Insurance Companies are great at playing the power game in the U.S. and around the world. They convinced everyone to be insurance conscious and have caused "laws" to be passed which supposedly require us to carry certain types of insurance. Even the age-old tradition of showering the bride and groom with rice has fallen victim to the demands and restrictions of the insurance company. Insurance coverage now dictates how, and even if, some of our traditional events will be conducted. Fireworks use and public displays, reunions in the public parks or even where and how you park your car are all subject to insurance guidelines.
The insurance firms, financial institutions and government are virtual partners in their many dealings. Bank loan customers are often obligated to purchase insurance through the bank's facilities. Insurance firms have done such a job building power bases that they have convinced city governments to pay millions of dollars in premiums when the city could easily be self-insured. Often the insurance carrier is smaller than the city government it insures, but it continues to collect excessive premiums.
When small harassment claims are made, instead of fighting them to set an example that unfounded claims will not be paid, they settle it for a few thousand dollars claiming it is cheaper than fighting (keeps incompetent lawyers in business). This opens the door to more nuisance claims for small amounts. The payoffs do not actually cost the insurance company since they use such payoffs as ammunition to justify higher premiums to their insured customers.
Then, to top it all off, these Power Masters take a big portion of the premiums collected and buy reinsurance from privately owned insurance companies located in tax haven nations such as Bermuda, the Bahamas and other Caribbean islands. The offshore insurance firms are usually nothing more than a desk, phone and a secretary. The identity of the owners and directors is confidential, so the CEO of a U.S. insurance firm can actually buy the reinsurance from his own offshore company. It is a justifiable cost of doing business and is then added to the premiums you pay for your car, house, the costs of your medical insurance and all the other things you want to protect against financial loss. Even your doctor must pass along his higher premiums for malpractice insurance by increasing his charges for office calls and operations. You can be certain the insurance carrier will "lay off" a big chunk of those excessive and abusive premiums (profits) with one of the off-shore reinsurance firms.
Of course, the foreign insurance companies seldom have to pay a claim. The base of the coverage they provide is so excessive as to be non-existent. If the real U.S. insurance company does have to fall back on the reinsurance firm for settlement of an outstanding claim, owners merely bankrupt the off-shore firm and start a new one. Same desk, different phone number and name. Since they are not covered by the multitude of insurance regulations requiring reserves, they have all their assets hidden so a filing of bankruptcy can be accomplished quickly and easily.
With all this power and money (tax free), the Power Masters go out and organize the people who pay the premiums and trick them into demanding that the state legislators put limits on the amount of damages a person can collect from an insurance claim. This is to offset some jury awards for millions of dollars as compensation for hurt feelings.
You can bet the insurance executives are not going to lose any sleep thinking about whether or not to pass along the savings to their customers in the form of lower premiums. They have created one of the most powerful financial bases imaginable. Their legislative lobby has caused the creation of regulations and rules which supposedly require you to buy insurance; laws which limit the amount of damages they can be ordered to pay by a jury; a means of sending money out of the country (beyond the tax collector's reach) and then loan it back to select firms and financial organizations with the stipulation that they help to sell even more insurance.
In 1988 Congress passed an enabling act to implement the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (and subsequently NAFTA) which clearly exempts insurance companies from "(B) any State law regulating or taxing the business of insurance."
If you have decided to take advantage of the current rule system and create an economic and political power base for yourself, then you must study the means used by the insurance industry.
A REAL UN-INSURANCE SCHEME
There is a provision in an International Treaty which is now the law of our land (Title 46, Section 183 of the U.S. Code). This limits the amount of liability which can be charged to the owners and operators of a "sea going vessel" in the event of an accident. Subsequent Federal law extends the term "sea going vessel" to include all boats, even on inland lakes. What it does is to limit the amount of damages payable to an amount equal to the value of the vessel. The exceptions would be for intentional damage or knowingly failing to provide assistance after a collision and thereby causing the death of someone.
Despite this specific limitation of liability, many boat owners run out and pay exorbitant annual insurance premiums for coverage which is supposed to amount to millions of dollars. The insurance firms love to see boat owners coming in the door. They only make a few stipulations: Your boat must be surveyed (appraised by an expert to establish a value); you pay the premium with the policy stipulation that despite the face value amount of coverage, all such insurance will be subject to international agreements.
Simply stated, the policy says the Million Dollar coverage listed on the face is reduced to the value of the vessel. The value of your boat should have nothing to do with the premium you pay for LIABILITY insurance. But it does, because of the Treaty which, according to our own Constitution becomes the law of the land.
Then, to compound matters, the insurance firms start loaning out money to marina operators with the stipulation that they "require" everyone using the marina or renting a slip for their boat or canoe, to carry a minimum $1 Million liability policy. Those premiums for virtually non-existent liability insurance really do add up to a profitable bundle.
Ripoff? Not really! Boat owners are adults and probably have better than average educations. They should be able to think and read. If they would stop memorizing baseball or football statistics and pay attention to the daily political and economic events, they would be way ahead. Who cares which red-headed short stop hit the most base hits in a single season? If people spent more time finding out what is going on in their own state legislature or town hall or even at the school board meetings, this nation would be in much better shape. Enjoy the football and baseball games. Watch them all, but don't clutter your mind with useless statistics. Unless you are going on a quiz show, those figures will not make or save you a single dollar.
For those who think they can get all the information they need from the newspaper and TV, remember this: Most reporters would rather be covering sports. Usually they are sports washouts who are assigned to cover such incidental news as political campaigns, the Nation's Capital, city hall and tax bills.
What you should do is to spend at least an hour or two a day scrutinizing some of the legislation that is being proposed, but that is virtually impossible for most of us. What you can do is to read everything which relates directly to you, your property, your taxes and your freedoms. You cannot blindly accept someone's version or "that's the way it is" philosophy of the news and expect to come out a winner in the power struggle. You can fight city hall -- you can beat city hall -- you can become city hall! Or, you can acquiesce to all the rules and become a slave.
MANDATORY INSURANCE--IT IS NOT!
Mandatory insurance? Don't you believe it! There is nothing mandatory about the so-called Mandatory Insurance laws your state may have on its books. It's another of the double-speak word games designed to trick people into surrendering their rights. The words and meanings have been so twisted around in our laws and courts that you can't even be certain that a person whose record indicates a "sex offender" ever did anything wrong.
You have a right to travel about freely by the most accepted means of transportation at your disposal. Obviously, if your car is unsafe you can be restrained from using it. If you cannot stop the car because of bad brakes, you are seriously endangering the health and safety of everyone on the streets and sidewalks.
To require you to show financial responsibility AFTER an accident is a perfectly valid law! You cannot do harm to others and not expect to have restrictions placed on your subsequent actions. If you have an accident, the court can order you to refrain from operating a motor vehicle until you have made satisfactory arrangements to correct the financial harm you have caused, or until a certain period of time has elapsed.
But, to require you to have insurance BEFORE you have been declared financially irresponsible --- BEFORE you can license your car (pay the taxes on it) --- BEFORE you can operate your car --- that is PRIOR RESTRAINT and violates the Constitutional Limits placed on government which requires Due Process of Law and mandates that everyone shall be considered innocent until proven guilty. You may never be involved in an accident for which you would be liable for damages. To enforce such a rule violates the basic precept of the Constitution. California courts struck down such efforts as being "in conflict with the Constitution" almost as fast as law enforcement officers tried to demand that drivers show proof of insurance.
Other states have the same law on their books, but are reluctant to try enforcing it except AFTER an accident. They want to keep this intimidating rule and hope it forces people to buy insurance. They are passing a rule off as a law and by doing so, weakening all real laws, the Constitution and the foundations of the entire nation.
The word MANDATORY in the title of the law (rule) does not mean a thing. Remember the old adage, "You can't judge a book by its cover?" That is especially true of laws --- you cannot judge a law's purpose or legality by its title. This rule was given a title the media could use to erroneously promulgate a myth of mandatory insurance. Then it was given a sub-title to further mislead the public. The sub-title usually reads "All vehicles required to have liability insurance." Following the Title and sub-title comes the body copy of the rule. That is what really counts. Titles do not mean a thing.
If you want to entitle a law "ANTI-CHILD ABUSE LAW" and then draft body copy to make it illegal to chew gum on Sunday, you can do it. If people do not challenge the basic authority of such a law, they can be arrested and jailed for chewing gum on Sunday. The court can agree to fine them only $1 and suspend sentence if they will plead guilty. The person who accepts such an offer and pleads guilty will then have a record of violating the CHILD ABUSE law.
If you think that is ridiculous you haven't been paying attention to some of the weird rules and harmful laws being foisted off on our unsuspecting legislators, the media and the ever harassed public. Some states have included urinating in public as a "Sex Offense." If a man pulls his car to the side of a road and relieves that extra cup of coffee or beer in the bushes, in the dark of night, and is seen by a police officer, he can be arrested. If he is intimidated enough to plead guilty to such a charge he will have a police record as a SEX OFFENDER. The court record will not elaborate on or describe the actual offense. Try explaining such a record to a cop who wants to know why you are parked so close to the school. Explain it to your boss when you are being checked out for a sensitive position within your firm.
Why doesn't your lawyer tell you all these things? You probably do not hire an attorney every time you get a ticket. Many people wait until they are obviously in serious trouble before they are willing to lay out money for legal advise. But, sometimes you can hire a lawyer and he still does not tell you --- either because he is not aware of some of the tricks being played with the law or he just wants the fee and you are not a big enough fish to cause him to do a lot of research for your defense. Most lawyers are not aware of what is happening to the rules and laws. Their stock in trade is knowing where to look it up and how to follow the procedure (rules) of the court. They cannot possibly KNOW all the laws and rules. If you really expect that of your attorney, you should go to your local law library and take a look at what lawyers must contend with everyday.
Even the judges don't always tell lawyers everything when they make a ruling or deny a petition. Attorneys have been preconditioned in law school and beyond to admit to the superior wisdom of the high court justices. Young lawyers are awestruck and will often try to defend an untenable position taken by a judge, simply because he does not know what else to do. The judges are lawyers and the recent law school graduates know that lawyers must stick together to maintain the mystique and dignity of their hard earned licenses to practice the law.
It would be nice if you could be handed an entire brief of case law to verify the information you are getting in this book, but that would make it too simple. There are a number of court rulings at various levels which will substantiate the differences between rules and laws. You will find them if you read very carefully, but the rulings are not obvious. If they were, this book would not have been published.
If all the lawyers knew about all the differences, the government bureaucrats and power brokers would not be able to use rules to circumvent the Constitutional restrictions and Unalienable Rights of the people. The Supreme Court of the United States is very adept at keeping the double-speak game going. If an appeal is taken to our highest court and the question is not phrased in a manner which would allow them to give a double-speak answer, the Court will refuse to hear the case and let the lower Court's decision stand. This is almost always interpreted to mean that the particular law or rule in question is Constitutionally valid. All it really means is that the question was not phrased in such a manner as to pin-down the Supreme Court Justices. (See Stare Decisis, Chapter 15).
Lawyers are constantly in a quandary trying to understand why a higher court refused to hear an appeal which they were certain was valid. The thousands of lawyers dropping out of the legal system each year is evidence that something is wrong. Young men and women do not usually spend years going to school to study such a venerable profession only to "drop out" just when they should be enjoying the rewards of hard work. They are dropping out because they feel the system sucks -- and that is because they do not understand the differences between rules and law.
The Supreme Court does not have to hear every case presented to it. There are a number of legal clerks working for the court and they make recommendations as to which cases the judges should consider. Because of this procedure, these clerks are in highly influential positions. If they see a case which would obviously warrant a ruling with which the Court's clerk does not agree because of some personal moral or political quirk, then the clerk will try to dissuade the jurists from considering it. If a case is brought to the Supreme Court with the wrong question (one which would most likely result in a decision contrary to the Control Rules) the clerk might urge the Jurists to REFUSE to hear it and thereby allow a lower court decision stand.
The most recent procedure is for the government to trick a person into filing an action (usually a TRO) when there is no immediate threat to their Rights. The government then takes the position that there are "compelling government interests" -- the keywords which say the other party "volunteered" -- and since the it is voluntary, the person cannot claim their Rights have been violated. Subsequently, when the question is tendered to the U.S. Supreme Court, the high court will refuse to hear the case. The unstated reason, "Constitutional Rights were not involved!"
AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIABILITY INSURANCE
Many states are pushing the so-called "Mandatory Insurance" rule in an effort to curtail the numerous uninsured motorists on the streets. There is nothing wrong with people wanting to be protected from financial loss if they are struck by some idiot driver, or even if they are the idiot drivers themselves.
Any thinking person will acknowledge that there is an ELEMENT OF RISK involved every time they get behind the wheel of a car and move it out onto the streets. The risk is clear and constant. Since we are obviously willing to take that risk, why shouldn't we buy insurance just to protect ourselves against financial loss and forget about trying to force everyone to buy a liability policy? If you want to protect yourself in amounts that you set, you pay the premium and let the rest of the world drive uninsured if that's what they want to do. A number of states do have this type of insurance law; NO-FAULT INSURANCE. Liability would only be considered when intentional damage is inflicted, similar to the Federal liability limitations on vessels and on industry via the Workman's Compensation Law.
The only problem with NO-FAULT is that people who are uninsured will often require medical treatment and that could be costly. While Florida and other states do not require liability insurance, they do require a person to insure themselves for medical coverage in the event of an accident and injury. The SOLUTION is to do an actuarial study of the medical costs and property damage claims (other than the damage to vehicles). Divide that figure by the number of gallons of gasoline and motor vehicle diesel fuel sold in the state, then add that amount (about 7 cents per gallon) to the price of the fuel at the pump.
A person who drives a big car will do more damage if involved in an accident than a person driving a small car. At the same time the big car will need more fuel and therefore pay more for the basic insurance coverage via the pump price.
Someone who drives 25,000 miles a year will be buying more gas and be more "at risk" than the person who just drives to church on Sunday --- and they pay the minimum insurance according to the amount of gasoline they use, when they buy it. A man who collects old cars will pay for insurance based on how much driving each car does (fuel used).
So the government does not get into the insurance business, the premiums paid at the pump could be divided up among the various insurance companies according to the percentage of supplemental coverage they are selling to the public. They would pay claims to hospitals and damaged (non-vehicle) property owners accordingly.
Today, when a person has four cars, he has to buy liability coverage on all four vehicles, even though he can only drive one at a time. Some of his vehicles might only be driven once a month. With this new method, he can buy insurance to protect his vehicles against a loss and insure himself with extended coverage for personal injury and medical costs. But the basic costs of accidental medical coverage would come from the money he paid for gasoline --- the pump insurance premium!
People will be free to travel without the bureaucrats trying to convince them that they cannot drive without insurance (prior restraint). They will no longer be gouged by insurance companies who charge for every vehicle. People who drive more would pay more. People who drive less would pay less.
Major opponents of such a plan are ambulance chasing lawyers who want the deep pocket insurance companies involved in every accident, and the insurance companies who, despite their protests that they only want to insure safe drivers, love to collect those excessive premiums.
