X-Message-Number: 32407 Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:22:53 -0500 Subject: PR debacles and how to avoid future ones From: Rudi Hoffman <> --00c09f8a4f6aee3d1404801de359 Hello, Cryonetters, Alcor Board, Cryonics Staff, and whom it may concern: This is Rudi from Florida. I just returned from a marvelous vacation to Mardi Gras in New Orleans. Because of the 247 emails to respond to in my inbasket, I deleted some cryonets and other posts unread. So I am just now learning some disturbing details about the second Alcor legal battle within the year between Alcor and relatives. I am truly dismayed about the possible negative publicity that will arise from both these two cases. And how this could not just impact public policy, but *insurance company willingness to associate with cryonics*. When we have individuals who have been dead for weeks, in the Florida case, or many days going on weeks, in the Colorado case, and Alcor is forced (?) to go to court to gain custody of the body/client/patient it makes our whole enterprise look just awful. And not just look awful...it IS awful. Unacceptable. I understand why the Alcor board and management feel they must prove that they will engage legally to "protect the client's wishes." And in all cases, including Ted W...that the money potentially going to Alcor is an issue...perhaps THE issue. Here is the point of this posting: First, a copy of an email posted yesterday/today on cryonet posing a very important question: Mary Robbins's relatives might have decided to interfere with her suspension because they had heard the previous episodes of bad publicity regarding Alcor, including rumors of the abuse of a frozen head. If they succeed in preventing Robbins's suspension, while also intercepting the money she had set aside for it, that will give other members' relatives the precedent and incentive to try to stop their suspensions. And even if Alcor wins custody of Robbins's body, the media might frame the story in a way sympathetic to the relatives and derogatory to Alcor, contributing to problems down the line with other suspensions opposed by the suspendees' family members. What should we do to keep this from happening to potentially all of us with living relatives? -- Mark Plus Life is short: Freeze hard! (end copying of Mark's post.) The reason these legal battles...and terrible delays experienced in the past by both Alcor and CI...occurred at all is POOR PLANNING and DOCUMENTATION. And this is so tragically unnecessary! Life insurance AND annuity contracts with named beneficiaries go DIRECTLY to the beneficiary, bypassing probate, grumpy relatives, and delays. Especially in the case of life insurance, the money is created exactly when needed, *and does NOT reduce the estate* *otherwise going to the family. * This is why life insurance funding makes sense from a structural as well as economic standpoint. Additionally, properly named beneficiaries on an annuity contract can work...although there may be a perception, as evidently is the case in the current Mary Robbins case, on the part of potential beneficiaries that there is a genuine and available asset that either comes to them or to Alcor/CI/ACS. A SUGGESTION, IN WRITING, TO CRYONICS BOARD MEMBERS AND MANAGEMENT Alcor, CI, and ACS should initiate immediately a FULL documentation and funding analysis. For every client on their books, starting with the old and unwell. In fact, it is my understanding that something like this has been happening, at least at Alcor. Although I suspect this activity has been deprioritized with current legal "crisis de-jours" and suspensions. It needs to be REPRIORTIZED to avoid a third lawsuit and Public Relations debacle this year. Of COURSE this is time consuming, painstaking, costly, and highly inconvenient. I can relate to this, as I have a goal of simply contacting several hundred of my clients to update their emails and contact data...a project I hoped to have completed in February which may take until April best case. But, compared to the downside that we as a community face as a result of court battles, I suggest that something like this is necessary. Included in this analysis could be an assessment by the member about whether his family or relatives may object. AND THESE CONVERSATIONS SHOULD BE RECORDED, to memorialize the client's wishes and protect everyone's interests. Ideally, a video of each person signed for suspension should be copied to all potential stakeholders. At minimum, a taped interview would be clear evidence of the client's wishes. REGARDING MARY ROBBINS--AND A PERSONAL COMMITMENT I am not privy at this moment to the documentation or legal details of the Mary Robbins case. Did the annuity at issue have ALCOR as irrevocable beneficiary directly? Was a copy of full beneficiary information copied to all relevant parties? Do the family members have actual documentation that Ms. Robbins changed her mind in writing? If this were my client things would have been handled impeccably, and we would not be in "Alcor Legal Battle Part TWO (three counting LJ) within a 12 month period. Not knowing the full pattern, it is easy to second guess these situations. I am endeavoring to *not* do this with Alcor board and management. Alcor management and board are very intelligent people, doing the very best they can with a barrage of awkward situations. I am copying this posting to the Alcor board, and hereby *volunteering* to help make such calls to reduce the likelihood of future court cases like these. Other cryonics members may also wish to volunteer to call their fellows and record the conversations with permission. I have already obtained the phone recording equipment to accomplish this. It costs about 50 bucks at Radio Shack. Privacy and confidentiality issues exist, but the necessity of making SURE of arrangements SUPERSEDE these. IN SUMMARY In conjunction with other recent legal and PR events, this Colorado situation looks like a public relations disaster in the making. It is my sincere hope that this situation can be resolved without further legal wrangling. Alcor may find that a dignified retreat could be better than a public perception that Alcor goes to court to "freeze people who are dead for weeks." Insurance companies are VERY reputation sensitive. The Cryonics community has already LOST many fine insurance companies who formerly were willing to have cryonics organizations as OWNERS as well as beneficiaries due to what was described to me as "REPUTATION RISK." We are down to a single carrier in some states allowing transparent ownership of policies by cryonics organizations. Folks, this is a potential crisis which can be averted. It is my professional opinion that *losing insurance carriers due to reputation risk* is a much more immediate threat to cryonics than even the long term public policy changes resulting from legal controversy. I therefore request and beseech the Alcor board to end this Mary Robbins lawsuit as quickly and gracefully as possible. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely Yours, Rudi -- Rudi Richard Hoffman CFP CLU ChFC World's Leading Cryonics Insuror rudihoffman.com Former Board Member Financial Planning Association fpafla.com Board Member Salvation Army salvationarmy.org Member Alcor Life Extension Foundation alcor.org, Member Cryonics Institute cryonics.org Certified Financial Planner(TM) CFP Board of Standards Member World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org/ --00c09f8a4f6aee3d1404801de359 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 [ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32407