Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[bbspdstr]

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

Mic, it's just as accurate to say that both sides lost.

Let's wait and see what unfolds, but know that not-so-old man Rio just keeps right on flowin' along. Thank you, Justin!

-Bruce

[Impi]

Not being a registry member and having participated in the registry's forum when I was still allowed as a non registry member and then summarily ejected. I have this to say I will never become a member of this elitist group.
1 There seems to be a real guarding of the precious 356 information and every little share has to be paid for in Hard cash. It seems that the staunchest advocates of the current policies are also those standing to make money out of the movement as evidenced by those who posted about how they have won (as posted on the registry's forum
2 the registry tries to be the end all of all 356 knowledge.
3 the registry does not seem to be very transparent in their dealings with others
5 I have not found this amongst other segments of the Porsche hobby I bought a 928 last week and have found a wealth of info, knowledge, and support from various sources as well as people going out of their way to give information on a very complicated car all for the love of the car. This is the same with my 914 and 944.
I am very glad that Justin has so graciously allowed this forum and we might support it financially with a yearly donation (our Aircooledvwsa forum is supported in a small way from donations by members.)

Thanks for listening to my view.
Armand

[356JAGER]

Thanks Armand,
Not only do they now make information unavailable, if you contribute any, it becomes their 'intellectual property'. A really welcoming and open group, seizing whatever one might offer to his fellow enthusiasts as their own. This site, among most others is what best exemplifies what a shared passion is about. Keep your $ 45 or whatever a subscription to the magazine now costs for parts or your favorite libation while working on your car and get your info here where some of the best in the world provide it without payment, to whomever asks. If you must join a club, find a local one, 356CAR, 356 Club, etc. and enjoy actual events with real fellow enthusiasts that don't want to pick your wallet and your brain to obtain THEIR 'intellectual property'.
Cheers,
Joel
Registry Subscriber 1984 2004
11 years without the bimonthly birdcage lining

[Carrera_The_Kid]

the bimonthly birdcage lining

Thanks Joel! Good to know how you rate the unpaid work of me and my fellow editors

Oh, btw I resonate completely about the high quality level of discussion and information sharing on this web site. Sadly both the registry and this forum suffer from some of their vocal members

[Bill Sampson]

Mic:

Since I'm one of the guys you quoted let me say I agree with Vic Skirmants if he means that the members of the Registry won some rights previously denied them - at least so far they've won those. You'd have to ask him if he means the members when he refers to the Registry - there is evidence both ways on that. The members truly did not win very much (so far) no matter what he says or what I say: however, a few of the rights denied to them by Mr. Skirmants and his fellow trustees for many years have now been judicially established at the trial court level in the members' favor despite the intransigent opposition of the trustees. The members owe thanks solely to the fortitude and personal commitment of Mr. Heinrichs who competed against unprincipled opponents (for example, the trustees and their mouthpiece disposed of important evidence by disposing of their computer server and the data thereon during the case) fortified with nearly infinite insurance carrier cash.

The court did hold in favor of Mr. Heinrichs in this regard - he was wrongfully expelled from the Registry by the trustees. He and the members have the right to records delineated in Ohio Revised Code Section 1702. The editor, an officer of the club who as such owes fiduciary duties to the members, was able to shield from those members any knowledge of what he and his controlled entities do with the million or so reasons he has to maintain his position. So, Skirmants is right - the "Registry" won the right to protect the editor's contracts (and others) from scrutiny. No opinion is expressed here, one way or the other as to whether the editor has engaged in malfeasance or misfeasance - the court has ruled, thanks to the efforts of the trustees and their lawyers, that the members are not entitled to know.

As for further analysis of the most recent judicial decision it has confused a number of lawyers including this one. Therefore I'll refrain for the time being. I hope within a week or two, depending upon further developments in the case, to more fully respond to your query Mic. One problem for me personally is that I simply do not know if the most recent pronouncement from the court operates as a final determination (at the trial level only of course) in Ohio, a jurisdiction in which I have no license to practice.

Regardless of the final determination of this case whenever that may be, praising the trustees for their handling of the matter is like presenting a medal of commendation to an arsonist for putting out a fire he himself set.

EDIT: In fairness, my remarks concerning trustees past and present exclude the newbies, Felix Macaluso and Curt Dansby, neither of whom were present at the start of the conflagration.

[surfer71]

Confused.com ?? :-/ no really I am..

I am sure both parties wished it didn't come to this but then.. I am sure there would be different view points. All I know is I wasn't going to pay towards a club that was only going to lose my money on legal bills.

and todate I have not rejoined. A side from the fact that as an international member I didn't really need to be a me member other than the forum. Mag was nice but just as easy on line!

[356JAGER]

Joris,
Here's an idea for you and the other volunteer contributors to Gordon's magazine, start a column on this site to share your knowledge with everyone, worldwide, not just a few who are forced to subscribe to a for profit magazine.
You won't have your efforts seized as someone else's 'intellectual property' and you'll have a much bigger audience, not to mention moving the hobby into the 21st century and away from the control of a group of what could be considered dinosaurs nearing extinction. Bill Block should come here with his database and we could again have a real 356 Registry, as originally intended. If this hobby is going to grow, it has to become INclusive, not more EXclusive.
Cheers,
Joel
As an added benefit, you're contributions won't provide lining for those cages..

[William Crowell]

Nor will I ever re-join the Registry. I find the bigwigs in that club to be completely insufferable.

Bill, can you or anyone else provide a link to the Ohio state court order denying entry of a judgment on the order granting partial summary judgment (California lingo)? That sounds rather unusual, and I wonder why the court did that.

Thanks.

Bill Crowell

[Bill Sampson]

Bill:

It's probably not the first time that I did not understand what a court ordered. Just part of the fun of being a lawyer I guess.

I tried several times to attach my copy of the decision itself. For some reason I was unable to do so. It's in pdf format. I'll email it to anyone who sends me an email address.

Getting to the court file itself, and you can see every document filed, is a little slow, I think due to their server. Go to: http://www.franklincountyohio.gov/clerk/ Then click on CASE INFORMATION ONLINE. Repeat until you get to a screen that asks you (once EVERY day) to accept their terms of use. You will then get to a screen that will ask you for information on the case. Fill in only the last name box at the far left, with HEINRICHS and then click search. You will then get a screen with several instances of that last name. Click on the case number as 12CV012434. Here is where it gets slow and you might even have to repeat the process. You will eventually get a screen with all the documents filed in the case back to the complaint filed 10/1/2012.

You'll see 3 entries dated 3/25/2012. They are identical. Click on the familiar pdf icon in the IMAGE column and the decision and entry will be displayed. You can scroll through the screen listing the documents for any antecedents you wish to review.

I cannot find in the decision and entry what we in California might consider a final/appealable order, but, perhaps reasonable minds could differ. With no application for an expedited hearing I note that a motion was filed 3/20/2015 and an order on it entered 3/25/2015 without notice or an opportunity to file opposition. We in CA would find that extraordinary as you know, but, Ohio must be (obviously is) different.

For now, I'm simply watching and waiting to see what, if anything, happens next since I'm quite confused as to the effect of the last decision.


Bill

[attachment]Decision on motions.pdf[/attachment]

[William Crowell]

Bill, I think you are being overly respectful to the judiciary. I read that decision. It made no sense to me. All the talk about how the law must be used as a shield but not a sword was a bunch of poppycock. The law is what it is, and can be used as either a shield or a sword. (BTW, I went to a good law school and am a member of my state bar association.)

So what is the appealable order or judgment, then? The judge seems to be saying there is none, so Heinrichs must just lump it. That is improper. The overwhelming impression I got from reading the decision was that the judge is playing games. If there is an appealable order or judgment, why didn't he just come out and say what it is? What a bunch of baloney.

Bill Crowell
California State Bar No. 53366

[Bill Sampson]

Bill, I think you are being overly respectful to the judiciary.

Now THAT is a first. 39 years in this business (3 fewer than you I saw) and NO ONE ever called me that before.

I suppose the legal, technical question that order brings to mind is WTF. Is that appealable?

[bbspdstr]

the bimonthly birdcage lining

Thanks Joel! Good to know how you rate the unpaid work of me and my fellow editors........

Joris, if you check Joel's bio/sign-off, he hasn't had any birdcage liner from the assumed source since you began offering and editing in print. Your high quality of writing and information is bird-safe.

Therein lies the problem. Doesn't it seem that with somewhere around 7,000 people paying money to a Corporate entity... that there is more substance in and enthusiasm for the magazine than the 'club' it represents?

(Or that more people than we think may use old magazines as bird cage lining.)

Thus, the term 'subscriber' is easily substituted for 'member.' A true car club is more than a magazine, just as a 'registry' suggests registering something. Is there a 'club' associated with "Excellence" magazine or the "DuPont Registry"?

I wonder what would happen if the articles of substance such as yours were to be held out until there were payment discussions? (as in most magazines) Would it be dues or a subscription rate that had to be changed?

I remember the pre-Internet days of the Registry, when all volunteer input was published in a thin Newsletter and no one thought much about "intellectual property." We shared information and enthusiasm...in black and white and one color, which changed...occasionally. Those were the halcyon days for 356ers.....to think, I've had articles printed in Registry newsletters and magazines, written for the fun of it, that wound up in books that I had to pay for. Those were published by TPR and RPM. Wonder where that money went?

Now, you have me thinking and afraid that maybe MY articles wound up in birdcages! Oh, crap!

Vocally, best regards,
-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Bill - Bill,
Having followed this from the outset, as an interested party, sans legal background, what I have brought away is that a law written in plain and unambiguous language, only means what the judge decides it means per the interpretation of the lawyer's argument that most suits his agenda. The law, it's words and their meanings are, well, meaningless. That or a mental competency hearing may be in order...
Cheers,
Joel

[Jack Staggs]

Since the term "intellectual property" has come up recently, I have a question to ask from legal minds far further from my own understanding. If I were to use my own verbatim posts from the Registry forum, in a book or forum of my choosing, could I be subject to legal challenges? In the past, I was allowed to post many "secrets" of my methods, repairs, and cross over part #s to the community at large, before the forum was closed to non members. When I joined the 356 Registry forum, it was a simple procedure. I don't recall a waiver of any kind when I read the rules for posting, just an agreement for civility. Perhaps I I'm mistaken. Does anyone have a copy of the rules for posting from that time frame? I'm not sure, but I think I joined in 2008?

[Bill Sampson]

Jack:

I've always thought that the term Intellectual Property was an oxymoron. Let's discuss that when I pick up my car.

I'm pretty sure Justice Douglas, at least, would have ruled that the entire concept of IP was a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment since the idea is that another person (remember Jack, corporations are people) then owns what is in your head and thus owns you. But fond remembrances of one of my boyhood heroes doesn't help you find the missing rules. So, . . .

I found a link to a page that doesn't exist any more that had original forum rules on it: http://www.356registry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8. There are historical reservoirs out there on the internet somewhere. I think there is a site called GoBack or some such that DOES have some historical web pages. I've heard of things like that but don't know if they work or how to use them. Although I helped draft the original rules for the forum along with Rick Dill, Brian O'Kelly, Barry Brisco and doubtless other club volunteers who put in a ton of time regretfully I no longer have a copy from 7+ years ago. Sorry.