Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Losthillsguy]

[quote="Steve Heinrichs" post=7635]Guys,

While I will not comment on them, there were filings today which should get posted on the Ohio site tomorrow, if you are interested.

Steve Heinrichs

Hey Bill, I'm sure you looked, did you find anything new posted on the Ohio Court website?

Awaiting your analysis.

Brian O'Kelly b.okelly@yahoo.com

[Bill Sampson]

Hey Bill, I'm sure you looked, did you find anything new posted on the Ohio Court website?

Awaiting your analysis.

Brian O'Kelly

Brian:

I'll do the best I can with the "quote" feature here. I am NOT adept at its use.

The case is in a somewhat normal "procedural jousting" stage complicated somewhat by the Registry's failure to file its motion to stay in the trial court. The Registry's lawyer apparently contends that that failure was due to the court clerk not filing it. Who knows.

There have been no trial court filings since last Thursday when that court denied as moot the Registry's renewed motion to stay the discovery order. The trial court denied the motion since the trial court judge was of the opinion that the appellate court has sole jurisdiction of the matter for the moment.

On May 20 the Registry renewed its motion to stay in the appellate court. That motion is substantially identical to its "contingent" motion to stay previously denied in the appellate court. Likewise on May 20 Steve H filed his opposition to that motion.

On May 21 the Registry filed its opposition to Steve's motion to dismiss the appeal. Steve's motion to dismiss the appeal, generally speaking on the grounds that the discovery order at issue in the above is not an appealable order, was filed May 8.

The Court of Appeal has not ruled yet, either on the Registry's renewed motion to stay discovery nor on Steve's motion to dismiss the appeal. Steve still has the right to file a reply as to the motion to dismiss and the Registry still has the right to file a reply as to the motion to stay. My one opinion that I feel qualified to give is that the issues on both motions have been fully briefed.

I now present, further down, an unqualified opinion, and bear in mind that I am biased in this matter as I believe Steve's positions are sound and I got thrown out of the club for asserting the same positions as Steve did, but quite a few months earlier.

While the appeal is pending the Court of Appeal has ordered the parties to participate in a telephonic appellate mediation conference at 9:30 a.m. on May 28, 2013. The issues that the parties must be prepared to discuss are: 1.)Resolution of procedural issues in the case; 2.)Clarification of the issues on appeal; 3.)Full or complete resolution of the entire case. The lawyers participate in the conference but must have their clients available by phone to likewise participate. Such conferences are common in courts throughout the country.

My unqualified opinion: courts REALLY like to have cases resolved with the parties agreeing to a settlement. A successful settlement, as opposed to a judgment following a trial, generally leaves everyone mad or disappointed, BUT, they all get something. They then generally agree even with their adversaries that all the lawyers were jerks and overpaid, BUT everyone goes home with the matter fully resolved. It is my opinion therefore that it is likely that no rulings will be issued until after the conference. Courts like the parties to seriously consider that there are risks inherent in litigation. Like I said - not really a qualified opinion since I have never practiced in Ohio and don't intend to do so. I happen to concur with Steve's reading of the statute in question and very briefly contemplated seeking judicial review of the trustees' actions in refusing access to documents and decided to go surfing instead. I commend Steve for having the fortitude and expending the resources to confront head on the completely unjustified actions of the board.

Now, Brian, my friend, do you understand why I, a simple country lawyer, after writing just that, wish I had become a firefighter?

[bbspdstr]

For Robert....let's talk about points, OK? What happened to your .001 points with the phenolic block.....and those vercockta caps now with the terra cotta color? Geesh...

Seriously, this thread is for litigation updates and what I wrote above and you have written prior to this and any other posting NOT about the ongoing litigation belongs, I believe, in the other thread of 'Radio Free Registry.' We can view each others vented spleens over there and keep this thread for "news."

[S.J.Szabo]

Right you are, Mr.Baker.

So Mr."Bosch", please refer to Radio Free Registry for further reply to your posts.

We return you now to the regularly scheduled program.

