Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[bbspdstr]

.......Could further court action may be required to determine the letter of the law regarding ANY amembers accessibility, or is this settled? I am not casting aspersions on anyone, just trying to figure out what to me is as clear as mud.

Jack, good question as is your saying about mud. I relish the idea that here or in personal conversations, I CAN cast aspersions AND look forward to rebuttal. It's to be remembered that without complete information, 'we' have only what things look like. Lot's o' mud comes with that.

It started for me when I was denied attendance at a trustee meeting. Huh? I got excuses; "We are only taking care of the club's housekeeping duties and you'd be bored." or, "Outsiders could make a meeting longer by interruptions and cause us to miss travel connections." THEN I found that They had those expenses covered, that They were reimbersed for the cost of the registration for events. All of that was formerly covered by ... mud.

I think, it's my personal interpretation at least, that for Steve Heinrichs his frustration with the board began when he was denied access to good 'books' to assess the financial condition of the club and then was completely stonewalled and eventually excommunicated when he pushed. I'd guess that's something that shouldn't be done to a CPA with deep enough financial resources and an interest in the same car club to make him want to drege the mud for better clarity. It's the R-board that seems to think all information about that car club is proprietary and for Their eyes only.....and an expensive, long and drawn-out lawsuit is the only way they'll begrudgingly give any of it up ...... when there were already laws and regulations existing that says they must. At best, one could think that the board was unaware of those laws and regulations. If not, well, what else is covered in mud?
What's that look like to an outsider?
-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Bruce,
What Jack astutely observed, is that Bill's explanation seems to show that
Steve was given access to the sacred list and records because he was counter
sued and that opened the door to to those sacred items for his perusal. The question is, does that mean that the court allowed that access because of that circumstance and would that be a requirement for others to have that access ?
Perhaps Bill, surfing solicitor, AKA ' The Green Flash ', might enlighten us.
Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

The counterclaim made it easier (in my opinion) for the 3 courts that heard the discovery claim, to permit Steve to obtain the membership records in discovery. Those records would have been relevant to the counterclaim regardless of whether suit was filed.

That said, the clear holding of the ruling on the summary judgment motion (and of the statute itself in my opinion) is that any member is entitled to review the membership records. Not only is that my (and the court's) opinion on the law, it is the right thing to do. Although any member may be so entitled you'll have to make your own determination as to whether or not the present trustees will actually permit Joe Member access to the records.

Please note, however, what the trustees did here. Steve sought financial info since he felt (correctly in my opinion) that the reporting was not accurate. [Neither he nor I have ever suggested theft, embezzlement nor any form of chicanery even hinting that an audit would be needed.] Anyway, once pushed into filing a suit to obtain truly minimal financial info, Steve asked for all to which he and all members are entitled under Ohio law and has now been furnished most of that.

I'll note that my own adventures in Wonderland began when I asked then President House, in October, 2010, for copies of the cash disbursements and receipts journals so that I could see if I had some ideas to reverse a relatively small loss (about $17,000) for the previous fiscal year. His response included telling me I could not have Jerry Seinfeld's home address - I had sought NO membership information at all.

More inquiries welcome, particularly if I have provided mud instead of clarity.

[Steve Heinrichs]

Jack,

I am not a lawyer, merely a litigant. That said, I believe that Bill's answer in para 2 to your question is accurate and that this material is part of the 1702.15 allowed items according to the judge.

Steve Heinrichs

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

I think it may be helpful for those interested (whether a Registry member or not) to see the most recent filings of yesterday and today. As usual, the material is/or will be shortly, on the Ohio site.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Jury trial of the remaining issues in the Ohio state court case is now scheduled for April 6, 2015.

[MMW]

Will all parties involved have to be at the trial for the duration or just the attorneys?

I have always heard that once it is certain a trial will take place (like the day of) that sometimes all involved parties meet with a non-biased "arbitrator" to see if a settlement can be reached. Is this something that may happen?

[bbspdstr]

Will all parties involved have to be at the trial for the duration or just the attorneys?

Mic,

If all the trustees have to attend, that would be one 'trustee meeting' I would like to witness and likely could! Full circle. Being disallowed to sit in on the trustee meeting the Monday after the ECH I chaired in 2008 was the beginning of my pique. Finally, there will ironically be an event that was absolutely avoidable.

What will follow is the BIG question.

The one word that would be most appropriate but I sincerely doubt will be heard is; "sorry."

-Bruce

[Bill Sampson]

The Ohio state court made several rulings on February 17, 2015. I'll give a brief outline. I may not have time for much or any expansion on these topics. All will affect the trial somewhat but none will determine the outcome. The outcome has already been determined to a large extent in favor of plaintiff Steve Heinrichs as discussed here previously at considerable length.

Rulings follow with brief discussion if merited (my opinion of course)
1. The Registry filed a motion on 10/15/2014 to hold Heinrichs in contempt since he did not appear for one court hearing when George Dunn did and since he purportedly did not make discovery. The court granted the motion compelling discovery and payment of $1000 in sanctions.

2. The court denied plaintiff's motion filed 11/25/2014 for re-consideration of the court's prior ruling to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness Nesser. Mr. Nesser will be prevented from testifying.

