Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[jstenner]

-----

[neilbardsley]

Joris, while I agree with some of the sentiments in this thread, I, and I'm sure many others, appreciate your column in the Magazine. I particularly like your Michael May interview recently.

[Bill Sampson]

Joris:

My wife lets me read her copy of the magazine. It's my position that in this state it is community property but so far we're still married. We both enjoyed your article. Thanks for writing it.

I saw a "camper" for lack of a better description (Mercedes?) at a couple of the LAX events. If that was you, my apologies for not introducing myself. I ask because it had European plates of some sort as I recall. Wild guess on my part?


JUSTIN RIO:

Thanks as always for furnishing this forum. You're doing a great job.


Bill

[356JAGER]

Jack,
If my understanding is correct, The R claims as their intellectual property, any and all that appears in the mag or on their site since they began. You send in a photo of your car on drive your 356 day, write an article, post a solution or a question, whatever, it becomes theirs to do with as they please. You, the contributor, do not own it. If this isn't the case, Gordon or one of the other trustees that lurks here is free to clarify. I personally don't want to contribute my efforts to someone's cache of 'intellectual property' and it's why I post here, where contributions are given freely to all interested without being seized by what are basically pirates to use as they wish.
Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

Jack:

On the public portion of the Registry web site, with some difficulty, you can navigate to the "WEBSITE TERMS." It is under the "ABOUT US" drop down menu on the Registry home page. The "WEBSITE TERMS" are here:
https://porsche356registry.org/Registrywebsiteterms.pdf

If those terms are important to you I suggest keeping a copy of them as they exist today on your own hard drive or other media and periodically checking to see if they have been updated.

The Intellectual Property terms are near the top. You will note that a non-existent entity, to wit, Porsche 356 Registry, falsely held out in the magazine to be a corporation, proclaims its rights in the terms. Based upon its own proclamations, I am sure that 356 Registry, Inc., has obtained the right, from Porsche or PCNA or a related entity, to use the name Porsche 356 Registry. However, to my knowledge, 356 Registry, Inc., has never taken steps with governmental bodies to protect its usage of the term "Porsche 356 Registry."

After literally being laughed at by the trustees at their LAX meeting in March, 2011, for suggesting that they undertake those steps, I did so myself and later offered, for free, a corporation in Ohio named Porsche 356 Registry, Inc., that I had formed specifically to protect that which the trustees declined to protect, to George Dunn. He did not respond. Eventually PCNA demanded that I cease use of that name, doubtless after someone dropped a dime on me to PCNA. Since 356 Registry, Inc., did not want it, I changed the name of that corporation to avoid further offense to PCNA - certainly none was intended. No good deed should ever go unpunished I guess.

In every state of which I am aware the use of the terms "Inc., Incorporated, Corporation" is unlawful unless the entity using those terms is, in fact, incorporated under that name. You folks licensed to practice law in other jurisdictions and who practice corporate law please feel free to chime in here - I'll happily edit my remarks. The Registry's public information about its corporate existence is here:
http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:7:0::NO:77_CHARTER_NUM:485777
It did not exist as a corporation at all due to its failure to observe Ohio rules for about 8 years (1995 to 2003) and for a short period (1985 to 1987) and again for a short period in 2008. It is probably fortunate that no one took the name, 356 Registry, during those periods of non-compliance with Ohio law.

I express no opinion here as to whether the purported entity with no known governmental license "Porsche 356 Registry" can enforce the web site terms to which a link is furnished herein. I'm only licensed in two states, CA and HI (inactive in HI), am semi-retired and this is not my field. I am simply one of several former club volunteers kicked to the curb by Registry "leadership," trustees Dansby and Macaluso specifically excluded from that characterization.

Obviously if, since my last search, 356 Registry, Inc., has changed its name or licensed another business name I'll edit this post accordingly. Please feel free to correct me if I am in error in that regard. Today, 3/31/2015, the corporate name is 356 Registry, Inc. and there is no Ohio listing with "Porsche 356 Registry" anywhere in its title; according to Ohio public records.

Jack old friend, that's about all I know - so, if it is clear as mud to you, please know ----- me too.

[356JAGER]

Bill,
That would certainly provide a warm, fuzzy vibe as to joining this 'not for profit, social club'. Bet most subscribers never read it or are even aware of it. Just wondering how much that bit of CYA legalese cost and whom the magazine engaged to produce it ?
Guess that's included in the 'the contracts are no business of the subscribers'
ruling. 'Corporations are people', so what is the R if it isn't incorporated ?
Cheers,
Joel

[bobforman]

Bill, Allow me to respectfully disagree with your use of the word sinecure in reference to Gordon's work within the Registry. While I agree with you that he is a fiduciary in the organization, I argue that he puts out an excellent (IMHO) publication requiring skill, intellect and experience. His professional efforts hardly deserve a "Bob's your uncle" label. Whether or not he is over-compensated for this work is a judgment far beyond my pay grade.

One thing about the lawsuit: I believe is has been successful in that it is now easy to access at least a summary of the club's finances. It also spotlighted the need and desire for my transparency. Like the proverbial camel's nose under the tent, I'm optimistic this emphasis will remain active amongst the membership.

[Bill Sampson]

Joel:

I have NO idea what, if anything, Porsche 356 Registry is. I'm sure that the use of that name by 356 Registry, Inc. has been authorized by Porsche and/or PCNA - at least according to proclamations by past president House. 356 Registry, Inc., is a corporation in good standing in the state of Ohio according to the Ohio Secretary of State's web site today, 3/31/2015.

The terms of use vs. "let's keep it about the cars" remind me of the confusion expressed by Joe Montana (since you're in the Bay area) concerning whether the NFL was a business or a game.

At any rate, since Jack's query triggered some review by us of the terms of use, my family has decided not to post anything further on the Registry site due to those terms of use. I'm just sure they'll miss us.

[Bill Sampson]

Bill, Allow me to respectfully disagree with your use of the word sinecure in reference to Gordon's work within the Registry. While I agree with you that he is a fiduciary in the organization, I argue that he puts out an excellent (IMHO) publication requiring skill, intellect and experience. . . . . . . .

Bob:

Fair enough. I didn't mean to denigrate the magazine which I think is good. I edited out the word "sinecure" and replaced it with "position" in the post to which you referred. I hope you think that is fair - if not and I agree, I'll edit it again.

The lawsuit is unquestionably the primary reason for the increased transparency. I remain saddened that that is what it took.

[bobforman]

You're a good man Bill.

[356JAGER]

Having re read the Judge's decisions it seems, at least to this untrained eye, that the rulings seem to be based on the notion that the R is a for profit corporation. Bill, or any others versed in the nuances of the law, please feel free to opine.. BTW, agreed with Bob's post above as to your being one of the good guys. You say the R won't miss the Sampson's presence, which only means they're the losers in multiple dimensions.
Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

Bob and Joel:

Thanks for the kind words. It's helpful to me (and Rosemary) to remember the good guys that we have met through this journey.

As for re-reading the decision my original reaction remains. Huh? I truly wish I could be more help. My training and experience did not encompass a ruling like that. All I can suggest is that old standby - hurry up and wait. Sorry.

[S.J.Szabo]

Just a couple things to consider...

The entire lie is actually that the "Porsche 356 Registry, Inc." is an "educational corporation", a 501(c)(3) classification under Federal and State regulations. In fact, it is, by any name, a 501(c)(7) corporation or "Social Club".

This fundamental, persistent, and deliberate misrepresentation is clearly intended to befuddle the Members, in order to further obscure the fact that nearly every element of its operation is non-compliant with the regulations it is obliged, by law, to obey.

As for the work of the exalted Grand Poobah, I would note this:

1. Considering that the content is free (with occasional exception) and by others and considering what the subscription costs, it should either be better or cheaper. All things considered, the amount of the Publisher's profit (or "inurement of benefit" in legal terms) should rightfully be an issue of concern for every member.

2. The point above is moot considering the very relationship between the Publisher (and Club Officer) and his for-profit corporation and the Registry certainly appears to be deliberately non-compliant with Federal and State regulations. In the context of these legal hi-jinks, it strains credulity, common sense, or any reasonable standard of decency to praise anyone involved. To all appearances, the Club is a front for a publishing business; the stuff about cars is strictly incidental.

Every time I see one of those mopes sign off with KTF, it makes me want to puke.

Vocally Yours,

Author's note: Segments of this post have been altered.

[bbspdstr]

You mean an obviously "faith-based" operation doesn't make you feel like genuflecting to ANYONE who claims they can make your 356 life better if the proper dues are paid that allow entry into a virtual 356 (and other early) Porsche heaven?

Even after excommunication there is not a tiny doubt left that your after(Registry) life will be affected by your blasphemy?

No? .....me neither.

-Bruce

[Bill Sampson]

Well, not much happened this week in the Ohio state court suit. Heinrichs's lawyer did file opposition to the motion the Registry had filed to require return of the discovery documents. As you may recall the court granted that motion with no hearing and without what appears to be the customary time for the other side to be heard (see the ruling of March 25 on that). Due to the granting of that ruling the trustees and officers of 356 Registry, Inc., have claimed that they won the suit. I am not the only lawyer that has read the March 25 decision and been unable to determine its meaning. I certainly see aspects of it where the members of 356 Registry, Inc., and Heinrichs as their representative won their cause(s) set forth in the suit. Also, I have not seen anything that resembles a final judgment. WARNING: I am not licensed in Ohio and all my experience is in California - there are doubtless differences between procedural rules.

I am very close to 100% certain that no matter who won (and it is my opinion that Heinrichs won the most important aspects, those pertaining to member right to records) the loser has a right of appeal. I do not know the length of time the loser has to appeal. In this case both parties lost some aspects of the case - as I read it. I have no crystal ball as to who might appeal what issues, if any.

Since the case is certainly open, I'd hope that this thread could maintain itself as a "sticky" or "pinned" or whatever forum administrators call it. IF no appeals are taken from what may or may not be a final judgment the case will then be over but as of today it remains open.

Regardless, thank you Justin, for this opportunity to engage in generally civil if sometimes contentious discussions.