X-Message-Number: 1659
From: 
Subject: CRYONICS Miscellaneous comments (Carlos Mondragon)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:56:36 PST

>To: Cryonet
>From: Carlos Mondragon
>Re: Misc. Commentary

From: Garret Smyth regarding the Omni Contest:

>Who is paying for the prize of a free suspension? Presumably it's Alcor,
>in which case does the suspendee get a share of the patient care fund
>without having to contribute anything, or is the suspension minimum made
>up out of general operating costs?

Alcor's General Operating Fund is paying for the suspension, hopefully by 
buying an insurance policy on the winner.  If the winner is uninsurable, 
then the Operating Fund will pay the up front cost of the suspension and 
reimburse the Patient Care Trust Fund for the marginal maintenance costs.  
Alcor will be receiving two full page ads in Omni within the 12 months 
after the contest (usually these cost $30K each) and an as yet unknown 
augmentation of our growth rate as a result of the publicity.  See Ralph 
Whelan's piece on this in the December issue of Cryonics.

-----

In his history of the Cryonics Society of New York, Mike Darwin wrote: 

>     What very soon happened was that some of the patient's relatives quit 
>paying, payed only sporadically, or argued, bitched, and moaned beyond any 
>possible comprehension.   These ravings were unequalled in cryonics  until 
>recently.  For those who wish to appreciate their flavor you have only  to 
>look  at  what  has  been posted on this net in the  last  few  months  to 
>appreciate  the sheer mean-spiritedness and gross stupidity. that went  on 
>at that time. 

     The first sentence, I know to be true and it makes me especially 
curious as to why Saul Kent is now advocating some form of control of 
patients by their relatives.  Perhaps he will enlighten us soon.  As for 
ravings on the net, I agree with Perry Metzger that the nature of this 
forum nourishes that sort of vitriol.  Certainly I am guilty of having 
contributed to it; Mike, how about your stuff?

>     In  some ways the two situations are very close and the  ironies  are 
>not  lost on me: the cast of characters was much like it is now.   Perhaps 
>cryonics  attracts  such  ilk out of proportion: more  likely  it  is  the 
>phenomenon  of the "crud rising to the top."   By this I mean that  people 
>willing  to  take responsible positions in cryonics are often   the  least 
>qualified  to  do so.  However, those better qualified to,  i.e.,  stable, 
>nonsociopathic  individuals with sound judgment have too much to lose  and 
>are  unwilling to work for so little remuneration.  There  are  occasional 
>exceptions  to this: quality individuals with courage and  commitment  who 
>will make sacrifices in taking positions of responsibility. But damn  few.  
>The result?  The crud rises to the top.

     The maxim as I first read it was: "Politics is a brew in which the 
dregs rise to the top."  That is one reason why I (unsuccessfully) opposed 
the politicalization of Alcor, and in light of the results I agree with 
Mike wholeheartedly.

     In his commentary on the Jones Estate litigation, Mike Darwin wrote:     

>     I would also note that the estimates of the value of the estate which 
>formed the basis upon which many decision were made (including outlays for 
>legal bills) was flawed.  Saul had no way of knowing this at the time, but 
>later  Carlos  Mondragon  did.   But in  the   months  that  followed  the 
>settlement  Carlos  relied  on the opposition's estimates  and  made  many 
>critical  decisions  for Alcor on this basis.  The cost to Alcor  of  this 
>error  has  been  enormous, and in my opinion  every  bit  as  financially 
>damaging as the "mishandling" of the litigation by Saul.  Perhaps the last 
>word  on this matter should be Carlos': he has stated to me and others  on 
>more  than one occasion that despite Alcor having to pay the  legal  bills 
>for  both  sides  Alcor still got considerably better  than  half  of  the 
>estate.   This  was the amount Alcor was first offered by  the  relatives, 
>minus of course the small detail of control of Dick's suspension.  Was  it 
>worth it for that last little detail alone.  Hell yes!

     This is sort of a "what did he know and when did he know it?" 
question.  When Saul had no way of knowing the actual value of the estate, 
of course neither did I.  Later, when I did find out, the entire board 
(and Saul) were immediately informed in writing.  At no point did I rely 
on "the opposition's estimates".  Saul, myself, and Alcor's board had 
relied on *Dick's* estimates which had been consistent going back to when 
Mike and Andy Potter helped him establish his original estate plan in late 
1986.  There were two parts to the Jones estate: the "date of death 
assets", and future income derived from residuals on intellectual 
property.  It was the latter that was overestimated by everyone, including 
Dick.  The only "cost to Alcor" was our having to redo financial 
projections, since at that time we had in no way encumbered the 
erroneously projected future income stream.  The final settlement was not 
an even split with the family.  Since they had also made the same error, 
we succeeded in negotiating a settlement which gave Alcor all of the date 
of death assets and split only the future income.  This is why I have said 
that we "got better than half the estate".  In fact, to date we've 
collected about 80% to their 20%.  Certainly I agree with Mike that the 
litigation was worth it to get control of Dick's suspension, and I've 
recently put it in the magazine that Saul had my full support at the time.  
But had I known then what I know now (i.e. my accumulated experience and 
knowledge of the rather arcane world of estate litigation), certainly I 
would have done things differently and advised Saul to change course as 
well.  What worries me is that Saul has consistently written things to the 
effect that he learned nothing and would do the same all over again.

-------

In his tirade on the failed attempt to move to Arizona last summer, Mike 
Darwin wrote (refering to his Symbex experience):

>     The prospectus for purchase of the building was a small book running 
>52 pages in length.  Every major (and minor) concern was addressed.  We 
>raised the money in big and small chunks.  But still it took time -- a 
>couple of months in fact.  The building was the envy of the cryonics 
>community at that time.

     Ahem, Mike several of us know that that prospectus of yours was about 
90% copied from a prospectus for a limited partnership in a Taco Bell 
franchise.  Nothing wrong with that, had we taken the limited partnership 
route, no doubt we would have used similar boiler plate.

     Mike goes on to deride Dave Pizer's fundraising ability.  I must 
point out that Dave raised nearly a quarter of a million dollars in less 
than two weeks.  To the best of my knowledge, no one in the history of 
cryonics has done as well for any single project in any length of time.

     As for the rest of what Mike said on this subject, I suggest that a 
much more accurate history of events is obtainable by looking at the 
traffic on this net at the time and judging for oneself.   

--------

     Michael Riskin's posting on the 18th was amusing, gratifying, 
embarrassing, and hopefully inspiring.  My reply,
*** Yes Michael, I do indeed "sometimes open mouth before engaging brain 
and say something inappropriate."***  Much of my job has been to 
communicate and unfortunately, not everything I say can be a gem of 
wisdom. Soon I'll have a lot more time and a lot less pressure, so I'll 
try to do better.  But since I'm not a politician and I don't like 
politics, don't expect me to pull *all* my punches ;-).

     Thanks,
     CM

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1659