Bangkok added his thoughts to the conversation, accusing Skeptic of being another commenter, Sherizzy
Is that you, Sherizzy?
With regard to your comment stating ‘she signed the contract’ —- please lookup the legal principle known as “unconscionability”.
It renders all contract clauses, which meet its definition, non-enforceable.
It’s pretty universal across all states and federal law.
Here’s a quote from the article (not from CT, but CT courts have similar rulings)
“Limited discovery is a hallmark of arbitration. (Ramirez, supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 385.) However, discovery must allow a party to vindicate their statutory rights in consumer and employment arbitrations. (Baxter, supra, 16 Cal.App.5th at p. 727.) If a party cannot do so, the discovery limit is unconscionable. (Ibid.)” -End of Quote
Part of deciding if a contract is unconscionable is how much power one party has over the other party (to deceive them when signing the deal).
In this case, the sophisticated ‘legal knowledge’ possessed by her shitbag attorney (Nusbaum) gave him an unfair advantage —- because he knew that Karen’s legal knowledge wasn’t sophisticated enough to realize what RIGHTS she was truly giving up by signing his one-sided, unusual, and unconscionable arbitration agreement.
Also, the fact that CT family attorneys are likely protecting their own colleagues (in arbitration disputes) is so grossly unfair, and possibly illegal, that no court would assume that any reasonable person would enter into such an agreement if they truly understood the scheme behind it.
Then WHY would an attorney insist on having his own colleagues, from CT family court, arbitrate his disputes?
Why not allow a neutral arbitrator who won’t favor anybody?
It’s cuz Nusbaum is a shitbag who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.