Re: National Arbitration Forum

More | Report Post

On 7/17/04, DC wrote:
> On 7/08/04, Dave Schwimmer wrote:
>> Below is what I've been able to dig up so far. Hope it helps
>> you and I'm looking for more so if you get any more info
>> please email it to me.
>> Thank You,
>> Dave Schwimmer
>>
>> THE ARBITRATORS DESIGNATED IN THE AGREEMENT
>> BETWEEN CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENT ARE BIASED IN
>> FAVOR OF CREDITORS.
>>
>> Out of nearly 20,000 consumer cases involving First USA
>> Bank that went to arbitration under the National Arbitration
>> Forum’s iron fist of justice, one of the arbitrators designated
>> in the agreement, in all but 87 NAF ruled in favor of First USA
>> Bank – a success rate of 99.6 percent. Carolyn E. Mayer,
>> Win Some Lose Rarely? Arbitration Forum’s Rulings Called
>> One-Sided, Wash. Post, March 1, 2000.
>> The response to this statistic? According to one of NAF’s
>> principals, the statistics are not significant, because the
>> cases were collection cases in which one would expect a
>> bank to win 99.6 percent. Id.
>> An in depth analysis of the bias of the NAF was produced as
>> Petition of Plaintiffs and of Defendant Salmons Agency to
>> Docket Certified Questions, Toppings v. Meritech Mortgage
>> Services, Inc., No. 011984 (W.Va. Dec. 4, 2001). Among
>> other things, the brief points to NAF’s marketing literature,
>> which shows the advantage creditors will have in their
>> relationship with consumers if they sign up with NAF. NAF
>> solicitation letters to would-be clients promise to eliminate
>> class actions for companies who join, and coach creditors
>> on how they can reduce their liabilities to consumers. NAF
>> marketing letters also promise to limit the consumer’s
>> recovery to the original claim, to limit consumers to “little or
>> no discovery,” and not to issue injunctive relief. The brief
>> also shows how NAF argues that past NAF actions and the
>> past employment history of NAF personnel also display
>> pro-creditor bias.
>> There is no question that NAF is biased in favor of
creditors,
>> and thereby is biased in favor of Respondent. The fact of
>> NAF’s bias, unrevealed to Claimant, calls into question the
>> other arbitrators as well. Claimant will have no chance of a
>> fair hearing before NAF’s insidious Kangaroo Court, nor any
>> other arbitrator designated by Respondent, as the result for
>> Respondent is nothing more than predetermined.
>
>
> About 6 months ago I received some mail from the National
Abitration
> Forum stating that the claim against me was dismissed. Today I
> received another mailing from the National Abritration Forum
> stating that I owe the claimant (MBNA) more than $12,000. Does
> anyone know what is going on? Is $12,000 chump change to MBNA and
> just an attempt to scare, or is it the the first step in a lawsuit?
> And was the National Abitration Forum setup by credit card
> companies, or by some other parties? The previous note indicates it
> is something of a scam by the credit card companies.
>
> DC

WAS IT DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE OR WITHOUT..IF WITHOUT THEY CAN COME
BACK BUT THERE IS STILL OPTIONS IF THIS IS THE CASE