Final Judgement Issued By Court

X-Message-Number: 25223
From: "Joe Waynick" <>
Subject: Final Judgement Issued By Court
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 14:36:59 -0700

   At long last the court has issued a final judgment awarding the nephews
of Ted Williams the right to  examine and copy  the document of gift.
Contrary to what anonymous posters have erroneously reported in the press
and on the internet, this is the first time Alcor has been ordered to
deliver documentation.
   The August 31st minute entry was NOT an order to compel Alcor to deliver
any documents whatsoever and the false statements made by these same
nameless posters that Alcor has ignored or violated a court order is simply
WRONG.
   To eliminate the possibility of the spread of more misinformation by a
small group of nameless individuals posting to this forum and others, I am
reproducing the entire text of the court order below. 
   Readers should note that every single objection raised by the opposition
to our original filing for final judgment in early September in response to
the August 31st minute entry was DENIED by the court except one. As a result
of the unnecessary delays they created, they were in fact awarded the
princely sum of $284.20 for their troubles. 
   While we consider this judgment a significant victory, Alcor reserves the
right to exhaust our legal remedies in this case and we will review the
order with legal counsel to determine if further legal action is required
prior to the December 30th deadline.

11/30/2004   CLERK OF THE COURT
HON. THOMAS DUNEVANT, III L. Gilbert   Deputy
FILED: 12/02/2004
JOHN THEODORE WILLIAMS, et al. DAVID B GOLDSTEIN
v.
ALCOR LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION INC SID A HORWITZ, DAVID JEREMY BODNEY
MINUTE ENTRY 

Alcor s Objection to Plaintiffs  Statement of Cost   Pro Hac Vice Fees 
   A.R.S.  12-332(A)(1) provides that costs in the Superior Court include
the fees paid to officers and witnesses. Plaintiffs suggest that an attorney
is an officer of the court, and consequently, pro hac vice fees relating to
the attorney s services may be recovered under the costs statute. Arizona
law makes a distinction between attorney s fees, those amounts paid for
rendering services that reflect and depend upon the attorney s training and
legal skill, and taxable costs under statutory authority. Ahwatukee Custom
Estates Management Ass n, Inc. v. Bach, 193 Ariz. 401, 404 12 (1999).
Payment of the pro hac vice fee for Mr. Heer reflects Plaintiffs 
willingness to pay extra for him to represent them in Arizona. They are
therefore properly deemed attorney s fees, which cannot be recovered in this
case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs  Request for Pro Hac Vice Fees.
Alcor s Objection to Plaintiffs  Form of Judgment/Order 
   Alcor objects to Plaintiff s proposed language enjoining Alcor from
 further violations of the Arizona Anatomical Gift Act  is overbroad.
Plaintiffs John Theodore Williams and Samuel Stewart Williams concede the
point only to the extent that they are willing to modify the injunction so
that it applies to them alone, and not to other persons seeking documents of
gift. Given the dearth of case law, both in Arizona and elsewhere, defining
the duties of donees under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, a broad
injunction is inappropriate. Defendant is to be held to the orders of this
Court, but cannot be expected to anticipate future development of this
largely unexplored area of law. Consequently, this Court declines to include
such a broad injunction in its Order. 
   Alcor s second objection is a technical one. A.R.S.  36-847(B) provides
that either the original document of gift or a copy shall be delivered to
the donee Alcor, and that the original or copy shall be deposited for
safekeeping in any hospital or organ procurement agency. Alcor does not
dispute that it has a copy of the original document of gift. Whatever Alcor
has is what Plaintiffs are entitled to examine and copy. 
   The final objection meshes with the Objection to the Lodged Order to
Unseal and Compel Delivery of Documents. (Defendant s Motion to Seal
Documents was never granted. Thus, an order from the Court to unseal the
documents is unnecessary.) 
   Counsel for Alcor has intimated that Alcor may be filing an appeal of
both of the Orders issued in this case. To avoid the necessity for further
proceedings to stay enforcement, the Court issues all of its final Orders in
this minute entry order as a final judgment of the Court with the effective
date delayed until the deadline for filing an appeal has expired.

JUDGMENT 

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs John Theodore Williams and Samuel Stuart Williams filed
the subject Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and 
WHEREAS, Plaintiff Barbara Joyce Ferrell s Complaint for Declaratory and
injunctive Relief has previously been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to
this Court s August 5, 2004 Order; and
WHEREAS, this Court in its August 31, 2004 minute entry has determined that
Plaintiffs John Theodore Williams and Samuel Stuart Williams are  interested
persons  within the meaning of Arizona s Anatomical Gift Act, A.R.S.  36-841
et seq., that Plaintiffs are entitled to examine and copy the document of
gift pertaining to the late Ted Williams, and that there are no
indispensable parties;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1) No later than December 30, 2004, Defendant Alcor Life Extension
Foundation, Inc. ( Alcor ) is directed to make available for examination and
copying by Plaintiffs John Theodore Williams and Samuel Stuart Williams the
document of gift pertaining to the late Ted Williams; and
2) Plaintiffs are awarded their reasonable costs and disbursements in this
action in the amount of $284.20.
3) Denying Defendant s Motion to Seal Documents. Said documents shall be
transmitted by the Clerk to the Clerk of the Superior Court for filing on or
after December 30, 2004.
4) In lieu of the forms of judgment/order submitted by the parties, this
minute entry order is being signed by the Court and shall serve as the
formal judgment/order of the Court.
5) Filing Defendant s proposed form of Judgment, Plaintiff s proposed form
of judgment, Defendant s Order to Seal, and Plaintiff s proposed form of
Order to Unseal unsigned.
/ s / HON. THOMAS DUNEVANT, III
JUDICIAL OFFICER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

 



 Content-Type: text/html;

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=25223