Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

Did the Star Ship Enterprise have a lawyer on board?

If it did the lawyer was present solely in the event of an emergency crash landing. Since we have no useful skills we are ordinarily the first ones eaten when the party runs out of food. Glad to help out.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

I responded to a litigation related item on the Radio Free thread sometime ago and violated my own self-imposed rule against posting...so I am posting here as well.

Sometimes, it is essential to just state the facts. The latest notion that the litigation is about "perks" is untrue as are the prior allegations as to: selling books, selling other stuff, sending junk mail, and, the prior one---getting car information. They all represent designed and, sadly, effective diversions from the truth.

I urge you if you want to understand: read the public filings.

Steve Heinrichs

[Losthillsguy]

I lost track of how to access the legal docs, here is a new summary. If you have trouble with the instructions please let me know and we can improve them.

http://porsche356abcgt.com/forum/13-Open-Topic-Forum/7892-How-to-access-the-356-Registry-law-suit-documents.html

[Bill Sampson]

Two recent filings might be of interest - both in the appellate case. The Trustees filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss the appeal on May 21 (it's called Memo Contra on the court web site). Steve Heinrichs filed the motion to dismiss the appeal as part of his case brought on behalf of himself and the membership. Steve filed his reply memo (same name on court web site) on May 24.

Today (May 28, 2013) the parties were ordered to attend a Telephonic Appellate Mediation Conference at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Only the parties' respective attorneys were required to appear (by telephone) but both parties were ordered to be available by telephone to their attorneys and the court. The parties were ordered that the representative by telephone have authority to discuss and possibly resolve all aspects of the case. Obviously Steve has that authority. I do not know which of the Trustees (if any) contesting his action (and suing him) has that authority. Such conferences can last only the scheduled hour or literally several days, depending upon whether the neutral mediator believes progress toward resolution can be made.

[Bill Sampson]

On May 28, 2013, the appellate court ordered that the motion of Steve Heinrichs to dismiss the appeal and the opposition of the trustees would be heard at the same time as the appeal itself. The court's ruling strikes me as unsurprising, if disappointing to those who wish a speedier resolution. At this point the plaintiff, Steve H is attempting to speed a resolution and the trustees are attempting to delay one. Roles can sometimes be reversed but at present that is what's happening. Today, 5/29/2013, for example, the trustees' motion to delay the deadline for filing its appellate brief was granted giving them until June 13, 2013 for that filing, otherwise due June 3, 2013. That will probably change the July 9 date in the next paragraph below, but there is no order on that yet.

The present briefing schedule calls for the last brief to be filed on July 9, 2013. I do not know when/if oral argument will take place nor when a decision of the appellate court will be rendered.

I am not privy to (nor should I be) settlement discussions, if any. Yesterday's (May 28, 2013) telephonic appellate mediation conference has not affected the proceedings thus far so I would conclude, based upon present knowledge, that no settlement has been achieved.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

Today's (6/3/2013) order by the appellate court denying the trustees' motion to stay means that the trustees must produce documents in accordance with the order of the trial court entered by that court on April 16, 2013 compelling the trustees to produce documents now ruled to have been properly sought by Steve Heinrichs within 14 days of the order. Instead the trustees filed an appeal on the 14th day and have sought stays of enforcement of that order ever since.

Left open by the trial court is the issue of the amount of expenses and attorney fees to be reimbursed by the trustees to Heinrichs for forcing Heinrichs to proceed by motion to obtain that to which the courts have ruled he is entitled during discovery. The amount will be determined, according to the trial court's ruling of 4/16/2013 upon motion by Heinrichs's lawyer following complete production of discovery by the trustees. That discovery was first sought by Heinrichs, completely legitimately according to every court ruling so far, in December, 2012.

Stay tuned.

[S.J.Szabo]

It kinda reinforces one's faith in The Law, tho the show is far from over at this point.

My crossed fingers and toes are getting cramped...

[Bill Sampson]

On Thursday, June 13, 2013, the due date, the Trustees filed their 29 page "brief." I have not read it yet. It is on the court web site as of today, June 14, 2013. It is always worthwhile (if you feel like reading it) with any brief to compare the recitation of facts in the brief with the facts actually introduced at the trial level. It is likewise sometimes of interest to compare what the parties claim that they and their adversary are seeking with what they are actually seeking as set out in their court filings. If you've read this far you're perfectly capable of reading the "brief" and drawing your own reasonable conclusions.

I'm going on a 356 camping trip of all things with the Porsche 356 Club here in SoCal for the weekend. If there is anything startling in the brief I'll try to bring it to your attention, for those interested, when I have time to read it Sunday or next week.

Have a good weekend everyone.

Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Losthillsguy]

I only read the first few pages and had to laugh... or cry.

Oct 1 Steve H requests documents.
Oct 3 The Registry kicks Steve H. out of the club.

Registry claims only a Member can request documents.

[Bill Sampson]

I only read the first few pages and had to laugh... or cry.

Oct 1 Steve H requests documents.
Oct 3 The Registry kicks Steve H. out of the club.

Registry claims only a Member can request documents.

Lewis Carroll would be proud

[Bill Sampson]

On June 17, 2013 plaintiff Steve Heinrichs filed his motion for a finding of contempt and for sanctions against the Trustees for their refusal to obey the court orders of the trial and appellate courts. The motion seeks monetary sanctions of $5000 in attorney fees for the work done by Steve's lawyer in attempting to have the Trustees comply with Ohio law and with previous court orders with regard to documents to be furnished by the Trustees during the (completely normal) discovery process. The motion also seeks dismissal of the Trustees counter-claim against Steve where the Trustees allege that Steve committed against the Trustees:1) Intentional Interference with Business Relations; 2)Commercial Defamation/Trade Libel; 3)Defamation, Libel, and Slander per se; 4)Defamation, Libel and Slander, per quod. In the prayer of the counter-claim the Trustees seek in excess of $25,000 in compensatory damages, in excess of $25,000 in punitive damages, "injunctive relief prohibiting publication of any further defamatory statements concerning 356 Registry, Inc. [the Trustees] by plaintiff [Steve Heinrichs]"

Discovery is a process designed to facilitate ascertainment of truth, enabling the parties to obtain, review and evaluate the evidence possessed by their adversaries. It is expensive and time-consuming and is made more so when parties refuse to divulge that which the law requires them to divulge. Steve has asserted that the law requires the trustees to divulge information, a position so far sustained by the courts, and the trustees have refused to provide any meaningful information at all and have, according to emails from their lawyers available as exhibits on the court web site, refused to turn over any documents until "after all appeals to the Courts of last resort are exhausted and the Order is NOT overturned." The Trustees are referring to the order of the trial court requiring them to turn over the documents they have refused to turn over. I would take "Courts of last resort" to mean - next, the Ohio Supreme Court and thereafter only the one higher, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back to the prayer of the counterclaim and the injunctive relief sought. The Trustees are asking a governmental entity to prohibit, in advance, free speech. First Amendment issues do arise. Prior restraint of speech is particularly suspect and is anathema to the rights guaranteed all citizens by the First Amendment. The relief sought by the Trustees seeks to prohibit ANY defamatory statements, therefore, even statements that might be defamatory but are true. Generally, TRUE statements, even where defamatory, are protected from libel/slander suits. Discovery, in a case where First Amendment issues are presented, as they have been by the Trustees, is particularly important to this free speech advocate - and yes, that is an editorial position by this writer for which I take full responsibility.

IF you are interested in the case and I assume you are if you have read this far, I urge you to review the court file at the court web site and to form your own conclusions. Obviously the parties and their respective lawyers disagree on what the law requires. So far the courts have ruled in Steve's favor. The emails from the Trustees' lawyers indicate they intend to continue to withhold evidence required to be produced by court orders.

Bill

[MMW]

Like I said long ago, the lawyers on both sides are winning. All this wasted time, money & effort is really a shame.