Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Losthillsguy]

Yes, all avoidable. I posted this a while back but I think it bears repeating.

In Brian's World...

Steve, "Hey George, can I see the most recent yearly financial record?"

George, "Sure, I'll get those off in the mail to you ASAP. Anything else you need while I'm at it?

Steve, "Well yes, I was wondering how the last trustee meeting went. Could I get a copy of the minutes as well?"

George, "No problem, and I'll also send over the agenda for the next meeting while I'm at it."

Steve, " Thanks a million George. See you at the next Holiday!"

George, "Will do, and don't forget to take a look at the Club Business and Candidates Forums, some of what you wanted is being discussed there. Take care and we'll see you soon."

[bobforman]

I agree that it is a shame so much effort, time and money are expended in this venture, but think of a system where there is no redress. In this case both sides believe right is on their side and eventually....eventually there will be a decision after which we will all be able to go on about our business and either celebrate a victory or lick our wounds.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[bbspdstr]

In Brian's World...

Steve, "Hey George, can I see the most recent yearly financial record?"

George, "Sure, I'll get those off in the mail to you ASAP. Anything else you need while I'm at it?

George, "Will do, and don't forget to take a look at the Club Business and Candidates Forums, some of what you wanted is being discussed there. Take care and we'll see you soon."

Brian, what a great distillation! It should be this easy....and why isn't it? If the 'sides' have good points and bad points ...negotiate in good faith and without obstruction. Why are we 'talking' about all this here, thanks to Justin?

It's been said ad infinitum and ad nauseum that "It's a CAR CLUB, and it's supposed to be FUN!!!" One would think the leadership would insure this to ALL members with personal concern, tact and negotiation, not ignoring, deflecting, berating and now delaying legal procedures while threatening appeal to (a) Supreme Court? Of what? Why?

It's members in a car club (current or now past) asking questions of other members (eight) who hold all the cards...press and Internet...and a power only challenged by a lawsuit brought by one person who is willing to afford that challenge on behalf of any members who care as much as he does about a car club. Why? Really...think about that...that's a really important question, 'cause the trustees are covered by a million dollar D&O insurance policy.

What's this really all about? Really? Poor attention to filing of government required forms? Disagreements to open (free 'trial') Internet R-site Forum participation? The resultant 'firing' of dedicated volunteers? Questioning the choice of airline seating or whether steak or hamburger was eaten while on the treasury's tab? That someone wanted to "see the books" and was told to "pound sand up his...."? That a trustee commented that someone shouldn't "let the doorknob hit them on their ass on the way out"? That the club had too much money and then too little money and dues had to be raised with the alluded cost of the lawsuit influencing that.

Horsehockey.

I saw some of this coming when the House Rules (bylaws amendments of a few years ago)gave more power and protection to the trustees. Why was THAT needed? I liked the "no redress" comment earlier here. Up there with "send something to the president, as only he will consider an answer- DO NOT ask questions openly about club anything other than shock, tires, brakes, etc.".....but since the House Directive of "one voice," they are sworn to unanimity...and now, silence.

If it's about a few alleged burrs under a certain blanket, perhaps it's the blanket that needs changing if the courts finally find the main (alleged) burr deserving of his particular questions being answered.

Meanwhile, the more mud this is all dragged through, the worse it looks for the club, the members and Porsche...at least in comparison to Brian's world's view.

[Bill Sampson]

Those interested should know that the Trustees filed yesterday (6/26/2013) their response to the motion filed on behalf of Steve Heinrichs and the membership in the TRIAL court to compel the Trustees to comply with the earlier order issued by that same court for production of Registry records. The Trustees' response, distilled, claims the trial court does not have jurisdiction to hear the pending motion since the case is on appeal. The Trustees therefore are claiming they need not comply with the earlier court order requiring production of those documents. The entire response is public record and readily available to anyone who wishes to review it.


Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

The Trustees also "forgot" to attach an exhibit to the memorandum contra that they filed June 26, 2013 in the trial court. They filed that exhibit, apparently tardily, on June 28, 2013. That exhibit consists of an emailed threat to Steve's attorney to appeal to the Supreme Court if the Trustees decide they want some more rulings from some more judges/justices because they are unhappy with the trial judge's rulings or the appellate court's rulings. That's their right. Decide for yourself whether it's right.

[Bill Sampson]

On June 29, 2013, Steve filed his reply (in the trial court) to the Trustees' memo opposing Steve's motion to have the Trustees' sanctioned and held in contempt for their continued refusal to meet their discovery obligations. The next step will be for the trial court to rule on Steve's motion.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[jstenner]

----

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

If anyone wants to see what was filed prior to the image being up on the Ohio site, send me an email and I will forward to you.

Steve Heinrichs
RStephen356@aol.com

[Bill Sampson]

For those interested Steve's brief is now posted on the court web site. If you are interested but do not wish to wade through the entire document I'd suggest reading through the section entitled "ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR AND ISSUES FOR REVIEW" on page 2. It is a summary of what Steve believes the issues presented by the Trustees' appeal are. Naturally analysis follows in Steve's brief.

The court web site states that the Trustees' reply brief is due on July 22, 2013. Whether the matter will be set for oral argument thereafter or determined on the briefs I do not know, but, it would appear that an appellate decision will not occur before July 22. The trustees have threatened an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court if they disagree with the court of appeal decision. Stay tuned.

[Losthillsguy]

Bill. Thanks for reviewing the documents and giving us some insight.