Fuzzy logic

To the editor:

So about five years ago, the Adirondack Daily Enterprise published a letter bout my missing Mercedes Benz. A year or so ago, I flew into Saranac Lake on Cape Air and was able to arrange a ride down to Elizabethtown.

Along the way, and I don’t recall how, the subject of this car came up, and I was amazed that the cab driver knew almost more of the details than I do.

In any event, recently, a downstate judge who was assigned my case against Geico ruled that it was more or less OK for people to steal cars, under what might be called summary judgment.

Now I am pretty well versed in the ownership of cars, and there are only a few ways to lose ownership, which of course implies that people are forbidden by law to steal your car. It is even a crime in New York.

As I reached out to the New York State Police, I was rebuffed.

So along the way, I moved two cars onto a Liberty Mutual policy to try to develop security for a loan a friend needed to get current on his real estate taxes. I was charged $20 for some kind of New York state anti-theft fee.

More recently, I was reviewing this fee and came across a report by the New York state comptroller. Now if I understand this correctly, about  $75 million goes to the NYSP, but only about 10% is spent on the mandated purpose of this program.

Now I go back into my Yahoo account and find emails from NYSP going back to 2009 and more or less. So since the out-of-county judge ruled for the defendant from Wisconsin over the missing car, do I have a valid claim against NYSP? Or better yet, a reason to deflate the false reasons for the insurance surcharge and save New Yorkers a couple of hundred million going forward?

I thank you in advance,

William Kuntz III



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)