Arbitration clauses vs. inviolate right to Jury trial

[Jethro]

Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:

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.

[David Merrill]

I enjoy the way you think. I have a little vicarious (suitors brain trust) with the binding arbitration clause. I had not thought it through like you though.

I am reminded of unalienable being that you cannot give it up, voluntarily or by coercion. Inviolate... Great thread!

[Jethro]

I have heard that some courts have ruled this "inviolate" "right" can be waived -- but, can it be waived by contract? I would think the answer must be a resounding "NO", as "inviolate" is quite clear. That is, for any contract made within the situs of the Constitution.

So if a court ruled that something "inviolate" can be waived, would that not be an admission they deem the situs of the contract and/or parties to be without the authority ordained by and of the Constitution? IOW, foreign?

[David Merrill]

My perception is colored by the success of correctly interpreting the Fed Act about redeeming lawful money. In other words anything goes under the penumbra of naked contract. More specifically though we are now in the 153rd year of the Proclamation beginning the Income Tax. LINCOLN found a Foreigner among us to declare a domestic enemy.

[Jethro]

I think you may be correct, David. Practically "anything goes" (except possibly the right to "due process") in that place where the Federal Reserve Note circulates.

In light of that, could other "inviolate rights" also be contracted away? For example, could a contract stipulation bar someone from voting (in public elections)?

[sambking]

....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

[Anthony Joseph]

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/inviolate

The right shall remain inviolate.

To me, this means NO ONE may deny someone else's right; however, said right can be contracted away since...

"No State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts..."

As long as the contract is true and lawful, the right to a trial by jury can be waived.

[Anthony Joseph]

By the way...

"Jury Trial" and trial by jury are not the same.

A trial by jury is a common law right. A "Jury Trial" is a statutory privilege.

[David Merrill]

Interesting distinction AJ! My guess is that the difference is that the chief justice is a neutral arbitrator in the first "common law" setting and the Judge determines the application of law while the Jury only determines the facts in the second setting.

Hi Sambking;

I think the distinction between law and equity was best articulated in Bennett v. Butterworth - 52 US 669. So it would only be after FDR moved everything, in context of my premise above, into banking law through endorsement that the federal common law could be announced to blend the two.

But we have an interesting esoteric going around the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle as a Masonic Survey. Territorial Governor GILPIN (SW Corner) began issuing fiat notes to pay the Union Soldiers here, and so we find the US Notes backed by coinage in that precursor to LINCOLN's Proclamation starting the 153 Tax Years on April 15th. Forgive me for letting my keyboard and imagination soar here but Jethro led me down that bunny hole:

So if a court ruled that something "inviolate" can be waived, would that not be an admission they deem the situs of the contract and/or parties to be without the authority ordained by and of the Constitution? IOW, foreign?

I don't think this will tie together well in this post, but we have to begin somewhere...

There are two Enochs from Genesis - both marked by a stigma called OATH. There is a son from Cain and there is a son descended from Seth, in this interpretation so to avoid the Sons of God - Seth's lineage from being killed off like Abel, the Sons of Cain were given this OATH, this Mark from God to rule over evil.

The reason you will find this sketchy as a model is that because almost any Christian who attends Sunday School will espouse a Fallen Angel doctrine. That Lucifer wanted to be like The Most High and so was cast to earth with his 1/3 of the other angels who followed him. However there is hardly any mention of this in the Bible itself, scarcely enough to base such important foundation about Satan and in general, Good and Evil.

The event is described in the Book of Enoch and takes place on Mount Hermon.

Quoting from Beyond Kabbalah; The Teachings that Cannot be Taught by Joel David BAKST p. 32:

...They would then reclaim those maps, models and metaphors of the Secret Soul of the Seven Sciences to open up the secrets of the Torah and consciously and methodically use their synergistic force to stimulate the redemption process. Examples of these are the six simple scientific concepts explained in the Door of Models: Dimensionality (mathematics), split-brain hemisphericity (neurology), the Coherent Superposition (quantum mechanics), the Mobius strip (topology), holography (optics and information storage), fractals (geometry and chaos theory), together with the Torus Model of Consciousness. The Seven Sciences are the keys to open the doors of the Seventy Facets of the Torah.

