Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

Simply for amusement I have noted that the trial court clerk transmitted the record on appeal to the appellate court on June 9, 2015. You cannot make the following up: As you can see from the attached copy the record consisted of, yes, wait for it, ------------------------------------------------------------precisely 356 originals or certified copies of the pleadings in the case.


Recordonappeal.pdf

[bbspdstr]

It must be contagious. A long time ago, in an earlier shop far, far away, one of my guys was visited weekly by his bookie. An independent, before the state became his competition. Or the Internet.

I was invited to play along, so I spent a dollar a week to play a number.

Guess which one. Yep, and I never 'won' a dollar back, either. I think I played along for at least 356 days, more or less.

I think a lot of people reading here can relate. We notice when there is 3:56 left in a game, when the number is seen anywhere for anything.

It's a sickness in which we can only hope for remission.

-Bruce, recovering very slowly since initial diagnosis in 1965.......

[Bill Sampson]

The following is copyrighted material. It may not be copied, disseminated or used in any fashion. Any such use is a violation of federal law. The only exception is that a link, only, to this post may be posted elsewhere. The material itself may not be copied, although the attachment, a public record, is exempt from copyright claims. Please direct requests to utilize this material directly to the author, Bill Sampson.

On June 17, 2015, Judge Richard S. Sheward of the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio ruled on the contempt motion. The trustees won this round, Steve Heinrichs lost it.

The court did not rule, one way or the other, on the trustees' attempt to have Mr. Heinrichs thrown in jail where he would doubtless have been sequestered from the chemotherapy and other medical treatment that the trustees and their lawyer specifically requested. Denial of such treatment, although I am not a doctor, would not likely have been beneficial to a man in a fight for his life. So, I suppose that could be considered a win, at least to those who view the rights to life and liberty as superior to the rights to mere property. I understand opinions differ, but, that is mine.

Heinrichs and his lawyer were found to be in contempt for sending the letter discussed previously and for failing to appear twice when ordered to do so. Additionallly there is a considerable amount of dicta in the court's ruling. Dicta is defined as: "Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court's opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. The plural of dictum." Regardless, the court "fined" according to its ruling, Steve Heinrichs and his lawyer $50,000 for the two failures cited in the first sentence of this paragraph.

The court also ordered Heinrichs and his attorney to return "all documents received in discovery" to Dominic Chieffo, the lawyer hired by the trustees.

The court left undisturbed, and actually mentions in its ruling on the contempt motion, the summary judgment rendered in favor of Mr. Heinrichs and the Registry members granting them the right to review corporate records (other than contracts such as that with the publisher, River Place Media, Inc.) on request.

Notice of appeal of the ruling on the contempt motion was filed by Heinrichs's lawyer on June 18, 2015.

I have attached the actual ruling. The above includes only my summary. If any of my summary is false or incorrect, please feel free to tell me, here, publicly if you wish, or privately as you prefer and I'll make any necessary correction or retraction or state why I believe that neither is necessary. As always, I will respond without personal insults and/or ad hominem attacks, even to those who render same to and about me and my family.

COPYRIGHT 2015 Bill Sampson


ADDENDUM: The ruling mentioned above is contained in a digital file that exceeds the size limit on such attachments imposed by the system administrator according to an error message I received when posting this message. The ruling is available on the Franklin County Court web site: http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/clerk/ where the reader may work his/her way through the site to locate the Heinrichs case. Links to that site have been posted here and in numerous other locations.

[Bill Sampson]

The following is copyrighted material. It may not be copied, disseminated or used in any fashion. Any such use is a violation of federal law. The only exception is that a link, only, to this post may be posted elsewhere. The material itself may not be copied, although the attachment, a public record, is exempt from copyright claims. Please direct requests to utilize this material directly to the author, Bill Sampson.

There are two appeals filed by Heinrichs now pending. The two have been consolidated so will be briefed and argued together. The first was as to the judgment and certain rulings before the contempt hearing and the second was filed as to the contempt ruling.

A court-ordered mediation conference was held on June 24. To my knowledge no progress toward a negotiated resolution was made.

Heinrichs's brief is due August 7. 356 Registry, Inc., will have time to file a reply brief and I would expect Heinrichs to file a response. Thereafter a decision (possibly after oral argument - I don't know in Ohio) will be rendered by the appellate court. I have no idea of the time likely to elapse before decision.

Stay tuned.

[neilbardsley]

May I ask why you are including this?

"The following is copyrighted material."

[bbspdstr]

Neil, I do not know if it's international or just in the US, but one's work is their own if so posted.

Bill can answer for himself, but my own assumption is that the announcement of ownership of intellectual property is more like holding up a mirror to a certain 356 'club' who claims ownership of ANY posting it receives through it's website, forum or magazine. Some of us who gave information from experience for years and years were happy to do so, even proud to have seen that accumulated into books, with credit, thank you, until it became difficult to see where the money generated by the sale of freely 'donated' information was being used, especially as that 356 focus group is a not-for-profit corporation with a tradition of opacity rather than full transparency in all of it's "business."

You may have heard of a lawsuit in this regard? While now a non-participant, I am still saddened that those of us who gave so much to that organization were labeled "attackers" and "accusers" for asking questions about the health (financial and otherwise) of 'our' group. My trust ebbed away from the title 'trustee.' But hey, "don't get me started"............

'G-day,
-Bruce Baker

[neilbardsley]

[quote="bbspdstr" post=28312]Neil, I do not know if it's international or just in the US, but one's work is their own if so posted."

Bruce, you have forgotten more about 356s than I know, but I find that remark quite condescending and unnecessary!

