356 Registry Lawsuit is Concluded

[Rosemary Sampson]

Today, May 15, 2015, the Ohio state trial court granted the motion of plaintiff Steve Heinrichs for entry of a final judgment. That judgment states that it is appealable. The judgment refers to the court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, entered last year, which held:

1. Heinrichs (and at least implicitly all members) have the right to examine the records including membership records of their club except as below. Heinrichs (and the members) won.

2. Neither Heinrichs nor the members have the right to examine contracts to which 356 Registry, Inc. is a party. 356 Registry, Inc. won.

3. Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from 356 Registry, Inc. - no damages awarded as he voluntarily dismissed any claim for such damages.

Either party may now appeal. If neither appeals within the time limits set by Ohio law the matter will then be concluded. That is up to our trustees on the one hand and Heinrichs on the other.

For details which are not attempted here, the actual rulings are on the court web site.

[Sebastian Gaeta]

I'd like to thank the plaintiff for making all of this possible.

These are landmark rulings

[Brian R Adams]

For details which are not attempted here,

What does that mean? Could you mean "not provided here" or "not transcribed here" or the like?

[Sebastian Gaeta]

For details which are not attempted here,

What does that mean? Could you mean "not provided here" or "not transcribed here" or the like?

Remember Brian, "she" is not an attorney.

[C J Murray]

Here we go again!

1. Heinrichs (and at least implicitly all members) have the right to examine the records including membership records of their club except as below. Heinrichs (and the members) won.

Heinrichs was never denied the financial records. Heinrichs demanded the detailed and personal membership records. The judge instructed Heinrichs to return the membership records without using them or to even make copies for future use. Heinrichs responded by using the membership records to mail false, plaintiff massaged, propaganda in an attempt to rewrite history and cause additional personal stress to the Trustees. A lot of people lost and nobody won but the plaintiff was able to display his entitlement.

2. Neither Heinrichs nor the members have the right to examine contracts to which 356 Registry, Inc. is a party. 356 Registry, Inc. won.

Porsche won, which is nice since they do a lot for our club. They don't really have to do anything for a club that only includes cars made pre-1966. Thank you Porsche!

3. Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from 356 Registry, Inc. - no damages awarded as he voluntarily dismissed any claim for such damages.

Big deal. There is a point where a defendant will accept a false narrative to end, without penalty, a frivolous law suit. I don't see Heinrichs being accepted as a member so the Sampsons will have to run for Trustee themselves.

Observations...
The Sampson posts on the law suit have a very distinct pro plaintiff slant. This is their right but why don't the Sampsons post some 356 car related information? Why not make a positive contribution?

The 13(?) law suits that Heinrichs brought against the Registry, it's members, and the Trustees have been a huge waste in every possible way. Mr Heinrichs and his devotes are not people that I want to have as fellow members in a social club.

[Brian R Adams]

For details which are not attempted here,

What does that mean? Could you mean "not provided here" or "not transcribed here" or the like?

Remember Brian, "she" is not an attorney.

That much is obvious. I was thinking more in terms of 8th grade: pass or fail. Given the functional illiterates being matriculated into college today, probably "pass".

Of course I could be wrong about the grammar. If someone does correct mine, I promise I won't sue the club.

[C J Murray]

Given the functional illiterates being matriculated into college today,

True, but they know a lot about social justice and global warming.

Done.

[Jim Liberty]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again "I love you CJ for saying what I can't". ...............................Jim.

[Vic Skirmants]

"I've said it before, and I'll say it again "I love you CJ for saying what I can't". ...............................Jim."
Where's the " like" button? Oh yeah; this isn't facebook.

[Rosemary Sampson]

Both sides (there are only two, Porsche itself is not a party to the suit) have filed motions with a hearing scheduled at their request on the trustees' motion. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and related filings. Details are on the court web site.

[Joris Koning]

So it is not over

[Jeffrey Leeds]

As part of my job description as Chief Credit and Risk officer at a bank, I managed litigation matters against borrowers who decided that they really didn't want to pay back their loans. I had one collection case that ran for 16 years and finally was successfully concluded the day before I retired. My take-away from this experience is that "it ain't over until it's over" and so it goes.

[C J Murray]

Plaintiff in black...

[Jeffrey Leeds]

Sometimes it is about principal but in this case it is about principle.

[Jim Liberty]

Joris, you are correct. Far from it. ..............................Jim.