Re: National Arbitration Forum

More | Report Post

Passive Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Are Null and Void
Passive mandatory arbitration clauses included in credit card
slip notices are null and void under the law, not merely
voidable. These slip notice agreements further violate Erie
Railroad Company v. Tompkins, supra which requires a signed
contract by BOTH parties to evidence the contractual
agreement between the parties. If there is no signed original
contract there is no basis for a cause of action as it fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); Rule 12(b)(5) of the
Colorado Rules of County Court Civil Procedure).

'If there is a challenge to the arbitration, it is for the
courts, not the arbitrator, to decide whether the agreement
to arbitrate exists and whether the issue in dispute falls
within the agreement to arbitrate.

There is No Contract:

Consumers can choose not to contract with Wolpoff & Abramson
for arbitration in accordance with Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S.
43 (1906) and can reject any and/or all correspondence,
claims, or any other documents implying they have contracted
with them for arbitration in any manner, shape or form.

Any arbitration conducted by Wolpoff Abramson and the
National Arbitration Forum is in violation of many of the
laws, statutes, acts, codes, rules, listed below, constitutes
a willful and intentional commercial injury to the consumer
where the National Arbitration Forum is legally liable for.

The National Arbitration Forum cannot provide proof that the
alleged claim is in compliance with the Code as filed and
said claim, as filed, further lacks several key elements
required by law as follows:

National Arbitration Forum Rules:

1. Rule 1 of the Code states that both parties agree to
arbitrate.

2. Rule 2A(2) of the Code requires that the initial claim
shall include: a copy of the arbitration agreement or notice
of the location of a copy of the arbitration agreement;

3. Rule 12A(3) of the Code requires a copy of documents that
support the claim;

4. Rule 12A(4) of the Code requires an affidavit asserting
that statements and documents in the claim are accurate;

5. Rule 12A(5) of the Code requires that the appropriate
filling fee be paid;

6. Rule 12B requires that claimant promptly file with the
forum proof of service of the initial claim on the respondent;

7. Rule 20A of the Code indicates that the arbitrator have
powers provided by the code, the agreement of the parties and
the applicable substantive law;

8. Rule 20C of the Code indicates that the arbitrators do NOT
have the power to decide matters NOT properly submitted under
this code.

For the reasons stated above, any claims submitted to the
National Arbitration Forum should be deemed frivolous due to
the claimants numerous violations of the code and should be
dismissed involuntarily pursuant to Rule 41 of the Code.
This, of course, is in addition to all of the other
violations of laws, acts, statutes, codes, doctrines, maxims
of law and case law as cited below.

Commercial Injury

Any arbitration sanctioned by Harold Kalina, and/or
subsequently conducted by any arbitrator of the national
arbitration forum in violation of any of the above listed
laws, statutes, acts, codes, rules, doctrines, maxims and
governing case law as well as the additionally delineated
arbitration code violations listed below will constitute a
willful and intentional commercial injury to the consumer
which you, Mr. Kalina, and/or the national arbitration forum
will be legally liable for in accordance with (case law cite
supreme court decision consumer collects 804 times in
damages).

Liability:

A lawsuit can be brought against Wolpoff & Abramson for
willful and intentional fraud and racketeering which will be
prosecuted for treble damages for commercial injury pursuant
to racketeering under Title 18, Chapter 96 of the U. S. Code.

Case Law:

Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-7017, 2/25/03
In the case of Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-
7017, 2/25/03, retailer Lord & Taylor referred a debt to the
Wolpoff & Abramson law firm for collection. After reviewing
the alleged past due account and the retailer's efforts at
collection, partner Ronald Abramson sent a debt collection
letter to the credit card holder, Arthur Miller. Miller did
not respond to the letter. Thereafter, Abramson referred
Miller's file through the National Attorney Network (a debt
collection referral service) to a second law firm, Upton,
Cohen & Slamowitz. This firm filed suit against Miller
seeking recovery of the credit card debt as well as
attorney's fees. Miller countered with his own lawsuit
alleging that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 18 U.S.C. §1692, by sending debt
collection letters on attorney letterhead without meaningful
review of the circumstances of the alleged debt by any
attorney. Additional counts were listed in the complaint, but
this is the issue on which we will focus on. The district
court granted summary judgment on all counts. On appeal, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
summary judgment stating that it was premature because the
lawyers' affidavits contained too little information. The
affidavits stated only that Lord & Taylor reported the debt
was due for collection and that Abramson had exercised
“independent professional judgment prior to authoring a
collection letter.

Additional Authorities

United States District Courts and Supreme Court Rulings in
Mile High Industries v. Cohen, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,
Szetela v. Discover Bank, Toppings v. Meritech Mortgage
Services, Inc., Doctor's Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto,
Vermont v. New Hampshire, Casteel vs. Clear Channel Broad.,
Inc., Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. vs. Gaskamp, Stout vs.
Byrider, Myers vs. MBNA America and North American Capitol
Corporation, Georgia v. South Carolina, Hale vs. Henkel, Erie
Railroad Company v. Tompkins, Trinsey v. Pagliaro and Adickes
v. Kress & Co.