Violation of the sixth ammendment of the us constitution

[myoho.renge.kyo]

The "Contract Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) "is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of its people" and permits laws altering the rights and obligations of contracting parties to the extent "reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which they were enacted."


Waiving your "right" to a court or jury trial is "within the public interest" and a bilateral contract waiving such right is not a "contract of adhesion." Indeed, such advance waivers have long been held enforceable pursuant to contractual agreements for binding arbitration. (See generally, Madden v. Kaiser Found. Hosps. (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 712-714, 131 Cal.Rptr. 882, 890-892.)


In other words, the law and the court prefer it when parties agree to an arbitration rather than going to court. Agreeing to an arbitration is not unconstitutional. It cuts down on the overcrowded and overburdened courts, and it cuts down the expense and time to resolve issues between the parties. You get "quick justice."


It's a good thing for all parties, and it's also enforceable.

The issue has been litigated innumerable times, both on substance and on Constitutional grounds. It's a "done deal."

You can either waive the "right," or you can walk away from the contract. It's as simple as that.

--------------------------------------------------

If it is a done deal after the issue has been litigated innumerable times, both on substance and on constitutional grounds, then parts of the Constitution of the United States of America contradict the Constitution itself. Such is the circumstance we find ourselves in the United States of America today.

In essence, “The ‘Contract Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to permit the state to contradict the sixth ammendment of the US Constitution to safeguard the vital interests of contracting parties to the extent ‘reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which such contradiction was enacted.’


Very nice.

 

[Evo]

Do you have a point?

 

[Office_Shredder]

It looks like he's arguing that because x is true, x is true

 

[Astronuc]

The "Contract Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) "is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of its people" and permits laws altering the rights and obligations of contracting parties to the extent "reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which they were enacted."

Waiving your "right" to a court or jury trial is "within the public interest" and a bilateral contract waiving such right is not a "contract of adhesion." You can either waive the ‘right,’ or you can walk away from the contract. It's as simple as that.”

Very nice.

Not exactly. There appears to be some misunderstanding.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

U. S. Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

That is still the case. One must read the legal definition of 'contract', preferentially as it was understood in 1776, and subsequently.

 

[russ_watters]

Where are you getting this stuff? I see quotes, but no citations for the quotes...

Also, you repeated yourself, word-for-word, in most of the second section. Where are you cutting and pasting this from and why?

Finally, I see no contradiction in simply choosing not to exercise your rights.

 

[myoho.renge.kyo]

Do you have a point?

yes. parts of our us constitution contradict the us constitution itself. that is one of our circumstances in which we find ourselves today in the United States of america. the circumstance in which we find ourselves with respect to the division of and contradiction found in the us constitution is chaotic.

 

[myoho.renge.kyo]

Where are you getting this stuff? I see quotes, but no citations for the quotes...

Also, you repeated yourself, word-for-word, in most of the second section. Where are you cutting and pasting this from and why?

Finally, I see no contradiction in simply choosing not to exercise your rights.

can a person in the United States excercise his or her rights to waive the xiii ammendment of the us constitution in a contract and become the property of another person in the united states?

slavery is illegal in the united states, therefore trial not by jury is illegal.

if the state uses any part of the constitution that permits the state to contradict the us constitution, that part of the constitution contradicts the constitution itself.

i didn't exactly repeated myself. the second time i used a specific example.

The "Contract Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) "is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of its people" and permits laws altering the rights and obligations of contracting parties to the extent "reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which they were enacted."

In essence, “The ‘Contract Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to permit the state to contradict the sixth ammendment of the US Constitution to safeguard the vital interests of contracting parties to the extent ‘reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which such contradiction was enacted.’


http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/

 

[russ_watters]

can a person in the United States excercise his or her rights to waive the xiii ammendment of the us constitution in a contract and become the property of another person in the united states?

slavery is illegal in the united states, therefore trial not by jury is illegal.

Apples and oranges and not applicable. It is true that there are certain rights that the government will not let you give up and certain ones you can decide for yourself. I, for example, do not own a gun. There is no contradiction there.

And this isn't, "trial not by jury", it is just no trial. Heck, I'm also choosing not to have a trial by jury by not committing a crime!

i didn't exactly repeated myself. the second time i used a specific example.

The "Contract Clause" of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) "is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to safeguard the vital interests of its people" and permits laws altering the rights and obligations of contracting parties to the extent "reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which they were enacted."

In essence, “The ‘Contract Clause’ of the U.S. Constitution (Art. 1, § 10) is accommodated to the inherent police power of the state to permit the state to contradict the sixth ammendment of the US Constitution to safeguard the vital interests of contracting parties to the extent ‘reasonable and necessary for the public purpose for which such contradiction was enacted.’

You've since edited it, but still, the first and last paragraphs are identical except for the words "in essence", making the above the 3rd time you've posted that paragraph. And now we just have two instances of the other paragraph.

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/

That's a link to another forum, and I'm not going to go looking through to find your quotes. Where, exactly did you get them? I also want to know which parts are your words and which aren't - since clearly most of the post is copied and pasted from another source, I'd really like to know if you are speaking for yourself or not.

 

[Office_Shredder]

It should be pointed out that in terms of slavery, it also denies other people the right to own slaves. So even if you wanted to be a slave, you couldn't find anyone legally allowed to own you

 

[russ_watters]

Good point.

 

[Rach3]

It should be pointed out that in terms of slavery, it also denies other people the right to own slaves. So even if you wanted to be a slave, you couldn't find anyone legally allowed to own you

That's nonsensical. One doesn't sell oneself into slavery, one sells others, otherwise there is no profit. The very definition is involuntary servitude - how can you want to be in involuntary state? It's nonsense.

 

[russ_watters]

Clearly, you've never been in the military...

 

[BobG]

That's nonsensical. One doesn't sell oneself into slavery, one sells others, otherwise there is no profit. The very definition is involuntary servitude - how can you want to be in involuntary state? It's nonsense.

Not so. You're probably thinking of only one circumstance of slavery (US in 1800's). Different civilizations had different arrangements for slavery.

For one thing, a person could sell themselves as an indentured servant even in Western societies. While not exactly a slave, it was the equivalent for a set amount of time (until their debt had been paid off). That was one way to get your transportation paid for if you wanted to leave one country for the new colonies. There was a deferred benefit (unless, of course, the person selling themselves was unable to read the fine print and wound up with a debt that could never be paid off).

In other civilizations, a person could sell themselves outright as a slave. Usually the slave's family (wife and kids, for instance) received the money.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm under the impression that if you sign a contract that gives away any of your constitutional rights, then the contract would be unenforceable. Of course, you may voluntarily adhere to it, or do so out of ignorance.

 

[BobG]

I'm under the impression that if you sign a contract that gives away any of your constitutional rights, then the contract would be unenforceable. Of course, you may voluntarily adhere to it, or do so out of ignorance.

You've got a point. A contract has to be legal to be enforceable.

Probably needs a little clarification. It would only be the illegal portions of the contract that would be unenforceable unless the illegal part is pretty integral to the contract. For example, a clause in your lease prohibiting pets is illegal in many places. If you sign a lease that contains a clause prohibiting pets, the landlord couldn't evict you since that clause is illegal (however the landlord could charge for any damages once you move out). On the other hand, you can't use the illegal clause to void the entire lease, freeing you up to move on a moment's notice.

Likewise, those waivers you sign before going on a scuba diving trip don't really prevent you from suing the tour operator if they head for shore leaving you behind to be eaten by sharks. You can't sign away your right to the courts. Those waivers just provide proof to the court that all risks inherent in the activity were made clear to you before you embarked on the activity in the event you do decide to sue. A waiver wouldn't protect the tour operator from being sued for negligence (but the sharks might).

 

[myoho.renge.kyo]

Apples and oranges and not applicable. It is true that there are certain rights that the government will not let you give up and certain ones you can decide for yourself. I, for example, do not own a gun. There is no contradiction there.

And this isn't, "trial not by jury", it is just no trial. Heck, I'm also choosing not to have a trial by jury by not committing a crime!

You've since edited it, but still, the first and last paragraphs are identical except for the words "in essence", making the above the 3rd time you've posted that paragraph. And now we just have two instances of the other paragraph. That's a link to another forum, and I'm not going to go looking through to find your quotes. Where, exactly did you get them? I also want to know which parts are your words and which aren't - since clearly most of the post is copied and pasted from another source, I'd really like to know if you are speaking for yourself or not.

any part of the us constitution is part of the us constitution. that one part is apple and another one orange is unconstitutional. a state law that contradicts any part of the us constituition is unconstitutional. if slavery is illegal, then trial not by jury is also illegal.

i am sorry for not giving any background with the original thread. i posted the a thread on expertlaw forums. the response i got was the thread i posted with my response.

please read carefully the first part of my response, and you will see that i am not repeating exactly the same thing.

the thread i posted in the expertlaw forums is the following:

the title is

Are Mandatory Arbitration Clauses Constitutional?

