Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You're welcome Jack. As a recovering (well, sort of) lawyer, I frequently reflect upon the fact that the happiest days of my life included that period of time when I worked at Gary's Chevron for $1.50 per hour doing tuneups, lubes and brakes, etc.

    The "if he were a member" quote from page 5 of the trial court's order is part of that court's summation of the Registry's argument, which argument was rejected. Here's the link for those who missed it: http://tinyurl.com/mlb36qj

    In my opinion the statute in dispute gives members the right to examine the records for a reasonable and proper purpose (I am paraphrasing section 1702.15 of Ohio Revised Statutes). Although the court did not decide except by implication (and had no need to directly decide) the question of whether members have the right to copy records, I have no idea how anyone could conduct a meaningful examination without having time to review copies and I can conceive of no cogent argument for why copying is not a reasonable and proper purpose. My own effort more than 3 years ago to review records met with the same specious argument from the trustees. I was to have a seance with the treasurer in the presence of the books as opposed to copying them and actually having an opportunity to review them. To paraphrase CJ Murray "rumor has it that eleven judges have now laughed at that argument." Finding out what our "leaders" are doing is a fundamental cornerstone of America isn't it?

    Anyway, once litigation has started with its included right to discovery, the issue of the books is wide open, particularly since the trustees chose to sue Mr. Heinrichs personally for the Registry's purported loss of business, members, income, etc. So, that suit "opened the door" to an examination of the books. Mr. Heinrichs has the right to review books and records for evidence as to the truth or falsity of the claims against him. Again, a fundamental cornerstone of America - the right to examine the case against oneself and to cross-examine witnesses.

    I've tried to include some of the nuances without completely muddying the picture. Even simple cases sometimes involve difficult principles. And, to the persons involved, there is no such thing as an insignificant case although in this instance an appeal to a state supreme court is indicative of someone losing perspective.
    Bill Sampson

    BIRD LIVES!!!!!

    HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

    Comment


    • Ok, I get it (I think...). A sort of "de facto" opinion by the court re: making copies for purposes of book examination. Thanks for torting, er, sorting that out.

      BTW, I doubt that Gary's Chevron could have gotten Rosemary that "stylish beach house"!
      Jack (analog man from the stone age)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jack Staggs" post=16367
        Ok, I get it (I think...). A sort of "de facto" opinion by the court re: making copies for purposes of book examination. Thanks for torting, er, sorting that out.

        BTW, I doubt that Gary's Chevron could have gotten Rosemary that "stylish beach house"!
        You've got the general idea. You haven't seen Rosemary's house.
        Bill Sampson

        BIRD LIVES!!!!!

        HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

        Comment


        • On October 7, 2013, Steve Heinrichs made the offer below to George Dunn. Mr. Dunn opted not to respond at all. He did not even send an F.U. note, thus jeopardizing members' "privacy" which he had the opportunity to protect as he saw fit. The trustees have now lost their frivolous appeal and wasted an opportunity to say nothing of other people's time and money.

          The offer they ignored is quoted below in italics:

          Mr. Dunn (Please would someone send to him on the R Forum, since I can receive messages there but cannot respond),

          Open letters seem to be in order today. Here is a serious one to move the conversation forward. I write to you in your capacity as president of the Registry and I write to you in regard to the litigation between the Registry and me. I urge you to pass this along to other Trustees and officers and their respective counsel.

          It now is clear to any reader of the various postings and filings that the issues of car information disclosure and member personal information disclosure are complete red herrings. I have made my disinterest in this material clear for months. Yesterday, Registry Forum postings disclosed the truth that some do not want to accept: I simply want to be able to be able to get any report I might make to the membership directly or via an independent party. Gordon Maltby suggested ways.

          So, in the spirit of moving forward and saving money for the Registry and me and getting to substantive issues, I offer the following:

          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.

          2) The Registry will not take its appeal up to the Ohio Supreme Court and will comply with the Appeals Court's and Trial Court's rulings with respect to the remaining discovery requests and the Registry will comply with those requests no later than October 22, 2013.

          This will assure those concerned that the Registry is not seeking further delay and incuring unnecessary costs. It will also assure Members that none of their personal information will be released in connection with this litigation.

          George, I do hope you will consult with each Trustee and Officer and with Registry and their separate counsel and get back to me before the Open Meeting this weekend. We can get the paperwork done quickly.

          [phone # deleted but it was in the original on the R forum]

          Sincerely,

          Steve Heinrichs
          Bill Sampson

          BIRD LIVES!!!!!

          HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

          Comment


          • Another missed opportunity. On November 7, 2013, Heinrichs made the offer quoted below to the Registry trustees. The offer is quite detailed as to changes in governance that Steve proposed. A settlement offer such as he made is just like any other contract offer - subject to negotiation in most instances. His offer was not presented as a take it or leave it proposition although only he knows which points were non-negotiable and which had "give." Settlement offer are all part of the process in a "normal" situation. What was abnormal in this situation was the trustees completely ignoring this offer. They lacked sufficient courtesy even to send an F.U. note. They foolishly squandered an opportunity to benefit the club they supposedly represent.

            THIS OFFER WOULD HAVE ENDED THE LITIGATION COMPLETELY IF THE PARTIES HAD COME TO TERMS. THAT'S RIGHT, RATHER THAN DISCUSS THIS IN ANY FASHION, THE TRUSTEES PURSUED THEIR FRIVOLOUS APPEAL TO THE COURT OF LAST RESORT IN OHIO.

            Bill Sampson

            BIRD LIVES!!!!!

            HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

            Comment


            • Friday, February 28, 2014, the trustees filed a motion in the state court suit for a protective order seeking (again) to avoid the discovery order entered April 16, 2013 which they unsuccessfully appealed twice. They want yet another bite of the apple.

              The motion is here, at the Franklin County Clerk's web site. See:

              http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=HDvjilfCu8yY7r2nWYUX dZXXKp2UTwgvb%2F1R742jnxjWNDvo0n1WZkSJCz%2FHGg23CB 5rXu7S6OD7bA%2FDcD2rPSvubha76%2FGPmAyP5bCouoN2p78Y 0GRPRNuTOlNQ5oLMf7NuDXXvH0A9Q3FyzbbpGZJl5s9KeEFqD8 NbSRTDQM0%3D

              No new arguments are presented - a different remedy, partial disclosure, is now sought. They could have filed this motion more than a year ago when the discovery request was first made but instead chose to object and appeal (twice), losing each round.

              Now they are asking for an additional round. Whether, if they lose again in the trial court they'll pursue appeals is anyone's guess. Despite their stated antipathy toward lawyers they have, by their antics, chosen to enrich them rather than confront the case on its merits - a tactic generally employed by those who realize their side of the case lacks merit. If they have nothing to hide, why do they work so hard, at such enormous expense to hide it. Decide for yourself, but, the question should be asked.
              Bill Sampson

              BIRD LIVES!!!!!

              HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

              Comment


              • Thank you for keeping the 356 community up to date on this unfortunate situation. For me, and perhaps others, I have questions regarding the link that you posted fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformati...9KeEFqD8NbSRTDQM0%3D . My questions are (in no particular order) "in camera". Does this mean that ALL discussions relevant to the suit must take place in judges chambers? On page 2, under "case status" midway first paragraph, it says "the Plaintiff filed to appear". Is this a typo meaning that the Plaintiff "FAILED" to appear? If it is either FAILED or FILED, what are the potential results of this action? Finally, what part of "partial disclosure" does partial include? 100% of all discovery, or just some parts? Which parts? I have done my best to read and understand the different filings and rulings, but I'm a bit lost here and this venue seems to be open to folks that just want to understand what is going on.
                Jack (analog man from the stone age)

                Comment


                • -----
                  Jack Stenner
                  ---------------
                  1953 Porsche 356 Coupe 1500N
                  1959 VW SO-23 Camper

                  Comment


                  • For Jack x2, yes, it's good that there is a place to ask questions and vent about this vexation.

                    As far as Mr. Heinrichs being being flagged for 'excessive celebration'......will the penalty be served on kick off or kicked out?

                    The real question is if there will be a penalty for 'delay of game' by the trustees? Intentional grounding? How many red flags do they get to toss? "After review, the call on the field stands." Aren't they out of time-outs? How about just playing ball!

                    Boy, does that 'delay' tactic make them look bad. As it's come to light that members asking questions about club business actually IS legally supported, it's like grasping at straws to delay rather than offering something like 'redaction' of potentially sensitive member info or some other compromise(s) to get that all behind them and us all.

                    There is more to it than just hating Mr. Heinrichs for pushing past their information denial or "protecting member privacy." There is some cat they just can't let out of the bag. How do I know? There is an old saying; "You can't bullshit a bullshitter."

