Time: Mon Dec 15 06:21:12 1997
To: repub-d@u.washington.edu
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: auto insurance
Cc: 
Bcc: sls
References: <3.0.3.16.19971214024048.3f87b298@pop.primenet.com>

Repetition is the key to learning.
The State cannot "compel" you to enter a contract,
unless it has a controlling legal interest in
the property in question.  If it has no legal
interest in the property in question, then it
cannot compel you to enter into ANY insurance
contracts.  Under the common law, the theory 
of liability is very well developed.  If someone
causes an accident, through negligence, or
intentional damage, the operator is liable.
Whether that operator has his/her own insurance
to indemnify himself, is another question
entirely, quite apart from the question of
liability.  Okay?  Liability determines who pays
in an automobile collision;  insurance companies
are third parties who were not involved in the
accident.  Under the common law, the insurance
companies are actually not parties to the action.
You don't insure your paper clips, do you?  But,
if you attach a rubber band, and launch that
paper clip at someone, it could destroy someone's
eye.  Here, the State has no legal interest in
your paper clips (at least, I don't think so).

/s/ Paul Mitchell,
Candidate for Congress
http://supremelaw.com



At 11:13 PM 12/14/97 -0800, you wrote:
>On Sun, 14 Dec 1997, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>
>> You're missing the point.  The State has
>> the controlling legal interest in any car
>> or truck which is registered.  This legal
>> interest must be indemnified.  There is
>> no other legal basis for mandatory insurance.
>
>I'm missing the point?  You are reiterating what I said below.
>
>> Without that legal interest, the operator
>> is simply liable for the damages, using
>> the common law to resolve any disputes,
>> whether or not the operator has insurance.
>
>
>
      

Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail