24 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

[new add]
interment


#################################


Abortion
Burial rites
(Research Jewish burial rites)
Burial in the earth (inhumation) is repugnant to cryonics supporters.
We don’t want “to rot in the grave.”
cryonic burials
cryonic burial
Cy Tomb
(case Law)
Cryonic entombment.
cryonic interment
cryonic cult

eternal life (all religion seeks)

It’s a new ritual for the dead.

Religious ceremony

morality, ethics, and legality

freedom of religion

regulate

invade

Life/Death, legal definition

Lineage of Life/death line

Religious practice
view death and burial differently than we do.

From biblical times right up to the present, the cus­tom of burial varies.

Anything from a cave to a cryonic capsule.

(Seek cases)
Life death cases
Religious cases.

Indictment

Cases, criminal, civil,

Find those involved in past cases

Get legal paperwork, court case issues, motions trail transcripts ect.

cases involving cult's/religious practices.

The AMA has no official policy on cryonics.

The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (Research)

Freedom of religion is protected by the First Amendment. Historically, the right to worship according to one’s own beliefs brought many early settlers to America.

It is deep rooted among us of the speculation about life after death and it is a powerful human urge to survive, to stay alive at all costs and against all odds.


The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing religion or "favoring one religion over another". Thomas Jefferson wrote that the First Amendment creates “a wall of separation between church and state,” yet the boundaries of this prohibition are often difficult to define.


Today, we live in a very different world, yet the timeless values of the Bill of Rights still protect us from unwarranted government intrusion.



In the final analysis, it should be up to you to decide and choose which method of burial is for you: the traditional in-the-ground, or the scientific cryonic interment.


Legal implications to hospital or doctor for not following directive (religious) Lawsuite, damages, violation of (?) right. Tie into SC, r to consel


It takes something that belongs to someone else.


This is a far cry from what the founding fathers had in mind, a government instituted among men to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and property.

More than 200 years have elapsed, since a band of patriots convened to devise measures for the deliverance of this country from a foreign yoke. The corner-stone upon which they founded the Temple of Freedom was broadly this, ”that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.” At the sound of their trumpet-call, millions of people rose up as from the sleep of death, and rushed to the strife of blood; deeming it more glorious to die instantly as freemen, than desirable to live one hour as slaves. They were few in number, poor in resources; but the honest conviction that Truth, Justice and Right were on their side, made them invincible....


The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the idea and spirit of the Constitution. Every man has a right to his own body

A master is one, to speak in the vocabulary of the southern states, who claims and exercises a right of property in the person of a fellow man. This he does with the force of the law and the sanction of southern religion. The law gives the master absolute power over the slave

The slave is a human being, divested of all rights...reduced to the level of mere “chattel” in the eye of the law, placed beyond the circle of human brotherhood, cut off from his kind,


That a human being cannot be justly held and used as property, is apparent from the very nature of property. Property is an exclusive right. It shuts out all claim but that of the possessor. What one man owns, cannot belong to another.

Atheists, Agnosticists, Humanists,
Freethinkers, Rationalists

Religious dogmas can never be verified through the scientific method. Therefore, science is the enemy of religion. Through the scientific method it has been proven that Earth is not 6,000 years old as Christianity claims. Human virgin birth is not possible. Transubstantiation is not possible. The means increased explanation of human questions and the lessening of the need for a faith solution

or the religious deathists, who have a significant amount of power by having the key to the Pearly Gates,

contract, against his will,

Research Right to Contract (Constitutional Right of Contract) Relation to cryonic org.

Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 20 March 2004 - 04:50 AM.

[thefirstimmortal]

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property;.... freedom of wor­ship... and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.


But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.


If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox.... in religion, ... If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us....


the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue

We shall not always expect to find them sup­porting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom

[thefirstimmortal]

It is agreed, in this country, that if a man can arrange his religion so that it perfectly satisfies his conscience, it is not incumbent upon him to care whether the arrange­ment is satisfactory to anyone else or not.


...and force America to live up to the promises of the Declaration of Indepen­dence, the Constitution

Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think emselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error.

The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a govern­ment with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitu­tion controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act. Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.... Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is consequently to be considered, by this court, as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

[thefirstimmortal]

State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly

great wells of freedom which were dug deep by the Founding Fathers in the formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence....

Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of (Immortality)

Well, those are not just clever words, or those are not just empty theories. In their name Americans have fought and died for two centuries, and tonight around the world they stand there as guardians of our lib­erty, risking their lives.

To apply any other test-to deny a man his hopes because of his religion... is not only to do injustice, it is to deny America and to dishonor the dead who gave their lives for American freedom.


There is no constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong-deadly wrong-to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to practice his religion. There is no issue of States rights or national rights.

“Protect their rights.” “Rescue their liberties from violation.”



Our government is one of limited powers, granted to it by “We the People,” and may not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of each individual. Only four hun­dred words long, the Bill of Rights forms the most comprehensive protection of individual liberty ever written. In many ways it is a document responding to the fear of tyranny from which the United States had just become liberated. Yet its language
and the values it protects (freedom of religion), are timeless. As Americans, we often take these rights for granted-until the moment comes when they are threatened. Each generation is reminded that these rights bring responsibilities, and only if we are willing to fight for our freedoms will they be preserved.

[thefirstimmortal]

Every year if not every day we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon our imperfect knowledge.

In the realm of religious faith and belief, sharp differences arise. The tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor.

They told us they had fled from their own country for fear of wicked men and had come here to enjoy their religion.


...you want to force your religion upon us.


Brother, we do not wish to destroy your religion or take it from you. We only want to enjoy our own.

I am wholly opposed to the state being used to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any religion.

Under the First Amendment, freedom of religion has two aspects: Government may not pro­hibit the "free exercise" of our beliefs, nor may it “establish,” or sponsor religion, or favor one religion over another. As Thomas Jefferson described, the First Amendment creates a “wall of separation” between church and state.

Engel v. Vitale represents the first in a series of cases declaring school prayer unconstitutional. This decision placed the Supreme Court squarely in the middle of the continuing debate over the role of religion in our public life, a battle that is often fought in the schools.


contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of

wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.

a religious activity


state laws requiring or per­mitting ...must be struck down as a violation of the Estab­lishment Clause because .....composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further (or inhibit) religious beliefs

look into the limitations of the Establish­ment Clause, and the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment
both of which are operative against the States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amend­ment. Although these two clauses may in certain instances overlap, they forbid two quite different kinds of governmental encroachment upon religious freedom. The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not. This is not to say, of course, that laws officially pre­scribing a particular form of religious worship do not involve coercion of such indi­viduals. When the power, prestige and financial support of government is placed behind a particular religious belief, the indirect coercive pressure upon religious minorities to conform to the prevailing officially approved religion is plain.

The history of man is inseparable from the history of religion.

sacrilegious nor antireligious

The men who led the fight for adoption of our Consti­tution and also for our Bill of Rights with the very guarantees of religious freedom that forbid the sort of governmental activity which Florida has attempted here.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a State from enacting laws that have the “purpose” or “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion.

The question presented is whether the Government nonethe­less has the forbidden “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion.



These mat­ters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a life­time, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mys­tery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of per­sonhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.


Some guiding principles should emerge. What is at stake is our right to make the ultimate decision.

[thefirstimmortal]

substantial obstacle to the exercise of the right
it has that effect on right of

a state measure designed to persuade to choose

constitute an undue burden

This is our hope. This is the faith
deeply-felt (held) religious beliefs.

At the heart of that Western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, is the touchstone of value, and all society, groups, the state, exist for his benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any Western society.

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitu­tion, must be limited in its power to act against its people; so that there may be no interference with the right to worship.

[thefirstimmortal]

individual rights.

people have rights, in other words, people are individually sovereign in such a way as to make some conduct toward them, even by the state, off-limits. The United States was founded on that notion. Key docu­ments the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution refer to rights.

launch into a full theory of rights,

All rights can be reduced to property rights, beginning with the property right in one’s own body and person.

rights are not arbitrary conven­tions or privileges granted by government

it is hard to square the vast powers of the IRS with the Bill of Rights, which is suppos­edly still cherished in the United States.

The point of limited government is to restrict power in order to protect the rights and privacy of the people.

.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 08 December 2003 - 03:53 PM.

[thefirstimmortal]

It takes something that belongs to someone else.

individual rights

people have rights, in other words, people are individually sovereign in such a way as to make some conduct toward them, even by the state, off-limits. The United States was founded on that notion. Key docu­ments the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution refer to rights.

launch into a full theory of rights,

All rights can be reduced to property rights, beginning with the property right in one’s own body and person.

rights are not arbitrary conven­tions or privileges granted by government.

In the original Jeffersonian vision the citizen was the master and the government was the servant.

What was impermissible to the federal government by an earlier interpretation became permissible...

But by that philosophy, the Constitution is no limit on government power at all. A constitutional government that defines its own powers is a contradiction in terms.

spiritual

Churches, in particular, are not required to annually disclose financial data to the federal government. So, disclosure is often voluntary.

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 09 December 2003 - 01:43 AM.

[thefirstimmortal]

Rapture: How Biotech Became the New Religion, Brian Alexander - 2003

Dissect above posts, and book

[thefirstimmortal]

immortal Notes

... of California v. Commissioner, 823 F.2d 1310, 1313 (CA9 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1015 (1988). Scientologists believe that an immortal spiritual being exists in every person. A person becomes aware of this spiritual dimension through a process known as "auditing." 2 Auditing ...

... whereas Scientologists, in a manner reminiscent of Eastern religions, see App. 78-83 (testimony of Dr. Thomas Love), gain awareness of the "immortal spiritual being" within them in one-to-one sessions with auditors, ante, at 684-685, such a distinction would raise serious Establishment Clause ...

HERNANDEZ v. COMMISSIONER, 490 U.S. 680 (1989)
... reality of a difficult choice having serious and personal consequences of major importance to her own future - perhaps to the salvation of her own immortal soul - remains free to seek and to obtain sympathetic guidance from those who share her own value preferences. In the final analysis, the holding ...

POE v. ULLMAN, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)

seach Amish

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 13 January 2004 - 01:38 AM.

[Bruce Klein]

the man is unstoppable

[thefirstimmortal]

the man is unstoppable

[David]

William the conqueror! Separated the church and the state in England after he took control in 1086 or thereabouts. Keep up the good work mate! I tried reading all this, but I'm a simple man......

Dave!

PS. I'm still here! Don't seem to be able to vote in the immins elections though, I feel a bit like the early Australian goldminers at Eureka.... only landholders were allowed to vote in the elections then, and it caused a revolution. They lost the battle and won the war by the way, now we all vote in Australia.

[thefirstimmortal]

William the conqueror! Separated the church and the state in England after he took control in 1086 or thereabouts. Keep up the good work mate! I tried reading all this, but I'm a simple man......

Yeah, this isn't really a very readable section, I'm just in the process of extracting information from court cases.

PS. I'm still here! Don't seem to be able to vote in the immins elections though,

There's an election going on?

[David]

· Board Elections: Jan 9 - Feb 8, 2004

Woops, you have to be a full member. How about that? Only for the rich.....

[thefirstimmortal]

· Board Elections: Jan 9 - Feb 8, 2004

Woops, you have to be a full member. How about that? Only for the rich.....

For the record Dave, I objected to the fee for this very reason, that some would feel alienated. If my memory serves me well (it doesn't always these days), Laz also had issues againt it also.

[thefirstimmortal]

U.S. Supreme Court
GRAND RAPIDS SCHOOL DISTRICT v. BALL, 473 U.S. 373 (1985)
473 U.S. 373

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS ET AL. v. BALL ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 83-990.