                    -Bruce, (yes,with a B.S. degree)

                    Not BS, but PS; This 'last man standing' nonsense shows that it may be that the trustees are losing sight of "what's best for the club." No matter what's behind all this ruckus, letting qualified 'others' take a turn at the wheel by stepping down would surely get things back in order, honorably. An old C&W lyric goes like this; "How can we miss you if you won't ever leave?"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jack Staggs" post=16537
                      Thank you for keeping the 356 community up to date on this unfortunate situation. For me, and perhaps others, I have questions regarding the link that you posted fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformati...9KeEFqD8NbSRTDQM0%3D .
                      You're welcome. My synopses are an attempt to abbreviate what is going on, fairly, despite my obvious bias in favor of an open and transparent governance of the Registry - and any other organizations. There is a lot of material. Thanks for following.

                      Originally posted by Jack Staggs" post=16537





                      My questions are (in no particular order) "in camera". Does this mean that ALL discussions relevant to the suit must take place in judges chambers?
                      No, at least as to ALL discussions.
                      However, the request of the trustees in Branch I (a) of their motion is for documents to be reviewed in camera. That means that a review of the documents that the Registry MUST produce after a trial court order and two appellate court rulings would take place by the judge, by himself, for him to determine what Steve Heinrichs can see to advance his claims.

                      In Branch I (d) of the motion the trustees attempt yet again to limit production (make the production in camera) of member information (which Mr. Heinrichs offered to limit subject only to dropping the frivolous appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court). It is worth noting that the Registry claims in its suit (authorized by the trustees) against Heinrichs that the Registry has lost money and members because of Heinrichs's actions. I do not see how he can defend such a claim without complete access to those records. The Registry chose a public form for those claims and I would expect Mr. Heinrichs to assert that it is more than a little late to try to take those claims into a darkened room by themselves. Here I am guessing at another lawyer's strategy in a state in which I have no license.

                      Originally posted by Jack Staggs" post=16537
                      On page 2, under "case status" midway first paragraph, it says "the Plaintiff filed to appear". Is this a typo meaning that the Plaintiff "FAILED" to appear? If it is either FAILED or FILED, what are the potential results of this action?
                      I seldom attempt to guess what another person is doing but am pretty confident that Mr. Chieffo meant FAILED. The appearance in question was during the Registry's rather convoluted attempts to disobey the initial court order of April 16, 2013. The non-appearance, whether true, false or excused for some reason, appears to be of no consequence and certainly is irrelevant to the motion for protective order. The Order to Show Cause last year was issued because (note I am now speculating as to a court's intentions) the Court was considering imposition of sanctions against the attorneys for the Registry and was simply delayed, for, in that instance, decent reasons.

                      It is apparent that the Registry will not fully comply with the orders previously imposed without a lot more lawyer time and money being exhausted on all sides. Resolution of the matters you addressed in this inquiry will be forthcoming in the next few months (if not years). Alas. In my opinion it is time for the Registry to put up or shut up. I don't have a vote and am not a member so that's easy for me to say.

                      Originally posted by Jack Staggs" post=16537
                      Finally, what part of "partial disclosure" does partial include? 100% of all discovery, or just some parts? Which parts? I have done my best to read and understand the different filings and rulings, but I'm a bit lost here and this venue seems to be open to folks that just want to understand what is going on.
                      The use of the term "partial" was solely my characterization. I used it because as matters now stand the Registry is under a court order to produce the long list of documents in the April 16, 2013 trial court order, itself a summary, that Heinrichs first requested from the Registry on November 21, 2012. The Registry has steadfastly refused to produce any of them but now is willing to 'partially' comply - my words - by letting the court see them.

                      I hope I answered your questions. If not, I'll be happy to try again.

                      Bruce:

                      Justice delayed is justice denied. I'll leave it to the reader to determine which side seeks and has sought delay.

                      Jack Stenner:

                      LOL. Thanks.
                      Bill Sampson

                      BIRD LIVES!!!!!

