Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

Today, July 12, 2013, Judge Sheward (the trial court judge) issued an order to show cause, directing the attorneys for the Trustees, "Domenic [sic] Chieffo and Donald Anspaugh" to appear before the court on July 25, 2013 at 1:30 p.m. to show cause why they should not be held in contempt and ordered to pay sanctions for failure to comply with the Court's April 16, 2013 order. The Order to Show Cause was raised by the court on its own. Steve's motion for contempt was directed solely at the Trustees for their failure to comply with the court's order. The Court (my somewhat informed best guess here) is considering whether or not to likewise hold the attorneys in contempt and since no motion is pending against them at this point is furnishing those lawyers a chance to be heard.


The court has invited briefing on the issue by both sides specifically inviting discussions of possible jurisdictional issues and a discussion of the status of the pending appeal. The court ordered all parties and attorneys to be present for the OSC hearing.

As usual my suggestion is to stay tuned if interested.

In the APPELLATE court the Reply Brief of the Trustees was filed on 7/11/2013 and scanned today, 7/12. I do not know when the parties may expect a ruling on the appeal, but all the briefs have now been filed on the appellate issue presented by the Trustees, that is, whether they must participate in discovery as ordered by the trial court. The brief is on the court web site. Stay tuned.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Yep. The words of the month are: "Stay tuned".

Steve Heinrichs

[Erik H]

I tune in every day even if I don't chime in. Erik

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

The images of the documents are now up on the site including the Registry's counsel noting that the additional counsel was hired by the insurance company and not responsbile. And, my attorney's reply brief outling the chronology of relevant events.

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

An additional update:

The Court of Appeals has set a hearing date of 29 August for oral arguments.

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

Weekend summary---

As we now begin to approach the Appeals Court hearing and the last month of the Registry's current financial fiscal year and the trial court judge's ruling on the Motion to Show Cause...and the continuing efforts behind the scences to find anything that can muddy the waters and confuse...it seems useful for a little update.

First, my guess is that the trial court will not sanction the Registry's lawyers at least at this time. I say this because I believe the judge will now await the Appeals Court decision which, in terms of "court time" is close (meaning maybe two months after the oral arguments hearing).

So, likely we will still be at this in the fall and during the course of the next election.

Just to remind all---Registry members were promised an "audit". There has not been one, or at least it has not been announced. The publication of tas return data is not an audit---An audit requires actual accrual basis financial statments which get reported upon. In addition, members were promised that minutes would be published. So far, they have not been.

This all started about a year ago when I asked what the liability was for dues paid in advance and how we were doing.

Along the way, much has happened, but none has related to any version of tranparency. In the interim, I have suggested, including in writing, a variety of ways to settle the issues. All have been rejected out of hand or not responded to at all, except responses that have come after me personally.

So, here we are and with the latest behind the scences garbage comments, to wit, that I want the car detail information as to Registry members. Recall, that first it was that I wanted to sell books, then to sell other stuff and now (again) to rip off members by knowing about their cars.

Let's set the record straight (we did this in the court filings but it bears noting here):

1) The Registry application form does not note any confidentiality as to the car data.
2) I have all the cars I want and am not in the broker business (however you want to describeit) and never have been.
3) The Trustees are the very folks who have and have had for many years the information they are concerned about.
4)Maybe most importantly, long long ago I advised my California attornies (a little less than a year ago) and my Ohio attornies (as a part of negotiations to 'settle' the discovery issues) that despite making a broader and perhaps misunderstood one (of many) discovery request that would include car information----that we did not want or need that.

I assure you that the fact that I do not want that data and would officially give it up at any moment, that this fact will change nothing.

So, for those Registry lurkers that have bought into this Trustee red herring----ask them if they would comply with the court orders if we sent them an official document making it clear that no car data need be supplied.

Two things to lighten this up today:

1) If you are the person to get the Registry to agree, I will give you the new book for free.

2) If you are worried about your car data, maybe ask the Registry to remove it from its database.


Back to figuring out 550 chassis as to races-----
(we have nearly 8,000 appearances for the purpose built cars--550 through 904 including Abarth and Elva-Porsches) and are now at about 975 unidentified as to chassis).

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

On July 29, 2013 the trial court (Judge Sheward) posted its ruling on the members' motion for sanctions and to compel the trustees to comply with that same court's earlier rulings and its ruling on the court's own order to show cause as to why the trustees' lawyers should not be sanctioned. As courts commonly do (as do many of us), Judge Sheward punted. He declined to rule (abstained) until the appellate court enters its ruling on the trustees' appeal. Trial courts appropriately give great deference to their "bosses" on appeals courts and that is what has occurred. Those wishing for a decision are advised by this writer to hurry up and wait.

Oral argument on the trustees' appeal will be heard on August 29, 2013. I know of no way to predict when that court will rule although Ohio lawyers would know far better than I what the statutory deadline (if any) is for that court to issue its ruling.

The bottom line is that the coming 356 Registry election will, unless the appeal is rapidly decided, take place in a factual vacuum as some claim is customary.

One interesting filing did occur in the trial court. Dominic Chieffo, being paid by person(s) unknown at this point, one of the trustees' two lawyers filed a declaration advising that Donald Anspaugh, the trustees' other lawyer, was hired solely by the trustees' insurance carrier and that Mr. Anspaugh did not participate in any fashion in the decision to refuse to respond to discovery, which refusal was and is the primary pending procedural issue before both courts.

Stay tuned.

[Pat]

Very quiet here? Any updates?

[Bill Sampson]

Very quiet here? Any updates?

No Pat. See my last post (right before yours). I would not expect any news until September, if then.


Hurry up and wait.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

Folks,

Without commenting on the specifics, let me simply say that the Registry site this evening should tell you a lot regarding leadership and certain followers.

I urge you to seek the facts and to watch carefully as time goes on.

Steve Heinrichs

[admin]

Begging your pardon Steve, some of us would like specifics. We get very little information from the Registry side, mostly accusations and insults. They say they have offered to show you the books from day one, well, did they, or didn't they? They say you wanted a list so you could sell books? While I find this absurd considering your new book is coming out with the Factory, were you trying to get the Registry list and why?
I am sure this will call come out once the case grinds through the courts, but could someone tell us the specifics of how we got where we are. No one knows where this will end up but there are two camps that can tell us how and why we got here. You are one.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Adam,

I am happy to summaize:

1) re the books and records---no.
2) re the list---no. The new book will be sold by Porsche. I want the list of members because I am entitled to it as a member and want to be ableto communicate with them even if via an independent third party as to what is wrong. In addition, they have defamed me with regard to the membership. We made it clear to them that I did not want the car database. See countless emails on Samba and more. This is all a red herring.

I am proceeding on behalf of the membership.

Here's a thought----[now withdrawn given comments over there]

The lies and personal attacks this evening are beyond anything tolerable and I will pursue this litigation and more on behalf of all the membership for as long as it takes to get a reasonable resolution.

The current leadership and their sycophants are cowards and are destroying the Registry.

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED