I received Peny's and Michaell's last will and testament today. The vast majority of the will is legal language, but I will mention three relevant facts that I found after a cursory review.

1. The wills were dated October 14, 2000
2. In both wills, the money would go to the other spouse. If the other spouse is dead, then the money goes to Jach. No mention of any other family or friends in either wills.
3. In the event they both die and Jach is also dead, the money (and all tangible property) goes to the Republican National Party.

*** NOTE: These links are currently slow to load. If they stay slow, I'll work with Ted to move the images to the cosmicfool site ****

Here are the links to Peny's will:

http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p01.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p02.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p03.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p04.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p05.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p06.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p07.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p08.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p09.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p10.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p11.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p12.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p13.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p14.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p15.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p16.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p17.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p18.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p19.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p20.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p21.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p22.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p23.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/p24.jpg

Here are the links to Michaell's will:

http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m01.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m02.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m03.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m04.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m05.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m06.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m07.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m08.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m09.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m10.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m11.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m12.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m13.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m14.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m15.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m16.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m17.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m18.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m19.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m20.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m21.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m22.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m23.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doublecheckcs/m24.jpg

Cheers, Craig

Thanks for your vigilance. Good job!

I am looking forward to seeing the document even if it is ripe with legalese. I am already stewing over one particular item: "3. In the event they both die and Jach is also dead, the money (and all tangible property) goes to the Republican National Party". This is the best PR yet for the Democratic National Party.

Cheers,
SpiritWriter

I feel that Michaell's will provides very strong additional evidence contradicting another of Lazaris' lies on the Healing the Broken Alliance tapes.

On the tape Lazaris talks about how Michaell had a unique and unparalleled commitment and integrity.

There is no way I can get past the fact that a father could choose to give the Republican National Party his money before he would give any to his own daughter who he abandoned when she was very young. This act alone shows a flagrant disregard for commitment. Add to that the abandonment of his parents, brother and ex-wife and you have quite a picture. I normally wouldn't include the comment about the ex-wife as our society generally accepts such acts of abandonment even when kids are involved. However, we know from their own example that an ex-spouse can be treated as a human being.

The other part of the lie is about integrity. As I posted elsewhere, one of his last couple of sentences (about no one else knowing about his plans) from his suicide note was untrue. And then we have the whole matter of Tradevest and other MLM's...

Cheers, Craig

I haven't read Michaell's will yet, but I assume he included the same twentieth item in his will

quote:

---

I have knowingly and intentionally omitted and not provided herein for my natural heirs or persons claiming to be such heirs, living at the time of my death, whether or not known to me. In addition, if any beeficiary named herein, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or attacks this Last Will and Testament or any of it's provisions, any interest in my estate herein granted to that contesting beneficiary is revoked and shall be disposed of in the same manner provided herein as if that contesting beneficiary had predeceased me without issue.

---

Nice one. Am I reading correctly that not only did Peny EXPLICITLY exclude any family members, but also revokes Jach's inheritance should he contest the will in the event that Michaell lived to collect the goods?

More beautiful "love and peace" from Peny.

Katie

Indeed Michael's will has and identical item such as an Item twentieth.. Notice that this item was clearly added to the will after the fact. This item is the last item. Item 19 is and item that includes definitions of the contract which is typically the last item of a contract.

There are many interpretations for this item. None of them give one a warm fuzzy.

To me one of the interpretations is that this item is referring to Michael's abandoned daughter. This clause will prevent the other spouse (or Jach) from having a "change of heart" about this poor kid after the other's death.

Jach certainly held up his end of the bargain, by conveniently failing to mention about either Michaell's ex- or daughter when specifically asked by the police. Not only did he not contest, but he actively was dishonest with the police.

What schmucks!

I posted the links to the will in the first post of this thread.

You'll see that the Twentieth article in in Michaell's is slightly different than Peny's. It says,

quote:

---

I have knowingly and intentionally omitted and not provided herein for my natural
heirs, including without limitation my brother and his issue, or persons claiming to be such heirs, living at the time of my death, whether or not known to me.

