The doors to the courthouse are locked shut for victims of the U.S.

Glenn Greenwald reports an amazing and Kafkaesque statistic:

. . . it shows just how corruptly deferential American federal courts are to the Executive Branch when it comes to Muslims. One of the most amazing statistics of the last decade: not a single War on Terror victim — not one, whether foreign or American — has been permitted to proceed in an American court in an effort to obtain compensation for illegal treatment by the U.S. Government; instead, American courts have unanimously dismissed those cases at the outset, without reaching their substance. Even when everyone knows and admits that the U.S. Government abducted a totally innocent person and shipped him off to Syria to be tortured, as is true for Arar, American federal judges shut the courthouse door in his face, accepting the claims of the Bush and Obama DOJs that to allow the victim to obtain justice for what was done to him would be to risk the disclosure of vital “state secrets.” They accepted this Kafkaesque secrecy claim even after the Government of Canada published to the world a comprehensive report detailing what happened to Arar.

Continue ReadingThe doors to the courthouse are locked shut for victims of the U.S.

FINRA arbitration abuse by the numbers

Dan Solin offers a disturbing inside view of FINRA arbitration. Given that it is binding, mandatory pre-dispute arbitration controlled by the industry being sued, it is not surprising that the table is tilted dramatically in favor of the financial industries and brokers. Here's an excerpt from Solin's article:

If you have an account with a retail broker, or are employed by one, you signed an agreement requiring you to submit all disputes to mandatory arbitration administered by FINRA. The idea of requiring investors and employees to arbitrate disputes before a tribunal appointed by the very industry being sued is deeply troubling. Because it deprives American citizens of their constitutional rights to access to the courtroom and trial by a jury of their peers, it has neither the appearance nor the reality of impartiality. Among others, Itestified before Congress and urged it to enact legislation prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses as being fundamentally unfair.

A study I co-authored of more than 14,000 FINRA arbitration awards over a ten-year period found that investors with significant claims suing major brokerage firms could expect to recover only 12 percent of the amount claimed. It is not surprising that many investors required to submit to this process perceive it to be biased against them.

Note the $60,000 attorney fee award assessed against the man filing the arbitration claim described by Solin. Can you imagine many sane people exposing themselves to that sort of risk, especially when it is a rare court that would step in to reverse such an injustice? That's what happened in the case Solin describes, but you'll need to look long and hard to find other cases where a court disturbs a FINRA arbitrator's decision.

Continue ReadingFINRA arbitration abuse by the numbers

The rules of the game in the age of the “war on terror”

Glenn Greenwald notes several recent legal decisions, all of which accord with the following rules for deciding cases in the age of the war against "terrorism." The Rules of American Justice are quite clear, and remain in full force and effect:

(1) If you are a high-ranking government official who commits war crimes, you will receive full-scale immunity, both civil and criminal, and will have the American President demand that all citizens Look Forward, Not Backward.

(2) If you are a low-ranking member of the military, you will receive relatively trivial punishments in order to protect higher-ranking officials and cast the appearance of accountability.

(3) If you are a victim of American war crimes, you are a non-person with no legal rights or even any entitlement to see the inside of a courtroom.

(4) If you talk publicly about any of these war crimes, you have committed the Gravest Crime — you are guilty of espionage – and will have the full weight of the American criminal justice system come crashing down upon you.

Continue ReadingThe rules of the game in the age of the “war on terror”

The Onion: U.S. Supreme Court rules opines that right is wrong

According to The Onion, The United States Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Right versus Wrong that right is wrong:

It is the opinion of this court that the Constitution was crafted in such a manner as to uphold and encourage practices that are not right and, ideally, are very wrong," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, which also in­cluded Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts. "Despite the compelling case for goodness, truth, and justice made by our predecessors in the case of Right v. Wrong, we firmly believe that malice, dishonesty, and injustice were the framers' original intent.

Continue ReadingThe Onion: U.S. Supreme Court rules opines that right is wrong

Anatomy of a foreclosure case

Consider this description of a Florida foreclosure docket by the Orlando Sentinel:

Most of the borrowers — maybe 95 percent — don't have representation," said dispute-resolution expert Sandra Upchurch, who administered the state foreclosure mediation in Volusia County courts. "Many made bad decisions, and some loans have legitimate problems. But if borrowers have no lawyers, the cases aren't being argued. And those cases are going to get opened and closed in 30 seconds, and those buyers don't have a chance.

If you don't believe this, go visit your own state's foreclosure docket--except, wait! Most states have non-judicial foreclosure. They don't even require a judge to review foreclosure sales. And this is in the context of a system where most home loans have seriously defective paperwork. These are numerous cases out there where a good lawyer can successfully fight off the foreclosure, yet 95% of foreclosed homeowners don't have lawyers.

Continue ReadingAnatomy of a foreclosure case