Mr. Frank said “I have no idea what V is talking about with the “14 days under US Code Collection to review discovery documents.”) As noted above, V misstates the default rules for arbitration”

But below is what I found under the US Code Collection. It just goes to prove to me that if I was mis-stating a rule of Arbitration, that Federal Law doesn’t apply in Arbitration.
I take what I read as Federal Law to heart and I understood it to say I had 14 days to review any discovery documents and make my Objections, should they be presented to the Arbitrator/Judge.
Like I said, I am not any attorney, I have no degree, I am just reading the law and taking it at its word.

TITLE 28 App. > FEDERAL > V. > Rule 26
Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure

(a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter.
(1) Initial Disclosures. Except in categories of proceedings specified in Rule 26 (a)(1)(E), or to the extent otherwise stipulated or directed by order, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to other parties:
(3) Pretrial Disclosures. In addition to the disclosures required by Rule 26 (a)(1) and (2), a party must provide to other parties and promptly file with the court the following information regarding the evidence that it may present at trial other than solely for impeachment:
Unless otherwise directed by the court, these disclosures must be made at least 30 days before trial. Within 14 days thereafter, unless a different time is specified by the court, a party may serve and promptly file a list disclosing (i) any objections to the use under Rule 32(a) of a deposition designated by another party under Rule 26 (a)(3)(B), and (ii) any objection, together with the grounds therefor, that may be made to the admissibility of materials identified under Rule 26 (a)(3)(C). Objections not so disclosed, other than objections under Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, are waived unless excused by the court for good cause.

So did I misstate or misinterpret? Either way it is there and that is what I was stating.
V

Here is a case for you!

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_08095.htm

Please note that no one seems to argue preemption.

Second, don’t misstate my position. I never said arbitration was costing creditors more, at least on a net basis. My position is that the out-of-pocket costs might be more, but the gain in collections more than offsets those additional expenses.

Let me restate my position for clarity’s sake. Arbitration may be more expensive for creditors, but it provides the creditors with a better return. In this regard I cannot disagree with you that the use of arbitration increases default recoveries, and thus, reduces default losses, thereby permitting creditors to minimize their costs and deliver lower cost services. I just disagree with you on how that happens.

Third, please define for me the difference between (1) being so severely incorrect about the future that there are, what, $200-300 billion in mortgage losses, and (2) being irrational. If someone borrows a $1 million because he thinks he’s going to win the lottery next week, is that uncertainty about the future, or irrationality? I mistake nothing. It is just a matter of degree.

As I stated before, I have no problem with arbitration in general – I think arbitration is a great thing and can be much faster and cheaper than court in many instances (though not necessarily always). I just objected to it being shoved down consumer’s throats.

Give them the option, and also educate consumers on the benefits of arbitration, and I’m sure many will happily check that box.