Radio Free Registry

[Bill Sampson]

Tom:

Thanks for expressing your views. I'll respond later to some of your other inquiries, but, I view the well-being of my friends and family as paramount and you inquired about Barry Brisco. Barry and I remain friendly although I have not had nearly as much contact as I once did when we were both moderators. My last contact was in May of this year and he was fine then. As a result of his experiences with the leadership of the Registry he has taken the principled position that he does not wish to be affiliated with such an organization. By the way, Barry, if you see this and I have mis-stated a portion, please correct me. And, hello old friend.

More later.

In the interim, if you are interested, the Registry discussion thread on the Samba is locked but still available. It is long.

http://www.thesamba.com/vw/forum/viewtopic.php?t=502665&highlight=search+forum

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Steve Heinrichs]

Tom,

I posted some time ago a willingness to answer questions regarding the Registry issues and litigation to the extent I can.

So, feel free to ask away.

One thing---the list of disaffected folks is rather long and varied. Over time, I think the names will come out as well as the various surrounding issues.

Let me just say one thing regarding the litigation:

It is about financial issues and defamation. It is not about member privacy.

Steve Heinrichs

[Bill Sampson]

Tom:

Some more info in response to your questions:

How many people disciplined?
Twenty years ago then Trustee Greg Young was driven out of the Registry for asking to review the books. Al Zim was never permitted to see the books while he was a trustee although he is a successful businessman - he remains a member. Barry Brisco was driven off. In my opinion the Registry left Brian O'Kelly little choice but to resign. Rumor has it that Brett Johonson was driven off, but, I cannot verify that. Bill Block was the latest sacrifice although still a member.

In October or possibly early November, 2010, I asked for a copy of the books as a member in good standing. I had been a moderator/list monitor for several years ending in spring, 2008 when I resigned that post. The responses were accusations, vehement denials, name calling, etc. This was just me asking the trustees - nothing public. In late spring, 2011, I asked publicly. I have reviewed tax returns and other evidence concerning the R ever since. Where irregularities have appeared I asked for explanations and none have been forthcoming. Although it is my opinion that some expenses were too high I have never accused any trustee nor officer of stealing/embezzling/robbing anything. I would not do so without evidence which has steadfastly been withheld, which, admittedly at this point makes me more suspicious than when this quest started 3 years ago. That said, once elected, the trustees can spend money how they please. They simply should be straightforward with the electorate, a task at which they have failed by hiding the records. The electorate should have the rigth to criticize and question its elected officials don't you think?

Eventually, on October 1, 2012, George Dunn advised me: "On behalf of all Trustees, I am informing you that we have received your recent membership application to re-join the Porsche 356 Registry. We are most aware of the fact that you left the Registry a few months ago due to your expressed dissatisfaction with how the Club was being run by the current Board. We also are quite aware that you continue to express your displeasure about the above on other websites. After discussion, the Trustees have voted unanimously not to accept your membership application because of your continued inimical actions towards the Porsche 356 Registry. This decision is final."

The inimical actions were never described. There was no hearing nor any opportunity to defend the charges of which I was never advised.

I'll try to answer any other question you may have, but, re-creating an email track on this matter would be a daunting task. The following thread was started by me on April 11, 2011: http://porsche356registry.org/356talk/1/26375.html

open, honest responses to me or to anyone else who asked at any time would doubtless have short circuited everything that has happened since. The privacy issue is bogus but was raised years ago also. I never asked for nor wanted members personal addresses although probably entitled to them, but, the reason for closing the books, meetings, minutes, agendas and all other aspects of Registry governance has always been the phony privacy issue. My first private request to Chuck House generated an accusation from him that I wanted Jerry Seinfeld's home address. Mr. Seinfeld, my apologies, but although I have heard of you I have never seen you perform nor have I ever seen what I am advised was a successful TV show.

Tom, if you want more, email me at: mondokook-numerouno@yahoo.com. That is a disposable address in case the bots capture it but it should work for quite a while.

[bbspdstr]

Oh.... Tom, you had to use that saying...."Enough is Enough," didn't you? It was offensive back when a trustee used it, it's now good for a laugh.

The Registry site provides this thread:

http://porsche356registry.org/356talk/15/27597.html?hilit=bruce%20baker

3/4 of the way down that long thread is Bob Campbell's diatribe with the subject line of "Enough is Enough", but the best is the last on that opening page, by David Gensler. He of the head full of common sense, then and now.

Note the dates and note it's same old, same old today. Note Barry was the moderator. "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

[Bill Sampson]

The audit that none of us outcasts requested or even suggested be done, has been posted today (10/25/2013) on the Registry web site. It is accompanied by an included self-congratulatory letter from President Dunn. There are no surprises to anyone that I can see. It covers one year, 9/1/2011 to 8/31/2012, the fiscal year for which a report was posted by the Registry in the July/August, 2013 issue of the magazine.

The conclusions may be summarized thusly (there are others which you are invited to read):

1. The Registry does not keep its books in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. [Please review the discussion in the audit for more info.]

2. As expected and publicly stated by everyone on all sides, including this writer and all of the outcasts known to him, the audit revealed no theft of Registry assets. An audit does not address policy questions necessarily left to the governing body, as controlled solely by those who elect it, as to how money should be spent. It addresses only the question if the money went where management says it went. [I AM summarizing.] The money went, in the selected samples, where management said it went.

3. No review of the tax returns was undertaken nor commented upon - not what the auditors were hired to do.

The conclusions are mine alone and reasonable minds might differ in some respects. The audit is available to anyone with internet access, at least at the moment, in the Latest News drop down menu. I did not sign into the site of which I am not a member.

4. The audit includes management's (the trustees and officers of 356 Registry, Inc.) estimate as of 8/31/2012 of "unearned subscription revenue." [See page 6 of the audit itself.] This means that the actual net worth of the Registry at 8/31/2012 should be reduced from the $381,276 the R reported in its year end (8/31/2012 again) financial statement published in the Jul/Aug 2013 magazine to $81,276, to accurately reflect magazines paid for by subscribers but not yet delivered to those subscribers. This deviation from GAAP, previously reported in the financial statments but not recently, and the consequent "cushion" of only about 20% of anticipated annual revenue resulted in the concern of Steve Heinrichs (and many others) expressed to the trustees. Their stonewall response and accusations directed at Steve led eventually to the litigation. Edited later the same day with the additions in this color.


Bill

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Bill Sampson]

A nit, Joel:

The audit itself claims to have been conducted according to standard auditing practices in the USA. It advises that the books of the R are what are not kept in accordance with GAAP.

For others:

A neutral discussion of non-GAAP accounting similar if not identical to the method used by the Registry is here:
http://www.journalofaccountancy.com/Issues/2003/Oct/OcboaFinancialStatements.htm. For those interested.





Bill

[Carrera GT]

In Real Estate and Lending businesses there is a designation for a certain Appraisal group known as MAI (Member of Appraisal Institute) ...something like that. In past and present years it is/was also referred to as:

MAI = "Made As Instructed"

Those past relied upon "Appraisals" for a "Numbered value" over the last decade got the this Country and the World in a major debacle recession - one that we are currently still in. Look today at Bank of America/Countrywide in the news - Liable. Relying on "in-House" Sample numbers given to be real - honestly, for an Audit? ...can they ever be considered independently verified?

It does leave many questions and eye brows raised...perhaps even from those that are "Fans in the Stands".

Michael Doyle

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Carrera GT]

In Real Estate and Lending businesses there is a designation for a certain Appraisal group known as MAI (Member of Appraisal Institute) ...something like that. In past and present years it is/was also referred to as:

MAI = "Made As Instructed"

Those past relied upon "Appraisals" for a "Numbered value" over the last decade got the this Country and the World in a major debacle recession - one that we are currently still in. Look today at Bank of America/Countrywide in the news - Liable. Relying on "in-House" Sample numbers given to be real - honestly, for an Audit? ...can they ever be considered independently verified?

It does leave many questions and eye brows raised...perhaps even from those that are "Fans in the Stands".

Michael Doyle

More on MAI -

For those interested...to emphasize a bit further:

The 356 Registry Audit report furnished by the CPA firm -fk- "foley kalseim" appears to only be a review of the previously filed 2012 "Tax Return" which also included the review of "a Sample of Receipts and Disbursements for the Organization".

They state: "Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Organization's internal control"...

"Samples" are stated as being furnished to them for this audit? ...as a means to arrive at a conclusion so to match the Tax Return?