---

Seems pretty odd to specifically mention his brother and the brother's offspring, but not mention his daughter. Maybe he was too ashamed. In some states, I don't know about Florida, the will must specifically mention by name, direct heirs (children) who have been left out. Otherwise they can sue and win a portion of the estate. A blanket phrase does not suffice in those states.

Well, these "spiritual" folks didn't leave a dime to a soul beyond each other and, ultimately their politcal party. No relatives, friends, faithful employees, charities, spiritual foundations.

It appears that their highest ideals are represented by the magic of the Republican Party. Some metaphysicians.

Jade

"Discretionary" would be distribution of principle, and (as I understand so far) income beyond a certain level.

These conditions were in both wills, and applied to all three of them.

I can understand setting up trusts to avoid paying large inheritance taxes, but these conditions are constraining, giving an outside person (Dennis Durban) fundamental decision making power.

But the Republican Party would get the entire estate outright, no trusts, no conditions.

Jade

quote:

---

The 2001 Florida Statutes

Title XLII
Estates And Trusts
Chapter 732
Probate Code: Intestate Succession And Wills
View Entire Chapter

732.302 Pretermitted children.--When a testator omits to provide by will for any of his or her children born or adopted after making the will and the child has not received a part of the testator's property equivalent to a child's part by way of advancement, the child shall receive a share of the estate equal in value to that which the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless:

(1) It appears from the will that the omission was intentional; or

(2) The testator had one or more children when the will was executed and devised
substantially all the estate to the other parent of the pretermitted child and that other parent survived the testator and is entitled to take under the will.

The share of the estate that is assigned to the pretermitted child shall be obtained in accordance with s. 733.805.

---

I wonder how a judge would look at a will in which the testator mentions a brother and his family, but not even the existence his daughter -- the sole direct heir. A statement like this about the brother and "issue" proves intention.

There is no such mention, or statement of "intention" about the daughter, as if she never existed. I don't believe that the blanket statment about omitting natural heirs is enough intention.

I have personally witnessed an offspring, who was not mentioned in a parent's will, claim and receive a large inheritance this way.

Not to say that its a sure thing, but certainly worth looking into. Personally I'd be happy as hell to see Michaell's daughter get a big chunk of his estate. (And since Peny died first, leaving everything to Michaell before Jack, how about a hummungous amount from both wills.)

And Jach didn't tell the police about the daughter. They were all trying to pretend her out of existence. What loving adults would ever perpetrate this kind of situation?

Jade

[This message has been edited by Jade (edited 10-20-2001).]

There's an old, ice-cold American Princes pearl that goes: "Feed your miserable, sexually manipulated, amoral yuppie hack FOUR mouth-watering pats of butter each day -- and you'll collect ALL the life insurance *long* before you suffer from unsightly personal dryness. ".

Republican Party, eh? They've got enough spare scratch that a greed-driven 'hit' on Jach would be... uh: damned unlikely.

From Peny -- to Michaell -- to Jach and *no one* else -- with Jachzaris most "solemnly sugGAE--Sting" a death pact late last Fall to a frightened, confused, and grief paniced Piscen Michaell North?

I can just see it.

Steve

quote:

---

Jach is a co-trustee with Dennis Durban. Jach is not to serve as sole trustee and is not to participate in any decisions concerning discretionary distributions to himself. (Page 9 on both wills)

"Discretionary" would be distribution of principle

---

In my best Church Lady voice: "Weeeeeeeeeeeell -- how conveeeeeeenient! Should wee Jachy be hit by -- now building -- Force 12 legal tsunamis -- what better financial protection?

Whoooooo-o could have come up with such a brilliant, though CLASSICLY Gemini-shallow scheme? Could it be -- JACHZARIS?!!!!"

Oh shit!

Remember smart shoppers -- when you DIE: you're completely pennyless -- with only only 'after game locker room' stories to show for your whole damn lifetime. And you *can't* lie.

