page 24

~ Dentists Insurance dilemma ~
Dr. Allan Hughes

Dear Allan, I refer to your statement that dentists were being subjected to exorbitant claims from the public. I see that it is now a common practise for people to claim off the "policies" of others rather than being "self-sufficient" and taking the trouble to indemnify themselves and paying their own policy premiums.

People find it "easier" to employ a dark "knight" to fight their cause for them, not seeing the error of their way, neither are they aware that "if" perchance a practitioner was "arrogantly" at fault and used "malpractice" that caused undue stress or pain or damage to them that it was in fact their karmic due meted out to them by another whose mind was "under siege" from thoughts untrue.

Equally the dentist who "slips" intentionally or otherwise does not see that his mind let him down at that moment, and as he "unburdened" his patient from a past spiritual due, he took that burden upon himself, and later under the one law of God will 'suffer' the same fate. (As you sow - so shall ye reap)

To get back to "what" one can do ref "Indemnity," when I was learning to "fly" in Kenya in the 70's the local charter company who also gave flight instruction had their own free "Insurance Policy" to indemnify themselves from any claims brought against them by any "passenger" they might uplift. This policy cost them naught!

It was simply a piece of paper that was signed by the customer/client/passenger stating that by the fact of signing that "paper" they indemnified the 'carrier' against any loss/claim by them, whether or not the carrier or their aircraft were found to be "faulty" due to maintenance defect or accident caused by pilot error etc.

I can honestly say that both Jill and I find your work practise of the highest order and are aware that your capable hands are used in a very positive way that "protects" the patient against pain and suffering.

I also do believe that you and your dear wife Annie are on earth as me for this soon coming time of total "disorder" to aid the inhuman race as it "runs the gauntlet of pain at the hands of the ignorant" being their due before being set free by the grace of God.

Thus I take the time to send this to you and hope that it helps you prepare for the time when more "minds" are untrue and claims could be made against you by "ignorants" who know not that their Creator says: "Be forgiving if you would enter my land of the eternally living."

So Allan, from now on your receptionist can say to any "new" customer: "Please read our Insurance Policy document and sign it, as your agreement to its terms and conditions is required by us prior to our staff carrying out any work on your "equipment"! (teeth)
The policy reads:

page 25

~ Personal Indemnity Policy Cover Note ~

I …… ( Clients name) …… do hereby agree to indemnify/insure ........Dr. Alan Hughes & Staff ........against any claims from me as a result of any damage or injury or loss that occurs to my ........body or teeth........or other property.......that results from any work 'performed upon or done to' my fleshly body or teeth by Dr. Allan Hughes or his Staff members by the very fact of my signing this his Insurance Policy document.

I understand that I am at liberty to take out my own injury/loss insurance policy cover with an Insurer to cover me for any eventuality, and that whether I in fact this do or do not do, or have or have not done, I agree that I will abide in the terms and conditions laid out in this "policy" document that is in fact me indemnifying .......Dr Allan Hughes and his Staff ..........against any claims from me. Be they in my mind justifiable or not.

I agree that at no time will I enter into any litigation against him/them for the purpose of redress in any way, and neither will I seek monetary compensation through the courts of man or otherwise from him/them.

I do agree that I have asked Dr. Hughes to examine and repair my teeth at my own free will instigation and I believe that his "credentials" as a man of dentistry will be/are to my satisfaction.

I do however also acknowledge that "error" of judgment is a human possibility, and that my own biological flesh may unbeknown to him or myself be "weak" in some areas, and thus acknowledge that during the course of his "work" I could/may suffer pain/loss in some way.

Thus I also now do sign this Self-indemnifying document to set his mind at ease in the foreknowledge that he will just do his best for me and "later" will remain free of any attempt on my part to pursue monetary recompense due to any reason. The signing of this document also halts me from making a claim that would be to my spiritual detriment.

I also state, that "as" in the past, a "word" spoken or "mark" of pen placed upon a document was a 'Ladies or Getleman's agreement,' and as such did not require any "witness" or State "royalty" fee payment prior to it being valid, that this document is such an agreement and thus cannot be "voided" or "overthrown."

This document is one of "perpetuity" and thus is "open" cover to Dr. Allan Hughes and his Staff during any future consultations and/or work operations.

Signed ……………….. Dated ………………

So Allan, this is in fact your own insurance policy that costs you naught and thus should aid you to lower client "charges" accordingly if you so wish.

The planetary "psyche" of today is self-ish and greedy and what no 'claimants' do see is that in their "quest" for compensation they are in fact being used by the darkness to "blame & punish & extort" using force to so do, and thus are 'contra' the call of the Light to be: "Only be loving, merciful & forgiving," and all thus fall into a deeper dark spiritual plight.

Terence

page 26

~ Insurance Council of Australia ~
Letter to Alan Mason

Dear Alan, I see that the world has gone 'mad' and become bad as everyone seeks to steal from others, and when it comes to stealing from others Insurers they have 'open licence' due to the fact that their claims are now 'forced' using solicitous wolves that are backed by false Judges who erred in their past and set wrong precedents.

I believe that it is time for every 'claimant' to be the 'holder' of their own insurance policy and thus only be able to claim against that policy rather than 'open slather' expect others to pay the premiums for them and they then claim off 'that' other policy.

If this is done then and only then will premiums come down as the 'insured' will not be making any claim 'above' what he has paid for a his/her personal cover 'note.'

It is time for Insurers to become stronger and truer by 'jointly' standing against any invading 'judiciary,' and saying openly to the public that if any 'fear' loss then it is they to take out their own policy cover and then it is they to for the 'sought' covered amount pay the premium cost themselves. This way closes the doors against roaming wolves.

Insurers needs say: "As from today we will only pay monies out to our policy holders. If you the 'public' have any 'gripe' against another sister or brother then that is between you, them, and God.

For no person or business needs to take out a 'Carte blanche' public liability cover as that leads to misinterpretation and abuse of a distant relation, rather we advise that you the public take out your own personal accident cover which will reduce false claims, reduce premiums and 'permit' sanity to return to those now filled with vanity.

We thus stipulate 'jointly' as Insurers that that is our new Policy that shall be inviolate against solicitors seeking to 'breach' our "gate," and "as" it is our new Policy, the Court of man will also be unable to 'breach' its fortress either, as we cannot "pay out" in "breach" of our own policy terms and conditions."

page 27

~ Public Liability Crisis ~

The public "liability" crisis has arisen because precedents have been "set" by courts who "entertained" the false belief that someone else is responsible for our "grief," and the suggestions from solicitors and complicity of magistrates has authorised the demands of the public.

Being that they are entitled to demand via the System that others obtain policies and pay the premiums so that claimants can "steal" exorbitant sums of money from the "honey pot" of premiums collected without themselves having to contribute to it in any way.

It's time for the "System" to "butt-out" from the Insurance industry and every other industry and just return to being the "Well-fare" service provider that it should be. Too much regulation is now seen for what it is - insane strangulation - of every endeavour of man.

Mankind must also see that others are not responsible for our "misery." If we fall out of a tree, or get "dumped" by a wave in the sea, or fall off a horse in another's yard, or suffer a "divorce" from our insanity, it is a personal matter.

If politicians or magistrates and judges agree by the power of their "pen" that I must take out a "policy" to insure against claims made by you then this is insanity.

Let us all now "tip" the world back onto its sane feet. No person should ever claim against any other. Even if the other "appears to be" or is at fault in any way.

If I sell you a "sole-less" shoe then so be it. Tell me I am untrue but do not "try" to me sue. For God says: "All 'unforgiveness' or demand for any 'due' is a Hell-bent act."

No "misfortune" befalls any unless in their past they were themselves untrue. Be it in this realm of consciousness or any other.

Personal accident or other personal insurance cover must now be seen as the only "type" of cover needed by you. For no "soul" true will ever claim off you and no "foolish" chief or elder or magistrate will ever berate you for not having public liability insurance, unless they are ignorant, vain, or insane.

However, if you personally "wish" to take out a "limited" public liability cover to "aid" any who might "suffer" at your "errant" hand, then you are free to so do. This way it is you who is able to say to the sufferer:

"Sorry I pranged into your car the other day. I will ask my insurer to send a 'small' cheque your way, as I was only 'able' to afford a small premium on the day I took out a 'third party cover' note.

Please accept this little 'gift' from me and try and see that your 'loss' was in reality invoked by you on a past day. I pray that you accept this offering from God and go your way in peace.

And I hope that you were insured against loss so that you can also claim off your own policy. Thus my gift will be a bonus."

page 28

~ Sane 'Public Liability' Policy ~

No person is ever 'liable' for another's 'safety,' thus any sane 'Public Liability' policy needs be one whereby the 'cover' is only a 'conscience' Insurance policy. It is not a 'policy' deemed by non-holders of the Policy as their 'honey pot.' Thus no person is 'entitled' to make any 'claim' against any Public Liability Policy that is in the name of another.

Foolish legislators made it 'legal' to defy God as they 'mandated' RULES that used force to assist non policy holders to 'fight' for their 'assumed' right to defy God, and un-forgivingly 'sue' others, rather than to 'simply' be honest and pay for their own 'Personal Accident' Policy.

So today, we have RULES that not only 'permit' the Courts and solicitous 'wolves' to fight others and their Insurers, but there are even RULES that 'demarcate' the amount of 'cover' needed by any person before they can 'open' their 'shop' for business.

What is the 'end' result of this insanity and greed and vanity? It simply means that no person will be able to 'run' any business, and the 'greedy' populace will have nowhere to go to get any help, as Dentists, Doctors, Midwives, Restaurants and all other business are forced out of business due to 'said' insane RULES and, - - -

Due to the 'silly' public vengefully and insanely seeking every which way to blame others and destroy their lives, as they seek the aid of the false Court system to aid them in their 'extortion' off others.

The true way and 'godly' way is for considerate people to take out a Public Liability Policy so that they can ask their Insurer to make a 'gratis' conscience payment to any person that is 'covered' within the scope of the Policy but, - - -

That person does not 'automatically' become a person that can 'expect' a due. They only become a person 'aided' by the policy holders insurer if the policy holder so decides, and this decision is their personal conscience 'vote' as it is their Policy, and not any 'claimants' Cover Note.

It is the time for change now, and the time for all 'regulators' to get out of the Insurance and every other business. It is the time to 'burn' the Rules that empower extortionists and thieves.

Teach all to 'cover' themselves, and there will thus be very 'low' costs to all as 90% of all monies 'taken' goes to the 'knights' who fight Insurers for a mercenary wage.

If the people of the land use the anti-god Court system and knights in 'black' to fight their cause, then I would suggest that all 'pause,' for it is the 'Devil's works' being done, and all that are a 'party to' this seemingly 'decent' iniquity will be bound in lands below, and never again the Light see.

Only the Public Liability Policy holder can claim against it, and ask his Insurer to give a 'certain' sum to any other as a free 'gratis' amount to assist them on their road and, - - - the Public Liability Policy holder can also do this even if the 'other' has claimed against his own Personal Accident Policy.

page 29

~ Fact and Fantasy ~

The insurance 'business' has become a 'cesspool' within which multitudes wallow and their actions have become callous and shallow. For today, all play these games:

The 'blame' the other game.
The 'steal' from the other game.
The 'destroy' others livelihoods game.
The 'use' the Courts to fight for you game.
The 'avoid' paying your own premiums game.

Because legislators promised to protect your 'interests' so as to be 'voted in' to POWER, they thought it wise to 'for and on behalf' of you greedy public to force others into 'coughing up' heavy Premiums and then pay for everything.

By raising up RULES that force businesses to purchase Public Liability cover to protect the public, the public have been FALSELY taught that it is right to 'sue' others, and the Insured one must now take out 'cover' due to this wrong mentality.

For if they do not, then the 'insolent' who are too 'lazy' to take out their own Personal Accident cover backed by legislation, will 'sue' unto the 'death' of the other, as they destroy livelihoods and make the other homeless. Have none heard of God's Law of 'As you do is done unto you'?

There needs to be a sanity and reality 'check' done before all collapses into insanity due to your 'greed' and the 'foolish' legislated deed and, - - - It is now the time for all insurers to 'defy' any court action by saying to all, - - - that they only 'pay' out the sum 'listed' on their books as due to their insured, and they will pay not one 'cent' to the wages of solicitors that seek to 'tempt' them into Court action.

Why do you people expect others to have to take out 'policies' to protect them against your 'claims' backed by 'solicitous' wolves? Wolves filled with arrogance and the intent to take you to the 'cleaners' and to destroy the livelihood and families the 'insured' or uninsured too.

Do you really 'wish' for them to do this on your behalf? Is it not 'easier' and 'fairer' to claim off your own Personal Accident Policy even if their hotel 'floor' did collapse during the summer dance?

Firstly, if you 'suffer' anything, then why try and 'sting' your neighbours just because you 'happen' to be in their 'space' place? In my mind, that is a very disrespectful and 'offensive' act.

Would you do it if you were a visitor to your Mother's house and 'fell' in the pantry? No, you would not, so why 'scheme & plot' just because the place where you 'fell' or got 'fried' happens to be in what is 'termed' a Public place.

page 30

Why do 'Courts' defend 'public' claims made against other members of the public when both 'parties' are on public 'ground'? For if I am in a 'restaurant,' then both the 'owner' and myself are on public ground and, - - -

We are both 'subject to' the same possible 'fate' if a fire breaks out of the gas plate and, - - - in this instance, any 'suffering' accrued is a 'due' spiritually (fate) and, - - - I cannot 'sue' the other member of the 'crew' just because he owns the place that created the 'stew' and, - - -

Both he and I should have had our own 'Personal Accident' Insurance policy and, - - - neither of 'us' can 'claim' any recompense from the 'premises,' for it is 'common-sense' that no 'premises' can of itself obtain a 'Personal Liability' Cover but, - - - the owner of 'said' premises can insure the premises for loss or damage.

For any person to blame the owner of any premises for 'fault' when the premises are but a 'construction' or an 'open' space is error. For if you freely visit any place then you chose to be there, and any 'act' that takes place resulting in your 'suffering or loss' is of your own choice.

It was certainly not the 'choosing' of any other person, and thus it is only you to blame yourself. The same applies to 'misfortune' that was the result of the 'incorrect' kidney being removed, or of the dental surgeon damaging your jaw etc.

Take out your own Policy cover, this way if your 'new born' child is 'damaged' by the midwife, then you are not foolish by 'blaming.' For she did the best she was able to, and it is best to 'share' misfortune with an: 'Its OK, we'll both go forwards positively,' as you call up your own Insurer and claim any 'damages' allowable from them.

So if any 'Court' entertains any monetary demand from one of another, resulting from an 'occurrence' in a Public place, - - - then that is an insane act, and in God's eyes a veritable disgrace. For a public place is no different from 'home,' as both are 'places' where you freely roam and, - - -

If your home caught fire and you were 'burnt,' then you would not take yourself to 'Court' to fight yourself, but you would ask your Insurer if there was any 'recompense' within your own Personal Accident Policy.

Let no 'system' demand that any business insure another. Let all the community take out their own cover and not try and steal off others - - - Insurers will simply take the cost themselves on a 'knock for knock' basis. No more 'litigation,' as this leads to a 'foul' and dark destination.

Insurance CODE of Conduct - You insure yourself, never 'claim.'

Any 'claim' against another or their 'policy' is false, and it is a vengeful and punitive 'attempt' at extortion that is 'presently' backed by legislation and 'force of arms.'

The suffering to now be on earth cannot be 'insured' against, as all have 'earned' a 'terrible' due that is their 'due' to now be met, and I thus suggest that you all 'suffer' quietly, and never claim from any other sister or brother. By all 'means' give yourself your own Insurance 'cover.'

page 31

~ Sensible insurance ~
Letter to Derek Perkins - Budget Direct

Dear Derek, your brochure arrived on my 'plate' here in Tasmania so I felt that you might like to dine on some of my 'wisdom' that is on line.

As you are agents for vehicle insurance my 'TP' request may not appear relevant but I ask that you look at my 'proposal' as it will affect all 'forms' of insurance in the soon coming 'new age.'

I am a man who tries to bring in positive change for I see that the insurance 'lark' has become deranged as all else as man tries to steal off the others insurance rather than taking personal responsibility for his own actions.

I would like to see the time where no 'court' would entertain claims by one off another's policy, therefore all 'youths' purchasing vehicles will be taught the importance for their own personal vehicle 'cover,' so that in the event of any 'form' of collision with another vehicle, insurers will be 'assured' of only having to pay out their insured within their policy conditions, and not have to ever 'entertain' any 'shark' attack by others.

I am quite sure that the present mode of 'Court' jousting will cease as man's present ways 'decease' through the coming enlightenment that will take place through my soul of grace.

Let all 'men' take out their own personal accident or vehicle or TP cover rather than have the 'open slather' government honey pot via the 'registration' insurance that enables highflying solicitors to scheme and plot as to how much they can steal out of it.

