• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Alcor and Robbins Family Reach Amicable Settlement


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 04 March 2010 - 12:39 AM


http://www.alcor.org...2010-03-03.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For More Information Contact:
Clifford Wolff, Attorney at Law, Counsel for
Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Inc.
Email: cwolff@wolfflawfirm.com
Phone: 954-565-5040

Alcor and Robbins Family Reach Amicable Settlement

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA - March 3, 2010

Mary Robbins was a member of Alcor Life Extension Foundation since 2006. Ms. Robbins left her remains to Alcor in a written directive pursuant to the Colorado Disposition of Last Remains Act. A dispute arose between the Robbins family and Alcor over whether or not Ms. Robbins cancelled her written wishes concerning her remains two days before her legal death in Colorado Springs on February 9, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, a Colorado Probate Court ruled that Ms. Robbins did not revoke her written wishes concerning her remains by signing a “change of beneficiary” document in connection with an insurance annuity. The court further ordered that Alcor shall have custody of the remains of Ms. Robbins.

Today, Alcor and the Robbins family reached an amicable settlement in which Alcor will be allowed to transport immediately the frozen remains of Ms. Robbins to Arizona to complete the process of cryopreservation. In exchange, Alcor agreed to release all potential claims to an insurance annuity in which Alcor had been the previously named beneficiary.

Jennifer Chapman, Executive Director of Alcor stated: “We are glad we were able to fulfill the wishes of our long-standing member.”

Colorado counsel for Alcor, Eric Bentley, said, “Even though Ms. Robbins long intended that the annuity go to Alcor in connection with her cryonics arrangements, Alcor decided to release any claims on the funds in the interests of seeing her wishes completed without further delay. Alcor is hopeful this compromise helps the Robbins family find peace and closure.”

Mr. Bentley went on to say, “This case was never about money. Alcor simply wanted to carry out the written desires of Ms. Robbins. Alcor is pleased the matter could be resolved quickly and in the best interests of everyone involved.”


#2 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 04 March 2010 - 02:31 AM

http://www.alcor.org...2010-03-03.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

For More Information Contact:
Clifford Wolff, Attorney at Law, Counsel for
Alcor Life Extension Foundation, Inc.
Email: cwolff@wolfflawfirm.com
Phone: 954-565-5040

Alcor and Robbins Family Reach Amicable Settlement

SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA - March 3, 2010

Mary Robbins was a member of Alcor Life Extension Foundation since 2006. Ms. Robbins left her remains to Alcor in a written directive pursuant to the Colorado Disposition of Last Remains Act. A dispute arose between the Robbins family and Alcor over whether or not Ms. Robbins cancelled her written wishes concerning her remains two days before her legal death in Colorado Springs on February 9, 2010.

On March 1, 2010, a Colorado Probate Court ruled that Ms. Robbins did not revoke her written wishes concerning her remains by signing a “change of beneficiary” document in connection with an insurance annuity. The court further ordered that Alcor shall have custody of the remains of Ms. Robbins.

Today, Alcor and the Robbins family reached an amicable settlement in which Alcor will be allowed to transport immediately the frozen remains of Ms. Robbins to Arizona to complete the process of cryopreservation. In exchange, Alcor agreed to release all potential claims to an insurance annuity in which Alcor had been the previously named beneficiary.

Jennifer Chapman, Executive Director of Alcor stated: “We are glad we were able to fulfill the wishes of our long-standing member.”

Colorado counsel for Alcor, Eric Bentley, said, “Even though Ms. Robbins long intended that the annuity go to Alcor in connection with her cryonics arrangements, Alcor decided to release any claims on the funds in the interests of seeing her wishes completed without further delay. Alcor is hopeful this compromise helps the Robbins family find peace and closure.”

Mr. Bentley went on to say, “This case was never about money. Alcor simply wanted to carry out the written desires of Ms. Robbins. Alcor is pleased the matter could be resolved quickly and in the best interests of everyone involved.”


This is good news, but hopefully doesn't set a precedent......

#3 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:03 AM

This is good news, but hopefully doesn't set a precedent......


I worry about the bad precedent as well. Other aging members have cryonics-unfriendly relatives who probably follow the news about Alcor and consider cryonics a waste of money that should go to them instead.

This will give hostile relatives with the power of attorney an incentive to hold a deanimated cryonicist hostage. If they play it right, they will get to keep the money, and Alcor will have to comp a suspension for a member with a trashed brain.

#4 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:53 AM

Alcor is pleased the matter could be resolved quickly and in the best interests of everyone involved.

Everyone my ass. The daughter steals the insurance money, Alcor gets stiffed, and Mrs. Robbins' brain gets messed up. If there was to be any money left over after costs of suspension, it presumably would have gone to support the reanimation of Mrs. Robbins at some future date, should that be possible. I've been wondering what will happen if at some point in the distant future it becomes possible to reanimate cryonics patients, but the cost is, say, ten million dollars in today's money. If no one is willing to put up the money, then presumably you just remain frozen, waiting for the postulated end of scarcity, should it happen. Are future reanimation costs part of what you buy when you pay up front for suspension, or is this something that isn't really addressed?

#5 dangerousideas

  • Guest
  • 60 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Alberta, Canada

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:56 AM

It is good to see this matter settled. However, the old wisdom that "It's not about the money" means that "money is all it is about" rings true here; just not on Alcor's part.

#6 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 04 March 2010 - 07:03 AM

I thought in a previous news article she was quoted that she wants to bury/mourn over her mother normally. How's she having the money allows her to mourn/bury her? that's just ugly!

#7 forever freedom

  • Guest
  • 2,362 posts
  • 67

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:10 PM

This is good news, but hopefully doesn't set a precedent......


I worry about the bad precedent as well. Other aging members have cryonics-unfriendly relatives who probably follow the news about Alcor and consider cryonics a waste of money that should go to them instead.

This will give hostile relatives with the power of attorney an incentive to hold a deanimated cryonicist hostage. If they play it right, they will get to keep the money, and Alcor will have to comp a suspension for a member with a trashed brain.


I think that Alcor should issue a warning to all its members strongly suggesting that they settle all these legal matters ASAP. I'm sure there are ways of making things legally safer, so that hostile relatives have no way of interfering once the person is dead.

#8 advancedatheist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 04 March 2010 - 03:52 PM

Alcor is pleased the matter could be resolved quickly and in the best interests of everyone involved.

Everyone my ass. The daughter steals the insurance money, Alcor gets stiffed, and Mrs. Robbins' brain gets messed up. If there was to be any money left over after costs of suspension, it presumably would have gone to support the reanimation of Mrs. Robbins at some future date, should that be possible.


Not to mention attorneys' fees.

I've been wondering what will happen if at some point in the distant future it becomes possible to reanimate cryonics patients, but the cost is, say, ten million dollars in today's money. If no one is willing to put up the money, then presumably you just remain frozen, waiting for the postulated end of scarcity, should it happen. Are future reanimation costs part of what you buy when you pay up front for suspension, or is this something that isn't really addressed?


Assume that it will cost $10,000,000 in today's dollars to revive a cryonaut, that we have constant dollars, and that our resuscitators in Future World would not want to spend more than the planet's per capita GDP for each revival.

According to Wolfram Alpha, the world currently has a per capita GDP of $7,150.00. (All the really poor people on the planet bring the average down considerably.) If the world's per capita GDP continues to grow exponentially at 3 percent a year, that figure will reach $10,000,000 in approximately 240 years (hardly "the distant future"). So given these assumptions, if it costs $10,000,000 in today's money to revive a cryonaut, by the year 2250 the revival cost per cryonaut would absorb one per capita GDP, and therefore presumably our friends in Future World could afford to help us out.

If, however, economic growth ends and we see the collapse of complex societies around the planet for the currently postulated reasons (Peak Oil, climate instability and all that), then revival won't happen any way. The production of liquid nitrogen will eventually stop as well.

Edited by advancedatheist, 04 March 2010 - 03:55 PM.


#9 enoonsti

  • Guest
  • 81 posts
  • 10

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:14 PM

The production of liquid nitrogen will eventually stop as well.


Are you saying that will be due to the currently postulated reasons? Or that liquid nitrogen production will just stop on its own? ;)

As for peak oil, etc, I really do think that it is pumped up by hype. *cough*. Most people I encounter on this completely downplay technology's role in (potentially) diverting a Malthusian disaster. It's like they put it as an "All or nothing" ordeal, when a little bit of technological/market efficiency here and there could do wonders. That said, I think that there are most certainly legitimate concerns being raised, and people who try to brush it off by saying "Oh the Malthusians were wrong in the past" seem to forget that techno-futurists have been wrong in the past too.


EDIT: Oh crap, I should have read a little more closely into what you said (and your paragraph structure). My question is answered. Sorry about that ;)

Edited by enoonsti, 04 March 2010 - 09:24 PM.


#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 March 2010 - 09:54 PM

I've been wondering what will happen if at some point in the distant future it becomes possible to reanimate cryonics patients, but the cost is, say, ten million dollars in today's money. If no one is willing to put up the money, then presumably you just remain frozen, waiting for the postulated end of scarcity, should it happen. Are future reanimation costs part of what you buy when you pay up front for suspension, or is this something that isn't really addressed?

Assume that it will cost $10,000,000 in today's dollars to revive a cryonaut, that we have constant dollars, and that our resuscitators in Future World would not want to spend more than the planet's per capita GDP for each revival.

According to Wolfram Alpha, the world currently has a per capita GDP of $7,150.00. (All the really poor people on the planet bring the average down considerably.) If the world's per capita GDP continues to grow exponentially at 3 percent a year, that figure will reach $10,000,000 in approximately 240 years (hardly "the distant future"). So given these assumptions, if it costs $10,000,000 in today's money to revive a cryonaut, by the year 2250 the revival cost per cryonaut would absorb one per capita GDP, and therefore presumably our friends in Future World could afford to help us out.

If, however, economic growth ends and we see the collapse of complex societies around the planet for the currently postulated reasons (Peak Oil, climate instability and all that), then revival won't happen any way. The production of liquid nitrogen will eventually stop as well.

Rather than rely on the kindness of strangers, suppose instead the cryonaut invested a sum of $100,000 at the time of suspension. Assuming a return net of taxes and inflation of 3%, in 175 years there would be over $12 million in today's dollars. That way, a lot of uncertainties are removed. Such vagaries as the survival of humanity, or colossal economic upheaval, or Alcor getting hit by a nuclear bomb (or hell, even a conventional bomb; it's not like we can have off-site backups of humans) are still potentially going to throw a monkey wrench into the works. Starting out with a nest egg seems a hell of a lot better than being broke and hoping for the best. What may be needed here is a long-lived institution to run your money, and appropriate legal structures to make it work. Both may or may not already exist.

#11 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 08:20 PM

I'm sure the daughter did not receive much, if any of the money after the lawyer fees. It is admirable of Alcor and good in the long run to have stood up so strongly for one member.

#12 jolly

  • Guest
  • 154 posts
  • 7
  • Location:USA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 09:30 PM

I'm sure the daughter did not receive much, if any of the money after the lawyer fees. It is admirable of Alcor and good in the long run to have stood up so strongly for one member.


I'd be pissed either way. I'll have to consider adding some clauses to my will. "If any heir contests my wishes to be frozen, they get nothing"
Realistically, the only reason I could see myself not wanting cryonics is if we have already conquered death, and therefore the need for cryonics.

#13 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:23 PM

Many cryonicists do have such a clause in their will and/or trusts.

I don't think Rudi would mind me sharing the list he posted to cryo-net the other day, and cryo-net is open to the public--but it is a good overview so I'm sharing it here. He does a great job helping people find the best life insurance rates-I set up two policies with a different agent, and then set up 4 with Rudi when he found me the best rates (I had three separate agents searching at the time, '06).

Here is his post to Cryo-net:

Message #32448
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 11:36:48 -0500
Subject: Top Ten Behaviors to Avoid Being the Next Cryonics Legal Case...
From: Rudi Hoffman <rudi@rudihoffman.com>


To Whom it May Concern:

This article is somewhat less boring that the title might indicate. But
still , I think, it is a little boring. And didactic. Not necessarily the
best piece of writing I have ever done. And it is overstated and offensive
in a small section. But the purpose and the meaning are important, so I am
going to send it to the ideosphere anyway.

Several of my clients and friends have asked me for observations regarding
securing their cryonics arrangements even with contrary wishes of friends
and relatives. Given the recent Mary Robbins case in Colorado, and multiple
previous cases available in some detail on the websites of both CI and
Alcor, structuring your affairs in the most secure manner currently has top
of mind awareness for many who are serious about their cryonics plans.

The purpose of this article is to provide some insight into how serious
cryonicists can structure their affairs to assure themselves they have done
everything possible regarding funding and legal structures for their optimal
suspensions.

For ease of reference, I will number the following points. There is
some attempt to put the most important or easy to handle considerations
early in the list. For simplicity, I will avoid the usual lawerly weasel
clauses, except to point out the following are generally, as opposed to
universally, true, and that they apply for United States cryonicists rather
than all global citizens.

1. Fund...and overfund...your suspension with life insurance. This assumes
you are insurable. Life insurance proceeds go DIRECTLY to your named
beneficiary, without taxes, or reductions or delays of probate. More
importantly, the funds are created in addition to your estate and do not
reduce your estate otherwise going to your heirs. It is no longer perceived
as a "zero sum" game where your heirs are in direct competition for funds
vs. the cryonics organization.

