Binding arbitration and the constitution

The antics of Enormis might very well lead one to the conclusion that he might be a refugee from a long term intensive care facility.

More Enormis Moronics.

He makes the claim that the right to remain silent does not extend to contract law. He also gets so dumb that he does not know that the Miranda Law is over 500 pages long and it is where the part about the debt collector's 30 day warning comes from. The Fifth Amendment is primarily a criminally related document but also covers many other aspects of rights guaranteed by the constitution as well. Whether or not one can be forced to agree with the terms mandated by a creditor is not even arguable. Even in a court of law a creditor must prove his case or he doesn't have a case. He cannot force the debtor to admit that his claim is true and correct unless the debtor is ignorant enough to do so. As usual, Normie is just as stupid or more so than the fools he cronies with on the debt collector's message boards. Worse yet, he thinks that he is such an expert that people will accept what he says as being gospel truth without doing their own research into the matter and anybody who will accept anything that a sleazebag debt collector says without proof of the matter is simply asking for his downfall and they will provide it to him very quickly.

There is no end to the sleazebag tricks that debt collectors will come up with in an attempt to discredit knowledgeable people both in and out of court.

I recently had an attorney so stupid that he actually claimed in an official court pleading that Pro Se litigants are held to the same standards as are professional attorneys. Needless to say that is false and a misleading statement to the court.

Sunday, January 16, 2005

Binding arbitration and the Constitution

CREDITWRENCH has advised on his website that in order to counter an acceptance of a contract to include binding arbitration, one should right a letter that includes, among other things, the following:

"Your statement that if I do not comply with your demands to either accept or reject you will consider that I accept and that I will be forced to obey the terms of your supposed "Agreement" is totally illegal in that it violates my 5th Amendment right to remain silent on any matter".

CREDITWRENCH needs to read the US Constitution as this isn't his first mistake in his reference to it. Nowhere does the US Constituion state that one has a "right to remain silent on any matter."

The phrase "right to remain silent" is from a Supreme Court ruling in Miranda v. Arizona et al, and deals with confession of a criminal act during police interrogation. Courts have been consistent in their rulings that the self-incrimination protection extended by the 5th amendment relates to criminal matters. It has nothing to do with contract law.

CREDITWRENCH stating that the US Constitution gives the right to remain silent on any matter is false and misleading.