dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
37
share rss forum feed


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to Riusaki

Re: And so it begins....

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did


88615298
Premium
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

2 recommendations

said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01

1 recommendation

said by 88615298:

said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

what's wrong with corporations running American and Americans losing their rights? Please leave the US.

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.


wdoa

join:2001-10-16
Spencer, MA
reply to silentlooker
Corporate Shill, what a surprise.


en102
Canadian, eh?

join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
reply to silentlooker
Hmm... I wish that I could make myself work like a corporation. Anyone attempting to sue me would have to end up in arbitration.

Personally dislike frivolous lawsuits that only exist to waste time, transfer money from party A to B (whether they deserve it or not). Eg Kid rides a bike down a dark road, crashes and sues the bike manufacturer for not providing a warning label on riding on a dark road.

I am against corporate fraud - eg. Misrepresenting a product so that it can sell more and run the competition into the ground (eg. MS vs. Netscape back in the day).


David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice
reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
said by David:

said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.

That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court.

Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract.

I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold.

A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury.


NOCMan
MadMacHatter
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO

2 recommendations

I doubt AT&T would care about the 5 customers a year that would try to do this.

People need to realize that our rights are being eroded every day. Our country is slowly becoming a corpratist dictatorship. Republicans cant win an election, fine figure out how to disqualify voters, make it nearly impossible to vote etc. Cause new voters who are sick of the status quo probably wont vote republican this round after all the crap they promised has not come to pass.

Congress passing a law beneficial to consumers? Please when did that last happen. Was it in 2008 when credit card companies could now get money from bankrupt customers eliminating that whole concept of "Unsecured Debt", or maybe it was the Bankruptcy reform that made it more difficult to file bankruptcy, and you have to wait longer to do so after a bankruptcy. All of this right before our economy went to $hit. This government helps those who have the most money, and oh wait, yeah in 2010 the supreme court on the same vote line, voted to allow corporations and PAC's to be able to contribute unlimited money to a candidate.

The regular people are limited to 2500 dollars spread across any election even your mayor.

I guess if I want to donate unlimited money I have to go out and get a LLC done.

Wake up people. The Rich are in control and they're doing everything in their power to make sure it stays that way and that they get even more of "Their Share." It's the same group of people who will be able to live in another country after they've sucked us dry.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to batterup
said by batterup:

said by David:

said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

That's probably where it needs to head.

That law would be unconstitutional. It would take a constitutional amendment to overturn the high court.

Remember this is a contract between two willing parties. If one party doesn't like it he can change the language no law needed. One can get POTS without a contract.

I know what you are going to say the corporation will not agree to the change. Let me say this about that. I bought a new car a little over two years ago. Ford was desperate dealers were desperate. They took over $8,000 off a $30,000 sticker. Before I signed I struck out the clause about binding arbitration. "Oh you can't do that." OK no problem I'll look elsewhere. "No wait, let me check with my manager." Car sold.

A word of caution do not try this with the IRS by striking out that you are signing under penalty of perjury.

Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause.


KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
reply to silentlooker
It means you also lose, even when you are right.

You get screwed, you lose.

You fight it, you lose.

You go to court, you lose.

When all legal recourse is exhausted, all that remains is illegal recourse.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:

Court didn't rule it was in violation of the constitution, court ruled under the law corporation can have arbitration clause. All congress would have to do is ban arbitration clause.

True but you know that the SCOTUS will have to rule on that. Remember these are contracts willingly entered into for nonessential unregulated services.

I have POTS, town water, natural gas and electricity and I did not have to agree not to sue to get them. In fact it is the law that they have to supply them as long as I pay my bill. In fact gas and electric can't be shut off in the winter even if I don't pay my bill.

Ma Bell is dead and yet the people bitch.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

So you think corporations should have more rights than citizens???
Really?
It is an American's right to a court trial in cases of being wronged.
This supreme court ruling is anti-american citizen.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.


r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
Reviews:
·row44
reply to batterup
This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.
--
Your behavior is inconsistent with your desire to be treated like everyone else.

xrobertcmx
Premium
join:2001-06-18
Sterling, VA
reply to silentlooker
Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

This would never work as with most companies you do not sign anything and they have clauses to change their terms at any time.

I have never signed paperwork for any of my ATT services.

People check the box that they agree with whatever it is they didn't read just like when they install software.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to r81984
said by r81984:

said by silentlooker:

said by Riusaki:

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Make sure to have lots of lube.

What is wrong with that? Nothing. I am glad the court ruled the way they did

So you think corporations should have more rights than citizens???
Really?
It is an American's right to a court trial in cases of being wronged.
This supreme court ruling is anti-american citizen.

It's simple, they agree to such contract. They are not forced to get service from at&t and many do not. Same thing with other company, you're not forced to sign contract with them. So why should such language be illegal in the contract?


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
reply to xrobertcmx
said by xrobertcmx:

Right up until you forfeit your rights the next time you have to sign an offer letter at work, buy a service that doesn't work, or buy anything with an TOS agree button.

You can decline to accept that job unless they change contract. Why should company be prohibited from writing such contract?

thecp

join:2004-07-15
Sacramento, CA
reply to silentlooker
I really need to invent an antibiotic lipstick for people who can do nothing but kiss the asses of behemoth corporations. A lot of people are stuck only with ATT for internet and if you want anything better than dial-up speeds you will pretty much have to go into a contract.

And if you want anything significant in your life like having a car, a house, insurance, etc. Or even trivial things like software, games, etc. then there's a whole 'nother slew of contracts.

