Who is "Cryonics Property LLC"?June 18 2010 at 11:39 AM
|Melody Maxim (Login melmax)|
According to Alcor's 2008 Form 990 (page 46), they paid a total of $146,352 to "Cryonics Property LLC." I'm guessing, that if one was to research earlier Form 990's, they would find similar payments.
According to Alcor:
"As of April 30, 2010, the Alcor Patient Care Trust Fund has assets of 3.55 million dollars, invested as follows:
The Patient Care Trust owns just over 75% of the shares in Cryonics Property, LLC, the limited liability company that owns the Alcor building (all other shares are owned by Alcor members). These shares (representing the Trust's equity in the Alcor building) are valued at approximately $470,000 based on the original purchase price of the building (they would be higher at current market value). The Trust also owns the mortgage on the building, valued at about $361,000. Alcor pays rent to Cryonics Property, LLC. Since Alcor does not occupy the entire building, there are additional tenants who also pay rent, which provides some additional income for the Patient Care Trust."
Yet, if I am reading this correctly, the Arizona Corporation Commission considers "Cryonics Property LLC" to have been dissolved, in September of 2001.
According to the Arizona Corporation Commission, the name "Cryonics Property LLC" is currently available, and anyone with $45 can snap it up.
Edit: Typo - changed "age" to "page" in the first sentence.
|This message has been edited by melmax on Jun 19, 2010 7:41 AM|
|June 19 2010, 2:10 AM |
As Alcor Prez, she knows all.
If she doesn't give a reasonable answer though (and who would expect that she would?), this could indeed become a fully blown scandal.
Or if she doesn't, Bonnie Magee certainly should know; after all, she is "Finance Director"
Not to be confused with me, Finance Department, since Alcor has no such Department as far as we know.
P.S. Never one to pass up a seemingly foolproof investment opportunity, I tried to buy Cryonics LLC as you suggested, but they wanted some kind of java that I did not have, so the deal did not go thru. Wherever you went, there you are.
|This message has been edited by Finance_Department on Jun 19, 2010 2:18 AM|
Here is the answer
|June 19 2010, 8:50 PM |
Sorry to disappoint you all. No scandal, just the fun of dealing with many levels of governmental bureaucracy.
First, I want to thank Melody for looking up Cryonics Property LLC on the Arizona Corporations website and reporting on what she found. Hugh Hixon and I are the Co-Managers (unpaid) for the LLC. It looks like we are caught in a paper trap between various bureaucracies; but we are getting it straightened out. Apparently when our attorney retired back in 2000 (and died shortly thereafter, I heard), the address for our "Agent" was not changed from his office. Since letters to that address were not answered, and since apparently one branch of government decided not to ask any other branches of government where we might be, the Corporations Office wrongly assumed we had dissolved.
Cryonics Property LLC (Limited Liability Company) is the investment group which owns the building that Alcor occupies. The Patient Care Trust is the majority owner of the LLC and several Alcor members also own Interests. We have been functioning quite well with all of the other government agencies and local businesses. We pay our taxes to the state of Arizona and the City of Scottsdale. We file our tax forms and annual reports with the state and with the IRS. We pay all of our bills. Alcor and other tenants pay rent to us. The banks happily accept our deposits. So it was disconcerting to discover that the Corporations Office thought we were non-existent.
As soon as we saw Melody's post, we called the Corporations Office and found what we had to do to re-form the LLC (from their office's point of view). That will be cleaned up very quickly.
As to why we didn't know this sooner... how many owners of an active corporation which does an ongoing business, files paperwork, annual reports, taxes, etc. checks one more office to see if they still exist?
And no, this post doesn't mean I'm back actively on this list. I would love to retire from my job and spend lots of time doing this, but three kids in school just won't let that happen.
Active Corporations Must File Annual Reports
|June 19 2010, 10:46 PM |
"Every corporation must submit an Annual Report once a year. Failure to submit a properly- completed form on or before the due date subjects the corporation to being administratively dissolved or having its authority to transact business revoked. Monetary penalties will be assessed for late-filed Annual Reports, pursuant to A.R.S. § 10-1622(F). Penalties begin accruing the day after the due date."
I believe that is the rule for almost all, (if not all), 50 states. It seems like someone, at Alcor, would have noticed that task not being taken care of, for the last eight years, especially when it involves the Patient Care Trust. I'm wondering if the penalties, (if any), were substantial.
|This message has been edited by melmax on Jun 19, 2010 10:48 PM|
That rule only applies to corporations, not LLCs
|June 19 2010, 11:33 PM |
"38) DO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES HAVE TO FILE ANNUAL REPORTS?
No, the statutes do not require LLC's to file annual reports as Corporations do. However, LLC's must still report any changes to their known place of business address, statutory agent, or members/managers. Address changes or agent appointments may be done on the LLC statement of change form. Adding or removing members/managers must be done on the LLC amendment form."
|June 20 2010, 10:29 AM |
...the "C" in LLC stands for "company," not "corporation"...my mistake. I still think members should be concerned that this relatively simple task was overlooked for eight years, especially in consideration of its relationship with the Patient Care Trust. As I recall, Alcor once had to issue an apology for inappropriately borrowing funds from the Patient Care Trust, (which they did repay, after realizing their mistake). People are frequently encouraged to leave bequests and/or trusts, for cryonics organizations, of which Alcor is the largest and most well-known, so I think it should be of concern, when such an organization makes these types of errors.
Now, would Mr. Bridge like to address some of my other concerns, regarding Alcor?
|June 20 2010, 6:27 PM |
aint it time to get on with your life?
I mean, we are talking years now. You only worked with cryonics a short time, right? And you had some problems getting work elsewhere if I am correct, right?
I am sure platt is a pill. Never met the dude, but it seems right from I can know about humans.
But still? After all this time?
I have a life, un, most of which I enjoy very much. Unfortunately, part of it concerns ethical issues, regarding the cryonics industry. The procedures needed to perform cryopreservations are very closely related to surgical procedures I was a part of, for nearly a decade. I believe the way cryonics organizations operate, is a matter of public concern. It's not about one person; it's about a group of people.
If you are attempting to disparage me, by suggesting I have problems gaining, or keeping, employment, you really don't know what you are talking about.
Get a life?
|June 22 2010, 1:52 AM |
You say, about your life: "Unfortunately, part of it concerns ethical issues, regarding the cryonics industry."
Now c'mon, how stupid do you think we "ice cube's chance in hell" people are, anyway? How could it be "unfortunate" that you are so employed, unless that instead of getting paid to bring down the wrath of the elitist bioethicists upon cryonics, you would rather be floating in the pool all day?
If you sincerely feel it is unfortunate for you to be concerned about "ethical issues" (read: what an elitist group thinks is good for the rest of us), then, well, guess what? You can just STOP being concerned about whether or not we have the right to choose for ourselves!
Because you obviously care nothing about your right to do that or not.
I will not rub your nose in that you said you would not talk to me here anymore, since you just did on CryoNet.
It's not about FD...
|June 22 2010, 7:29 AM |
...or the relatively small number of people currently signed up for cryosuspension. It's about the millions of people who might be subjected to Alcor and Suspended Animation's websites, (which I consider to be gross misrepresentations of the quality of their services), or other forms of their marketing attempts. It's about the millions of people who won't realize that Alcor and Suspended Animation may be frequently allowing persons, with nothing-to-little more than a high school diploma, attempt to perform procedures that are normally performed by qualified personnel, such as vascular surgeons, perfusionists, and advanced-level paramedics. (Not to mention the entire decapitation scenario.) People who are considering paying large sums of money, for cryonics services, and who are sometimes encouraged to leave bequests and/or trusts to cryonics organizations, deserve to know the quality of those services.
It's also about the "leaders" of these organizations including people who have not hesitated to engage in some REALLY questionable activities, in the past. It's a matter of public concern, in my opinion.
I'm laughing at FD's childish nose-rubbing remarks about me breaking my promise not to talk to him, and wondering why my attention is that important to him. It's sad that he had to tell another lie, (that I was being paid to write about cryonics,) in order to get me to break that promise. Again, while I can respect anonymity, to some degree, I suggest that anyone prone to malicious speculations, or posting false information, should not be allowed to hide behind a pseudonym, on this forum. It's one thing, to be concerned about one's career, or private life, when posting on a forum that involves a topic some people might be critical of, but it's quite another thing to use anonymity to spread lies.
