Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

As of right now, I can't log onto the Registry site. Anyone know what is wrong? I am a paid up member.

Must be that question about inside and outside vendors.

Rosemary is logged in right now. 7:27 p.m. PDT 10/28/2014

[356JAGER]

Interesting link: Note that 'outside vendors' will be audited while Pat Daly's question as to what an 'inside vendor' is remains unanswered. Perhaps 'inside vendors' are the publisher/trustee/profiteer and any others in the circle of 'leadership' so designated, that would seem to be exempted from this 'audit'.
Most importantly, note that the membership is not to be informed of any outcome, only those being audited.

https://porsche356registry.org/system/redactor_assets/documents/5/PORSCHE_356_REGISTRY_INTERNAL_AUDIT_COMMITTEE_Revi sed.pdf

Question: If the uber expensive 'audit' just performed by an independent accounting firm shows no problems, why the need for this dog and pony show ?

[Pat]

I was wondering what an outside vendor is compared to the vendors that seem to be wrapped up in the management of the Registry (magazine vendor and goodie store vendor). There may be others that I am not aware of. In any case, why would the internal auditors or volunteer auditors be restricted from reporting anything of questionable nature to the membership?

[356JAGER]

Pat,
They won't even let them report the good stuff (it's all good, the first costly audit said so, so they say).
Why all the secrecy ? Simple logic would dictate that they should be proud to openly display the excellent results that their hard work and dedication has produced. Still scratching my head (among other locales) in mystification.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Craig/All,

I was asked about disclosing information about the "discovery" that has been produced.

I responded quickly and strongly rejected the idea some several days ago.

Sadly, things have changed. Given the Registry's lack of compliance with the requirements as to complete responses and more, I want you all to know that I am re-thinking my earlier response.

Stay tuned as important information may be forthcoming
over the weekend as a start.

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

I have decided to continue,at this time, to try to get the Registry to comply with the discovery requests.

Steve Heinrichs

[Carrera_The_Kid]

Any updates with regard to the proceedings?

[356JAGER]

Joris,
After losing all their appeals, the Trustees now provide small bits of what the courts ordered them to, simply attempting to further delay the inevitable. Strange behavior for those who claim to have nothing to hide as has been the case from the the first time someone requested the information available to anyone under the regulations governing a 'non-profit' social club. Strange, but sadly, not unexpected given this lot's history.

[Bill Sampson]

Joris:

The state court action, Heinrichs v 356 Registry, Inc., can be viewed, including copies of all filings, by starting here:
http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/
Then search on last name Heinrichs and select the appropriate case - it's the third or fourth one down.

The federal case, Heinrichs v Dunn, et al, can be found at http://www.pacer.gov/. Searching is a little more complicated here, but, the case is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Ohio, case number 2:13-cv-929. You have to set up a Pacer account. It is almost impossible for a casual user to incur fees so it's basically free.

The parties are engaged in discovery, a legitimate, lawful, process vehemently resisted by the Registry thus far.

The cases are a long way from resolution whether by motion, trial or settlement - my reading anyway.

[Carrera_The_Kid]

Thanks for the update. How long does this "discovery" usually take or does this totally depend on the extend of the case?

[Bill Sampson]

Thanks for the update. How long does this "discovery" usually take or does this totally depend on the extend of the case?

It is highly case dependent. In this instance the Registry refused to comply with its discovery obligations in the trial level state court, choosing instead to file two non-meritorious appeals both of which it lost. Whether it is now complying with court orders in that regard is not known to me. Ordinarily in a case of this relatively small size I would have expected discovery to have been completed about a year ago.

Discovery has been ordered by the court to be completed in the state court action by July 1, 2014. The court has the power to extend that date if in its opinion that extension would be appropriate. Even judges' patience sometimes runs out, however - stay tuned.

[Bill Sampson]

The Ohio state trial court (Judge Sheward) has re-scheduled matters in the case of Heinrichs v 356 Registry, Inc. as follows:

September 25, 2014 Dispositive Motion Deadline
October 1, 2014 Discovery Cut-off
November 5, 2014 Pre-trial conference @8:30 a.m.
November 17, 2014 Trial @ 9:00 a.m.

[Jack Staggs]

Is this due to an extension being granted, or just the court compensating for a busy schedule?

[Bill Sampson]

Jack:

A status conference (just what it sounds like) was, according to the public filings, held May 29, 2014. Courts regularly schedule those for all sorts of reasons - frequently just to set calendars.

Due to the lengthy appeals the discovery and motion timelines appeared to me to be a little tight so I am GUESSING that the court provided itself and the parties a little more breathing room to conclude those matters, at whose request I simply do not know.

[Bill Sampson]

Today, July 11, 2014, Mr. Heinrichs submitted his motion requesting that a summary judgment (that is, without trial) be entered in his favor and against the Registry in the Ohio state court as to some of the litigated matters. The motion asks the court to determine, among other things, that all members are entitled to the records Mr. Heinrichs and others have sought for many years now. A full copy of the motion is or will be available on the court's web site.