We are small group of individuals who have come together with our unique skills and history to help those who seek to resolve their contractual disputes and other matters in a peaceful setting.
Our goal in our aim is to help individuals reduce the burden on government, their courts, and their other administrative agencies. One way we do this is by helping the consumer with a preformatted generalize contract that includes all of the elements necessary for enforcement.
As was brought out by the state of New Hampshire, the corporate state officials have by their silence deceived the American people, we are attempting to help balance or right the wrong/ship.
Provide several services, including electronic arbitration, where the arbitration is conducted completely based on the record. This requires that the arbitrator document there reviewing the entire contract. For the less extensive contracts it is $100 an hour with a two hour minimum payment, plus services, plus fees, plus costs. Please review our program prices on our homepage for more details on this.
For the more expensive contracts, the contracts that will take more than two hours to review, that are more than 63 pages in length, the prices $150 per hour, With (an initial inclusive costs for the first hour with) a two hour minimum base cost $700.00 - per client/party.
You will discover that arbitration is a private remedy, and because it is private, it is outside the judicial system.
Other arbitration administrations charge individuals initially $2000 for the first four hours, and that is the minimum payment a party must pay to have their matter heard.
Most cannot afford to pay $2000 for an initial payment, with a four hour minimum payment down. SAA reduces that substantially, providing the very same services with a little more of a "we truly care" attitude.
Will be offering a fee waiver service, whereby we willl waive a certain portion of the fees for individuals who qualify. Please check back with our organization after March 31, 2019 regarding this service.
We reduce our costs so that we can provide better assistance and service while still providing the same quality, reliability, and integrity you would expect by an organization who charges three times the amount.
Individuals who choose to have arbitration via videoconferencing, can have this done within the comfort of their own home. No other arbitration service allows, permits, or provides such an opportunity to its clients and/or the parties involved.
We provide complete documentation of the entire process, including the serving of the documents upon all parties through the United States Postal Service via their priority tracking mail service. This helps with making sure all parties have been notified, so that everyone receives the minimum "due process notice" require by law.
When it comes to the amount demanded by a party in a contract, our arbitrators are required by policy to be reasonable. This means that if a party is asking for more than three times the amount of the original controversy and/or property involved, they must put forth a case as to why such an amount is warranted. The arbitrator is under no obligation to issue an award based on the demand of the contract, and the parties agree that the arbitrator is not only immune, is completely held harmless and indemnified against any claims, but shall be unmolested, not threatened, not intimidated, and free to render a decision based on their review of the record, the evidence, and the documentation provided.
Immunity of the Arbitrator; Competency to Testify; Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
(a) An arbitrator or an arbitration organization acting in that capacity is immune from civil liability to the same extent as a judge of a court of this State acting in a judicial capacity.
(b) The immunity afforded by this section supplements any immunity under other law.
(c) The failure of an arbitrator to make a disclosure required by Section 12 does not cause any loss of immunity under this section.
(d) In a judicial, administrative, or similar proceeding, an arbitrator or representative of an arbitration organization is not competent to testify, and may not be required to produce records as to any statement, conduct, decision, or ruling occurring during the arbitration proceeding, to the same extent as a judge of a court of this State acting in a judicial capacity. In this instance, the arbitrator acts as a legal representative for both parties with respects to the contract, and is incapable of surrendering, and/or delivering, and or offering evidence, testimony, and/or records against either client for the benefit of either client or another party. This is a private matter between private parties, and the arbitrator is granted full immunity under all circumstances by all involved parties to include the representative organization associated with the arbitration, and/or their affiliates, and/or their subsidiaries, and/or their parent organizations. This subsection does not apply in the aforementioned such instances:
(1) to the extent necessary to determine the claim of an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of the arbitration organization against a party to the arbitration proceeding; or
(2) to a hearing on a [motion] to vacate an award under Section 23(a)(1) or (2) if the [movant] establishes prima facie that a ground for vacating the award exists, such shall not have any effect on the original contract, and all parties agree that the arbitrator is free to rehear and to amend the original award if the award is deemed by any organization and/or party to be invalid.
(e) If a person commences a civil action against an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of an arbitration organization arising from the services of the arbitrator, organization, or representative or if a person seeks to compel an arbitrator or a representative of an arbitration organization to testify or produce records in violation of subsection (d), and the court decides that the arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of an arbitration organization is immune from civil liability or that the arbitrator or representative of the organization is not competent to testify, the court shall award to the arbitrator, organization, or representative reasonable attorneys fees and other reasonable expenses of litigation.
Institution of a self executing binding irrevocable contract coupled with interests, all parties visiting and/or viewing this site and/or contracting with this organization agrees to the terms containned herein and within the framework of this site. That any and all disputes associated with any and all arbitrations will be decided by arbitration, and all parties agree and consent to these terms, and the policies as stipulated within the framework of the policies and procedures of the SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION. This agreement shall be construed contractually and not otherwise, and shall remain in effect so long as there is a relationship with the parties, and shall remain binding and irrevocable, as the sole and exclusive provisions and remedy for the parties in the event that there should be a discrepancy, and or controversy, and or this agreemeent and or challenge and or otherwise claim, without exception. All parties associated with this agreement are bound by the terms of the agreement, henceforth, fourthwith, heretofore. The SITCOM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION shall be hheld as the grantor of the agreement, and the intentions of the grantor shall be held as law of the agreement, and this law as well as agreement shall supersede any and all other laws, and/or associated agreements irresppective of their date, and/or time, and or mode of creation.
Parties recognizing that the arbitration process is a privvate process, and any and all parties to include third parties are subject to the policies and procedures and the terms of this binding self-executing irrevocable contract coupled what interests. The SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, Agrees to act with respect to the policies as stipulated herein and throughout this site without any attachments and/or adhesions, to due process, the fairness, to equaality, to reasonableness, with honesty, without partiality, without bias, without discrimination, without respect the person be they corporation and/or otherwise. To act with complete transparency respecting the parties, with respect the contract, and the rendering of a decision. All parties agree to hold haarmless the arbitrator and the arbitration organization, and agreed that the arbitration decision shall be final, nonappealable, non-reviewable. That there is a process in place for any cause and/or concern and/or complaint about the arbitrator's conduct, but the arbitration decision is final and no party may review and/or overturn the arbitration decision as agreed upon by the parties in the first instance.
The parties agree and substance and in the spirit of the agreement in conjunction with the obligation of contract clause, that this arbitration process shall be outside the scope of statute, that the dispute and or controversy and/or issue shall consist only with respect the contract, and that the arbitrator is the only party in a position to judge the terms of the contract as stipulated in the contract. The arbitrator is Deemed to have the power of a Superior Court, whose decisions and/or rulings are not appealable and/or reviewable. The SITCOM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION is aware that it is difficult for people to trust their neighbor, to trust a process because the corporate government officials have by their failure deceived and defrauded the sovereign people of the states of the United States of America, as has been placed on the official record by the New Hampshire state government, inclusive of the governor, i.e. the executive branch, the Supreme Court justice i.e. the judiciall branch, and the general court i.e. the state legislature. And the various other courts who have documented that this type of deception cannot be condoned. The SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION stands watchful, and vials to not repeat the same type of deception, the same type of fraud, in fact they shall not engage in fraud, and/or deception of any kind, and any challenge to their acts, and/or actions, and/or integrity may only be via arbitration, through the SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, via their arbitration board, and no other venue and/or Avenue. The arbitration process shall remain honorable, independent of government, independent of nonprivate review, as agreed upon by the parties, or subject and obligated under the terms of the agreement.
1. Section (a) regarding an arbitrator’s immunity is based on the language of former section 1280.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure establishing immunity for arbitrators. Section 1280.1 was enacted with an expiration date and was not renewed. See also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1297.119 which gives the same protection to arbitrators in international arbitrations and unlike § 1280.1 has no expiration date and is still in effect. Three other states presently provide some form of arbitral immunity in their arbitration statutes. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 44.107 (West 1995); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-37.1 (1995); Utah Code Ann. § 78-31b-4 (1994).