                      HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • As some of you may recall the Registry filed a motion for protective order in the state court suit. The motion in my opinion presents nothing new from the rulings already made against the R. The motion is here:
                        http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=i1EstB9oH1%2FLGy8Z%2 Bkqwsd1aXZPkQZe1k1On81a8vAQfea2DaHFiLVK5E81MpXu7Jf 3ZuUXdz3kqTAcY4aUnSM9L0%2BXqzjNA1kbN22twkM1rD0CBZ% 2FLYXaiRGPzfGo28ewdAXrHFvpL3ZinoghRaZf44hw1ylFHBTV vYfTb%2BGQM%3D

                        The opposition filed today by Heinrichs makes the point that the Registry has already had trial court hearings and appellate court rulings (all in favor of Heinrichs) on the issues and that the motion should be denied. The opposition is here:

                        http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=myojc0qGq%2B4cCHuY9B Hp9%2FVp8ENF6iuyE2Y2oT1Zc%2BgZu92UgeVl29igEmW950rj cCWy0fysp76UFeCwVQtGN5qnniViV50%2Fb7ntRhHSaaQ0XioH jwqlfkGqJA%2BlYEC51Y4af%2Bqwhqq4IIv4CEqQ5VfTP4z%2F l4l%2Br2hLZ28Bnfg%3D

                        Stay tuned for the court's ruling. I suppose that even that could be appealed by the party adversely affected.


                        Bill
                        Bill Sampson

                        BIRD LIVES!!!!!

                        HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • Today, 3/21/2014, the Registry filed its reply memorandum regarding the protective order it seeks. As the moving party it gets the last word. I'm not sure whether the court will rule on the documents submitted by the parties or whether it will set a hearing and then rule. I cannot imagine anyone having more to say on the issue presented by this motion but I'm not the judge. The reply memorandum is here:

                          http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=MT%2F2tpue9ZLN0NO7av ytBocBiIIOIBaNhBsdHPCM67%2BowXfchAjpSHYTrKRxcmOlH% 2B%2BMI1BVhgdt650BvItBX5cgXT2fTvKCr3h%2FAYQoWSXIR8 OSS%2B8BAnXlm4zrKqzroTw7CI9KE4o1TY8aLCFgeZidk8bpsJ PZh2n0Q5ar0wY%3D

                          Stay tuned
                          Bill Sampson

                          BIRD LIVES!!!!!

                          HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

                          Comment


                          • On March 25, 2014, the trial court in Ohio denied the Registry's motion for protective order. The ruling is here: http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=NMRTpR1WyTBsW5kfafD4 %2BK7amFdsuGEiGtZFwS08pi%2FdEeaIrFwuxONentD7LLZUMz eSfSlKgC%2BsmppGz0v%2F2I90WV9%2FDomfjuGxexmczzls2c %2F8I%2FAaIUqeiOZ11tYWqyEb%2By1fh%2BGVaIFV7I6SzHXC RaG%2B7RgswdLBgq4EJYQ%3D

                            The Court said, in the final sentence of its decision:

                            "Accordingly, the discovery sought shall be produced promptly and used for the purposes of this litigation as overseen by counsel."
                            -------------------------------------------
                            Also, on March 24, in the FEDERAL case against the trustees/officers as individuals, the federal trial court entered its order granting in part and denying in part Heinrichs's motion to permit discover on the limited matter of personal jurisdiction over those defendants. Go to http://www.pacer.gov/ and open an account (it will cost you nothing unless you use it a lot and you can review the 7 page order, which I'll not copy here but will transmit by email on request.
                            Bill Sampson

                            BIRD LIVES!!!!!

                            HAYDUKE LIVES!!!!!

                            Comment


                            • Hi there,

                              There's just too much "information" about all this; can someone please summarize for me what this lawsuit (and counter suit) is all about? No judgements on who's right or wrong, just: "What are they arguing over?"

                              Thanks much,
                              RT
                              Porsche 356, Denzel, Rometsch, Karmann Ghia:
                              __Enthusiast, Archivist, Entrepreneur
                              __Collector, Restorer, Performance Specialist
                              Land Speed Record Holder, 2009 - 2014
                              Scientist and Engineer

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by RT" post=17774
                                Hi there,

                                There's just too much "information" about all this; can someone please summarize for me what this lawsuit (and counter suit) is all about? No judgements on who's right or wrong, just: "What are they arguing over?"

                                Thanks much,
                                RT
                                The Registry is a non-profit in the state of Ohio & is bound by certain rules/laws. Steve Heinrichs is trying to view records that by law he is legally allowed to. The Trustees refused & Steve sued to get them. The judge has since ruled in Steve's favor 3 or 4 times & the Trustees are still refusing to turn over records.

                                Steve is not the only one to question/ask about records but he is the only one to take it this far.

                                I see your signature is land speed record holder. Can you provide some info on it? Sounds cool.
                                Mic
                                1959A coupe

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X