Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

Trial of the state court action will commence January 27, 2015. The parties are in final preparations including pre-trial motions pertaining to admissibility of various items of evidence. Many of the issues including the right of the members to review their club's records have already been won by Heinrichs but some issues remain for trial.

EDITED MINUTES AFTER INITIAL POST: I have been advised that the judge is having surgery and trial will be continued.

On January 19, 2015 the Registry dismissed its suit against Heinrichs, meaning he has won, without trial, that suit (counterclaim).

[William Crowell]

One would think that the Registry's members would be somewhat upset with the outcome of the case thus far, and would be saying so in the Registry forum, but I am not aware of anyone doing so.

Or did I miss it, maybe?

[356JAGER]

What a monumental waste of the club's time, money and reputation, all to defend
the club against the rights of it's own members. Tar and feathers would be forthcoming in an earlier time. Great work trustees..

[Jack Staggs]

Bill, can you bring me/us up to speed here? My understanding is that Mr Heinrichs dropped his suit against the current/former trusties/board members some time last summer? Just a few days ago the Registry dropped the counter suit against Heinrichs? Were these suits dropped/dismissed with or without prejudice? Can either side re-file again later? I am guessing that the trial will only be based on the original suit. Does Ohio have provisions for court trial, as opposed to jury trial? Is there any benifit to one over the other, in your opinion? How would a jury be impaneled? I don't know how much I trust housewives and plumbers ( no intended offense to these fine citizens) to make decisions on these complicated matters.

[Bill Sampson]

Bill, can you bring me/us up to speed here? My understanding is that Mr Heinrichs dropped his suit against the current/former trusties/board members some time last summer?

The federal case that Heinrichs filed against a number of current and former trustees and officers was dismissed by the court for lack of personal jurisdiction over those officers and directors. Conceivably Heinrichs could re-file in a different court - for example, several of those individuals live in California and suit could be brought here. I doubt that the dismissal would be considered to have been on the merits and although ordered by the court could be without prejudice. I won't guarantee that opinion.

Just a few days ago the Registry dropped the counter suit against Heinrichs? Were these suits dropped/dismissed with or without prejudice?

The dismissal of the counterclaim against Heinrichs in the Ohio State court filed January 19, 2015 was specified by the lawyer for the Registry, Dominic Chieffo, to be without prejudice. So, yes, the Registry could file again later although their counterclaim, in my opinion, was utterly without merit and would be considered by many to have been frivolous.

I am guessing that the trial will only be based on the original suit.

Correct. And Heinrichs has already won most of the issues in that original suit although some remain for trial.

Does Ohio have provisions for court trial, as opposed to jury trial? Is there any benifit to one over the other, in your opinion?

If both parties waive jury it would be a court trial. However, trial by jury is one of our most important constitutional rights. When I was trying cases I ALWAYS wanted a jury.

How would a jury be impaneled? I don't know how much I trust housewives and plumbers ( no intended offense to these fine citizens) to make decisions on these complicated matters.

Courthouse humorists say: A jury trial is an event where 12 people not smart enough to avoid jury duty determine which lawyer has the better tailor. More seriously, I'd prefer to let my fellow citizens make important determinations. They make far fewer mistakes than judges and with twelve their respective flaws tend to cancel. A simple example: In 2000, 544,000 more Americans voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. 5 judges, 2 of whom directly benefited from the decision, appointed Bush the president. The result was not pretty.

AND, people will understand, even complex issues, if good lawyers explain them, backed by credible evidence. Einstein once said: "If you cannot explain physics to a barmaid, YOU don't understand it."

Hope that helps.

Bill

[Jack Staggs]

Bill, thank you for the answers. I particularly like the Einstien quote!
I have been wading through the 70+ pages on this thread, but much of it is jabberwocky to me. I know that concessions have been made, along with victories & defeats, on both sides. If it's not too much trouble, could you briefly summarize, in your opinion, what the rulings have been on the remaining case as far as the effect on the 356 community at large, and the points that still need to be ruled on? I know this is a lot to ask.
Thank you once again.
Jack Staggs

[Bill Sampson]

Bill, thank you for the answers. I particularly like the Einstien quote!

You're welcome. Permit me to interject a pitch for a friend with regard to Einstein. Robert L. Piccioni writes physics books for the layman. I provided minor assistance on his first one - print - most are now electronic. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Everyones-Guide-Atoms-Einstein-Universe/dp/0982278071/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422143207&sr=1-1&keywords=atoms+einstein+and+the+universe

I have been wading through the 70+ pages on this thread, but much of it is jabberwocky to me. I know that concessions have been made, along with victories & defeats, on both sides. If it's not too much trouble, could you briefly summarize, in your opinion, what the rulings have been on the remaining case as far as the effect on the 356 community at large, and the points that still need to be ruled on? I know this is a lot to ask.
Thank you once again.
Jack Staggs

I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer for the community and I'm sure that some will disagree with my opinions here.

1. The dismissal of Heinrichs's federal case against individual officers and trustees probably had little or no effect on the 356 community at large although some tempers have been lost.

2. The dismissal of the Registry's suit, and a counterclaim IS a separate, independent suit that must stand on its own, SHOULD be a relief to members of the Registry in whose name it was brought. I assure you my wife did not want her money spent on pursuit of claims that were bogus to start with and never changed. That dismissal will have some positive financial affect on the Registry although I cannot quantify that.

3. Heinrichs's suit against the Registry in state court - and that is all that is pending, has had what is a very beneficial effect for the members, at least so far. Prior to that suit the trustees simply did all they could to avoid transparency as to what they were doing - something that anyone interested in democracy would question. I have never seen and have never claimed to have seen any evidence of pocketing of money although there was substantial evidence that the trustees over spent in some areas - their absolute right once elected and the absolute right of the members to protest if they disagree with those expenditures. I have never said otherwise.

The rulings on the remaining case include:
a. Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from 356 Registry, Inc. He is entitled to damages as determined by the jury for that wrongful expulsion
b. Heinrichs (and ALL members since he brought suit not just for himself but for all members) is entitled to review of the books and records of 356 Registry, Inc. I believe that the court has conclusively ruled that "books and records" does NOT include copies of contracts into which 356 Registry, Inc. has entered with third parties, for example, RPM Auto Books, an entity controlled by Gordon Maltby. I am NOT crystal clear on that point. This may be clear as the trustees recently executed, for the first time to my knowledge, what my pals in the mergers and acquisitions business call a "poison pill," to wit a three year contract, meaning that if the old guard is ever replaced the new guys are stuck. I haven't seen the contract, so, take what I just said with a grain of salt - a three year deal was announced by the R.

4. There remain pending Heinrichs's claims for breach of fiduciary duty, defamation and other damage claims, pending against the Registry. I do not know whether the Registry's insurance covers those claims although I would make a reasoned guess that it does. The value of those claims, if any, will be decided by a jury. If he wins, I would hope that that win would discourage the sort of treatment he suffered, probably to the benefit of anyone in the 356 community. If he loses those claims, I'm guessing that future Registry leaders will feel justified in continuing such treatment - that's a guess and I hope not anyway.

I've doubtless left something out. There may be errors. If so, PLEASE let me know, preferably without questioning my heritage, my sobriety, my willingness to work, etc. I'll make the corrections or simply agree to disagree with any criticisms, justified or otherwise.


EDIT: I FOUND MY DISCUSSION OF THE 9/24/2014 RULING GRANTING STEVE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - IT IS ON THIS THREAD, HERE:

http://www.abcgt.com/forum/13-Open-Topic-Forum/7000-Porsche-356-Registry-Litigation-Update.html?limit=6&start=30#22107
Best


Bill

[Jack Staggs]

Thank you for your synopsis. That does much to answer a number of questions.
One remaining question for now.
Mr Heinrichs appears to have dropped his request for contact information of Registry club members. Is this consistent with Ohio and federal law regarding non profit organizations? Will this be addressed in the original lawsuit? I know that this is important to many on both sides.
Thank you once again.
Jack Staggs

[Steve Heinrichs]

Jack,

I want to respond specifically as to your question since Bill and others who have followed this closely may not fully understand the facts surrounding your question.

As a part of the judge's ruling, he opined that it was proper forme to have the list and use it for appropriate purposes (now----these are my words not his---Bill or others may find the exact words).