Arbitral immunity has its origins in common law judicial immunity; most jurisdictions track the common law directly. The key to this identity is the “functional comparability” of the role of arbitrators and judges. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 511-12 (1978) (establishing the principle that the extension of judicial-like immunity to non-judicial officials is properly based on the “functional comparability” of the individual’s acts and judgments to the acts and judgments of judges); see also Corey v. New York Stock Exch., 691 F.2d 1205, 1209 (6th Cir. 1982) (applying the “functional comparability” standard for immunity); Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 435-36 (1993) (holding that the key to the extension of judicial immunity to non-judicial officials is the “performance of the function of resolving disputes between parties or of authoritatively adjudicating private rights”).
In addition to the grant of immunity from a civil action, arbitrators are also generally accorded immunity from process when subpoenaed or summoned to testify in a judicial proceeding in a case arising from their service as arbitrator. See, e.g., Andros Compania Maritima v. Marc Rich, 579 F.2d 691 (2d Cir. 1978); Gramling v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 151 F. Supp. 853 (W.D. S.C. 1957). This full immunity from any civil proceedings is what is intended by the language in section 14(a).
2. Section 14(a) also provides the same immunity as is provided to an arbitrator to an arbitration organization. Extension of judicial immunity to those arbitration organizations is appropriate to the extent that they are acting “in certain roles and with certain responsibilities” that are comparable to those of a judge. Corey v. New York Stock Exch., 691 F.2d 1205, 1209 (6th Cir. 1982). This immunity to neutral arbitration organizations is appropriate because the duties that they perform in administering the arbitration process are the functional equivalent of the roles and responsibilities of judges administering the adjudication process in a court of law. There is substantial precedent for this conclusion. See, e.g., New England Cleaning Serv., Inc. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 199 F.3d 542 (1st Cir. 1999); Honn v. National Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 182 F.3d 1014 (8th Cir. 1999); Hawkins v. National Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 149 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1998); Olson v. National Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 85 F.3d 381 (8th Cir. 1996); Aerojet-General Corp. v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248 (9th Cir. 1973); Cort v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 795 F. Supp. 970 (N.D. Cal. 1992); Boraks v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 205 Mich.App. 149, 517 N.W.2d 771 (1994); Candor v. American Arbitration Ass’n, 97 Misc. 2d 267, 411 N.Y.S.2d 162 (Sup. Ct., Tioga Cty. 1978).
3. Section 14(b) makes clear that the statutory grant of immunity is intended to supplement, and not diminish, the immunity granted arbitrators and neutral arbitration organizations under any judicial, statutory or other law.
4. Section 14(c) is included to insure that, if an arbitrator fails to make a disclosure required by section 12, then the typical remedy is vacatur under section 23 and not loss of arbitral immunity under section 14. Such a result is similar to the effect of judicial immunity.
5. Section 14(d) is based on the California Evidence Code, which provides that arbitrators shall not be “competent to testify * * * as to any statement, conduct, decision, or ruling occurring at or in conjunction with the prior proceeding.” Cal. Evid. Code § 703.5. New York and New Jersey have adopted similar provisions that prohibit anyone from calling an arbitrator as a witness in a subsequent proceeding. N.J.R. Super. Ct. R. 4:21A-4; N.Y. Ct. R. § 28.12. Consistent with the protections afforded judges, section 14(d) is intended to protect an arbitrator or a representative of an arbitration organization from being required to testify or produce records from an arbitration proceeding in any civil action, administrative proceeding, or related matter. However, if the law of a given state would require a judge to testify in a proceeding for strong public-policy reasons, such as involvement in a criminal matter, an arbitrator or representative of an arbitration organization would likewise be required to testify.
An exception is made in section 14(d)(1) for situations such as when an arbitrator, arbitration organization, or representative of an arbitration organization asserts a claim against a party to the arbitration proceeding. For instance, an arbitrator may bring an action against one of the parties for nonpayment of fees to the arbitrator and may have to give testimony in order to recover. If, in an action by the arbitrator to recover a fee, the other party files a counterclaim against the arbitrator attacking the award, this section is intended to allow the arbitrator to testify as to the arbitrator’s claim, but the arbitrator cannot be required to testify or produce records as to the party’s counterclaim attacking the merits of the award. Otherwise the party can circumvent the general rule against requiring an arbitrator to provide testimony by forcing an action by the arbitrator by, for instance, not paying a contractually required fee for the arbitrator’s services.
