X-Message-Number: 1675 Date: 24 Jan 93 16:32:02 EST From: David S Pizer <> Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Mike Darwin from David Pizer I have been off the net for a while and I have been told that there were several posting that I should respond to. I want to thank Kevin for sending me some of the postings. In response to Mike Darwin's comments about the Dick Jones matter, I offer the following: 1. Mike gives a lot of reasons why the litigation failed. 2. Because there is possibly, similar ltigation facing Alcor in the near future, I want to learn more about this. I want other Board members, and suspension members, to know what mistakes we have made in the past. I want to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. 3. Mike villifies me for the opinions I have formed from reading and asking questions. In the Jones matter, I agree that it was crucial that Alcor receive possession of Dick's body. That is the one point that there could be no compromise. I believe I have demonstrated my dedication to the patients in the 1988 raid on our facility. However, I believe that possession of Dick's body might have been a negotiable item with the relatives, without litigation. I base my belief on Saul's statement in the September 1989 issue of "Cryonics" magazine, in his followup article "How Relatives Stole $Millions From Dick Jones." On Page 25, Saul says: "None of Dick's relatives challanged his desire to be frozen; all they wanted was his money." Mike, if this is a true statement, would you agree that perhaps Alcor should have tried to negotiate for his body without an expensive lawsuit. Or, would you at least accept that if this situation comes up again, we should remember the Dick Jones litigation and try very hard for negotiation before entering litigation. If this was not a true statement, or if he has changed his mind about this matter, then it should be corrected by Saul. Mike says that "Alcor needed the money desperately." To me that would seem a reason to be even more careful in avoiding a lawsuit that would cost us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mike says that Dick became a member "PRIMARILY" as a result of ...(Saul Kent.)" I do not see how that would be a substitute for careful calculations to try to avoid a wasteful lawsuit? Mike now says that others were urging Saul on and not the opposite. I am not sure I believe this in light of all the other evidence. However, if it is true that others were urging Saul on then we all should look back at this and learn from it. In light of Saul's, and Mike's, NEW positions on this, perhaps many Alcor people, with or without Saul's leadership, may have made some mistakes in this action. I am asking that we remember, and consider, this and let us remember it if a similar situation comes up in the future before we find ourselves locked in an expensive battle with relatives. I think this matter should be investigated and discussed further, in a polite manner, to find out what really happened. It is very possible that we may soon be fighting with relatives of 3 separate patients for their removal from Alcor. Therefore, we need to look at how the courts have dealt with cryonics orgaizations versus relatives in the past. In the past, just before we lost, we were very positive that we were going to win. And, we still believe that we should have won. What was the error in our judgement? Can we avoid that next time? To do this, we need to review and question Alcor's, CSC's, CSNY's and Cryo-span's past history in dealing with patients and their relatives. I don't understand why I have to be villified for wanting to know the facts in these cases. If I am not forced off the Board, for my inquiries, in the near future I will be asked for my opinion and vote on these type of matters. Before that time, I want as much information as I can get. I hope other Board Members feel the same way. In addition, I admit that I am the type of person that does not always just accept the "standard" answer. I always like to ask questions and see if there is more than the standard explanation. This does not imply that I "know" there is more, I am just curious. Many of us are at Alcor because we do not accept the standard answers to life's problems. Many of us are in debt to you, Mike, because early on you also did not accept standard answers but went forward to inquire. We also owe the Chamberlains for the same inquiry. Mike now says that many Alcor persons and the Board were in "110% agreement" of the Jones litigation. That does not constitute a good excuse if we made a mistake; However, it is a good attempt to share the blame. I must remind you that I got my original information from you, Mike. You were the one that gave me the impression that this was Saul's actions. In your article in the May 1989 issue of "Cryonics" magazine on page 5 you wrote: "The Dick Jones estate is still in litigation with Saul Kent, exectuor and trustee under Dick's 1987 will and trust, contesting the validy of the 1988 will and trust naming Dick's business partner Jenna McMahon as exectuor and trustee. Since this matter is still in litigation Alcor cannot comment on it. We have reproduced below a newspaper article which describes the latest round in court. THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS ONE ERROR OF FACT WHERE ALCOR IS CONCERNED AND WE WISH TO CORRECT IT HERE: ALCOR IS NOT AND HAS NOT CONTESTED DICK'S WILL, NOR HAS ALCOR BROUGHT ANY LITIGATION AGAINST THE ESTATE. THESE ACTIONS WERE TAKEN BY SAUL KENT, DICK'S EXECTOR AND TRUSTEE UNDER THE FIRST WILL AND TRUST." (Emphasis added by Pizer). Mike, in the orginal article you were showing that this was Saul's action. Now you are saying that it was Alcor's action. If, in light of new thinking, you have changed your mind, I can accept that. I was relying on your original message (and some comments from Saul) when I got the impression that Saul was mainly taking action. You state that my ignorance about the Jones case is shocking, ect. However, when I have been trying to find out more about it, and other historical events, you attack me personaly. In previous postings you praise yourself (in your early years) for working and finding out about problems. In the same posting, you also chastise a dozen CSNY members for not questioning more about what was going on. I refer to your last posting: (after you arrived to investigate the problems) "... in sharp contrast to the dozen or so others who were content to sit on their asses and throw around innuendo and lies about situations they knew NOTHING about." You also have chastized others in Nelson's organization for not taking the time to ask questions and find out more about what was going on. Mike, it sounds like you are saying: Mike was good because he took the time to try to find out what was going on. The members of CSNY were bad because they did not take the time to find out more about what was going on. The members of CSC (Nelson's group) were bad because they did not take the time to find out more about what was going on. Therefore: Pizer is bad because he is asking questions and trying to learn more about what was going on. Mike, this does not make sense to me. Mike, (anyone) I am willing to accept constructive criticisms and sugestions on how to go about gathering information in a better way; Please suggest it. Sincerely, Dave Pizer Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=1675