356 Registry lawsuit update, March 27, 2015

[Vic Skirmants]

While at Hershey last weekend, someone dropped off a roll of toilet paper with the note that it was in reference to the lawsuit. Looked more closely when I got home; the outer sheets were the "letter", trimmed to fit perfectly over standard toilet paper. At least this member gets it. Thank you, MH.

[Wes Bender]

Thanks, Vic. I wondered what I was going to do with mine..........

Cheers,
Wes

[Sebastian Gaeta]

I am out of town right now and won't be home until next week. If I did not receive one I won't worry about it. If I do I will read it. However, based on comments here from people I have known for years, I will be surprised if there is anything in it that makes me think this was not an ego driven colossal waste of money, time and resources.

One thing to think about is how well this VOLUNTEER club operated while being attacked both as a single entity an as indivduals. The stress this created must have been unimaginable.

Fighting it was the right thing to do. In the USA you have the right to sue and you also have the right to defend yourself. Thank you to the trustees for not giving in to this unfortunate individual.

I know it is not actually over, but it is winding down.....

[Dennis ODonnell]

Ron, thanks.

Since your post followed mine re Quickbooks I wasn't sure if you were referring to that letter or saying anyone who defends the use of a simple accounting program is dishonest. That's why I asked. Of course paper works and using it is not malfeasance.

[Al Zim]

Recently I have seen comments regarding my involvement with the concluded litigation. I have been involved as a plaintiff and defendant in numerous lawsuits usually involving money that people owed me. I most frightening lawsuit was when our business name was POR-SHA to summarize the outcome the judge said "If you do not have the sign off the side of your building I will send a federal marshal to take you to prison." That was certainly a very powerful statement and I immediately complied with his request. The federal marshal was by on Tuesday to inspect. Never were the Trustees in this position.
In 1962 I was a sophomore in college when I realized that working on cars was more fun than going to school. I took a full program at the college and carried a 30+ hour work week (at $2.50 per hour) It was early in the following year that I was allowed to work on Porsche's. My Senior year my boss left on a two week vacation and I ran the shop. I received a Masters when I was 23 and was a Ph.D candidate when I was 25. We purchased a house and I immediately began doing Porsche stuff. At the time I was the highest paid youngest associate professor.
Since that time 47 years ago I have expanded our business from behind the garage to a complex of nearly 30,000 square feet with real estate in excess of 100,000 square feet of buildings. I would say this qualifies me as a successful business person.
I have chosen not to be involved in ANY lawsuits. Thus I have not been involved in this current one.
I would like to quote to you from the 14 February 2014 document that was paid for by the 356 Porsche Registry and passed out at the open trustee meeting in March. I am putting this quote in capitals since I believe it is very important:
MANAGEMENT (the treasurer and trustees) HAS ELECTED TO OMIT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Lotspeich and Collins, P.C. I find this situation UNACCEPTABLE. al zim

[Walt Nolte]

Of course the Rigistry has antiquated an outdated accounting methods, 356s are outdated and antiquated. That's the fun of owning one. For crying out loud, it's a car club.

Walt Nolte

[VinceFinaldi]

Sometimes, boiling a dispute down to its essential elements helps to gain a heightened understanding of a dilemma. I'm not very smart, so I am probably the wrong person to be doing this, but I will give it a try. This is just my recitation of the facts as I understand them, gleaned from the pages of this forum, the case materials, and letters from various parties.

There exists a relatively small car club. One that was once much smaller. Created out of a garage by enthusiasts of a particular relatively obscure set of machines. For camaraderie, information and assistance regarding those machines. That's it. It was not about accounting, elected positions or lists that contain personal information. It was an assemblage-a subset in fact-of car guys with similar interests, and its purpose was important to these fellows because, since the machines they loved were relatively rare, having persons with which to share information, parts and memories was important to the continued existence (of the car guys and the cars).

Membership was opened to new like-minded individuals, who were welcomed into this garage. Eventually, the club grew so large, the members could barely fit into one garage. Representatives were elected to manage the club, fees were collected and recorded, and personal information stored by these car guys. All the while, it remained a car club. The members continued to trade information and assistance, and provide camaraderie that was a great benefit to their lives, and helped the machines to thrive.

One day a long-time member-an accountant, businessman and author in fact-had a hunch that the accounting by the car guys was not up to his particular professional standards. Certain that he was correct, he walked into the garage, pounded his fists on the workbench, and demanded to see the "books." He made some comments to fellow members that cast aspersions on the character of the original founding members and their administrative practices. He even attacked the voting process.

Those who were attacked felt that this author may have had ulterior motives. After all, this club was not about accounting, elections or personal information. Those were mere tangential-although necessary-aspects of the club that had grown in size. Was this author trying to access this information out of pure benevolence, as he claimed, or was he seeking this information for another purpose? After all, he was a businessman, author and accountant-was he seeking the membership list and account information for his personal business purposes? The gar guys were justifiably skeptical. And protective of their club and fellow members that they cared about deeply.

Feeling rebuked, the author filed a lawsuit. He alleged that the car guys were running a criminal operation. That they were racketeers engaged in organized crime. The author truly believed he could prove that they were misappropriating money and they were guilty of the other various misdeeds alleged in his complaint. He even sued one of the car guys' assistants-a female who helps with the phones-in his quest for truth. He claimed the car guys defamed him in their discussions.

