X-Message-Number: 20636 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 12:47:50 -0800 From: James Swayze <> Subject: Regarding my letter to Chris and also a comment about TW's will. References: <> > > Message #20621 > Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 07:47:52 -0800 > From: James Swayze <> > Subject: Letter to Christopher Reeve > > Chris Reeve, <snip> > Please reconsider supporting reproductive cloning. > > James Swayze Concern was brought to my attention that my letter to Chris Reeve may have associated cryonics with reproductive cloning. I did not send my letter via email. It was sent through the comments section on Chris's website. My sig usually at the end of my emails was not attached. Mention of liquid nitrogen use in invitro fertilization should in no way be construed as cryonics related. I do know better than to speak for others without permission. > Message #20628 > Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 16:24:56 -0800 (PST) > From: Driven FromThePack <> > Subject: ted williams legal case > > http://www.sptimes.com/2002/12/15/Citrus/Williams_children_see.shtml > > From the above article: "The will also specifically excludes Ferrell from any inheritance, with her father explaining he had provided for her during his life. The will said that Ferrell, his eldest daughter, "shall be deemed to have predeceased me." " If Ferrel is to be deemed "predeceased", as in preceding Ted, then how can she have any claim at all? According to the Bove Last Will analysis web article, Last Wills don't have much force over a body since usually the body is interred long before the Last Will gets executed. "This is sensible as a practical matter, as the decedent's body is typically long disposed of by the time the executor or administrator is appointed. Thus, the stated directions, if any, by the deceased in his Will would in effect be honored (if they are to be honored) long before the Will is probated, which illustrates another issue. The decedent's wishes as to the disposition of his body do not constitute a disposition of "property" at death as contemplated by the law of Wills, and since, as noted, a direction in a Will is unlikely to be legally approved (probated) in time to humanely carry out the deceased's wishes, why must it be in the Will at all? It would seem that any credible and reliable evidence of the decedent's wishes should be respected by a court, whether or not contained in the Will. In a case in which there was no statement from the decedent, the Supreme Judicial Court has stated that "In the absence of a direction from the decedent, a surviving spouse, or failing such a spouse (as here) then the decedent's next-of-kin, have the right to `possession ` of the body so that they may dispose of it for burial according to their wishes." Stackhouse v. Todisco, 370 Mass. 860 (1976)" The fact that Ted's body is preserved in liquid nitrogen should not be considered as license to violate it or make it any more reachable than standard interment somehow giving Ferrel normally not existing extra time to reach probate with the provisions of the Last Will. It should be considered as already interred. The Bove article also pointed out that non Last Will documents have more force than a Last Will. "[sic]...many if not most states now recognize the right of an individual to dispose of his body by Will or other document. See e.g., Mass. G. L. c. 113, 8 et seq. (Uniform Anatomical Gift Act); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 32-1365.01 ("A legally competent adult may prepare a written statement directing the cremation or other lawful disposition of ...[his] own remains.... The written statement may but need not be part of the legally competent adult's Will."); Fla Stat. 470.002(18) (directing funeral homes to give first priority to a decedent's written statements)." and further "Nor does the decedent's estate have a claim against one that mutilates the corpse; such claims lie with the person who has the right to the possession of the body for burial purposes. Rubianogroot v. Swanson, 2001 Mass. Super. Lexis 244 (2001); Rather, such "rights", to the extent they are recognized and enforced by the courts, are intended to give the decedent, largely out of respect for the dead, the opportunity to state and have carried out his reasonable requests for the disposition of his body. Nevertheless, it is quite possible for the decedent's purported wishes to be disregarded by the person entitled to the right to possession of the body for the purpose of the burial or other legal disposition of the body." also "In Massachusetts, the right to possession of the body and the duty of burial rests first in the surviving spouse, and second in the next-of-kin; not in the executor or administrator. Vaughan v. Vaughan, 294 Mass 164 (1936); Burney v. Children's Hospital, 169 Mass 57 (1897)." Since Ferrel was to be deemed as predeceased to Ted, clearly John Henry was therefore 'the next of kin' and so the individual legally in possession of his father's body and having the right to dispose of as he wished. The hand written note also precedes the Last Will in authority according to the above. Why has this whole case not therefore been already resolved? The case seems clear enough to me. What unseen forces may have at first influenced this case to cause it to be dragged out? Makes one wonder. James P.S. Some may note that my email address recently had the addition of the following "NOSPAM.". This was advised by a website on anti-spam techniques recommended by my ISP. The website noted that most people know enough to remove the NOSPAM(dot) when replying but as I have recently discovered apparently this is not so. I have now removed it but for anyone recently having trouble reaching me please check if this was the issue. -- Cryonics Institute of Michigan Member! The Immortalist Society Member! The Society for Venturism Member! MY WEBSITE: http://www.geocities.com/~davidpascal/swayze/ While there follow the links to photos of me and some of my artwork and a radio interview on Dr. J's ChangeSurfer Radio program with me and the father of cryonics Prof. Robert Ettinger, author of "The Prospect of Immortality". A RELIGION I actually recommend: http://www.venturist.org A FAVORITE quote: Last lines of the first Star Trek the Next Generation movie. Capt. Picard: "What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived, after all Number One, we're only mortal." Will Ryker: "Speak for yourself captain, I intend to live forever!" Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20636