Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Carrera GT]

I finally got my suddenly-sick wife into bed and cleaned the plastic trashcan that had been pressed into service otherwise and then checked here. Any more clean-up needed here after the party I missed? Looks like 'something she ate' or a virus...but how about here? I see the bouncer had to step in, too.

Sloppy.

When someone posts here that it looks like a Registry Forum thread here, we know it's time to go sleep it off.

Wow.....infighting on a site that's being charitable about the Registry discussion that's unwelcome anywhere else?

I won't apologize for scolding, I'll absorb the hit like I have always done for friends...just to keep the whole package intact. Long ago, my best friend's wife called to ask if she could borrow my son's outgrown playpen. I said "sure, I'll bring it over." The door was open when I got there, I saw pieces of broken plates imbedded in the kitchen walls, food splattered everywhere, chairs knocked over and no one visible. They had locked themselves in separate bedrooms and the kids in another, the playpen already there was indeed, broken during the fight. I finally got them together and went off on that couple and they began to yell at me. Soon, they were fine and I was the bad guy, so I knew I had done my job. So.....

Any shills or ringers get that started here so we lose that privilege or can we get so wound up that we get tossed on our own? And don't bother with the "Aw, dad, we were just having fun..."

Anyone want to state why 'we' are still hashing out the Registry's latest and forgetting that "He who angers me, controls me"?

Do we see the worst being brought out "over there" by escalating comments that are against their own rules? Is that what we look like here?

I'd say yes, without rules, we were doing pretty well here, then some Kool-Aid from over there must have been smuggled in...and so it goes.

The moderator, who also happens to be our host, had to step in. Bad form. Very uncool.

Shift gears;

Attempts at diplomacy will only go so far and I'll give credit to Steve for trying but willing to bet the result will be ignored like everything else tried in the past...by anyone....within about the last 6 years. It is to the point that the kids in that other gang 'just don't wanna' back down. They are willing to risk their own playpen. It was clear years ago and nothing has changed. A few faces have and I'd feel sorry for them if they spoke up and didn't let the lifers rule the roost, but it's always been 'guilt by association.' I have always been amazed that good guys (no women..yet) became trustees and a change occurred soon after. They seem to morph into another personality when they step behind that heavy cloaking curtain. Occasionally, I'd hear Tales from Beyond from those who survived the experience, but usually it was like they suffered from PTSD or PTSS and were quiet, withdrawn, didn't want to talk about the experience. I had friends who came back from 'Nam like that, but this is a car club. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?

>>"Sloppy" - "Kool-Aid from over there" - "Very uncool"<<

Hello Bruce,

Although your analogies seem a bit off to me, I certainly do agree with the three descriptive terms you used "Sloppy & Kool-Aid from over there & Very uncool".

Better for those here to continue to "take the high road" and not use the other sides skewed mentality to make points with.

It is the high road that the Ohio Court & Justices have backed Steve Heinrichs on (and will continue to do so - if necessary) to get to the bottom of full disclosure of facts, contracts, and operations.

This is also what PORSCHE looks for in a viable Club. They desire (I'm sure) the same Officer-Member transparency as with all their PCA clubs that operate across this Country. And, of course, would demand that Club's follow the Laws and Governing Rules they are prescribed to.

To me (my own opinion) this is what Steve Heinrichs wishes for the 356 Registry as well.

Michael Doyle

Ps: The Moderator and 356 Registry president should consider giving CJ Murray a 6 to 12 month suspension. He knew how to give them out to others during his short lived "stint" as a Moderator there...so he should no how to get one as well.

Pss: The Moderator here on this site may want to consider to those that posted the "Graphics" to remove them. To me, it undermines the opportunity to allow for constructive mediation to take place.

[JTR70]

Michael, Looking at it as a neutral observer I agree that the graphic and for that matter the banter for the last couple of days has done nothing but anger and entrench those on both sides of this issue.(The anthill has been officially stomped on once again) However, as I stated before I do my best to stay out of your way and let these threads grow and evolve naturally; pruning only when absolutely necessary. So its ultimately going to up to you guys to self edit and decide what message and temperament best helps your plight. There is a suggestion on the new registry thread to lock these posts until a possible agreement is reached. I believe its never right to block or muzzle freedom of expression until the time is deemed appropriate; so you can always count on the lines of communication being open here.
Justin

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys---an update on where we are and to also clarify a matter referred to yesterday:

First, there is nothing going on as to my two proposals.

Second,a discussion of the "audit" is in order. Please be very clear and certain---I did not ask for or demand one. Read the filings if you are concerned.

Here is a short and carefully worded so as to not disclose confidential names and more, explanation of how this came about: it was suggested maybe 9 months ago as part of how this might all be resolved. I was asked if it would "work" or "help". I noted that I had not asked for it and that it was expensive, etc. But, yes, I said...for the Registry it might well be a good thing. But, also, it would not simply make the litigation go away because there were many issues at that time.

In any event the membership was promised an "audit" (as well as minutes of meetings by the way).

Now comes a Trustee a day or so ago complaining about the audit and linking it to my demands. That linkage comment was answered here before and now.