Argued December 5, 1984
Decided July 1, 1985

PASS/ESTABLISHMENT CASE

[thefirstimmortal]

and n. 9 (1985
Allegheny County et al. 3; cf. American Jewish Congress v. Chicago, 827 F.2d 120, 137
Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S., at 348
McConnell, Accommodation of Religion, 1985 S. Ct. Rev. 1, 3-4 (defining "accommodation" as government action as "specifically for the purpose of facilitating the free exercise of religion," usually by exempting religious practices from general regulations).
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986)
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 430 (1962).
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963) Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S., at 52 -54; id., at 70
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 636 -640 (1987) (SCALIA, J., dissenting); Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768 -769 (1976) Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 103 -104 (1968). Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962); McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 452 (discussing McCollum v. Board of Education of School Dist. No. 71, Champaign County, supra), Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), The coroner argues, however, that the dismissal
of the parents' complaint was proper because they
could not have a property interest in their children's corneas.
Since Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952), the
Supreme Court repeatedly has affirmed that "the right of
every individual to the possession and control of his own person,
free from all restraint or interference of others," Union
Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891),
Snyder
v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934),
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964
Schmerber v. California,
384 U.S. 757, 772 (1966)
Rochin,
342 U.S. at 174

Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U.S. 702,
716, 720 (1997); Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't of Health, 497
U.S. 261, 302, 305

Botsford, 141 U.S. at 251

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-
72 (1972).3 "

Pierce v. Proprietors of Swan Point Cemetery, 10 R.I. 227,
235-36 (1872

In Re Johnsons's
Estate, 7 N.Y.S.2d 81, 84 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1938)
Bessemer Land & Improvement Co.
v. Jenkins, 18 So. 565, 567 (Ala. 1895) (quoting 1 Bl. Comm.
429); see also In Re Johnsons's Estate, 7 N.Y.S.2d at 83 (discussing
Lord Coke's assertion that "buriall of the cadaver . . .
is nullius in bonis, and belongs to ecclesiastical cognisance").

Bessemer Land, 18 So. at 567
Wynkoop v.
Wynkoop, 42 Pa. 293, 300-01 (1862).
In re Johnson's
Estate, 7 N.Y.S.2d at 85-86
Bogert v. City of Indianapolis, 13 Ind. 134, 136, 138
Pierce, 10 R.I. at 238.
O'Donnell v. Slack, 55 P. 906, 907 (Cal.
1899).
Enos v. Snyder, 63 P. 170 (Cal. 1900),
In re Henderson's
Estate, 57 P.2d 212, 215 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).
Holm v. Superior Court, 232
Cal. Rptr. 432, 435 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986); Sinai Temple v.
Kaplan, 127 Cal. Rptr. 80, 85 n.13 (Cal. Ct. App. 1976);
Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. 41 Cal. Rptr. 481, 483 (Cal.
Ct. App. 1964), overruled on other grounds, Christensen v.
Superior Court, 820 P.2d 181 (1991).
Walsh v.
Caidin, 283 Cal. Rptr. 326, 328 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991); Holm,
232 Cal. Rptr. at 437,

Ross v. Forest Lawn Mem'l Park,
203 Cal. Rptr. 468, 472 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984),

." Sinai Temple, 127 Cal. Rptr. at 86; cf. Christensen,
820 P.2d at 196

Palmquist v.
Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 3 F. Supp. 358, 359-360

42 U.S.C. § 274e (prohibiting the
"transfer [of] any human organ for valuable consideration");8
cf. Finley v. Atl. Transp. Co., 115 N.E. 715, 717 (N.Y. 1917)

Larson v. Chase, 50 N.W.
238, 239 (Minn. 1891

Erik S. Jaffe,
"She's Got Bette Davis['s] Eyes": Assessing the Nonconsensual
Removal of Cadaver Organs Under the Takings and Due
Process Clauses, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 528, 535 (1990); cf. S.
Rep. 98-382 at 2

Radhika
Rao, Property, Privacy, and the Human Body , 80 B.U. L. Rev. 359,
376 (2000).

Whaley v. County of Tuscola, 58 F.3d 1111 (6th Cir. 1995)
(Michigan); Brotherton v. Cleveland, 923 F.2d 477 (6th Cir.
1991) (Ohio).

Whaley, 58 F.3d at 1116; Brotherton, 923 F.2d at
482.

Georgia Lions Eye Bank, Inc. v. Lavant,
335 S.E.2d 127, 128 (Ga. 1985); State v. Powell , 497 So.2d
1188, 1191 (Fla. 1986)

Crocker
v. Pleasant, 778 So.2d 978, 985, 988 (Fla. 2001)

" Tillman v. Detroit
Receiving Hosp., 360 N.W.2d 275, 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan
CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435-436 (1982); see Thomas
W. Merrill, Property and the Right To Exclude , 77 Neb. L.
Rev. 730, 740-752 (1998)

Whaley, 58 F.3d at 1116 (quoting Keyes v. Konkel, 78 N.W.2d
649, 649 (1899)).

." State
v. Shack, 277 A.2d 369, 372 (N.J. 1971).

." Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.,
455 U.S. 422, 434 (1982).

Enos
v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68, 69, 63 P. 170, 171 (1900).

See Gray
v. S. Pac. Co., 21 Cal. App. 2d 240, 246, 68 P.2d 1011, 1015
(1937).

." Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54 Cal. App. 3d 1103,
1110, 127 Cal. Rptr. 80, 85 (1976).

**********************************************************

[Jace Tropic]

Honestly, which 34 members are viewing this thread for every message posted? LOL! [g:)]

[thefirstimmortal]

Honestly, which 34 members are viewing this thread for every message posted? LOL!

I suspect that no regular members or full member are reading or viewing this Jace, this is really work space, I'm going thru the process of extracting relevant material for legal matters, current and future.
There currently is a three person team working on this matter, consisting of the visible team me, working to help us achieve Immortality lawfully, and two "Ghost" Guest working on an alternate game plan should all lawful efforts fail.

I will be offering my services to CI and or Alcor soon. (The lawful stuff anyway). [wis]

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 26 January 2004 - 08:22 PM.

[Bruce Klein]

Back to work I see

[thefirstimmortal]

Back to work I see

Of course We are [sfty]

[thefirstimmortal]

HILLARY GOODRIDGE & others1 vs. DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC HEALTH & another.2
Suffolk. March 4, 2003. - November 18, 2003.
Present: Marshall, C.J., Greaney, Ireland, Spina, Cowin, Sosman, & Cordy, JJ.

Our concern is with the Massachusetts Constitution as a charter of governance for every person properly within its reach. "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." Lawrence Texas, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 2480 (2003) (Lawrence), quoting Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850 (1992).

is a question not previously addressed by a Massachusetts appellate court.3

There, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult

For American appellate courts that have recently addressed this issue, see Standhardt v. Superior Court, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003); Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 (D.C. 1995); Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (1993); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999). Earlier cases include Adams v. Howerton, 486 F. Supp. 1119 (C.D. Cal. 1980), aff'd, 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982); Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. Ct. App. 1973); Baker v. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310 (1971), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 810 (1972); Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash. App. 247 (1974). See also Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003); Egale Canada, Inc. v. Canada (Attorney Gen.), 13 B.C.L.R. (4th) 1 (2003).

That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law.

[thefirstimmortal]

HOLM DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT, INC., an Arizona corporation an Arizona corporation, Petitioners v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the State of Arizona, In and For the COUNTY OF MARICOPA, Honorable Alan S. Kamin, a judge thereof, Respondent Judge, STEVENS/LEINWEBER/SULLENS, INC., an Arizona corporation; E-Electric Company, an Arizona corporation; and Blue Circle Atlantic, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Real Parties in Interest

161 Ariz. 376; 778 P.2d 1272; 1989 Ariz. App. LEXIS 160; 35 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 28

June 1, 1989

Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre & Friedlander, P.A. by Michael P. West, Phoenix, for real party in interest, Stevens/Leinweber/Sullens, Inc.

