Post has attachment
Selskab for Livsforlængende Teknologi (Danish Society for Life Extension) meets for the first time Sunday the 18. June 2017.

The growth and decline of cryonics

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23311886.2016.1167576

Abstract
Cryogenic storage has become known as an alternative to burial. While a substantial fraction of the public finds cryonics acceptable, enrollment remains miniscule. One of the greatest unknowns is whether cryonics companies will be able to operate continuously until reanimation of those in storage becomes possible. Two failure modes are considered; organizational decline and political attack. The cryonics industry has adopted a strategy that implicitly targets atheist millionaires and alienates women. This is a result of neglecting science in its marketing efforts. American cryonics organizations have also incurred an avoidable political risk by refusing to use the funeral industry as a sales channel. Two alternative strategies are suggested that could minimize failure risk by reversing the stagnation of the industry. A “repackaging” of cryonics could accelerate growth and improve services, as well as the political position of the industry. This repackaging includes a restructuring of the channels for funding cryonics. Integration with the mainstream assumes using the funeral industry as a sales channel. While both political experiences and research results have made the need for these developments apparent, pioneers of the industry have resisted them.

Hi David,
I recently read on the new_cryonet yahoo group that you used to be a member of Alcor before switching to CI, and I was wondering what made you make that change.

There is so little public information/discussion about the two organizations that it seems pretty much impossible to make an educated decision/comparison between the two. So any input you or anyone else in this group could give (as far as a comparison) would be very helpful.

Post has attachment

I need comments on this Public Interest Statement for my draft, The Growth and Decline of Cryonics (also available for comment): The search for a “fountain of youth” has occupied mankind since the beginning of human history. Cryonics (freezing at death) offers one of the latest solutions. Revival with a regenerated body is seen as possible, assuming technology has become sufficiently advanced. However, cooling must be continuous, probably for hundreds of years. This paper was written to alert cryonicists of the need for greater organizational robustness, if there was to be any hope that this experiment would succeed. Literature on organizational failure and on barriers to enrollment were reviewed. Two strategies for reinvigorating growth were presented. Unfortunately, Industry leadership refused to accept that there were problems and even censored earlier versions of this paper. While cryonicists consider themselves to be taking a scientific approach to life extension, this response to criticism suggests religious fanaticism. An analysis of leadership attitudes and behavior indicates that cryonics has become a religion for some.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
I am planning a HangOut to answer questions about my pre-publication draft, The Growth and Decline of Cryonics. I will also answer any questions related to my candidacy for the Cryonics Institute Board of Directors. The general problem of free speech and democracy in transhumanism will also be open for discussion.

It will be 17:OO hours UTC either Saturday or Sunday. Please indicate which day you prefer. 
-
votes visible to Public
100%
Saturday
0%
Sunday

Part 1:



Consumers can purchase a Lifetime Membership and a Cryonic Suspension Agreement from the Cryonics Institute (CI). Neither of these has provision for termination by CI. The Board of Directors ruled in 2010 that the Cryonic Suspension Agreement is irrevocable. It was reported in 2014 that an individual was banned, not only in violation of these contracts, but also disregarding Member Conduct Guidelines. Repeated demands for clarification of this action have failed to yield any information whatsoever. An expulsion attempt in 2015, however, provides some insight (See appended). The ban betrays CI’s most basic principle: Each person will receive the best possible suspension. It creates a climate of fear and discourages new enrollments thereby undermining CI’s corporate purpose: “to promote cryonic and cryobiological research.”

Solution:
The persons responsible for this ban and its execution must resign immediately, and must not stand for office in the coming Election. CI will find a new attorney in order to ensure that this is never permitted to happen again. 

These steps are necessary in order to ensure that the coverup of misconduct ceases and to avoid the risk that a serving officer of CI is indicted for economic criminality. The banned individual may have been deprived of a property interest. Since the amount in question is well above the limit for misdemeanors, a felony conviction could result. Any such conviction would be extremely damaging to CI, if that person was a serving officer. 




Part 2:



1)
Cryonics Institute (CI) “membership confers ... the right to stand for office according to the By-Laws, and the right to notices and reports of meetings.” In order to satisfy these terms, CI must stop election tampering, failures to notify, and censorship. Failure to perform its obligations by its “best efforts” and in “good faith” amount to consumer fraud. Solutions are available at trivial expense. Implementation requires an independent arbitrator.


The rule of law is not functioning at CI. This is a consumer issue, because the only guarantee offered in the contract for services, the Cryonic Suspension Agreement, is that CI will make its “best efforts to perform its obligations” (Section 5). Also, “CI shall not be liable … for decisions made in good faith, whether or not negligent” (Paragraph 1e).  According to CI’s Lifetime Membership Application, “Membership confers the right to execute a contract, the right to annual financial statements, the right to stand for office according to the By-Laws, and the right to notices and reports of meetings.” Since the services are only provided to Members, the By-Laws are inferred parts of the contract for services. Membership rights are essential to ensuring that CI is actually performing its obligations by its “best efforts” and in “good faith,” since the success of the services will only be apparent in the distant future. Failure to perform its obligations by its “best efforts” and in “good faith,” would create liabilities that could compromise CI’s ability to provide services under the Cryonic Suspension Agreement.

The Leadership of CI is failing to observe its By-Laws, rules adopted by the Board, and Michigan Law. It has not provided me with “the right to stand for office according to the By-Laws, and the right to notices and reports of meetings.” The right to stand for office assumes that all candidates will be treated equally to such an extent that their right to “run for office” has not been compromised. The failure of CI to perform its obligations to its “best efforts” in connection with the 2015 election can be seen first, by a violation of my “right to notices.” Even the announcement of the Election and the Call for Ballot Statements was obviously in violation of the Bylaws, since the deadline for delivery or postmarking of Ballot Statements was the same day as the deadline for sending Proxies to the voters. Thus, even before the process began, the disregard of the By-Laws was clear. The notice of the deadline for Board candidate’s Ballot Statements was initially made on a mailing list from which I had been secretly deleted, in violation of rules adopted by the Board. After I submitted a Ballot Statement, that included the sentence, “The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted.” a Newsletter was issued for the first time announcing the deadline for Ballot Statements with only three days notice. This had the effect of making that sentence of my Ballot Statement appear untrue, since the Call for Statements was, thereby, announced not only on the Mailing List. 

I then sent an updated Ballot Statement, which showed I had submitted my Statement prior to the publication of the new Newsletter. A few days later, I received an email informing me that if I didn’t delete all complaints about the CI Leadership that I had posted on the Internet, including those in my Ballot Statement, I would be expelled from CI (see appended). This effectively meant that I would have to withdraw from the Election, since the deadline for Ballot Statements had passed and the other documents I had posted were essential to understanding why I was running for office. (Ballot Statements were limited to150 words.) Of course, if I was expelled my Ballot Statement would have been removed from the Proxies. This move failed because I didn’t acknowledge the email, thus thwarting the expulsion attempt. Expulsion would require breaching my pre-paid Lifetime Membership and the Cryonic Suspension Agreement, which the Board has declared is irrevocable. Further, I may have been deprived unlawfully of a property interest in CI. As can be seen from the appended email, the only justification offered was that I had been saying things some people felt were abusive. This has been called a “bystander veto” of free speech and it is unlawful.

After the deadline for responding to the expulsion attempt had passed, the Proxies were sent to Voting Members. However, they included my old Ballot Statement, thus placing me at a disadvantage. This made it appear that my complaint was not valid. A disclaimer was also added to the Proxies for the first time, directly under my Ballot Statement. The failure to use my updated Ballot Statement made the disclaimer untrue. It states, “Disclaimer: The Cryonics Institute does not agree with the statements of all candidates. However, in fairness to the election process the statements are being printed as they were submitted.” I have never seen a disclaimer on a CI ballot or on any other ballot before. Of course, candidates' Statements must appear as submitted. Anything else would invalidate the Election. The disclaimer was an attempt to influence the Election outcome. If there was any need for a disclaimer, a neutral one could say, “Statements are being printed as they were submitted."

As a result of this attempt to exclude me from the Election, the transmission of the Proxies was delayed for almost a week, resulting in a delay not only in violation of the By-Laws, but a risk that some of CI’s members, in other countries, would not get them in time to vote. Last year there was a tie vote, so even one missing vote could determine the outcome of the Election. 

In summary, the following By-Law violations or attempts to influence the Election outcome were made:

: the deadline for Ballot Statements made the AGM date invalid
: Call for Ballot Statements made on a mailing list not received by all Members
: new Newsletter undermines my Ballot Statement
: new Newsletter provides inadequate notice to potential candidates
: expulsion threat attempted to bully me into withdrawing from the Election
: my final submitted Ballot Statement was not used
: late transmission of Proxies undermines the Election
: unnecessary and untrue “Disclaimer” biases the Election

This list doesn’t include all attempts to influence the Election. For example, I was told  “You do have the opportunity to change your statement and actually name the person that you are accusing of being a dictator.  Would you like to do that?” Had I responded to this, it would have made it easier to exclude me from the Election and opened the possibility of a libel suit, that could also have been used to bully me into withdrawing. Other violations of notice also occurred. There was no notice of a deadline for Policy Resolutions for the Annual General Meeting. 

Attempts to influence elections have occurred every year that I have stood for office. These attempts included libelous statements, deception of the Membership, invasion of privacy, and censorship. The censorship included violation of Michigan law requiring access to business records by owners. This made it impossible for me to communicate with other Members directly. As a result of actions taken by CI’s attorney in connection with the 2011 election I filed an ethics complaint with the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission. A ruling on this Complaint awaits determination of the facts in a court of law. It is clear that the Leadership finds the Rule of Law a hinderance to their power. I believe that CI’s attorney David Ettinger is playing the role of king. He is related by marriage to CI’s Secretary, Andy Zawacki, who apparently executes his orders, thereby shielding him from disbarment. 

I sent CI’s Secretary a message: Annual General Meeting date invalid


The answer:

Your opinion is wrong and misleading.

The facts are, no proxies are being mailed out this year, only voting ballots. 
Proxies and voting ballots are two different items covered in different sections of the by-laws with different rules.  You can't apply guidelines from one item to another, to suit your goals.  CI is not in violation of its by-laws.  Please be sure to correct your posts.

Andy Zawacki


and my reply:

The term “ballots” does not appear in the By-Laws.
Please indicate which section discusses this.



There has been no further communication on this issue. 

I fail to see how CI is making its “best efforts to perform its obligations,” when it continues to plan an AGM in violation of its By-Laws. I don’t see how the decisions made could be considered to be in “good faith.” Some of the actions taken were clearly attempts to trick me or bully me into withdrawing from the Election. “Best efforts” and “good faith” are required by the contract. I conclude, therefore, that the consumer is being defrauded. 


