Porsche 356 Registry Litigation: Update?

[Bill Sampson]

On August 19, 2015, 356 Registry, Inc.filed a motion to extend its time to file its brief to October 5, 2015. Such motions are routinely granted in order to give the parties adequate preparation time.

[bbspdstr]

Thanks, Bill. Wow, I am a slow reader and thought that time extension was for us so that all those pages could be read!

I did read, as I have all else concerning that strange episode of a car club's life. It's a good SIN-opsis of the whole avoidable debacle.

It turns out that the plantiff had not asked for anything any member was not already legally allowed to request (and I even question where the harm may be in knowing the content of the Porsche contract.) I asked "why" questions with others for many years prior to the suit and was labeled a "malcontent." That begets another "why" and "why" can be added to not enough others questioning the unfolding of that whole scenario.

Always good to follow a lawsuit between a "car club" and a disrespected former member. Still, a burr under the blanket may bring change. Never too late.
-Bruce

[Bill Sampson]

On October 5, 2015 the appellee (that is, 356 Registry, Inc.) filed its brief in the case. It is located here:
http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/imageLinkProcessor.pdf?coords=M4AHSoYFAPCJUrVYn5Hb KE059r0qBV3CAWlZexLVg6OFOhv0d7yhto%2F9oovkMHn2Kfme 0HB5ATQeWmCaNVujgOXj60cZ2VPv4y2CvCQ%2Fv0eEjE2%2BhH Ldxgk8DmA9kmuOjQ%2BI8oVEKKZKUDePfucNqF3sHZ2ePNC2Lj vGO4XBMmQ%3D

If that link does not work (and I have my doubts) simply go to the court's main page: http://clerk.franklincountyohio.gov/cio.cfm and go through the log in process and then use the tools there to find the case. Type Heinrichs into the last name box and then select the last of the cases appearing under his name.

In CA the appellant (Steve Heinrichs in this instance) would have the right to file a reply brief. I believe but won't warrant that Steve has this right in OH. Steve has requested oral argument which would be set after the reply brief is filed, or, if one is not permitted, by the court according to local appellate procedure.

[bbspdstr]

.....simply go to the court's main page: http://clerk.franklincountyohio.gov/cio.cfm and go through the log in process and then use the tools there to find the case. ......

Yep, I still try to read it all...out of a morbid curiosity, I guess. After a quick reading, it struck me that it was written from a bunker that originated from under a House. (If that's too obtuse, think Roseann Roseannadanna and...."never mind")

Yep, there are 'tools' involved and one wrote...about 65 pages worth....for a bag of big nuts who can afford somehow to perpetuate a bully mouthpiece's ugliness involving legal technicalities of what amounts to "he said/she said." "Did not"...."Did too."

One of the 'big deals' seems to be that Steve actually sent a letter to members telling his side of the story. A $50k contempt sanction EACH for Steve AND his attorney payable to the Registry? OMG! The sacred Member List was used for the mailing! You know, the list like we used to get without asking for it.......in "the good old days."

I got that letter when I was still on the R's mailing list and thought it was too mild. I have yet to speak to any current or former member of the R (and I know many) that was in the least bit offended by that...in fact, the majority were glad to read another version of what too many were/still are unaware. But then, there are Trustees and Their Lawyer....and They obviously still have enough piss backed up in Them to keep the pissing contest going.

But then, the Members don't run the 'club'...a handful of angry old men run the club....without Term Limits. Or parental guidance as to what 'polite' is all about.

With reminders such as this latest, I am aware of what a downer the Registry has become (speaking for myself) and thanks again Justin for a great place for a 356er to land!

-Bruce Baker

[356JAGER]

One word for the trustees and their attorneys: DESPICABLE on all counts. Makes me ashamed to own a 356. Ashamed is a word they will have to look up since shame is obviously not a concept familiar to them.

[bbspdstr]

Joel, some of us are very happy with our 356s and have just gone full circle to when there was no dedicated 'club' for the cars, just other owners that made the experience synergistic. I really never was a 'club' person, anyway.

"It's not the cars, it's the people" and I'm sure the cars are not the issue with the Registry's scrambling to sorta look like changes are Their idea. It's the people in charge that need to be changed.

Perhaps things will be righted and a fresh start can be organized eventually...time will tell. Meanwhile, when I get to really DRIVE any 356 now, it's a rush, a confirmation of why I love those cars...and "who needs a club" for that?

Regards,
-Bruce

[356JAGER]

Bruce,
All so true. I made the end of that circle some time ago. Still love my tub.
and don't need a tax exempt magazine subscription that clubs subscribers over the head for asking for information that is theirs by law and common courtesy. 356CAR is my local club and an excellent and open organization with great members and regular and impromptu events. It proves that doing it the right way is also the easy and enjoyable way for ALL members, not just a small group of insiders. Then there's that actual interface with fellow members, in real time at actual events.
Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

Joel:

Rosemary and I had the pleasure of participating in a 356CAR event put on by our friend Steve Douglas when we were in Santa Cruz in July. Good group. Our own 356 Club of Southern California is also a good group. We have a couple trips with "our" club planned in the next month or so.

[213532]

I've been following the lawsuit from just about the beginning as well. I've read the court findings, the briefs, etc. and, was really happy to read Steve's perspective on it. I feel that only by hearing both sides of a story can you form a valid opinion. I, like I'm sure many of you, had to do this in family and work situations.

It's unfortunate that the majority of people who read Steve's letter and were actually happy to get it are the silent. Bill and I have talked about this. The majority of Registry members are happy just to get their magazine. A minority actually follow the Talk List and an even smaller number actually contribute to it. The lack of participation is what has contributed to the situation. Only by electing new trustees will it change but, due to the silent majority, I'm not optimistic.

It will be interesting to see how the appeal goes. I wish Steve all the best.

Mike Wilson
Lomita, CA
'63 B coupe ( in restoration)

[DG58INNM]

Thanks Bill for posting the update. Have been wondering how things were progressing and we certainly wouldn't hear anything on the R site unless it was a crowing announcement of complete vindication (even if the actual events were less conclusive). An interesting, if highly confusing process. Just because we (or maybe it is just "I") are silent does not mean it is no longer of interest. I was saddened to see the Registry raise the contempt issue. There may be merit to their charges based on use of the mailing list, but I think they will have a hard time showing the letter was in any way detrimental. Would have been better for all I think to take the high road and actually let it be over (as was claimed on the R site even while the Trustees were taking action to prolong it!) Still very curious to see how this all plays out.
Take care,
DG

[Steve Heinrichs]

Guys,

Just a brief update...we will file our reply brief in two weeks or so. Then, the Appeals Court decides. Of course, eithr party can further appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

My guess (as a retired CPA and therefore likely not the best source) is that the Court may not have an answer until early 2016 or very late 2015.

If you have a specific question as to all of this...I am pleased to answer if I can given more rules than Concours judging.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Thanks Bill for posting the update. Have been wondering how things were progressing and we certainly wouldn't hear anything on the R site unless it was a crowing announcement of complete vindication (even if the actual events were less conclusive). An interesting, if highly confusing process. Just because we (or maybe it is just "I") are silent does not mean it is no longer of interest. I was saddened to see the Registry raise the contempt issue. There may be merit to their charges based on use of the mailing list, but I think they will have a hard time showing the letter was in any way detrimental. Would have been better for all I think to take the high road and actually let it be over (as was claimed on the R site even while the Trustees were taking action to prolong it!) Still very curious to see how this all plays out.
Take care,
DG

You're welcome Dave. I think Steve H accurately summarized what comes next - a decision at a time we don't really know although his estimates seem reasonable to me.

Good to hear from you. I keep saying this, BUT, next Summer we'll do Wheeler. Best to you and yours.

[Bill Sampson]

Oral argument in the case has been set for November 18, 2015. Each side is permitted 15 minutes to argue.

Heinrichs's reply brief is due October 22, 2015. I believe that will end the briefing schedule leaving only argument and sometime thereafter a ruling to be determined at the Court of Appeal level.

[bbspdstr]

.... Each side is permitted 15 minutes to argue.........

That should have been it from the beginning. 15 minutes. Put it up on YouTube for the membership to view and decide who was right or wrong and what a real 501(C)7 NFP is supposed to be and be run as, correct the issues in question, reorganize.....and move forward. With Term Limits.

I could swear I saw the name "Chieffo" on a manure spreader on a trip through farm country recently. I wonder if that's any relation....

[Bill Sampson]

Yesterday, October 21, 2015, Appellant Heinrichs filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include the documents pertaining to his actually having cancer. These documents were submitted in camera to the trial court as part of proceedings there, meaning only the court and not the adverse party, 356 Registry, Inc. This is a rarely used procedure, sometimes, as here, implemented where a party wishes inherently private information such as his/her medical condition to remain private but nevertheless wishes the court to review it.

According to the motion to supplement the record the Registry contends in its brief on appeal that Heinrichs has been faking cancer. Nothing could be further from the truth - the motion was submitted to put the claimed fakery issue to rest. The motion is reviewable on the court web site.

Heinrichs's reply memorandum on the merits of the appeal in the court of appeal is due today, October 22, 2015 per the court records. Presumably that document will be available on the court web site in a day or two.