Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Steve Heinrichs]

Mr. Crowell,

I now understand that the Registry has until 10/24 to take the matter up to the Ohio Supreme Court. So, final then if they do not. (I am an accountant, however, not an attorney)

Joel,

Beats me. As to the minutes, maybe actually there are none and that is the uncomfortable answer. I really simply do not understand the resistence.

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[MMW]

Just a curiosity question. How much personal information can/does the registry have of everyone? I would think they have your name, address, e-mail & maybe credit card if that is how you pay? Every time you mail order something from anywhere you give them this info so not sure why people are worried?

Maybe if you volunteered the info they might have the year, make, model 356 if you own one & possibly the serial #? Is that what everyone is worried about? I don't get it.

I know the data/info is not a sticking point because Steve Heinrichs wrote (post 12382 of this thread)

"1) I will specifically make it clear in writing as to not wanting the material as to names, addresses, etc. including car data and will make it certain legally that that information need not be provided."

[MMW]

Llew Kinst wrote

"It is my understanding that if the club were to lose the battle all of this information would then have to be given to the other party under court order. At that point you will have no control of how it is used and who will have access to it."


Llew, your understanding of this matter is wrong. See my above post.

[Bill Sampson]

R members may review the magazine archives, posted on line on the R site. Peruse those. I don't have time to find when (if) they actually said they'd keep anything private, BUT, picked at random, I found the March/April 2007 issue. There is a membership application. There is no mention of keeping the information requested private: Name, address, city, state, zip. If you chose to pay by credit card all the credit card information was requested.

If you wanted to supply info about your car, which was specifically requested, you were asked to mail info about it, including your name, address or general location, Owners/period plate # - not sure what that means. No mention of privacy.

The September/October 2013 (that's right, the current issue) says this and only this that even very loosely considered refers to the bogus privacy issue, next to the email line on the application form on page 67: "Best Way for us to stay in touch. We do NOT rent or sell our email list to anyone."

I then looked at some old "hard" copies here at the house. The first application blank in a magazine that requested an email address was the September/October 2008 issue. IT said with regard to privacy: "Used ONLY to contact you for renewal - save a stamp." That same statement was all that appeared as recently as the January/February 2012 issue page 70. They had quit asking for car info by then.

Conclusions: The privacy issue has nothing to do with the lawsuits; regardless, no privacy was promised other than not selling or renting the email addresses. To this date no promise about physical addresses has been made. The so-called privacy issue only distracts from the issues in the lawsuits.

If anyone with an email account has NOT received any unsolicited email in this day and age, I have a Nigerian uncle who would like to share his $43,000,000 inheritance with him.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

Lliew,

Please also see my earlier post here noting that I do not want the info, just a way to communicate, which Gordon resolved. I await President Dunn's response as to my suggestion regarding this legal red herring.

Send him a note. No need to resign or be concerned.

Steve Heinrichs

[S.J.Szabo]

From the Registry site; a rerun of vintage C.M.





C J Murray
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit Update Posted: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:50 am

Dear Mr. Heinrichs,

.

Unless the independent audit of the club finances reveals absolute criminality you will be finished in the court of public opinion.


We 7000+ club members do not like to be sued.

Of course, not even you believe that you speak for every Member of the Club, tho most everyone knows you speak, on command, for the Trustmes.

And of course, by now everyone understands that the Members are not being sued here. I wonder if they understand how fond of suing you have proved to be?

We do understand that your suit will be paid by our dues. We do understand that higher insurance premiums in the future will be paid from our dues.

You can thank the Trustmes for that.

We do understand that our personal information is at risk.



We don't like being sued and don't believe that the Trustees have done anything criminal(example RICO).



We certainly don't want to be sued to find out that some Trustee spent too much for lunch.

Who in their right mind would sue to find out what everyone knows. That would be frivolous.

Your only hope of redemption is that the audit reveals blatant criminal activity. I wouldn't want to be in your position.



If you drop the lawsuit now and offer an apology to the members then perhaps you can regain your reputation and repair your financial position as cited in your legal complaint.

Offering terms of surrender to an overwhelming force may be brash, but it is not bold and only ever works in the movies.

If the audit reveals nothing criminal while you are still suing "we 7000+" then your reputation will be destroyed permanently. You will forever be known as the big ego that got into a food fight with some other grumpy old men and destroyed the 356 community.

Respectfully,
Cliff Murray

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

Time to recap where we are and to answer another question---

I do believe that the misinformation on the R Forum from some as to the red herrings of information access/disclosure (cars or personal) and the "audit" have been adequately disposed of on this site in a positive manner and with a specific suggestion as to how to easily resolve any lingering concern. With that said, the Registry will really be wasting money should they take the Appeals Court denial of their motion, to the Ohio Supreme Court, since this will be very costly to all.

As of this afternoon, there has been no contact from any Registry Trustee or representative of them or any of them. This is regretable but it is what it is. Now, it has been suggested that I go to Santa Fe to meet with some of, or all of, the Trustees. Might have been a good idea so I remained quiet about it. The invitation never came and it is now too late, of course.

My offer as to a mediation/arbitration remains open until Sunday evening as noted. The offer to specifically clarify any confusion (benign or intended) in writing as to the information red herrings in exchange for no OSC filing and immediate compliance with the other discovery requests, remains open for now. It does not actually matter as to the OSC review (if filed and if they take it up) but the offer is immediately withdrawn upon any filing by the Registry with the OSC.



Here's a question for me:

Q: Why are you doing this? Are you trying to hurt the Registry?

A: I want to answer as best I can within the contrainsts of the legal matters and also in the clearest possible manner.

I did not seek this fight. I noticed in doing some research on 904s, from the other side of the page in a Registry magazine, a financial report by the prior Treasurer, Ron Lohnert. I noticed that while it was bascially tax return data----that he commented in a footnote as to the liability not on the cash basis books regarding the cost of producing magazines for dues paid in advance. He added this note to help members understand the reason that there was the cash that there was and that people should not think that the R had too much money, etc. Seems appropriate to me.

I then looked at recent magazine issues and noted that the onformation for the year ended 8-31-11 had not been published. I inquired on the Forum. I was told that it was an oversight and would be in the next issue. No problem, despite it being argued that this is the lawsuit reason.

I then asked, since the year was well over---how did we do and how was the 8-31-12 year coming along? I also asked what the rough equivalent amount was as to what Lonhert had disclosed.

Then ensued the horrible commentary on the Forum site.
It is not useful to go over that and it is not clear if the R still has that thread although I have most of it. The thread was later pulled fully after just removing my comments. My posting priveleges were revoked, etc. Along the way, as any member is entitled to, I ask for information that is entitled under Ohio law. The R refused.

I engaged California attornies to work with president Dunn and they did but, despite offers to go to Oregon where the books were, we could not reach agreement. Then came the Newport "Open" meeting. I understand what happened surrounding that meeting and cannot discuss it here.

In early October 2012 I sued the Registry in civil court regarding the information and as to defamation and fiduciary obligations, etc. The R counter sued me and the Trustees and Officers terminated my membership.

You can read the personal federal filing elsewhere here or on the R Forum. It is much different and not, in many important and legal ways, related to the civil case and it does not name the Registry as a defendant. It is a very serious set of matters that are very personal to me. The federal filing (as someone noted) actually tells a story that I hope never ever happens again to another member.

The civil lawsuit is on my behalf and Registry members' behalf. If I were to drop it, you can, in my opinion, put all your money on a bet that the Registry will return to the lack of any disclosure and disdain for any member asking questions. As time goes on, you will learn of others who have been banished or had rules set up just for them or who have gone away disgusted. All the truth will come out.

The Registry is going through a transition from old guys like me to a younger crowd, whether the old guys like it or not. What needs to happen is for the Registry to reach out to younger people. I am not really into the debate as to open or closed Forum although I think it was not a good idea to change. But there is much more to think about in terms of marketing and how to grow the membership and how to be in alignment with the non-profit tax rules.

I do believe that younger people (that includes anyone under 66) believe, by and large, that leadership and membership is a two-way street. That is, leaders should be trusted and generally left to lead. At the same time, members should be respected by their leaders. And, organizations, especially like the Registry, should be run in an open, transparent manner. There should be the opportunity for redress.

The Registry, in my view, will end up being larger and stronger and much better when these current matters are resolved.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Pat]

This really amazed me!

"There was a lot of information given at the meeting that I wish the Trustees would post here but they are under attorney's instructions to keep quiet." from CM.

Is the Registry afraid to tell the members the truth? Me thinks so.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

I am done at the moment as to updates---except to say there is no new news.

That said, whatever was said "there" is now public.

So, to those who were there or reported----ask away as to what was said as to the "secret sauce" stuff and I will answer.


Steve Heinrichs

[356JAGER]

DELETED