The Unsorted BBS Collection

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ The Unsorted BBS Collection / thegreatunsorted.tar / thegreatunsorted / misc / potcaai < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-06-29 | 27.3 KB | 517 lines

THE PROFIT OF TRAFFIC COURTS AND AUTO INSURANCE Some years ago a car was stolen, and when it was recovered by the police, they issued the owner a ticket for leaving the key in the ignition. In other words, for every crime that is committed there may be another crime manufactured by the legislature. Maybe the legislature will pass a law making it a crime to leave your house unlocked. Then when something is stolen from your house, you will be guilty of a crime---failure to secure your property. Why should the citizen even report the theft if he is going to be hassled by the police? Oh, the insurance company needs the report. In this class of crimes (?) the real party of interest is the insurance company. It is the insurance company that wants you to remove your keys from the car and lock your house. They are the ones who stand to lose profits from your lack of an act, and therefore they want you punished when you fail to perform. Such legislation is the using of the police powers of a state to enforce private interests (decreasing claims and increasing profits of the insurance companies). The traffic courts provide a further example of government protecting private interests. Who cares if a person speeds down the road, especially if that person is in the only vehicle on the road? If we are home and asleep, do we really care? However, statistics tell us that speed kills, and if so, speed causes accidents, and accidents cause claims at the insurance windows. Claims at the insurance windows cause an increase in operating costs and, therefore, a decrease in profits. The law of merchants has crept in upon us and taken our inalienable rights from us, subjecting us to an alien jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, most citizens have voluntarily accepted this system of police state tyranny. Earlier in our history, we had a constitution, law, order, freedom of action, and a lifestyle somewhat different from what we see in our society today. As an example let's look at the traffic code to illustrate how we have enveloped ourselves in Polish-style police state tyranny in the name of so called law and order. We begin with the time when there were no traffic laws. Traffic or movement on roads, trails, or highways preceded traffic codes. Whether on foot, in wagons, on horseback, carriage, or stagecoach--there was traffic. In all human endeavor there are bound to be mishaps. When our common law was in use, the problem with affixing fault without any statutory law was difficult because there was no law against speeding, no stop signs, or pedestrian crosswalks. When a loss occurred, a long common law litigation was necessary to determine liability and assess damages to the injured party. With the advent of the horseless carriage, we began to see the proliferation of traffic law and regulation. As regulation increased, the average person shifted his status "at" law, to equity by entering into a quasi-contract through the use of the drivers license. Through the use of licenses and permits the age-old rivalry of the equity courts and the common law courts took a decided turn to equity by statute. And the death of the Common law began. Eighty years later, we find the common law in use only in major crimes, and the grand jury, for all practical purposes, has been abolished. If our Constitution is based upon the common law, and the grand jury is a fixed right pursuant to the Bill of Rights, how can government arbitrarily eliminate the it? Especially since: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. How, then, can any state abrogate the entire common law by statute? Simply by coercing everyone to waive their common law rights under the Constitution by getting them to volunteer into equity jurisdiction through the use of contracts. The state simply licenses everybody, inducing them to accept a privilege in place of rights. No foreign power, by force of arms or ideology, has enslaved us. Our lack of understanding of our Constitution and common law heritage, and ignorance of or willingness to obey the Ten Commandments has enslaved us to this Civil law Jurisdiction. But how this came about is an interesting story. Let's go back in time to the turn of the century when our common law was in use and visualize this scene. A wagon loaded with mining supplies is traveling northbound from Boise to Idaho City. A surrey, loaded with a family of six, is traveling south from Idaho City to Boise. When approaching each other, the vehicles collide head-on, killing three horses and injuring three children in the surrey. The driver of the wagon is killed. The property damage is hundreds of dollars. Who sues whom and for how much? Who was the party damaged? Was the driver of the wagon drunk? Was the driver of the surrey speeding? Who was negligent? Is there a third party insurance company involved in the action? At the common law, this case would be very costly in terms of time and money to litigate. But both parties have rights and the issue must be litigated in the courts and a jury must decide the law as well as the facts in this case. Then the automobile appeared on the scene and the insurance companies saw a way to make billions in premiums, if they could keep claims at a low level. As more cars appeared on the roads, accidents increased, and losses to insurance companies increased. Someone somewhere in the insurance business said, "We are having a lot of claims on these automobiles--how can we cut costs and increase profits." One of the biggest problems was of that determining liability in accidents, as there were no rules of the road and only common sense prevailed. Without written rules and regulations it was very difficult to affix responsibility. For example: 1. Was anyone speeding? There were no speeding laws. 2. Was anyone drinking or drunk? There were no laws against drinking and driving. 3. Who crossed the center line? There were no laws telling either driver which side of the road he should be driving. 4. Did the drivers have insurance? There were no laws compelling a driver to have insurance. 5. Were the drivers licensed? There were no licensing laws. Now we begin to see the alleged need for traffic laws. Who really needed the traffic laws? The courts and the insurance companies, of course! The insurance companies needed traffic laws for economic reasons and the courts needed them to expedite cases in litigation. Whether the traveling public needs traffic laws for their health, safety, or protection was not, nor would it ever be the prime motivating factor in the passing of traffic or any other law. Mercantile interests proposed new laws through various governmental agencies, and lobbyists and the legislature were duped into believing it was in the best interest of the general welfare of the citizenry, and the desires of private interests became statutory law. For the sake of discussion, let's go into the boardroom of a fictitious insurance company called Ripmeoff, Inc., and listen in as they discuss the surrey-wagon accident. The Chairman of the Board, Morrice Profitsmuch, calls the meeting to order and announces, "The purpose of this meeting is to discuss ways to increase profits and cut costs." The chair recognizes Albert Suckmein. Albert begins by suggesting that the company go all out to sell collision, public liability and property damage insurance to everyone who owns a vehicle. He points out that just selling insurance to business highly limits sales, and if we expand this business to the general public, profits could be staggering. It will increase sales and revenue, and therefore profits will rise. But the question, gentlemen, is how can we convince ordinary citizens to buy this kind of business insurance? In the past insurance has always been applied to risks in business not to individuals. For the answer to that question let's examine a recent accident. There was a head-on collision last year between a wagon insured by Suckeraday Insurance Co. and an individual insured by our company . After the case was settled, the court found the individual who was driving the surrey guilty of negligence, and he couldn't pay the damages. We will use this scare tactic, with newspaper adds showing the artist's conception of the wreck and the family farm being seized by the sheriff while the wife and kids stand by crying as their home is taken from them. It will be dynamite. A new growth industry will develop within the insurance industry. Ordinary people will be lining up to buy insurance on their cars. The year 1900 will go down in history as the year of the auto insurance policy. And we all know that these vehicle accidents are so rare that we will hardly ever pay over a claim. Boys, I tell you, we will make a killing." Mr. Profitsmuch takes a vote. Everyone is excited about the future of the auto insurance policy. Sales climb, agents abound, and the public buys insurance to protect them from loss of their farms and property. For only a small premium, they get all the protection they can pay for. 1910 BOARD MEETING---The chairman of the board, Mr. Profitsmuch, begins by saying, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits. The chair recognizes Andrew W. Sawbucks. Andrew-- Sawbucks rises to speak and addresses the board as follows: "Our biggest problem with costs is claims. Our losses to claims is staggering. We never dreamed there would be so many automobiles and accidents. People are simply too reckless and careless. This is especially true of accidents that occur at intersections. I think what we need is a method to regulate traffic at intersections. If we could force vehicles going one way (for example east and west) to yield to vehicles going the other way (north and south), we could readily determine liability. "I think what we need is a stop sign law. Here is how it would work. We would put up signs at busy intersections that say STOP. If an accident occurs at this intersection, all we have to do to establish who is at fault is look at who failed to stop. This will fix liability and save money in costly litigation. I propose we send lobbyists to the various state legislatures to sell them the idea of a system of traffic regulations, such as STOP signs, driving