The car guys were justifiably upset. Some may have fallen ill. Here they were, entrenched in a lawsuit, about their car club, but it had relatively little to do with the purpose of the club itself. Of advanced years by now, many of the car guys were in retirement, and not only had the author assailed their character, he was now threatening their very (and for most of the retirees, fixed) financial existence. The car guys kicked the author out of the club. The author vowed to reclaim his membership, and to take theirs. The car guys filed a counterclaim.

The litigation plodded on, and the author was eventually allowed to review the records of the club-something the car guys said they allowed him to do all along. And the author did not find what he was expecting. The numbers added up, and money was not missing. The author paid an outside financial professional to re-check the numbers, searching for errors. He found nothing more than a few bad accounting practices. But surely no breaches of what they call a "fiduciary duty" the car guys owed to the members.

The author changed his tune. First, he asked for a large sum of money to reimburse him for the lawsuit, and for the car guys to change their accounting and election practices. The car guys said no. The author asked for a "symbolic" payment of a mere $100 and changes to their accounting and election practices. The car guys said no. The author asked to be let back into the garage-he actually cared about, and asked for, his original membership "number." The car guys said no. Although he had won the right to a trial on some minor allegations in his lawsuit, the bulk of the author's claims were dismissed. He decided to dismiss his case.

Next, the author sent letters to the other members, attempting to explain why what he did was justified, in the best interests of the club and members, and how it benefitted the club. Some of the members began to then argue about what should be done with the club. How the elections, accounting and membership lists practices should be changed in light of "the big tragedy."

The car guys, still upset about the allegations, and having had to live through the ordeal, just wanted to go back to the early days of the club. To the garage and their cars. The camaraderie. The parts. The repairs. And the drives.

Personally, so long as I get my magazine every 2 months and the website is up and running, I don't care how much funds are in the coffers. I don't care if the trustees eat a nice dinner, on the club, while they undertake the business to keep the club together. And I don't think the author should be allowed anywhere near the club again. Because for me it's not about the accounting, membership lists or elections. Its about the cars. Simple as that. And I hope to meet many of you like-minded members during some of our future events.

[Ron LaDow]

[...]I would like to quote to you from the 14 February 2014 document that was paid for by the 356 Porsche Registry and passed out at the open trustee meeting in March. I am putting this quote in capitals since I believe it is very important:
MANAGEMENT (the treasurer and trustees) HAS ELECTED TO OMIT SUBSTANTIALLY ALL THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES GENERALLY ACCEPTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Lotspeich and Collins, P.C. I find this situation UNACCEPTABLE. al zim

Al, do you have a copy of that document available? I would very much like to read it to see why that decision was made.
Please let me know if you want to send it email or USPS; either way is fine.

[Ron LaDow]

I'm not very smart, so I am probably the wrong person to be doing this, but I will give it a try. This is just my recitation of the facts as I understand them, gleaned from the pages of this forum, the case materials, and letters from various parties.

Vince, I think you'd be more effective if you didn't profess an un-deserved modesty. You seem to have hit most of the major points pretty well, and I won't bother taking 'the letter' apart further as a result.

[Rosemary Sampson]

Vince: A+ for fiction. Excellent avoidance in your work of any facts that are inconvenient to your conclusions.

Setting aside who employs competent and skillful Mary Skamser, you and Mr. Gaeta both diminish her important role in our club. She is an officer of our club according to the bylaws and in fact is our membership chair.

[Pat OBryant]

This lawsuit,as i understand it,was quite simply a pretext for lawyers to make money. A huge waste of time. I read some parts of a letter sent to me and just shook my head in amazement that such a ridiculous situation ever occurred. It is a sign of our times.

[C J Murray]

Vince: A+ for fiction.

Rosemary, the real fiction is that you are not Bill.

[C J Murray]

with real estate in excess of 1000,000 square feet of buildings

Impressive. How many employees does it take you to manage a million square feet of rental space?

Your post does seem to ramble a bit. Let me ask this; what about the journals(Registry property you pocketed) that you showed me when I was in your office and that you claimed was proof of Trustee wrong doing? Not incompetence, wrong doing as in misappropriation of club funds for their personal use. You were pretty exercised as you waved the paper around and told me that SH would expose everything and prove that you guys were right about Trustee wrong doing. I got the distinct impression that you were vigorously encouraging SH behind the scenes. I also think you recall your posts on the subject when the story broke. Don't you think the Trustees deserve an apology from you?

[Al Zim]

Cliff: I am sorry my oversight in proofreading my statement it should be one hundred thousand. I have someone working on an average of two days per week to maintain and update the buildings. After about 20 years everything on the building needs to be redone.
My recollection of your visit is decidedly different then your recollection. I Never jump up and down or rant an rave unless it is after hours and the front door is closed and locked. I told you I had a copy of the "BOOKS" for ( I think) 2010. I never showed them to you because you told me you were not interested in them. As a matter a fact I have never shown them to anyone! Including Steve Heinrich and his attorneys. NO ONE HAS EVER SEEN THESE DOCUMENTS!
Mr. Heinrich was intent on suing the Registry and I pleaded with him not to include me in the lawsuit since I was not longer a Trustee. Thankfully I was not part of the lawsuit. My other contact with Mr. Heinrich is assisting him in finding a particular 911 in a certain serial number range. Unfortunately I have been unable to find a car.
Regarding my "ranting" I believe that many people in the Registry do not know who I am (even though we have a full page advertisement)
and my background should serve to acquaint them. I do not say derogatory thing about people and believe that 4 letter words only show a reduced command of the English language. al zim

[Steve Proctor]

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