Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Carrera GT]

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[S.J.Szabo]

"How Soon They Forget" Dept.

While one may assume that all that a reform-minded fellow needs to survive is a thick skin and an abnormally high tolerance to gratuitous abuse, the fact is, that maintaining an even keel to keep the North Star in sight also requires a love of irony and a deep appreciation for slapstick humor.

Take, for example, the elevation of the "Member info" non-issue upon a veritable mountain of baloney; between the ballet of hippos in tutus that is the Inner Circle's attempts to legitimize the charade and the paranoia-powered lamentations of the clueless and uninformed over the imaginary consequences, one has a double dip of slapstick that would do the Stooges proud.

The bright red cherry of irony on top is that what all those fear-addled brains should be worrying about is the fact that the Trustmes have declared that all that collected individual Member car info is now Their exclusive "intellectual (and if you like comedy, wouldn't you like to see Them defend that idea in court) property". This means that all past bets are off and that the "Club" could, in theory, do anything They want with it, unhindered by any past promises (real or imaginary) of confidentiality.

Now, if that doesn't pique a paranoid, I don't know what would.

One wonders if the implications of this wouldn't have some bearing on the validity of the "privacy" shtick being performed (with tutus) for the Ohio Courts.

[Bill Sampson]

Excellent post Steven.

For those who have forgotten the story, almost three years ago, in the fall of 2010, I sent an email to then President Chuck House since I had recently read of the club's $17,000 loss for the most recently reported fiscal year. Then as now the reporting was a year or more after the close of the fiscal year so I am referring to the FY of 9/1/2008 to 8/31/2009. I thought the Registry might avail itself of some of the expertise I have acquired over the last few decades in running non-profit volunteer organizations since stopping losses when they are small is easy compared to stopping them when they are large.

House's response then was that I was trying to get Jerry Seinfeld's home address. That lie about what I wanted has been repeated continuously since. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now. They now lie that Steve Heinrichs was seeking the same thing when he inquired about a year and a half ago (pre-suits). The trustees knew then and know now that their statements about what has been sought are intentionally false. Repeating the lie loudly for three years does not make it the truth. I'll be charitable and eschew the characterization of President Truman for such stuff and simply call if flapdoodle and poppycock.

Then as now, as I have stated repeatedly, despite remarks of the Trustafarian Accuser to the contrary, that I seriously doubt any larceny has taken place. It is reasonable to ask, however, why hide something if there is nothing to hide?

Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

It does seem to be fair to ask why most all postson the Registry Forum about the litigation focus on privacy of member information.

It may well be that some members are concerned. The general topic is worthy of debate. But---it has nothing to do with the litigation.

As you know this red herring as to the lawsuit has been debunked. Moreover, I have offered to make it crystal clear in writing. So, after much time, Registry's counsel appears and announces this past Friday that he has asked my counsel to (these are my words but it is what he meant) prepare some document and he announced that he had not heard (these are his words) "to date".

To date seems like some considerable time.

In fact, he contacted my attorney late Friday afternoon and then made his post about 30 minutes later. Nice style.

Anyway-----the document will be forthcoming Tuesday. I will share it with you here. Then---"You Make the Call". Since, the privacy issue seems to be the "big issue" and it will completely and totally go away:

Why would the Registry take their twice loser motions to avoid discovery to the Ohio Supreme Court?

Someone who posts on the Registry frequently seems already to know that they wil.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Jim Liberty
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit UpdatePostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:14 pm
Registry Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:47 pm
Posts: 786
Location: Orange Co., CA
Dominic Chieffo is a Porsche 356 Registry member in good standing. That is a fact.

..........................................Jim.

_________________
Jim Liberty


The first one is the hardest Mr. Liberty. Congratulations.

For those interested Mr. Chieffo joined the Registry on exactly the same day he sued Mr. Heinrichs on behalf of the Registry, November 2, 2012. That is a fact.

.................................................. ........ Bill

[AMP]

What is the significance of this?

I don't "have a dog in this" either but some of the posts you and one or two others make here are really like trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

I try not to get into this but some of this is way over the top on both sides. It's a liars contest and when the lawyers have about all they feel they can squeeze out then somehow it will end. I hope it's sooner than later.

Jim Liberty
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit UpdatePostPosted: Sun Oct 20, 2013 2:14 pm
Registry Trustee
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:47 pm
Posts: 786
Location: Orange Co., CA
Dominic Chieffo is a Porsche 356 Registry member in good standing. That is a fact.

..........................................Jim.

_________________
Jim Liberty


The first one is the hardest Mr. Liberty. Congratulations.

For those interested Mr. Chieffo joined the Registry on exactly the same day he sued Mr. Heinrichs on behalf of the Registry, November 2, 2012. That is a fact.

.................................................. ........ Bill

[Bill Sampson]

Not sure who AMP is. First lie from me you find sir/ma'am, please advise and I'll be happy to retract it.

Like most I personally prefer my foodstuffs to be served without excrement.

I would prefer it to end also. On that we agree.


Best wishes.


Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Carrera GT]

What is the significance of this?

I don't "have a dog in this" either but some of the posts you and one or two others make here are really like trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

I try not to get into this but some of this is way over the top on both sides. It's a liars contest and when the lawyers have about all they feel they can squeeze out then somehow it will end. I hope it's sooner than later.

Dear AMP,

So you know, there's more than Forum banter and lawyer talk at this point. In place are the Ohio Court Judges that have already ruled not once, but twice - against the 356 Registry Trustees in favor of Mr. Heinrichs suit actions and requests. Those Justices are not only interested in "picking the fly shit out of the pepper" - they also filed legal directives that the Books, Records, and Contracts of the 356 Registry be turned over for that full examination [picking] as well.

This action is not for the simple betterment of Mr. Heinrichs, as it "includes" the 356 Registry Membership to have a long overdue opportunity to clearly know its entire financial dealings and positions in the past, its present, and its future as a non-profit Car Club.

Of additional importance, it is much better etiquette if you sign your real name here on this site. Perhaps you fear being known on the 356 Registry site for saying something. That too is unfortunate.

Michael Doyle

[AMP]

What is the significance of this?

I don't "have a dog in this" either but some of the posts you and one or two others make here are really like trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.

I try not to get into this but some of this is way over the top on both sides. It's a liars contest and when the lawyers have about all they feel they can squeeze out then somehow it will end. I hope it's sooner than later.

Dear AMP,

So you know, there's more than Forum banter and lawyer talk at this point. In place are the Ohio Court Judges that have already ruled not once, but twice - against the 356 Registry Trustees in favor of Mr. Heinrichs suit actions and requests. Those Justices are not only interested in "picking the fly shit out of the pepper" - they also filed legal directives that the Books, Records, and Contracts of the 356 Registry be turned over for that full examination [picking] as well.

This action is not for the simple betterment of Mr. Heinrichs, as it "includes" the 356 Registry Membership to have a long overdue opportunity to clearly know its entire financial dealings and positions in the past, its present, and its future as a non-profit Car Club.

Of additional importance, it is much better etiquette if you sign your real name here on this site. Perhaps you fear being known on the 356 Registry site for saying something. That too is unfortunate.

Michael Doyle

Civil replies are nice. Details are indeed everything but you have to admit if you go back and read the posts a lot of what is posted is of questionable relevance. Some of it is written as though there is a one way mirror here where folks here can see the registry forum but no one there can see here.

I have no idea who is right or wrong here. I see that Steve, in his posts, is straight forward and civil and there is no fog around what he is asking. Some on the Registry seem the same - some don't. Lately I have been leaning to this side based on what has come to light. But I won't take a side, preferring to wait for the outcome.

I'm sure either Steve or those at he Registry (maybe both) know what the outcome will be. But
can anyone else be so sure? Unless you know something the rest don't then I don't think so.

I'm not hiding my name from anyone here, however it is my error that I don't have a signature line. I'll correct that. Not to state the obvious but this is a great site Justin has put together and I enjoy all the posts. Sometimes, though, I wonder why I read the threads related to the suite much less post to it as to my knowledge, beyond the little bit of factual news from the suite, its only opinion stated here. In this case I just couldn't see why it's important to post that a lawyer involved is a member of the registry and then for someone else to do a tit for tat follow up pointing out when he joined. Seems silly.

Ashley Page

[Craig Richter]

Ashley,I like your style.

[S.J.Szabo]

your