
                   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, ishow 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.

------------------------------------------------
(This file was found elsewhere on the Internet and uploaded to the
Patriot FTP site by S.P.I.R.A.L., the Society for the Protection of Individual Rights and Liberties. E-mail alex@spiral.org)
