Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[JTR70]

Sure Bill, I cut the registry threads loose today as I was under the impression that the case was now closed. Sounds like it is not...

[MMW]

From where I sit it seems like nobody won & it is business as usual. I get the fact that books & records are supposed to be open to members now but I doubt anyone requesting them would get them.

[Bill Sampson]

Sure Bill, I cut the registry threads loose today as I was under the impression that the case was now closed. Sounds like it is not...

Thanks Justin.

Mic: I hope you're wrong but history says you may well be correct.

[George]

I could care less who wins or looses as long as this thing is finally put to bed and we can get on with being a group of folks that love and share there skills and love of the 356.
I surly hope that everyone can come together and forgive and forget regardless which side of this issue they are on. My 2 cents worth

George

[Bill Sampson]

The original thread on this topic has been sequestered. I have been invited to commence a new thread on the topic by the system administrator. Since reactivation of the FAQ thread initiated by me a couple days ago has resulted in posts in that thread that really belong here or in the old thread, I am taking the liberty of quoting all the posts in the FAQ thread and hope that anyone wishing to share in that discussion will join in here. I have taken the liberty of quoting myself and Dave Gensler and George Walling from the FAQ thread. If either of you guys object let me know and I'll edit you out of this one. Meanwhile, here are the quotes with the most recent at the top and the oldest at the bottom

I could care less who wins or looses as long as this thing is finally put to bed and we can get on with being a group of folks that love and share there skills and love of the 356.
I surly hope that everyone can come together and forgive and forget regardless which side of this issue they are on. My 2 cents worth

George

Today, April 20, 2015, Steve Heinrichs, by and through his attorney, filed a motion to make final the court's prior adjudication of Count One (authorizing member review of records and membership lists) of his complaint in his favor. The motion includes evidence that Counts Two (Defamation) and Three Breach of Fiduciary Duty) have now been dismissed WITH prejudice.

You may recall that the March 25 order denied his prior request for a final judgment on Count One because Counts Two and Three had been dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. I think. As I've said previously my understanding of that order was and is limited.

If the motion is granted Heinrichs will have a judgment in his favor against the Registry on most of the items he sought in that count and will have a judgment in favor of the Registry denying to its members the right to see the contracts the trustees sign with vendors and others.

Presumably following the motion there will be some form of final judgment and all the parties and their cheerleaders can claim they won. Regardless, IF final it will be final only at the trial level meaning everybody can appeal if so inclined.

On my soapbox: As a fan of transparency it is my personal opinion that the law requires that the records including contracts, particularly any with Registry officers or Trustees, should be reviewable by any member. Whether legally required or not, it's the right thing to do. Off my soap box.

I think and hope I've got the legal analysis correct - if not, let me know and I'll fix it and even give you credit. A couple of lawyers and other doubtless smarter people on the Registry forum have posted their own thoughtful analyses of what the rulings so far mean. You'll have to wade through clutter from the usual suspects to get to those but I think the effort worthwhile.

You're unlikely to change my opinion stated in the soapbox paragraph but have at it if you wish.

Bill,
I know you have strong opinions on the whole matter. On some things we would agree, and we would agree to disagree about others. But the legal analyses you have provided have always been extremely dispassionate and objective. Takes a great deal of mental discipline to do that, so my hat is off to you. Thanks for your efforts.
DG

Dave:

Thanks for the kind words. I am obviously biased in favor of Steve Heinrichs as to his desire and mine for open governance. I TRY anyway to give a correct analysis as opposed to a "plaintiff's brief." Your compliment means a lot to me. I'll admit to sharing, a little, your cynicism as to this matter although as I think you'll see below, it is possible that the leadership chose to believe something it wanted, desperately, to hear from its lawyer. Sigh.

I was, until early yesterday evening when I figured it out I think, completely mystified as to how president Dunn had determined that the case was over. I then re-read Dunn's report to the membership, which included the analysis by Dominic Chieffo, the trustees' lawyer. The first sentence, published March 27, is so wrong (my opinion) that I simply overlooked it. Not good reporting by me I know. [I'll give Mr. Chieffo the benefit of the doubt since he also was confronted with what, to me, is a confusing order.] Chieffo states:

"The matter of R. Stephen Heinrichs, Plaintiff v. 356 Registry, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 12 CV 012434, In the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin, County, Ohio, is concluded."

Chieffo goes on to state (I am paraphrasing) that the March 25 order is mostly self-explanatory. Well, not to you Dave, not to me and not to any of the lawyers with whom I've discussed it and possibly not even to him. The last sentence of the March 25 order by the court states:

"The Plaintiff's first claim has been adjudicated and the remaining claims are being dismissed voluntarily."

The reference to the first claim is to Heinrichs's request for records under Ohio Revised Code Section 1702.15 to which he and all members are entitled according to the court's earlier ruling. The March 25 ruling does not change that earlier ruling. There is nothing left to decide on the first claim and Heinrichs won most of that and the trustees won part of it, that is, the right to prevent Heinrichs and the members from looking at the Porsche contract, the Maltby/RPM contract and the goodie store contract - probably any contract. The court has declined to make the summary judgment ruling a final judgment unless Steve dismisses Counts 2 and 3 WITH prejudice. I can only speculate (and won't) as to whether the trustees must also dismiss their counter-suit against Heinrichs with prejudice to enable the matter to be concluded at the trial level. When concluded, really, at the trial level, the parties have rights to appeal.

With apologies to the late great John Belushi in Animal House, "Nothing is over until we decide it's over. . . . ;" we in this instance being the two parties.

Since the March 27 "conclusion" announcement by president Dunn and Dominic Chieffo, more has occurred along with suggestions by some Registry members that contempt proceedings be pursued. The best suggestion (strictly my opinion) was stated by a member I do not know and with whom I have never communicated, Ronald Maciejewski: (http://forum.porsche356registry.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=39005#p239713). Stay tuned. My optimistic side hopes that the other trustees will follow the suggestion of trustee Macaluso AND BOTH THE TRUSTEES' LAWYERS as reflected in the minutes of the March 9, 2015 (incorrectly headlined on the Registry site as 2014) trustee meeting that settlement negotiations be pursued. Good thinking Felix. Experience tells me there is little cause for that optimism.

Corrections invited - make that requested.

Bill,
As always, thanks for your analysis. If a lawyer doesn't understand it, what chance do any of the rest of us have? It is interesting to see the "spin" placed on the matter by Gordon's post on the R site. Not saying that is wrong, there is "spin" on many of the posts here too (though your's are commendably objective). Its human nature and we all do it, but it is interesting. On the R site posts, I have yet to see a clear distinction between the ruling that R Members have a right to request and access information about R business, and the court's order that Mr. Heinrichs return information (presumably over and above what would a member normally has a right to) that the court earlier ordered provided to him as part of the discovery process. The cynical part of me thinks this is an intentional misdirection on the part of the R leadership. But as you noted, only time will tell. Its been an interesting thing to watch, educating me a little about both the legal system, and human nature. I'm not positive the matter is concluded either.

I am as perplexed as I am sure all of you are about the rulings of trial court Judge Sheward. I am mystified by the crowing by the propagandists at the Registry that they won. [Note that there are more nuanced views expressed by some members there.] Judge Sheward did NOT disturb the summary judgment ruling that Steve is entitled to most of the records he sought under Ohio Revised Statutes Section 1702.15. The notable exception to that finding was that Steve is not entitled to the contracts between the Registry and outside vendors. There appears to have been an implicit ruling that Gordon Maltby and his affiliated companies are outside vendors-a ruling which I am unable to reconcile with the facts since Gordon is a rather obvious insider - in fact an officer with the concomitant fiduciary duties to all members. But, I don't wear a black bathrobe for a living. Missing from Judge Sheward's rulings at all times has been a decision as to whether those rulings in favor of Steve also apply in his representative capacity, that is, that all members of the Registry explicitly have the same rights. Remaining silent on that issue appears to me to be a judicial oversight although the trustees may be estopped to claim that the ruling does not also apply to other members. That issue, with a little luck, will not soon arise.

The court granted the Registry's March 20, 2015 motion for return of the materials that Steve received in discovery, BUT, also ruled that Steve is entitled to the documents he received pursuant to section 1702.15. That's my reading of what is, at best, judicial confusion. [Sadly, confusion and uncertainty generate annuities for lawyers. But, I digress.] The court, five days after the Registry's motion, without, according to the later filings from Steve's lawyer, affording Steve the customary and lawful time to respond, issued the confusing ruling mentioned above. My reaction to that ruling, shared with a couple other lawyers, is the legal technical acronym, WTF. Steve's lawyer duly filed Steve's opposition to the March 20 motion within the statutorily permitted time on April 6, 2015. That was the date that had been set for trial, but, by then the court had stricken the trial date. According to Steve's lawyer's review of the court records and docket as set out in her motion no appearances by any party were made on April 6.

On April 13, 2015 the court issued another order directing Steve to return the documents he received in discovery with no mention made of the documents received pursuant to section 1702.15. The April 13, 2015 order specifically mentions "information presented to the court by the Defense" that the discovery materials had not been returned. I don't know how they do things in Ohio. However, everything we are trained to believe and honor as lawyers precludes a court determining a matter without all parties being heard. If the defense (the Registry) was permitted to present evidence to the court outside the presence of and/or notice to the plaintiff (Steve) I would be outraged by an unfair process. The concept of fair notice and fair hearing is so ingrained in and fundamental to our jurisprudence that I remain shocked by both the March 25 and April 13 rulings - assuming the assertions of lack of notice and/or hearing are correct. I might not have liked the rulings had Steve been "heard," but, I'd be satisfied that all had been done according to the rules by which we supposedly govern ourselves. (Parenthetically you may recall that the Court's ruling that Steve was wrongfully expelled from the Registry was based upon the absence of notice and hearing and that he would in fact be entitled to such damages as he could prove. That is, admittedly, a pyrrhic victory since the Registry would be within its rights to give Steve notice, conduct his hearing and then expel him in what would undoubtedly be a learned and judicious process and not a Kangaroo Kourt, leaving him to try to prove the worth to him of a Registry membership during his period of wrongful expulsion. Yes, I had a hard time typing that while laughing, but, at least there are theoretical damages.)

On April 16, 2015, Steve's lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 2015 order. She raises the point of the possible ex parte (meaning only one party present) communication from the defendant upon which the court based its ruling. Given what has transpired in the matter, it would be simple and even expected for the judge to grant re-consideration of the order and upon re-consideration making the same determination. I hope it does not occur as I described, but, judges can be cute that way. I assure you it's happened to me (and much more importantly, my clients). Ms. Miller also mentions the possibility of appeal which can only take place if there is a final judgment which neither she nor I nor at least one other lawyer can locate in the record. I don't expect Steve to say whether he'll appeal and in fact would suggest that he not say one way or the other except where the attorney-client privilege would apply - and it does NOT apply here since I'm including our friends and forum readers in this matter. However, even if there were a final judgment entered in this matter, celebration by any party is premature until the time for appeal has run.

After a judgment is entered and becomes final with all appeals or the time for appeals exhausted, we can all give more thought to who won.

As always, please feel to bring any errors here to my attention - I will correct them.

MalibuBill

[Bill Sampson]

Here's another comment - too soon I know but to bring anyone interested up to date. It is a copy of what my wife and I prepared and was posted on her account on the R forum.

Although the lawsuit is not concluded yet, despite incorrect exclamations to the contrary, today, April 21, 2015, the plaintiff Heinrichs dismissed Counts 2 and 3 of his complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff filed a motion yesterday to make the previously adjudicated Count One ruling a final judgment, from which, if the motion is granted, if the trustees are unhappy with that portion of the judgment in favor of the members' and Heinrichs's right to examine their club's records and books they may appeal and from which if Heinrichs is unhappy with that portion of the judgment against his and the members' right to examine their club's contracts, such as those with Porsche, the Goodie Store and editor Gordon Maltby, Heinrichs may appeal. Heinrichs's earlier motion to make the ruling on Count 1 final was denied because Counts 2 and 3 had been dismissed but without prejudice. Whether the changed status of the case will change the ruling will be up to the court.

The documents mentioned here are on the court web site.

There have been settlement overtures from Heinrichs in the immediate past as to which both of the trustees' lawyers and Trustee Macaluso recommended pursuing negotiations. Those offers, despite the recommendations from those three, were rejected with no counter-proposals by the remaining Trustees. [Source: the minutes of the March 9, 2015 trustee meeting posted on our web site and the Heinrichs letter].

Many members have expressed relief that the suit is over (it is not) and many more, including me and Bill, hope the parties can settle the matter on terms acceptable to each making the matter truly over. It will also be over if a final judgment is entered and neither party appeals, but that is subject to the time limits in Ohio procedure which the Ohio lawyers probably know and the rest of us can look up if interested.

[George]

Steve, I just received the letter from your attorney and would appreciate it if you would remove me from your mailing list. I have stayed out of this whole mess and could really care less why you sued the registry and do not have much use for law suits so please do not send me any more letters. I'm a car guy and joined this forum and the 356 registry for that reason and that reason only.

Thanks
George

[Bill Sampson]

I just read on the Registry forum that Bob Campbell thinks as of this moment that he remains a named defendant. There was a time in my life I think he considered me a friend - I considered him one. Despite it all the fair Mrs. Sampson was persuaded to post there to set him straight.

See:

http://forum.porsche356registry.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&p=240216#p240216

I feel sorry for the lack of accurate information Mr. Campbell has been furnished. Well, almost anyway. But, it is pretty obvious from the whole "the case is over" business that a large number of people are blinded by hope from seeing reality. I know of no cure. Alas.

The case CANNOT settle when the decision makers over there are so badly misinformed. I don't know if it can anyway of course, but, with flat out wrong information it will never happen.

[Bill Sampson]

Folks, including 356 Registry, Inc., lurkers:

My reports as to litigation status and Rosemary's on the R site are based solely upon the facts as they exist, not as to how we wish they were. Likewise my legal analysis which I share with my beautiful wife, lover, best friend. PLEASE let me know when our recitation of the facts is incorrect AND if my legal analysis is incorrect. I am NOT licensed in Ohio and there are doubtless nuances of Ohio law I'll miss. I'll correct past errors OR post updates concerning any corrections.

NOTE WELL: I am obviously biased. I am 100% behind the need for complete transparency with regard to a car club's records. That means as to many aspects of Steve Heinrichs's lawsuit I am pleased for Rosemary as a member of that club that if Steve continues to prevail she will be able, if she wishes, to gaze upon corporate records and presumably vote intelligently based upon facts. It is not much fun to have a few liars who are given free reign over there to personally lambaste you at every opportunity but both of us try, not always successfully, to avoid responding in kind.

[Bill Sampson]

On May 15, 2015, the Ohio state trial court granted plaintiff Heinrichs's motion to have a final judgment entered. The judgment as entered, is by its terms, now appealable should either party wish to appeal. A summary (which I'll correct if errors are sent to me):

1. Heinrichs (and presumably any member of the Registry) has the right to examine 356 Registry, Inc. books and records. This is a holding consistently opposed by the Registry. Heinrichs won.

2. Books and records do not include contracts between 356 Registry Inc. and third parties (for example Gordon Maltby and/or RPM Auto Books and/or River Place Media, Inc. and/or PCNA and/or the Goodie Store). Heinrichs sought the right to review those contracts. 356 Registry, Inc., won.

3. Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from 356 Registry, Inc. However, he dismissed his claim for damages for that wrongful expulsion. Heinrichs won, but no damages.

FinalJudgmentintrialcourt.pdf

Stay tuned.

[bbspdstr]

Bill, please let me agree with what's been gong on by using a portion of what you posted:

Folks, including 356 Registry, Inc., lurkers:.....NOTE WELL: I am obviously biased. I am 100% behind the need for complete transparency with regard to a car club's records. That (also) means as to many aspects of Steve Heinrichs's lawsuit...It is not much fun to have a few liars who are given free reign over there to personally lambaste (you)[anyone?] at every opportunity.....

Also, I will respectfully include a quote from one of your successors in the position of Moderator to the Registry Forum (nee: Talklist): Greg Bryan. He seems to actually be backed by the sitting trustees (according to a Jim Liberty posting) and yet, ironically, Greg "gets it."

Post subject: Re: 356 Registry Lawsuit is Concluded
PostPosted: Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:04 pm
356Talk Moderator

Tag: Be Nice!
This thread could turn to a serious reflection of how to make the 356 Registry club a better place. Lots of ideas were brought forward regarding transparency, access, privacy, elections, term limits, and so on, that deserve serious discussion - it can only make the club a better place.
I don't want to be a censor - that just rots the soul and how can it be done even-handedly.
But I find the personal attacks hard to stomach, especially on an old car website, and serve no purpose other than to welcome a bitter response and an endless circle of invective.


There, here and everywhere, I am sympathetic but not 'amazed' when dumb people do (or post) dumb things, but am constantly amazed when smart people do dumb things and post dumb things, ignoring the known truth that there are three sides to every story. There is more of that 'dumbness' (especially invectives) on the Registry site in the non-356 postings than ever in the history of the Registry. It is a sad representation of the Registry to have such be seen by.....anyone on the Internet.

I will always associate Joel's quip: (paraphrased)"If there is nothing to hide, why hide it?" with the attempt by Steve Heinrichs to unfurl the tightly furled Registry banner held firmly by a very few standard-bearers. It seemed obvious to me that mere Members could not be trusted with information that most car clubs deem open to....gee, members ... OR it was too much trouble and the few in control didn't want to be bothered..... OR those in control really didn't HAVE the information they were assumed to have and were asked for......OR, there really has been something to hide. You'd have to care to want to know which or 'all of the above'....and now I'm numb and can't care.

Then again, I have never been a fan of "blind faith" since my religiously raised father took me as a young man to an alternative called simply "The Ethical Society."

I now tend to "trust, but verify." Some day, I hope that verification of (the business end) of the Registry Corp (not verification of what the best oil, tires, etc are for a 356) can lead to complete trust in those who run what is euphemistically called "just an old car club." (I for one will perk up if Term Limits are adopted.)

I wish the Registry well through betterment of transparency and I'll pass along well-wishes to those who hang around long enough to see if that happens....or I would if I could put that in a "Letter to the Editor.

-Bruce Baker (40 year Registry member starting out with a lower number than 154)

[356JAGER]

This thread appears on the 356 Registry site and has for some time now but seems to be in error as there are still hearings at the trial level, and a series of four appeals to the Ohio Appeals courts that are currently listed on the Franklin County, Ohio's Case Information Online site under the allegedly 'closed' case. Looks like someone's got some 'splainin to do over there..


356 Registry Lawsuit is Concluded


Author Message
Greg Bryan
Post subject: 356 Registry Lawsuit is ConcludedPostPosted: Thu Apr 16, 2015 3:30 pm
356Talk Moderator

The following message from George Dunn is posted in the Latest News section on the main page:

In October, 2012 a civil suit against 356 Registry, Inc. was filed by R. Stephen Heinrichs in Franklin County, Ohio, where the club is incorporated. Details of this lawsuit, the court's decision in favor of 356 Registry, and access to all documents can be found on the links at the bottom of this page.

Dear Fellow Members,

I am announcing, on behalf of your trustees, that the litigation brought upon our club by Mr. R. Stephen Heinrichs, is finally concluded.
Our club's lead attorney, Mr. Dominic Chieffo, who was ably assisted by attorney Don Anspaugh, has diligently worked on our behalf for the past 30 months. In trying to keep you fully informed, Mr Chieffo has prepared a final statement for us which is displayed immediately below this message. Additionally, links to the two final Court Orders: Final Judgement, March 25 2015; and Discovery Material Return, April 13 2015 are linked below.
Your leadership team of trustees and officers is hopeful that we can quickly return to our club's primary focus of enjoying our special cars and the wonderful people who comprise the 356 Registry.

Thank you and Keep the 356 Faith!