I am not aware of a single suspension that was delayed for funding
considerations when there was adequate life insurance in place in a
verifiable manner.

Not one, in the history of cryonics, which is now extending some 40 years.

In contrast, there have been multiple cases of delay, obstruction,
interference, and legal wrangling in cases without adequate and extra life
insurance funding.

2. Have your policy owned...or jointly owned...by the cryonics
organization. This enables the cryonics organization to KNOW at any given
time that your policy is force with no changes to the beneficiaries, and no
reduction caused by a loan against the cash value the policy may have.
Alcor generally requires this, and CI funding which includes Suspended
Animation also requires cryonics organization ownership.

3. If you trust your cryonics organization with your life, you want to see
them do well. It therefore makes sense to make them the "CONTINGENT"
beneficiary as well as the primary, even if you cannot be suspended.
Alternately, you can name any other person or persons, or a charitable
organization, as contingent beneficiary. Naming your cryonics organization
as the contingent even if you cannot be suspended is not ideal, in that
it reduces financial incentive of your cryonics organization to suspend
you. But is still probably better than naming family members or someone you
are not completely convinced will support your cryonics plans.

The important thing you want to AVOID is creating a structural CONFLICT OF
INTEREST in which your family or relatives get the money if they talk you
out of your cryonics arrangements.

4. The question has come up as to whether an alternate beneficiary, or even
a primary, needs to know they are in this position. The answer is that they
beneficiaries do NOT need to sign any portion of the application, and won't
even know they are listed as beneficiaries unless you tell them.

5. For cash--as opposed to life insurance--funding, the optimal secure
funding is some form of a GUARANTEED annuity. The cryonics organization
need not be the OWNER of the policy if they are listed as the IRREVOCABLE
BENEFICIARY. Variable annuities, even with underlying income guarantees,
will not work because the death benefit and principle are not guaranteed to
be there when needed.

Annuities with named beneficiaries also avoid probate, although there can be
some taxable considerations, unlike life insurance. The annuity also must
waive surrender penalties upon death, to assure the cryonics organization
full funding.

6. Any alternate funding, such as real estate, stocks, bonds, mutual funds,
hard assets, collectibles, is a disaster for you, your cryonics
organization, and the entire field of cryonics waiting to happen.

It astounds me that smart individuals signing up for cryonics do this. And
that any organization deeming itself a serious cryonics alternative, will
allow insecure and unverifiable and illiquid funding of this nature. Do you
want to have your family and relatives contesting your cryonics
arrangements? Do you want your cryonics organization to wait over the
weekend, or over the holiday, or till the next business day till they
confirm your funding?

You are virtually guaranteeing that there is a delay, of hours, days, or
weeks, while funding is ascertained, when literally seconds and minutes
count, if you fund with these assets. Call up and ask your cryonics vendor
what would happen, and when, given your current funding arrangements.

7. Be public with your cryonics arrangements. It is time for serious
cryonicists to come "out of the closet." Like some courageous gays and
atheists have demonstrated, it is time we become "loud and proud" of
ourselves and our choices.

8. Make a video of your strong preference for cryonics. Include verbiage
that states your decision is unequivocal and firm, and made when you of
sound mind. Also specify your wishes that any revocation made later should
be ignored if it is made while under pain medication, or while physically or
emotionally ill, or under undue influence by outside parties including
family and friends. Have multiple copies made, upload it to the net,
provide abundant and clear instructions so that even jackass attorneys and
judges can't fail to get the message.

9. Moving near your cryonics vendor if you are deathly ill is logical.
Alas, it is often not done due to people wanting to be in their homes and
with their families when they are dying. Some progress has been made in
developing a community of support near cryonics facilities. David Pizer and
Mark Plus have worked for years to develop a cryonics friendly center near
Alcor, and I have heard talk of some shared housing arrangements near the
Cryonics Institute.

10. Talk--have "the talk" with your family and friends, showing them your
cryonics bracelet and expressing your wishes. Get their commitments that
they will not undermine your wishes, ideally in writing in a "relatives
affidavit" available from your cryonics vendor.

Discuss different scenarios of your "death," and what protocols and
logistics would be involved in providing the optimal suspension to preserve
your precious self. You are worth it! You deserve to see the future...or
at least have some non-zero chance to see the future. Don't pay ALMOST
enough price to give cryonics a chance...pay the FULL price!