For if I 'think' that my life is 'worth' a million then I should pay the premium should I not? I also see that as 'forgiveness' and understanding becomes the new way, then no man would ever seek to make any 'claim' off any other, and then policies will become very 'cheap' and equitable and the 'market' more stable and viable.

I am prepared to 'test' the 'authority' of the System of man to 'control' the roads and the people, and thus I drive a vehicle with no number plates other than 'carrying' my web URL displayed.

I have no registration or insurance and I also refuse to annually 'licence' my personal Certificate of Competency 'note' that was given to ME by the driving test facility 40 + years ago.

I see no 'reason' for any insurer to not insure me merely because I refuse to pay extortionist demands from some 'Club' that calls itself "The government," and thus my test case is to be 'heard' in Tasmania Court on 6 Dec, as many a 'copper' tries to me 'dismember' for travelling openly and for free.

Maybe you could send this letter on to others so that insurers can begin to implement new ways and new policies, for there are 'terrible' times at hand and big changes in the wind.

Terence

page 32

~ Consignor, Carrier or Consignee insurance? ~

In this present day and age, the Vendor/Consignor expects the consignee and/or ‘carrier’ to carry the insurance policy in their name, and this has led to many a ‘false’ insurance claim made upon insurers due to the goods being sent in a ‘less’ than proper state of packaging.

It needs to be understood, that when goods are ‘ordered’ and paid for by a ‘client’ that does not collect the item from the ‘store or shop,’ and the goods are to be ‘transported’ or ‘mailed’ to the customer, that it is incumbent upon the seller to ensure that the goods are packed in such a manner that they will reach their destination in the same condition as when they were purchased.

This is a moral ‘contractual’ obligation, and if the sender ‘believes’ that there may be damage during the ‘voyage,’ then the goods need to be insured in the name of the seller/sender, so that if there is damage in transit then they are in a position to make ‘good’ their sale.

For no purchaser should be inconvenienced by the goods reaching them in a less than proper condition. Certainly an ‘honest’ carrier would also take out an insurance policy ‘cover’ to protect themselves in the even that ‘fault’ was found to lie ‘squarely’ upon their ‘shoulders’ due to ignorance or incompetence on the part of their handlers.

In the event of an unforeseen accident or where a vessel sinks, then the liability can be shared by both insurers. It is my opinion that the purchaser needs to be ‘absolved’ from themselves needing to take out ‘cover’ in their name.

It is due to vendors not having to take out insurance cover in their own name that many are failing to adequately protect their goods being forwarded, * thus leaving the insurers to pick up the ‘tab,’ and this slackness is what keeps the cost of insurance policies very high.

Note: their goods being forwarded, * - The goods only become the property of the purchaser when they are 'signed for' as having been received as being in good order.

It is the time now for the seller to pack the product in as safe a ‘condition’ as though they were sending it to themselves without being able to have it insured. This way there will be less payouts and lower insurance premiums.

Many ‘ignorant’ vendors assume that if the purchaser fails to take out an insurance policy that they the vendor cannot be held ‘liable,’ and in my opinion if the goods are not protected in a ‘commensurate’ manner then the insurer if ‘any’ should decline payout and the seller must ‘carry’ the loss.

In the event of a 'dispute,' the purchaser can seek to ‘collect’ their monies paid in a ‘peaceful’ and non forceful manner, by obtaining a ‘reverse’ funds transfer of monies paid to the vendor if the vendor fails to make good ‘restitution.’

The ‘onus’ is always upon the supplier to ‘deliver the goods’ in the same condition as when they were paid for. The vendor/supplier must pack the goods with the same 'duty of care' that they would take if they were sending the goods to themselves with NO insurance cover protection available.

page 33

~ Driver control ~

 In every land there have been 'regulators' who have forbidden road users to drive vehicles that are 'driven' in a manner contrary to the 'regulated' way, and thus many a soul did for this 'folly' painfully pay. I refer now to where the driver sits, be it driving from the 'right' side or the 'left' side of the vehicle.

For when driving a 'RHD' automobile in a country that keeps to the 'left' side of the road such as in Australia or UK, the driver cannot easily nor with certainty know how far the vehicle is from the kerb when parking, or a cyclist they are overtaking.

In my opinion, if a driver 'sat' nearest the 'kerb' side of the automobile rather than positioned nearest oncoming traffic, then 'she or he' would be safer by far from the consequence of a 'head on' collision and, pedestrians or cyclists would also be far safer and, the driver would also be safer spiritually within the Law of God.