Some questions, however, remain:

1)What year or years would this be for? 8-31-12? 8-31-13? We are now well passed the 8-31-11 year I asked some questions about and, the Registry reported tax information on the 8-31-12 year and got the data backwards and still no revised explanation as to a need for dues increase.

2) When will the audit(s) be completed?

3) What is the name of the audit firm?

4) What is the estimated cost?

5) Why has it taken so long?

6) Why do it in the first place since it has not been done before and was not and has not been a part of the
litigation?

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

Justin,

Thanks!

We will stay focused on facts.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

The court clerk in the state appellate case posted a cost bill on 10/9/2013. I believe that it is directed to 356 Registry, Inc. for payment, as the losing party on appeal. I'm not licensed to practice law in Ohio and am subject to correction on that. It's on the web site and is for $47.00 in court costs.

Only filing fees and the like are covered by this item. Attorney fees and other expenses are not. Clearly those are substantially more, but not, I would GUESS at this time nor by this method.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys---

Yet another open letter to Registry president Dunn:

Dear George,

Here is another idea to bring all this acrimony and ridiculous expense to an end and to then focus on building a wonderful Registry and reach to new and younger members:

How about you open the Registry Forum to me in terms of an ability to post? I promise to make no remarks about any individual. I would answer clearly and directly any and all questions posed to me in a forthright manner. You could respond, of course, and we could have a meaningful dialog. I promise, moreover, to keep my supporters away from remarks here or there and you do the same.

We could get a long way before this Sunday in resolving these serious matters.

What do you say? Each of us want the best for the Registry and Porsche.

OK?

Steve Heinrichs

[Carrera GT]

From David Gensler on the R thread. Thank you David for your concise and dispassionate summation of the facts. I see Stillwater KoolAid isn't a part of your diet.

David Gensler
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit UpdatePostPosted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:31 am
356 Fan

Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:29 am
Posts: 343
Location: New Mexico
Mark,

I am also a member, and it will not hurt me one bit to hear what Mr. Heinrichs has to say. I don't think this club should prevent anyone from speaking their mind. Only AFTER hearing what he has to say might I decide he is silly, delusional, pathological, or perhaps correct. At the moment I have no way of knowing.

As for the lawsuit being frivolous, the definition of frivolous would be pursuing a course which you had no reasonable expectation of succeeding at. The lawsuit may not be desirable, but in light of the fact that the courts have now determined twice in his favor I think it cannot be labeled "frivolous".

I don't see where either the Registry nor Mr Heinrichs have been forced into anything. A series of choices were made by both parties. Mr. Heinrichs requested information regarding the club, which apparently the law says the club must provide. The Registry chose to not provide him what he requested. Mr. Heinrichs then chose to spend his own money to compel that information from the club through the court. The Registry chose to spend money to argue in court against the disclosure of the information. After being directed to provide the information to Mr. Heinrichs, the Registry made a second choice to continue arguing against the release. The court once again directed the release of the information to Mr. Heinrichs. That's the series of choices I see that got us to this point.

Like many have said, its hard to believe this is happening in what should be a simple car club, with all getting together for fun and camaraderie. Nobody likes lawsuits. Nobody thinks it should have ever come to this. But reflect for a moment on how we got here. At the time, there was a bunch of controversial stuff going on involving 356Talk. Moderators were coming and going. Changing policies. A big brouhaha over whether the website would be open to all, or just members. Posts were disappearing, threads were getting locked, tempers were flaring, and suspensions were being handed out right and left.

In the midst of all that, Mr. Heinrichs appeared asking questions of the Trustees about Registry finances. At first the responses were polite, but no information was offered. When he persisted the responses became less polite. Eventually it turned to threats. I honestly don't remember what was threatened first, lawsuit or excommunication, and since all those posts were removed there is no way to go back and see now. Not sure it matters though, because already by then I think the wheels (personalities!) had been set in motion.

For my personal position, I have nothing but regard for the Registry and those who volunteer their time and effort to support it. I have no knowledge of, nor any suspicion of, any misdeeds by the Trustees. But I also don't have any animosity towards Mr. Heinrichs. He was a member and wanted information about the Registry for which in my opinion he was treated very unjustly. Had it been me, I would have been angry and walked away. He choose to pursue legal remedies, as was his right. Now we have all (including the Trustees I think) learned things about rules governing non-profits in the State of Ohio. Perhaps in the long run it will turn out to have been a good thing.

DG

David Gensler

Mr. Gensler,

I read your objective, sensible writing (above) to the 356 Registry Membership on both this site (copied) and the 356 Registry site as well. Through your summary, you certainly have gained my respect, and I'm sure that of many others. It would be helpful for all 356 Registry Members, Trustees, and Officers (including President George Dunn) to read your unbiased perspective and comments more than once.

The future of young and old at the 356 Registry would/could be so much better if there were to be more Members that think like you do.

My best regards,

Michael Doyle

[Bill Sampson]

Guys---

Yet another open letter to Registry president Dunn:

Dear George,

Here is another idea to bring all this acrimony and ridiculous expense to an end and to then focus on building a wonderful Registry and reach to new and younger members:

How about you open the Registry Forum to me in terms of an ability to post? I promise to make no remarks about any individual. I would answer clearly and directly any and all questions posed to me in a forthright manner. You could respond, of course, and we could have a meaningful dialog. I promise, moreover, to keep my supporters away from remarks here or there and you do the same.