As expected I have highlighted what might be of most interesting to the Readers who want off the Battlefield of commercial contract where our rights are diminished and ignored. Maybe I can resort to a Doctor of the Spiritual Sciences Dr. Linda Darlene GADBOIS (composed from text messages):

God as Our Higher Self

God as our higher self communicates with us intuitively thru allegorical metaphor. If we don't know how to speak the language by being able to interpret and discern its meaning then there is no real means of communication and we fail to see the reality that lies hidden within surface ideas, waiting to be recognized and perceived as real. Shapes and analogies as a series of correspondences, represent formulas as laws all interacting within a situation that forms a dynamic that is ideal for everyone involved at different levels of awareness and as suited to each person's level of consciousness. Thru adaptation that reforms and interprets thru their personal model the same symbol can take on thousands of different meanings, and in some cases, none at all because the person doesn't even recognize them as a language that has deep hidden clues within it revealing operations that would serve as instructions, if, they could only be able to actually perceive them.

I was referring the set of laws that the Golden Mean as a mathematical model represents in terms of regeneration through ratios and equivalents, that form a growth process of an entity or paradigm (mind) that evolves it thru time as a moment-by-moment transformation brought about thru an energetic exchange of influences that modify the mind as an absorption, integration and equilibrating process that forms an endless array of variables as a result. Dreams, as states-of-mind on different planes of consciousness, all of which contain corresponding realities as a form of theme, operate according to the same set of laws! That's why law is considered absolute truth; it operates in a consistent manner on all levels of existence, not just the physical.

We create the reality of dreams as a co-creation with various sources and influences that form modifications just like we do in our waking state. The Laws that govern the energetic realm are universal in nature and permeate all levels of consciousness as a series of analogies and correspondences. The communication from higher realms to lower ones acts as a step-down process similar to translations from one language born out of a particular culture into another language formed by a different cultural conditioning. So not only are the symbols and images essentially different, their meanings in terms of the conceptualized realities they represent are also different. So, the translation has to be an intuitive process that forms imagery into personal experience (imaginary) as a primary means of forming an even more unique interpretation that personalizes the message making it ideal to the individual who acts to co-create it through the process of conceiving it.

[Michael Joseph]

Many (most?) State constitutions contain the following clause:



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.

It is my comprehension that INVIOLATE means that a right or privilege is not violated. But since I have choice as we all do, then I have the ability to contract. And therefore I have the choice to enter into a contract as per the terms agreed. Therefore if the terms in the agreement include that arbitration will be the means for dispute resolution, then the Contract is the Law and there is no violation of any rights. Meaning IF I make a promise in an agreement then I should keep it according to my agreement.

Therefore if I cannot live with the terms of the contract then I should not make a use of the things governed by the contract - especially if the contract stipulates that the right of trial by jury stands waived. We are all grown ups and we each have full liability or we should anyways - and that being said - if we don't like the contract we should novate it - and if we cannot novate it, then we should not enter upon the contract if we cannot live with the terms.

That seems so matter of fact to me that I am surprised that I am even typing these words. Nevertheless, it is a truth. Its kind of like making a use of Yahoo mail and then saying I am not bound by the Terms of Use agreement that Yahoo, Inc. provided as part of the service.

Those who would say where is the claim and prove it stuff bore me to death. Fact is the men and women who have equity in Yahoo, Inc. have sweat and hard work in developing that product for their gain and there is no reason why JOHNNY COME LATELY should have any equity in their creation. Therefore anyone making a Use is subject to the contract called Terms of Use or Terms of Service that Yahoo, Inc provides. If you can't live with the contract then don't use the site.

Slavery is repugnant - yet if I consent to be a slave, then so be it. And yes, people consent to be slaves every day. It is called DEBT. Is their right of freedom violated? Not in the least!

Happiness Machines are made in Consent.

Now according to Johnny Bouvier to Violate is an act done in Force. Finding no force but rather mutual consent, I cannot see how I have been VIOLATED in regard to any right to jury trial - that is if I expressly waived that right in contract.

Of course I might be so weak minded as to beg rights of Usufruct UNDER another mans claim but then that would make me third party PRAYING under someone else's claim. Bowing a knee as it were. I find no need to bow as I have full access to Usufruct in my own claim. Nevertheless, each to his own according to his conscience.

Shalom,
MJ