Friday, April 18, 2008

We really should be flattered...

This evening, I was having a nice meal, Chinese as it happens. Literally seconds after I opened the fortune cookie, which told me that 'An Admirer will soon contact you' my BlackBerry (a Pearl, for those that need to know) chirped at me.

This had arrived, headed 'Google Legal Support', and made my week! I just hope it's true....


Google has received a civil subpoena that demands information regarding
the source of anonymous comments posted on your blog The case, entitled Eclipse Aviation
Corporation v. John Doe; Jane Doe; et al. has been filed the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, case number 108CV110380. A
copy of the subpoena is attached to this message.

To comply with the law, Google intends to provide IP address information
for the postings and comments at issue, unless you or the anonymous
commenters send us a copy of a motion to quash (or other formal objection
filed in court) via email to by May 9, 2008 at
5pm Pacific Time.

Thus, we ask that you post this notice on your blog temporarily until the
due date listed above, in order to allow the anonymous parties to step
forward if they so choose.

For more information about the case or demand for information, you or the
anonymous commenters may wish to contact the party seeking this
information at:

Angela F. Storey
Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis LLP
25 Metro Drive, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110

Phone: 408-292-1765
Fax: 408-436-8272

Unfortunately, Google is not in a position to provide you or the
anonymous commenters with legal advice.

If you have other questions regarding the subpoena, we encourage you to
contact your attorney.

Thank you,

Google Legal Support

There is an attached PDF, which lists an 'honour roll', most of whom have posted NOTHING here. Some are for identities I can't even remember from our original home. I should say also that no 'sources' are part of this action. It is ONLY directed at people who posted directly on the blog. It seems to be very out of date and I'm actually feeling left out, as they didn't include me.


However, there are a few of our current crew listed. Contact me at the usual address, for those of you who want to know if you are one of those 'flattered' by Vern. You may wish to respond to the 'civil action' at the address listed above. 

The inbox ( has several fresh remarks from suppliers, pilots and customers. As I check them out, I'll post them to this thread. All I can say now is that the future would appear darker than ever down ABQ way.

On a personal note, I'm off on the boat for the weekend. I have a rule (rigidly enforced by 'she who must be obeyed') of no email or web while on the water. I'll check in later on Sunday, and respond to those of you who choose to contact me. Don't forget I'm in the 'GMT' time zone, so for most of you that will be very early Sunday morning.

Happy sailing (and flying, of course) to all.



bill e. goat said...

Thanks Ex-whoever (given the slimey google goings-on).

"455 AC this year is now in jeopardy because..."

fill in the blank.

I haven't stopped laughing yet!!


my Dayjet deathwatch remains at 50 airplanes delivered max.

gadfly said...


Where in the world did you come up with "fifty"? . . . my odometer still reads "zero".


(no more, no less!)

bill e. goat said...

Hi Gadfly,
Fifty?...I was feeling optomistic about Dayjet's chances of survival!

(Actually, if they would "grow" their business, instead of "going long", and acquiring a ludicrous level of debt before income was substantiated, it might work out. But somehow, that's not "disruptive" enough).

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

Fortunately for us the case is filed in Google's home state of California which appears to be regularly ruling in favor of anonymous posters.

Current course of action is for one or more bloggers to file a motion to quash (as Jane/John Doe #1, #2, etc.), citing recent California decisions that have recommended a rather high burden, similar to Summary Judgement or Prima-Facie. FWIW, there are several, and they are big and well understood.

I suggest those of us who have the means and/or interest to file or join said motion-to-quash contact Shane via the eclipsecriticng e-mail, anonymously of course, so that we can coordinate an anonymous objection to this obvious attempt to intimidate anonymous discussion about the WeeJet.

Yet another stellar choice of how to use limited time, money, energy and skills from the corner office on Clark Carr Loop.

Suggestion for Vern and crew, stop worrying about what is said about the decisions and actions you keep taking or avoiding (you know what they say about opinions anyway), and instead focus only and clearly on finishing the plane - remove the possibility of discussion about failure by doing what you said you would do.

Shane, I am curious if the request includes any of the well-known Eclipse supporters? Seems to me they are really the only ones who have ever been in a position to actualy provide recent inside information.

Eclipse sues Ken Meyer - now that would be funny.

Full disclosure - I am not a lawyer and do not intend to provide legal guidance - but I have been around the park a few times - I think we can beat this, and beat it easily, one or more of us just need to step up re: a motion-to-quash.

I wonder if the ACLU is interested in helping protect the right of free speech of anonymous bloggers or if they are too busy trying to help the detainees at Gitmo.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...


Do not reply to the Angela Storey address, that is Eclipse's Attorney in CA (kinda defeats the purpose of anonymity).

Copies of any motion to quash (or other formal objection
filed in court) should be sent to

PubGrubber said...

Well I'm in, if we need any $ or support to file the motion I'll do what I can. Shane has my E-mail, just let me know what I can do.

airtaximan said...

I sincerely wonder what the motive is for this action?

How can anyone justify ANY resources spent on this legal action taken by Eclipse? What can they possibly gain?

Well, I suppose I am not very surprised. They have wasted a lot of time and money on things that were merely distractions.

Bonanza Pilot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bonanza Pilot said...

Isn't this very much like a "SLAP" lawsuit to shut up people discussing their product.

Is the civil action for defamation or for revealing of trade secrets? If it is for secrets, then what do we know that we shouldn't know.

p.s. had to cancel my last post because it gave information on the brand new secret Eclipse.....

chickasaw said...

Is this a case of shooting the messenger?

airtaximan said...

I think I figgered it out.

Eclipse finds out some of the posters are wealthy aviation insiders.

Tries to sue them, as a new source of financing.

Perhaps Vern is dreamng that Sam Williams, BAE, AL Mann or Bill Gates is really "Bill e goat".


ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

A suggestion for any anonymous bloggers here who are or may have been employees at Eclipse, look into Whistleblower laws.

A cursory review shows New Mexico as having some public policy for retaliation firings as it pertains to 'employment at will'.

Also, there is the overarching Federal Whistleblower Act which has complaints filed through OSHA.

For more see

Again, I am not offering legal advice here, I am not a lawyer, but I suspect there may be folks out there who might find this information useful, both in conjunction with this new Eclipse action as well as possible terminations for trying to uphold the law or cooperate with investigations related to any of the various lawsuits and arbitrations Eclipse is alleged to have been involved in.

bill e. goat said...

I just have this, to say about that !

bill e. goat said...

As Shane posted (on just the previous thread):

"P.S. An early bit of advice to me from Stan, when I expressed concern at a lack of content for the blog, was just to wait. 'Eclipse will always do something stupid, Shane'. As always, how right he was".

BricklinNG said...

So let's get the status straight on the various VLJ efforts:

1. Cessna is building, delivering and supporting its jets which have been well received by its customers. There is a growing backlog of orders.

2. Embrarer has the first copy of its Phenom aloft and is starting certification as it has done with many previous models.

3. Diamond has 3 flight test airplanes aloft and is pursuing certification as it has done with 3 previous models.

4. Cirrus is in advanced design phase and will shortly have its first copy aloft.

5. Eclipse has 150 airplanes delivered with significant shortcomings and IOUs. It promised a fabulous integrated avionics system but will conclude with a Cirrus-like system which will likely never be repeated by Cirrus or anyone else. Its overall "progress" has inspired a critical web blog and Eclipse is suing the web blog and its posters in hopes of silencing the criticism.

I'd bet that the first 4 will never be faced with having to sue a blog because they will not perform in such a way as to generate the same kind of criticism, not by a long shot.

airtaximan said...

I keep wondering who do they think we are?

We must have predicted some heavy shit!

airtaximan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven H said...

> How can anyone justify ANY
> resources spent on this legal
> action taken by Eclipse? What can
> they possibly gain?

Eclipse is indirectly related to The SCO Group Inc. (TSG) through various mutual board members and financing schemes. TSG you may recall is the entity which is attempting to seize control of Linux(tm) and the millions of manhours of volunteer labor incorporated therein by the novel strategy of suing their own customers and licensees "to our utter destruction if necessary". TSG has conducted similar devil-hunts for those who have quite legally and Constitutionally tracked and reported on its actions.