Solution:
I see no way that this Election can be considered free and fair, since it violates the By-Laws. The only solution is to cancel the planned AGM and Election. Then, a new AGM and election can be properly announced.


Solutions to the continuing problems at CI are readily available:

2) 
The free exchange of information among Members is a pre-condition for democracy. The Leadership has made it impossible for Members to communicate with each other by imposing a “good news only” policy on all media they control. The current CI President, Dennis Kowalski, promised "free and open communication among all Members” when he assumed office. Instead, he has imposed greater and greater restrictions on communication each year. A couple of years ago, I established a private community for CI Members on Google Plus. However, only about twenty people have joined, because the Secretary does not enroll Members in this community. In fact, the Secretary has not even responded to my request to verify that all participants in the Community are CI Members. 

Solution: 
The Secretary will enter all current Members in the private Cryonics Institute Community and enroll new Members as they are accepted. This Community has a no censorship policy, which includes the ability to appeal any decision. Should the Leadership object to enrolling Members in a Community that they do not control, then they can appoint Advisory Board Members to supervise an independent editorial team. The Leadership must agree not to interfere with the independence of the editorial team and their supervision.

This does not involve any additional expenses. CI already subscribes Members to an out-dated mailing list. These subscriptions can be moved to the CI Community. Alternatively, the old List can be retained as an announcements only list.


3)
Participation in the activities of CI has been blocked by secrecy. This is in violation of the Member’s right to receive “reports of meetings.” Decision making via the Board’s private email list violates Member’s rights. 

Requests to supply a webcam at the AGM have been ignored. Only a few percent of Members physically attend the AGM. It is unrealistic to expect Members from all over the world to come to these meetings. The physical meetings can easily become unrepresentative and dominated by cultists. 

The request to provide visibility for the vote count via a webcam has been ignored. Similarly, a request to have those present certify under oath that there were no irregularities has been ignored. There is very little to prevent the stuffing of the ballot box. Proxies do not provide the most basic requirement for democracy, the anonymous vote. 

Solution:
Board decision making must be reported to the Members by the posting of meeting minutes, as was the previous practice.

CI must obey Michigan Law and provide Members with business records upon request. 

Security of elections will be improved by using an Internet vote collection company such as SafeVote. 

All meetings should be open to Voting Members via the Internet, unless privacy concerns force them to be closed. Any closure must be justified in the Minutes. One possible justification could be the discussion of personnel matters. 

These options will have a minor economic effect, if any, and Internet vote collection may actually save money.



Implementation:
Earlier attempts at problem resolution have been met with deception, censorship, and professional misconduct. Therefore, good faith execution of any agreement is unlikely. A settlement must include an independent mediator/arbitrator in order to ensure that consumer fraud ceases.




Begin forwarded message:


From: cihq@aol.com
Subject: Your Cryonics Institute Membership
Date: 4 August 2015 13:29:12 CEST
To: dss@secureid.net

Dear Mr. Stodolsky:

For several years you have printed many inaccurate, misleading and false statements about the Cryonics Institute and its directors.  Your candidates statement is the most recent example.  You have stated that "CI is functionally a dictatorship" and "The dictator doesn’t obey Michigan Law".  Not only are both of those statements false, they may be libelous.  You also made the statement that "The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted."  Like the above statements, this statement too is false because the call for candidate statements were made on CI's website, which everyone can access, CI's facebook page and on the CI members yahoo group.  

Membership in the Cryonics Institute is a privilege, not a right.  Privileges can be taken away when they are abused, and your behavior is certainly considered abusive, by many.  Over the past few years, several directors and members have reached out to you and tried to explain to you that you were wrong and that your assessments of CI were inaccurate and misleading, which could harm CI and everyone's chances for possible revival.  However, these attempts to help you were only met with more abusive and inaccurate writings.  We have therefore decided to start the proceedings to revoke your membership in the Cryonics Institute unless you stop your abusive and potentially harmful behavior, immediately.  If you wish to remain as a member of the Cryonics Institute you will have to disable and disband your website on Google + where you are using CI's old logo and you will have to remove all of your essays in which you make many misrepresentations about CI and its directors. If you are serious about preserving your membership in the Cryonics Institute, and are in question of what needs to be removed, you can contact us, but I can tell you that most everything you wrote about CI and its directors would need to be removed.

If you have not complied with these requirements by 9am on Friday the 7th of August, procedures to revoke your membership ... will begin.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Sincerely,
Andy Zawacki

Annual General Meeting date invalid

(Request original email for clearer display of quoted text)
(Statements should be regarded as opinion. See other texts for facts.)



The scheduled Annual General Meeting (AGM) is in violation of the Bylaws:

IV-E. Section 4.05: PROXIES

Proxy forms shall be mailed to all voting Members no less than six weeks before any meeting of the membership.


However, the call for Ballot Statements gives the 1st of August as the day for submission, which is six weeks before the AGM:

"Ballot statements must be postmarked or received by email at CI Facility no later than August 1 st  2015."


Thus, Proxy forms will not be transmitted to Members on that day, since Ballot Statements could be submitted anytime that day or just postmarked that day. 

Either this Meeting will be cancelled, or the reputation of the Leadership as completely ignoring the Bylaws governing CI will be verified without any doubt remaining. 



Discussion:

To better understand this situation, it is necessary to place the events in context. I have stated that CI is a dictatorship based upon the control of information delivered to the Members. 

