21 votes

How the free market is replacing a broken court system and making the government redundant


http://youtu.be/C1qqTsjwB50

This is the first in a 10 part series demonstrating how the free market is replacing the broken state.

Feel free to make a request for future episodes or comment on this.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You've got it backwards

I'll ignore the low brow stereotyping and ad hominems and just address the fleeting substance of your post.

I do see a lot of value in arbitration services.

But there are positives and negatives to the court system and to private arbitrations.

Everything I've posted is entirely accurate, as far as I am concerned, and would apply to any private arbitration service located in any state. I'm not attacking them specifically. I do think the video glosses over a few things and perhaps unintentionally makes it seem that in the world THE WAY IT IS one can simply go get an arbitration award from this country and go enforce it in a different state of the Union or perhaps France or Zimbabwe. It just isn't that easy. That isn't a slam on the service or the idea of it, it is just the way it is. In an appropriate case, it might be worth it.

I'm not going to blather on about qualifications, but I know contract law quite well. It is YOU and not me who is unable to see the right from the wrong. You're wanting to see only positive in this just because someone posted a video telling you that the big bad court system is terrible (which it perhaps is) and this is "the" alternative. Well I have dealt with a variety of private arbitration services for years and I can tell you there are in fact downsides to them. It is AN alternative, but one has to realize its limitations in order to make an educated guess. I am sorry if my trying to provide some of the missing info offended you.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Sorry to say this, but you've

Sorry to say this, but you've been a lawyer too long. You can't even see when you're blowing smoke anymore. I've entered into many contracts that bind me and my counterparts by private arbitration clauses. When doing so, I agree to abide by their decision and I do so out of fear that my trustworthiness for all such future contracts relies on that. If I were to break a contract and then default on the arbitrator's decision, I would not be able to enter into any similar contracts again in the future. If I wanted to, the penalties would be much higher than paying my original debt. Geographic location has exactly zero to do with it because the jurisdiction is clearly defined inside the contract itself.

This is how contractors are more frequently hired by municipalities and it works. When used, this process virtually eliminates all the loophole crap that ends up doubling these type of projects. I've seen it personally where an arbitration decides (within one day) that a contractor is liable for a missed scope of work that he would have won his case in the courts. This is because the spirit of the contract (scope of work in this case) was easily determined and officially assigned while the actual contract missed assigning it because it was new technology. It was clearly the right thing to do.

I'm sure you would argue that if it wasn't in the contract, they shouldn't have been forced to do it but that argument only ends at arbitrary limits anyway so even the courts wouldn't settle it perfectly.

I could go on at length on specific examples but the fact is that the courts are corrupt. This is more and more the case the larger the contract becomes. I highly doubt you will find any contracts over 7 figures that rely on your eff'd up court system. Years ago, I even lost control of a project because the official courts said two words were missing from our contract, even though we proved in court that opposition knew of it prior to signing and played the entire project toward taking it over via that loophole. I doubt an unbiased arbitrator would have awarded it to them.

Is all arbitration perfect? I'll agree that it is not. But I will also say that it is becoming closer to perfection all the time while the alternative is moving the other way. I don't know anything about the OP's site other than the video but I would assume (hope) they have researched many existing problems and raised the bar some. The only real problem I know of is when a big company contracts with a little guy (an individual) and pushes "their" arbitrator into play, it is frequently a biased situation where the little guy is guaranteed to lose. This site doesn't 'appear' to be subject to that problem.

This is why I unconditionally support this movement and why I will fight hard against those that want to maintain support for the diseased, twistedly worded, archaic legal court system.

You are misconstruing my commentary

and perhaps are doing it willfully. But anyway -

I have no issue with binding arbitrations. They have good and bad points. You need to know what they are. They are not a panacea or a cure all.

And, what I said about having to convert an arbitration award to a judgment in the correct jurisdiction is absolutely correct.

Your "analysis" of what would happen in a contract case, in a court or in an arbitration is not only speculative, but flawed. In any arbitration, the parties must agree on which jurisdiction's law is applied. The rules of procedure are applied as well. In an arbitration proceeding, one can therefore argue the same legal points as they would argue in Court. Stated alternatively, there is nothing about an arbitration proceeding that would prevent one from making an argument that they would make in a court of law of that same jurisdiction.

And if you are somehow advocating a legal system where rules of law are not applied, consider this. One of the reasons why historians and economists and legal scholars believe that western civilization has advanced is due to the rule of law. One aspect of its rule of law that has helped it advance is that caselaw (i.e., common law) can get very specific, which allows competitors in the market a (relatively) high degree of predictability over the outcome. Not perfect predictability, but as compared to a purely code-based civil law system or a corrupt graft-laden system, quite a bit better.

As for what I would "surely" argue in Court, I would argue whatever I think is in my client's best interest, without either misstating the facts or the law, and within ethical bounds. I am sure you will find that a very flawed response. Any institution or system is flawed, as is judge.me.com or whatever it is called. I hate to always have to talk about reality here, but there it is!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Looks like a great system for international actions.

May also be useful in many states of the US.

But in Indiana, this system would actually cost much more money and time than our present system. As a landlord, I can file in Small Claims court for $90-100, get a court date less than a month later and get Sheriff's forceful removal 10 days after court. Our court goes by strict contract law, so the Rental Agreement allows me to collect many extra charges to make up for my time spent.

In 16 cases, I have never experienced a continuance as far as the possession, although a couple of times for the monetary damages. Some of these cases I have been against an attorney for the defendant.

In Indiana, failure to pay a judgment, usually in 60 days, allows the Creditor to file a Proceedings Supplemental and the Debtor can have assets seized or be jailed for failure to appear or failure to pay. I have seen bench warrants issued several times for such cases. So, while it requires additional effort to collect, it can be done.

Good to see Indiana have an efficient system..

Texas is somewhat favorable too I understand.. I think it's $95 for filing and days for forceful removal is similar. California on the other hand is $370 for filing an unlawful detainer and it usually takes a couple months at the minimum to get through the whole process and tenants have more options for continuation. It can take as long as six months or more if the tenant knows what they're doing. Anyways I think arbitration companies will gain traction in the most expensive and probably blue states and costs should decrease in the future to be competitive everywhere.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Go Indiana....

Almost as good as the free market.... An impressive result. :)

Thank you for the heads up about Indiana.

Although you did not count the cost in taxes. I doubt if those courts are running at a profit.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Fantastic!

Yeah arbitration clauses are more and more common and a lot more efficient. The statistics are incredible for judge.me!

Look forward to your next videos.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Let me know if you have any questions about how a free society

would work? I will do my best to explain it here.

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.