and the
car's in the drive.) Wonder if he recalls the time the process server for the
Boys & Girls Clubs of Lakeland had to pretend to be somebody else to get in
after repeated attempts -- and how indignant the inimitable CapZ became AT
BEING LIED *TO*! (The B&G Clubs -- a charitable organization, for cripes
sake -- had to sue to collect for their S&F Bratwursts, finally getting their
money almost a year later when he wanted to throw another one.) And it
WASN'T 1500 Bratwursts, either.

Wonder if any of that is "obstruction of justice"? I mean, he claims that
refusing to assist a private individual at Sun&Fun was obstructing justice (a
joke) when the guy didn't even have the proper certification to SERVE the
papers he had. So maybe telling your staff to lie to a real, live deputy
sheriff is a no-no too??

And then there are all those certified letters that were refused and
unclaimed. Brave, brave Zoom. Stands right up like a man and takes his
papers, even when it hurts.

Mooz had better read some law and get up to date, but I'm not gonna be
the one to tell him. That's what he has a lawyer for. :)

Tony Pucillo

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

Guru Abu Bin LeMooz decreed:

[snip]

>The last contract they had was run til it ended.

Ahem. This sounds kinda like "dropping" one's advertising to me. What on
earth suggests that one has to breach a legal obligation in order to "drop" a
publication from one's advertising? "No, I didn't get fired from my last
job, they just didn't renew my employment for the next pay period."

> As a matter of fact, Fetters tried to buy new ads after we notified him we
>were looking into the problems with his machines...

Now what would EVER make him think that was a smart thing to do?
[snip]

Tony "I didn't drop my subscription, it just wasn't renewed" Pucillo

[tonyp...@my-dejanews.com]

UberGuru Zoom diatribed:

[snip]
> See you in court... because that's the only way that I think I will ever
> get your vengeful, inaccurate personality out of my life.

Right, Al, maybe you'll be a witness for the other side. And be sure to
bring your inaccurate personality.

Tony Pucillo

[Miss Twyla Geeter]

Now Anthony!!!!! What do I have to do with you?? Do I have to send
you to the principal's office like I did Vicki and Billy earlier
today??? I have initiated a public shunning of this foolhardy boy.
He is nothing and he never will be. Don't waste your precious time in
pursuit of answering a truly tortured individual. You have much
bigger fish to fry! If you are not a good boy in the future I'm going
to call your mother. Besides that I may actually ban you yourself
from Pinkneyville if you continue along these lines.

Remember, no matter where you go and no matter who you are, powerful
or weak!!!!! Miss Geeter can still GET YOU! Just ask that little
snot, Tommy Copper!!

Now get with the program and join the public shunning of Mr.
Roswell-Livinston...whatever you little brat!

Miss Twyla Geeter
Third Grade Teacher

>

[garf...@pilgrimhouse.com]

On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 02:08:01 GMT, in rec.aviation.homebuilt
mund...@muohio.noise.edu (David Munday) wrote:

>Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. To assume everything
>he says is false is as silly as to assume everything he says is true.

Oh, on the contrary, to follow YOUR own analogy, I'd just observe that a
DEAD pig isn't even LOOKING for an acorn, nor would know one if he were
laying dead on top of one. I think that analogy fits the situation far
better, than your "stopped clock being right twice a day". In this case,
the clock is smashed, and doesn't even bear a resemblance to a
timepiece. Get my drift, or is this lost on your 'logic'?

Saying that Campbell is a thorough going liar that can't be trusted to
utter ANYTHING truthful and unbent, is a practical truth, not a
theoretical or ontological one. Your application of college logic I'm
sure is just as valid as saying that calling the Devil a liar outright
who cannot be trusted to utter anything true, is a case of "argumentum
ad hominem", but the fact is, it's still TRUE. B) Logic has it's place
as a tool of thought, but it was NEVER meant to poke your eyesNears out.

>Semantic arguments over "screen names" and "real names" aside,

It's not semantics, guy, it's a FACT. Yours and Campbell's argument
(great side of the debate to be on, huh?) rests on the idea that it IS a
"mere" distinction, so you beg the question, but if someone were to
subvert "highflyer's" stealth, for example, breach the privacy he has
every right to expect from his provider, on the bullshit grounds like
The Jerk's, that he's posted something defamatory, YOU think it would be
good logic and truth to say "highflyer" deserves that violation of his
rights or did ANYTHING disreputable, SIMPLY because by using the moniker
"highflyer", he has posted under a FALSE NAME? And if he complained
about the breach of privacy, that would be ANY kind of "admission" of
anything? That's your bluddy argument, guy. You want to OWN that
argument?

Remember, David, YOU set the battle lines, and the issue was your claim
that by complaint against breach of privacy, Richard was "admitting to
posting under a false name" (forget *what* he was posting), with an
emphasis on the words "admitting" and "false", as if that complaint were
ANY "admission" at all. The pejorative connotations of the words
"admission" and "false" were not lost on The Jerk, that's exactly WHY he
worded it that way, even IF they are lost on your preppy logic.

But that syllogism, David, is COMPLETE and TOTAL bullshit, the likes of
which I'd ONLY expect from someone like Jerk Dumbell, not YOU. Trouble
is, your position gets all the more specious with every attempted
defence, but you haven't the courage and good sense to give it up, and
you're just getting deeper into the slimey stuff to insist on
maintaining it, in the face of it's absurdity.

There's no "admission" or "acknowlegement" of anything; see, it's none
of Campbell's business WHOSE account that AOL screen name is under. You
wanna JOIN this creep in saying it's an "admission" of anything if I
complain against someone invading my privacy. Would YOU use those words,
that if I charged someone with trespassing when they broke into my home,
that it would be an "admission" of my owning my home? And that somehow
if I don't "acknowledge" in public that it's my home, or answer anyone
who comes up to me and demands to know "whose home is that?", that I'm
somehow being false or surreptitious. Hell, it's none of yours or
Campbell's bloody business WHOSE account it is. Period. THAT'S why I
took/take exception to this bullshit statement that Richard's complaint
is "an admission of posting under a false name". That statement is LADEN
with innuendo and falsehood. It's a complaint against invasion of
privacy, and NOTHING MORE. Period.

You can't as you'd like to think, go forward, beg the question of libel,
and then say, well, yes IF it was libel, then Richard's complaint WOULD
be "an admission". That MAY seem like correct "logic" to you, but no one
respects that kinda speculation when a man's reputation and good name is
at issue. Add THIS to your logic circuitry; the ASSUMPTION is that no
such libel occured, BOTH from the knowledge of the people involved, as
well as the way our jurisprudence system, and our whole way of looking
upon men is concerned. You wanna promote the "correctitude" of your
statement purely on grounds of rhetoric, but you've dropped out THE most
important point, which is that you CAN'T BEG the question. It's not
"admission" of anything, unless you beg the question, and THAT is what's
so specious and obnoxious, AND quintessentially Moozesque about the
statement that by complaining about the invasion of privacy, Richard was
"admitting to posting under a false name".

The whole reason for overtly establishing the rule that you DON'T beg
the question is because human nature tends to DO it, and it's KNOWN to
be prejudicial, so we remind ourselves with these rules, that this is a
no-no to fair dealing with an issue. This is Campbell's whole scheme as
a liar; concoct a story or picture that he shapes to support his
premises in the first place. And you, David, have fallen right into the
trap, wallowed in it, and proclaimed it as "right and logical". Sheesh.

>Campbell has some postings or e-mail he claims are defamatory,
>fraudulent, or threatening. Whether or not they really are is a
>matter for a jury of it ever comes to that, and I wish it would.

Yeah, because YOU think we simply can't tell who's really telling the
truth without it going to a jury? Get REAL. Where have you been the last
months ad nauseum? You've got your head so well impacted in the sand of
your sterile logic at this point, all that's showing is your silly butt.

>Campbell traced these posts or e-mail to Riley's credit card by use or
>abuse of subpoena power, but heretofore Riley had not acknowledge
>sending them.

WHAT? "heretofore Riley hadn't acknowledged sending them?" Geez, Dave,
this isn't an episode of Perry Mason where you get to play the Bench, ya
know. I nor Richard, nor anyone ELSE has to "acknowledge" sending or not
sending ANYTHING to this creep, a demonstrated complete liar. If a
robber comes to my door and asks if my wife is at home, I don't have to
tell that somebitch a THING (and I'm a complete FOOL if I do), and I
CERTAINLY don't feel obliged to tell him the truth, or for that matter
tell him anything at ALL. If challenged by Campbell at this point, NO
ONE in their right mind feels obligated to "acknowledge" anything to
him. I'd tell him the earth was flat if I thot it would get rid of him.

But aren't YOU the picture of fairness, and preppy naivete'. Lets treat
Richard and Jerk Dumbell "on the same level playing field" at this
point, eh? Is THAT what you're arguing for, David? Geez, does that
stink. This completely dishonorable lout makes yet another bullshit
charge that by posting under a ASSUMED screen name, Richard has done
something dishonest or dishonorable. And YOU can't even begin to see how
completely non-sequitur the business about the use of a screen name
(which The Jerk falsely calls a "false name") is to this issue? When
doing so is a routine commonplace in the industry, that happens 99% of
the time whenever ANYONE posts anything from one of those services where
screen names are the norm like AOL, YOU wanna say along with Campbell
that this is somehow surreptitious and dishonest? Basically, you wanna
hear arguments from the Devil about what the definition of honesty is.
That's how I'm seeing your position at the moment. And man, does it look
ABSURD from my window! If it wasn't so disgusting, it'd be absolutely
laughable.

If we found out that Andy Rooney (my apologies to HF) was posting under
the moniker "highflyer", and he had "heretofore not acknowleged that he
was doing so", does THAT equate, with the Jerk's statement, that Mr.
Rooney was "posting under a false name", and if we intruded into
Rooney's privacy to pierce that veil, that his complaining about it
would be an "admission" as such? My contention is you nor anyone else
has the RIGHT to use those words, given their well-known connotation of
wrong-doing. The USE of those words has a built-in expression and
begging of the question of wrong-doing. And it's nothing but stupid
sophistry to say, "wull, IF there had been wrong-doing, then I can see
the use of those words". Crap, you could as well say, "yes, IF Garfield
was a pedophile, then I can see someone calling him a pervert", as if it
were a mere issue of "if given this, then that", but you'd bloody well
better be prepared for me to be VERY annoyed with your bandying about
your stinking syllogisms. It's not your place, David, if you're a decent
human being, to in essence lend credence to Campbell's allegations, by
supposedly "studying the logic" in his claims, and saying, "yes, I can
see his logic, that IF given all his lying baggage were true, then
thusNso would obtain". You can tell yourself all you want all you're
doing is exercising your logical skills, but you're acting like one of
Campbell's dupes to engage in such "exercises". You take that "yes, IF
Garfield" sentence that I placed above, and see how often you can repeat
that before I or any other person feels like punching you in the chops,
and for GOOD reason.

You think you've been fair with The Jerk AND with Richard, by conducting
yourself this way, cuz you say to yourself, I haven't SAID the charges
have merit, just that IF they did, I can see how they'd be true. And
right there you have a case of your fine "logic" reeking of the stench
of helping to perpetrate a lie. Your offensiveness isn't in the "logic"
itself, it's in thinking that applying it the way you have is perfectly
OK, and innocent, and right. It's NOT.

>If we accept his premise that the messages were
>defamatory, fraudulent or threatening, then I, at least, must accept
>also that this was an admission of wrong-doing. In ignorance of the
>content of the messages, I can't speak to the premise.
>
>Is that narrowly expressed enough for you?

Yes, and equally STUPID and naive, IF you actually believe it to be a
sound argument, yourself. Somehow I can't quite bring myself to think
you're THAT much of a fool, even after hearing you play it back to me
repeatedly.

>Of course Campbell has shown an astonishing deafness to irony, parody
>and sarcasm when it is directed towards him, and this may account for
>his claim of threat or defamation. Since he (Campbell) won't share
>with us what these mysterious messages contained, we have no way to
>judge.

Oh, rubbish. If Richard had said Campbell was a complete asshole and
mutant ninja jerk via a screen name on AOL, you'd be hearing the very
SAME charge that he posted things under a "false name" and "admitted it"
by complaining when I broached his account. And you wanna give this
creep the benefit of the doubt? Again, to your continued support of this
stupidly syllogistical rhetoric, all I can say is bwhahahahahaha, it's
pathetic.

>If in fact the messages were not defamatory, fraudulent or
>threatening, then I don't owe Richard an apology for recognizing that
>he acknowledged their authorship. If they were, then the foul was
>indeed his. I suspect the former, but I haven't seen the messages.

Yeah, and if the Jerk had alleged Richard were a wife-beater and an
animal abuser, we also wouldn't know the truth or falsehood of that
claim, until the jury is "empaneled" and renders a verdict, according to
YOUR silly logic. Sheesh, guy, what a totally schoolboyish
thumbs-in-your eye argument. I rest my case. You wait for the jury,
David. I already KNOW who's the lout in this case, both from the
argument and the persons involved. Call it argumentum ad hominem all you
want, those preppy criticisms don't reach my old bones; cuz I happen to
know who the "ad hominem" is pointing at. And that slime-creature is
only marginally a "hominem" in any sense of the word that matters to
good honest men.

And by maintaining your bizarre'ly blind joe deaf position, you've sure
lost any respect I ever had for your judgment or any real fairness or
decency. Put your blinders back on, and enjoy your nap. When you awake,
there'll be milk and cookies waiting. Only trouble is, you'll awake in
the Jerk's world, not the real one.

I take it back, I don't think you just owe Richard an apology, I think
you owe the whole damn GROUP an apology.

Garfield