Click here
ATTORNEYS LAW STUDENTS PUBLIC
TOP POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST
Share | Print | Report Post Due Process Chatboard


Hot Now...
• Attorney Chat Center
• Attorney Classifieds
• Attorney Chatboards
• Practice Areas
• Law Students
Most Popular
• Set Your Quick Links
• Chat Center
• All Chatboards
• Classified Ads

Re: National Arbitration Forum
Posted by Thomas on 4/18/08

    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.

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
Click here
  Site Map: Home Search Legal Jobs Classifieds Law Students Contacts Practice Areas Advertise
  © 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.