Now, I'm sorry if it hurts FD's feelings, when I don't respond to his nonsense, but I am going to do my best to continue to ignore his foolishness.
It's not about MM ...
|June 23 2010, 6:11 PM |
It's about entire groups of people who want cryonics done in, be it by regulation, legislation, sensationalization, ethicalization (coined) or any other -tion that threatens the future possible lives of those of us who have exercised our native rights to choose cryonics for ourselves.
All MM did was prove that she reports to a major mover in one of the above groups, not to mention having made herself a part of one of the other above groups by sending out a certain stack of letters. Hopefully they are getting many laughs on the receiving end ("she's worrying about how corpses are treated??!") and the papers have been properly round-filed.
And we are to believe she gets no money for any of this, just does it for the love. (LOL!)
Again though it isn't really about MM; it's about cryonics' survival, and its future ability to grow unshackled by stupid requirements like a surgical mallet instead of a ballpeen hammer. It's about our right to decide to choose cryonics for ourselves, rather than having it taken away from us. And yes, it's even about the right of wealthy cryonicists to spend their money on ill-advised and wasteful activities in cryonics, if they so choose. We can wish they made better choices, but then if we want better choices made, we could put our own time and money to them, eh?
|June 23 2010, 7:05 PM |
People are paying scads of cash to be preserved for a future life by companies with less oversight that the guy that changes your oil at the corner service station...
What's wrong with regulating supposedly high-tech, scientific/medical services sold to consumers at a premium price?
Of course, you'll argue they're only corpses, but geez, even undertakers have regulations to follow to insure their "patients" are properly treated...
Yes, there are plenty of regulations out there already
|June 24 2010, 1:42 AM |
For cemeteries, such as CI, and for research organizations, such as Alcor. They have to follow the laws and regulations that already exist, and as far as I know, they do. I do not think more are needed, and do think that "more" could make it unreasonably difficult for these organizations to even survive.
So what is "wrong" with it? It is so totally wrong for me to not have the choice of signing up with one of them, because they have had to go out of business for stupid reasons. It is so totally wrong, for anyone to try to decide for me how I want to spend my "scads of cash".
You don't care, as you do not care whether you ever sign up or not. Eh?
Re: It's not about MM ...
|June 23 2010, 7:26 PM |
I find it difficult to believe that there is any money to be made in attacking cryonics. At least not in the way FD seems to be suggesting. Perhaps there is money in writing sensational articles or even books about colorful characters and events related to cryonics, but I doubt anyone is paying Melody or anyone else to post critiques on the internets. That's a little too conspiratorial for my taste, not to mention the fact that it is a poor form of argument.
Lets all try to refrain from further ad hominem. That would include dismissing FD because he is anonymous as well.
Not just posting on the internet
|June 24 2010, 1:40 AM |
She admitted to sending out a stack of paper mail to various and sundry places, complaining about what in cryonics we are not sure, she has refused to post copies of same so we can see.
She was also found to have "colosally blundered" in posting her report to Larry Johnson to CryoNet, bragging about her continuing to "make a stink" about an employee of a cryonics organization whose profile on some obscure perfusion board had an inaccurate description.
This did nothing to correct the description, but a lot to show us who she reports to.
You have had no reluctance in the past on banning such people from this forum, whose interests are so obviously against cryonics, such as Despres. I'm waiting for you to see the light on this one.
Meanwhile I will engage such persons on here as it seems reasonable for me to do, and I don't care a pound of feathers if they are worried that I am anonymous.
Re: Not just posting on the internet
|June 24 2010, 3:28 PM |
Suggesting that she is a paid shill for some sort of organized anti-cryonics movement is quite different from acknowledging that she supports people like Larry Johnson. We all acknowledge that she is in favor of regulation, so debating the wisdom of such a position is entirely fair game. However, implying that someone should be dismissed because they disagree with you and/or trying to smear them with rumors and speculation is an entirely different matter.
|June 24 2010, 3:59 PM |
Well said Mr Moderator.
It's well past time that FD realised that Melody Maxim is the true lone wolf,
I certainly appreciate the stand she has made with regard to the long overdue improvements required to make cryonics more accountable to it's customers.
If I remember correctly FD made the original observation that Alcor's board of directors was self electing and was, seemingly, not accountable to it's members, I seem also to remember that he felt he would remain a "Finance Department" until the situation changed.
How's that going FD?
As a fully funded member of CI I find myself wondering if CI is in a much different position.
Be that as it may, it does not bode well if the same group of people, a lot of whom were involved with collapse of Cryocare, were allowed to gain undue influence in the remaining cryonics organisations.
Therefore I offer the Lady Melmax my sincere thanks for the exceptional stand she has taken to highlightt the shortcomings we find in the current structure of cryonics.
I do remind myself constantly however that whistleblowers are usually treated in an appalling manner.
Keep it up Mel
More Misrepresentations from FD
|June 25 2010, 10:36 AM |
FD: "She admitted to sending out a stack of paper mail to various and sundry places, complaining about what in cryonics we are not sure, she has refused to post copies of same so we can see."
I said no such thing. I believe I stated I had sent letters related to a very specific issue. (Nothing about a "stack," or "various and sundry places.") I don't consider FD to be qualified to review my complaints, so I have no intention of running them by him. (If I was of the same ilk, as FD, I would accuse him of being paid by certain people, to try to find out what I was doing.)
FD: "She was also found to have "colosally blundered" in posting her report to Larry Johnson to CryoNet..."
I don't consider my blunder to have been "colossal." I am certainly free to share my own posts, with other people, including Larry Johnson.
FD: "...bragging about her continuing to "make a stink" about an employee of a cryonics organization whose profile on some obscure perfusion board
had an inaccurate description.
It was not an "obscure perfusion board." That site claims to be, and IS, "the world's largest and most comprehensive resource for topics related to cardiovascular perfusion..." Besides, it doesn't matter if it would be viewed by one person, or one million persons, someone who had only just completed EMT-B training at the time her profile was created, had no business misrepresenting her qualifications. This is a huge problem, in cryonics and, if the SA staff member I am complaining about does not modify her profile, on that site, soon, I am going to raise the issue, on that forum, and others. I've tried to restrict my complaints about cryonics to cryonics forums, and I don't think SA wants their staff members and activities to be discussed on that forum. As I have already stated, I do not object to the SA staff members joining that forum, but they should not misrepresent their credentials, when doing so.
FD: "This did nothing to correct the description, but a lot to show us who she reports to."
FD doesn't realize just how insane his complaints about me are. If HE exchanges emails with people like Platt, Sullivan, or other people working in cryonics, is he "reporting" to them? No. Are they "reporting" to him? No. Does any money exchange hands? I doubt it, and I'm not going to pretend like I think it does, in order to disparage FD. While I disagree with the opinions of FD and his penpals, I consider them to be like-minded individuals who have the right to exchange information. (How I wish he would reciprocate, and admit I have the right to the same freedoms he enjoys.) Again, I do not think I did anything wrong, in forwarding something I, myself, had written, to Mr. Johnson. (This reminds me of FD complaining about my hyperbolic statements about the Johnson book, while ignoring those of Dr. Wowk. I think it's very clear that FD's requirement for debate includes agreeing with his viewpoints.)
FD to the Moderator: "You have had no reluctance in the past on banning such people from this forum, whose interests are so obviously against cryonics..."
I am not "against" cryonics, I just have come to the conclusion that there is little-to-no hope for progress, until cryonics is regulated. I complained, and hoped for significant signs of change, for nearly FOUR years, before reaching that conclusion, and I just don't see any other way...I consider this a matter of public concern.
Now, if FD will send me his name and address, I'll send him a "Melody Maxim personally responded to my CF post" T-shirt.
|June 25 2010, 10:38 AM |
...reassuring. Thanks for your efforts to maintain open discussion on this forum.
|June 25 2010, 10:41 AM |
...refreshing. Many thanks to Mr. Michaels for making me smile, this morning, and for realizing the dream of having cryonics procedures carried out in a more professional, ethical and competent manner is not a fantasy.