3. Previously (11/19/2014) the court had granted two of the Registry's motions in limine. Plaintiff Heinrichs asked for re-consideration. The motion to re-consider was denied thus leaving the earlier rulings in force. Part of this ruling prevents Nesser's testimony and part prevents plaintiff from inquiring of the Registry why he has not been reinstated. You may recall that the court has previously ruled, which ruling stands, that Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from membership in the Registry. It appears he is entitled to claim damages for that wrongful expulsion.

4. The next two rulings pertain to motions also filed by plaintiff and the rulings deny use of Nesser's testimony and of questions regarding plaintiff's rights to reinstatement

5. The court denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for the Registry's frivolous appeals from the orders compelling the Registry to make discovery. There was considerable discussion of those appeals earlier. Although the Registry wrongfully failed to make discovery the trial court did not impose sanctions.

6. The court ruled that neither the undersigned nor Dominic Chieffo may be called as witnesses. Both of us had been listed tentatively as witnesses the plaintiff might call at trial.

7. Finally the court denied the plaintiff's supplemental motion for a finding of contempt regarding the Registry's failure to make discovery.

The rulings are unlikely to be outcome determinative although some evidence that one or the other party might desire to bolster his or its case may be excluded.

Trial remains set for April 6, 2015 as to any remaining issues. Stay tuned.

[Steve Heinrichs]

All,

Later this evening or tomorrow, there will be posted my offer, of several days ago, to the Registry to settle the remaining litigation prior to the upcoming trial. You will recall that I have already prevailed on the main 1702 dispute and the Registry has withdrawn their spurious and wasteful counter claim.
What is left is my claim of defamation and issue regarding important fiduciary responsibilities, and my membership question. It is good for the Registry that I have prevailed; things will get better for our club.

The posting will also include the Registry's total rejection of my offer and not so veiled threat regarding my decision to send a report to all members.
I am not moved by bullies.

So---there you go.

I'll be in LA at the Meet on Friday. I'm going to have fun selling books and serious photos/literature/etc.

I hope you will come by and say hello.

Steve Heinrichs

Offer:
BAILEY CAVALIERI LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
One Columbus 10 West Broad Street, Suite 2100 Columbus, Ohio 43215-3422
telephone 614.221.3155 facsimile 614.221.0479
www.baileycavalieri.com
Direct Dial: 614.229.3211
Email: Tiffany.Miller@BaileyCavalieri.com

February 24, 2015
Dominic J. Chieffo
CHIEFFO LAW OFFICE
3688 Echo Place
Powell, Ohio 43065

Donald L. Anspaugh
ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR
2 Miranova Place, Suite 700
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Re: R. Stephen Heinrichs v. 356 Registry, Inc.: Settlement Proposal
Dear Counsel:
Given that the Court has postponed our trial date yet again, Mr. Heinrichs
has decided to take advantage of the opportunity to make once last good-faith
attempt at settling this matter.
As you know, throughout the life of this case, Mr. Heinrichs has attempted
many times to reach out to the Registry and resolve this in an amicable manner. All
of his settlement offers have been almost entirely dedicated to requesting the
Registry take simple steps to improve upon its financial structure and handling of
elections, strictly to the benefit of protecting the Club and the membership.
In the past, Mr. Heinrichs has also made monetary demands in amounts
designed to help him recoup the incredible legal costs he has endured in this effort.
At this time, we are prepared to try something different. Below is a new set
of terms upon which the parties could immediately settle what remains of this case.
One thing you will particularly note is that Mr. Heinrichs is prepared to do this
settlement for a mere symbolic amount of $100 as monetary words, the Registry has a chance here to avoid a trial altogether consideration. In other
without any real
outlay of settlement funds. The terms of the settlement would be as follows:



Response letter:

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

There will be another post this evening of our response.

I'll see you all in LA and will be pleased to discuss the matters with you there.

Steve Heinrichs

Response:

[Bill Sampson]

In the Ohio State Court Case plaintiff Steve Heinrichs submitted his dismissal of the second and third counts of his complaint which, summarized, sought remedies for defamation and for breach of fiduciary duty.

Heinrichs also filed his motion to convert the ruling on the summary judgment to a final judgment. That ruling was on Count 1 of his complaint and was decided in favor of Heinrichs as to transparency issues and members' rights to records.

Assuming dismissal will be entered as he requested and that the court's prior ruling that he won the case on the first count will become final, unless the Registry appeals, the case will be at an end without trial. This win for Heinrichs is, in fact, a win for all Registry members. NONE of the transparency recently permitted by the sitting Board would have occurred without the suit and that transparency is now required pursuant to Ohio law and the correct ruling of the court on those issues.

[S.J.Szabo]

Life Imitating Reality Imitating Life

[MMW]

Is the lawsuit over? People have claimed winning it.

Vic Skirmants claims "It means the registry won!!"

Bill Sampson says "This win for Heinrichs is, in fact, a win for all Registry members."

I don't get how both sides could have won.

[356JAGER]

The Registry didn't 'win'. Mr. Heinrichs dropped the suit due to personal issues that outweighed continuing the suit, hardly a 'win' for the Registry. There is still the possibility that the IRS will take notice of the magazine's non compliance with the laws governing non-profit social clubs, but in the end, simply not subscribing and thereby providing support, is the best an individual can do. No winners here, other than Mr. Heinrichs for attempting, at great personal cost, to do the right thing. Kudos to you Steve..