Re: National Arbitration Forum

More | Report Post

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