1 year after my discharge update

[justbroke]

When i was sued by the big, bad credit card company I went down the rabbit hole of defending myself. A lot of my discovery rights were curtailed because of the arbitration clause. Like the constitutional right to a jury trial! So ill pay the postage to keep my fundamental rights.

The U.S. Constitutional right to a jury trial, under the 7th, is only a guarantee for the federal courts, as the 7th doesn't apply to the states on its face. It's not a "fundamental" right since it is an enumerated right in federal cases. California law does have a state right to a jury trial in civil cases.

Also, that's not a poison pill. That's the entire purpose of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Agreeing to arbitration binds both parties and doesn't allow them to move the controversy, or maintain a controversy, in a civil court. The purpose of arbitration, or ADR, is to save money in litigation. These ADR channels generally provide less formality -- hence less discovery -- than the full-blown legal process. An ADR could be binding or non-binding. If it's non-binding then it's no-harm no-foul. Even a court doesn't want to entertain "routine" credit card disputes and will send the parties to non-binding arbitration or to settle.

For most people, arbitration for "credit card" disputes is perfectly fine. Those that are Pro Se and like litigation against large corporate entities, and want to run up costs, would likely not want ADR unless it is non-binding.

Just my thoughts.