Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why an Ultra-Conservative Texas Grandmother Doesn't Support the GOP

By Cyrus Dugger and Jordan Fogal, Drum Major Institute. Posted May 15, 2007.


What could make Jordan Fogal, a 61-year-old ultra-conservative Republican grandmother from Texas, refuse to vote for a single Republican in the last election? Two innocent sounding words: mandatory arbitration.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

America's Frightening Alzheimer's Epidemic
Rebecca Hyman, AlterNet

CNN's Lou Dobbs Is Clueless When It Comes to the Drug War
Tony Newman, AlterNet

U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Go to Iraq: "This Occupation is Unconstitutional and Illegal"
Karin Zeitvogel, Middle East Online

Election 08: Misogyny I Will Not Miss
Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?
Robert Parry, Consortium News

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned
Huffington Post

Three Things That Won't Help End the Foreclosure Crisis
Dean Baker, Liz Chimienti, Center for Economic and Policy Research

More stories by Cyrus Dugger Jordan Fogal

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

What could make Jordan Fogal, a 61-year-old ultra-conservative Republican grandmother from Texas, refuse to vote for a single Republican in the last election? Two innocent sounding words: mandatory arbitration.

In 2002, Jordan was a happily married senior citizen living in a brand new house and making plans for retirement. She believed in "the system," she believed in the law, and she believed in America. Jordan had the American dream, and then she lost it. Or, more accurately, she signed it away.

When the Fogals reviewed the contract to purchase a new home, they saw a mandatory arbitration clause. The clause said that, if they had any dispute with the builder, they would be required to submit to binding arbitration -- where disputes are decided by an arbitrator -- and could not take them to court. But since they had a warranty on the house, homeowners' insurance, positive results from a complete inspection, and had dealt with a reputable licensed realtor, they weren't worried. In any case, arbitration sounded like a civilized way to handle conflict. Who needs the courts?

The truth is, however, that although arbitration sounded reasonable and pleasant, it can be anything but. Arbitrators are not required to adhere to the law in making their decisions. In fact, not only can arbitrators make rulings that a public court would find poorly reasoned, or even silly, they do not have to provide reasons for their decisions. To make matters worse, their decisions can almost never be overturned by a court. Yet, the worst part about mandatory arbitration is that the arbitrators have a vested interest in siding with the businesses that make their services, and thus their arbitration fees, mandatory.

They learned all of this soon enough. The day they moved in, the Fogals' dining room ceiling caved in from leaks in the plumbing. Soon after, windows leaked, floors buckled, walls protruded, mold grew, and a foul odor filled the house. The Fogals wound up paying $9,537 to participate in an arbitration of their claim, not including their lawyers' fees (supporters of arbitration claim you don't need one, but the builder they were trying to hold accountable seemed to think he needed his). Without this clause, they would have just paid a filing fee of at most $350 and taken their case to court.

The Fogals lost their home because they could not afford to pay for alternative housing, moving expenses, lawyers' fees, arbitration fees, and their mortgage at the same time and because they were also not willing to try and dump the house on another family. Sure that government would intervene to protect her, Jordan went to every representative in her state to notify them of the injustice she and her husband had endured. All of the Republicans ignored her. Indeed, support for mandatory arbitration agreements, tort "reform," and other means of keeping Americans out of the courts have been a Republican staple for years.

Finally, two Democratic state representatives wrote letters on her behalf, but even they told her that there was little they could do because of an old federal law favoring arbitration agreements passed when they were primarily only made between corporations. But at least they tried.

Right now you may be thinking, "that is a sad story, but it could never happen to me because I would never sign a mandatory arbitration agreement." Unfortunately, if you have a new home, new car, car lease, credit card, bank account, cell phone, storage room, utilities, or an exterminator chances are you already have.

Do not just take my word for it, look at your contract.

And when you call your company to complain, and they respond that arbitration is cheaper and faster than a normal trial and for your own good, ask them, "then why is it mandatory?"

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: texas, gop, privatized justice

Cyrus Dugger, who co-authored this op-ed with Mrs. Fogal, is the Senior Fellow in Civil Justice with the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. He blogs at TortDeform.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
carpetbagger nation
Posted by: ankhet on May 15, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The serfs in the Middle Ages had a better deal. Time for a Peasants' Revolt

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go to court?
Posted by: Lincoln fan on May 15, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Going to court is not much better. In my case, our house was built in violation of the building code and passed by the city building inspectors. The damages make half the house uninhabitable, aren't repairable, and could be hazardous. These facts aren't disputed. The case has dragged on for ten years with still no court date. The builder is a large corporation with close ties to the city government.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Go to court? Posted by: Cyrus Dugger
Why?
Posted by: VisionQuest on May 15, 2007 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Sure that government would intervene to protect her, Jordan went to every representative in her state to notify them of the injustice she and her husband had endured."

Why would an "ultra-conservative Republican" turn to the government to help her avoid the consequences of a "voluntarily" entered contract? Why would Jordan want government to intervene to protect her, when her self-proclaimed "ultra-conservative" political ideology insists that government intervention inevitably makes matters worse?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That may not be all, either!
Posted by: JPHickey on May 15, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been a few years, but as I recall, employment contracts also contain a mandatory arbitration clause. This really is a case of almost absolute coersion because for many of us accepting a job offer has been marked by relief and even a note of optimism.

Few of us believe we are going to be the one who gets the shaft and might ever end up needing a dispute with our employer settled. However, these matters, unfortunately, are happening all time, and it mght very well be to you!

Crossing out the arbitration clause from an employment contract would more than likely end the prospect of getting the job right then and there! So much for liberty and justice for all, and this has been going on for some time, and getting worse every day.

Fortunately for me, when I was "let go" from one of my most recent jobs, despite the fact that the company tried to block me from recieving unemployment compensation, the arbitration clause did not cover this situation. After a long struggle with the bureaucracy, I did prevail in court (representing myself, no less). Sometimes justice still prevails, every now and then.

I suppose I may still end up accepting arbitration clauses when I feel my back is up against the wall, but otherwise, I'll do what I can to excoriate and eliminate them!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You Are Absolutely Right Posted by: Cyrus Dugger
Remind me again
Posted by: cstrut on May 15, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remind me again why living in the USA is so desirable to living in other nations? "Freedom", freedom to get ripped off by smarmy little developers who think that nothing matters except their bottom line. It is time for a change in America, people need to re-evaluate what is important. I read somewhere when I was younger that money was the root of all evil and it seems to be true.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: emind me again Posted by: fork
» RE: emind me again Posted by: meadowlake59
Another article
Posted by: dewiniaeth on May 15, 2007 6:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Another article Posted by: bookie
» Inspections Posted by: fork
Listen to Podcast Interviews with Jordan Fogal
Posted by: Cyrus Dugger on May 15, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For those who would like to hear more from Jordan Fogal, here are two podcast interviews that the Drum Major Institute did with her.


Podcast Series: Arbitrating Away The American Dream (Vol 1)


Podcast Series: Arbitrating Away The American Dream (Vol. 2) – “The Stupid People”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The article on declining employee rights
Posted by: JPHickey on May 15, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi again,
Here's the article fom 2003 FYI. There is no longer a URL for it. So much is slipping by leaving us with diminishing rights, that it's hard to keep up with it all. -- Patrick Hickey phickey@esedona.net

Employees’ right to sue dwindling in new era

Kathy Chu / Dow Jones News / October 19, 2003

NEW YORK – Businesses slowly are adopting clauses requiring contract employees to sign away a right to sue, forcing disputes into arbitration.
So far, only a minority of corporations has adopted agreements that require workers to take disputes through a largely private arbitration process instead of into courtrooms. Yet it's a movement that has gained ground over the past decade.
“As more and more courts uphold this, companies may be feeling a greater comfort level that if they put a program in place, they won't have it overturned,"’ said Marjorie Stein, a vice president at CIGNA Corp.
The Philadelphia company has required employees to abide by a dispute-resolution process with “final and binding arbitration” since 1995.
In the past five years, the number of employees covered by workplace arbitration plans administered by the American Arbitration Association, the nation’s largest arbitration firm, has more than doubled, to 7 million from 3 million. Also, employment disputes filed with the association have risen 38 percent, to 1,100 cases in 2002 from 800 in 1997.
A 2001 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed companies’ right to require most workers, as a condition of employment, to take their dispute to mandatory arbitration.
Last month, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California, the last federal appellate court that had banned employers from requiring arbitration, overturned its previous decision. The court said that companies weren’t violating employees’ civil rights by requiring arbitration.
Employers contend the process is as fair as taking a dispute to court, since a neutral party hears the case. Employees counter that these agreements deprive them of a right to a trial by jury and give them little chance for appeal.
Arbitration agreements have spread well beyond the securities industry. Companies as diverse as Circuit City Stores Inc., DaimlerChrysler A’s Chrysler Corp., Darden Restaurants Inc. and Halliburton Co. have put arbitration clauses into contracts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hoisted by her own petard
Posted by: sausage on May 15, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, I do not feel one tiny bit of sympathy for Mrs. Fogal or her husband.