We could get a long way before this Sunday in resolving these serious matters.

What do you say? Each of us want the best for the Registry and Porsche.

OK?

Steve Heinrichs

I hope the Registry readers understand the generosity of this offer. Steve has won every round in court so far. What he is doing is like a fighter, after knocking his opponent down twice without sustaining a scratch himself, offering his opponent a draw. As of now Steve has quite literally, from a superior position, negotiated downward with no response from a responsible person at the Registry. He is negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness, for the betterment of both the club and ALL its members, not just the people on somebody's "good guys" list.

I hope George Dunn comprehends the incredible rarity of this in litigation. This is a "with malice toward none, with charity for all" moment. Seize it George. This is not my case, neither as client nor as lawyer, but, in the next round the gloves may well come off and the result is very likely to be very ugly for the Registry. Sure, you might pull out a "win" against the odds. Steve's offering you a chance to avoid a loss, both in court and of face. It is time for some leadership. Step up.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys and Gals,

Today's updates---

First, no word from president Dunn. No doubt he is busy with the WCH but, also, no doubt that between Rosemary Sampson's posts on the R Forum and those R Forum members watching here, that he is up to date on my proposals and has also seen the commentary regarding the "audit".

So----first today: I have been thinking about some comments over on the R Forum of a few days ago regarding my proposal for a 5 person panel. One objection was that I said the group should interview one person there. I said that in the sense that it could be more effective in terms of focusing on the issues by one person representing the group of Trustees on behalf of the Registry.

Nonetheless, it may be better for the panel to interview anyone they wish and anyone that Iwish and the Registry wishes.

So, I'd go for that.

Second, there was an objection to my suggestion that the results of the panel decision be non-binding. I did thinking that that was more likely to be acceptable to the Registry. No problem---either way...binding or non-binding.

More topics later today but I do hope someone will relay this to George (and not Rosemary---not fair to her). I'll rely on someone watching here and a member there or someone with Mr. Dunn's email address to send to him.

George---recall that the offer is open until Sunday as noted with these modifications.


Steve Heinrichs

[William Crowell]

Would anybody know if there has yet been any final decision by the Ohio state court on the Registry's request for a stay on appeal?

Like Malibu Bill, neither am I admitted to practice in Ohio, but I do remember that it is rather difficult to qualify for a stay under California law, and I wouldn't be surprised if Ohio law is similar. One can readily appreciate the policy reasons why stays are generally disfavored by the courts, and the problems that would arise if every litigant could obtain a stay on appeal. Among other things, the concept of a final judgment would lose a lot of meaning.

I'll be surprised if the Registry can obtain a stay, although anything's possible.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Mr. Crowell,

The Ohio Appeals Court denied the Registry's motion. There is a link here somewhere.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Would anybody know if there has yet been any final decision by the Ohio state court on the Registry's request for a stay on appeal?

Hello Bill. We have matched ignorance as to Ohio procedure. The only motion for stay in the trial court was filed by the Registry. On May 16, 2013, the trial court declined to rule on that motion saying it did not have juridiction. The effect was the same. I know of no other motions for stay. Given the trial court's earlier rulings I would expect it not to rule on anything until the court of appeal decision is final - no idea when that is. The Registry has threatened to petition the Ohio Supreme Court for hearing. A wild guess on my part would be that the trial court would remain divested of jurisdiction until a ruling on THAT petition became final. I suppose somebody could file a petition for a writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. By then I'll be even rustier than my car. You might look at the trial court proceedings of July 23 and 29 where it again professed its own lack of jurisdiction.

Ohio counsel may be able to enlighten all of us, at least on the time limits.

Nice to hear from you by the way. I hope you're riding a lot especially this time of year.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

removed double post.

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

I thought it would be useful to create a situation where I could respond to questions regarding the civil litigation and its status and next steps.

You have seen both my public offers as well as answers to red herrings that really are not a part of the litigation regardless of comments elsewhere.

So, as a part of a Q & A, I'll ask the first question of me and then answer. Then, I will answer questions posed to me.

Q. Why have you demand the minutes of the Registry Trustee meetings?

A. The Registry sued me personally and has alleged that I have harmed business relationships. Certainly the minutes of the Trustee meetings would have mentioned what business was being harmed and how. This was and is a very serious allegation that must have been discussed.

Now---with that said---the Registry's president did promise meeting minutes some months ago but (at least as I recall) noted that people were volunteers and that this takes time. So far, anyway, no minutes have been published as far as I know and the Registry coninues to deny my discovery demand.

It really does seem to me that meeting minutes are quite easy to prepare and easy to publish. This is common practice and helps the membership understand matters discussed and, at least, actions taken.

The "open meeting" this weekend, I think (but could of course be corrected) is a Members' meeting. The actual Trustee meeting will be closed (I hope it is not but believe it will be).

I now await a question.

Sincerely,

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED