Radio Free Registry

[356JAGER]

Just an FYI for you guys who don't already know, clicking on the other member's handle will take you to what information is provided by that individual at his discretion. One item I have noted that is always present, is the actual name of said member. You do have to be logged on. Really no need for the 'real name'
rancor that transpired 'over there'. Justin has covered that nicely.
Cheers,
Joel

[S.J.Szabo]

The IRS Shuck and JiveAct IIWhat is it that you do again?

L.1: Were They too lazy to re-cap, or perhaps this is yet another ironic truth in nonambic anyameter, for indeed, the Registry has no real mission beyond a publishing enterprise, which is, as we know, not an acceptable sole primary Material Service Activity.

L.2: Is this not a rather pathetic truth, insomuch as so many legitimate Program Services remain unaddressed.

L.3:Sing a song of six pence

L.4a:L.4b:L.4c: The IRS has clearly indicated (in PLR 201434022) that a digital experience is not considered a qualifying Primary Program Service for an exempt Social Club.

So, Line 4 tells us that the Registry does not provide any of the Primary Program Services expected of a Social Club. The reader is left to draw their own conclusions about the true agendas of Club Leadership.

The scene now segues to Part IV



L.12a:

L.28: "Did the Club do business with who?"

Was the organization a party to a business transaction with one of the following partiesbusiness transactionthe Club is the magazineWhy would the Club Leadership take such obvious liberties with the truth?Does the situation of the multiple inside contract Publisher, Member, and Officer of the Club fit this description?really frown on the kind of business relationships that Line 28 describes?inimical to the well being of the ClubinimicalAct IIThat Old Black Magicwatch for Act III, coming to this space soon)

[S.J.Szabo]

[S.J.Szabo]

[356JAGER]

Near the end according to some and hoped for by many, and contrary to the 'spin' on the other site that defies credulity to any reasoned mind, Mr. Heinrichs pursued this cause not only on behalf of himself, but of all the others who had earlier on attempted to access the records as prescribed by the laws governing non profit clubs in Ohio, that and the treatment given volunteers who actually did a lot of work, voluntarily, but were impudent enough to disagree with their lordships , the, I believe according to the tax filings, 10 voting officers, as opposed to the 7 that the hoi polloi think are 'those hard working, falsely accused, volunteers' , who don't want to share an actual set of books and records, with all receipts and itemized expenses with the rest of the members, to do as one of their idols said, 'Trust, but verify'.
That was the origin of the term 'Trustmes', "We don't have to show you anything, We are honest, just trust us." Guess what, their ' books and records ' have done nothing to change that perception. If you've nothing to hide, why are you hiding it ? A set of Quickbooks and immediate input by the hard working representatives and their associates, and this would never have happened. Mr. Heinrichs has however, at this juncture in the process, won a judgement that allows any member to request and receive the level of books and records that the membership allows their leadership to provide. I'd guess most members would want an upgrade. Here's an idea, why don't the trustees put it up to a well publicized vote of the membership. It'd be the right thing to do.

Cheers,
Joel

[Bill Sampson]

THIS IS VERY LONG. STOP NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT.

I'll post this on "Radio Free" although it is clearly also related to litigation. In light of the crocodile tears shed by the tender and sensitive trustees and some of their cheerleaders about how they have suffered so much, I'll season this somber moment with some facts. I will note that EVERYONE in litigation suffers. They are called trials because they are just that; trials.

In the fall of 2010 I wrote President House, OFF the forum, simply a private email from me to him asking for a copy of the books because I was concerned that the then last financial report in the mag showed that the Registry was losing money. I also expressed concern that Vic had very recently posted a series of obviously political and needlessly antagonistic remarks - not about me - and that the forum was the wrong place. I also, while making it clear it was just my personal hope, requested that members' money not be used to purchase alcoholic beverages. That's a personal idiosyncrasy and I make that request to every volunteer organization to which I've ever belonged. Some honor it some don't and I only ask once. The quick response to me from House was that I was trying to get Jerry Seinfeld's home address.

House's note to his fellow trustees was that I was trying to peek under their skirts and was mad at Vic for having a beer or two. Utter bullshit and House is smart enough to know that would piss Vic off. Vic referred to me as the #2 asshole on the forum. Sadly, I'll have to concede #1 to Steve now although I have no word from Vic making it official. House did NOT send his fellow trustees my actual request. Matters deteriorated further. By March 7, 2011, several of the trustees and officers had circulated among themselves suggestions that they sue me for asking to look at the books. I made no request for membership records. They also made it clear that they had found Ohio Revised Statute Section 1702.15 - the subject of the later Heinrichs lawsuit. I eventually was granted a seance with a redacted version of some of the books, well after trustee Campbell, to the apparent merriment of his cohort, had suggested the right thing to do was to have me pack sand up my ass. I elected not to pursue a clear violation of any member's rights. NONE of the foregoing was public so far as I know and was certainly not placed on the forum nor anywhere by me up to that time.

By the summer of 2012, although I did not witness precisely all that occurred, I think it is safe to say that Steve Heinrichs had attempted to obtain the records as authorized by Ohio law and that the trustees had offered to comply in a manner that Steve felt was incomplete and inadequate. I'll speculate that some of the rhetoric was heated on both sides although my personal experience suggests that the warm-hearted trustees might well have fired the first shot. But, I have no direct evidence so base that supposition on personal, past, sad experience. Regardless, it was apparent that Steve would not be given that to which he (and now the courts) felt and feels he was entitled. He could have just dropped it, succumbing to what I consider bully tactics. Or, he could file suit, thus putting himself through the turmoil of litigation. There is a reason they are called trials. They are.

On October 1, 2012, apparently after some more rancorous remarks, conceivably by both sides, Steve filed a one count complaint seeking the records to which he was entitled, copies of those records, court costs and attorney fees. Attorney fees are routinely requested and almost never recoverable absent a contract providing for them. On October 3, 2012, according to Vic Skirmants, the trustees threw Steve out of the club. Sometime between October 1, 2012 and November 1, 2012 the trustees had their lawyer prepare a suit against Steve, which they filed on November 1, 2012. That suit (a counterclaim that is treated as a related but separate suit that stands or falls on its own merits) seeks, among other things UNLIMITED compensatory and UNLIMITED punitive damages. Steve filed his amended complaint the same day adding a count for defamation and a count for breach of fiduciary duty. Steve's amended complaint was against the corporation only. Taking cover behind the corporate shield our brave, sensitive trustees, by their suit using club money AND the CLUB'S GOOD NAME, put Steve through the same physical, emotional and mental stress of which those sorrowful sensitive but angry individuals now complain. According to trustee Jim Liberty every action by the trustees was approved unanimously.

Ten months and nineteen days into the trustees' suit, brought from behind their corporate shield against Steve, he filed the RICO claim against all of the trustees and officers involved on 9/19/2013. That federal case that Steve filed was dismissed upon motion by the defendants that he had brought it in the wrong court. The dismissal was entered on July 17, 2014, two days short of ten months into the ONLY personal exposure the trustees had. That's right. Their complaints that their personal assets, retirement, etc. that was exposed refer not to the 30 months and counting as they put it that they have dragged this out, but to the just under ten months the federal suit was pending. By way of contrast, the completely frivolous, bogus claims the trustees used the Club's good name (and resources) to bring was dismissed on January 19, 2015, thus exposing Steve to the torment they lament with crocodile tears for 27 and 1/2 months.

Oh, I almost forgot the two completely meritless appeals the trustees brought which added months of delay to the Ohio case. The trustees and their cheerleaders, or as Vic would call them the peanut gallery, are now bleating about Steve's access to the membership list. The club has only the trustees to blame for its release to Steve. Steve offered to remove any request for that list if the trustees would drop their frivolous appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court. That's right folks - they pursued a bogus appeal which had no chance of success while gambling with the members' privacy that they falsely claimed they were doing their utmost to protect. Really folks? You had a chance to "lock up" the membership list and threw it away to pursue your right to keep private the financial records that the statute clearly states are to be open to members of any non-profit corporation in Ohio. Huh? Which of the trustees approved that brilliant decision to gamble what they now deem to be the most important aspect of membership, member privacy? Was it unanimous as Mr. Liberty so frequently reminds us? When the trustees decided to gamble the members' privacy four judges had all already told them they were wrong. Mature decision makers accept they may have been wrong and move on. What happened?

The trial court on 9/24/2014 ruled as to all matters on Count One of Steve's complaint. He won most of that - on his behalf and on behalf of any member who wants to review the records subject to that ruling (pretty much everything except the contracts). The trustees "won" the right to keep the club's contracts away from the club's own members, including even the contract with corporate officer (editor) Maltby. NOTE CAREFULLY: The court has ruled that there are no facts remaining in dispute on Count One. All of the whining and bellyaching about who said what to whom or did what to whom before and during the suit does not change that ruling and is completely irrelevant. The facts are NOT subject to a genuine dispute and the parties are entitled to the records as set out by the court and explained in this paragraph. From the court's ruling: "The Court finds that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the First Count." The court did recount some disagreements between the parties, ALL of which were set out in excruciating detail in the moving and opposing papers. Both sides got a full airing of their respective versions of what transpired. I repeat. There are NO genuine issues of material facts as to Count One and the ruling on the records.

The trial court also found in its ruling on Count Two that there are no genuine issues of material fact as to this conclusive finding by the court: Steve Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from the Registry and is entitled to damages for that wrongful act. Nevertheless, Steve dismissed Counts Two and Three this week, with prejudice, giving up his right to damages for that wrongful expulsion and to proceed to trial on that issue. Certainly it was the right thing for Steve to do although I would have expected potentially amusing testimony as to the value of a Registry membership.

I have doubtless been a little less objective than I should have been here. But, my wife and I were accused of instigating Steve's lawsuit by one of the cheerleaders. I settled down a little after looking up the punishment for barratry and learned in California anyway it is only a misdemeanor. First time in 39 years I even had to think about barratry at all. Whew!

As always, I'll make factual corrections and if I made (shudder) an incorrect legal conclusion I'll fix that too.

[S.J.Szabo]

Sing a Song of Six-Pence and Pockets Full of VotesI have to smile at some of the comments here.Members have every opportunity to see all club financial records at any time. If you think they are only available in the magazine once a year, you're not paying attention.not paying attentionManagement has elected to omit substantially all of the disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the Organization's financial position, changes in net assets, and cash flows.Explain, please, how (records by hand) is inferior to quickbooks, or some other software package.I fail to see how our club finances can be any more transparent than they are.Fred has always offered to allow any member to inspect his records at any time. The specific people who complain loudest about this have either never taken advantage when it was convenient (members meeting or other Porsche event), nor made the effort to meet separately with Fred, in spite of an open invitation. I'm personally pretty sick of their crocodile tears about being left out.and drinksuchwill

[bbspdstr]

It is gratifying to see a lively discussion of current events on the Reg. site.

Yes, but what I've seen 'over there' lately concerning the years-long schism is embarrassing with no 'class', primarily rude and sophomoric. First impression to me is "How does Porsche see this as being in their best interest as an 'official' club?" Then I think, "why do I want my own interest in 356s to be represented by such a group?" There is NO 'adult supervision.'

It is the same-but-better written polarized presentations here with a few passionate 356 enthusiasts and too few new voices heard. That's what's been missing all along....a dispassionate dialog about Registry management and the group's future and focus from more than 1% of the body of people affected by the whole affair. Think about it....if the few who are bitching and pitching a fit didn't care passionately about the Registry and just wanted a good 356 magazine like the vast majority...we would all just shut up and nothing would change...until a legal or governmental entity may take notice and force change.

Seriously, change for the Registry needs to happen from within...and hey, guys 'over there' reading this; it's no big deal...it's minor stuff, really. Normal 'car club' stuff. It just takes the ruling body to want to do what's needed and really do it...not just pretend they are making changes superficially.....they need to follow through and go all the way. If they do, no one would really notice but the club would be safer and healthier.

Good information here. Great writing. Civil but unyielding, but how many read or really care about the outcome? Here or 'over there' one may find the polarized hype, but it seems it signifies nothing in real results. Not enough real allies among the few lurkers to call either side an 'army.' A few good soldiers have left and few dishonorably discharged, but neither side has 'won' based on a body count.

After 40 years in the Registry, I can claim the right to be embarrassed by those who cannot admit that there are now obvious findings that more care needs to be shown in how the corporation is managed. There are the details that have come to light that are found to have been legally mandated all along, but ignored by Registry management. So why can't those who are charged with that management not just say that they will handle those details and change how they manage to conform to what has come to light?

When THAT happens, we ALL can move forward.

I'd hate to think it's just egos getting in the way of a better club/business/not-for-profit or age-related unwillingness to change. As has been said for about 6 years now....."if there is nothing to hide, why are things still being hidden?"

If the Heirichs suit was needed to open the curtains a bit, that's a shame. Everyone who has followed this knows that. Everything 'legal' could have been avoided by good discussion and negotiation between the 20 to 100 people who care enough about the original concept of the Registry to openly discuss what's best for it's management and future. Why did that not happen? What has brought the Registry to being a bunch of angry old men, ~6,800 of whom just like the magazine? Period.

This posting is a result of getting home last night to my copy of the Heinrichs letter and report. After reading all of it, I was saddened that ANYONE had to go to that much trouble, time and expense for such obvious points to be made. Prior to Steve's involvement, I had made the same or similar requests and suggestions and been denied as well, so I understand the feelings that can escalate...but it takes two to Tango into such an unnecessary Charlie Foxtrot and the trustees and officers need to be held accountable. Going forward, it will be noted that good management should have found a way to avoid this unfortunate part of the Registry's history. Most of us knew that, now it's taken courts to prove it. Thanks, Steve.

One thing I won't be a party to going forward is allowing the Registry to revert to pre-lawsuit status quo by management. If the vast unthinking/uncaring/unaware majority doesn't see the need for better adherence to existing rules and regs as they apply to the Registry and it's called a draw between the vocal pro-status-quo and dissidents-for-change camps, I'll always have the cars.....and this site for recreation. Thank you, Justin.

