X-Message-Number: 30944
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: William O'Rights <>
Subject: Maybe not the whole Story 2.

--0-2123607491-1218900866=:61257

Maybe not the whole Story 2.
 

I would like to address other statements that can be found in the link in 
X-Message-Number: 30884 by FlavO Noid, posted on July 21st. Chana de Wolf  AKA 
Undertoad  posted some fair commentary under the post named"providing 
information before asking for money”. 
 

She wrote the following "This kind of appeal doesn't work for me. I find this 
description lacking in the kind of information I would want to have in order to 
make an informed decision as to whether or not people should give money to this 
guy. Not questioning his integrity, but if he's such a cryonics supporter, how 
come he hasn't been signed up for years? Why wasn't he "able to get his 
suspension funded at CI?" In addition Chana de Wolf  wrote "I am not interested 
in making up the slack for those who have known about and "supported" cryonics 
for years and yet never made provisions for their own cryopreservation at any 
point along the line. As Aschwin points out in this post, making arrangements as
early as possible (and keeping them) is the best strategy a cryonicist can 
have. These are tough questions that Chana de Wolfwrites, but they are fair and 
they are deserving of an answer.
 

Also Posted in the thread titled "Maybe Not the Whole Situation.” The Finance 
Department wrote; "And I have to wonder about those who made posts requesting 
these donations, as to why they are not telling the full story.”
 

I have a plausible answer. I don't think you can sum up my life based on the 
fact that I was arrested and convicted on a felony Marijuana Possession charge. 
Although I may have chosen otherwise, I don't think it's necessarily fair to 
expect that the information about my legal issue should have made it on the 
first page of a fund raising effort. 
 

In fairness to the Finance Department however, I goggled my own name, the 
results were less than flattering. But is the fact that I was arrested and 
convicted of felony possession of Marijuana the whole story?
 

Nowhere will you find the fact that I have on numerous occasions defended 
against laws that violated the first amendment rights of everyone in my State. I
had in fact never lost a constitutional challenge until the year 2005. The 
details off that loss I would be more than happy to share with you should anyone
show any interest in hearing about that. 
 

Dave has mentioned my assistance on the Stump bill, which was a bill intended 
solely to regulate or close down Alcor. For those of you who may be new or not 
aware of that episode, I'll run that down for you.
 

I posted a warning on January 5, 2004 at Immortality Institute prior to the 
"Stump Bill". I was tempted to just provide a link because of the length of the 
post, but I'm leaving it intact and reposting that below.


"Can't you just see it now, some legal action relating to cryonics or something?
Or some other life and death issue."

William Constitution O'Rights, BJ Klein, Lazarus Long, and Bob Drake
Defendants
Vs.
United States of America....

Shaky or not, let's try to see through the looking glass more clearly.


In the future modern science will rip gaping holes in the realm of the 
impossible and modern law will struggle to keep pace. Revolutionary advancements
in science will threaten ancient notions of immortality. Instead of 
accommodating the new realities, there will be powerful people, chiefly 
political and religious leaders, who will bend the law into a reactive, even 
reactionary force in the path of Cryonics. Religious and political leaders on 
the global stage, from popes to presidents, will unite to demand an end to 
cryonics. 


The Ted Williams' story shocked people all over America and spawned a frenzy of 
political and legal action. The facts and the science of cryonics capabilities 
were swiftly lost in the dust cloud stirred up by people rushing to do 
something, anything, to stop cryonics.


The use of the science and technology of cryonics have produced some startling 
headlines and emotional reactions, and in the future it may ignite a firestorm 
of denunciations and vows to ban cryonics permanently, under all circumstances 
and for all purposes. Perhaps the president of the United States, the pope, 
numerous senators and members of Congress of both major political parties, and 
hosts of world leaders will speak with virtually one voice in decrying the 
freezing of humans, irrespective of the potential benefits that could be 
realized.


When the people speak with one voice it is often out of pure prejudice. Fear and
misunderstanding may spawn extreme, and extremely vocal, opposition to 
cryonics. If that comes to pass, the opposition will take root in the form of 
several highly restrictive state laws and threaten to become a federal ban as 
well.


There is little doubt that at least some of the fuel that will ignite the legal 
opposition to scientific forays into the frontiers of immortality is the strong 
primeval sense that we should not be allowed to "play God.” This belief has been
both explicitly and implicitly at the core of much of the resistance to most 
scientific advances. Fundamentally, the idea is that our ability to perform 
certain tasks should not be coterminous with the legality of doing so, at least 
with regard to living things. There is a belief, usually implicitly and often 
explicitly religious in origin, that places some life-related areas of medical 
and scientific endeavor in the category of taboo, top-sacred, forbidden mystical
practices reserved exclusively unto deity. Some people are afraid that human 
attempts to "play God” are fraught with overwhelming peril. The powerful message
and visceral impact from these fantasies is clear, when we meddle in the 
secrets of life,
 we risk unleashing the anger of God.


Popular opposition to cryonics may be formidable enough in its own right, but it
may be dwarfed by legal opposition. During this, the dawn of the cryonics age, 
our government may hastily act to place severe restrictions, including outright 
bans on cryonics and the degree of unanimity in opposition to cryonics may be 
astounding, possibly uniting liberal and conservative, pro-life and pro-choice, 
and secular and religious people of various persuasions.


Many of the reasons that will be marshaled in opposition to cryonics, are 
directly rooted in religious, ethical, or moral beliefs that this is just 
something people should not do. Whether couched in terms to the effect that our 
efforts are tantamount to "playing God” and should be reserved for God alone, or
phrased in less overtly religious language, this type of argument represents 
deep personal convictions. The people who hold these beliefs are convinced of 
the fundamental correctness of their position, and both the people and the 
sincerity of their beliefs are entitled to great respect. We however hold 
opposing beliefs, and our beliefs represent our deeply held personal 
convictions, and are entitled to equal recognition.


Passion has its place, but not to the exclusion of logic, reality, and the rule 
of law. We need to explore the wisdom of the legal measures already taken within
the United States, particularly we need to address possible anti-cryonic 
legislation before it is even fully drafted.


To the extent anti-cryonic sentiment is rooted in religious doctrine, there are 
important First Amendment concerns implicated in any marriage of religion and 
state-sponsored legal action. Religion-based belief simply cannot be permitted 
to manifest itself in a ban of cryonics. There are doctrinal strands that tie 
cryonics to the "free-exercise" clause of the First Amendment.


Of course the sentiment of the opposition is often not based on any clearly 
articulated principles. Opponents of cryonics simply refer to the putative 
immorality of it, as if it were intuitively obvious to everyone, and sometimes 
offer by way of explanation something on the order of "It just seems wrong.” 
Fortunately for us, such vague, emotion-rooted, gut-level aversion is a poor 
foundation on which to build a set of legal requirements or arguments. However 
the same type of sincerely held yet poorly defined abhorrence has led, in the 
America of not so long ago, to antimiscegenation laws, legal ownership of and 
commerce in slaves, legally sanctioned racial segregation, denial of equal 
rights to African Americans, denial of suffrage to women, and many other grave 
injustices..


We need to examine cryonics in a new light, one that relates to our rights and 
liberties. We need to seek an appropriate, rational, and constitutionally sound 
course of action for a defense. We need to meet any new challenges proactively. 
We need to look through this window into the future whereby today's bans on 
cryonics form the foundation for tomorrow's denial of our very lives. That 
future does not have to be. It is the purpose, the very essence of this 
organization that we look into the future and change the path we are on, before 
that tomorrow becomes today.


Shortly after posting this, that tomorrow became today real fast. Less than two 
months later the Stump bill began to wind it's way through the legislative 
process on to become a law that would have an negative impact on all of those 
who were frozen at Alcor. I posted the following,
 
Do,,, or Die...The War on Immortality, Call to arms, Stump Bill
22-Feb 2004, 11:40 AM

In the Threats to Immortality section, government is listed as one of the 
greatest threats. Well here it is folks, up close, in your face and personal. 
The government is seeking control of Alcor, so what are we going to do about it?


If Imm wants to be considered relevant in the field of Immortality, now is the 
time to show what we got/ or that we are not.

We have 3 working days to make a difference, let's get to it.



Do we have the resourses to make a diffeerence??? We should, let's take 
inventory.


Full Members 62 minus leadership leaves 48 remaining members. If half, HALF, get
involved that's 24 additional callers. That's 288 calls together with 156 makes
444 calls.


We have 1249 "Members" If only one% join in the effort, that's 12, in fact 
that's too optimistic, let's say 6 regular members join, that's another 72 
calls. 


516 calls, That's more than enough to make a major impact. So are we a group 
that just comes here to chat about things, or are we really about doing 
something about that mission statement.

Article II. -- Mission & Function

* Section 1 -- Main Mission
The mission of ImmInst is to conquer the blight of involuntary death.

Well, here's our chance to do something about it. 
 

I called Randolf this morning, he is attempting to get the spotlight on this 
issue to the media. We all know the forms of Kryptonite to politicians... and 
one of them is bad press. 
 

Here are some links if anyone wishes to read more on some of my legal writings 
surrounding the Stump Bill.
 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=3153&view=findpost&p=27101
 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=3153&view=findpost&p=27120
 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=3153&view=findpost&p=27165
 
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?s=&showtopic=3153&view=findpost&p=27207
 
 

Shortly after the defeat of the Stump bill I started to do vast research to 
prepare various defenses to potential new laws. I easily spent well over 100 
hours and I was just getting started. I had not even scratched the surface of my
research. I was preparing for the next legal battle and that consumed me every 
day of my life, because I would rather be a regular person who has eloquently 
prepared for a case than a person with an extraordinarily high IQ who hasn't 
been bright enough to prepare. You have little idea Chana de Wolf of the months 
that I had already put in and the years that I would have spent in lonely 
isolation preparing for this battle. Indeed, I had watched the reflection of the
rising sun on my computer screen many a morning while others slept their lives 
away peacefully.
 

Perhaps had I not spent well over 100 hours researching legal issues surrounding
threats to all of us, and instead used that time to concentrate on just taking 
care of my own suspension I would not find myself in the current situation I am 
in. Perhaps if I cared less about the cause in general and paid more attention 
to my own personal survival I would be in a far better position than the one I 
currently find myself in.
 

Perhaps in an ironic twist of fate, you Chana de Wolf will have your suspension 
all in order only to find that the government has just passed legislation to out
law cryonic suspension. Make no mistake, I may die in a few short months and 
you may never hear from me again, but you haven't heard the last from your 
government. Sometime in the future, they will be at it again. 
 
Now if you'll excuse me Chana, I have a Death Sentence I'm trying to appeal.
 
Live Long and Well William Constitution O'Rights



--0-2123607491-1218900866=:61257

 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30944