|
I AM NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE INSURANCE
UNTIL AFTER I HAVE BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT
CAUSING AT LEAST $700.00 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO ANOTHER VEHICLE PURSUANT TO RCW 46.29.060 TO WIT:
I demand that all Law Enforcement stop trafficking in INSURANCE CLAIMS in violation of the Washington State Criminal Profiteering Act RCW 9A.82.010(4)(DD) committed solely for the financial gain of Corrupt Washington State Bar Member Judges Retirement Fund’s by writing NO INSURANCE TICKETS to those who are NOT involved in ACCIDENT’S causing the minimum threshold of $700.00 worth of damage. See RCW 46.29.060 :
“RCW 46.29.060
Application of sections requiring deposit of security and suspensions for failure to deposit security. The provisions of this chapter, requiring deposit of security and suspensions for failure to deposit security, subject to certain exemptions, shall apply to the driver and owner of any vehicle of a type subject to registration under motor vehicle laws of this state which is in any manner involved in an accident within this state, which accident has resulted in bodily injury or death of any person or damage to the property of any one person to an apparent extent equal to or greater than the minimum amount established by rule adopted by the director The director shall adopt rules establishing the property damage threshold at which the provisions of this chapter apply with respect to the deposit of security and suspensions for failure to deposit security. Beginning October 1, 1987, the property damage threshold shall be five hundred dollars. The thresholds shall be revised when necessary, but not more frequently than every two years. The revisions shall only be for the purpose of recognizing economic changes as reflected by an inflationary index recommended by the office of financial management. The revisions shall be guided by the change in the index for the time period since the last revision and by the threshold established by the chief of the Washington state patrol for the filing of accident reports as provided in RCW 46.52.030. [1987 c 463 section 1; 1977 ex.s. C 369 section 1; 1971 ex.s. c 22 section 2; 1963 c 169 section 6.] And; (See State Vehicle Accident Collision Report form: $700.00)
[1] It is undisputed that, at the time of this accident, Mr. Boldt was not subject to the requirements of our financial responsibility statute (RCW 46.29) and that his insurance coverage was a matter of voluntary contract. . . The statute speaks in terms of “proof of financial responsibility for the future,” and defines that phrase in terms of “accidents occurring subsequent to the effective date of said proof . . ” RCW 46.29.260. The statute does not impose its requirements as to proof of financial responsibility until the occurrence of certain accidents, convictions or bail forfeitures. RCW 46.29.250; RCW 46.29.060-.080.” ROYSE v. BOLDT, 80 Wn.2d 44, 46, 491 P.2d 644 [No. 42072. En Banc. December 9, 1971.] And;
“In 1963, after Barkwill, the Washington legislature enacted a financial responsibility law, RCW 46.29. Under the provisions of this statute, the driver after an injury accident must deposit security, unless he or she has an “automobile liability policy.” RCW 46.29.060, .080. In addition, the driver involved in such an accident must furnish proof of financial responsibility for the future. RCW 46.29.260, .420.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 95 Wn.2d 373, 378, 622 P.2d 1234 [No. 47034-1. En Banc. December 31, 1980.] And;
“. . . the act does not require mandatory insurance coverage, . . . The financial responsibility act does not require an individual to prove that he is financially able to compensate those he may injure through the use of his vehicles until he is is involved in an automobile accident resulting in bodily injury or death of any person or property damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 97 Wn.2d 203 206, 643 P.2d 441 [Nos. 47145-2, 47202-5. En Banc. April 8, 1982.]; MILLER v. AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY CO., 70 Wn. App. 192, 197, 851 P.2d 1253 (June 1, 1993.) And;
“Under our financial responsibility act, an individual need not prove financial responsibility until a vehicle owned or driven by him is involved in an accident resulting in bodily injury or death of any person, or property damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060. Even after such an accident has occurred, proof of financial responsibility for the accident and in the future may be made in a number of ways, including, but not limited to proof of liability insurance. RCW 46.29.070, 080, .450. Since the Legislature has not seen fit to require mandatory insurance coverage, we will not replace its assessment of public policy with our own. . . . we cannot require mandatory insurance where the Legislature has declined to do so. . . WILLIAMS, C.J. (Dissenting) ...As we noted in Wiscomb, the provisions of the financial responsibility act, RCW 46.29, do not become mandatory until the driver is involved in an accident causing injury or damage of $300 or more. RCW 46.29.060; Wiscomb, at 206.” PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INS. v. JESTER, 102 Wn.2d 78, 81, 82, 83, 683 P.2d 180 [No. 50007-0. En Banc. June 21, 1984.]; JOHNSON v. DEPT. OF LICENSING, 46 Wn. App. 701, 731 P.2d 1097 (December 22, 1986). And;
To all Law Enforcement Officer’s: “IT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHETHER OR NOT IF I HAVE INSURANCE,” and you have NO business in the first place inquiring as to whether or not I have insurance as this is a private contract between two (2) parties, and you all can “C” your way out of this A & B conversation on the following authority to wit:
“[1] The existence of an insurance policy is a matter of contract law, since insurance involves a contractual relationship between the insurer and the insured.” LaPOINT v. RICHARDS, 66 Wn.(2d) 585, 588 (July 8, 1965). And;
“[2] Traditionally, insurance contracts have been considered to be private contracts between the parties.” MUTUAL OF ENUMCLAW v. WISCOMB, 25 Wn.App. 841, 846, 611 P.2d 1304 (April 14, 1980). And;
NO MORE MONEY FOR JUDGES RETIREMENT FUNDS! – STOP RIPPING US OFF!
|
