Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Steve Heinrichs]

Adam,

First, I am very sorry to have addressed you as Justin. I had earlier sent a note to him but, no excuse.

Anyway, please let me know if I did not fully answer your questions.

Steve

[S.J.Szabo]

the worst case scenario ofreally

[jstenner]

----

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

There have been a number of unfounded and totally erroneous statements posted on the Registry web site about what the issues are in the pending litigation. Read this thread if you wish to know where that litigation actually stands.

I reviewed all the pleadings in the case yesterday. "Pleadings" are where a party sets out what it believes to be the issues in the case and what it believes are the facts it can prove at trial to prove that its analysis of the issue entitles it to a judgment. The pleadings in the case that is pending include the complaint filed by Steve Heinrichs on behalf of himself and the membership, in Steve's representative capacity; the Trustees' answer to that complaint and their counterclaim against Steve; Steve's answer to the Trustees' counterclaim. The words "private" and "privacy" do NOT appear in the pleadings. Nor do any synonyms that I could locate within those documents.

The claims that the pending lawsuit is about privacy are bogus. Those claims are lies. Period.




Bill Sampson

[S.J.Szabo]

You make a good point Mr.Stenner and I have edited to the post to convey the carelessly neglected proviso that it describes the worst case scenario.

Speculation is always risky, but even conclusions, regardless of how obvious they seem, are not facts until all the evidence is known.

Tho, from my view, the Truth lies closer to my scenario than to yours, more's the pity.

Thanks for providing balance.

[Bill Sampson]

On September 16, 2013, Steve Heinrichs, on behalf of himself and in his representative capacity on behalf of the membership on the one hand and the Trustees on the other hand, by and through their respective counsel, filed a joint motion to extend the Case Schedule since the Trustees' appeal has delayed matters considerably. The parties appropriately propose to the trial court new dates for customary pre-trial procedural matters and a trial date in November, 2014. The joint motion is posted on the (trial) court web site.

The appeal has not yet been decided.

[Dan997tt]

On September 16, 2013, Steve Heinrichs, on behalf of himself and in his representative capacity on behalf of the membership.

Please elaborate on this part of your statement. I note that Steve Heinrichs has also stated that he is representing the membership.

He is not a current Registry member, nor have I ever seen anything to indicate that he has any repsentative capacity on behalf of the membership. I do not doubt that he represents a few current and former members' position (some of the active posters on this thread, for example). For those that might not know, the Registry is "comprised of nearly 7500 members, including more than 1000 international members" (quoted from the Registy magazine, 37-3, Sept/Oct 2013).

This 'representation' is seemingly being overstated.

[Bill Sampson]

Dan:

Nice to hear from you. I think you have my email and are free to inquire directly although I'm happy to reply publicly as you prefer.

I wanted to copy the relevant paragraph from the amended complaint for you and apologize for my inability to do so. It is in pdf format on the court web site.

Paragraph 33 of the amended complaint alleges that Steve is a member of the Registry and that his interests and those of the general membership coincide in certain respects and that he therefore is bringing suit as a representative of those members as to those interests. If the matter proceeds to trial he will be required to sustain those allegations. I would characterize the theory (and feel free to decide for yourself) as a representative that all members including Steve have the same rights and obligations and that the trustees claim the members do not have certain rights. If you complain that may be overly simplified I'll concur, but, I'll also state I've covered the gist of that part of the litigation.

Incidentally, anyone interested should read the pleadings by both sides. Pleadings are complaints, answers to complaints, counterclaims, answers to counterclaims and amendments to any of those pleadings. The pleadings will reveal everything that the parties claim they can prove or even think they have a chance of proving. All such claims are subject to proof at the time of trial.

I was trying to figure out the number of members last month when the magazine had what I'll call without conceding the point a balance sheet and a P&L. On the next page (69 of the July-August 2013 issue) there is a statement of ownership, management and circulation. I will confess I don't know how to read those. I can read that for that issue 7301 issues were printed. I can read that 209 copies were not distributed. The Registry claims elsewhere that the magazine is available only by subscription but the statement says 915 copies were distributed through dealers, etc. Regardless, even with the 15 free copies, a total of 7092 issues were distributed which would seem to be the maximum number of subscribers (members). If someone knows I'd be interested since if the 915 are not subscribers (members) then subscriptions (memberships) would drop to around 6100. But, I confess, I don't know. I'm pretty sure the max is the 7092 number. I don't know where the 7500 number comes from but I think it is in the magazine "form" every month.

Dan - again, thanks for asking. Let me know if I can provide more info, or, if as happens all too often, I erred, please correct me. Thanks.

Best


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

Hi Dan,

I think Bill has described well where this all is.

Just to be clear on one point, and sorry to disagree with you...but...I have been a member for over 20 years and I still am.

Steve Heinrichs

[Dan997tt]

Bill: Thanks for the clarification. I believe it is important to refresh as much as possible for those that may read these threads. The message and intent becomes lost in pages of editorializing - much time and filtration would be needed for many people not intiment with the details and chronology . It would be easy for one to misunderstand many a comment or excerpt taken out of context or quote shared without attribution.


Steve: Thank you for clarifying your membership status. My apologies on the misstatement.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Dan,

The situation regarding my membership will be resolved and clearer as we move forward.

Steve Heinrichs

[bbspdstr]

I was interrupted yesterday before I could post how refreshing it is to see a dialog with a polite back-and-forth to clear questions and clear answers. Both here, 'over there' and everywhere would be better if this could be the norm.

(Dare I say that if it was the norm, there likely would be no lawsuit and there would be a few more in the membership count.)

Thanks Dan, Bill and Steve for setting this good example.

-Bruce

[Bill Sampson]

Now posted on the court clerk's web site are the decisions of the trial court by Judge Sheward granting the joint motion of the parties to extend several deadlines.

Pursuant to the motion the court ordered the following:

1. Discovery cut off 7/1/2014
2. Dispositive motions (that means motions that, if granted, would dispose of some or even all the issues in the case short of trial) shall be filed by 7/31/2014
3. The decision on those motions shall be made by 9/19/2014 - this would be an order of the court to itself - in California the court itself could raise a motion on its own to continue that date, probably true in Ohio but I don't know
4. The date for the final pre-trial conference or order or both remains open but it will certainly be after 9/19/2014
5. The date for trial remains open but will certainly be after the pre-trial conference/order.

The official documents and dates are on the web site. If I have erred and I assure you that happens, please let me know and I'll be happy to correct the errors.

Bill

[Bill Sampson]

More litigation. Today, September 19, 2013, Steve Heinrichs filed in federal court in Ohio a separate lawsuit naming as defendants all of the present trustees and officers and the past trustees/officers who he alleges were in office at the time 356 Registry, Inc., alleges it terminated his membership. I have attached, or at least attempted to attach, the new complaint. The new complaint does NOT include 356 Registry, Inc. (the club) as a defendant.

Your legal reporter plans to drive his 356 to a car club meeting late this afternoon and does not have the time to attempt to summarize the allegations of the complaint.


Bill


2013-9-19HeinrichsFederalComplaint1.pdf