I have always enjoyed watching a young person have fun and be successful.  Over the years I have coached youth baseball  and junior high mock trial. 

I also enjoy music.  So it is no surprise I was immediately impressed when I stumbled onto this web site of one very talented 11 year old South Korean boy, Sungha Jung.  It is definitely worth visiting.

http://www.youtube.com/user/jwcfree

San Francisco has sued the National Arbitration Forum alleging it's biased against consumers.  Ya think? 

NAF and its arbitrators are paid handsomely by credit card banks and debt buyers in the quest to obtain arbitration awards against consumers--awards federal courts have made extremely difficult to overturn.  Call me stupid, but I fail to see how any system can be viewed as unbiased where the decision maker's future income depends on how his decisions come out.  Any arbitrator or arbitration forum who rules against credit card banks and debt buyers has placed future arbitration income at risk. 

This concern is not just speculation.  JAMS is an arbitration forum that tried to implement rules making arbitration fairer for consumers.  Businesses objected and took JAMS out of their arbitration agreements.  JAMS relented and caved to these business interests.  An NAF arbitrator who had previously ruled in a creditors favor on almost every arbitration made the mistake of ruling in a consumer's favor on one arbitration.  The creditor dismissed the remaining arbitrations pending before that arbitrator and sought and obtained a different arbitrator.    

Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, has been critical of the San Francisco lawsuit.  The blatant, well documented lawsuit abuse against consumers that stems from mandatory arbitration obviously is not a topic for "legal reform" at the Chamber.  In my opinion, if the U.S. Chamber is opposed to something, you can pretty well assume it's good for consumers. 

NAF is quoted as saying it is a neutral forum and its standards satisfy or exceed objective standards of fairness.  It has been my experience that NAF has enforced rules against consumers seeking arbitration awards that have been ignored by NAF for debt buyers seeking awards.  NAF has accepted cases for arbitration from debt buyers without the documents required under its own rules to initiate an arbitration.  Iowa laws protecting consumers in credit transactions are routinely ignored by NAF arbitrators.  As far as I am concerned, money talks and I have seen nothing at NAF that leads me to believe otherwise.  After all, we are talking about an arbitration forum that marketed its services to businesses as something akin to civil justice reform, and that has filed amicus briefs in court in support of positions taken by businesses in litigation. 

The San Francisco complaint alleges one NAF arbitrator ruled in favor of consumers 30 times--out of 18,075 cases.  Bud Hibbs refers to another NAF arbitrator as "the rubber stamp champ" for ruling in favor of businesses 332 times and consumers 0 during six days of arbitrations.  The amount allegedly requested by the businesses was $3,432,919 and they were awarded $3,432,259.  My congratulations to the consumer who successfully dinged the creditor $660--she should get an award or something.

We have two NAF arbitrators in Iowa who have also cranked out NAF arbitration awards for creditors.  It's amazing how these carefully contemplated rulings by these unbiased decision makers are nearly identical in form and content other than the amounts awarded.  The forms for ruling in favor of the creditor wouldn't be supplied by NAF to the arbitrators would they?

State and federal courts are routinely concerned about any appearance of impropriety because it erodes the public trust in the court system.  I have long since given up on removing the appearance of impropriety from mandatory arbitration.  I would just like to see the actual impropriety removed. 

My son and I enjoy fishing on Gull Lake near Brainard, Minnesota.  One gorgeous summer day we were kicking back with a beer, relaxing and enjoying the scenery--probably arguing about who caught the biggest or most fish during the trip--when one of us spotted a bald eagle perched high near the top of a tall tree next to the lake.  While we were watching, the eagle spread its wings, gracefully glided toward the lake's surface, effortlessly snatching a fish from the water, and just as gracefully flew away--all as if to demonstrate to us what a couple of losers we were in our boat with our depth gage, fancy fishing equipment and no fish.

You are probably wondering what this has to do with consumer law.  Absolutely nothing.  I just enjoy the outdoors and like to get away from it all once in a while.  I would encourage you to do the same--especially after one of those weeks where you feel less like the eagle and more like the fish. 

*Title From Rocky Mountain High by Jon Denver.

When it comes to illegal discrimination, most people think of discrimination in housing or employment.  Credit discrimination is also prohibited.  The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits credit decisions based on race, sex, age, religion, national origin or the receipt of public assistance.   The Iowa Consumer Credit Code also prohibits discrimination against consumers who exercise their rights under the Credit Code.  Credit discrimination is prohibited in every aspect of a credit decision.  That includes not only denials of credit, but also extensions of credit on less favorable terms.

Married women frequently are the victims of credit discrimination by creditors who require the woman's husband to co-sign for a loan a man with a similar credit application would have received without a co-signor.  Women dealing with a lender requiring a co-signor are legally entitled to the reason why their application was denied on its own merits.  

African and Mexican Americans are often charged interest rates higher than others with comparable credit histories.  Many consumers caught up in the sub-prime mortgage crisis were actually victims of credit discrimination, having been placed in sub-prime loans even though their income and credit scores would have supported a more conventional loan.  

And nobody should say I never have anything good to say about credit card banks.  It is my opinion that most credit card banks generally just soak everyone they can, as often as they can, with as high an interest rate as they can get--all in a non-discriminatory manner.  So I'm sure we all applaud their equal opportunity, non discriminatory lending practices.    

The Federal Trade Commission's web site has additional information on credit discrimination.  There is a link to the site on the Resource page of my web site. 

Maybe if you ignore your debt problems, they will just go away.  Maybe you will win the lottery. Maybe you will strike oil in the back yard or money will start growing on trees.  Most clients who contact me with debt issues have one thing in common.  They rarely have a workable plan to deal with their debt.  Some have consulted with debt reduction companies or unscrupulous credit counseling organizations and have a plan but, quite frankly, their plan sucks.  They would be better off without one.  

Here are just a few mistakes consumers make:

    1.  Refinancing a house to pay credit card debt.  While there are some limited exceptions, in most cases credit card debt should not be rolled into a home loan.  In Iowa, you should not lose your home for credit card debt.  If the debt is rolled into a home loan and you do not make your house payments, you are definitely at risk of losing your home.  

    2.  Making payments on credit cards while the house payment becomes delinquent.  Once again, you cannot lose your home for failing to pay on a credit card.  You most certainly can by not making your house payment.

    3.  Filing bankruptcy when there is no reason to file.  Many individuals on social security or social security disability have no reason to file bankruptcy because they have only exempt sources of income creditors cannot legally take, their credit is already trashed, and they have no need for future credit.  Bankruptcy is just an unnecessary expense.

    4.  Paying on the wrong credit cards, or paying the full balance when the balance could be negotiated down.  There is an epidemic of debt scavengers attempting to collect credit card debt beyond the statute of limitations.  Why pay 30% interest on a credit card account purchased by a debt scavenger for pennies on the dollar when the account cannot be collected?

     5.  Letting abusive debt collectors determine the family budget.  Many times, the most abusive debt collectors are collecting debts that should be very low priorities or that should not be paid at all, either because the debt is time-barred or the consumer has valid unfair debt collection claims that could be used to reduce or eliminate the balance on the credit card.

    6.  Ignoring arbitration notices or lawsuits until it is too late to do much about it.  Consumers with good defenses to credit card debts routinely ignore notices of arbitrations or lawsuits until they are faced with an asset freeze or wage garnishment.  Many of these consumers will have wages garnished for years to come on debts they had valid defenses to if they would have only sought competent help.

If you have debt issues, start a file for each account and save everything.  Document all calls.  Do not provide financial information debt collectors will use against you later to garnish your wages or freeze your bank accounts.  Get experienced help and get a workable plan.  If you are being harassed by debt collectors, help means an experienced unfair debt collection attorney.  Visit the resource page on my web site for additional information on debt issues and for the link to the National Association of Consumer Advocates' web site.