Luckily TSG's probably final appearance in court is arriving April 23rd, after which Novell and IBM may have access to its corporate papers. If so I will be very curious to see if any of the trails they chose to follow lead to Eclipse.


MetalGuy said...

Suing a web blog to stop criticism? More antics from the corner office no doubt. If this is true, someone needs to send it out to the entire aviation news network feeds:

Dateline April 19, 2008. Eclipse aviation files a motion in U.S. Supreme court to outlaw all critical comments of their company’s performance. Vern Rayburn was quoted as saying “I’m absolutely sick of the Eclipse Critic Blog being so damn right all of the time. This cannot be tolerated. I’m supposed to be the smart one here.” When asked if the motion is only limited to the members of the web Blog, Rayburn responded that no, the extent of the restraint will be broad enough to apply to all individuals in the entire world, including small pets and some species of gerbils. When challenged by the reporter that this seems to be somewhat draconian and immature in nature, and that perhaps Eclipse should just focus on accomplishing what was promised to the market years ago, Rayburn turned visibly red and was quoted as saying “No more bitching. I’m tired of it. So just stop it. Stop stop stop it.” and stomped out of the room. Further updates as provided.

Important legal notice: Be aware that some/all of the information contained in the above and/or related, future and/or/past postings by this blog member may contain parody, satire or over generalizations for the sake of humor. Penis size has never, or never will be mentioned. Any similarity between Eclipse Aviation Critic Blog NfG (TM) and Eclipse Aviation Inc. are strictly coincidental in nature. Nothing posted here contains facts of any type. Eclipse Aviation may or may not actually exist, as may not this entire blog.

sparky said... couldn't make this kind of stuff up it you tried.

bill e. goat said...


2800 orders !!

" couldn't make this kind of stuff up it you tried".


John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

Angela Storey Resume on Miller Morton website

Angela F. Storey
25 Metro Drive, 7th Floor
San Jose, CA 95110

Angela F. Storey practices in the firm’s civil litigation group, with an emphasis in construction, business, and personal injury. In her construction practice, Angela represents owners, contractors, subcontractors, surety companies and design professionals, handling a broad spectrum of issues including mechanics’ liens, stop notices, defect claims, bid protests, and delay claims. In her business practice, Angela represents companies and individuals involving contract disputes, landlord-tenant issues, and employment litigation. Prior to joining the firm, Angela was a trial attorney for a major insurance company and uses her significant trial background in her current practice.

A native of Santa Clara County, Angela attended St. Francis High School in Mountain View before completing her degree in International Economics at University of California at Los Angeles. She returned to the Bay Area to attend Santa Clara University School of Law. Angela and her husband live in San Jose with their two large dogs, a Hovawart and a Borzoi.


Currently defending several general contractors in breach of contract claims brought by subcontractors.

Representation of building owner in the prosecution of a construction defect claim.

Representation of a shopping center owner in federal court against an ADA violation claim.

Representation of an apartment complex owner in a personal injury claim made by a tenant after falling from a balcony.

Representation of a commercial center in a breach of contract claim brought by a tenant.


California Bar Association
Santa Clara Bar Association
American Bar Association
Member, Chair of the Law Related Education Committee


Treasurer, Neighborhood Action Committee
Chair, Santa Clara County High School Mock Trial Program

J.D., Santa Clara University School of Law, 2001

B.A., International Economics, UCLA, 1997

Shane said...


You reminded our readership of my previous comment about waiting for Eclipse to do something stupid.

I never understood how stupid they could get, until I saw that email.

Anyway, those of you who have contacted me should by now have had the PDF I got from Google.

If anyone else wants a copy let me know.

The only reason I'm not putting the list up as a post is that I can't decide if doing so helps or hinders a response by those 'identities' named.

Anyone with an opinion?


Gunner said...

With prayers that I am on the list, please send it to

I'll deal with the CA courts on behalf of the Blog.

Hey, Vern....Step UP, for once in your life. You really ARE such a tool!

[insert rolleyes icon here]
Gunner, The Artist Formerly Known as Rich Lucibella said...


first of all, thanks for your excellent work. I hope not to spoil the party by appearing under my actual name and email, but as an aviation related publisher myself I would have no need for an alias anyway.

In the past we have frequently reported critically about EAC and their progress and pr-policy. We're the only mainly subscriber funded ga-magazine in german language and to my knowledge we're the only german-language-publication so far questioning the whole EAC-hype.

Since this site has been of much value for me in the past I'll certainly report in our next issue on this blatant attempt to hinder it's work.

Would you kindly send me the paperwork you received in this matter, since I have to double and triple-check everything I write about EAC with original sources.

Thanks and best regards
Jan Brill
Managing Editor

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...


Danke für Ihr Angebot. Wir haben die kritische Prüfung von EAC genossen, das Ihre Zeitschrift veröffentlicht hat.

It is really too bad that Flying, Plane and Pilot, AOPA Pilot and others have failed to take on Eclipse with a similar commitment to journalistic integrity.

And then of course there is the Eclipse Southern Public Relations Office, sometimes call Aero-News Network - where the original self-proclaimed posterboy for journalistic integrity (and for a while I believe he truly did have it) has traded in his once-critical eye and outstanding commitment to safety and ensuring people got what they paid for, for softglove fauning Obamagasm hero-worship for all things Verntastic in exchange for being the official party publication of the Eclipski Organizatsyia.

The transformation is now complete, introducing Darth Campbell, Lord of the Sith.

Once again, thanks for the offer Jan, and keep up the good work.

Steven H said...

> I'll deal with the CA courts on
> behalf of the Blog.

I am sure the lawyers here are way ahead of this, but everyone please read the Spamhaus case for the care that is needed when a US-based entity sues a person/entity based in a location with English-type speech laws in US courts.


Airshogun said...

Mr. Vern Rayburn,
Upon attempting to elucidate your statement appearing in the most recent post by metalguy, I must tell you that I’m somewhat confused but I’m compelled to express the following message in response:

“For untenable conceit, keep your objections unlimited.”

If you don’t understand the message, take the first letter of each word and make two short words out of it, there you have your answer in a terse American expression with concision that may reflect the likely sentiment felt by many on this blog arising out of your latest seemingly self-destructive court action.


Note: (Portion of the above sentence is derived from TGBB Manual by Robert H. Morrison 1981 and modified to fit the situation.)

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

So reviewing FlightCenter's delivery summary, Eclipse appears to have 'delivered' 55 planes since January 1 this year. This equates to an average of 3.7 planes per week.

In order to meet the revised, re-calculated, re-fired, re-worked, amended 'delivery' schedule for 2008, they will need to 'deliver' 400 planes in the remaining 32 weeks of the year, or 12.5 aircraft per week (the current best average monthly 'delivery' rate they have 'demonstrated').

BTW, was there ever a report of the Avio NfG retrofit plane leaving celebrity rehab down in FL? That was supposed to be done in February - I'd have figured Darth Campbell would have been all over that, crowing from the rooftops.

From the recent developments with the Eclipse legal actions, it appears they find our lack of faith disturbing.

ColdWetMackarelofReality said...

The group Public Citizen, not among my favorites mind you, does have a wealth of resources about John Doe Anonymity and a history of filing Friend of the Court briefs for similar cases as that initiated by our friends in the 505.

I have read a couple of their Amici Curiae briefs and they seem to be pretty good - we may consider that as part of our response.

MagicSky said...

To all:

Okay, first of all, I have a difficult time believing that this is for real. You are a bunch of clever guys with an uncanny knack for BS. And this is too wacky for words. What are they going do with the list? Have us all executed? It is just so utterly ridiculous.

However, if this is actually happening (btw nothing surprises me anymore with this company) I would like to refer you to song by Delbert McClinton called the Trouble with Truth. One of the lyrics states, "The trouble with the truth is that it always begs for more."

So continue your quest and don't let this idiotic attempt at censure deter you from your mission. But remember the majicsky mantra "Only use your powers for good never evil"

Rock on “bad” sky boys!

I love it.

And to you Eclipsers, You Don’t scare me!

MagicSky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gadfly said...

It may be that when our local bird hatchery accepted tens of millions of tax dollars and benefits from our illustrious governor et al (ex-US-president-wannabe, and now faithful supporter of BO) of the State of New Mexico, they gave up some privacy and protection from the citizens of “said state” making critical remarks. “Amicus curiae” (friend of the court) might use this in part of their arguments.

Now, since we are being “forced” to get a quick education in “legaleeze”, here are the first two things (from comments by Cold Fish, I did a search for “"Amici Curiae" briefs "Public Citizen") which I find “most enlightening”:


(Now I must catch up on today’s “Sunday Funnies” in the ABQ Journal, . . . entertaining, to be sure, but not as funny as “current events”.)

(Magic . . . it's for real!)

Shane said...

I have had many emails of support, for which I thank you all.

Gunner has kindly offered to respond on 'our' behalf to the action by Eclipse.

As I am NOT on the list, I don't currently need to respond. However, for those of you know you are on the list, I would ask you to contact me to indicate your position at this time. Please use "Eclipse Gag Action" in the subject line, to allow me to sort things out here.

I would hope that we could have an agreed position by Wednesday next, 23rd April. This will allow Gunner, if the consensus is to join with him, the time to prepare a response.

The deadline for a copy of a motion to quash, (which must reach Google), is no later than May 9th, at 5pm Pacific Time.

And for those of you who have NOT contacted me, I propose to post the 'list' over the next day or so. This will allow anyone not already 'in' to join the defence.


airsafetyman said...

Shocked, shocked, I say! I would have though that if Mz Angela had any spare time she would be practicing her Dutch and Russian in preparation for the inevitable lawsuits with the Flying(low) Dutchman and his merry band of Ruskie "investors". By the way, how's the Ruskie factory coming, Mz Angela? said...
This comment has been removed by the author. said...


thanks for the documents. We'll certainly cover the legal action in May's issue of "Pilot und Flugzeug".

In a quite sinister way, EACs action actually makes a lot of sense:

1. They pin down blogger's resources in order to fight this cynical bs.
2. They send a clear signal to all customers/employees/vendors that big brother is watching, ready to sue anyone coming forward.

(Of course they also make themselves look like a bunch of completely paranoid dou...-bags, so nervous and cornered that they snap at everything they see, but that's hardly news, is it?)

I've seen this countless times talking to sources and soliciting contentious information: Companies don't have to win in court, in fact they don't even have to formally sue: Just the thread of opaque and drawn-out legal action is often enough to shut people up. Thanks to member "Gunner" for putting up time and money to fight this.

IMHO: The only way to counter these scare-tactics is to quickly and definitely squash this subpoena and then make it known as much as possible that EAC LOST and that identities don't have to be revealed, hence giving bloggers some peace of mind coming forward.

On a different note: In going after eclipsecriticng Eclipse in my opinion totally misjudges the nature of a blog like this in journalistic research. No writer or editor would ever print information "just because" it's in the blog. BUT – the blog is invaluable for pointing investigative people into the right direction. You read about trouble with supplier XYZ, you pick up the phone, call whomever you know at XYZ ... et voila ... juicy details come to light.

In looking at Eclipse, I'm fairly sure we look at General Aviation's Enron. At least in Europe, Eclipse - after a considerable hype in the past few years - is by now not even a topic of polite conversation anymore. The reasons are multiple, EASA-Certification probably being one of the smaller road-blocks (can be sorted out with money) more that under JAR-OPS the bird has no payload and no range to speak of and no real-world money-making operator I know is even looking at the thing.

No one would criticize them though, if they hadn't lectured the whole industry for 10 years on how stupid we all were. Now there is a little blowback, and they're dealing with it by going to court. Stan was spot-on: "Sit back, relax, Eclipse is going to do something stupid."

Best Regards,
Jan Brill
Managing Editor

flightguy said...

It's kinda ironic that Google controls access to the identities of those on the blog. After all, this is the same company that despises Microsoft for their mnagement style and in your face action. Their moto is "Do no evil!!" How does that compare to the management of Eclipse that mistreats suppliers, investors, customers, and now bloggers. Google would love to stuff it to Vern, I mean Microsoft.

MetalGuy said...

Shane, out of curiosity, how many bloggers were on the list? I don’t see how it could hurt to publish the list - other opinions on this?

The larger the number of course the more this is exposed as a retaliatory trolling exercise rather than a justified surgical strike. This could make national news, as a little digging exposes these disclosure exercises with Google, but always seem to be limited to attempting to identify a single blogger – certainly not a whole blogging group.

Could be a first folks!

al_petrofsky said...

Hello. I have never posted here before, and I had only been dimly aware of Eclipse Aviation's existence until today. Someone who knew I had an interest in California anti-SLAPP law emailed me a link to this blog. Below are some thoughts and notes that might be useful to people trying to understand this case. Please note: I am not licensed to practice law in California nor any other state.

I can't really form an opinion as to whether the subpoena is reasonable before I have, at a minimum: (1) read the underlying complaint and seen whether or not it sets out a plausible basis for relief; and (2) read the subpoena and seen whether or not it is reasonably tailored to discover information pertinent to the allegations in the complaint.

Here is the URL for information about case 1-08-cv-110380 in the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County, which is the Court from which the subpoena was issued:

You can see from the docket that this is just an auxiliary, subpoena-only case. The original complaint was filed in the main case in some other state. That out-of-state court then issued a commission asking the California court to issue a subpoena to someone in California (namely, to Google, Inc.). Eclipse then filed the commission in Santa Clara Superior Court on April 14, the subpoena was issued, and then it was served on Google.

The original out-of-state case appears to be Eclipse Aviation Corporation v. John Doe, Jane Doe, and "Various Does", No. D-202-CV-200802624, in New Mexico Second Judicial District Court (Albuquerque). You can look it up here:

You can see that the complaint was filed on March 18, 2008, and an order sealing the complaint was entered the same day. The case has been assigned to Judge Linda M. Vanzi.

A possibly-similar case you might want to take a look at is H.B. Fuller v. Doe, No. 1-05-CV-053609, filed December 1, 2005 in California Superior Court, Santa Clara County.

In that case, H.B. Fuller initiated legal action in Minnesota, obtained a commission from the Minnesota court for an out-of-state subpoena, and then had a subpoena issued from the California court. The subpoena directed Yahoo to provide information about the identity of a Yahoo poster using the name "Lashwr45".

John Doe (a/k/a Lashwr45) anonymously filed (through a California attorney) a motion to quash the subpoena. The motion was denied (by Judge Socrates Manoukian), and Doe appealed. Fuller had filed some evidence under seal in Judge Manoukian's court, but the appellate court stated that it would not consider this evidence unless Fuller filed it publicly. Fuller refused to do so, and instead gave up and withdrew the subpoena. Thus, the matter ended without Lashwr45's identity ever being revealed. The appellate court ruling (written by Justice Conrad Rushing) was published at 151 Cal.App.4th 879 (May 31, 2007). You can find Judge Manoukian's opinion, Justice Rushing's opinion, and other information at the following links:

That Doe was represented by the Cyberlaw Clinic at Stanford Law School. You might want to ask them if they would be interested in working on your case. See:

-Al Petrofsky

Gunner said...

Given the fact that the response is on a fairly short fuse, I'd avoid the pro-bono organizations like Stanford and go with a known quantity for legal counsel. I have access to such a "quantity" and believe he'd be willing to take this on, at my expense.

Vern's paid (in lost revenue) to provide me a valuable lesson in Aircraft Deposit agreements; I'd happily pay to provide him a suitable primer on the First Amendment to the Constitution. ;-)

Hey, Vern....did I mention just what a tool you really are? I really should mention that.

Gunner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gunner said...