Doing all the above will not guarantee a perfect suspension, and even an
"optimal" suspension has no guarantees.

Folks, we are trying to be smart about our life decisions, and our life and
death decisions.

You have been smart enough to research cryonics and perhaps sign up for
cryonics. Let's be smart enough, and display enough common sense, to give
ourselves every chance of something like an optimal suspension.

Respectfully submitted,

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™ CFP Board of Standards
Member World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org/

#14 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 05 March 2010 - 10:29 PM

The only thing I might add is (at least for US Cryonicists, but it depends on where you live, what your income is amongst other things) end-of-life care insurance-here is a story from the past: http://www.imminst.o...sts-t14980.html

#15 Josh Cryer

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 3

Posted 06 March 2010 - 08:02 AM

This story has been in the local news for several weeks, and it prompted me to finally join here (long time lurker). Since I am posting under my real name it would be inappropriate to make innuendo, however, the judge in this case really did a great job (unlike the previous case where Alcor lost, see the case of Orville Martin Richardson). This woman was a long time cryonics supporter, she was a nurse, and knew the ins and outs of what it entailed. She was no fool. When, according to the judgment, the daughter called Alcor several days before her mother died, and made no mention of the newly signed execution papers, I felt that something was amiss. It's not like you spend years walking around talking about cryonics, wearing Alcor bracelets, and then suddenly on a whim change your mind. It was just an outstanding decision.

I don't think this sets Precedent. I think in the future Alcor will probably not fight cases like this, especially in states like Iowa which put the wishes of next of kin above all else (Colorado appears to have a very cryonics friendly position thanks to the Colorado Disposition of Last Remains Act).

Mary Robbins did the right thing when it came to showing her support for cryonics (as witnesses all agreed to this in the court room). There is little that can really be done when next of kin want to stop your wishes from being fulfilled, what is important is to keep your wishes in the minds of others until your dying breath, no matter what. Mary Robbins was admittedly in no condition to do that, bless her. She actually had to have her trembling hands held steady when signing the paperwork, according to a witness to the court. Here's hoping it works out for her in any case.

If she makes it it will be interesting to hear what she has to say about the whole affair.

#16 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 06 March 2010 - 10:11 AM

Thank you for sharing that story Josh, it did add details that I didn't know, I'm sure many will appreciate that.

It also illustrates why one must look at the laws of the local governance they live under.

Edited by Shannon Vyff, 06 March 2010 - 10:12 AM.


#17 Josh Cryer

  • Guest
  • 6 posts
  • 3

Posted 06 March 2010 - 10:03 PM

Thanks Shannon Vyff. :)

I think, in the end, Alcor should always fight these kinds of cases, and I applaude them for doing so. Yeah, it might give people "ideas" and one Arizona newspaper blog quipped that if you wanted to "be frozen for free" just have your executor paperwork changed at the last minute. What a stupid thing to say. Yes, when one is dying they do lose almost all will, they just, want to go. (I think it is a built in coping mechanism.) And yes, selfish next of kin can certainly try to take advantage of that, but it's just wrong to suggest it. Especially if your laws in your state don't give much weight to your last remains, Alcor would fight for you, but the laws might be against your favor.

I haven't really said anything that couldn't have been found if you dug in the right reports (especially that very juicy judgment where most of the information comes from). But here's something few people don't know, and Mary Robbins probably will be quite concerned about if she is brought back.

According to the local news the daughter attempted to rush Mary Robbins to a crematorium the night of her death, but it was closed for business. This did not come out in the judgment nor in subsequent news reports, but the local news did say it. When I saw that, and this was in the early days after her death and it was becoming apparent that Alcor was getting involved, I just had to keep tabs on this story, because, well, that just didn't seem right. A late night cremation is just something that isn't necessary.

#18 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 07 March 2010 - 06:00 AM

This story in many ways is exciting, terrifying, inspiring and disgusting.

I hope Alcor will keep their attitude but also hope other family members won't do such problems.
To think in the future when she hopefully wakes up, she will hear she was just a decision away from death, a decision which wasn't in her control.. and there seem to have been some who weren't so lucky.


I can\t get close to understand how greed came into play here, my grandma and says sometimes she wants to leave things for us (family) to help us, I always tell her I just want her to stay. How can people care about money? In a world where people die I think money's most value is to save lives and at least have a good quality of life, you don't need to be rich, especially not in the expense of a life. How can people trade someone's life for money? Their mother no less!!! they should do whatever they can to get their mother book, not replace her with short entertainment.

I know I still want to convince my mother to try cryonics, if she succeeds, I get my mother back..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users