Steve

I wonder what happens legally in the case where a daughter has been given up for adoption by a father. I, too, would love to see Michaell's daughter receive money from all of this nonsense. My guess though is that they dotted every I and crossed every T to try to prevent this from happening.

I'm not going to read too much into the co-trustee aspect of the trust at this point. Estate planning can get very complicated and there are often motivations for doing weird things because of subtleties in the tax code, etc.

Thanks for the research.

Michaell's daughter was adopted by someone else, allegedly at Peny's insistance. Therefore she has no right to a claim in Michaell's estate.

It would seem ethical and decent though, for Jach to provide for her in some way nevertheless.

It's hard to ignore the cult-like behavior here, given that Jach also allegedly cut off all ties with his family for 30 odd years, reportedly not even attending his parent's funerals. Word has it that he's been making attempts to reunite with his siblings now.

Interesting if it's true that all of a sudden he's interested in his family again, now that Peny is gone.

What kind of a woman would insist that her husband abandon his family and children? Peny is the stuff horror novels are written of.

Katie

quote:

---

I'm not going to read too much into the co-trustee aspect of the trust at this point.

---

What I wonder about most is, "not to participate in any decisions concerning discretionary distributions to himself." Seems very limiting. This phrase applied in both wills to whomever ended up as beneficiary.

quote:

---

It would seem ethical and decent though, for Jach to provide for her in some way nevertheless.

---

Yeah, would have seemed ehtical and decent for MIchaell to do it. I do not get how anyone cuts off feelings for a child born to them, even more so when the parents were married.

It's bizarre that a child can be subjected to permanent legal changes about her/his relationship and status in connection with a biological parent. You obviously can't change the biological relationship.

Jade

You said: It would seem ethical and decent though, for Jach to provide for her in some way nevertheless.

I hope for this poor girl's sake that she doesn't have to rely on Jach's decency and ethicality.

quote:

---

I hope for this poor girl's sake that she doesn't have to rely on Jach's decency and ethicality.

---

I'll second that one!

Hello Everyone,

I was Yahooed by one of you a few days ago to alert me to your website. Although the news was utterly disappointing and maddening, I thank you for it. Yes, I too had studied Lazaris for years and did NOT follow my research instincts which asked 'what is the evidence and how good is the evidence?' Instead I asked myself, Was I too mundanely demanding about matters spiritual/metaphysical?

I pacified myself knowing that there is evidence for many of the personal growth/self-improvement methods Lazaris used. Example: the use of meditation and visualization to increase energy and to connect to positive creative powers and their underlying energies. Physicist Max Planck, the founder of quantum theory and Nobel recipient, regarded consciousness as fundamental, and matter as a derivative of consciousness. It has also been documented that our thoughts can affect other humans, and even plants.

But while Lazaris occasionally mentioned Psychologist Carl Jung or the Maslow hierarchy of needs, he did not give credit to authors when he should have, thus leaving the impression that many of the ideas he presented were his.

Naively, I was willing to overlook this because he presented his versions of personal growth so handily applicable to the non-scientific user. (Big mistake by me)

Other topics, such as the crystal material, he no doubt invented based on some facts which are as yet not understood. Example: Outside of Grindelwald, Switzerland, I came upon an exhibition of magnificent crystal formations which had been found more than 100 years ago when a quarry was created there. According to carefully documented records these crystal formations were found attached to the surface of the completely different rockformations. These crystals, now exhibited under glass, are huge, beautiful formations. Yet, when I saw them several years ago geologists were still puzzling over this phenomenon of nature. It appears that Lazaris took unexplained scientific observations and added a whole lot of fiction. Then C/S exploited this via their crystal business.

The Lazaris claims of Lemuria and Atlantis are probably a bit of mythology wildly embellished by him.(I enjoyed reading the post by Greg about this).
And his Saturday night Healings are highly suspect, to say the least, particularly in view of the apparent suffering of Peny North. (I have never seen this woman; but was puzzled by the discrepancy between Laz. adoration of her and the rude way she came across on their forum).