[Dan997tt]

FYI:

"2/3 of the voters in the last election agreed with you. 1/3 disagreed in the strongest possible terms, meaning that fully 1/3 of the membership has no representation amongst current club "leadership."

From the Registry site:
Election results: 800 ballots cast (membership is noted to be some 8,000 members) , reportedly the largest participation ever.

[Bill Sampson]

Dan:

You (and I for that matter) are correct on the election results and the number of votes. My wife is still a member and feels that she and the 1/3 minority who supported the Open Foursome have no representation whatsoever amongst the club leaders. I agree with her, but, then I always do. Every movement starts small. Most of the residents of the colonies were against the radicals who signed the Declaration.


Best


Bill

[bbspdstr]

(Edit: I see Bill gave a reply while I was typing mine, but BOTH my typing fingers insist I post the following, anyway)

Dan, I'm sure that statement was meant to be "1/3 of the VOTING membership..." Good of you to point that out.

I would say that those who DON'T vote can't/won't/don't really care about representation. I would also say that the membership Big Round Number I've seen of late is 7k, but it varies. I doubt it would be wise for me to call Gordon's Mary for a true current membership number, but maybe you could. That question arose on the Registry Forum a while back and was locked without an exact answer.

(Maybe it would take too long to count the current membership if Mary keeps that on lined columnar paper...with a pencil. )

(Edit; Sorry for the sarcasm, but hey.....)

The membership number I'm protecting is #154, my own....so I need to watch where I step. (BTW, I was in the first 60-70 356ers who joined Jerry's club, then the numbers were changed by Bill Durland when he was volunteer Membership Chair to match zip codes or somesuch, thus my #154.)

Maybe that helps explain why I just won't 'go away'......I doubt any trustee other than Vic Skirmants has more time in the club than I do.....but I'd also bet that no prior trustee has more time as a trustee than the majority of those sitting now (Skirmants, Campbell, Garretson, Johnson) and I believe that's part of our 'problem.'

Please note; in the last election, it was smeared around that 'The Team of Four' was in the election process to gain an 'instant majority.' Instead, 2/3 of those who voted retained a 'perpetual majority'and 1/3 disagreed.

It shows the quoteable "landslide" statement by at least one trustee or a supporter of same was erroneous. Just some of us posting here and there are just a tad more...'outgoing'?

-Bruce Baker

[admin]

Speaking of fake names, anyone remember F A Glocker, now that guy spouted some silly stuff.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

. . . . . Please note; in the last election, it was smeared around that 'The Team of Four' was in the election process to gain an 'instant majority.' Instead, 2/3 of those who voted retained a 'perpetual majority'and 1/3 disagreed. . . . . .
-Bruce Baker

One quibble Bruce. The Trustees operate not as a perpetual majority but in perpetual unanimity. By design they make the Stepford Wives look wild and diverse. Even minor disagreements are not tolerated, from members, fellow trustees, anyone. And they're proud of it. They remind me of the statement attributed to Mencken: "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." It's an in-House credo.

[admin]

Sorry Joel, there is only one me, Adam Wright, or Unobtanium-Inc on every board. As far as what F A Glocker has in his backside, I have no idea, nor really want to know.
I am just trying to figure out the double standard of bashing guys like Robert Bosch on this board for speaking his mind when others would use an alias like F A Glocker to speak their thoughts without using their real name. Like Alanis said,
"And isn't it ironic....don't ya think."

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

Since Brian, at least, is an Inquiring Mind and DID inquire yesterday or the day before, the latest from the Franklin County Clerk Court website is that the trustees today filed a motion for extension of time to file their appellate brief. The motion has not yet been scanned so I don't know the claimed grounds for the requested extra time.

[Losthillsguy]

[quote="Bill Sampson" post=7706]Now, Brian, my friend, do you understand why I, a simple country lawyer, after writing just that, wish I had become a firefighter?

Did the Star Ship Enterprise have a lawyer on board?

Being a fireman for a large California FD is a fun gig for the right person, although the risk reward might be better for a lawyer.

It takes a lot of patience being involved in a lawsuit, or following one. Thanks for keeping us updated.