They point out that the rule's purpose is to prevent the trial court from taking an action that might moot the issue on appeal or alter the rights of the parties in the underlying action in such a way that a just remedy will not be available when the appeal is eventually resolved. See Whitfield Transp., Inc. v. Brooks, 81 Ariz. 136, 141, 302 P.2d 526, 529 (1956); Gotthelf v. Fickett, 37 Ariz. 413, 416-17, 294 P. 837, 840-41 (1931).

The primary object of the attorney-client privilege is to encourage the client to make a full disclosure of all the facts to his attorney. To achieve this object it is proper that the client should be allowed to employ whatever means of communication are necessary accurately to inform his attorney of the facts. ( City & County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.2d 227, 235-237 [231 P.2d 26, 25 A.L.R.2d 1418], and cases and authorities cited.) Accordingly, the privilege is not lost if the client casts his communication in the form of reports compiled by him or his agents for that purpose. Moreover, [*511] in this respect there is no logical difference between an oral or written report of what the client or his agent saw and a photograph taken for the purpose of communicating the scene to the attorney. On the other hand, a document, report, or photograph that would otherwise be admissible in evidence does not become privileged merely because the [***17] client delivers it to his attorney. Unless a report or photograph is created for the purpose of communicating information to the attorney, it cannot have the character of a privileged communication when it comes into existence and accordingly cannot become privileged if it is later delivered to the attorney. (See 8 Wigmore on Evidence [3d ed.], § 2307, p. 594.)


**************************************************************************
**************************************************************************

Edited by thefirstimmortal, 19 March 2004 - 01:44 AM.

[thefirstimmortal]

STANLEY WALSH et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. FRANCIS CAIDIN et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents

No. B049999

Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five

232 Cal. App. 3d 159; 283 Cal. Rptr. 326; 1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 792; 91 Daily Journal DAR 8472

July 12, 1991

In a wrongful death action alleging medical malpractice, the defendants, who were a doctor and a medical group, cross-complained against the plaintiff spouse and her counsel for spoliation of evidence, conspiracy to destroy evidence, and interference with prospective economic advantage based on the cremation of the decedent's body despite defendants' alleged prior request for an autopsy and an alleged promise by the spouse's counsel to allow one.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the surviving spouse had sole authority over disposition of the remains (Health & Saf. Code, § 7100), that defendants had no legal right to an autopsy for civil discovery purposes, and that the spouse and her counsel owed defendants no duty to preserve evidence because the law does not treat a dead human body as merely another form of physical evidence. The court held that if defendants could prove that cremation had been done for the improper purpose of destroying evidence, they could ask the trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from such conduct (Evid. Code, § 413), and that the opinion in the death certificate as to the cause of death could be rebutted by other evidence. (Opinion by Ashby, J., with Turner, P. J., and Boren, J., concurring.)

(1) We affirm. The surviving spouse had sole authority over disposition of the remains. Appellants had no legal right to an autopsy for civil discovery purposes. Respondents owed no duty to appellants to preserve "evidence," because the law does not treat a human dead body as merely another form of physical evidence. n1

By statute the surviving spouse has the right to control disposition of a decedent's [**328] remains. (See Ross v. Forest Lawn Memorial Park (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 988, 993-994 [203 Cal.Rptr. 468, 42 A.L.R.4th 1049] [right to disposition includes right to freedom from interference with that right]; for historical development under common law see Note (1939) 12 So.Cal.L.Rev. 435-446.) Health and Safety Code section 7100 provides, "The right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person, unless other directions have been given by the decedent, vests in, and the duty of interment and the liability for the reasonable cost of interment of such remains devolves upon the following in the order named:

"(a) The surviving spouse. . . ."

However, in cases [***4] where the coroner is required by law to investigate the cause of death, the coroner has a paramount right to custody, including the right to conduct an autopsy, until the conclusion of the autopsy or medical investigation by the coroner. ( Health & Saf. Code, § 7102; Gov. Code, §§ 27491, 27491.4.)

In Holm v. Superior Court (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1241, 1248-1249 [232 Cal.Rptr. 432], the court held, "[T]he courts of this state have no legal authority, inherent or expressly conferred, to disturb the repose of the dead as an aid to civil litigants in their trial preparations."