In 1994/5(?) when Laz. made such big ado about the astronomic constellation which allegedly occurred only once in 90,000 years or so and when 'the Vortex opened', I had serious doubts. But at that time I was consumed with nursecaring my dying husband and my invalid mother. I did not have time to research this. Surely such a rare constellation would not have escaped the atronomers of the world. Did any of you investigate this? I would be interested to know.

Again, Thanks for the exposure and for the evidence you submitted. But even though we have been had by a cosmic imposter who 'has this thing about honesty', let us
not become total cynics. I wonder if his behavior is of criminal or of progressive neurological desease origin. It amounts to a betrayal of the worst kind.

There are other, sounder ways for spiritual growth. Perhaps we can help each other find them.
Regards,

Sanella

I'm glad you were not offended by that scathing anonymous email and glad you decided to share your thoughts here.

quote:

---

In 1994/5(?) when Laz. made such big ado about the astronomic constellation which allegedly occurred only once in 90,000 years or so and when 'the Vortex opened', I had serious doubts. But at that time I was consumed with nursecaring my dying husband and my invalid mother. I did not have time to research this. Surely such a rare constellation would not have escaped the atronomers of the world. Did any of you investigate this? I would be interested to know.

---

I think that was 1993. I phoned my local (big city) planetarium close to April 23, and the person I talked to didn't know anything about any astronomical event occuring around that time. Altho that person was not one of the astronomers, I got the impression that she was versed in celestial happenings. That puzzled me at the time, but of course I dismissed it as material vs. spiritual.

quote:

---

I wonder if his behavior is of criminal or of progressive neurological desease origin.

---

Yes, I was wondering if Jach was schizophrenic or "suffering" from delusional (paranoid) disorder! Anybody out there a psychologist or psychiatist? The Three Faces of Jach -- the teddy bear, the ballistic, and the one who broadcasts voices.

Thanks for coming in, Sanella!

Susan

Welcome! Thanks for adding your thoughts to the message board. It is truly a pleasure and a joy!! Oh yess!!! Indeed!!!

OOOOOOPPPSSS!!!

Sorry, I just had a flashback!

I'm on the run but wanted to say "hi", it's nice to meet you.

Welcome to our little "how the hell did we get so hoodwinked?" forum!

You said: . Yes, I too had studied Lazaris for years and did NOT follow my research instincts which asked 'what is the evidence and how good is the evidence?

I can't believe how I happened to drop my usual skepticism when dealing with Lazaris. I introduced myself to the material at a very vulnerable time in my life where I think I was wide open to be taken in by most anything that demonstrated any type of "love" and "technique" for bootstrapping myself out of where I was. At the time, there wasn't the time or energy to ask a whole lot of questions. I quickly became hooked. By the time I was functioning from a less vulnerable level, Lazaris had slipped into trustworthiness without me ever doing any research. Once trusted, It was also easy to sweep any ongoing inconsistencies under the rug. Having a scientific background, I was faced with my share of inconsistencies whenever he delved shallowly and inaccurately into scientific topics. I always gave him the benefit of the doubt by somehow justifying the inaccuracy. For example, I might think he was just speaking metaphorically.

You said: There are other, sounder ways for spiritual growth.

I agree. Since finding this site in July, I have been able to continue on my own spiritual path. My usual skepticism has been brought back and enhanced by what I have learned on this site (not just about Lazaris, but cults in general). It sure makes finding a spiritual path more challenging when your eyes are fully open. While more challenging, I think the results will ultimately be far more rewarding.

quote:

---

In 1994/5(?) when Laz. made such big ado about the astronomic constellation which
allegedly occurred only once in 90,000 years or so and when 'the Vortex opened', I had
serious doubts.

---

The domed ceiling of the Temple at Dendera in Egypt displays the the constellations as they would have been 90,000 years ago circa 1994. A new ceiling was reconstructed to replicate the original. It is assumed that a significant event is related to the astrological formation.

Possibly Jach got his "90,000 years" idea from reading about this temple. When I was a believer, I looked at some new (to me) information similar to J/L's as a sort of validation of what J/L said. I did this numerous times -- validating what I'd heard from "Lazaris," the trusted authority in my eyes, when actually Jach had just co-opted information that was available to anyone.

Glad to have you posting here.

Jade

I admit, I laughed out loud and many times after, when I read the part in the will about the Republican Party. It is just so damned funny to me. It proves that the RNC is NOT filled with all Christian Fundamentalists after all. The bit about "all tangible property"...does that mean that all the crystals will be shipped to Newt Gingrich? LOL. Can you just imagine the look on his face to recieve a box filled with... crystal SKULLS?

Katie, you said: [[Michaell's daughter was adopted by someone else, allegedly at Peny's insistance. Therefore she has no right to a claim in Michaell's estate.]]]

The most horrifying thing of all is the abandonment of his daughter. As a parent, when I read this and think that it is just nearly impossible to outright leave your child. So, I have to wonder, is it possible that M's ex re-married and her new husband sought to adopt the child? Not that it means M was any less slimy to have abandonned the child, but to think that he put her up for adoption outright...what the hell is that all about? If that is true, then the mother needs to be in question, too.

Unless, is it possible that the child was somehow incapacitated and M and his ex decided they could not provide for her as well as another family could. Still, this would be dereliction of duty, but I do know of a situation where the mother felt she was incapable of handling her severely mentally retarded son, so she "gave" him to someone who could care for him. I am not sure if she still has contact with them or not.

It would be interesting to know why he so deliberately sought to exclude her.

[[[[[Interesting if it's true that all of a sudden he's interested in his family again, now that Peny is gone.

What kind of a woman would insist that her husband abandon his family and children? Peny is the stuff horror novels are written of.]]]]

I really would love to know the dynamic. It would seem Penny was that self-absorbed that she would insist upon total devotion at the expense of anyone else. But to go so far as to tell a person they had to slice off their daughter...this is compelling. How can we find out the truth of this? Are adoption papers available to the public?

Normally, I would say that even if the papers are available, I would let the family keep it private, but this is the sort of thing which points to fraud. But, I want the facts in total before I conclude. Divorces are just way too messy at times to be able to say we can figure it all out with only part of the picture.

Back to the RNC, frankly, while I think it is immensely funny...as if there aren't other charities which could really use that amount of moolah and which can't raise it as well as the RNC already can, they were hard core Republicans and they believed in the message, so I can't see it as any different than tithing to a church. Here is clear evidence that they were actually willing to give to something they believed in other than themselves (s).

But, what about Jennifer and Barbara and all the other man-servants? Were they left even any crystals? Are they provided for so that if Jackie kicks, they can at least stay in the house WITHOUT then having to assume the mortgage (if there is one) and the expenses? Is there provision for the upkeep of the Manor?

Pippa

Welcome back!

Katie may be able to provide more details, but I believe that Michael's daughter was given up for adoption to his ex. As far as we know, there was nothing wrong with the child. Further, it wasn't done for lack of $$$. As a mater of fact, it is well established speculation that Michaell may have been sought after by Jach/Lazaris because he could provide some financial backing in the lean years.

As far as giving to the RNC, I find it absolutely unbelievable that a person with any type of spiritual focus would give ALL of their money to the RNC. I don't care how much they believed in the cause (which apparently they did once they had money -- they used to be left-wingers), there are so many other more deserving causes. Also, note that the money is only given in the case Jach dies also. Thus, the gift to the RNC really is not a true act of giving -- the money had to go somewhere. In my mind, it is a slap in the face to all those they knew and/or to all of the valid charities out there. The only thing it shows is their true colors.

[[[[Also, note that the money is only given in the case Jach dies also. Thus, the gift to the RNC really is not a true act of giving -- the money had to go somewhere. In my mind, it is a slap in the face to all those they knew and/or to all of the valid charities out there. The only thing it shows is their true colors.]]]

Yes, I see your point about it not being an act of giving out of belief since they didn't donate it outright; only in the case of Jack kicking. I hadn't thought of it that way initially, but I think you're right.

What I was reacting to was the notion that anyone really has the right to insist who gives their money to whom. I don't have issue with them choosing the RNC; this is entirely their perrogative. As to your view that there are many other organizations which "deserve" the money more: I am uncomfortable with this assertion. There may be thousands of organizations which might not have the wherewithal to raise large sums of money such as the RNC has, and so could "use" the money more, okay, but as to the inherent worth of one organization over another, from the perspective of those who give to the RNC, they might view their money well-invested/well-donated because giving to the RNC means they are supporting people who might be in a position to make laws or deconstruct laws upon which the giver places great value.

What I am getting at is that it is chaffing me that there is this assumption that the RNC is unworthy. It is Penny and Michael's usage of it as a way out of being truly generous which is unworthy. They could have left their money to the DNC, the Methodist Church, the NEA, or the SPCA and it would still be the same: avoidance of giving to the people who supported them the most intimately.

That is a very bizarre thing. I am total agreement with you about the shocking finger in the eye this gives to the people who worked for them for years, as their servants, essentially. Unless they somehow provided for people like Jennifer and Barbara in a sort of under-the-table way so as to avoid probate and estate taxes, which is entirely possible given that Penny clearly knew she was critically ill, I am just stunned that even P & M could be so cold as to leave nothing to the people who took care of them and were considered friends for all those years.

Amazing.

Thanks for the welcome back, btw.

Pippa

I understand your point about giving to the RNC. However, I stand by my assertion that there are far more deserving causes. That is simply my opinion based on judgement and I understand how others may feel differently. I'm also not saying that someone is wrong for giving to the RNC. It just seems to be about one of the last causes I would expect someone who is the queen of spiritual mapmakers to choose as THE cause.

Michaell's daughter would be a much more worthy beneficiary than the RNC, no matter what the circumstances were in their estrangement. As would the loyal servants in Orlando, of course.

Yes, I agree with you. It is crazy to me that he would cut her off like that, and Craig's point about how they used the RNC for a dumping ground of their cash rather than to give to their staff and family is well taken.

Add to that, btw, the fact that until you and Katie and others in here uncovered the fact that M even HAD a daughter, none of us little peons in the fold of FOLs ever even had a clue he had a kid, much less a former wife. It just always seems to get weirder with these people. All the time Penny blabbing on about how kids should be allowed to divorce their parents...

Do you know if adoption papers are made public? It would be very interesting to see the circumstances around his abandonment of her. For the sake of fairness, there might have been a very legitimate reason. I can't think of any myself, but I suppose there is the chance that there is one. I won't hold my breath, though.

Was it in Michigan that he gave her up? Who adopted her? Her natural mother's new man? Where was the mother in all this? Was she deceased?

It would be great if someone could talk to Michaell's ex-wife. I'm half thinking of tracking her down. Does anyone know if divorce agreements are made public?

That is a good idea. Also, what about trying to track down the daughter? I heard somewhere she was 8 when given up, but I am not sure of this. Does anyone know?

I'm on the run, but wanted to say that we should consider Michaell's daughter's right to privacy. I have a daughter who was abandoned by her biological father, and raised by Ted, the best father anyone could hope for. But, she is delicate on the issue of her "sperm donor" as we call him.

Maybe Michaell's daughter is aware of this site, we have indications that she is, and she can speak for herself.

Now, Michaell's ex-wife, or siblings, or parents, maybe they are more likely targets for a search and find mission.

I would prefer that we all take Michaell's daughter off any "fair game" list. Let her contact us, or forever hold her peace.

You are right about protecting the daughter's privacy. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.