As to my bona fides, a similar legal attack once resulted in a counter-suit that abruptly ended with the very powerful lobby, Handgun Control Inc, coincidentally changing its name to The Brady Center and avoiding the entire fight they'd started in the first place:

HCI CounterClaim

Three guesses who the owner of the organization that filed the counter-suit was.

uglytruth said...

Lies told to fleece investors out of millions and millions of dollars is not a crime? A long history of broken promises, missed delivery dates, incompetence, safety issues, unpaid vendors, incomplete aircraft, bait and switch selling practices is acceptable business practice? But a blog warning the unsuspecting isin’t?

Seems like the web site should change from a .com to a .org and offer itself as a public service against defrauding unsuspecting customers.

Hey is 20/20 looking for a soap opera for their next show? This is truly a case of the truth is stranger than fiction.

fred said...

gunner ...

we may disagree on some topics/occasions , but i think you're great ...

(hey , don't go in the house , i am not going to ask you to marry me [joke] !!)

if you need something , or more bluntly =

i think most of us had fun with the blog or/and saved ourselves XXX $ from reading it ...

if someone want to pick-upo the fight of something i see as a real money drain ...

i suggest we participate in a manner to be discussed ...

anyway , once again thanks for all making this a rather "funny" (sorry my english isn't good enough to find the right word) and /or at least VERY educative and informative ...!!!

flyger said...

The lawsuit claims "breach of contract" which suggests to me that Eclipse is looking for posters they suspect are former Eclipse employees in order to sue them for breaching the non disclosure parts of the their employment contract.

This may be why Shane is not among the listed since he isn't a former employee from what I can gather.

It would be interesting to go back and look at the what the "named anonymous" have posted and see if there is a common thread like that. I look forward to seeing the list. Oddly enough, if you are on the list, then you probably provided the most accurate and telling information since Eclipse now suspects you of being a former employee. Think of it as a compliment!

In any case, this really elevates the importance of this blog! If Eclipse takes it seriously, then others will, too!

sparky said...


I, for one, am glad i've never pissed you off. You strike me as one who's bite is worse than his bark.

Well folks, that being said,I'm off to the AEA and will see if there's anything to be learned from the chaps representing the e-bird.

Anybody want to wager on wether or not they require an NDA to be signed before answering any questions at their booth?

Bonanza Pilot said...

Any shot that any of the aviation media will pick up this story in the United States. I know Capt. Zoom is out - but what about Avweb or Flying magazine or even AOPA pilot? I think filing a lawsuit against a bunch of bloggers really sends a message of who you are as a company - and that message needs to get out there to anyone thinking of getting involved with Eclipse.

Gunner said...

I suspect you may be onto something there. Eclipse must certainly know that they can't prosecute a civil action for libel here....hell. the Blog is more accurate that Eclipse's own PR dept. By going to the court and arguing Breech of Contract, however, they may hope to plug the leaks (none of which have appeared to be proprietary), while running off unrelated Bloggers at the same time.

Personally, I think it's a Hail Mary pass.

Don't get the wrong idea. I am hardly indiscriminate in taking up challenges. But this one? From someone like Vern? I call that "fun"!

Don't know that it'll get very much press...perhaps a mention. For those to whom it's news, there's probably minimal comprehension or interest; for those to whom there's interest, it's just not news.

gadfly said...


At my age it’s easy to forget things. But if I were ever an “employee” of the little bird hatchery, I demand all of my back wages, including overtime.


(“Curiouser and curiouser!” Cried Alice . . .)

anonymous avionics engineer said...

I remain anonymous, but I am becoming very amused. Is this late life gender confusion?

Shane would it hurt anything to simply post the PDF file? Let the world see how silly this has all become.

Shane Price said...

Due to 'public demand' the 'list' is now on a new post.


David said...

Shane: I am the director of an organization that aims to protect bloggers from unwarranted legal threats. We've blogged about this subpoena on the Citizen Media Law Project's blog and are covering the dispute in our Database of Legal Threats: Eclipse Aviation Corporation v. John Doe. We'll try and keep up to date on what is going on, but please feel free to notify us of any developments. Good luck!