On October 4, 2006, my girlfriend and I went to Stonewood Mall in Downey, California, to a T-Mobile station to renew her account (and add me to it). The process went well; both phones were working fine. On October 18, 2006, I see that my phone cannot pick up a signal. When I call technical support, the technician tells me that I need to give her the new sim card number because I changed the sim card of the phone on October 17. I did not change the sim card. Eventually T-Mobile admits that "a representative changed the sim card number in the system in error." I can see that in the process of initiating the account, the representative enters into the system the wrong sim card number in error, but that would mean that the phone would not work from the moment that the account is initiated because the number of the sim card has to match with the number in the system of T-Mobile. But my phone worked until October 18, 2006. That means that the sim card number matched with the number in the system until a T-Mobile representative changed the sim card number in the system. I do not believe that to go to my account, delete the existing sim card number in the system, and to enter another one is an error.

On October 18, 2006, my girlfriend was going to cancel her account with T-Mobile, but was not able to because T-Mobile was going to charge my credit card $500.00 ($250.00 for her line and $250.00 for my line). In addition, T-Mobile was going to charge my credit card $400 ($200 for her line and $200 for my line). On that date, a T-Mobile representative on the phone advised me that my girlfriend still had the obligation to keep her existing contract (the one that was renewed) with T-Mobile which ends on January, 2007, or pay an additional $250 early cancellation fee. I told her that the information she is giving me is not correct because my girlfriend showed me her contract which states that it ended on October 5, 2006 (that is why she renewed it). But the T-Mobile representative said that according to what she sees on the computer screen, the contract ends on January, 2007.

The SIM card number on my receipt does not match (a completely different SIM card number) the number of the actual, physical SIM card.

I feel vulnerable having this contract with T-Mobile, specially when I have waived my rights to jury trial and waived my rights to any ability to participate in a class action in this contract with T-Mobile. Is it constitutional that T-Mobile requires in its contract such mandatory waivers?


Wireless Service Agreement:

"(a) Each 'T-Mobile Number' with T-MOBILE named as 'Carrier', shall remain active a minimum of 121 consecutive days beginning on the date of this agreement. I am the service user and shall not cancel or suspend service during this period. T-Mobile Solution receives a promotional payment from 'Carrier', which has been used to give a $250.00 discount toward the purchase and/or activation of the above Electronic Serial Number(s) 'ESN'. Should condition (a) be broken, which would cause The Mobile Solution to lose it's promotional payment, or if the 'Carrier' charges back The Mobile Solution for any resson, I will immediately pay The Mobile Solution $250.00 per infraction as compensation for it's loss."

Important Customer Information:

"I have selected a rate plan with a fixed term of 24 months.
There is a one-time $35.00 activation fee per new line of service. They charge a monthly Regulatory fee of 86 cents (plus tax) per line of service. This fee is not a government-required tax or charge. There is a Return Period during which I can cancel a newly activitated line of service without paying a cancellation fee. The Return Period is 14 calendar days."

Customer Accepatance:

"Requires mandatory arbitration of disputes.
Requires Mandatory Waiver of the right to jury trial and waiver of any ability to participate in a class action.
Requires me to pay an early cancellation fee $200 per line of service if I cancel service before the end of the fixed term for my rate plan. This early cancellation fee will not apply if I terminate service under the return policy and as stated in my service agreement. Authorizes T-Mobile and its agents to obtain information about my credit history and to share that information with credit reporting agencies."

I believe T-Mobile lied to me when it informed me that "There is a Return Period during which I can cancel a newly activitated line of service without paying a cancellation fee. The Return Period is 14 calendar days."

I also believe T-Mobile Solution is abusing the contract by charging me $35 for the activation of my line, specially when T-Mobile Solution is receiving $250.00 for such activation from the "Carrier" (T-MOBILE).

I filed a complaint with the California Department of Consummer Affairs. I don't know if that is going to help.