George Dunn
President, 356 Registry

Please see additional information in the "Latest News" section.

_________________
Greg Bryan
356Talk Moderator

[Bill Sampson]

As Joel points out considerable activity has taken place and will continue to take place on the "concluded" lawsuit.

Pursuant to the trustees' motion to hold Steve Heinrichs and his lawyer in contempt the court has set a "show cause" hearing for June 10.

Heinrichs has filed a motion to be excused from personal attendance at the show cause hearing due to his illness.

Heinrichs has filed a notice of appeal from:
a. The ruling on the summary judgment motion part of which ruling was adverse to his position
b. The ruling of 2/17/15 denying his request for sanctions for the Registry's earlier refusal to make discovery
c. The 3/20/15 ruling of the trial court granting the trustees' motion for return of records Heinrichs obtained in discovery
d. The 4/13/2015 ruling regarding return of discovery documents
The notice does not and need not specify the grounds for appeal - the grounds and argument by the parties will come later

Heinrichs also filed a motion to stay all further proceedings in the trial court pending the outcome of the appeal.

[Bill Sampson]

ATTENTION REGISTRY MEMBERS and those interested in the antics of the "leaders' of that group:

YOUR money is being used by the trustees to attempt to put Steve Heinrichs in jail. YOUR money is paying a lawyer to contend in public filings that lifelong California resident Steve Heinrichs is "hiding in California." YOUR money and good name are being used to contend that Steve, who is receiving chemotherapy in a fight for his life is feigning illness. Sure, just for fun he has poison pumped into himself but he can take time out from that inconsequential activity to go to Ohio to talk about a letter.

Although I agree with Mr. Heinrichs as to the need for transparency at the Registry, in my reporting on the case I have attempted to maintain a "just the facts" neutral stance - according to some of you successfully. NOT NOW. The actions described above by the Trustees and their lawyer are unwarranted, despicable and outrageous. My wife belongs to the Registry so some of my community property is paying for this outrage. It is within the realm of decency and of zealous advocacy by counsel to seek sanctions for purportedly disobeying a court order, but, JAIL/PRISON for writing a letter? It is within the realm of decency and zealous advocacy to question the other side's motives, but, CLAIM FAKING CHEMOTHERAPY? Outrageous. The trustees have sanctioned this outrage and paid for it with members' dues. They should hang their heads in shame. Disgusting.

I return to a factual summary. Mostly.

The Ohio state court has scheduled a show cause hearing for June 10, 2015. The hearing is in connection with the claim of the Registry Trustees (who apparently are now willing to admit that their statements that the case was concluded were incorrect) that Mr. Heinrichs's sending of a letter about the Registry to the Registry members was a violation of a court order and that Heinrichs and his lawyer should be held in contempt. Mr. Heinrichs filed a motion (on the court web site) to be excused from attendance on June 10 due to severe illness and the associated chemotherapy treatments. The trustees and their lawyer want Steve, who is obviously fighting for his very life, to simply skip some treatments so he can go to Ohio.

Opinions doubtless differ as to whether a letter describing truthfully what happened is a detriment to the Registry and the court has been asked to rule on that. The court did previously rule that information Heinrichs received in discovery could not be used to the detriment of the Registry. The trustees and their lawyer have taken the position that writing to the membership is a detriment to that membership. If they're right they might prevail on the contempt order (which is subject of an appeal).

I've attached the memo filed in court by the trustees through their lawyer, for whom Registry members are paying, whether by cash and/or by their club's good name.

As always, I will remove/correct any factual error posted here if you bring it to my attention.


memocontrareexcusedfromattendance.pdf

[356JAGER]

Must be something really embarrassing or ? being hidden for the trustees to continue to keep the details of the club's (magazine's) contracts and operations from the eyes of the membership that foots the bill, Bill. Still asking:
If you've nothing to hide, why are you hiding it ? Come on trustees, reveal the details of all your 'hard work' and 'good deeds' for the benefit of the 'club', clear the air and receive the kudos you claim to so richly deserve. Really, suing a man who is fighting for his life while fighting for the rights of all club members to know the facts of the matter ? Despicable doesn't even come close.