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 Dave Schwimmer on 7/08/04

    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.

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
  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.