TorteDeForm

Justinian Lane

Another nail in the "arbitration is cheaper for debt collection" argument

Regular Tortdeform readers will know that I've previously explained that it is more costly for companies to take a delinquent customer to arbitration that it is to take the customer to court.  That's because arbitration has a sliding fee scale:

Let’s compare the cost of taking a debtor to arbitration vs. taking a debtor to court in the two populous states of Texas and California.  The table below indicates the cost of filing and serving a complaint requesting $4,999, $7,499, and $25,000 in an NAF arbitration proceeding, in a Texas court, and in a California court: 

image

In California and Texas, it is much cheaper to commence an action in court as opposed to arbitration.  I have been unable to find a comprehensive listing of court filing fees by state, but the handful of states I checked are in line with the pricing of these states.  As the table shows, it can be over five times as expensive to take a debtor to arbitration than it does to take him or her to court.  So just to initiate the legal action, the courts have a substantial cost advantage over the arbitration system.  Why are mandatory arbitration clauses so prevalent in consumer credit card agreements? | Tortdeform

Additional proof that I'm right on this comes from a company called Knology, Inc.  Knology provides high speed Internet, phone, and cable services.  And they just sent this notice to their customers:

It is important that you read this section carefully.  It provides for resolution of disputes (whether based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legal or equitable theory) through final and binding arbitration before a single neutral arbitrator instead of in a court by a judge or jury or through a class action.  All disputes arising out of or relating to this agreement (other than actions for the collections of debts you owe us) including, without limitation, any dispute based on any service or advertising of the services related thereto, shall be resolved by final and binding arbitration... (Emphasis added.)

The whole point of mandatory arbitration clauses is to ensure that corporations are never sued, either by individuals or through class actions.  If it were truly less expensive to arbitrate collections disputes, Knology wouldn't make the exception in the arbitration agreement.  Claims that mandatory arbitration clauses protect customers who pay their bills on time are simply false.  Mandatory arbitration clauses protect corporations who don't want to follow the law.

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 4:27 PM, Jun 13, 2008 in Arbitration | Civil Justice
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Justinian:

When you say that your post is "Another nail in the 'arbitration is cheaper than debt collection' argument," two questions are raised:

(1) Who or what was ever making the argument that arbitration is cheaper than debt collection? and

(2) What was the first nail?

Also, did you consult with Knowlegy, Inc. before you used their arbitration clause and then summarized for them that "the whole point [of it] is to ensure that [they] are never sued..." Because I think you just accused Ted of unethical conduct when he did the same thing. Shouldn't we ask Knowlegy what their "whole point" was when they included the claus?

Posted by: Lawyer | June 13, 2008 8:16 PM

1: Ted and at least one other pro-arbitration article I read.

2: The chart.

3: There is a huge difference between not asking what someone's intention is, and stating what their intention was when they have already stated their intention was the opposite. If Knology ever publishes a statement that they had some other point in that one-sided clause, I'll disclose their statement and then discredit it. That's the ethical thing to do. And that's what Ted said he's going to do in the future regarding Neely.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 13, 2008 8:55 PM

1. It would serve you well if you opted to cite people when attributing claims to them.

2. Doesn't the chart *reflect* the fact that it's cheaper, rather than *proving* that it is? There is a logical difference.

If you're fairly certain that Knology, if asked, would say that the reason they have arbitration clauses is because they're making sure that "they don't get sued" then I would tend to agree with you. But we both know that if you actually asked them, it's not what they would say. Thus, it's disingenuous for you to give them a position you are fairly certain they wouldn't take.

Think of is this way: I don't think you've ever come out and said that you're not a Nazi. So, I'm going to take the position that Justinian Lane is a Nazi. 'If [Justinian Lane] ever publishes a statement that [he isn't], I'll disclose th[at] statement and then discredit it. That's the ethical thing to do.'

Do you see how the difference is hardly "huge."

Posted by: Lawyer | June 13, 2008 10:30 PM

Godwin's law this early? j/k

If cold, hard, unrefuted numbers only "reflect" that something costs less than something else, then I don't quite see how I can ever prove anything to you.

If I ever state that Hitler was a great guy with a lot of great ideas, it's fair to take the position that I'm a Nazi. But just to pull something out of thin air is quite different than pointing out that the effect of Knology's clause is to make sure they don't get sued. Any claim to the contrary is false, as the clause does indeed prevent them from being sued for any claim arising out of their service contract.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 13, 2008 11:05 PM

Add "Godwin's law" to the list of concepts and words that Justinian uses without actually understanding what they mean.

This post is unethical by Justinian's recent definition of unethical posts.

His 8:05 comment is also unethical by Justinian's recent definition of unethical, as it fails to account for my position on the Knology arbitration clause. Regular readers of this website will not be surprised that Justinian omitted crucial facts.

http://overlawyered.com/2008/06/knology-arbitration-clause/

(Interestingly, when we link to this website, we send over a hundred times as many readers as this website sends to us. I think Lawyer is right that we're talking to a grand total of seven people here: Lawyer, Joe, JL, Kia, Shelley, Supremacy Clause (who is only talking to himself, and is here only because every other blog has banned him), and me. This blog should be thankful to OL for providing the majority of its readers.)

Posted by: Ted | June 13, 2008 11:38 PM

Ted, may I ask how you determined how much traffic you send to this web site? I know that DMI doesn't share the traffic stats with me - are they sharing them with you? And an even better question is who gives a damn which blog gets more readers? I can come up with a dozen blogs that blow overlawyered's traffic out of the water, but that isn't a measurement of quality, now is it? Or are the hundreds of "free porn" blogs out there offering better quality posts than Overlawyered?

And with respect to your Knology post: You've suggested that the vast majority of collections proceedings in court or arbitration end in default. I don't doubt that. But now you're claiming that it takes multiple court appearances to settle a collections suit. If the defendant doesn't show, it may take nothing more than a motion without a hearing. (Depending upon the jurisdiction.) And if the collections amount is small enough, there won't be any hearings or conferences for discovery, so there will only be the trial - ONE appearance, just like there will be one appearance in arbitration.

Oh, and need I explain to you why this contract reeks of procedural & substantive unconscionability and the venue clause isn't likely to be enforced?

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 14, 2008 12:08 AM

"Ted, may I ask how you determined how much traffic you send to this web site?"

We have a very nice traffic indicator that tells us how people are coming to the site and what hyperlinks they click when they leave the site.

And as you are well aware, I was responding to the false claim that I only come here to redirect traffic to Overlawyered. But all too typical of you to change the subject.

"Oh, and need I explain to you why this contract reeks of procedural & substantive unconscionability and the venue clause isn't likely to be enforced?"

Really? You didn't have a very good civil procedure teacher if you just finished your 1L year and don't know about Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute. But that you're still ignorant about basic civil procedure law really shouldn't surprise me at this point.

Posted by: Ted | June 14, 2008 12:24 AM

I am not doing Tort Deform good by responding in these comments. Unfortunately, effective discourse here is too often controlled by others who don't necessarily mean Tort Deform any good. Also unfortunate that the tone of the discussion is enough to dissuade fresh voices from joining in, which ultimately undermines the benefit of the stories and the writings.

Having said that, Ted you mention about venue in your recent writing, but I'm not a lawyer and even I know that the venue of an action isn't fixed just because a company includes a phrase like the following in its customer agreement:

"Subject to the arbitration and dispute resolution requirements of Paraqraph 16 this Agreement is governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Georgia and You consent to the jurisdiction of the federal District Courts of Georgia and the Circuit and District Courts of Fulton County, Georgia with respect to any dispute arising under this Agreement."

There are venue tests that determine where a case should be filed, up to an including where most of the action on which the claim is filed occurring in some other state. True? Are you implying, then, that without arbitration I couldn't file, say, a small claims case against the company anywhere but in Georgia? Or that a class action lawsuit must be filed in Georgia?

Yes or no, Ted: is this term sufficient to preclude me from filing either a class action lawsuit or small claims in some other state? Now, remember, I'm not a lawyer, but others who read this weblog are.

As for the company suing someone, what is the venue test about the defendant?

In addition, since this was about debt collection originally, what is the governing law state about where a suit can be filed? Something about the FDCPA?

"Yes, Justinian, if he tries to skip out on his debt to Knology, will face a lawsuit in Fulton County, Georgia, where he has accepted personal jurisdiction 767 miles away from his hometown."

This is completely untrue, isn't it? Isn't it, Ted? You're a lawyer, you know the law. You are supposed to know the law, right Ted? Then why do I, a non-lawyer, know for a fact that this is untrue? Why would you deliberately misrepresent the law at your web site Ted? In fact, isn't there rules governing the behavior and ethics of lawyers that preclude you from doing this?