Automobile drivers are positioned in the centre of the road, and thus see not their correct 'distance' from the road edge or hedge. Neither do they 'see' the distance that they safely can pass a pedestrian or cyclist on the road, and when parking in town some 'frown' as they seek to 'pull in' between other parked vehicles.

The 'old' and present way of being 'seated' in the centre of the road when driving was due to the 'belief' that there would be less 'grief,' as it would be easier to see the distance between your own vehicle and an approaching one travelling in the opposite direction.

As most automobiles are 'driver only' when being driven, there would be far less injuries to drivers when colliding with oncoming traffic if the driver was seated away from road centre line, and there would also be less collisions even when carrying passengers, due to factors given below.

I give below the advantages of driving a 'Left Hand Drive' automobile in a country where automobiles are driven on the left side of the road such as in Australia, and 'vice versa' with driver seated in 'RHD' vehicles in the USA for example, where drivers keep to the 'right' side of the road.

Recommendations: Deregulate, and thus permit automobile owners to choose the 'driving' side of the vehicle of their personal choice.

page 34

This 'policy' cover 'note' was drawn up for a friend of mine that owns a floating restaurant. In order to have 'some' protection from 'claimants,' as he has no 'personal' Public Liability insurance cover, this paper should see him 'safe' from predators that walk aboard to 'dine' on food or him.

~ The 'Shipmates' Agreement ~
Written for the owner of the floating restaurant 'Paddle wheeler'

Sample: Public Liability self-assurance Policy

I the undersigned do hereby agree to the following 'Terms' in respect of 'respecting' this common sense 'policy' of being 'self-assured' and thus self-insured whilst sharing 'common' public ground as I 'walk around' and, - - -

As I could not make a 'claim' against myself if I was accidentally 'injured' whilst on public ground, I understand that any attempted 'claim' against 'said' public 'ground' or public 'utility' or public 'vessel' would in fact be exactly that, an attempted 'claim' against myself that would be deemed as 'fraudulent' in any Court of man and, - - -

I do hereby agree that the 'above' and following Conditions do apply to me personally the 'moment' I step upon the 'ramp' or the floating 'vessel' named "Paddle wheeler"

I recognise that from that moment until 'midnight' on this very day, that I am a 'mate' aboard this vessel but I receive no pay because, - - - I am 'off duty' with money to 'burn' and thus I pay the 'wage' for the meal asked so that the ship's 'cook' does his 'salary' earn and, - - -

I acknowledge that this 'vessel' is a public place thus, as I am a member of the public, it is also my 'space' and, - - - it follows that if any 'accident' or 'travail' should befall me whilst on this 'public space,' that it is I that is responsible and, - - -

Other members of the public are not 'liable' to pay any 'damages' to me for, - - - there is no sane reason for me to expect any other member of the public to protect me and, - - -

Thus I 'discharge' any rights to make any 'claim' against the 'Chef' or other 'shipmates' aboard or the vessel's name and, - - - I do also state that I will abide within the 'Public Order' Act for the time that I am 'within' or 'on deck' of the vessel or its 'sister ship' the 'Islander,' if on it I go for a ride and, - - -

If 'perchance' I fall off into the 'drink' then that is my fault and I will 'sue' no other and, - - - I hereby confirm that this document is my own 'Public Liability Statement that 'insures' the 'vessels' and the other shipmates aboard against any claim by me or any of my family or 'servants' for any reason and, - - -

By my 'signature' here 'attested' it is shown that I have been 'told' that I am free to 'purchase' my own personal accident cover note if I so wish and return another day if for any reason I am not 'happy' with the mentality of the other shipmates aboard or, the 'seaworthiness' of any of the public 'utilities' upon which I shall spend this evening.

As I am a member of the public I 'declare' that it is my divine right to 'step' aboard said vessel and dine thereon with my 'shipmates' without them or me having to comply with any 'dictates' or decrees of any other person or State department.

Signed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Date . . . . . . .

