textfiles-politics/conspiracyTextFiles/insur.txt

To:.......... All people who value freedom
From:........ Lance Rock, project leader
Subj:........ Games played on us by Insurances firms, Banks and others. 
Project X.... Information has been provided by
.
National Commodity & Barter Association
(Constitutional Taxation and Law)
Bob Huebner (602) 954-8885
.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$                                                         $$$$$$
$$$$$$         World's Oldest Organized Profession             $$$$$$
$$$$$$                                                         $$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
.
   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 showing 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-even where and how you park
your car.
  The insurance firms and banks are virtually partners in their many
financial 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 smallar 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-it is cheaper than fighting. This opens the door to more nuisance
claims for small amounts. The payoffs do not cost the insurnance company
since they use them as ammunition to justify higher premiums to their insured
customers.
   Then to top it all off, the 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 and the bahamas.
The offshore insurance firms are usually nothing more than a desk and a
secretary. The identity of the owners and directors is protected, so the
heads of the U.S. insurance firms can actually buy the reinsurance from their
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 cost 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
chuck of those excessive and abusive premiums (profits) with one of their
off-shore reinsurance firms.
  Of course, the foreign insurance companies seldom have to pay a claim.
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 oustanding claim, the 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 filling 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 lowers premiums. They have created
one of the most powerful financial bases imaginable. Their legislative 
lobby has caused the creation of rules which supposedly require
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.
  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 very informative book is one released in 1987
by Gary Fagg, "Crediit Life and Disability Insurance."
.
         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 extendes the term "sea
going vessel" to include all boats. What it does is to limit the amount of
damages payable to an amount equal to the value of the vessel.
The exceptioons would be for intentional damage or knowingly failing
to provide assitance agter 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 cooming 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 Dollars of coverage listed on
the face is reduced to the value of the vessel. The value of a boat
should have nothing to do with the premium one must pay for LIABILITY
coverage. But it does, because of the International Treaty which has 
been adoped as a law.
   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 insurance policy.
Those premiums for virtually non-existent liability insurance really 
do add up to a profitable bundle.
.
              MANATORY 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 beeb so
twisted around in our laws and courts that you can't even be certain that a
person whose record indicates something as blatant as 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 can not 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 financial harm to
others and not expect to have restrictions placed on your
subsequent actions. After 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.
   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 would
violate 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 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 comver?" That is especially true of laws-you can not judge
a law's purpose or legality by it 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 waht
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 illigal 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 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 the 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 not elaborate on or describe the actual
offense. Try explainning 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 an 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 just
are not aware of what is happening to the rules and laws. There
stock and trade is where to look it up and how to follow the procedures
(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 have to contend
with.
  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 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
to 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 no 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 rule to circumvent
the Constitutional restrictions and Unalienable Rights of the peoople. 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
questions 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 quandry trying to understand why a higher
court refuse 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
recommendationsas to which cases the judges should consider. Because of
this procedure, these clerks are in highly influencial 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 jurist 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.
.
AN ALTERNATIVE TO LIABILITY INSURANCE
.
  Many states are pushing the so-called "Mandatory Insurance" rule
in an effort to curtail the numerous uninsured motorist on the streets.
There is nothing wrong with a person wanting to be protected from financial
loss if they are stuck 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 everytime we 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. 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 Act. Some
states have such insurance provisions known as "NO FAULT" insurance.
With "No-Fault," the insured is paid or reimbursed by his own insurance
company. Unless the damage was done intentionally, it doesn't make any
financial difference who was in the wrong. If the other guy has not
purchased insurance coverage for himself, he cannot collect. Insurance
companies do not like "No-Fault" since it does not give them time to play
with the money once a claim is made-they have to pay instead of dragging
their feet for a year or two while they carry the money on their books
and profit from investing it.
    The only problem with this is that people who are uninsured will often 
require medical treatment and that could be costly. The SOLUTION is to do
an actuarial study of the medical cost and property damage claims 
(other than the damages to the vehicles). Divide that figure by the number
of gallons of gasoline and motor vehicle diesel fuel sold in the
states, 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 ridk" 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.
   So the government does not get into the insurance business, the 
premiums paid at the pump should be devided up among various insurance
companies according to the percentage of suppliemental coverage they are
selling. They would pay claims to hospitals and damaged property owners
accordingly.
   Today, when a person has four cars, he has to buy liability coverage
on all four vehicles, even through he can only drive one at a time. 
Some of his vehicles, even though he can only drive one. 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 cost.
But the basic cost of medical coverage would come from the money he
aid for gasoline-the pump insurance premium!
  People will be free to travel without the bureaucrats trying to
convince them that they can not 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.
.
.          In order to give you clear examples of how we the
.          people are being tricked we have print enough we hope
.          to encourage you to find out more. This is our country.
.          This material came from Chapter Nine in
.
.          "Break the Rules and Win written by J.Jay Evenson"
.
.          Want to join us?  Want to protect your family?
.          Want to learn how much power knowing your rights
.          can give you? Want to learn why you are probably
.          not required to File Income tax? (This one piece 
.          of knowledge could save you thousands of dollars)
.          Want to know how to make your son Draft Proof!
.          (This could save many lives)! Want to find out more?
.          Call us today.
.
.          Project X is sponsored by
.          National Commodity & Barter Association
.          **  Constitutional Taxation and Law  **
.          Bob Huebner (602) 954-8885
.
.          Let us ask you a question? Was this material valuable
.          to you?  We are looking for special people out there with
.          computers and communications. If you would like to be
.          one of our special friends please upload the file
.          ProjectX.arc to ten bulletin boards. If you use PC-Pursuit
.          please include other states. Send us your name, mailing
.          address, telephone number and a listing of the boards you
.          uploaded to. We have a surprize for you!!
.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253