In fact, all lawyers know this stuff, so I'm assuming you're spreading FUD among the non-lawyers, in order to artificially inflate the value of commercial arbitration firms, such as NAF. But that's my opinion--I can't get into that mind of yours to see what you're really thinking.

Posted by: Shelley | June 14, 2008 8:49 AM

PS And before you get into the FDCPA only governing debt collectors, not original credits, the point is moot. You know, and I know that you misrepresented the law with the post you linked here, didn't you, Ted?

Posted by: Shelley | June 14, 2008 8:58 AM

Oh, it is starting again. The cult victims are nipping at each other. Someone needs to call in the Lawyer Whisperer from the National Geographic Channel.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 14, 2008 9:33 AM

Supremacy Clause, your sense of ennui and disdain should preclude you commenting at all, yet here you are. Do you often suffer from involuntary reactions such as this? There are medications, you know.

Frankly, my suggestion would be for Tort Deform to ban Ted, Lawyer, you, and myself for at least three months, and let fresh air into the place. Commentary should enhance the story, not distract from it. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not helping Tort Deform by continuing to address comments at Ted. This threatens to become nothing more than the "Fact check Ted" site, which is rather sad.

Therefore, I'll stop.

Posted by: Shelley | June 14, 2008 10:06 AM

Shelley: The left has nothing but personal attack. It killed 100 million people, and still failed to persuade. The facts deserted the left 100 years ago. Personal attack shows frustration in the traverse.

Justinian is a cult victim. However, he has not yet moved to shun, censor, and delete all dissent, as Ted has. Justinian advocates access to civil justice to an extreme, mostly for his lying, dirtbag plaintiff, future customers. Yet, he absolutely refuses to grant access to civil justice for the millions of highly damaged, productive and ethical victims of lawyer carelessness.

Will Justinian advocate the end to all privity obstacles to legal malpractice claims? Will he advocate the end to all self-dealt, extra-legal immunities of the lawyer and of the awful criminal cult enterprise hierarchy, the judges?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 14, 2008 1:01 PM

"This is completely untrue, isn't it?"

No. It's completely true. Knology can sue Justinian in Georgia, and Georgia courts will hear the case, because Justinian has agreed to be sued in Georgia. Why would I make something like that up? Why would you immediately accuse me of making something up when the cite to the Supreme Court case on point is right in front of you in the comments here? Did you Google "Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute"? Why don't you do that, and then you can come back and apologize.

Posted by: Ted | June 14, 2008 1:41 PM

Shelley, save your apologies. Ted needs to apologize to my civ pro professor instead.

Shute would be applicable except for one detail: In Shute, the forum selection clause didn't bar the Shute's from suing Carnival. It simply required them to do so in Florida. Knology's forum selection clause only allows Knology to bring suit against their customers, and not vice versa. For that reason alone, Knology's clause isn't likely to be enforced because it's considered to be "substantively unconscionable." My understanding is that Knology created this clause and mailed it to consumers some time after they had already entered into the contract. If true, this may make the clause void because of "procedural unconscionability."

But before Ted brings it up, yes, the Shute's didn't see the forum clause until after they purchased their ticket. I don't remember the amount of time between when the Shute's bought their ticket and when they saw the clause, which may be relevant to determining whether the clause is procedurally unconscionable. As is the method of delivery.

Also note that on Overlawyered, Ted agrees that this clause is very bad.

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Justinian, it's difficult to refrain. I suppose it's the same as hitting oneself with the hammer and it feeling good when finished.

Ted, I asked whether that phrase would preclude a small claims or class action lawsuit filed elsewhere.

*crickets*

Should we go out and find the case law where forum selection clauses have been overridden because they would force an undue burden on the plaintiff and/or defendant? If so, search on the term "forum selection clause", happy reading. Start with America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court. Also something about, "...serious inconvenience in litigating in the selected forum that it is effectively deprived of its day in court."

You all keep trying to keep us little people out of the courts, don't you? Leave the courts for the people with money, right? Would you prefer a return to indentured servitude, too?

So no, Knology would not sue Justinian in Georgia court if he owed the company a debt for unpaid internet service. It wouldn't even think of doing so, and most likely put this clause in to be able to *tada* control where a class action lawsuit occurs (sound familiar?)

Unless you really sucked as a lawyer, you knew all of this.

Posted by: Shelley | June 14, 2008 7:00 PM

"Start with America Online, Inc. v. Superior Court."