It is also interesting to note all the nice glossy verbiage and pages of disclaimers there are by this company - to (wisely) distance themselves as to any guaranty...Why? Because there was NO factual hard number internal "documentation" used for the audit, nor were "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" ...industry known as "GAAP".

The CPA letter states it was decided that it was "to costly" to do that - apparently the Trustees find it much better use of Club funds is to pay defense attorneys for a Lawsuit? -- and the Ohio Court now has a decision ruled against them? ...hmmm.

The 356 Registry Membership is compromised by many, many good, smart, educated people (yes, that's why they own a Porsche, or two). Proceed with with caution - You do not have to drink from the well or believe the written doctrines you are told - Ask questions - Then perhaps draw your own informed conclusions.

Michael Doyle

[Carrera_The_Kid]

[quote="Carrera GT" post=12997]

It is also interesting to note all the nice glossy verbiage and pages of disclaimers there are by this company - to (wisely) distance themselves as to any guaranty...Why? Because there was NO factual hard number internal "documentation" used for the audit, nor were "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" ...industry known as "GAAP".

Michael Doyle

Michael,

I have no opinion with regard to the audit as I have not yet studied it in detail. I would like to point one thing out. The likely standard disclaimer you mention is a normal procedure for any serious accounting firm. You will find these everywhere whether "GAAP" "IFRS" or any other accounting principle is used.

With regard to "GAAP" please elucidate me as to why it is necessary for the registry to report based on "GAAP" and not say for example "IFRS" Is this mandatory for an Ohio based non profit organization?

Many thanks,

Joris

[Steve Heinrichs]

Joris,

Let me see if I can help a little bit. In the U.S. (and Europe, as well) corporate financial statements are generally accrual basis as to reporting and frequently (in the U.S.) on the cash basis for tax reporting---particularly for smaller companies.

The Registry's reporting for tax purposes is essentially cash basis and "accrual" entries are not made and there are no accrual basis financial statments.

So far---not a problem at all. Tax returns have been filed and, for years, especially when Ron Lohnert was the Treasurer, he added a little footnote to the tax basis financial reporting----in that footnote, he noted what the approximate not recorded liability was for the delivery of magazines related to dues paid in advance.

Now-------when this all started as the many issues---I simply asked what the rough equivalent was for the year ended 2011. The point is/was that that liability (which would be on the accrual books) is large. This matter has been part of the legal "discovery" issues.

I never asked for an "audit". An audit was suggested this past January and I was asked if it "would help". I said, yes, but I had not asked for one and neither had anyone else that I knew of. The reason is that, to an accountant, in the U.S. that means an audit of accrual based financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. They are expensive and require serious additional disclousres and there is no need as the only really relevant number is the one I asked about.

Now, comes a few days ago, the "certified audit". It is not one based upon GAAP. It was not asked for. It is just a regurgitation of taxt return numbers. It was and it is a waste of money to had had it done. It adds nothing and it is not part of the litigation.

So----one might ask "why was it done"? It is no more than a smoke screen so that some people can say "certified audit" and rely on some others not learning the context and what it means.

One might ask: Will this be done every year? Why spend the money? What is the point?

Joris---I hope this helps.

Steve Heinrichs

ps--I should add that there is buried in the report a little note about it costing $300,000 if the organiztion were to shut down. A couple of things to think about: Gee----isn't that really the magazine liability? Also, why such a big global estimated number if (please see Registry thread) the Registry offered me a detailed listing of the liability and I turned it down? That's is not at all true of course. There has never been any offer even remotely related to this. Still, the implication is that the Registry has the number. Does it really?


Finally----more later regarding the "budget" of a few days ago and Mr. Dunn's outrageous, misleading and fact missing and fact challenged lawsuit update of yesterday. These two items are related to the litigation. The "audit" is pure smoke screen.

[356JAGER]

DELETED

[Carrera_The_Kid]

Steve,

Thank you for the explanation. I am decently versed with regard to cash and accrual accounting but now even more so, thank you for that.

Am I right in assuming that non-profit organizations under Ohio law are only mandated to file tax returns and no formal financial statements?

I agree that without knowing the outstanding liabilities it is difficult to judge the financial health accurately. Am I right in assuming that the current liability likely consists pretty much entirely of pre-paid dues?

Best,

Joris