Added note; If you own a premises that is used by the public, be it a hotel, shop, home or other and you 'fear' financial persecution or prosecution due to the ignorance or arrogance of other members of the community that would use you in a negative way, then I suggest that you simply place a notice on the door of your premises so that the 'incumbent' persecutor may awaken to reality;

I am aware that 'the enforcement' arm of the controlling institution makes its demands upon everyone in business to be 'covered' but, - - - you do not have to have any 'public liability' policy and you could avoid 'loss' being imposed by an ignorant claimant by invoking your own 'limited' liability 'Policy' form/notice placed at the entrance to your hall or other rooms that states;

page 35

~ Accident Insurance Premiums & Claims ~

Gordon Humphreys
Chairman Motor Accidents Insurance Board of Tasmania

Dear Sir,

I have “examined” your annual report and would make a few comments out of my “retort.” For I do believe that there a better “way” be than a demanded premium take by the system off me before on a road I can drive, just because I or “another” may not an “accident” survive.

I once had an accident on “another” country shore and off the street was I “picked up” and in a hospital bed was laid up for six weeks or more and was “costed” naught as I was “poor.” (The year 1958)

My motorcycle that had been “swept aside” by a heart attack victim whose car did me “astride” was a total loss, and e’en though ‘twas not my “fault,” I claimed naught from the others vault.

This “due” to my father’s “teaching”* that : “No man should ever seek to lay claim against another “poor” sister or brother.” Implying, that even if the other had been a “clown,” then I should “treat” him as one with a less than “sound” mind and not try to him or his insurers bind.

So what was the cost to the “African” community that day ? Very little, for the country hospital staff were already paid a wage,* and my broken “hip” I “suffered” and no “claim” upon the other was by me made.

So what is the “cost” today when someone “suffers,” do they automatically demand that others do for their injuries pay ? Yes, they do. This is what I am trying to show you. For if for them I must a “premium” pay, then I believe it wrong be, and must so say.

Also, I do believe that the “System” has become a rort that uses “us” and steals off us as a “sport.” Yes, not only do we a “fee” pay, but this includes the cost of their “Agency fee,” and we already their wages pay.

And, our fee must include it seems a dividend ! Someone is “mental” friend when our system demands a dividend and tax when already we were taxed before a premium we paid. Can you not see the “way” of today ?

I do believe that your “Corporate intent” - a (ii) should not be “maximising a return to the State....” but should read : Minimising the premium costs of insurance for the benefit of THE PEOPLE. - not “Lets take more off their plate” !

I do believe that your “Strategic directions” point one : “... providing a sustainable return to the scheme owners the TAS Government.” should read : Providing an equitable insurance cost to THE PEOPLE of Tasmania.

Its time for you and all governing “bodies” to wake up to the REALITY that “Systems” are not for the people today. They have long ago forgone this “caring mandate” and have succumbed to the business “ideal” of “USE the public to raise funds" under the guise of “It’s in your own interest.”

Note: “teaching”* - It is the time for all to see that no person must ever make any 'claim' against another, or the other's Insurance Policy. It is 'ungodly' and unwise, for it is a demand issued with a reprimand for non-compliance, and that defies God's "Forgiveness" Command.

Note: wage,* - It was a community hospital funded by the 'donations' of the community, and if I had been 'older,' they would probably asked me for a donation towards its upkeep.

 page 36

~ God's 'Insurance' Policy ~

Our God has one "policy" being that all receive what they put out, being their "Just" due. God's policy is insured by His Might, and is backed by either DARK or LIGHT, being His eternal energy that no "man" can see.

So I will be frank. It matters not whether you knock some other down with a bicycle, a car, or a tank, every drop of "blood" you spill will be "extracted" by GOD from your "flesh," for our God does demand His "fill."

Every "morsel" of pain that the other suffers because you did them "clout" will return, and our God via another ignorant will clout you.

It is the time to see that you only walk "pain free" and happy when you become "demure" because you believe me.

You can "for" an "earthly" insurance policy pay, and a person you "injured" with a "pay-out" does walk away but, what you do not realise or see is that God's "Policy" still applies to thee.

I say that your "policy" now needs be one where your mind you protect. For if you do not then "later" on my words you will reflect.

For if your "thoughts" let you down and you do "crash" and make any other "frown," then in pain you ahead will "drown."

Remember, if another does into you crash and cause damage, then its your "due" being met, so do not try and demand recompense off the other or ahead you will again fret. Just let them go free for our God did all see and it is HE to make the other pay as they ahead suffer in a similar way.

God's policy of "payback" both positive or negative is absolute and 'Just.' So why not now in God's WORD place your trust. For if in PEACE you stride, then in Heaven happily and "pain-free" you will ahead abide.

Ends

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[ Home page ]