Wrongful Arbitration

Wrongful Arbitration Converts Unsecured Debt to Secured Debt

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sun, 10 May 2009 18:03:26 -0700

STRIPPING YOU OF LEGAL RIGHTS ALONG THE WAY

There are two kinds of debt - secured and unsecured. A secured debt is debt tied an asset, such as a car or home. The creditor-debtor agreement specifically allows the creditor to go through certain steps to get the asset, that car, or that home, if the debt goes unpaid or past due. Unsecured debt is not specifically connected to a certain asset. These debts might be medical bills, personal loans, and balances on utility bills. Credit card accounts are unsecured debt.

You can be sure if you are delinquent on your car or home mortgage payments, foreclosure is eventually 100% going to happen.

Unsecured debt holders must decide to take many steps to seize assets or income from you. They may easily decide not to do anything at all; legally, federal regulation make credit card companies charged these losses off their balance sheets in regular reporting periods.

When an UNSECURED CREDITOR utilizes WRONGFUL ARBITRATION as a replacement for some of those steps, they are stripping you of legal rights. A simple and effective method employed by the companies is to claim the amount you owe them at the National Arbitration Forum, notorious for rubber stamping thousand of these by MBNA and FIA Card Services. The next step is to present your local County Court with a "Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award", quite likely with an Judge that may be an NAF arbitrator, which continues the rubber stamp with a Notice of Award, a Money Judgment.

BINGO! The unsecured creditor now has a Money Judgment he can file with the clerk of the county and he is now VERY secured. You probably won't refinance a home without satisfying their potentially illegally-gotten Money Judgment. If you have bank accounts, they have every right to tell the Sheriff of the County to Levy - and TAKE YOUR MONEY.

If you have had money and assets seized, or are threatened with seizure, and you think that these actions are based on a WRONGFUL ARBITRATION action, contact us now.

San Francisco City Attorneys File Suit Against the NAF

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:19:00 -0700

Widely reported, the City of San Francisco's City Attorney's office has filed suit against the NAF for unfair and unlawful business practices.

CLICK HERE FOR LEGAL SUIT IN PDF FORMAT

The response by the National Arbitration Forum is nothing short of astounding. Actions speak louder than words, and the NAF responded to the suit by finally filing their 1281.96 reports from Q2, Q3 and Q4 of 2007.

Followers of this sham tale will recall that after Public Citizen released their 75-odd page report alleging much of the same as the suit filed by San Francisco, the NAF stopped filing 1281.96 reports. This is a pattern of behavior; they did much the same after the Corbett Bill was initially passed. (they refused to file until suit was filed....looks pretty familiar....)

Wrongful Arbitration is the Hidden Cost of Unregulated Social Policy Calling for Outsourcing of Civil Justice

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 19:13:00 -0800

It has been some months since the initial study put out by Public Citizen. The report was spurred on, yet without any groundswell of public support, civil arbitration continues unabated, and unchallenged. Arbitrations performed by the National Arbitration Forum on behalf of major credit card issuers such as MBNA Card Services, and FIA Card Services continues unregulated nationwide. The only state that has successfully enacted legislation remotely like regulation is California, with their Corbett Bill-driven regulatory attempt of so-called 1281.96 reports.

It seems even this has no teeth. Since the Public Citizen report, the NAF has not posted a single additional quarterly report, as mandated by law.

How much longer will it be before all the other arbitration services decide they also, have no need to comply with the law?

The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:39:00 -0800

In an effort to ban MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION clauses in consumer disputes and other areas, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) are introducing The Arbitration Fairness Act of 2007.

This legislation is supported by many consumer rights organizations. Significant areas of impact will be in:

Consumer credit card accounts - where the credit card issuer strips the account holder of their right to a jury trial by using the arbitration clause

Employment law -

Medical providers - healthcare providers -

Investors

"The American Jury System is Dying"

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 19:00:00 -0700

U.S. District Judge William G. Young delivered this speech to the Florida Bar Association, stating:

Arbitration is in play. If you trade on the New York stock exchange, have long-distance telephone service, use cell phones, or work for Circuit City or other major employers, he said, you have already given up your right to trial by jury.

â€œIt will never go entirely, but it is already marginalized. It is not at the center of our political discourse. How is this possible, with our Constitution and every one of the 50 state constitutions guaranteeing the right to trial by jury? The general answer is that we do not care.â€

When a member of the judiciary stands up and makes this kind of statement, something is going awry; in the case of MBNA and FIA Card Services, these have led to Wrongful Arbitration actions.

Do the Credit Industries Mold Social Policy for Their Own Greed?

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:56:00 -0700

Has the increasing willingness AND ABILITY of the credit industry to influence legislation molded social polices in America to the detriment of American Consumers?

The Credit industry in America wields tremendous powers over economic facets of society. Consumer credit enables consumers to drive industry output, itself dependent upon the financing markets to be able to produce the demanded output. Consumer households, depending on how you count the numbers, average $2,250 to $10,000 in credit card debt, all across the county.

See for example the Federal Reserve Board Statistical Releases, which state in May 2007, the revolving credit held by American households neared $900 Billion. This translates to over $7,000 per household.

The profitability of credit products, however, has not yielded enough for these businesses. The highest credit card profits are late fees, over limit fees, expanded interest charges, and annual fees. The credit card holder that pays off the bill every month is simply not profitable. The CREDIT CARD industry convinced Congress to pass the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, after massive lobbying (seven prior attempts failed.)

In this University of Iowa study, it's pointed out that while the Act was sold as preventing 'immoral' American families seeking protections under bankruptcy, in fact Credit Card companies seek these families out AFTER BANKRUPTCY:

Rather than eschewing them as profligates, the lending industry treats families who seek bankruptcy relief as a lucrative
source for profits. The widespread marketing to families after bankruptcy provides a powerful example of the credit industryâ€™s willingness and ability to profit from financially distressed and vulnerable consumers. The law shapes creditorsâ€™ marketing and lending decisions to recently bankrupt families, but this effect was hidden during the past decade of bankruptcy reform.

What's Happened to A.B. 2574 and CCCP Section 1281.92?

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:50:00 -0700

Assembly Bill 2574 led to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.92; this became California law January 1, 2003. It became law with a few other Assembly Bills which also added codifications regarding arbitrations between consumers and big business.

Four and a half years later, it is worth taking a look at what has happened.

The Bill Topic is defined as "Conflicts of Interest" and reviewing the April 23, 2002 Hearing summary reveals these findings in the California capital:

KEY ISSUES : SHOULD PRIVATE JUDGING COMPANIES BE TREATED
CONSISTENTLY WITH JUDGES, ARBITRATORS AND OTHER PERSONS
PERFORMING PUBLIC FUNCTIONS IN KEEPING AN ARM'S-LENGTH DISTANCE
FROM PARTIES TO CONSUMER ARBITRATIONS?

It's obvious from the passage of this bill (30 ayes and 2 noes) that the California legislature deemed the answer a resounding "YES".

Consistently with the other bills the Committee is hearing
regarding consumer arbitration, this bill would address
egregious conflict of interest problems in consumer arbitrations
by prohibiting private judging companies from administering the
consumer arbitrations of parties with whom they have significant
financial investments and other financial relationships.

The legislature clearly recognized the justice may very well be sold.....
Continue reading "What's Happened to A.B. 2574 and CCCP Section 1281.92?"