Alcor Wins Another Battle, but the War is Still OnMarch 19 2010 at 7:34 AM
|Melody Maxim (Login melmax)|
"It has always been Alcors contention that Larry Johnson's activities were not only in violation of court orders and patient privacy, but also based on lies. The addition of defamation claims to the lawsuit in New York now provides Alcor with an opportunity to prove this in a court of law."
I'm glad Alcor will have an opportunity to address the alleged lies, in court. I assume Johnson will be allowed to use his audiotapes, to defend himself. Should be interesting.
Re: Alcor Wins Another Battle, but the War is Still On
|March 25 2010, 4:58 PM |
Hell, I can prove LJ lied about Bob Nelson. He may be able to prove that some of his accusations are true, but he's going to get slammed on the rest. Since he lied on some of it, why should anyone believe most of it?
|This message has been edited by Cryoken on Mar 25, 2010 4:58 PM|
Re: Alcor Wins Another Battle, but the War is Still On
|March 26 2010, 9:18 AM |
Ken: "Hell, I can prove LJ lied about Bob Nelson. He may be able to prove that some of his accusations are true, but he's going to get slammed on the rest. Since he lied on some of it, why should anyone believe most of it?"
Using that philosophy, I'm going to turn it around and ask, "Since Johnson told the truth on some of it, why shouldn't everyone believe most of it?" (I'm not remarking on Johnson's honesty, I'm remarking on the flawed logic in Ken's statement.) People want to believe Alcor's accusations that Johnson's book is "400 pages of lies designed to disparage Alcor," (Brian Wowk testifying, on Alcor's behalf, in court). If the book is "filled with lies," I believe a lot of those lies came from Alcor's own representatives, who can be heard on Johnson's audiotapes. So, (again, using Ken's logic), why should we believe most of what comes out of Alcor?
I'm not going to dig out my copy of Johnson's book, but since I believe the Nelson incident occured more than 20 years prior to Johnson working at Alcor, I assume whatever he wrote about that was hearsay. Even an individual who was involved in, or present for, the "Chatsworth Scandal" could never be positive about all details of what actually happened, as they will each only have a piece of the story, and will rely on hearsay and their own speculations to "fill in the gaps." Keep in mind that Johnson's friend and mentor, when he started working in cryonics, wrote this: http://www.cryonics.org/immortalist/november05/nelson.htm
I'm giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt, because I think he had a similar experience to my own. I think Johnson went into cryonics with an open mind, believing that the people involved were really interested in "doing the best they could" to extend the limits of hypothermic medicine. I believe he subsequently witnessed a lot of activities, which led him to question the intentions of those involved. At that point, he probably didn't have a hard time believing everything negative he had heard was true. (On the other hand, he probably should have questioned the integrity of at least one of his sources of information!)
I believe Johnson can back up most of what he wrote, with audiotapes, or he and the publisher would not have battled this long and hard. (They've probably spent more than they made, on the book, by now.) When people write books, or tell stories, they frequently include what they heard from others. To the people who keep calling Johnson a liar, I say consider the sources of his information...the people who are heard on those audiotapes. I keep wondering why I don't see anyone calling THEM "liars."
|March 28 2010, 9:00 AM |
I've been wondering if there have been any settlement offers, in the Alcor vs. Johnson case, in NY. Any such offers would not be in the court documents, and I doubt Alcor would write about such offers in their news bulletins. Have there been any settlement offers? If so, in which direction are they flowing? As I see it, Johnson and the publisher are unlikely to be offering money, but they could offer to quit distributing the book, but I haven't seen that happen. Since Alcor's primary argument seems to be that Johnson had a obligation to keep his mouth shut, I assume they would have taken him up on such an offer. On the other hand, what would Alcor have to offer Johnson? Money? Money from where? I think people deserve to know how much of what was in that book is true, so I'm hoping it will go to court but, frankly, I'm surprised the case hasn't settled. (Yes, FD, I could call Johnson up and ask him, IF I wanted to, but I doubt he would say anything at all, about Alcor, so I won't bother.)
*Edit: Since Alcor has expanded their suit to include charges of defamation, won't the court now be obliged to allow Johnson to attempt to prove he was telling the truth, (meaning he will be allowed to enter his audiotapes into evidence)?
|This message has been edited by melmax on Mar 28, 2010 11:33 AM|
And "I" get accused of speculation!
|March 28 2010, 12:15 PM |
My speculations weren't all that speculative...
|March 29 2010, 9:08 AM |
...considering that, according to Alcor's own evidence in the current court cases, they previous entered into a settlement agreement in which they paid Johnson in exchange for his silence. (Actually, they gave him a check, which he never cashed.) I think it would be surprising to learn there have not already been settlement offers, this time around, based on the previous settlement negotiations and Alcor's efforts to win the current cases based on Johnson's alleged obligations to keep quiet.
That reminds me...since Alcor maintains Johnson was supposed to maintain his silence, based on that agreement, does Alcor still owe him $17,500? Maybe they can deduct the $6,543 they won in the Arizona case, if Johnson's team loses the appeal.
Just out of curiosity, did Alcor inform its members that they were negotiating a settlement, with Johnson, back in 2004? Did they mention they issued him a check, in October 2004?
What about the signed release Johnson
|March 28 2010, 3:01 PM |
has from the president of Alcor, giving him permission to use information, interviews, photographs and files for the purpose of publication?
Seems that would contradict any argument Alcor could have, other than things being untrue.
And, if things are true, there are supposed to be laws to protect whistle-blowers.
This doesn't seem like a settlement situation to me...