Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial
Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:
Quote:
That the right of trial by Jury shall remain inviolate.
However, many contracts include "mandatory" arbitration clauses; that is, language to the effect that in the event there is a dispute, the parties agree to binding arbitration with no other recourse.
Considering that the People's Supreme Law states trial by Jury is inviolate -- something that cannot be violated, period -- does anybody have any experience with cases or authorities in which it was decided whether a contractual agreement to arbitration supersedes the Constitutional guarantee?
Thanks, everyone.
"Some courts"....Executive Branch Administrative "courts"...vs......
....Judicial Branch Equity courts.
As far as I can tell certain "courts" are nothing more than Administrative offices/locations where Executive Branch administrative processes take place = where they try and get you to pay them money for some act that has no injured party or damaged party. And then there are the Equity Courts where one can determine if something is actually theirs like a title to a car, etc. The "law" courts say that possession of something means "ownership" but an Equity Court will determine if someone's ownership of something occurred via fraud, ie: stolen property.
I am new to this forum. I was looking for some information on Paul Andrew Mitchell and stumbled across it. I hope that I can learn from others. I have done a lot of reading and a lot of listening to various people that seem to have done some really great research. One of them is Paul Andrew Mitchell. The other's are Richard McDonald and Robb Rytlewski.
Please let me know I am off base on my understanding of "admin courts" vs. the equity courts.
Thanks,
Sam