Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

The reply brief filed by Heinrichs is now available on the court web site

[356JAGER]

And now a moment of levity in the proceedings. I heard this was a trustee training video....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ILPl5FQaM

Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

The Registry has filed its opposition to the motion of Heinrichs to supplement the record with further evidence of his affliction with cancer. The Registry's lawyer continues to suggest that Heinrichs is faking this dread disease. He is not.

[356JAGER]

[Bill Sampson]

Heinrichs has now filed his reply to the memo filed by the Registry suggesting Steve's cancer is faked. It is on the court web site in the usual location.

[EDITORIAL REMARK] I concur Joel. I used to think that there were some things even clients like the Registry and lawyers like Chieffo would not do. I was sadly mistaken.

[356JAGER]

I only hope someday we'll find out what it is that's driving all the hugely costly, monetarily and otherwise, resistance to showing a member the records,
ALL the records, since they belong to ALL the members. The other stuff about
Steve's illness is not really worthy of anything but contempt. For some there
is no bottom. Likely a big part of why it all got to here.
Cheers,
Joel

Here's a reminder of what this is all supposed to be about.

Ponies

[Bill Sampson]

Heinrichs's motion to supplement the record on appeal with his medical records submitted in camera [that is showed only to the judge] to the trial court has been granted by the appellate court "to the extent the record shall be supplemented with said documents [the medical records] for the limited purpose of allowing this court to determine whether these documents are properly part of the record at such time as it addresses the merits of this appeal."

The quote minus the bracketed portions is from the court's ruling.

[bbspdstr]

Time to post another note to that saga yet 'over.'

If I had Sebastien Gaeta's email, I would have sent a note directly, but on the R-site (to which I was recently referred) he posted this on the 'lawsuit' sticky about that suit 'being over':

"Good lord, who knows. I had actually forgotten all about this silliness. Jeez Vic, it's all your fault from what I hear. If you and the other trustees had just caved in to all of the threats/demands/whatever from 7 or 8 malcontents, we wouldn't even be having this conversation "

"Threats"?..."Demands"? It was a car club and supposedly still is. What's off-base for a member to know? Especially if it was a member who really cared about the Registry.

That sarcastic bullshit is reversed, Sebastion of the Registry. Sincere questions were turned around into "accusations and attacks."

Be careful of what you term "silly."

If the trustees were more polite and responsive and honest with ALL members with questions and requests for ALL information pertaining to ALL of the Registry's business, we wouldn't be having THIS conversation......here or anywhere. No legal issues, no disgruntled (now former) supporters like me. (please see Joel's comments from more than a month ago.)

Malcontented, still,
Bruce Baker, ex-66, ex-154, ex'd off in general

[S.J.Szabo]

Sing a Song of Sixpence, Pocket Full of Lie356 Registry Lawsuit is Concluded

[Carrera_The_Kid]

What is the status of the suit? I have not heard anything recently both here and on the registry

[Bill Sampson]

What is the status of the suit? I have not heard anything recently both here and on the registry

Carrera:

The Registry site and the magazine falsely reported, by President Dunn, many months ago, that the case was concluded when clearly it was not. I suspect that may be why you ask here, particularly since the last questions on the subject on the Registry site were all ignored by the trustees and the officers. I'll be happy to report the truth here.

The case is on appeal before the tenth district court of appeal for the state of Ohio. The case was argued on or about November 18, 2015. There has been no activity since then according to the court web site. The parties await the court's decision. My bias is obvious and I won't belabor it, but, I will not misstate the facts of what happened - I hope you find that a refreshing change from what the Registry officers and trustees and their chorus report. You may review the actual court documentation at the court clerk's web site by following the search and other instructions there. http://clerk.franklincountyohio.gov/cio.cfm

When I learn of the appellate court ruling I'll post a summary here. Feel free to share that summary with Registry members.

[Bill Sampson]

On June 28, 2016, the appellate court issued its decision. It reversed the trial court judgments in part and affirmed others in part. The matter was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the decision.

Heinrichs sought reversal of the trial court's ruling that he was not entitled to review contracts between the Registry and other entities (one example being that between publisher Maltby and/or his controlled corporation(s) and the Registry). Recall that the initial complaint sought only books and records. The appellate court has now ruled in Heinrichs's favor that the books and records, including contracts, must be shared with members. The Registry trustees to this day have resisted sharing such information.

Heinrichs lost his appeal on three other issues, which I will briefly characterize as the contempt issues. These issues arose after the trial court had ruled that Heinrichs was entitled to the Registry's records. The Registry contended and the trial and appellate courts have now ruled that Heinrichs's use of the records after he received some of them as ordered by the trial court was improper. The appellate court sustained the finding of the trial court that Heinrichs and his attorney were properly held in contempt by the trial court with substantial monetary sanctions (as reviewed here previously) imposed.

The trustees might choose to seek a hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court that they do not have to permit review of contracts. Heinrichs might choose to seek a hearing before the Ohio Supreme Court that the contempt findings are in error.

I don't know the time limits to seek review before the Ohio Supreme Court. It is also conceivable that either party could seek a rehearing before the appellate court or even request review by all the justices of the appellate court instead of the three jurist panel that decided the appeal. I am sure that other options may be available but those are the more common. Both parties could also decide not to pursue the matter further. Or, they could settle.

My summary of the appellate decision is intentionally brief. You may read it at the court's web site for full details and may, naturally, draw conclusions as you wish.

[Bill Sampson]

Since plaintiff Steve Heinrichs passed away earlier this month (September, 2016) the litigation most likely truly concluded on August 24, 2016. The reader may recall that then Registry President George Dunn lied about the case ending back in May, 2015, when it remained very much in issue.

This will most likely be my last update on the litigation so I will review what occurred.

Steve Heinrichs filed suit against 356 Registry, Inc., an Ohio corporation on October 1, 2012. That suit named only that corporation and none of its officers or trustees. It sought complete disclosure by that corporation of books and records. The trial court granted disclosure as to many of the records but denied access to others, including contracts with the publisher, which receives about 80% of the club's revenue. Heinrichs appealed the denial and the Registry fought, as it has throughout its history and all the way through the appeal, to avoid disclosure of the books and records. The final judgment in the suit granted Heinrichs everything he sought as to those books and records and members now have the right to review those books and records thanks to his tireless efforts. To my knowledge the Registry has not complied with that judgment and has given no indication that it plans to do so.

The officers and trustees, shortly after the initial suit was filed, chose to file a personal suit against Heinrichs. That suit was utterly without merit and after a considerable period of time was dismissed. Likewise Heinrichs amended his original complaint against the Registry (only the corporation once again) and sought reinstatement as a member as well as damages. The trial court ruled that Heinrichs had been wrongfully expelled by the Registry but appropriately left the matter of damages for proof at trial. Due to his terminal illness, which the Registry and its lawyer claimed up to his death was somehow being faked, Heinrichs dismissed all claims in his amended suit other than the original claims he and all members are entitled to all books and records.

Heinrichs also filed, in a federal court, a "RICO" claim which responded in kind to the personal attacks commenced on him originally by the officers and directors of the Registry. The RICO claim was dismissed on motion on procedural grounds and Heinrichs did not appeal. There was no determination of the RICO claim on the merits.

In the original state court case the Registry was forced by the court, over its lengthy and expensive objections and dilatory tactics, to produce some records as part of the discovery process. The courts held that Steve was not entitled to use records obtained in discovery for the purposes for which he used them and fined him $50,000 which was paid to the Registry's insurance carriers. Steve was also fined $1,000 for not appearing at a court conference at which no one testified and at which he would not have been expected to testify. That fine was based upon the "faked illness" claims so cravenly pressed by George Dunn and the cabal about him.

NO ONE on either side in any case was ever sworn in court as a witness, a completely normal aspect of any case prior to trial. No trial was ever had in the original case as the Registry's claims that it was not required to produce books and records were found both at the trial and appellate levels to be without factual or legal merit. Heinrichs and all members are entitled to review the Registry's books and records in their entirety - as determined by the trial and appellate courts over the Registry's strenuous and doubtless continuing objections. In the next paragraph I'll simplify this to two words:

STEVE WON

Anyone who denies the above sentence is at best uninformed or more likely lying. Registry members reading this - feel free to request books, records, contracts and the like from the trustees if you wish to determine for yourself if they will honor their legal obligations. Production of those items would simply be the right thing to do, but, past experience would indicate that doing the right thing is not likely with that group.

Steve, a man of unquestioned integrity, poured his time and money into making the club better for all its members and should be praised by all members. Take time to remember and thank him when you think of him.

[John Hearn]

112

[213532]

????