Hoe kun je als cryonist je vermogen meenemen naar je volgende leven? Voor het betalen van je suspensie is wel iets te regelen (mits je niet te lang wacht), maar het meenemen van je zuur verdiende geld is helaas niet zo eenvoudig. Een cryonist in suspensie - een cryonaut - is voor de wet een dode en heeft dus geen rechten. In ieder geval vervalt het recht op zijn bezittingen. Dat is een probleem, want een starterskapitaal zul je in de toekomst toch wel kunnen gebruiken.
Cryonet's FAQ (zie 6.14) is helaas op dit punt sterk verouderd. Daarom werd van 23 tot 25 april een conferentie gehouden door de Cryonics Asset Preservation Group in Massachusetts. Ik was er niet bij, maar gelukkig zijn er mailinglists om ons op de hoogte te houden. Ben Best schreef een verslag. Daaruit kopieer ik hier schaamteloos de laatste twee items:

John Dedon and Ralph Merkle spoke about the wealth preservation trust that they are developing for Alcor Members -- the Alcor Model Trust. It is still under review whether the Alcor Model Trust is compatible with Alcor's 501(c)3 status, although they don't expect a problem.
Alcor will be given the responsibility for identifying the reanimated cryonicist as being the ultimate beneficiary of a trust. In exchange for a modest payment to Alcor ($500 to $1,000), Alcor will review the individual trust and will appoint Trust Advisors. The Trust Advisors, in turn, will appoint trustees. The Trust Advisors will be empowered to change trustees, if necessary.
Alcor would be the immediate beneficiary of the Alcor Model Trust, which might be 1% of the principle annually, or perhaps a share of the income. Distributions to Alcor from trusts will provide Alcor with financial incentives to be particularly diligent, and will also give Alcor legal standing to go to court if a trust is being mishandled. Of course, persons cryopreserved at Alcor would want to contribute to Alcor's strength (ability to survive). Furthermore, research money donated to Alcor might hasten the day when the patient is revived. Insofar as Alcor is a charitable 501(c)3 organization, distributions to Alcor are tax deductable.
The Alcor Model Trust would be a revocable trust used in conjunction with a will. This trust is for cryonics revival only, and does not include the kind of tax planning that would be required for those having many millions of dollars in assets. The amount of future estate tax exemptions in the United States is currently . John Dedon advised those having a large taxable estate to get a life insurance policy in an irrevocable trust. The proceeds of a life insurance policy in an irrevocable trust can be outside of the taxable estate.
Ralph Merkle described the trust that he and his wife Carol are developing. Ralph says they are "guinea pigs" for the Alcor Model Trust. For a revocable trust, the settlor is trustee until the death of the settlor after which time a successor trustee becomes the trustee. Because of their long history of investing with Vanguard they have gotten Vanguard to agree to be successor trustee for their assets. The assets can only be stocks including private stocks), no real estate or business assets. The trust is in Delaware, Vanguard is in Pennsylvania, and neither state has a rule against perpetuities. It may be that only the situs of the Trust matters, but Ralph feels better that neither state has a rule against perpetuities.
Overwhelmingly, in my opinion, the best presentation at this meeting of the Asset Preservation Group was the one on "Personal Revival Trusts" by Igor Levenberg. I have been working with the thorny problems associated with cryonics reanimation trusts for years and I have never seen such careful and persuasive legal analyses. And I have seem a fair bit of work by some very highly paid trust lawyers.
Igor Levenberg is not himself a cryonicist. He is a law student scheduled to get his J.D. in June 2010. He read THE FIRST IMMORTAL, became interested in the idea of cryonics revival trusts, and would like to work on such trusts as part of his legal practice. The presentation he made at the meeting was a summary of his paper that is being published in the Spring 2010 issue of the journal ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW. (The Spring 2010 issue is not currently online.)
What follows is my summary of the ideas in Igor's paper.
A central problem for cryonicists wanting revival trusts is that Cryopreserved Persons (CPs) are legally dead and are not ascertainable beneficiaries under trust law. My solution to this problem has been to have cryonics organizations (rather than the legal system) recognize the reanimated CP as the beneficiary. But finding the right cryonics organization to do this is not always easy.