-Bruce Baker

[alan hall]

I'm confused. I thought a lawsuit would cost more than a plane fare to Portland and a couple of nights in a motel, but apparently it is less.

[356JAGER]

Alan,
Why should someone have to pay for a trip to Portland or anywhere else in order to see a set of records that are mandated by law to be available for inspection by any member of the club worldwide ? They can and should be available online for anyone to see. You might also note that there never was a complete set of records, at any location, nothing but a few general notes scribbled on paper.
No receipts, no chronological, detailed record of expenditures or income, future obligations or any other information that even the most rudimentary business keeps for accuracy and review. You have floated another red herring, sorry it doesn't pass the smell test.
Cheers,
Joel
If you've nothing to hide, why are you hiding it ??

[alan hall]

Joel,
"Why should someone have to pay for a trip to Portland or anywhere else in order to see a set of records"... because they really cared about them.

"You might also note that there never was a complete set of records, at any location, nothing but a few general notes scribbled on paper.
No receipts, no chronological, detailed record of expenditures or income,.."......How do we know this if we didn't take the trouble to see what was available?

Seems like a lot of red herrings thrown around on this issue.

Alan

[356JAGER]

Alan,
Really, one has to show he 'cares' by traveling to some remote location needlessly in order to view what is his to view by law ? Nonsense.

We know this because that is what was provided by the R when ordered to do so by the court. It was also known long before that because that information had been provided by those who had actually seen the 'records'.

Sorry, no cigar. Try sticking to the facts, it makes getting to the truth much easier, if that's really your intent.

Cheers,
Joel

[alan hall]

Joel,
Thanks for clarifying this and for stating the facts.."It was also known long before that because that information had been provided by those who had actually seen the 'records'."

I suspected that one could see the records without a lawsuit and as you have shown that was apparently correct.

Alan

[S.J.Szabo]

Mr.Hall:

I'm afraid that you misunderstand.

The "others" that have found the "books" incomplete have been the CPAs that have, as each have duly noted in their reports, only been shown the distilled numbers found on the Club's tax forms with only "samples" of deeper records from which they must surmise (but not verify)that others exist.

This is exactly what The Letter (that took much more than the price of a ticket to Portland to discover) is about. Then, there is the obvious anecdotal evidence, like the speculative nature of the Club reserves mentioned in my previous piece, that clearly indicate a lack of proper documentation.

Now, if you are figuring that the Ruling Circle would make available to any old Member who asks, more than was provided by an order of the Court, I would conclude that the "reality" you have a grip on, has been conveniently provided by someone else.

The work on this site has always been dedicated to providing a view of the reality that exists on its own.

[356JAGER]

On the R site:

Steve Proctor
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry lawsuit update, March 27, 2015PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:16 am
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:15 am
Posts: 740
Location: Tucson, AZ
Vince, there is, I believe, a big omission between "thrive" and "One day" in your dissertation based on circumstantial evidence that no one has been willing to talk about. I have a very strong feeling that this whole thing began because of a perceived slight on the part of Steve Heinrich and the financial accountability aspect was his way to exact revenge (for lack of a better word). In other words, the financial issues would have and could have lain dormant absent the perceived slight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I recall correctly, about that time, Steve Heinrich and Michael Doyle wanted to add a "Four Cam" section to the forum. Since we have a Four Cam Forum in the magazine, it seemed to me a reasonable request. I don't know the reason the request was denied (cost? difficulty? - enlighten me), but my impression was that the discussion was protracted and may have gotten personal. I have not looked back through the archives, but that is my recollection.

Being angry and an accountant, the obvious way to extract a level of retribution was to forensically investigate the books and make an issue of his findings. I find it hard to believe that he just woke up one morning and decided to take this path at considerable expense without some strong ulterior motive (certainly not, "gee I wonder if the Registry is using a computer based accounting system..."

I have not drunk the kool-aid on either side of this issue, but this scenario is the only way I can see that makes sense. Dissuade me.

STP

_________________
STP
Steve Proctor
Member Since 1977
VIN 84757





C J Murray
Post subject: Re: 356 Registry lawsuit update, March 27, 2015PostPosted: Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:21 pm
356 Fan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:24 pm
Posts: 4248
Location: 30MI WEST OF PHILA
Steve,
That sounds similar to what I remember and what I "heard".


So someone spends hundreds of thousands of his own dough and puts himself through all the sort of nonsense displayed above, to extract some sort of 'revenge' for not getting a Four Cam thread on a little visited website and you call this an 'obvious' motive.
Maybe you guys haven't consumed Kool aid, but whatever you have partaken
of, it has robbed you of any sense of reality.