Information control: 

I discovered this control of information when I noticed that words in my messages being sent to Members via the CI List were being secretly changed. It became clear, that while the CI List appeared to be a communication channel open to Members, I would not be able to send uncensored messages through a channel that was actually maintained in order to protect the President of CI. My attempt to send an uncensored message to the Voters directly was thwarted by CI’s attorney David Ettinger (DE). He acted unethically as a CI Member by not informing the President of CI that I was entitled to the business records containing CI Members’ contact information, according to Michigan Law. Further, he participated in a deception of the Membership about whether I had been given the option of communicating with them prior to the 2011 Election. DE acted unethically as CI’s attorney by deception of me concerning CI’s willingness to send a message to Members on my behalf. This delayed me long enough so that it was impossible for me to get a message to the Members prior to the Election. As a result, I filed an ethics complaint against DE with the Attorney Grievance Commission. The Commission concluded that a violation may have occurred, but that the facts would have to be established in a court of law before a conclusion could be reached. 

When an organization fails to observe the law granting owners prompt access to business records, the only solution is to obtain a court order forcing their release. Unfortunately, finding an attorney willing to file the needed papers proved impossible, even when pre-payment for services was offered. 

Since the 2011 Election, my ability to send any message to Members has been increasingly restricted. First, I was banned from the CI List for violating a rule. When I had to be readmitted, because the Board had falsely concluded that I had violated a rule, I was secretly deleted again without any justification whatsoever. That is the situation today. Even my ability to make documents available to Members for comment was terminated by a Board decision to censor the documents I had uploaded to the Files section of the CI List.

The ability to provide information to Voters has been increasingly restricted. First with the cancelation of an already accepted article in Long Life Magazine. Then with a limitation to a single page statement by candidates. Finally, neither the Immortalist Society nor CI will transmit more than 150 words to the Voters in this Election. The violation of the Bylaws we are discussing here shows that the Leadership is determined to prevent even 150 words, that they don’t approve of, from reaching the Voter.

While my ability to inform Members has been increasingly restricted, the Leadership has transmitted a stream of falsehoods about me. These actions have included libels, invasion of privacy, and copyright violations. Once again, however, countering this type of disinformation is only possible with an attorney, who can bring the issues before a court of law. The overall result is that the Voter is provided with a false image of Candidates, making their vote meaningless.

While this control of information provided a sort of “guided” democracy initially, it has increasingly been used to coverup misconduct by those who refuse to allow CI’s Owners to exercise the powers they are guaranteed by the Bylaws. Of course, the ultimate mechanism of information control is exclusion of the speaker from the assembly/organization. That is what we have seen before and was attempted again prior to this Election. If these exclusions are permitted, then CI is wide open to a hostile takeover. Certainly, a few people in key positions could secretly exclude opponents and convert CI’s assets to their own use. Complete transparency in governance is a pre-condition for the only protective action that CI’s Owners can take at this time: The removal from power of those who have engaged in misconduct.

Rule following:

At this time, we don’t have rule of law at CI. The dictatorship does what it wants, only respecting the Bylaws to the degree necessary to hide misconduct. And given the total control of the flow of information to the Voters, even violations of the Bylaws are not being concealed. Even the announcement of the Election and the Call for Ballot Statements is obviously in violation of the Bylaws. Thus, even before the process begins, the disregard of the Bylaws is clear.

My Proxy was postmarked 8 August, therefore, it was sent clearly in violation of the Bylaws. Some might say a delay of a week past the deadline in the Bylaws isn’t that important. However, CI has Members all over the world and some may receive a ballot too late. Last year there was a tie vote, so even one missing vote could determine the outcome of the Election. 

Perhaps a more important violation is the failure to use my updated Ballot Statement. As I discussed earlier, the Ballot Statement as it appears could give the impression that I was incorrectly complaining about the announcement of the Election. Therefore, this is an attempt to influence the Election outcome. 

The failure to use my updated Ballot Statement also makes the disclaimer untrue. It states, “Disclaimer: The Cryonics Institute does not agree with the statements of all candidates. However, in fairness to the election process the statements are being printed as they were submitted.” I have never seen a disclaimer on a CI ballot or on any other ballot before. Of course candidates' Statements must appear as submitted. Anything else would invalidate the Election. The disclaimer is an attempt to influence the Election outcome. If there was any need for a disclaimer, a neutral one could say, “Statements are being printed as they were submitted."

In addition, the instructions with the Ballot, incorrectly state that there are six candidates, when there are actually five. 

Given two violations [and another informal influence attempt] that could change the Election outcome and a superfluous disclaimer, there is little doubt that this Election would be judged invalid under the Law.)

Rescheduling of this Meeting would also provide an opportunity to issue a timely call for Ballot Statements, not one giving just 3 days of notice. 

According to V-A. Section 5.01: "At any scheduled membership meeting, the Voting Membership may propose and pass resolutions concerning corporate policy.” This Section is not being observed unless a date for delivery of such resolutions is announced. With only a few percent of the Membership attending the AGM - in part due to the failure to provide a webcam, which I requested in 2011 -, no resolution can be acted upon unless it appears with the Ballot. This was the procedure earlier for resolutions


It is not just the letter of the Law that is being violated. It is the spirit of the Law that is being totally disregarded. The point of this Election is to allow Voters to express their support for candidates that they prefer. I will explain how the actions of the Leadership have thwarted Voters’ ability to express their preferences.

If an election is being held in an obviously incorrect manner, voters may ignore it because any outcome could be challenged and be ruled in valid. This Election certainly falls into that category. However, let’s examine the sequence of events leading up to the Election in order to get a clearer picture of the Leadership’s motives/intensions/spirit.

First, the Call for Ballot Statements was announce on the CI List, which doesn’t reach a majority of Voters and specifically excludes opponents of the Leadership. When my Ballot Statement arrived in a timely manner, this was shown to be a failed influence attempt.

Second, the Leadership releases a new Newsletter that announces the deadline for Ballot Statements and makes it appear that my complaint, "The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted." appear incorrect. On Saturday the 1st of August, I submit a revised Ballot Statement that corrects the impression of an invalid complaint, thwarting the attempt to make my Statement appear invalid. 

Third, at the beginning of the next week on Tuesday the 4th of August, I receive a threat of exclusion that requires me to withdraw my Ballot Statement.

Fourth, when I fail to even acknowledge receipt of that threat by the 7th August deadline given, the Proxies are sent out on the 8th August. However, my updated Ballot Statement is not included, thereby sending what appears to be a Ballot Statement with an invalid complaint about the announcement of the Call for Ballot Statements. Also, a superfluous disclaimer is placed just under my Ballot Statement giving the impression that “CI” doesn’t agree with it. So, the Ballot Statement is made to appear invalid and the Disclaimer reinforces that impression.

The faulty delivery deadline for Ballot Statements makes the Meeting date invalid. However, the delay until the 8th in sending the Proxies is not just more of the same “careless” delay that is risking exclusion of some remote or tarty Voters. The delay was part of a premeditated plan to influence the Election outcome by excluding me from the Ballot.

Recall this from a CI 4 August email to me:

If you have not complied with these requirements by 9am on Friday the 7th of August, procedures to revoke your membership and refund your prepaid suspension fee to you will begin.

So, I was given an opportunity to withdraw my Ballot Statement, as containing false statements, just prior to the transmission of the Proxies on 8 August. The alternative offered was termination of my Membership, which would also lead to the removal of my Ballot Statement. It seems obvious that the threat of exclusion and the delay in sending the Proxies was a coordinated action designed to influence the Election. It was only my failure to acknowledge it that derailed the attempt to remove me from the Proxies.

There were four consecutive attempts to influence the Election Outcome. It appears that the Leadership is dominated by Monarchists, who don’t feel it necessary to have inputs from the Membership. It is clear that they find the Rule of Law a hinderance to their power.


dss


PS: Please let me know, if you no longer wish to receive these types of emails.


David Stodolsky, PhD                   Institute for Social Informatics
Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
dss@socialinformatics.org         Skype/Twitter: davidstodolsky

Re: Your Cryonics Institute Membership
(This is from email. It is being made public, because Cryonics Institute Leadership has not responded, even after being warned of potential reputational damage.)

Introduction / Summary:


It appears to me that Andy Zawacki has been tricked into committing a crime. In the worst case, he could do jail time. Most likely, the person who tricked him was David Ettinger (DE), who, in that case, could be disbarred. Further, it appears to me that the Cryonics Institute (CI) is defrauding the consumer, stealing property from Members, and violating the Cryonic Suspension Agreement, thereby breaching a contract. This suggests that the current Board is grossly incompetent. (My statements in this document are opinion, even when expressed as fact.)

I base my analysis on the letter I received August 4, 2015 at 13:29, which is included below, and on the ban reported in the Board Minutes of April 21, 2014: “Dennis Kowalski proposed…that CI not accept the previously banned individual as a member, but that CI can accept him as a postmortem patient….” This appears to violate the Cryonics Institute Member Conduct Guidelines, which require that "Revocation of CI membership may only occur upon a vote in favor of such revocation by and of a two-thirds majority of the entire CI Board of Directors...." No such vote is reported. The action and even the Conduct Guideline appear to violate a Board decision of April 18, 2010: “The Cryonic Storage Agreement is irrevocable by default....” The Board demonstrated incompetence by approving a Conduct Guideline contradicting a previous Board decision. The failure to even enforce this Conduct Guideline further confirms incompetence. 

I assume that the banned individual (BI) was in the same position as myself, that is, had purchased a Life Membership from CI ($1,250), was a Voting Member (fully funded), and that the Cryonic Suspension Agreement was in force. The Membership agreement is a consumer contract that each person purchases from CI. BI was defrauded when CI terminated his Membership unilaterally. Any repayment could only alter this, if BI had agreed to the settlement and not been misled to believe that repayment had to be accepted. 

A Voting Member is an owner of CI. BI’s property interest in CI was stolen, that is, he was dispossessed of his share of CI assets (about $10,000). “In Michigan, larceny of over $1,000.00 is a felony. Theft is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine of not more than $10,000 or three times the value of the property stolen, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine. (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.356(3), § 750.356a(1).)”

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/petty-theft-michigan-penalties-defense


The Cryonic Suspension Agreement contains provision for a Member to cancel the Agreement, but no provision for CI to cancel the Agreement. The Board declared that it was not revocable. Board decision of April 18, 2010: “The Cryonic Storage Agreement is irrevocable by default….” I have not received any notice of a change in the Agreement, therefore, it remains irrevocable. If the Agreement was unilaterally terminated by CI, that was a breach of contract. If BI was subject to mental duress and agreed to the termination, the revocation was invalid. Mental duress, defined: 

“The use of threats or other forms of psychological coercion, done to induce another to act against his or her will. Mental duress is frequently an issue in contracts which, by law, require all parties to act on their own initiative. While the law varies between jurisdictions, generally speaking, any agreement is void if it can be shown that mental duress was used in the contracting process. Agreement by definition requires a meeting of the minds.”