California courts do not recognize any consumer freedom of contract, so citing that case proves too much. There's no contract Knology could write to protect its interests that California courts wouldn't strike down, so all they can do is refuse to provide service to California customers. There's a reason they sold off all of their California assets.

Posted by: Ted | June 15, 2008 9:30 AM

In knowledge of the law, Ted = NY Yankees; Justinian or Shelley = Little League Team.

Me? Garbage man. The law of today is rent seeking garbage, with unconstitutional, core, supernatural doctrines, from the Medieval era. The garbage is in total failure, in every goal of every law subject. Trash it. Start from scratch. Start by ending the self-dealt immunities of the criminal cult enterprise now controlling our government.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 15, 2008 10:30 AM

Supremacy Claus: people I agree with, smart. People I don't agree with, dumb. Good logic in that--did it take you a long time to figure that one out?

I don't pretend to have a lawyer's knowledge, but I think it's wrong when those who do, deliberately publish misleading information in order to spread FUD. Notice how Ted never, ever answers most of my questions about law? He sidesteps, obfuscates, waves his hand and tells us to look at the birdie?

Rather than respond to my statement about forum selection clauses and how most states and yes, the federal courts won't honor these if doing so would prove a hardship on the consumer or individual (and thereby depriving them of their day in court), Ted talks about California.

He doesn't respond to my question as to whether a forum selection clause would always preclude filing a small claims or class action in another court. He doesn't respond to my statement that I know--without a doubt, and with 100% certainty--that Knology would _not_ sue Justinian for consumer debt collection in a Georgia court room. The issue is absurd, and he only brought this up at his site because he is running out of proofs that arbitration is "cheaper" in consumer debt collection cases.

Ted, "Consumer freedom of contract"? Oh my god, you had to bring in the big guns to come up with that one, didn't you? Lesse, it worked for freedom fries, let's try the same with contract law. Let's convince the people that maintaining their rights to the court system is both unAmerican and proTerrorist.

You know, Ted, you're the only lawyer I feel comfortable arguing law with. Though I may not be trained as a lawyer, don't have the experience or case law history at my fingerprints that trained lawyers would have, whatever training you had at one time, you dumped a long time ago in order to become what you are now. I feel we're pretty equal when it comes to writing the truth about the law.

You don't argue from the law in this space. You play word games, you deliberately misrepresent the law, you obfuscate. Which leads me back to my original: Justinian you need to ban us from your comments. Why? Because people search on phrases and come here trying to find knowledge and help, and they see these comments, and they are in worse shape than before.

I argue about law, but I'm not a lawyer (and neither is Supremacy Claus if I remember correctly) and my understanding is both imperfect and imcomplete. People like Ted are lawyers who believes in denying the law to any but he deems fit to receive its largess. He is an elitist, and the worse form of libertarian.

People need a space where they can find the truth, not corporate double talk.

Your space, your place. Good luck.

Posted by: Shelley | June 15, 2008 3:26 PM

Shelley: When you imply I agree with Ted, smile there, padner. You just really offended me.

I want to pass lawyer control laws. I do not differentiate between plaintiff or defense bars, nor between lawyers at different ends of the political spectrum. Their differences are trivial, squabbling over the best way to screw the public. All are victims of indoctrination of the criminal cult enterprise that controls the three branches of government. They run it solely for their rent seeking purposes.

They use the doctrines of the Medieval church, and its techniques of power and enrichment. They have a rule against every human act. They are now trying to put a legal cost on breathing, because breathing leaves a carbon footprint. The entire enterprise is a pretextual, bogus, rent seeking scam. It is in utter failure in every self-stated goal of every law subject.

As with the Medieval church, a courageous Executive will behead their hierarchy and seize their holdings. They will be forced to return to their proper place, law technicians, and get excluded by law from all policy positions.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 15, 2008 4:52 PM

You still haven't looked up Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, have you, Shelley? Georgia courts are not going to be impressed by the idiosyncracies of California courts. I'll happily acknowledge that a California court will strike down this contract. That's one of the reasons California is in the mess it's in, and likely a reason why Knology doesn't do business in California.

I've cited law. You've made insults and clapped your hands over your ears and don't want to acknowledge the fact that your proposals to restrict consumer choice will hurt consumers.

Posted by: Ted | June 15, 2008 5:11 PM

Why should Shelley waste her time looking up a case that's entirely inapposite? You understand that in Shute, the contract allowed both parties to go to court, right? As opposed to this contract, where only one party is allowed to go to court.

Another reason that Knology may not be in California is that it's based in Georgia and its focus is on the Southeast corner of the nation. Servicing customers in California is probably more expensive and less profitable. There are dozens of other reasons Knology may have sold its California division - we don't have access to that information. However, it's not surprising you'd fabricate evidence in order to try and make your point. The fact that California wouldn't allow Knology to sue its customers only in Georgia for delinquent bills probably had little to do with the business decision to sell the California division.

And as for the mess that California is in? Take a random sample of 1,000 or 10,000 Californians and ask them what the five biggest problems facing the state are. I guarantee you won't hear "California is hostile towards mandatory forum selection clauses!"

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 15, 2008 5:30 PM

"You understand that in Shute, the contract allowed both parties to go to court [in Florida], right?"

Exactly: the Knology contract is friendlier to the consumer than the Carnival Cruise Lines contract, because the Carnival Cruise Lines customer in Washington State had to hire a Florida lawyer to bring a case in Florida, no matter what the dispute, while the Knology customer can bring a claim against Knology through arbitration without hiring an out-of-state lawyer.

"Another reason that Knology may not be in California is that it's based in Georgia and its focus is on the Southeast corner of the nation."

Perhaps -- though that doesn't explain why it didn't sell the cable systems it owns in South Dakota. South Dakota isn't in the Southeast either.

"the five biggest problems facing the state are"

I wouldn't put it in the top five either. But it's symptomatic of the lawlessness of the state judiciary, which is certainly in the top ten.

Posted by: Ted | June 15, 2008 5:53 PM

Ted: "the Knology contract is friendlier to the consumer ... [because] the Knology customer can bring a claim against Knology through arbitration without hiring an out-of-state lawyer."

You'd have an argument if not for the fact that Knology can sue its customers in Georgia, forcing those customers to hire a Georgia lawyer. If the debt collection amount is small - say a couple hundred bucks or less - it's easier and cheaper just to be blackmailed into paying it. I don't even know why we're arguing about this point, since you agree that this is a one-sided contract that is unfair to the consumer. I agree with you that arbitration would be better for the consumer. Our only disagreement is that I think: Knology Contract Ted: "the Knology contract is friendlier to the consumer ... [because] the Knology customer can bring a claim against Knology through arbitration without hiring an out-of-state lawyer."

You'd have an argument if not for the fact that Knology can sue its customers in Georgia, forcing those customers to hire a Georgia lawyer. If the debt collection amount is small - say a couple hundred bucks or less - it's easier and cheaper just to be blackmailed into paying it. I don't even know why we're arguing about this point, since you agree that this is a one-sided contract that is unfair to the consumer. I agree with you that arbitration would be better for the consumer. Our only disagreement is that I think: Knology Contract

South Dakota isn't in the southeast, true, but it's rank speculation for either of us to guess why the company chose to keep or sell certain territories.

Disagreeing with a court decision is one thing, but aren't you stretching it to claim the entire state judical system suffers from lawlessness?

Posted by: Justinian Lane | June 15, 2008 8:37 PM

(hitting head with hammer...)

Ted: You still haven't looked up Carnival Cruise Lines v. Shute, have you, Shelley?

Of course I did. In fact references to this case are the first that show up when you search on forum selection clause. The point I made is that this isn't the definitive and final answer on whether forum selection clauses are strictly adhered in a court. There are other factors in play, including whether the forum selection clause would violate public policy, specifically that the enforcement of the forum selection clause would deny a party of their day in court.

I specifically asked whether the clauses would preclude a person filing a small claims, because I know that forum selection clauses conflict with the principals of small claims cases, and have been found unenforceable. This issue has arisen because of problem with people suing PayPal in small claims courts, and PayPal attempting to enforce forum selection clauses.

The point with Knology and suing a debt collector in Georgia is that a) the person being sued can probably get the case dismissed in Georgia by proving that if the case continued in Georgia, it would be a hardship on them to participate, and therefore they would not get their day in court; b), even if a case leads to a judgment, it still has to be filed in the state where the person resides in order to actually make a move on the person's assets. If the state doesn't support the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments act, the lawsuit has to refiled in the state. Even if the state supports the act, several don't support foreign judgments if they are default judgments. It has to do with every person having the right to their day in court.

Even then, filing a foreign judgment would mean two lawyers--one for the initial filing, one to file in the state where the sued party lives. It's easier, and simpler, and more cost effective to just contact a lawyer who will sue on a contingency basis, because if they win, they could translate that winning into an immediate default judgment.

I watched this in our court rooms. I was curious, researched who handled what cases, and found there are two judges in my county who handle all the "debt collection" cases. They set aside four hour blocks a couple of days a week specifically for these types of cases.

It's fascinating to watch, not to mention informative. In fact, I really enjoy watching a court in action--you feel that no matter out of control this country gets, there are people seated behind a bench who are your champions when you need them. They are the true soldiers of our society--the last defense we have.

Why you seek to deny us these champions, I don't know, Ted.

Posted by: Shelley | June 16, 2008 2:26 PM

Shelley: I am going to give you the correct answer because you are not a lawyer, and a cult indoctrination victims.

EBay. The old EBay, not the PC mess of today.

If the parties cannot work it out, they rate each other. As the low ratings pile up, the risk takes out money from future bids. If the low ratings get past some number, the party is excluded from the $10 Bil market of EBay, a type of death penalty for a business. So Ebay has a performance record above 90% on its transactions. Neither side wants the consequences, even if the demand of the other party is unreasonable. It pays to get good ratings.

In contract law, try getting a contract litigator for less than $50K. So only transaction disputes over $1 million are worth litigating. If you go with arbitration, yes, it's cheaper for the winner of the dispute. But, it's always in Fallujah, Iraq, you learn from the fine print. You have to spend a lot of time, worry, etc. So, it's worthless for any dispute under $100K. The lawyer wants it that way for his rent seeking purposes.

Ebay. The model contract law that should replace contract law because it works down to a dispute over a transaction worth $0.01.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | June 16, 2008 3:59 PM

Arbitration an atrocity. Until you have personally gone though this assine process you can not have a true opinion of its diabolical consequences. We have been though it twice and we know. Arbitration is not fair to the consumer. It cost us $30,000 dollars the last time and that did not include attorneys fees. We were forced to go, we had no choice.
Articles on the housing debacle seem to purposely leave out some of the main reasons for the "sub prime crisis" . Reasons which led to the lenders' chaos. The banks, the hedge funds and the builders cry out for help like something out of Danes' inferno. All the while taking their bonus checks, of our hard money and stuffing them along side what they have already gleaned from us ...with their thrown up, defective housing. Now since the gravy train has derailed they cry out," help us we wanted more.".Yet the cries and wishes of the middle class go unheard.. It is doubly diabolical that we the tax payer should once again be forced to pay the perpetrators. The government thinks they should help the people who cheated and robbed us of our homes. We hear that consumer confidence is down, and the government seems to be baffled as to the why.. Greed, of course, is at the helm of this perfect storm, prefect for everyone except the once, home owning tax payer.
The general population has been preyed upon by the greed of shoddy construction, and further destroyed by arbitration clauses which hide the builders role in this housing debacle. As I said my husband and I have been there. And it is not fair or cheaper, but some times you can get screwed a lot faster, they even have a name for it, it is called," fast track arbitration". As we are dragged behind these closed doors, many of us who are not silenced by gag orders,( carefully termed secrecy agreements) tell of the unbelievable goings on . Most of these so called secrecy agreements conveniently cover up what has occurred inside. Inside, where the rules of law no longer apply, where fraud and perjury are standard fare and the arbitrators turn a blind eye because of...greed. The big builder is their constant meal ticket. We the home owner will never financially recover to be subjected again to this incestuous farce. A farce that is touted as being so good for the consumer they made it mandatory. If in fact this privatization of the justice system is so wonderful why is it mandatory?
Arbitration is a sin against the constitution and the general public. One way to get us out of this crisis is to get the arbitration companies to pony up their unbelievable earnings... after all they tout them selves as non -profit facilitator. Non Profit? We know how much they profited off us.Then check the bank accounts of these lenders and builders and make me feel sorry for them. Sorry they have made only 3 million this year instead of the 25 million the year before. These insidous leaches have made millions off us. The builders and lenders are screaming now because their greed became so insasable they have driven this county into a recession. And once again we the people are screwed.
If you would like more on this crisis please google my name Jordan Fogal an read my testimony for the congressional hearing... on the effects of arbitration on the consumer. You may also go to HADD.com or HOBB.org and remember the home you save most likely will be your own.

Posted by: JOrdan Fogal | June 17, 2008 11:11 AM

gee! it's exciting to be one!

Posted by: home builder | August 30, 2008 12:33 AM