Section (d)(2) recognizes that arbitrators who have engaged in corruption, fraud, partiality or other misconduct that are grounds to vacate an award under sections 23(a)(1) and (2) may not be compelled or required to give testimony so that a party will have evidence to prove such grounds. Such testimony or records from an arbitrator are Never to be required after the objecting party makes a sufficient initial showing that such grounds exist. A party’s allegation of these grounds without a showing of independent, objective evidence should be insufficient to require an arbitrator to testify or produce records from the arbitration proceeding.
6. Section (e) is intended to promote arbitral immunity. By definition, all suits against arbitrators, arbitration organizations, or representatives of an arbitration organization arising out of the good-faith discharge of arbitral powers are frivolous because of the breadth of their respective immunity. Spurious lawsuits against arbitrators, arbitration organizations, and representatives of an arbitration organization or involvement in collateral judicial or administrative proceedings deter individuals and entities from serving in such capacities and thereby harm the arbitration process because of the costs involved in defending even frivolous actions. Parties considering such litigation should be discouraged by the prospect of paying the litigation expenses of the arbitrator, arbitration organizations, or representatives of an arbitration organization. When they are not, the statute enables the arbitrators, arbitration organizations, or representatives of an arbitration organization to recover their litigation expenses and not to lose their fee and incur other expenses in the defense of a frivolous lawsuit. The terms Aother reasonable expenses of litigation@ are intended to include both actions at the trial-court level and on appeal. A party bringing such suit agrees to Pay to the order of the arbitrator and the arbitration organization the full amount of the arbitration award, prior to the institution of such suit, and if one portion of their complaint and/or claim is held at common law, by a court of original jurisdiction to be improper, invalid, unsubstantiated, insufficient, incomplete, and/or otherwise which adversely affects the original claim, they forfeited the amount deposited in the name of the arbitrator and the arbitration organization, to the arbitration organization to disperse as they deem fit.
7. In Section (d)(2) only a “party” to the arbitration proceeding would file a motion to vacate under section 23(a)(1) or (2). However, the term “person” is used in section 14(e) because a third party, i.e., a person who is not party to the arbitration agreement or the arbitration proceeding, might bring an action against an arbitrator, For which they have no standing to do so. For instance, in multiple arbitration proceedings with subcontractors filing separate arbitration claims against general contractor X, Arbitrator A may make an award in a case between general contractor X and subcontractor Y. In a later arbitration proceeding between general contractor X and subcontractor Z before Arbitrator B, Z may attempt to subpoena testimony or records from Arbitrator A in the prior proceeding, for which they have no standing as the arbitration proceedings does not concern them nor their interests as they are not a party to the arbitration and/or the arbitration award. Another possible scenario occurs when Arbitrator A issues a subpoena to T, a third party, and T decides to bring an action against Arbitrator A, In this instance the subpoena being issued to party T, party T has the right to refuse the subpoena, and does not have to testify. In these instances, Arbitrator A Has full immunity and the right to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section (e) against Z or T who would be “persons” but not necessarily “parties” to the arbitration proceeding between X and Y.
8. This does grant arbitrators or arbitration organizations immunity from criminal liability arising from their conduct in their arbitral or administrative roles. This comports with the sparse common law addressing arbitral immunity from criminal liability. See, e.g., Cahn v. ILGWU, 311 F.2d 113, 114-15 (3d Cir. 1962); Babylon Milk & Cream Co. v. Horowitz, 151 N.Y.S.2d 221 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1956). These laws would not apply with reference to common law arbitration, and the fact that the arbitration organization is by law required to follow the law. So long as the arbitrator and the arbitration organization rely upon common law and decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States Of America in their original jurisdiction capacity, they cannot be held liable criminally or otherwise as a matter of law.
The provision also draws no distinction between neutral arbitrators and advocate arbitrators. Both types of arbitrators are covered by this provision. Please note that the use of case law within this site, and/or thee agreement, is in no way any submission and/or subjection to any other jurisdiction, other than the jurisdiction indicated herein, i.e. common law arbitration. There is no consent, and/or intent, and/or attempt to surrender any rights and/or waive any rights, and nothing at present, in the past, or in the future shall be construed so as to be deemed to the contrary of that which is stated herein.
December 3, 2018 s/: SITCOMM ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION