Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Steve Heinrichs]

There is a link at 11969 as to the federal litigation.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

There is a link at 11969 as to the federal litigation.

Steve Heinrichs

Here is that federal complaint, attached, as it was in message #11969. This might be easier for some to find.

Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[S.J.Szabo]

[S.J.Szabo]

C J Murray
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:49 pm


A simple action against the club would get him the maximum examination of the records allowed by law.


How refreshingly candid of Mr.Murray to admit that while it would still take a lawsuit for a Member to exercise his legal rights, the judgment would certainly go against the Club.

He has surely earned the award for Most Unlikely Source of Truth

[S.J.Szabo]

<Edited by author for accuracy, 6Oct

[Bill Sampson]

C J Murray
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update
PostPosted: Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:49 pm


A simple action against the club would get him the maximum examination of the records allowed by law.


How refreshingly candid of Mr.Murray to admit that while it would still take a lawsuit for a Member to exercise his legal rights, the judgment would certainly go against the Club.

He has surely earned the award for Most Unlikely Source of Truth

Reminds me of a very old saying, purportedly an idiom from the Ozarks from when farmers let their animals run free: "even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while."

[Bill Sampson]

From the Registry site:
ray nelson
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit
Update Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:13 am

Also looking clearly at the facts as stated in the lawsuit, my appraisal is that this goes well beyond merely a "damages" lawsuit or guilty party and likely enters the realm of vendetta. Case in point, why enter Gordon Maltby, Mary Skamser, Karen Campbell or anyone else not a Trustee into this mess?

[The balance of the post is on the R forum]

I was asked (not by any party to the litigationb but by a contributor to this forum) to comment on this posting from the Registry site, because of my alleged legal acumen, which I admit is limited in cases of this type. For example, I have never participated on either side in a RICO claim nor federal mail/wire fraud claim.

As for the quoted material, I do not know why, after consultation with counsel, Steve Heinrichs included those individuals as defendants other than what is in the four corners of the pleading. The pleading appears to be correct in that the officers/directors certainly owe members a fiduciary duty. Steve alleges they breached their duties. I will speculate that after reviewing the facts that counsel and Steve concluded that all officers/directors should be named. I KNOW from personal experience that defense counsel, if such a tactic is made available to her/him, will ALWAYS, if there is any factual basis at all, point to the "empty chair" of the participant who is not named as a defendant and say: "It wasn't my client, it was that guy/gal." Woe be it to plaintiff's counsel who leaves out a potentially responsible/liable defendant.

This morning I googled, for the first time, Steve's lawyer and her firm. I found it interesting that on its web page it highlights its experience and expertise (truly impressive incidentally) in the field of Directors and Officers Liability. You might be interested to learn that this web page [http://www.baileycavalieri.com/director_and_officer_liability.html] focuses almost entirely on the firm's expertise in DEFENSE of directors and officers. I would conclude that Ms. Miller did not lightly include all of the officers, although I have never had any communication with her nor do I anticipate any.

Paragraph 40 of the federal complaint is particularly troubling to me (IF AND ONLY IF the allegations are proven) in that the September, 2012, meeting with members is alleged in fact to have been a set-up. IF the allegations are true, the vendetta was clearly directed the opposite way from that suggested by Mr. Nelson. Time will tell what proof there is. A judge or a jury will make the decision based upon the facts proved. I would expect either, based on my own 38 years personal experience, to be conscientious in their duties.

IF AND ONLY IF the allegations of the federal complaint are proved will the asserted bases of liability result in damages. The bulk of the complaint appears to me to be directed toward Steve's membership rights being honored. Your conclusions in that regard may reasonably differ, but that is mine.

Any opinions here are solely mine. I'm highly susceptible to reasonable persuasion they are incorrect. If I've messed up the facts please let me know.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Carrera GT]

<Edited by author for accuracy, 6Oct

The above by S.J. Szabo is an excellent "On Point" Summary of the factual information.

1) In the First suit, that he, Mr.Heinrichs, is doing this on behalf himself AND the entire 356 Registry Club Membership.

And as he simply puts "to compel the Trustees, via the Club, to OBEY the laws of Ohio". This is the State where the not-for-profit 356 Registry Club was legally formed - for the ALL the Members.

2) In the Second suit, Mr. Heinrichs himself, is suing the Trustees/Officers for their woeful misconduct as a result of having filed the first suit. This is a civil action matter and does not involve the the 356 Registry Members whatsoever.

The chosen mis-information being distributed by the 356 Registry Trustees only leads to the Registry Members current confusion in how to accurately understand and respond. They are thinking and writing with no factual background information which only causes emotional reaction and rhetoric. Another sign of the current Trustees "woeful misconduct".

The time now has come for the Trustees to provide the ALL Books and Record information to the Ohio Court that was ruled on and entered by the Ohio Justices. And that's not the hand picked, sanitized bits and pieces they showed to the Members before.

In the short and long run, the 356 Registry will be all the better for honesty, full disclosure, and done in a fiduciary manner for the Members and their rights.

Michael Doyle

ps: I welcome any corrections to my outline above. Thank you.

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

First, I do not intend to respond to personal attacks coming from those posting on the Registry Forum. That said, focusing on facts and not personalities would be a lot more helpful.

Second, as readers here know, I have tried a number of times to seek compromises...all to no avail.

Third, to clarify a coupleof facts: Mary Skamser and Gordon Maltby are officers of the Registry by dent of their titles. "You can look it up" as someone said long ago. One of Gordon's companies has a contract with the Registry for the provision of Member Services. In that capacity, the company collects dues and maintains member information.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Alex Mestas posted on the R forum (this only part, the entire post was quoted in another message):

"Has the idea of starting a defense fund for the Registry been considered by the trustee's? With 7k registry members donating $10.00 each, it would help our Registry fund the insurance deductible per action. . . . . "

Members have already been asked to "donate" $10.00 each per year by means of a dues increase, although this would appear to be the product of the stated desire of the Trustees (so far fulfilled) to lose money over the last several years. My wife DID make that donation.

"The only thing I fear is that the insurance company direct litigation, so they can settle anytime they want, and they will always try and mitigate their potential liability."

Mr. Mestas should have no fear. Almost all errors and omissions policies and/or directors and officers policies have a consent provision. The insurance company may not settle the case without the consent of the insured, in this case the Registry. Any member may wish to verify with the Trustees whether or not that is the case in this instance - I believe they will learn that it is. The Trustees could have settled the state court case at any time and thus far have not.

"What's right or ethical usually doesn't matter. If enough money is spent the insurance company will fold and settle. That's today's civil justice."

This has been said, many times, many ways. Here's another by Mick Jagger: "Just as every cop is a criminal, And all the sinners saints." I happen to not agree completely with either Jagger or Mestas, soul mates in this instance anyway. You're free to decide either way - we all are.

Make your own choices, but, lawsuits do have a way of exposing facts. Let's wait for those. Right now, no one other than Mr. Heinrichs on the one hand and the Registry Officers/Trustees knows any of those.

[Bill Sampson]

Here's an all too rare bit of sanity from the Registry forum. I hope readers of this message agree with Mr. Guthrie. I do.

Christian Guthrie
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update
PostPosted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:46 am

I find it amusing how so many people can take a hard stance on one side without knowing all of the facts. As with all large organizations, there is always more than meets the eye with things running in the background that only a few are privy to. Even if someone has unlimited resources, few have the time to pursue something frivolous. Innocent until proven guilty applies to all parties involved.

[356JAGER]

DELETED