Leading the Fight Against Wrongful Arbitration - The National Arbitration Forum

San Francisco City Attorneys File Suit Against the NAF

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:53:55 -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....)

California CCP 1281.96 : Are the filings by the National Arbitration Forum Disingenuous?

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 12:13:47 -0700

California Code of Civil Procedure 1281.96 reads:

1281.96. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b), any private arbitration company that administers or is otherwise
involved in, a consumer arbitration, shall collect, publish at least
quarterly, and make available to the public in a computer-searchable
format, which shall be accessible at the Internet Web site of the
private arbitration company, if any, and on paper upon request, all
of the following information regarding each consumer arbitration
within the preceding five years:
(1) The name of the nonconsumer party, if the nonconsumer party is
a corporation or other business entity.
(2) The type of dispute involved, including goods, banking,
insurance, health care, employment, and, if it involves employment,
the amount of the employee's annual wage divided into the following
ranges: less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), one
hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($250,000), inclusive, and over two hundred fifty thousand
dollars ($250,000).
(3) Whether the consumer or nonconsumer party was the prevailing
party.
(4) On how many occasions, if any, the nonconsumer party has
previously been a party in an arbitration or mediation administered
by the private arbitration company.
(5) Whether the consumer party was represented by an attorney.
(6) The date the private arbitration company received the demand
for arbitration, the date the arbitrator was appointed, and the date
of disposition by the arbitrator or private arbitration company.
(7) The type of disposition of the dispute, if known, including
withdrawal, abandonment, settlement, award after hearing, award
without hearing, default, or dismissal without hearing.
(8) The amount of the claim, the amount of the award, and any
other relief granted, if any.
(9) The name of the arbitrator, his or her total fee for the case,
and the percentage of the arbitrator's fee allocated to each party.

(b) (1) If the information required by subdivision (a) is provided
by the private arbitration company in a computer-searchable format
at the company's Internet Web site and may be downloaded without any
fee, the company may charge the actual cost of copying to any person
who requests the information on paper. If the information required
by subdivision (a) is not accessible by the Internet, the company
shall provide that information without charge to any person who
requests the information on paper.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a private arbitration company
that receives funding pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section
465) of Division 1 of the Business and Professions Code, and that
administers or conducts fewer than 50 consumer arbitrations per year
may collect and publish the information required by subdivision (a)
semiannually, provide the information only on paper, and charge the
actual cost of copying.
(c) This section shall apply to any consumer arbitration commenced
on or after January 1, 2003.
(d) No private arbitration company shall have any liability for
collecting, publishing, or distributing the information required by
this section.

Click here to read the section in it's entirety.

In the quarterly filings made by the National Arbitration Forum, we note the distinct "Unknown" value provided by them in the "Individual Represented by Counsel" category. In Q1 2007, out of 3,901 cases that the National Arbitration Forum reported they decided, they state that in 3,764 it was "Unknown" whether the Consumer had counsel.

In 137 cases, they reported "Y".

In Q1 2007, the National Arbitration Forum reported 3.5% of the total cases they decided in California involved consumers that WERE represented by counsel. In 96.5% of the cases, this fact is "Unknown."

We suggest the California legislature dis-allow the entry of "Unknown" in this category. "No" is very different than "Unknown" and the public reporting and spin evaluation of this data is against the public interest.

Is Justice for Sale at the National Arbitration Forum?

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:25:30 -0700

It's very difficult to pierce the National Arbitration Forum's veil of secrecy. It does not come up in a search of publicly-held or traded entities, nor does it come off as a non-profit organization. This leads to only one conclusion: the National Arbitration Forum is a for-profit privately held entity.

The National Arbitration Forum claims to handle "over 50,000" cases per year. Who else handles this many cases per year?

Public Defenders Office - Palm Beach County handles this many cases per year
San Bernadino's Public Defender office also handles this many per year.. (in the case of San Bernadino County, the public defenders office handles 75% OR MORE of the total criminal cases in the county!)
Each of the 12 regional Circuit Courts handles 45-50,000 cases per year.
The US Tax Court handles approximately 45,000 cases per year.

Is the National Arbitration Forum a privatization of the legal system? or more dangerously, is justice 'For Sale' at the National Arbitration Forum? Coming soon - an analysis of the numbers of cases in California - handled by the National Arbitration Forum. Who decided, who won, and who lost.

Then you can decide for yourself if justice is for sale at the National Arbitration Forum.

"Phantom Arbitration"masquerades as Mandatory Arbitration Clause

nospam@example.com (Steve) — Mon, 23 Jul 2007 09:12:00 -0700

According to the Christian Science Monitor,

" the 10 most frequently used arbitrators – who decided almost 60 percent of the cases heard – decided in favor of the consumer only 1.6 percent of the time, while arbitrators who decided three or fewer cases decided for the consumer 38 percent of the time."

Their writeup slams especially the National Arbitration Forum, as especially egregious in the credit-card bias.

What the article fails to mention is the use of Arbiters such as the National Arbitration Forum, when THERE IS NO LEGAL MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSE.

We assert there is a vast well of Arbitration 'cases' initiated and paid for by MBNA Card Services and FIA Card Services and other credit card issuers, where consumers (you) are led down an Arbitration path, in violation of laws. Once leaving the arbiter's office, this illegal coercion and conversion of your rights, leads directly to your County Courthouse. Once at the County Courthouse, FIA / MBNA's law firm collection agencies petition the court with a PETITION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD, usually in front of a creditor-friendly trial judge. Needless to say, the resulting illegal Award and Judgment happens all too commonly.

Is Arbitration being asserted - requested - or ramrodded by the credit card issuer FIA Card Services and their collection-mill attorneys - including Patenaude and Felix, Wolfpoff and Abramson, Gordon and Wong, and others against you?

Contact us now to fight back on their Wrongful Arbitration acts.