As it says in the headline, she, and by implication her husband, is an ultra-conservative Republican, most likely something of a half-assed libertarian. Therefore, over the years she supported and voted for the very politicians who are responsible for her predicament.

I mean, how stupid is that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hoisted by her own petard Posted by: Cyrus Dugger
» RE: Hoisted by her own petard Posted by: VisionQuest
» Lack of imagination Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Hoisted by her own petard Posted by: theshadowknows
Charter communication
Posted by: bookie on May 15, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently came off 1 1/2 year battle with Charter. I finally won, I hope the state attorney general's office is taking my suggestion to investigate them for consumer fraud. I had set up automatic bill pay and they put 900 extra dollars of charges on my account. You'd think it wouldn't be a big deal for them to fix, but apparently they didn't want to. Hundreds of phone calls, in person meetings, each person promising to return my funds, this company really sucks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Labor Arbitrator" retired
Posted by: Gerald on May 15, 2007 8:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with arbitration clauses is that the "industry" does hundreds, if not more, arbitrations every year. That gives the industry the power to put an arbitrator "out of business", whereas the individual gets only one shot and usually lacks the resources to chose wisely based on past performance.
I agree that mandatory arbitration in banking, insurance, real estate is in real need for reform. I'm not waiting for the Republicans to lead the reform movement.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More wonders from the glorious state of Texas
Posted by: ReallyBearish on May 15, 2007 8:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found the following in the goldenjackass.com, an investment newsletter:

"The state of Texas will follow the USGovt lead and operate in greater darkness. It appears that the state will not properly fund the retirement obligations, thus permitting a problem later. Texas owes state workers $50 billion in future retirement benefits and refuses to acknowledge the obligation. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs is to forego a new national accounting standard that requires states and cities to disclose the estimated costs of benefits promised to retired workers. The stated reason is that doing so is too costly, since the Texas State Govt would need to set aside $4 billion per year over the next decade in order to prevent a shortfall, according their Legislative Budget Board. A clandestine cutback in payouts can be ordered in the future more easily. If they follow the USGovt lead, then an executive decree could be used. Watch other states, like California, and New York, the older more populated states. In the next ten years, over 78 million ‘Boomers’ (so-called because of post-WW2 baby boom) will retire. The US financial landscape will undergo great change, never to be the same, maybe unrecognizable."

What do you expect from the home of Dubyah?!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She's a Republican. Tell me again why I should care about her?
Posted by: ssegallmd on May 15, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for the chuckle.

I just LOVE hearing stories of Republican-voting people being screwed by the Republican government, especially Texan ultra-conservatives. I love seeing people who don't have a problem with the Republicans shafting people of every group to which they do not belong getting screwed - finally getting a nice big taste of the Republican stool sandwich that they helped make.

What did she think would happen if she voted for miscreants and unconvicted criminals. Now she can sleep in the street, and her old friends can kick her new cardboard home and sniff, "Get a job, crackwhore" at her.

"Sure that government would intervene to protect her, Jordan went to every representative in her state to notify them of the injustice she and her husband had endured."

And what did they say? (LOL) I guess she forgot to bring a suitcase of money to any of those meetings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said. Cold, but I agree with you. Posted by: James T. Swaggart
» Revenge is a dish that is . . Posted by: ssegallmd
» Well said. Posted by: James T. Swaggart
Car dealerships do this too
Posted by: Habaro on May 15, 2007 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I bought a brand new Subaru in 2002 and about a year later the transmission crapped out on me. Before I brought it in under warranty, I did a little research online. Turned out a LOT of other owners were experiencing the exact same problem. Long story short: when I brought it in, the service rep asked me a few general questions and then quickly started insinuating that I was racing the car. He then gave me a form to sign. After I got home, I looked it over and realized that I had given them the right to charge me for any damage over $500 found to be a result of driver error and that all disputes would be settled by an arbitrator. I went back immediately and told them not to touch my car. I then took it to a non-sleazy Subaru dealer and they covered it under warranty like they were supposed to.
That said, DO NOT buy from Schaumburg Subaru in Illinois. I've heard many other horror stories about them since. I could go on forever. Pure scum.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» NADA made sure OE's couldn't do it to them Posted by: Mike Turnauer, Vancouver,WA
Disillusionist
Posted by: cjons on May 15, 2007 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would that home builder happen to be Houston's own Bob Perry? He loves to play dirty with clients and buy his way out of any crime. He regularly pays off legislators for his pro-big business narrow minded beliefs that remove individual civil rights. He treats the greenback like Monopoly money. He is a huge jerk and major Republican donor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Given...
Posted by: bob t on May 15, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...this womans ultra right wing conservative Texas christian politics I can't seem to come up with much sympathy for her. She is one of the 59 million red right wingers who brought down the wrath of the the satanic/diabolical Republican party on to all of us. Her party, the party of big business and greed at any and all costs, full of ideology and bereft of any ethics just did her in. Somehow I think the Law of Talion came around and bit her in her wallet and now she hates it.

Where was she before the party of no ethics and no christian values,no matter how loudly they give lip service, and it's in reality only lip service, when it came time to vote.

May all the McMansion owners learn the lessons that we in the rust belt learned way back in the late fifties and sixties, nothing is forever. You have been living, for so long, on a pumped up war based economy that you have lost sight of reality, humanity and humility.

A kind of hurricane Katrina just blew it's way into this women's life and she doesn't like it. Neither do the people of New Orleans who have still to this day seen such little progress to show for all their waiting and despite their efforts. It's called Republican party self serving neglect, a form of mission creep to end having to pay taxes for the wealthy and big business. Boosh and the rethugs would ask you to go to your church for help with your consumer fraud situation.

No dear lady the feds are not going to bail you out either. And given your Republican party politics of no help for and from your fellow citizens, btw it's called consumer protection, via our taxes and the federal gov't watchdog programs which are decimated because they require congressional OVERSIGHT of which there has been none for the last six years.

Dear lady, please remember all of our taxes are being spent to support your war. It's not my war because I disavow everything the Republican party stands for, your Republican party and all it's supporters: big religion, neocons and the totally avaricious corporatocracy.

Mr. Boosh has pumped billions of taxpayer dollars into the state of Texass but in your case it won't help.

Just maybe you will now become a consumer advocate, demand oversight and take out a subscription to Consumer Reports.

No I don't work for them, I am retired and living in the rust belt. We, in the rust belt, learned way back in the sixties what you are just now beginning to comprehend, namely that a war economy doesn't last forever even under religious republican rule.

Do I sound angry, you bet I am, at this run away corrupt government that cares more for business and things and greed and fake religious ideology than it does for people.

I just cannot dredge up any sympathy for the plight of this woman after what has been done to this country starting back in the days of Reagan and his mentor Pope John Paul II, both fundamentalist ideologues, as is the current pope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Sympathy for a Conservative Republican?
Posted by: Cyrus Dugger on May 15, 2007 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of people have responded to this story by saying that an ultra-conservative Republican got what she deserved.

I said above that I don’t think that this is the right approach. If those who wish to widen their political tent simply judge others whose views change and don’t ultimately embrace them, how can they ever become a sustainable majority? Does Jordan share some responsibility for the current state of affairs and her current situation by supporting Republicans for decades…of course.

However, what’s important is that now she’s working to help inform and educate others on this issue. She is also a far more powerful spokesperson on the issue than any progressive could ever be precisely because of who she is/was.

Of course the primary point being made in the comments is that Jordan only cares about this issue because it affected her. While it’s true that she would never have been an advocate about this issue because she would have never been aware or affected by it had it not happened to her, unfortunately that’s how people often come to care about most things. Michael J Fox probably wasn’t that concerned about finding a cure for Parkinson’s before be was diagnosed, and now he has dedicated his life to it. Sure, I don’t believe that he opposed stem cell research before his diagnosis, but he certainly did not give millions to the research effort for a cure.

I also think that many of the commentators are over-estimating their own awareness of issues. The larger issue area in which mandatory arbitration comes up is access to justice and the civil justice system. If asked, many of the readers here would probably say that it’s good to support so-called tort “reform,” that lawsuits by trial lawyers are driving up the cost of medicine, that caps on personal injury lawsuit damages are a good thing, and/or that we live in an incredibly litigious society. All of these assertions are untrue and yet the majority of the readers don’t even know it.

Given that fact, most of the readers probably don’t have a progressive view of our civil justice system, and themselves have been convinced by the right wing noise machine into accepting the conservative narrative in this area.

Even many progressives aren’t aware of these issues, and/or don’t care unless they are directly affected when they or their family is injured and cannot get a remedy in our nation’s courts.

To the extent that my statement is true, it should give those who harshly judge Jordan Fogal…a moment of pause.

My personal view is that those adopting political viewpoints with which I don’t agree simply lack all the relevant information (be it fact or experience based). If not that, their viewpoint is likely ideological and beyond reach.

Jordan Fogal was not one of those people.

It’s harder to admit that your worldview is wrong than it is to rationalize and guard it like our “fearless” leader President Bush.

Jordan’s worldview changed because she was willing to accept that her previous view had serious flaws.

Most people never do that even when faced with situations like her own, and for that she applauded.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Again--Has Her Worldview Changed? Posted by: VisionQuest
Boo hoo -- poor Grandma Fogal!
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 15, 2007 2:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apparently to Jordan Fogal, it’s okay that President Bush went AWOL during the Vietnam War and lied about it to get elected. It’s alright that he misled America about Saddam Hussein having WMDs and started an unjustified war of choice that has broken the U.S. military and cost it nearly 30,000 casualties, not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraq victims over the past four years. But let a Republican government ignore problems created by Fogal's VOLUNTARILY signed mandatory arbitration agreement, then God help the GOP!

Unleash your self-serving wrath somewhere else, you sanctimonious old bitch, not here on AlterNet.

For the TRUTH about Devious Dub-ya and his incompetent neocon cabal, visit King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Boo hoo -- poor Grandma Fogal! Posted by: Cyrus Dugger
Progressives deserve better representatives than that.
Posted by: Cyrus Dugger on May 15, 2007 3:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are using an explicative about somebody you have never met.

It ultimately undermines your point of view and those you represent for you to do so.

Half (or perhaps more than half) of the country is right or leans right. That's reality. The question you should be asking yourself is why is that, and how we can we change it, instead of cursing out grandmothers (who again you have never met) in the comment section of AlterNet.

Progressives deserve better representatives than that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Deal?
Posted by: jaby on May 15, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More evidence that it is not the new deal that the establishment wants to dismantle...it's the Magna Carta.

I know I'm going to get tons of $hit here, but...Go buy and learn how to use a gun...the loonies have them and know how to use them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Courts and Arbitration...
Posted by: moll18 on May 17, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Poor woman. Too much has been eroded of the people's rights in America by this administration and the Republican party. They have only changed their song, but never their tune.
My situation is different in that it does not involve a new house, but the court system. A simple civil case where our neighbors took us to court claiming harassment because we installed security cameras to catch the vandals and protect our property from anymore vandalisim and damages.
They brought a lawyer and we found out when we walked in. We were suppose to act as lawyers and know all the rules of the court, as lawyers. Thus, we were prevented from telling our side, presenting our evidence (they had none and were actually the perpetrators of the harassment on us since the day we moved in--ten years ago).
My husband is on disability and I lost my job a year ago, so things have been tough to make ends meet and stay in our home, so hiring a lawyer to appeal is out of the question. Oh, yeah, they won a restraining order against us for two years...us the victims. Our security cameras were even investigated and found to be properly and lawfully installed and we had the police reports to prove it.
These people in a prior case were found to be committing criminal acts on their property, had zoning ordinance violations and bad behavior and tried to state we were harassing them because we called the police on them for these criminal acts and reporting serious zoning violations that were actually preventing people next to them from selling their properties and possible contamination of ours and others wells. The judge told them to get their acts together and quit committing criminal activities because he assured them we would call the police on them and we have every right to do so.
But this new case, the judge never afforded us the opportunity to present our case or evidence, as we had a lot of it (we had to ask the right questions or be "sustained or overruled" by their lawyer and judge and cross-examine them). How many people know how to be an "armchair lawyer" within five seconds? We were never told we could continue the case to get a lawyer, appeal or how to appeal...nothing.
So warning to all out their who think they have a simple civil case...all judges rule in the favor of those who walk in with a lawyer, no matter if you have the evidence to prove your case or not. This was a case of you are suppose to state your case and provide your proof and they are suppose to state their case and provide their proof. No jury present.
We thought that the judge would not allow intimidation of us by the court system by asking us the to present our side and proof and then asking their lawyer the same. This did not happen.
So much for the US Consitution and the part where it states..."and justice for all."
Arbitration...the worst thing anyone could have come up with and obviously invented to usurp the rights of the victims, not the perpetrators. Nothing in arbitration can be used in a court of law if you do not like the outcome, and you cannot even go to court after doing this. So much for having "rights."
People, it is time to take back this country from those who think this country is only for them and their corrupt way of doing things. We are not powerless in numbers, only individually. Time to rethink what the Republican party really stands for, because it is not for you or me, but them. Time to pick people, not parties.
Time to take a stand and make this country for ALL of US!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]