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110823200506AAwYm53


BI could have an independent claim for compensation, if BI suffered mental anguish:

“mental suffering which includes fright, feelings of distress, anxiety, depression, grief and/or psychosomatic physical symptoms. It is distinguished from physical pain due to an injury, but it may be considered in awarding damages for physical injury due to a defendant's negligence or intentionally inflicting harm. Where there is no physical injury damages can still be awarded for mental anguish if it is reasonable to presume such would naturally flow from the incident. Examples: holding a pistol to one's head, any threat of bodily harm when it appears it could be carried out, swinging with a scythe even though the assailant missed, or witnessing injury or death to a loved one. There are also situations in which the obvious result of the alleged wrong doing would be mental distress due to embarrassment or reputation through libel, and therefore damages can be awarded to the distressed party. However, there are limits: in general, breach of contract judgments cannot include damages for mental anguish due to the loss of a deal or employment. But then there is the case of the shop which failed to deliver the bridal gown in time for the wedding---mental anguish flows naturally (along with the bride's tears) from such a breach.” 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mental+anguish



To the extent that any of the above actions were taken outside of the framework of CI’s Bylaws, the person responsible could be personally liable for damages and criminal misconduct. That is, a person signing a document or authorizing a transfer of funds might be personally liable. 



If DE incorrectly advised CI, thereby causing a crime to be committed, it could be a violation of professional ethics leading to disbarment. If a conspiracy indictment was handed down, DE could face conviction as a co-conspirator in felony theft. 

CI offers Life Time Memberships, irrevocable co-ownership of CI assets, and an irrevocable Cryonic Suspension Agreement. If CI is repeatedly violating these agreements, while continuing to offer them to the consumer as irrevocable, then it is engaged in consumer fraud. 


The above suggests that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed. I demand that a fully documented and sworn under oath (notarized) report on the banning of BI be made available by the date of the next Annual General Meeting (AGM) and transmitted to each CI Member. If that report does not exonerate CI and its Members of wrong doing or provide evidence that any wrong doing has been corrected, and measures have been taken to ensure wrong doing will not reoccur, action will be taken. I will request intervention by the Michigan State Attorney General, and by both State and Federal consumer protection agencies. If I have not received legally valid notice by August 15, 2015 that this report will be prepared, I will request intervention immediately. This email will be posted to a publicly visible web page at that time.



—————————  End Introduction / Summary ———————————

(Request original email for clearer display of quoted text)


Andy,


If this is really you, please immediately change the password of the account associated with the address: cihq@aol.com
It appears that someone who has access to the account is trying to destroy your reputation.
The person writing appears to be a stupid and unethical lawyer, however, I am not aware of any such person at CI. 
Maybe the account has been hacked. 
It could also be David Ettinger (DE) trying to impersonate you, since he seems to have appointed himself CI’s Pharaoh.
(The pharaoh was the political and religious leader … and 'High Priest of Every Temple’.
Pharaoh held life and death power over his subjects, especially slaves.
He knew that if he kept the slaves fighting among themselves, he didn’t have to worry about a slave revolt.
Leninism is a modern version of this strategy and one likely advocated by some in the Leadership.)

The email I received 04 Aug 2015 at 13:29 appears to be some kind of hoax. 
However, in order to clarify my views, let’s make believe you really have been sending the cihq@aol.com emails:


Earlier:
On 25 July 2015 17:53:56 CEST you stated (see appended):

We did receive your statement and it has been added to the ballot.  In your statement you mention a "dictator".  You do have the opportunity to change your statement and actually name the person that you are accusing of being a dictator.  Would you like to do that?

Here you are encouraging me to be more explicit in my criticism of the Leadership.
(Or maybe this is DE trying to get evidence for a libel lawsuit.)


Then on:
4 August 2015 04:03:42 CEST you write (see appended):

Did you receive my earlier email today?  I did not hear back from you.

I received no email. The chance of an email being lost in transit between AOL and Google is pretty close to zero with today’s technology. 
It appears that you are not being truthful (See appended). 

It appears that you are trying to establish that legal notice has been given over an insecure channel. If I respond to a message both before and after the Notice, then it could be argued that “legal notice" has been given. This kind of argument might hold up if the emails were digitally signed, otherwise, there is nothing to prevent impersonation or some modification of message content in transit. 



On 04 Aug 2015, at 13:29, cihq@aol.com wrote:

Dear Mr. Stodolsky:

For several years you have printed many inaccurate, misleading and false statements about the Cryonics Institute and its directors.  Your candidates statement is the most recent example.  You have stated that "CI is functionally a dictatorship" and "The dictator doesn’t obey Michigan Law".  Not only are both of those statements false, they may be libelous.

If I did supply a name when invited to do so (on 25 July), then this could perhaps be saying that it “IS” libelous, instead of “MAY BE” libelous.


You also made the statement that "The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted."  Like the above statements, this statement too is false because the call for candidate statements were made on CI's website, which everyone can access, CI's facebook page and on the CI members yahoo group.  

The fact that the Call for candidates appeared elsewhere doesn’t show that my sentence is false:

"The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted.”

This is the only claim in the email that tries to provide evidence that could be a basis for an action, but it totally fails to do so.

On 25 July, you asked me to be more explicit in my criticism and then on 4 August you are saying that my statements need to be changed because they are too critical and false? This makes it look like you tried to trick me into providing criticism that could be grounds for excluding my Statement from the ballot. Since the deadline for ballot statement submission was 1 August the only way to remove the “false” sentences would be to not send the Ballot Statement. However, since the “false” Statement isn’t false, I can’t very well change it. This pretty much ensures that I will not respond to the request and therefore would have to be the target of “proceedings.”

It seems odd that all this time (10 days) would be required to evaluate my Ballot Statement. Maybe we can explain this by the fact that you have failed to perform the actions required of the Secretary under the Bylaws.

On 23 July I notified you that:
"As Secretary of CI, it is your responsibility to transmit official communications to the Members." 

But it wasn’t until my Ballot Statement was delivered on the 25th, that it was apparent that this failure could play a role in the election.
Then just a few days before the deadline for Statements, on the 29th, a new Newsletter was made available with a call for Statements.
This then would make my sentence, "The Call for this Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator supports, others are secretly deleted.” appear false to the Voters.
My revised Ballot Statement which was transmitted 1 August, however, added the words, "Submitted July 24th."
Thus, the Voters would be able to see that the Statement could very well be true.
Then, 4 August I get this hoax email telling me that I have to effectively withdraw from the Election. 

You should be thanking me for ensuring that the democratic process was stimulated by my sentence. 
Instead, you sent a mail trying to influence the election. 
This makes it look like you tried to prevent new candidates from running for the Board by not announcing the Statement deadline widely and are now trying to get a candidate to withdraw by denoting his Ballot Statement as false. I really don’t think you could be so unethical.

Most likely, this is really DE continuing his attempts to control the flow of information to the Voters.
He has been in a conflict of interest situation since he participated in a deception of the Membership in connection with the 2011 Election.
He has been trying to hide the truth since that time by blocking my attempts to communicate with the Members.
I pointed out the conflict of interest that arose when he was given the final word on whether the Membership list should be provided, as dictated by Michigan Law. When I asked you to bring this to the attention of the Board, you refused.

Since DE has failed to withdraw from advising CI when he is in a conflict of interest situation, as required by professional ethics, and the Board is not acting to resolve this problem, the only solution is to bring this before an external body. I will, therefore, be submitting a new complaint to Michigan's Attorney Grievance Commission concerning this misconduct by DE. (I don’t have time to do this right now. It will have to wait until after the AGM. Let’s hope the Board finally realizes that the long promised “free and open communication among Members” is essential for the survival of CI. An independent editorial team under the direction of Advisory Board Members is one way to ensure freedom of speech.)



Membership in the Cryonics Institute is a privilege, not a right.  

We are talking here about Voting Members, who are the owners of CI. 
Therefore, what you are talking about is depriving someone of their property without due process of law: Another word for this could be “theft."
What statute would actually be violated by such a deprivation is not clear, however, it would create a legal liability for CI and maybe a personal liability for the person actually performing the action, since there is no basis for the action under the Bylaws.

This above sentence is an attempt to mislead and to deprive someone of their rights under the law. 


The Cryonic Suspension Agreement is another barrier to the threatened action.
It contains provision for a Member to cancel the Agreement, but no provision for CI to cancel the Agreement.
When I signed that Agreement, the Board had already declared that it was irrevocable.
Board decision of April 18, 2010: “The Cryonic Storage Agreement is irrevocable by default….
I have not received any notice of a change in the Agreement, therefore the threatened action would be unlawful.
Any such action would indicate that DE had incorrectly advised CI, thereby again violating professional ethics.



Privileges can be taken away when they are abused, and your behavior is certainly considered abusive, by many.  Over the past few years, several directors and members have reached out to you and tried to explain to you that you were wrong and that your assessments of CI were inaccurate and misleading, which could harm CI and everyone's chances for possible revival.  

Up until now, I have been trying to help CI by ensuring it developed a structure that had the potential to last for hundreds of years. 
My exclusion would be evidence that CI is incapable of reform and that those placing their trust in the organization are being misled. 
Once excluded, I would have nothing to lose by denigrating the Organization, so the threatened action would only contribute to negative press for CI.
How could anyone take seriously a cryonics organization that repeatedly “excommunicates” those that have trusted their lives to it?

I am in the final stages of revising my draft, The Growth and Decline of Cryonics, for publication in a scientific journal. 
One reviewer stated he agrees with my argument, but revision is required.
The argument he agreed with was that cryonics is a religion for some. 
So, my exclusion from a cryonics organization would be seen as a validation of this argument.
It would also generate publicity and I would probably then become recognized as the world’s leading scientific authority on cryonics.
These days, a single 140 character Tweet can get someone fired within 24 hours.
Are you sure you want to risk a public relations disaster that could destroy CI?



However, these attempts to help you were only met with more abusive and inaccurate writings.  We have therefore decided to start the proceedings to revoke your membership in the Cryonics Institute unless you stop your abusive and potentially harmful behavior, immediately.  

“Potentially harmful behavior”?
The CI Board is ready to take this action even though there is no evidence that there has been harm to CI.
The remaining reason is that some people feel they have been “abused.” 
Even if that were true, there is no basis for CI as an organization to take action in such a case. Therefore, someone is misusing CI assets to attack their political opponents.