on only one side of the road, etc. We should be able to sell the idea because all accidents affect a public interest, and the regulation of traffic will make it safer for everyone on the roads. "We should proceed cautiously, but in the name of health, safety, and welfare of the people. This will at first seem like regulation and regimentation, and may elicit reactionary hostility by certain Constitutionalists who will claim that these laws violate their rights. However, these regulations are so slight that the majority of the people should go along with the idea, especially in the cities. Initially there will be resistance to applying these laws in the rural areas, but after a few generations resistance should decrease. Besides most will accept the rules and they will not be enforced as law. The regulations will only be used as evidence in court to establish fault when a loss or damage occurs. "Obviously, the board bought the plan and it was set in motion. Soon all states had driving laws. No mention of any loss of rights was mentioned. The insurance company has a large financial interest to protect, so the money they spend is spent to make more money. Since there is no financial interest in rights, there is seldom any resistance to these new rules and regulations. In the early days, these rules were not enforced as criminal statutes with pains and penalties because there were common law protections, and it did not appear that anyone had lost rights. When a loss or damage occurred, there was no loss of rights because the common law would simply use the statute as evidence to establish fault." 1920 BOARD MEETING---A meeting of the board of directors is called. The new chairman of the board is David Rockyfooler. He begins by saying, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits." John Squeezemdry is recognized and rises to address the board: "Our biggest problem is company jumpers and the repeated claims of some of our own policyholders, who have numerous accidents. Both have limited liability for their debts through our coverage. They drive carelessly and, as a result, there are too many accidents. I think that what we need is a record-keeping system among companies. This would give us the ability to refuse to insure unsafe drivers. At the current time if we cancel a person's policy, he simply goes to another company which has no knowledge of his poor driving ability. The cost of each company keeping such records is prohibitive. Therefore we need statutory authority for each state to keep track of drivers and their ability to drive, or lack thereof. We need everyone who has a policy to have a license. That way we will have at our disposal a person's driving record before we insure him. "To accomplish this we need some way to sell a licensing program to the states and our policyholders. Selling our policyholders on the idea will be easy as we can simply offer lower rates for those who obtain a license and apply higher rates to those who won't. The states will be a little harder to sell. We need to sell them the idea of safety. Each should have a drivers education program to insure that everyone who drives an automobile is competent to do so. Then the states can issue a license of competency. When they have tested those who have insurance policies it should reduce our claims, as all policyholders will be educated in the same rules of the road. "There may be some people who will complain about rights violations. But here again, no one should complain too much because of the financial savings to the insured. The states can claim that the purpose of this new statute is to provide safety for the people as well as lower insurance rates. No one will lose any rights because the new statutes only apply to insurance policyholders, and policyholders will have agreed, by contract, to give up their rights, and they won't even realize it!" 1930 BOARD MEETING:---David Rockyfooler begins by saying, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits. The chair recognizes Attorney Shrewdness." Mr Shrewdness rises and addresses the board: "All drivers should be licensed to drive. There are too many cases where people drive cars without licenses or insurance, and have accidents with those who do. This is causing a lot of expenses in court time and it is still difficult to get a settlement paid from an uninsured person. What we need is a mandatory licensing law and insurance so that all persons can be treated the same. Besides that, if there is mandatory insurance, just think of the new policyholders we will get. With so many new customers, we can reduce the cost even more. "The state will keep records on drivers, suspend driving privileges, keep poor risks off the road, and give us the means to identify poor risks and charge them more in premiums. We may even come up with an assigned risk program for these bad drivers. Another benefit is that all licensed drivers will be removed from their common law status to contract. They will no longer drive as a matter of right, but of privilege. This will expedite court proceedings. There will no longer be a need to try traffic cases at law. Traffic cases can be tried in summary proceedings just like lawyers are tried in summary process when charged with misconduct in practice." The board was ecstatic with the new mandatory insurance and licensing proposal. They quickly approved the plan and sent their lobbyists to the legislatures, who promoted the new licensing laws to the people. The people loved it because their insurance rates went down. Besides, having a driver's license became sot of a status symbol. 1940 BOARD MEETING---The new chairman, Paul Worberger, called the meeting to order and began by saying that he called this meeting in order to cut costs and raise profits. A board member rises and says that he thinks "we need stringent enforcement of the traffic laws. If people were harassed by a police force and made to pay a penalty every time they broke the traffic code, it should make them more careful, which should, in turn, reduce claims against the company and therefore increase profits. Besides, such a program should be easy to sell the states as they will get revenue from all of the violations of the traffic code. The states always need money and their income from this source would be unlimited as the more violations they cite the more money they make. We can sell it as a self-supporting program to decrease traffic accidents which will benefit the general welfare of the public at large. "Statistically when a driver breaks one of the rules, we know that he is three times more likely to have an accident, and our claims window is three times more vulnerable. We need policemen out on the streets, writing tickets and enforcing our traffic laws in the same way they would enforce any law. "This will be popular with the people. We will tell them we are going to make the streets and highways safer for them. To sell the new law and order program, we will show the people the accidents that are particularly gruesome, just like we do when we sell them a life insurance policy in their living rooms. We will support prosecutors running for office on platforms of "law and order." Soon we will have the people obeying traffic laws just like any other law. They will fear punishment and loss of property and will drive more carefully. This will cut our claims and increase profits." 1950 BOARD MEETING---The new chairman of the board is Harold Stratison and he calls the meeting to order. He says "we need ways to cut costs and increase profits." An old time board member, a lawyer and ex-prosecutor, rises and begins by saying: "I think what we need is a streamlined court procedure for dealing with this enormous load of traffic crime. The courts are plugged up with the enormous load of cases. The people are angry with the slow process of their cases. A man goes to court and is away from his job all day. If he pleads not guilty, the costs get way out of hand. What is even worse is that there are too many cases being thrown out of court or dismissed without a judicial determination, especially where a citation was issued in a case where an accident has occurred. That adds to the later costs of litigation. "We need an equity proceeding in executive police court chancery to adjudicate these traffic cases. When executive summary proceedings are held, the time it takes for each case can be reduced to seconds for guilty pleas and minutes for not guilty pleas. Trials need not be by jury in equity, but I think we should keep the jury process for good public relations. On the surface it will appear as if these are common law courts and juries. "This will be popular with the people, popular with the courts, and profitable, both for the claims window of our company and also for the taxing districts. Rights will not be an issue since there will not be any Constitutional questions raised. Now that everyone has a drivers' license, they all drive under privilege in equity--not at law by right. This proposal will speed up justice, create more revenue for courts and taxing districts, cut our costs at our claims window, and be popular with the people." The board approved overwhelmingly. 1960 We need driver's education. A meeting of the board of directors is called. The new chairman of the board is John D. Doubletalk. He calls the meeting to order and says, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits." A middle-aged man, an ex-school teacher and educator, rises and says: "The automobile is no longer just a novelty or a toy--it is a necessity. Our greatest losses at our claims window are now caused by the young driver, between the ages of 16 and 25 years of age. I propose a propaganda campaign aimed at putting driver's education into every high school in the country as a mandatory subject on an equal footing with math, English, and civics. Here is how the program will cut costs and increase profits. In order for a young person to get a drivers license, he must enroll in the mandatory drivers education program. He must buy insurance and pass the course. We will educate his young mind to the need for insurance at the same time we sign him up for the equity jurisdiction. We will, in short, have the perfect equity subject in total admiralty jurisdiction. Within a generation, no one will even bring up the subject of rights in the traffic courts. We will teach him that to change lanes without signaling will cost him a $40.00 fine. The subject of corpus delicti, or loss of life, liberty, and property at law, will be an acronym. The new equity man will always react to law in a positive way. When he breaks a rule, he will always plead guilty because he has been taught to know and fear the law and rules. "The citizen will always know when he is guilty. He will no longer have to be concerned with archaic old common law rules like "intent", "corpus delicti," "victim," "loss," "property," or other complicated rules that cloud the facts. When he fails to register his car, the officer gives him a ticket and he knows he is guilty because the law tells him so. The best way for us to increase profits and cut costs is to educate and create our own customers from their youth." The board was wildly enthusiastic and adopted the educator's proposals. 1970: We need laws to insure safer products. A meeting of the board of directors is called. The new chairman of the board is Ralph Nager. He calls the meeting to order and says: "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to increase profits and cut costs." A young man jumped to his feet and said that: "The losses suffered by our claims window can be traced directly to unsafe products. Some of these products are unsafe at any speed. Let me give you an example of these unsafe products that cost us profits and add to our claims losses. Take the seat belt for example. When seat belts are used by passengers, our losses to claims are cut in half. I propose that we push for consumer protection laws so that we can control the product that people buy. If we control the product as well as the use of the product, it will cut costs and increase profits." The board was ecstatic. 1980: We need mandatory insurance. A meeting of the board is called. The new chairman is John V. Eggars.?????? He calls the meeting to order and says, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits." A young salesman, new to the board, address the group and says that: "Many people drive on our roads who are not insured. They drive an old car worth $100.00, and when they have an accident, they always hit a Porsche. Then, without any insurance, they can't pay the damages and we end up paying for the Porsche. I think we need a law that requires every driver to carry insurance. This will not cut down on claims, but it will guarantee that every car is paying a premium. This will increase sales. It will cut losses at the claims window and increase profits. The people will love it because it will be more fair to the insured. They will reason that if they have to have insurance, why shouldn't everyone?" The board was ecstatic. 1990: We need to ban all hazards. A meeting of the board of directors is called. The new chairman of the board is Jimmy Cartier??????? He calls the meeting to order and says, "I've called this meeting to discuss ways for us to cut costs and increase profits." A dour, sober, old man rises and addresses the meeting eloquently by saying: "For 90 years now, we have been addressing the problem of increasing profits and cutting costs to the insurance industry. I've held my peace for 90 years, and now I have the ultimate solution. It's plain that insurance is for the health, safety, and welfare of the people. It's plain that we, here in the insurance business, are only interested in the security of the people and their happiness. It's plain that we want to give them air without pollution, cars without accidents or injury, and eternal life. And for all of these blessings we only want a small premium. And for this small premium, we will grant you limited liability to remove from you any responsibility for your actions. Today I propose the ultimate insurance policy that will deliver to every policyholder total protection from every hazard imaginable. I call it the "Padded Cell" policy. We pass a law that requires every person, natural or artificial, to buy this policy just like we do with auto insurance. We place the policyholder in a padded cell to protect him from falls, broken hips, and muggers. We put his car in storage so that he cannot be killed by a drunk driver. We close his factory to eliminate pollution. We take his guns to insure no suicide or accidental shootings. We filter the air into his cell to eliminate any pollutants. We prepare his food to eliminate cholesterol, sugar, white flour and other harmful products that could make him sick, which would make him very unhappy. We keep the policyholder away from any power tools or hobby crafts. This will prevent home accidents. Only sponge baths will be allowed to prevent falling in the bathtub. No more rides on airplanes to prevent death in a crash. No alcohol or any other dangerous drugs. No cigarettes--this will prevent lung cancer. In short, Gentlemen, we will eliminate every single possible hazard from our policyholders. We will collect the premiums and pay out nothing in claims. The people will love it because they are getting full coverage in limited liability and total security. No rights are involved because the policyholder is reduced from status to contract. We cannot lose because there will be no claims. Now all we have to do is determine the premiums." The board was ecstatic.