Re: National Arbitration Forum

More | Report Post

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.