The courts have recognized cryopreserved embryos as being "intermediate beings". Igor raised the possibility of persuading courts to recognize CPs as also being "intermediate beings", but he concedes that courts are unlikely to do this. Even if they did, an "intermediate being" cannot be a beneficiary without a court-appointed guardian. How the court would choose an appropriate guardian and how much influence the cryonicist settlor could exercise on the court are open questions.
Another option would be to have CPs treated in the same legal category as unborn, unconceived children. A potential parent could create trusts for his or her children, but if he or she never has children, the trusts become invalid. Such trusts are based on a contingency: the event of the settlor having children. A contingent beneficiary cannot be the sole beneficiary of a trust based on contingency. For example, the settlor could name his or her brother as the other beneficiary. The court would appoint a guardian of the unborn children to protect the interests of the contingent beneficiaries should the brother try to challenge the trust. If the settlor dies childless, the brother could challenge the trust on the grounds that the contingency is impossible.
Analogous to the unborn children, a cryonicist could create a trust that names his or her reanimated self as the contingent beneficiary. A cryonics organization could be named as the other beneficiary, although I don't know who the court would choose as guardian of the CP or how that choice would be made. An advantage over treating the CP as a contingent beneficiary rather than an "intermediate being" is that anyone challenging the trust would have to prove that the contingency is *impossible* -- whereas the "intermediate being" trust is dependent upon proving that reanimation is *possible*. Proving that reanimation of a CP is impossible could be very difficult if expert witnesses could be called who attested to the possibility.
Both the "intermediate being" and the contingent beneficiary approach rely on establishing the CP as an ascertainable beneficiary. But trusts can be created that do not have this requirement. "Trusts for purposes" and trusts based on "conditions subsequent" do not require the CP as an ascertainable beneficiary.
A trust with a "condition subsequent" is a trust that has a beneficiary, but which specifies terms under which the trust is terminated. Those terms could provide for the interests of the reanimated CP. For example, a trust could be established which pays income to a cryonics organization as the beneficiary, and has the "condition subsequent" that the trust terminates and pays the principle to the CP settlor when and if the CP is revived. I assume that such a trust would have to be in a state that has no rule against perpetuities.
"Trusts for purposes" include both charitable and non-charitable trusts. Such trusts have no beneficiary to enforce them. A non-charitable trust for the care of a pet relies on the trustee, and is therefore technically not a trust. Non-charitable trusts are subject to the rule against perpetuities even in states where the rule against perpetuities has been repealed. An exception to this, however, is a non-charitable trust for the care of graves, which may be exempt from the law against perpetuities. Insofar as the Cryonics Institute is a licensed cemetery in the state of Michigan, a CI patient could conceivably establish a non-charitable trust to provide for liquid nitrogen and cryostat maintenance with the "condition subsequent" that upon reanimation of the CP the trust would terminate and the trust funds would be dispersed to the revived CP.
Charitable trusts are enforced by the Attorney General of the state in which they are established (rather than by a beneficiary), and are never subject to the rule against perpetuities, even in states that do not otherwise allow for perpetuities. For example, a charitable trust could be established which uses income from the trust to finance cryonics research (or cancer research) to which is added the "condition subsequent" that the trust will terminate and the principle go to the revived CP when and if the CP is revived. Although such "piggybacking" of a non-charitable purpose onto a charitable trust is generally not allowed, Igor believes it would survive judicial scrutiny.

read more

Via News.com

* Britney reportedly wants body frozen
* Is investing in cryogenics company
* Party's over for Lindsay Lohan

BRITNEY Spears wants to be frozen after her death so she can be brought back to life later.

The Sun reported the 28-year-old Womaniser singer wants her body preserved in liquid nitrogen and is investing in an Arizona firm that specialises in cryogenic freezing, a friend of the star said.

read more

read more