X-Message-Number: 8493
From:  (Brent Allsop)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Hostile family members?
Date: 25 Aug 1997 16:39:58 GMT
Message-ID: <5tscgu$>
References: <5tammb$> <5trrc3$are$>

Nick Maclaren <> had comments about the RELATIVE'S
AFFIDAVIT at <URL: http://www.cryocare.org/signup/relative.txt>

> She is dead right.  Paragraphs (5), (6) and (12) are enough to make
> any sensible person refuse to sign that document.  If nothing else,
> they could cause her to lose all her inheritance in lawyers' fees
> fighting CryoCare for a fair share of any inheritance.

	Hmmm.  Paragraph 5 is only talking about the "Member's human
remains".  How can any such a paragraph be too strong?  How can any
relative being given any claim to the remains (or to what happens to
them), number one: help the relative with any "inheritance" they might
ethically deserve or number two: help a member get what they want done
with their "remains"?

	Paragraph 6 specifically only talks about "properties which
The Member has designated".  If a member clearly specifics some
particular money is to be spent for preservation, why should anyone
else, family member or not, legal or not, be allowed to spend money on
legal fees to try to have something else done with this money besides
what the member wanted?  I'm not a lawyer so maybe I'm missing
something.  If so, I whish you could be more specific about what
problems might ensue.

	As far as paragraph 12 goes I would personally want something
along these lines in such a document.  If some relative tries to steel
funds, legally or not, that I clearly set aside and specified were to
be used for my preservation, and such legal attacks used up enough of
the funds to make it impossible for the cryonics institution to do the
preservation, I would still want whatever remaining funds were left to
go to the cryonics institution.  I would not want the cryonics
institution to be financially damaged by being forced to do something
for which there were insufficient funds.  If you see problems with
paragraph 12, how would you change it so that it would adequately
accomplish what I believe it is necessarily trying to do?

	If there really are problem here could you please be more
specific about what they are and how they might be resolved?  Why
would or how could a cryonics institute fighting to keep what is
clearely specified by the member to be it's "property" or "remains"
cause a person to "lose all her inheritance in lawyers' fees"?

		Thank You

			Brent Allsop

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8493