[Bill Sampson]

Hello Neil and Bruce:

I actually know very little about copyright - maybe that's an explanation for my inclusion of the notice. Another reason is that material I have written has been copied without my permission although it is my own. The last reason is that suggested by Bruce, a mirror of a magazine publisher. Finally, may I note that writers from Mark Twain to George Will copyright their material - I'm nowhere near Twain and lots better than Will but desire the protection for commentary made on events - as both of them did/do.

Neil:

I'll be happy to remove any condescending portions and would likewise be pleased to consider a re-write if you can suggest appropriate language.

Now, this thread is about the lawsuit - I'd prefer to keep it that way but that is not up to me.

Thanks.

[neilbardsley]

Bill,

I would just politely point out that this super forum is a great venue for exchange of information. Some, like Bruce are super providers. Some, like me are mostly consumers and occasionally can offer a tid bits. You are first one that I have noticed, on here, feeling that you have to protect your IP. Hopefully, others don't feel the need to follow your example or what happens next? The great discussion about 550 - 05 get deleted? I ask a question about how to fix my car and XXX says I could answer that but it will cost you $x. I'm sure someone with more IP knowledge than me will charge this but if you post something on a open forum like this you have to assume it now out in the www domain.

Perhaps Bruce's remark came across wrong but it was the I don't know about you Internationals but here in the US Of A we ... For goodness sake we are all driving strange International cars!

Anyway that is enough from me and I will not interrupt this thread any longer.

[bbspdstr]

[quote="neilbardsley" post=28313]

Neil, I do not know if it's international or just in the US, but one's work is their own if so posted."

Bruce, you have forgotten more about 356s than I know, but I find that remark quite condescending and unnecessary!

But I will interrupt with what to me is a very important point. Neil, I was stating what I DO NOT know and in no way was denigrating anyone anywhere. I try to allow the same "I can't know everything and may be incorrect" in my sharing of 356 experience as well. What is exemplified here is the main problem with forums everywhere, the "email filter system of mistaken interpretations".....and maybe I should copywrite that descriptive phrase?

In any case, Bill, you have the floor...and thank you both.

-Bruce (who went to school with a young woman, Barbara Berschler, who has became one of the more prominent IP legal minds in practice for that specialty today.)

[356JAGER]

And I thought Bill was simply poking fun at the Registry's policy of claiming ownership of anything posited on any of their venues. Sometimes being a latecomer to a subject leaves one uninformed as to the details. I am certain that no one's comment was meant as disparaging to other nationalities, simply a statement of fact as to the realities of such matters in the USA.
Cheers to all,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

Permission to use the material will most likely be freely given if you ask me. I'll work on a kinder/gentler notice when I have a little more time.

Thanks

[Jonesy_356]

"Bruce, you have forgotten more about 356s than I know, but I find that remark quite condescending and unnecessary!"

For the record, as in 'international' I did not interpret the comment referred to above as either condescending or unnecessary. I interpreted it as a declaration of a reasonable limit on understanding how other countries viewed the very vexing problem of IP - made even worse by the ever increasing phenomenon of social media.

Think I'll just keep ignoring this whole thing, it seems very sad and unnecessary. I only did some poking because I recently received a certain club magazine.

Am I allowed to sign off with 'KTF' or is that copyright?

[356JAGER]

It seems a 65 page 'brief' has been filed in the appeals case of this ongoing saga, referred to on the R's site as 'The Completed Lawsuit'. Since the R's insurers allegedly dropped them following the 'completion' of the suit, members might want to know who is now funding the appeals process on their behalf. It would seem to defy logic that the 'new' insurer, if one exists, would pick up the tab on an already existing suit. Gotta be expensive and one wonders how much longer the 'club' can sustain it's legal costs and it's obligations to it's members/subscribers. The road is long and winding. Stay tuned.

[Bill Sampson]

Appellant's (Steve Heinrichs's) brief was filed on August 7, 2015 and the pdf version is now available online at the court web site. I'm sure many of you chuckle at the description of a 65 page document as "brief." The brief was prepared by Steve's advocate and naturally and appropriately argues his position. However, the narrative timeline at the commencement of the brief, since it is a factual recitation of what actually occurred during the litigation, is necessarily mostly neutral.

Of note is the timing of what the trustees and their sycophants uniformly call an ego-driven personal battle. As accurately stated in the brief the initial complaint was simply against a corporation (356 Registry, Inc.) to resolve a dispute where the corporation, acting through its trustees, refused to permit Heinrichs and other members to review records to which members are lawfully entitled. Approximately 30 days later the leaders of that corporation DID choose to make the battle personal (due to the challenge to their egos?) by filing their own suit against Heinrichs seeking unlimited compensatory and punitive damages against him personally. They also threw him out of the club. He correspondingly amended his original complaint to seek damages against the corporation. The trustees' suit against Heinrichs as well as the two additional counts filed by Heinrichs were both pending for well over two years until first the trustees, without ever presenting any evidence, dismissed their suit and two months later Heinrichs dismissed the "damages" portion brought forth in his amendment. Note that the court had, by then, conclusively ruled in Heinrichs's favor on his entire original complaint and further, on his amendment, that the trustees had wrongfully expelled him from the club.

That's enough from me. The brief can be read online at the court web site. The corporation's brief will be filed according to the time provided by Ohio law and should be compared. Obviously it will advocate the trustees' point of view. Despite publications by the president, the editor and others to the contrary, the case is not over. Thereafter Heinrichs may have the right to file a reply brief. His counsel has requested oral argument - if that request is granted the hearing would be after all briefs have been filed.

The foregoing is copyrighted material submitted by Bill Sampson. Please contact me for permission (most likely cheerfully granted) before using any of it.