I found this lengthy thread on quatloos all about the cases that Citibank filed against all those arbitration companies which issued awards in favor of consumers like me who claimed fraud, failure to disclose, etc. against Citibank.
It's a long thread, with several cases posted about arbitration and the unconscionability of forcing arbitration clauses on Credit Card customers who had no choice but to "take it or leave it".
http://www.quatloos.com/Tax-Forums/v...=asc&s tart=0
It looks like even wserra and Judge Roy Bean both acknowledge that
Citibank has not managed to prove either fraud or bias on the part of the arbitration companies it sued, or the arbiters who worked for them. Citibank merely took advantage of the opportunity to get default judgments - proving nothing on the merits.
quatlosers like to harp about no cases proving the vapor money theory having been proven on the merits - well, no case has yet proven that the independent little consumer friendly arbitration companies were biased on the merits, either.
On the second page of this thread wserra says:
Quote:
|
The credit card issuers never agreed to submit their disputes to these companies. Solomon himself could be doing their arbitrations, and it would not matter. The question of whether their personnel are biased will thus never be reached
|
There's that goddam double standard again. The CC companies stuff their arbitration clauses into envelopes with statements and junk mail, then expect their customers to be stuck with them or else give up the credit card account, (take it or leave it), but if a customer like me attaches a $20 check to a letter
specifically identifying
that check as consideration for a new arbitration agreement allowing me to select the arbitration company of my choice, and then the CC company drone detaches that check from that letter and then the CC company cashes that check, they (and lawyers like wserra and judges like Ol' Beano) think the CC company shouldn't be held to the new agreement. What happened to equal protection under the law????????
POOF!!!!!
Those cases posted on quatloos clearly point out that any "take it or leave it" arbitration agreement constitutes an unconscionable arbitration clause:
Quote:
From Szetela V Discover Bank:
1. Procedural Unconscionability
Discover argues that a contract provision lacks procedural unconscionability unless the opposing party can demonstrate that no meaningful opportunity existed to obtain the offered goods or services from any other provider without the offending contract term. We disagree this is the relevant test for unconscionability. The availability of similar goods or services elsewhere may be relevant to whether the contract is one of adhesion, but even if the clause at issue here is not an adhesion contract, it can still be found unconscionable. Moreover, “in a given case, a contract might be adhesive even if the weaker party could reject the terms and go elsewhere. [Citation.]” (Villa Milano Homeowners Assn. v. Il Davorge (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 819, 827.) Therefore, whether Szetela could have found another credit card issuer who would not have required his acceptance of a similar clause is not the deciding factor.
Procedural unconscionability focuses on the manner in which the disputed clause is presented to the party in the weaker bargaining position. When the weaker party is presented the clause and told to “take it or leave it” without the opportunity for meaningful negotiation, oppression, and therefore procedural unconscionability, are present. (See Kinney v. United HealthCare Services, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1329.) These are precisely the facts in the case before us. Szetela received the amendment to the Cardholder Agreement in a bill stuffer, and under the language of the amendment, he was told to “take it or leave it.” His only option, if he did not wish to accept the amendment, was to close his account. We agree with Szetela that the oppressive nature in which the amendment was imposed establishes the necessary element of procedural unconscionability.
|
However, the quatloser gurus wserra and Bean both claim that the court in Szetela only found the
class action prohibition in the arbitration clause unconscionable. The above excerpt clearly proves otherwise, yet they both avoided commenting on this quote after it was posted.
They commented on the presumed bias of the arbitration companies, or the supposed connection with John Gliha, or said that the CC companies never agreed to arbitrate with these companies. BUT, the bank cashed my consideration check that was
attached to my Notice of Arbitration Agreement. I scanned the attached check and arbitration agreement before I mailed it to the CC company. I had a postal employee stamp the scanned copy and identify it as identical to the original that was sent in the envelope. My check was TAPED to the notice of arbitration agreement, and you can clearly see that from the scan. Some human being had to cut or tear that tape in order to remove and cash that check. If they ignored the attached Notice of Arbitration Agreement, one of their employees
chose to do so. If they cashed that check one or more of their employees
chose to do so. There was
no element of "take it or leave it" involved. All they had to do was tear up that check and throw it away along with the attached notice of arbitration agreement and they would not be bound by it. But they detached that check and they cashed it. They took the consideration rather than ignoring it.
Maybe they think they can get away with saying they didn't realize what the check was for, but they had to specially handle it in order to detach it from my Notice of Arbitration Agreement and put it through the check cashing process. I had already stopped using the credit card, so that agreement associated with the check was the final agreement. Nothing superceded it.
Were the arbiters I used biased? Prove it. Were they in collusion with John Gliha? Prove it. Belief in the facts regarding the Federal Reserve and the banks' creation of money out of thin air no more makes them biased than the arbiters working for NAF or JAMS
not believing that the banks create money out of thin air - or believing that creating money out of thin air is legally permitted by the Federal Reserve rules and regulations even though consumers are kept in the dark about the practice, and the facts are continually obfuscated by the likes of quatloos.
Arbiters don't have to be specially trained or anything - they just have to be acceptable to both parties. If they weren't acceptable to my CC issuing bank, they didn't have to cash my check, and they could have objected to the arbiters or the arbitration process after they were served Notice of Arbitration and before the award was entered. They failed to do so and thus waived their right to do so by not doing it
timely (within their statutory time limits as per Florida statute). If they cannot prove fraud, they cannot challenge the award after the fact if they missed their 90 day window in which to do so.
Consumers have had to swallow years of NAF and JAMS arbitration awards rammed down their throats - first with procedurally unconscionable arbitration clauses, and then with virtually guaranteed arbitration awards issued by these companies that make their living from the CC banks' arbitration business and appear on EVERY ARBITRATION CLAUSE from EVERY CC ISSUING BANK. What a rigged system! The consumers have no chance to choose another arbitration company unless they submit another agreement themselves and the bank accepts it - which in my case, they clearly did. No one forced them to take the $20 check against their will.
So fight me, you double-standard loving purveyors of pseudo justice! I'll fight you all the way and see what I can do. It'll be fun and won't cost me much at all. You can't take my Florida homestead or garnish my wages anyway. So instead of taking my assets, just go ahead and create the same amount of "money" out of thin air for yourselves, OK?
my head grew 1 size bigger ;) 