The people who have been arguing that CI is a cult will be very happy to have evidence of an “excommunication".
An action like this will harm CI.

I guess the question is whether the CI Board will decide to protect CI or DE.



If you wish to remain as a member of the Cryonics Institute you will have to disable and disband your website on Google + where you are using CI's old logo and you will have to remove all of your essays in which you make many misrepresentations about CI and its directors.  If you are serious about preserving your membership in the Cryonics Institute, and are in question of what needs to be removed, you can contact us, but I can tell you that most everything you wrote about CI and its directors would need to be removed.

This threat is senseless, because anything posted to the Internet goes into Google's cache within a day. The Internet Archive, etc. keeps posts available for the long-term. So, even if I did delete things, it would make them harder to find, but they would still be available. 


If you have not complied with these requirements by 9am on Friday the 7th of August, procedures to revoke your membership ... will begin.

Any transfer of funds risks escalating an internal dispute to an economic crime. Laws regulating such crimes make many new causes of action available and risk both organizational and personal liability. If a transfer of funds becomes necessary, CI will be contacted by my agent after I am notified. No unauthorized transfer of funds will be accepted. 

If I am forced to purchase cryonics coverage from another company, I will authorize them to recover the difference in funding needed at that company and that needed at CI. You should also be aware that any gap in my coverage would result in mental anguish and in a claim for financial compensation, including punitive damages.


In my case before the Attorney Grievance Commission, it was concluded that it would require that the facts be established in a court of law, before they could reach a decision about the professional misconduct of DE in 2011. An action taken against me would create a legal liability that could be adjudicated in a court of law. This would allow the facts concerning DE’s misconduct to be determined, and therefore give the Attorney Grievance Commission what they need to reach a final decision.




Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Let us assume that DE succeeds in his attempt to play Pharaoh and excommunicates all opponents. He could then take good care of CI until he himself became suspended. This would likely leave an incompetent Leadership in charge. 

We all know what happens to the Pharaoh’s tomb after the Pharaoh dies.



Sincerely,
Andy Zawacki

The email address cihq@aol.com is being used by unknown persons and therefore can’t be relied upon for transmitting any official notice. 
I am not going to respond to any more hoax emails from that address

If this is really you Andy, you can send me any official notice by surface mail at the below address.


dss


PS: My final prepublication draft, The Growth and Decline of Cryonics, is available for correction and comment here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4147630/Growth%20and%20decline%20of%20cryonics%20v1.3.pdf


PPS: I plan to hold a Google Plus Hangout, which has space for 10 people, in the next couple of weeks to discuss the draft. I will also be answering questions related to my Candidacy at that time. Let me know, if you would like to participate.



David Stodolsky, PhD                   Institute for Social Informatics
Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
dss@socialinformatics.org         Skype/Twitter: davidstodolsky





Begin forwarded message:

From: cihq@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ballot statement?
Date: 25 July 2015 17:53:56 CEST
To: dss@secureid.net

We did receive your statement and it has been added to the ballot.  In your statement you mention a "dictator".  You do have the opportunity to change your statement and actually name the person that you are accusing of being a dictator.  Would you like to do that?



----- Original Message -----
From: David Stodolsky <dss@secureid.net>
To: cihq <cihq@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Jul 25, 2015 11:08 am
Subject: Re: Ballot statement?


On 23 Jul 2015, at 18:25, cihq@aol.com wrote:

I am happy to hear that you have received our communications in regard to the deadline for submitting a candidates statement to be on the ballot.  Will you be running for a directors position, again?

I am running again.
See attached ballot statement PDF.

Please confirm receipt.


dss


David Stodolsky, PhD                   Institute for Social Informatics
Tornskadestien 2, st. th., DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
dss@socialinformatics.org         Skype/Twitter: davidstodolsky




Begin forwarded message:

From: David Stodolsky <dss@secureid.net>
Subject: Re: Ballot statement update
Date: 4 August 2015 10:39:26 CEST
To: cihq@aol.com


On 04 Aug 2015, at 04:03, cihq@aol.com wrote:

Dear Mr. Stodolsky:

Did you receive my earlier email today?  I did not hear back from you.

I did not receive any email from cihq@aol.com earlier today.
The last email received from that address was on 25-7-15.

dss


Sincerely,
Andy Zawacki



-----Original Message---
From: David Stodolsky <dss@secureid.net>
To: Andy Zawacki <CIHQ@aol.com>
Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2015 2:10 pm
Subject: Ballot statement update

This is the final version on my ballot statement (see PDF):


———————————————

While CI Bylaws specify democratic governance, CI is
functionally a dictatorship. The dictator doesn’t obey Michigan Law, the CI
Bylaws, or even the Rules of Conduct specified by the dictator himself. Free
exchange of information is a precondition for democracy. However, there is
secret censorship of the media controlled by CI leadership. The Call for this
Statement was made via a mailing list delivered only to those that the dictator
supports, others are secretly deleted. 

CI must remain in continuous
operation for hundreds of years. The dictatorial governance form requires,
however, that over this time period there will not be a single person in power
that is incompetent, dishonest, deranged, or for some other reason permits an
operational failure. The Chatsworth Meltdown showed what can happen when
responsibility rests upon a single individual. A vote for an incumbent is a vote
for dictatorship and continuing law breaking. 

(Submitted July 24th)
Wait while more posts are being loaded