Anyway, the list had earlier been produced as a part of the document requests that had been appealed.

Now---Here is a very important point: The list went to my attorney. At my request, it has never been passes along to me. So, I do not have it personally. Should I decide to use it to report to the membership as to 1702 matters (the whole original point of all this) I would do so only through an independent third party such that I would not see the list.

I hope this helps.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Thanks Steve and Jack:

Just so Jack and others understand. The member records issue was a red herring introduced by the trustees. It is and was a smoke screen - something certain to inflame the members. [Fellow pedants will note my mixed metaphors. But, I digress.] Simply due to trustee egos, Steve secured the right to the member list, which Steve has generously chosen not to exercise. To save everyone the time and expense of the frivolous appeals pursued by the trustees, he had publicly stated he would forego even receiving the list if the silly appeals were dropped. Instead the trustees, despite crowing about their commitment to member privacy put that privacy at risk and inevitably and completely predictably lost.

Anyone who is a member of the Registry and is concerned about their membership information privacy owes Steve a big thank you for choosing the path that he did. If a member is upset that that privacy has been somehow compromised, that upset should be directed at the seven trustees who chose to introduce privacy as an issue in a case about the right to review financial records. [Trustee Liberty has repeatedly said all decisions of the seven trustees during his tenure on the board have been unanimous - hence my reference to all seven.]

[bbspdstr]

.... If a member is upset that that privacy has been somehow compromised, that upset should be directed at the seven trustees who chose to introduce privacy as an issue in a case about the right to review financial records.....

I am unclear about this "privacy" thing and it's timing so I will need to generalize, but I still have printed member lists, sent to me "hard copy," pre-common use of the Internet, by the Registry. These are not to be confused with "Travel Assistance Network" lists, also sent on paper.

I suppose these were presumed that a member was encouraged through those member lists to communicate with fellow members before it became presumed the Internet would in some way "expedite" that camaraderie through the club website. So far, it seems only a small percentage of the estimated 7000 members have taken that course.....but who would know the exact number of members or how to reach out to them, save a handful of uber-members or contractors if a member list is not made available?

I do not know when the member lists were declared "private" so only those "in charge" could see or use them, but that became obvious (to me) only after the legal tussle began.

(Personally, I see the Internet creating a whole new set of issues in such things) So, sending a paper copy member list maybe with the paper copy of the magazine could still be made available, satisfying the '1702 thing').

I do really miss those simpler times!

-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Bruce,
The 'protection' of the members from contact by other members (isn't contact with other members what a club is all about ? ) would seem to be a part of a pattern of the 'leadership', made up primarily of 356 vendors, to gain exclusive control of any information that might be of benefit to themselves. It's why the club is primarily a magazine subscription providing the publisher and the vendors a tax free venue for their interests in violation of the IRS and Ohio regulations for such an entity. They also receive participation in any events members put on (holidays) and international events, on the member's (subscribers) dime. It seems the editor has been provided a 'poison pill' should the whole enchilada collapse from it's own questionable behaviors. One of the real gifts Mr. Heinrichs has given members by filing the suit on behalf of all the members, is to have at least provided the membership with a window on the club's workings, and IMHO, the view isn't pretty.

[William Crowell]

I cannot help but agree with Bill Sampson about almost everything, except I maintain that Bush v. Gore was correctly decided.

[bbspdstr]

William. I'm sure you are aware of how many comics have had fun with that connection of names....but that's not relative here and now.

As of a link forwarded to me by another Registry member just now, I see there is more trouble in paradise.

http://forum.porsche356registry.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38343&sid=c76482f917cb5067292e4d40f01e5f22

A long-time stalwart of the Registry, Dr. Block, is none too happy with his volunteerism's lock-out. How many decades has he been trying to assemble chassis numbers and info about 356s into...gee, a "registry"? He was threatened with Heinrichsing?

If they thrust, They have to expect a parry...let's see how long that thread survives before editing and locking...Jerry Tallman, any odds?

[Bill Sampson]

I cannot help but agree with Bill Sampson about almost everything . . . . . . .

Be afraid Bill, be very afraid.