Companies know that most customers don't have the time and/or have the expertise to properly dissect a contract so these corporations and their army of lawyers deliberately make them convoluted and hard-to-read.


M A R S
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
kudos:1
reply to silentlooker
You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
said by M A R S:

You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!

No its called rule of LAW. All supreme court did was declare that law permits company to have arbitration clause and overturn those judges that say they do not. Congress can always change that, that is how our country works.


M A R S
Premium
join:2001-06-15
Long Island
kudos:1
said by silentlooker:

said by M A R S:

You hate the people of America, i can feel it. You have LUST for Corporations. YOU HATE AMERICA!

No its called rule of LAW. All supreme court did was declare that law permits company to have arbitration clause and overturn those judges that say they do not. Congress can always change that, that is how our country works.

You hate the people of America and until you figure out why your lost.

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
reply to batterup
I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court. However, the Reps can actually pass legislation that DOES over-rule the SC. It's only been done once in history so far, and most recently tossed around during the Bush Jr. administration as an option if the Supreme Court were to "allow" same-sex marriage.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I forget the name of this rule, but I'm sure google will turn up some results. I BELIEVE that the first and only time this was used was related to "gun rights" during the civil war time.


silentlooker
Premium
join:2009-11-01
said by fiberguy:

I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court. However, the Reps can actually pass legislation that DOES over-rule the SC. It's only been done once in history so far, and most recently tossed around during the Bush Jr. administration as an option if the Supreme Court were to "allow" same-sex marriage.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I forget the name of this rule, but I'm sure google will turn up some results. I BELIEVE that the first and only time this was used was related to "gun rights" during the civil war time.

It's called constitutional amendment and it been done many times. There is no other way to pass a law that overrules us supreme court.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to fiberguy
said by fiberguy:

I hate to tell you but you need to study up on the House of Reps and the power they have over the Supreme Court.

So, I'm sorry, but such a law, if passed using the correct methods in the House of Reps, can actually become the law of the land.

I'll try to keep this simple. The US of A has three branches of government. Executive, legislative (upper and lower house) and the SCOTUS. For a bill to become a law requires the House of Reps and the Senate to pass it by 51% and the president to sign it. If the president vetoes it it still can become law if both houses pass it by a 75% vote.

If the SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional the only way it can become law is with a constitutional amendment. This is 5th grade civics.


jester121
Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL
reply to en102
Um didn't the Supremes just determine that you can, under the Federal Arbitration Act?


Bill Neilson
Premium
join:2009-07-08
Arlington, VA
reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:

The only thing this lawsuit did was make lawyers pocket fatter. Nothing else. If this is such a bad ruling, i am sure the public can get congress to pass new law banning arbitration.

Because the corporations give millions upon millions to everyone in DC so chances of such a law passing are zero to nil....whoever the party

Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to batterup
So are you claiming this ruling gives corps the constitutionally protected right of binding arbitration?

I did not read the ruling and probably wont, but did they find this to be AT&T's constitutional right to do this or did they just say that they are within current law to include it and the lower courts were incorrect in their reasoning for not allowing it?

WernerSchutz

join:2009-08-04
Sugar Land, TX
reply to silentlooker
said by silentlooker:

It's simple, they agree to such contract. They are not forced to get service from at&t and many do not. Same thing with other company, you're not forced to sign contract with them. So why should such language be illegal in the contract?

There are those things called unsconcionable rights, if I recall. One cannot sell himself into slavery, no matter what the corporate crooks want you to believe.

Or is it ok for me to have a few slaves to work my garden and slave girls to keep me entertained just because I tricked them into signing some paper and that paper says that my buddy John will be the "arbitrator" of any dispute ? The laws against slavery should not apply on my land since we have this "agreement" between "willing" parties, right ?

So should be the right to sue. "Parallel" orgs accountable to only crooks exist, as "arbitrators" or homeowners associations that erode the rights of duly elected governments and citizens.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25:

So are you claiming this ruling gives corps the constitutionally protected right of binding arbitration?

I did not read the ruling and probably wont, but did they find this to be AT&T's constitutional right to do this or did they just say that they are within current law to include it and the lower courts were incorrect in their reasoning for not allowing it?

The ruling states that it can be in a contract it does not force anyone to agree to it. In fact if force is used the contract would be null and void.

Let me give it to you cold and hard; a residential or small business subscriber is low ROI and if they don't get one no big deal. So if one doesn't agree to arbitration most likely no service except POTS.

Now a Bloomberg or the State of New Jersey is a large ROI and they negotiate their own contracts.

This is an example; a small, very small, 10 x10 mom and pop store that sells cigarettes, newspapers and lottery tickets has his land line go out at 2 AM. He will be given a 24 hour time frame for repair. Now if his lottery machine goes out a tech would be dispatched immediately because the machines are under contract to the state.

This ruling just says a company can put whatever is legal in a contract and a subscriber has the right to agree to it, change it, or not sign it. These are not vital regulated services.

I find it much more disturbing that they can change the language of the agreement or cut off your service for any reason. This has not been challenged because there is no money in it for the ambulance chasers.


batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
reply to WernerSchutz
said by WernerSchutz:

There are those things called unsconcionable rights, if I recall. One cannot sell himself into slavery, no matter what the corporate crooks want you to believe.

Easy one cannot contract for that which is illegal; if you contract to have Cuban cigars shipped into the US of A and Fidel takes your money and does not deliver you have no legal recourse.

Arbitration is a legal recognised process and has been around for a long time. Many times both parties want it; Unions and management are two.