Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Manolin]

I have been an interested spectator in the drama which has unfolded with regards to the censorship and opposing views on the registry forum. The case has clearly gone cold with no web exposure to air the current situation. I checked the status on this case link provided, It seems this website is definitely receptive to open discussion and lastest developments on the pending registry disclosure lawsuit

If you are interested in following, click on the link and type in: Heinrichs and hit search. You can then follow both trial court and, now, appellate court filings. See below.


http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/acceptDisclaimer?hj4cg3oin1hil

APPEALS CASE DETAIL

CASE NUMBER CAUSE TYPE LOWER CASE LC CASE ORD DATE DATE FILED STATUS
13-AP-000361 COMMON PLEAS CIVIL 12CV012434 04/16/13 04/30/13 ACTIVE
STYLE CODE: R STEPHEN HEINRICHS -VS- 356 REGISTRY INC
LOWER COURT JUDGE: SHEWARD
APPELLANT/RELATOR(S) MAGISTRATE COURTROOM
Name Attorney
356 REGISTRY INC DONALD L. ANSPAUGH N/A N/A
APPELLEE/RESPONDENT(S)
Name Attorney
R STEPHEN HEINRICHS TIFFANY C. MILLER
DOCKETING STATEMENT Y CALENDAR TYPE REGULAR PROCEEDING STAY N
TRANSCRIPT N MEDIATION N
CONSOLIDATED CASES N/A
PENDING EVENTS
ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ACTUAL SUB/ARG DATE: N/A
RECORD TRANSMITTAL DATE 05/10/13 05/10/13 N/A
APPELLANT/RELATOR BRIEF DATE 06/03/13 06/03/13 N/A
APPELLEE/RESPONDENT BRIEF DATE 06/26/13 06/26/13 N/A
REPLY BRIEF DATE 07/09/13 07/09/13 N/A
STIPULATION DATE N/A N/A N/A
DOCKET Show All Descriptions Select Docket Category
Date Description Image Fiche Frame Pages
04/30/13 NOTICE OF CONFERENCE 0A037 O74 2
04/30/13 MOTION TO STAY 0A037 N33 7
04/30/13 LOWER COURT JUDGMENT 0A037 I54 9
04/30/13 DOCKETING STATEMENT FILED 0A037 I51 3
04/30/13 NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETED 0A037 I50 1
04/30/13 APPEARANCE FILED
04/30/13 APPEARANCE FILED
04/30/13 APPEARANCE FILED

[S.J.Szabo]

A very nice post, tho I wonder if it would be possible to associate some links to the items.

[bbspdstr]

Mr. Szabo, that is a mere tracking menu...I followed that posted link to the Court's site and opened various documents just as produced or filed. Fun, in a perverse way, for a 38 year Registry member to follow.

That legal mumbo-jumbo seems to indicate that Mr. Heinrichs' expectations of the right to examine Registry business records were agreed to by the judge, but a motion to delay was presented to the court by the lawyer for the trustees.

Seems like a ploy to delay could tick-off His Honor, but it also makes it look more and more like there really must be something the trustees need to hide from anyone's/everyone's view. Why else to delay? Why, in fact, the need for a lawsuit in the first place if there is nothing to hide?

And here we thought the horse was dead.......damn, that smoke...those mirrors...getcha every time.

This theater of the absurd has been likened to the fascination in watching a train wreck.....no one wants anyone to get really hurt, but you can't look away. I will be surely now be renewing my dues so I can keep a front row seat as the lawsuit unfolds.

[Bill Sampson]

[quote="S.J.Szabo" post=7010]A very nice post, tho I wonder if it would be possible to associate some links to the items

Steve:

The link in the first post in the thread worked for me yesterday. A couple of minutes ago the "Case Information Online" portion of the Franklin County, Ohio, court clerk's web site appeared not to work. When it does work you should be able to accept its terms and then search by last name (Heinrichs) and easily find the trial level case and the now appellate level case. The clerk's web site has pdf versions of the documents filed and they are posted pretty quickly. You can also enter an email subscription (which so far has worked for me) to be notified of new filings as the clerk posts them. After you read a few you MIGHT understand why lawyers demand so much to read such stuff - you can discontinue your subscription at any time.

Here is a somewhat simplified version of what has transpired all compiled from the public record at the Franklin County court website:
1. Steve H won an order to compel production of some documents he requested in discovery - in my opinion the trustees' responses have simply been obstructionist (there's a surprise) to date
2. The trustees have appealed that order
3. The trustees also asked the trial court for a stay of its order pending outcome of the appeal - I don't know the outcome of that request at the moment. If the stay request is granted discovery will halt on the issues covered by the present order until the appellate court decides the issue. If the stay is not granted the trustees will have to produce something, although parties sometimes engage in further delaying tactics at needless expense to everyone. Would the trustees engage in such tactics? Review the record for yourself and make your own decision.

Bill

[bbspdstr]

I'd like to express some opinions on this thread if I may.

1) It's important to me personally to get good information on how the lawsuit against the Registry is progressing. The conversation on the Samba was shut down and would be difficult if not impossible to pursue again on the Registry site itself, where it would be most appropriate.

Justin has become the next generous site owner to offer a means of communication among those of us still interested in the Registry's "issues." Unlike Everett's concern on his great VW site, this IS a Porsche-oriented site and there is the tacit approval from Justin to do as we want, but I'd suggest using common sense to self-police how this unfolds.

2) Thus, I suggest we take the high road on this thread....and I will attempt to be on my best behavior, or 'un-inimical.' No Registry-bashing, just sharing good information as it becomes available.

3) I'd like to add that anyone coming across this thread pass it along to anyone else who may like to know about it, and so on. It should get around to be like the Samba's 'radio free Registry' was when permitted.

Thanks, Justin for allowing and Manolin for beginning this thread.

[S.J.Szabo]

Yep. That's a link alright. If it was a snake....

I thank you Mr.Manolin for providing it, as I had lost it awhile ago.

Yeah, its a stalling game alright, clearly intended to test the resolve (and budget) of Mr.Heinrichs, hoping one or the other runs out before They actually have to produce that which is required by Ohio law. I especially loved the tactic of insisting that a ruling that They are required to obey the law before They obey the law. In their lawyers' world this is probably very clever (a take on Seinfield's "A Show About Nothing!" shtick), but is seems simply ludicrous to me.

It sure appears to be "back against the wall, circle the wagons" time in the Registry Board room.

The thing that makes this a workable tactic is that the Members haven't a clue what is going on, and of course, this is no accident. The only dissemination is disinformation, mostly the fear-mongering hysteria that the plaintiff is only after everybody's cars, a bit of slander I find particularly odious. But this is the usual level of dialog afforded those who dare to ask questions.

[bbspdstr]

Speaking of updates, has anyone heard any more about the rumored audit of the Registry? First, it was rumored to be an idea from Porsche to help solve or settle the lawsuit, then it was presented by George Dunn as a trustee concept...but either or both ways, long overdue.
I have also heard that it will be the first true independent audit in the history of the Registry.
A little hard to believe, but I have not heard of one in my years in the organization.

[Bill Sampson]

[quote="S.J.Szabo" post=7010]A very nice post, tho I wonder if it would be possible to associate some links to the items.

Steve:

Did you try the technique I posted yesterday? If it didn't work, send me a private email and I'll try to explain better. Or, you could even use that antique instrument, the telephone. I have set things up, as could anyone interested, so that I receive email notifications of new filings in the case.

Bill

[JTR70]

This thread was moved to the open topic catagory on S.J.'s recomendation as a more appropriate fit since you guys really won't be discussing the 356 automobile itself. Hope thats alright by everyone. Justin

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Sampson:

Addressing your (misplaced? admittedly, you were just following my original mis-step) post regarding the lawsuit costs, I bow to your clearer view of the real-life mechanics. Its a pity that the Members' dues are being squandered to fight compliance with Ohio law in this way.

And as the counter-suit demonstrates (if the discovery refusal was not enough), They're spending it like its not Their dough. No one would ever spend their own money on such trumped-up baloney.

Its clear that there's no real plan for them; just obfuscation and obstruction. Reminds me of Zorro fencing with Sgt.Garcia; a lot of noise and waving of sword, but his eyes are closed. Meanwhile, Their lawyers are rubbing their hands together while they obligingly riff on their ravings. Ya can't buy seats to a Comic Opera like this.

[Bill Sampson]

Steve:

I may have mis-posted as you suggest. Anyway, over on the Radio Free Registry thread I posted some comments about what the counter-claim involved. My best estimate of what the Registry deductible that they paid is $10,000. The rest of this MIGHT be a free ride, although it would not surprise me if the insurance carrier(s) have submitted some form of a "reservation of rights" letter. That's a term of art in the business referring to a carrier agreeing to engage in some activity (for example defending the Registry) without prejudice to its right to seek recovery for its costs if it turns out that, for example, there was actually no coverage for the acts or omissions for which the carrier provided a defense. I EMPHASIZE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE I AM ONLY HIGHLIGHTING POSSIBLE ISSUES AND DO NOT KNOW OR EXPRESS AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THEY EXIST IN THIS INSTANCE. THE ISSUES, HOWEVER, ARE QUITE COMMON IN THIS LINE OF WORK.

And, hey Justin, THANK YOU for furnishing this "space." If this post should be in the other thread please feel free to move it.

Inimical Bill

[S.J.Szabo]

I would have thought that the Club insurance would only cover suits that would arise from Club events, but I'm still learning here.

I should think that anyone that sold insurance against crappy management would quickly go belly-up in these United States.

Too bad about the "free ride" possibility... I would love to hear the Trustys explain why they have to cut the magazine to pay for the exercise of refusing to follow Ohio law.

[Bill Sampson]

I believe that the trusties have a Directors and Officers policy, pretty common coverage, which does provide coverage according to the policy terms (I will NOT read an insurance policy) for acts/omissions as directors or officers. The club probably has a commercial general liability policy which might also provide coverage although in a case such as this I would not be surprised to learn there are coverage issues. There are people who specialize in insurance coverage issues. Not my cup of tea.

I guess the point is that the carrier(s) is/are defending. I have no knowledge as to whether they are paying for the prosecution of the counter-claim but my GUESS is that they are on the theory it is a "defensive" measure.

[S.J.Szabo]

Its too bad that neither speaks fluent insurance. I should think an understanding of the applicable policies would provide a framework of predictability of Their strategy. But then, I remember who we're talking about here (and have seen the evidence of Their moves thus far) and I realize that the point is moot; there is no strategy beyond spin, bluff, and flailing about like nerds in a dodgeball game.

[bbspdstr]

Well, I'm not happy. I was hoping more people would participate...that would CARE about the Registry enough to take part one way or another.
It's obvious that the Registry's main problem is apathy. Always was, always will be. It takes a long time to get things stirred-up, no time at all to have things die-down.

Let me try this: "regular" dissidents, hold back for now.....Why did Steve Heinrichs feel the need to start a lawsuit over dissatisfaction with the Registry?

Opinions, anyone? 500+ hits here...there must be a few of those hits coming from other than the trustees!