[extropy-chat] ILE: life just got a little more complicated

[Karen Rand Smigrodzki]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Lorrey"


>
> --- "Robert J. Bradbury" <> >
> > On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > > Don't know what state or country you live in. Last time I checked,
> > the
> > > 14th Amendment was clearly interpreted by SCOTUS as saying that you
> > own
> > > yourself: no slavery, peony, or indenturement allowed. It is a well
> > > settled matter of probate law that the deceased's wishes about
> > disposal
> > > of their body are paramount, and if the deceased does not
> > explicitly
> > > say so, their next of kin, NOT the state, has the right to dispose
> > of
> > > the body. [snip].
> >
> > Mike, these are important points -- points which should be well
> > documented in public forums, easily available.  That means
> > some combination of something like a google search as well
> > as a law database search.  The trick would be to get such
> > information near the top of the list in both forums.
>
> So I suppose we need to make the public as aware of Hale v Henkel (201
> US 43 (1905)) as they are of Roe v Wade and Miranda, specifically: "The
> individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is
> entitled to carry on his own private business in his own way. His power
> to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or his neighbors
> to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far
> as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes  no such duty to the State,
> since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life
> and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land
> long antecedent to the organization of the State... He owes nothing to
> the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."
>
> This citation should be in the legal ammo box of any cryonicist.
>
> >
         No, it shouldn't, Mike. Anyone citing this case for almost any
reason would be laughed out of court. Especially so if they cite the case
for the proposition you suggest.  (First of all, a minor note, the case year
is 1906, not 1905). Secondly, the case has *nothing* to do with bodies or
corpses or their disposition or their classification in the law or whether
they become property of an estate or not. Your quotation from the case has
nothing to do with those ideas either; also, it is dicta -- not relevant to
the holding of the case. Also, important parts of the case were overruled
some years later. That overruling is not important to the discussion though
since the case has *nothing* to do with the ideas of the body as property or
ownership in a body or rights to provide for the disposition of one's corpse
after death.
        The case arose in a grand jury investigation of anti-trust
violations under the Sherman Act. The case presented the questions of
whether a grand jury had authority to subpoena a witness (an officer of the
corporation under investigation) and mandate he present documentation of the
corporation when no charges had been filed and when by such actions the
witness, as agent of the corporation, may give self-incriminating (the
"self" being the corporation) information .
        The Court held that the grand jury does not need to file a formal
charge before examining witnesses. The Court also held that the protection
against self-incrimination means "self" incrimination, and does not apply to
incrimination of third parties (ie, officer for the corporation). Further,
the 1903 "proviso" to the 1890 Anti-Trust Act gave immunity to the witness
(officer of the corporation here) which was sufficient to protect the
witness against self-incrimination.  Further, and finally, the Court held
that the corporation could claim a 4th Amendment privilege against
unreasonable search and seizure of documents, but the witness (officer of
the corporation) could not claim the same in relation to production for the
grand jury of documents of the corporation for investigations into
violations of the Anti-Trust Act of 1890.


--Karen