Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Left and unions get a smackdown.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    I agree that lawyers want cases with a high percentage chance of winning. That's what makes the "sue and settle" business so lucrative. Take this website for instance...

    https://consumerist.com/2008/01/21/s...-fun-and-easy/

    http://www.hustlermoneyblog.com/clas...t-settlements/

    Sue and settle is the corporate norm. When a corporation does choose to fight back regardless of cost, the litigants and lawyers usually fold.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbl.../#8c7eeff5cfb8

    https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-j...tle-phenomenon

    Sue and settle isn't something occasional or a cottage industry.... It's a big dollar scam run by law firms who know quite well how to shakedown corporations. If it wasn't, the whole arbitration in employment contracts probably wouldn't exist. Those clauses would be unnecessary. But, because lawyers do regularly sue to get settlements and many even actively go recruiting clients (the ACA is a excellent example of using government regulations to sue corporations. There was one lawyer here in Phoenix that filed over 1,000 lawsuits over alleged ACA violations against corporations, mostly smaller ones, and was willing to settle for a few thousand dollars each. He got disbarred finally and all of his lawsuits were tossed out).

    So, don't whine about how this is one-sided. It isn't.
    If you agree that lawyers want cases with high percentage of chance of winning then why do you have a problem with those lawyers who pursue class action lawsuits? If such lawyers see high chances of winning then there is a legal justification and the rest of your post is irrelevant. So, you basically support a system which makes it more difficult to oppose corporations in the legal field even when there is legal justification to do so which promises high chances of winning in the courtroom. Finally, the example with the lawyer who tried to abuse the system shows that the current system could address such abuses. But even if a system cannot address all abuses, this gives zero justification for change because all systems incorporate some level of abuse. As I said before, it is not that under the current system (before the SCOTUS decisions) did not give corporate lawyers opportunities to abuse their power to screw workers for the benefit of the lawyers and their corporate clients....
    Last edited by pamak; 29 May 18, 23:03.
    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by pamak View Post

      If you agree that lawyers want cases with high percentage of chance of winning then why do you have a problem with those lawyers who pursue class action lawsuits? If such lawyers see high chances of winning then there is a legal justification and the rest of your post is irrelevant. So, you basically support a system which makes it more difficult to oppose corporations in the legal field even when there is legal justification to do so which promises high chances of winning in the courtroom. Finally, the example with the lawyer who tried to abuse the system shows that the current system could address such abuses. But even if a system cannot address all abuses, this gives zero justification for change because all systems incorporate some level of abuse. As I said before, it is not that under the current system (before the SCOTUS decisions) did not give corporate lawyers opportunities to abuse their power to screw workers for the benefit of the lawyers and their corporate clients....
      Because they don't see a high chance of actually going to trial. They want a sue and settle deal. That means they get paid and do little for it. If they have to go to trial, that gets expensive and demands lots of their time. Most will then demand more money from the client(s) or they will quit the case. Law firms in this business usually aren't about getting justice from the workers, they're in the business of getting paid to settle out and then give the workers part of the settlement after their own outrageous fees are paid.
      The guy I mentioned in Phoenix was running a scam. But it took years to catch and deal with him. In the meantime he cleaned up on corporations making hundreds of thousands of dollars off companies that couldn't afford to fight him in court.

      https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...says/98071424/

      This SC ruling is about workers and lawyers screwing corporations rather than the other way around. Like I said, if it wasn't for law firms fishing for settlements from corporations arbitration clauses wouldn't be necessary.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

        Because they don't see a high chance of actually going to trial. They want a sue and settle deal. That means they get paid and do little for it. If they have to go to trial, that gets expensive and demands lots of their time. Most will then demand more money from the client(s) or they will quit the case. Law firms in this business usually aren't about getting justice from the workers, they're in the business of getting paid to settle out and then give the workers part of the settlement after their own outrageous fees are paid.
        The guy I mentioned in Phoenix was running a scam. But it took years to catch and deal with him. In the meantime he cleaned up on corporations making hundreds of thousands of dollars off companies that couldn't afford to fight him in court.

        https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...says/98071424/

        This SC ruling is about workers and lawyers screwing corporations rather than the other way around. Like I said, if it wasn't for law firms fishing for settlements from corporations arbitration clauses wouldn't be necessary.
        Bold mine...

        But deals do not come without having chances of winning in court. So, what is the problem if a lawyer sees an opportunity for settlement? Obviously, a corporations which senses that there are good chances to lose the battle in court will be more wiling to compromise. And such compromises outside of the court is not something that exists only in class action lawsuits. Such compromises are part of the legal system in general. The vast majority of cases end with some type of compromise. For example:

        https://thelawdictionary.org/article...y-settlements/

        According to the most recently-available statistics, about 95 percent of pending lawsuits end in a pre-trial settlement. This means that just one in 20 personal injury cases is resolved in a court of law by a judge or jury.

        So, the comprmises in the class action lawsuits do not reveal something sinister.

        Also, I still do not see the point of using the case of a scammer to argue that somehow we should give additional protection to corporations because it takes years to expose a scam. One can easily find cases of corporate scams or abuse against employees and consumers. Corporations do not need more protection. They know very well how to protect their profits, and often they use scams to enrich themselves.
        Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 00:12.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

          Because they don't see a high chance of actually going to trial. They want a sue and settle deal. That means they get paid and do little for it. If they have to go to trial, that gets expensive and demands lots of their time. Most will then demand more money from the client(s) or they will quit the case. Law firms in this business usually aren't about getting justice from the workers, they're in the business of getting paid to settle out and then give the workers part of the settlement after their own outrageous fees are paid.
          The guy I mentioned in Phoenix was running a scam. But it took years to catch and deal with him. In the meantime he cleaned up on corporations making hundreds of thousands of dollars off companies that couldn't afford to fight him in court.

          https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...says/98071424/

          This SC ruling is about workers and lawyers screwing corporations rather than the other way around. Like I said, if it wasn't for law firms fishing for settlements from corporations arbitration clauses wouldn't be necessary.
          Very true.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            So, apparently lawyers should only get paid by corporations in order to make sure that they can only work for the interests of the corporate America....
            And by the way, lawyers are not stupid to spend time fruitlessly in cases they will lose. If they take a case, it is because they sense they can win ...In other words, they see legal justification. And it is this legal justification and real possibility of victory in a courtroom which eventually bring a compromise.


            A couple of things about class action suits.
            I suspect that you have been part of the “class” in. A number of such suits against entities like Verizon or Comcast.
            Your take of the “victory” tends to be a check for 20 cents or, more likely, a voucher you can use to buy more stuff from the “losing” corporation. The class action attorneys get millions in fees, you get essentially nothing.
            As. A result, the lawyers are incentivized to go look for potential class action lawsuits but not really incentivized to do anything that really protects the members of the “class”.

            The arbitration clause in a typical employment contract is limited to disputes over the corporation’s compliance with the terms of the agreement. It does not protect the evil corporation from suits for illegal activity. There are some genuinely valid class action lawsuits out there, but I have seen far more that are just efforts to extort money.

            Lawyers will continue to pursue cases even if there is a good chance they will lose in the hopes the other side will tire of the cost of litigation and pay them to go away.
            Sorry, but not all plaintiffs are heroic crusaders and not all defendants are evil doers.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              Bold mine...

              But deals do not come without having chances of winning in court. So, what is the problem if a lawyer sees an opportunity for settlement? Obviously, a corporations which senses that there are good chances to lose the battle in court will be more wiling to compromise. And such compromises outside of the court is not something that exists only in class action lawsuits. Such compromises are part of the legal system in general. The vast majority of cases end with some type of compromise.
              So, if I were to charge you with say 30 different misdemeanor and felony offenses, something that would require you to pay out hundreds of thousands in lawyers fees to prove to be false, you could not get an attorney appointed by the court, if you won you would still be out all of the money you spent with no chance of recourse, and you could not go to any organization (ACLU, etc) to protect your good name against my accusations......and I offered you a plea to a single misdemeanor charge, would you take it?

              Would you pleading to that single charge be because you were in fact guilty or because you simply couldn't afford to take me to trial and make me prove your guilt (which I couldn't do, all the charges were BS)? Would taking the deal simply be a good business decision to protect you from endless financial ruin as the fines assessed would be less than what you'd have to pay to demonstrate your innocence?

              That's what a class action lawsuit is. A Lawyer, claiming to be speaking for a class (whether true or false), files a suit and a claim for damages. He then seeks a settlement from the defendant, there's no primary intent to actually go to trial unless pressed. The Lawyer is banking on the business in question looking at the available information which is thus:

              Accusation that may or may not be true, doesn't really matter
              A 'class' of 'poor disadvantaged people' being 'oppressed' by a 'big evil corporation'
              Thousands or Millions in legal and court fees to fight it
              No recourse if you win (you can't force the Lawyer to pay YOU back what you've lost)

              And settling. As TAG said, when the business is willing to go to war, the Lawyer will often back down rapidly or even quit the suit. But that's rare as it's literally betting livelihood against someone from whom you cannot take anything and whom has almost nothing invested.

              That is quite literally why there are rights and protections for the individual about court appointed attorneys, and why there are organizations that exist principally to assist individuals accused of crime.....it's a similar situation otherwise, with an individual being faced by a machine that can 'do this all day' and has almost nothing invested while the defendant would have to invest their life savings several times over just to make the state show their hand, much less take it to trial.

              A business has no such protections against frivilous civil suits.

              Maybe your point would have merit if the business could demand a trial, and if they win the Lawyer that sued them has to pay all their fees outright or forfeit their law license indefinitely........
              Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post




                The right to pursue a claim isn't denied by virtue of an arbitration clause.
                It just means you must pursue your claim via arbitration.
                The claims will be heard, but will be subject to a different set of rules.

                The employee is free to refuse the offer of employment, that may not be a good choice, but it is still his choice.
                Arbitration clauses do not have any effect on work place violence claims.
                You can't force a criminal act like "work place violence" into arbitration, but you can force a claim for damages resulting from that or sexual harassment there.
                You aren't being forced to sign away anything, you are only forced to make a choice.

                All contracts involve a decision to accept what is offered. I may not want to pay 30k for a car, but that doesn't mean I am being denied a right to enter into a contract to buy one.
                ok workplace harassment

                hmm so improved worked place conditions and safety should be repealed because people willing worked there. When one side has all the power it not a fair contract. even min wage jobs are start to have arbitration in them

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                  A couple of things about class action suits.
                  I suspect that you have been part of the “class” in. A number of such suits against entities like Verizon or Comcast.
                  Your take of the “victory” tends to be a check for 20 cents or, more likely, a voucher you can use to buy more stuff from the “losing” corporation. The class action attorneys get millions in fees, you get essentially nothing.
                  As. A result, the lawyers are incentivized to go look for potential class action lawsuits but not really incentivized to do anything that really protects the members of the “class”.

                  The arbitration clause in a typical employment contract is limited to disputes over the corporation’s compliance with the terms of the agreement. It does not protect the evil corporation from suits for illegal activity. There are some genuinely valid class action lawsuits out there, but I have seen far more that are just efforts to extort money.

                  Lawyers will continue to pursue cases even if there is a good chance they will lose in the hopes the other side will tire of the cost of litigation and pay them to go away.
                  Sorry, but not all plaintiffs are heroic crusaders and not all defendants are evil doers.
                  I do not make decisions based only on personal profit. Sometimes, it is also a matter of principle. Plus, I prefer to have an attorney get millions by such class action lawsuits than having a corporation getting those millions by stealing small amounts from thousands of its customers. Finally, there are cases when class actions lawsuits bring bigger benefits. For example, there are cases in which such lawsuits bring into the surface labor law violations and force companies to change their internal rules. Finally, there is no need to believe that all plaintiffs are heroic crusaders. As I said from the beginning, abuse of the legal system exists everywhere. Still, we do not limit access to courts in order to protect possible victims of abuse. So, when you ask for such restrictions in the case of corporations, you basically reveal that for some reason we should (again) give corporations preferential treatment...
                  Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 09:58.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                    So, if I were to charge you with say 30 different misdemeanor and felony offenses, something that would require you to pay out hundreds of thousands in lawyers fees to prove to be false, you could not get an attorney appointed by the court, if you won you would still be out all of the money you spent with no chance of recourse, and you could not go to any organization (ACLU, etc) to protect your good name against my accusations......and I offered you a plea to a single misdemeanor charge, would you take it?

                    Would you pleading to that single charge be because you were in fact guilty or because you simply couldn't afford to take me to trial and make me prove your guilt (which I couldn't do, all the charges were BS)? Would taking the deal simply be a good business decision to protect you from endless financial ruin as the fines assessed would be less than what you'd have to pay to demonstrate your innocence?

                    That's what a class action lawsuit is. A Lawyer, claiming to be speaking for a class (whether true or false), files a suit and a claim for damages. He then seeks a settlement from the defendant, there's no primary intent to actually go to trial unless pressed. The Lawyer is banking on the business in question looking at the available information which is thus:

                    Accusation that may or may not be true, doesn't really matter
                    A 'class' of 'poor disadvantaged people' being 'oppressed' by a 'big evil corporation'
                    Thousands or Millions in legal and court fees to fight it
                    No recourse if you win (you can't force the Lawyer to pay YOU back what you've lost)

                    And settling. As TAG said, when the business is willing to go to war, the Lawyer will often back down rapidly or even quit the suit. But that's rare as it's literally betting livelihood against someone from whom you cannot take anything and whom has almost nothing invested.

                    That is quite literally why there are rights and protections for the individual about court appointed attorneys, and why there are organizations that exist principally to assist individuals accused of crime.....it's a similar situation otherwise, with an individual being faced by a machine that can 'do this all day' and has almost nothing invested while the defendant would have to invest their life savings several times over just to make the state show their hand, much less take it to trial.

                    A business has no such protections against frivilous civil suits.

                    Maybe your point would have merit if the business could demand a trial, and if they win the Lawyer that sued them has to pay all their fees outright or forfeit their law license indefinitely........
                    The US has one of the most employer friendly labor laws. It is actually the employees who usually have to prove things in court. Also, it does not make sense to say that whenever the business is wiling to go to war the lawyers back down. People do not read other people's mind.. Whenever you have a settlement, parties do not usually come upfront expressing from the beginning their desire for settlement. Such concept of how settlements are reached is very naive. People settle when they learn that the opposition has damaging information, and evidence to support valid legal arguments that have high chances of giving it a victory in the courtroom. If there are simply threats of litigation without any substance to back them up, then there is no reason for a corporation to avoid the fight. They are in a much better position than the class action lawyer to absorb the legal cost, plus they have an incentive to ruin the business of a person who essentially tries to blackmail them.

                    You make it sound like every young lawyer can simply open a law office and make money by blackmailing corporate America. It does not work this way, and there is a reason why few lawyers are actually successful in maintaining their own practice. Losing a couple of big cases in an expensive litigation can ruin any law office. Finally, as I said we have abuse in every part of the society. There is no reason to ask extra cushion for the corporations to address any abuse that may make them a target. In essence, as I said in the previous post, you seem to want preferential treatment for corporations by forcing a restriction of access to courts.
                    Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 20:09.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      I do not make decisions based only on personal profit. Sometimes, it is also a matter of principle. Plus, I prefer to have an attorney get millions by such class action lawsuits than having a corporation getting those millions by stealing small amounts from thousands of its customers. Finally, there are cases when class actions lawsuits bring bigger benefits. For example, there are cases in which such lawsuits bring into the surface labor law violations and force companies to change their internal rules. Finally, there is no need to believe that all plaintiffs are heroic crusaders. As I said from the beginning, abuse of the legal system exists everywhere. Still, we do not limit access to courts in order to protect possible victims of abuse. So, when you ask for such restrictions in the case of corporations, you basically reveal that for some reason we should (again) give corporations preferential treatment...


                      I have no problems with attorneys getting paid for a legitimate suit.
                      Unfortunately, the system has been abused.

                      Arbitration does not remove any rights whatsoever. It only changes the forum.
                      "Victims of abuse" are not going to have their claims resolved by arbitration.
                      You cannot compel anyone to arbitration over an illegal act.
                      You only arbitrate disputes over compliance with contractual obligations.

                      If an employer is breaking the law, or violating safety regulations, those can be addressed by governmental intervention and are not subject to arbitration.
                      The entire workers compensation system is based on arbitration and yet no one has lost any rights to have their claims heard.
                      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                        I have no problems with attorneys getting paid for a legitimate suit.
                        Unfortunately, the system has been abused.

                        Arbitration does not remove any rights whatsoever. It only changes the forum.
                        "Victims of abuse" are not going to have their claims resolved by arbitration.
                        You cannot compel anyone to arbitration over an illegal act.
                        You only arbitrate disputes over compliance with contractual obligations.

                        If an employer is breaking the law, or violating safety regulations, those can be addressed by governmental intervention and are not subject to arbitration.
                        The entire workers compensation system is based on arbitration and yet no one has lost any rights to have their claims heard.
                        Arbitration is used as a way to force employees who do not have bargaining power to FORFEIT their right to join a class action or seek a trial. As for your claim that you can address the case of employers breaking of law through government intervention, it is misleading. Without the power of having enough resources to have a deep investigation and evidence to prove such violations, you cannot win. In the end it will be the word of an employee vs the word of the employer and in such cases the word of the employer wins. Arbitrations by their nature limit the power and scope of investigations. This, together with the fact that individual workers can be intimidated much more easily make arbitrations a perfect choice for those companies which want to abuse labor law!
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Arbitration is used as a way to force employees who do not have bargaining power to FORFEIT their right to join a class action or seek a trial. As for your claim that you can address the case of employers breaking of law through government intervention, it is misleading. Without the power of having enough resources to have a deep investigation and evidence to prove such violations, you cannot win. In the end it will be the word of an employee vs the word of the employer and in such cases the word of the employer wins. Arbitrations by their nature limit the power and scope of investigations. This, together with the fact that individual workers can be intimidated much more easily make arbitrations a perfect choice for those companies which want to abuse labor law!
                          I'm curious as to what you base your belief that:
                          1) Arbitrations limit the discovery process.
                          2) Why you think that arbitration limits the government's ability to address illegal activity,
                          3) Why you think that arbitrations are limited to the employer's word v. the employee's.
                          4) Why you think that an arbitration's result is fundamentally different from that of a trial.
                          5) Why you think that arbitrations permit abuse of (presumably State and Federal) Labor law.


                          I get the idea that you don't understand how arbitrations work.
                          Union workers are typically protected by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into and agreed to by their union representatives.
                          Those CBAs usually include arbitration agreements. In which case, it is the worker's own union that is bargaining away the right to file a civil suit, not something forced on an individual employee.

                          Union and nonunion employees are permitted to enter into any kind of contract they wish even if others conclude they aren't in their own best interests. That is true of everyone.
                          I hate to make this sound like a test, but your response or lack thereof to my questions above is important to any further comment I may make.
                          Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                          Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                            I'm curious as to what you base your belief that:
                            1) Arbitrations limit the discovery process.
                            2) Why you think that arbitration limits the government's ability to address illegal activity,
                            3) Why you think that arbitrations are limited to the employer's word v. the employee's.
                            4) Why you think that an arbitration's result is fundamentally different from that of a trial.
                            5) Why you think that arbitrations permit abuse of (presumably State and Federal) Labor law.


                            I get the idea that you don't understand how arbitrations work.
                            Union workers are typically protected by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) entered into and agreed to by their union representatives.
                            Those CBAs usually include arbitration agreements. In which case, it is the worker's own union that is bargaining away the right to file a civil suit, not something forced on an individual employee.

                            Union and nonunion employees are permitted to enter into any kind of contract they wish even if others conclude they aren't in their own best interests. That is true of everyone.
                            I hate to make this sound like a test, but your response or lack thereof to my questions above is important to any further comment I may make.

                            If you ask me such questions, you reveal that it is actually you who do not know how arbitration works

                            I will explain "1" because the explanation reveals also the explanation for the 2,3,4,5

                            from

                            https://www.bestlawyers.com/Content/...les/4379_1.pdf

                            Lack of Discovery: Limited discovery can keep your costs down, but it can also make it more difficult to try the case effectively. Attorneys can achieve the best results for their clients when they have as much relevant information as they can possibly obtain. The best way to obtain this information is through the depositions of people with knowledge. Arbitrations can lead to the parties’ presenting the dispute to the arbitration panel without fully know ing the underlying facts in the case. The inability to analyze the information can sometimes work to the client’s detriment.
                            Also I said from the beginning that the decision is NOT mainly about unions! Read my second response to TG

                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            Your response tells me that we live in a different planet. Arbitration clauses in contracts restrict access to courts. They are also affecting non union workers mostly since unions by default pull resources together and act in a way similar to that of a class lawsuit. For example, unlike individuals, unions can better afford litigation. Finally, unlike jury decisions, Arbitration Decisions overwhelmingly support employers.

                            This decision is most severe for the often non-union workers in the private sector who cannot rely in any union to solve their disputes!

                            Now it is your turn to explain to me your contradictory beliefs regarding 1,2,3,4,5...
                            Last edited by pamak; 30 May 18, 12:22.
                            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by pamak View Post

                              This decision is most severe for the often non-union workers in the private sector who cannot rely in any union to solve their disputes!
                              I used to be employed at a location that had a union. The union leadership and I had an understanding that we'd leave each other alone. I made it quite clear I had no need for them and if I was pressed or forced to join I'd make their lives miserable like they'd never seen before.
                              My view on their help if I had a dispute with my employer was they were as useless as pair of teats on a rattlesnake. I figured if there was a dispute and I was at fault, make a deal and deal with it. If I wasn't, rush through the in place arbitration process then sic a pack of piranha and sharks in three-piece suits on them. I saved over $25,000 in dues that would have gotten me NOTHING!

                              Useless firggin' union.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post


                                If you ask me such questions, you reveal that it is actually you who do not know how arbitration works

                                I will explain "1" because the explanation reveals also the explanation for the 2,3,4,5

                                from

                                https://www.bestlawyers.com/Content/...les/4379_1.pdf



                                Also I said from the beginning that the decision is NOT mainly about unions! Read my second response to TG




                                This decision is most severe for the often non-union workers in the private sector who cannot rely in any union to solve their disputes!

                                Now it is your turn to explain to me your contradictory beliefs regarding 1,2,3,4,5...


                                Nuff said. You don't understand the process.
                                But you think you do based on some snippets of information.

                                You quote a blurb from an article and assume it supports what you want to believe.
                                You don't understand arbitration or civil litigation or class action lawsuits, but you just know your opinions on them are correct.

                                I asked the questions because I got the impression you didn't understand the process, or the concept of freedom of contract, and your answer confirmed my suspicion.
                                That tells me it is pointless to counter your personal opinions with actual facts, law or logic.
                                Cheers
                                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X