Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Carrera GT]

Ashley you said:

"At any rate I am off to the side of the freeway observing traffic going both ways but trying to stay close enough to see the license plates."

I'd say that describes the 'fans in the stands' who lurk here but do not post. Once one makes that move, he is in the lanes of traffic and subject to drafting, being drafted, or trading paint depending on his driving style. Welcome to the track...

Ashley,

One thing you may not realize is this - you are now "doing something" and not being a "Fan in the Stands". Those that sit in the stands and watch tend to represent the common 90% apathetic "do nothing" category regarding many-many issues, including this important 356 Registry lawsuit.

The 10% that wish to do something - other than sit and watch - tend to become engaged, they become informed, they acquire knowledge of the issue(s). Correct knowledge of lawful factual information is discussed on this Forum. Thanks, and I hope you realize that I do commend you for joining in to decide which category you wish to participate in...this 10/90 or going back to the 90/10 stands.

All the best.

Michael Doyle

[Carrera GT]

Sorry - odd double post removed.

Michael Doyle

[Carrera GT]

Sorry - another odd double post removed.

Michael Doyle

[Carrera GT]

[quote="Carrera GT" post=12874][quote="Carrera GT" post=12873]

Ashley,
I'm REALLY liking your style. You are voicing what many of us "fans in the stands" are thinking...

Hi Craig - perhaps you will continue to follow Ashley's posts and replies. He's offered very good questions from those like you "in the stands". No bother here for me to copy you anything more on them.

What category might "You" consider? ...perhaps the 10/90 in (and be more informed) - or the apathetic 90/10 uniformed "in the stands"?

You're welcome yourself - of course - to ask questions and reply just as well...

best/Michael Doyle

[S.J.Szabo]

Gentlemen:

Pardon me while I slap myself upside the head to remind me that Mr.Rio's generosity allows us specialized threads so that all will know just where to look to find focused discussions.

So, by your leave, I will retire to the RFR thread for continuation of the current un-lawsuit discussion.

[Bill Sampson]

Stephen:

Point taken. I'll try to do better maintaining my focus. I did drift afield from the topic at hand. My apologies.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

As promised, Registry counsel received yesterday a letter offering to drop discovery request for member data that has been much mis-represented as those reading here know. In exchange for that, we have asked that the R not prolong the current disputes as to discovery and to provide the remaining discovery request data, not delay this all further by appealing to the Ohio Supreme Court and providing affidavits as to the number of Registry members.

I had thought that the latest date for the Registry to appeal to the OSC was 24 October. The actual date is 11 November.

So, the Registry has lost the most relevant discovery motions at the trial and appeals level.

It is "on them" as to how long this will go on in terms of appeals.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

I posted a copy of the Registry's 2014 budget on the Radio Free Registry thread. The budgeted legal and accounting expenses contain good news - $7500. That buys neither any more deductibles nor any audits. There never has been a reason for an audit nor have any of us banished from the Registry ever requested one.

I am pleased that, at least deducing from the budget, further deductibles are not expected to be paid. I am assuming that the trustees knew this when they released the budget, but, both the budget and my remarks could be revised.

The optimist in me wishes to believe that the budget was adopted because the trustees plan to settle soon, but, there is no evidence of that as yet. Just a hope on my part.


Bill

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

I am sorry if I confused things.

I did say that October 24 was a key date. I was wrong and posted that 11 November was the date that the Registry had until to appeal to the OSC or not (it may be 12 November given the holiday).

Anyway, I shall post more as to the situation before then.

Now, as to the "audit" post today on the R site:

It is useless and a replay of useless earlier stuff and has no effect whatsoever on the litigation. It answers nothings, adds nothing new, and well, you can guess.

Go Niners.

Steve Heinrichs

ps--sorry to be a little curt here but, as you all know, this site and thread is monitored by many R members, R counsel and others.

[S.J.Szabo]

Another Over-Dunn Update or

any case.

[Steve Heinrichs]

(see latest post on Radio Free re the audit; no more on this thread since the audit is not part of the litigation)

I want to comment on the most recently posted Registry 2014 budget.

First, as a part of the currently stalled "discovery" phase of the civil litigation, we did ask over a year ago for budgets. I do not know if the Registry had any for years earlier than 8-31-14 or not. The 2014 one posted a few days ago is the first I have ever seen. I am glad there is one.

One problem (I am not posting to discuss amounts or wisdom of expenditures) is that it is presented without context. I mean---would it not be good to say---hey---we're going to do these from here on or---once Heinrichs is gone, you'll never see another. Or, we'll report to you midway during the year to tell you how we are doing. Or, something.

In any event, the fact that there is one is good. I hope, like the U.K. club---that the Registry treasurer will report say twice a year on actual results vs. the budget.

One could ask this question: If the Registry did not have them before and now has one....why not respond to the discovery request by just saying: "Don't have that." Instead, this was and is part of the discovery stonewall.

Later today, I will post about the "Update re lawsuit".

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

By now you have likely read Mr. Dunn's lawsuit update on the Registry web site.

Let me simply say that the descriptions of how we have gotten to where we are and what has been offered and rejected and much more is so off base, that it should be taken down. This approach, which is little more than continued defamation wrapped up in an 'update', does nothing positive to bring the matters to a conclusion. It damages not only me but, also, the Registry and Porsche. I will not specifically repond to it here in detail but, suffice to say, it has very negatively impacted any possible resolution in the near future.

Here an accurate summary:

The civil case remains in the discovery phase. That is to say that the Registry has refused to answer discovery requests (except as to insurance matters) and has filed motions in support of its refusals. The motions have been denied by the trial court and a motion taken to the appeals court to overide the trial court has been denied. You have read all this stuff here.

The Registry, as far as I know, is still considering taking the motions up to the Ohio Supreme Court. That court could refuse to hear the matter or decide to take it nd then decide. If this goes to the OSC, my guess is that all will be delayed some months.

All of this is only about "discovery". The matters are no where near a trial as that would be proceeded by depositions and more motions and on and on.

The federal litigation is in its very early stages and is, like the civil litigation, quite serious. It is, however, much different and the Registry is not a defendant.

Steve Heinrichs

[Carrera GT]

Joris,

Most organizations like the Registry (whether in Ohio or elsewhere as the tax filing is first and foremost a federal requirement, then state) would be some version of cash basis like the Registry. When the cash basis numbers are pulled together, they consitute "cash basis" financial statements. I do not know of any formal requirement for any interim (meaning during the year) financial statment filing.

My guess is that (part of the legal discovery is to determine this and help determine to what extent if any the Registry was 'harmed') the Registry does not have any (or did not have any) interim cash basis financials nor accrual basis ones.

Yor term "pre-paid" is the accurate term and my guess is that that would constitute most all of the liability.

Joris/all---here is the irony: All the Registry had to do as to this matter was to say: "You know, we are not exactly certain but it is probably about what Ron said it was a year ago". Instead, you no doubt recall scores of pages of criticism and personal shots for asking that and---God forbid: "How did we do last year and how are we doing this year?"

Steve Heinrichs

Carrera_The_Kid wrote:
I agree that without knowing the outstanding liabilities it is difficult to judge the financial health accurately. Am I right in assuming that the current liability likely consists pretty much entirely of pre-paid dues?

Best,

Joris

Hello Joris,

I see your previous questions were answered already - and quite properly by Steve Heinrichs - he being the most qualified and respected in this professional field, including other business and tax matters.

As presented, the current audit-report, disclosed by the fk CPA firm - is based on "Sample" information that the firm was given, of which they reviewed for "a Limited Purpose" - done for nothing more than a previously filed "cash basis" Tax Return. Yes, on the surface - to an untrained persons eye - the Report looks all dressed up with its financial numbers and important sounding disclosure letters. However, it is nothing more than carefully designed fancy-footwork. The 356 Registry membership basically paid this firm for nothing at all that is material - as compared to what a "real paper trail" - fact based audited report would be.

Unfortunately, this current report is just another pattern of Trustee behavior - not putting forth the valid information they are required to. As background, the Registry members should take heed in the most recent ruling words of the Ohio Court Appeal Justices - that the Trustees "Cannot Have It Both Ways".

Both PCNA and Porsche have also taken note of this contradiction as well.

Perhaps yourself and others are getting a more clear-focused picture now - that what should have been simple, fact based answers to Steve Heinrichs prior financial questions - has now become so far-fetched and complex with the Trustees, the Publisher, and the silly-see through cover letters written by George Dunn. And to think that the Trustees wish to take this position of theirs the Ohio State Supreme Court? ...hmm, I doubt even the audit firm would consider that smart management.

The Registry members, retired like Steve Heinrichs, or who are working professionals in small, corporate, or other type businesses, ALL deserve the real "Facts" on documentation and reporting of the 356 Registry records and contracts (including past, present and future obligations) for an accurate financial understanding. Why shouldn't a non-profit "Car Club" be rightfully given this information ???

To think this has carried on - like this - really has become an insult to members and non-members intelligence alike.

Michael Doyle

[Bill Sampson]

From Mr. Dunn's most recent posting on the LATEST NEWS drop down menu on the Registry web site:

"Dealing with personal lawsuits is a huge burden which no one signed up for."

Absent from Mr. Dunn's posting is the fact that after Mr. Heinrichs sued 356 Registry, Inc., a corporation, Mr. Dunn and the trustees, by a unanimous vote according to Mr. Liberty, voted to sue Mr. Heinrichs personally. Although corporations are "persons" for better or worse, Mr. Heinrichs's original suit is not personal in that it names only a corporation as a defendant. That suit was filed October 1, 2012. The Registry's suit against Mr. Heinrichs, which is most certainly personal, was filed November 2, 2012 - the point in time at which the litigation became "personal."

Mr. Heinrichs filed his own "personal" suit against the trustees and officers in federal court within the last six weeks.

The parties are now on equal footing with regard to "personal" suits, the Registry, acting by and through its trustees, having initiated this form of (fortunately civilized) combat.

There is not a word from Mr. Dunn, ever that I have located, about the suit of 356 Registry, Inc. v R Stephen Heinrichs which is pending in Ohio State Court. [Research is specifically invited here - I have not reviewed every public utterance by Mr. Dunn.]

As always, if I have misstated the facts, please let me know and I will be pleased to edit this post. [email to: mondokook-numerouno@yahoo.com]




Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED