Talk:Forum (alternative dispute resolution)
I would like to collaborate with independent editors via the talk page for the article titled "National Arbitration Forum."
On April 25, 2008, I viewed the article called "National Arbitration Forum." At the top it states the author of that article may have a conflict of interest. I reviewed the Conflict of Interest rules for Wikipedia and saw the following
"Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business or personal interests, places the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias."
I am very concerned that the article called National Arbitration Forum is nothing more than advertising placed by NAF, and furthermore that it is misleading. Thus, my concern is that it should be removed for not complying with the conflict of interest rules.
I have never tried to edit or comment on a Wikipedia article before and am unfamiliar with this process. I do not who the "independent editors" are with whom I am collaborating by using this Talk Page. I do not know I am to approach proving the main point that I believe the NAF Article is a piece of false advertisting. Consequently, to the extent that I am going about this wrong way, I apologize. I have read the rules about using this Talk Page and have no suggestion on how to improve the article. The best I think I can do is state my background and the information I know.
I am a lawyer who has been involved in several arbitrations with different arbitration providers including several with NAF. I have read many of their different sets of Rules for arbitration, have spoken directly with them about their methods, and taken the deposition of a law firm that annually does thousands of arbitrations with NAF. I have no financial interest in NAF nor in any business adverse to NAF nor am I connected to anyone who does. The evidence I have accumulated shows that NAF regularly misrepresents to people how it will conduct arbitrations. It makes these misrepresentations to increase its own profits. Because of these misrepresentations, it is earning money unlawfully. Thus, I do have a personal opinion that it should be stopped.
The City and County of San Francisco is attempting to protect its citizens from NAF and has filed a lawsuit against it. This lawsuit is a matter of public record and has been written about in various publications. For a City Attorney to sue an arbitration provider is highly unusual. Their lawsuit cites specific instances of misconduct by NAF that favored corporations. I also know that in many places on the web, including the website for Public Justice, hundreds of pages of documents that show favoritism to corporations are collected.
Specifically in the NAF wikipedia article, the following sentence is misleading because it appears to apply to a NAF arbitration:
"Arbitration has become the preferred way for consumers and businesses to resolve legal disputes without going to court. Before the advent of modern arbitration, consumers and businesses were often locked out of our court system because of an inability to find affordable legal representation for smaller value disputes. In contrast, the simplicity and efficiency of arbitration provides all parties with fair and affordable access to civil justice. The benefits of arbitration have made it a vital element of the modern civil justice system."
If this sentence were to apply to NAF (by substituting in "a NAF arbitration" for the word arbitration)" then based on the evidence I have seen (and by evidence I mean evidence that meets the Federal Rules of Evidence and would be admissible in Court, not hearsay, not suppositions, and not documents of questionable validity) the following would be more accurate.
"A NAF Arbitration has become a preferred way for businesses to keep their wrongdoing from being revealed in court. Before the advent of NAF arbitrationa, when consumers could obtain counsel then the wrongdoing of businesses were regularly exposed in our court system. As the modern class action device allowed for legal representation for smaller value disputes, institutional practices were being effectively challenged. In response, major corporations like credit card companies, banks, car manufacturers are now requiring American citizens to give up their Constitutional rights to bring disputes into the open court system. Thus, these companies want to make money in America and from Americans while not being subject to the openness of the American court system. NAF works directly with these companies to make this process of denying American citizens their rights simple and efficient. As a result, the companies no longer have the same incentive to avoid wrongful or harmful practices. A NAF arbitration provides the companies with a biased forum and NAF regularly allows these companies to violate NAF Rules which it enforces in a draconian effect on consumers. Consequently, NAF is not fair and does not create civil justice. NAF's improper and unlawful alliance with these corporations is a vital element of NAF's profit-making system such that NAF is properly viewed as an institution organized to make money through illegal means."
The above paragraph may sound biased, but it is based on the evidence I have seen. For instance, through established practices, NAF will allow corporate claimants to communicate information to arbitrators without that information being communicated to the consumer-respondent. If the consumer-respondent sends something to NAF that does not prove that it was sent to the corporate-claimant, NAF will reject it. That is merely one example.
I think that whoever posted the original NAF Article should reveal their relationship with NAF and then the article should be investigated to see whether it complies with Wikipedia's rules on conflict of interest. I do not want to edit it because I do not think Wikipedia is the best means to reveal the institutionalized unlawful behavior that it is at the core of NAF's business model. 71.63.35.207 (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)