Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Alcor vs. Johnson and Vanguard Press

Go to http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASMain

Click on "Index Search"

Enter "113938/2009" in the "Index Number" space and click on "Find Case(s).

Click on the Index Number, and then click on "Show eFiled Documents"

You will be able to read all of the court documents, in the Alcor vs. Vanguard Press and Larry Johnson. Personally, I think Mr. Yalowitz (Vanguard) and Ms. Wang (Johnson) are extremely sharp and have made excellent arguments. I think Mr. Bauer (Alcor) is probably doing the best he can, with what he has to work with.

Alcor seems to be relying on several arguments that hold little validity, in my opinion. They want to make the "trade secrets" argument, but I think it's pretty clear that the only "trade secret" they have may be their vitrification solution recipe, and Johnson hasn't revealed that to anyone, as far as I know. I think it will be difficult for them to argue "trade secrets," when they have been singing the "transparency" song for so long, and have published almost every detail of their operations and procedures, on the Internet.

There's the related issue of them claiming Johnson has provided the public with information that may give their competition an unfair advantage. That's just plain silly, as there really is no competition, other than, maybe, CI, and I don't think Johnson gave CI any information they didn't already have. In fact, Ben Best was recently at Alcor, where they supposedly asked him to sign an NDA, and showed him around. In other words, they may have allowed their only competition to come in the Alcor facility and view whatever it is they are claiming as "trade secrets." In addition, many people with connections to Alcor have claimed that Johnson's publicity has HELPED Alcor gain an increase in membership, in the past.

Then, Alcor resorts to the NDA, and other related issues. Their attorneys state that Platt "unequivocally" claims Johnson signed an NDA, but he did no such thing, and Johnson's attorney picked right up on that. As she writes, Platt carefully parsed his words in a manner that would avoid possibly committing perjury. He states he called someone at Alcor, and asked them to look in Johnson's employee file, for an NDA. I can only imagine this same thing happened, when he accused me of stealing a non-existent NDA, at SA. Johnson's attorney, apparently, has an imagination similar to mine, and has done her homework. She includes the agreement/apology, Platt posted on CF and Cryonet, in response to my threats to take legal action, in regard to the lies and/or malicious "speculations" that were being made, in attempts to discredit me, (See her "Exhibit 9).

Finally, Alcor wants to cry about the restraining orders against Johnson, but it appears they never properly served him. Johnson's attorney points out that a process server relayed to Alcor that the address where he was to be served was a "bad address," but Alcor proceeded to send Certified Mail there, and when it wasn't returned, put forth that Johnson had been properly served.

It should be interesting to find out what the judge thinks of these motions, in tomorrow's hearing. So far, I have the score as "Johnson 2, Alcor 0." Regardless of the outcome, the book is out and Johnson has already made the interview rounds. All Alcor is doing, in my opinion, is wasting a lot of money, making themselves look deceptive and foolish, and promoting Johnson's book.

No comments: