Quixtar Modifies Mandatory Arbitration Rule

The IBOA International Board has recommended enhancements to the Rules of Conduct. These enhancements were adopted by the Corporation and takes effect October 26, 2005. These enhancements will also be included in the next print revision of the Business Reference Guide.

Rule 11 Dispute Resolution Procedures has been enhanced to provide further options for IBOs going through the arbitration process. IBOs now have the option of selecting (1) an arbitrator who has gone through the JAMS/IBOAI/Quixtar orientation program; (2) any other JAMS arbitrator or (3) an AAA arbitrator in the event JAMS is unable or unwilling to serve as administrator. Further information about the arbitrators will also be provided to participants. To review the enhancements in their entirety, please see Rule 11 under the rules of conduct at Quixtar.

Any Quixtar distributor who believes the IBOA is doing them a favor with the rules change or arbitration better think again.    Not only does the JAMs arbitrator charge $400+ per hour but the losing party can not appeal the decision like in court, or have a jury of their peers hear the case.    Typically the losing party is forced to pay the winning parties legal costs as well.   Arbitration does not save attorneys costs as attorneys are still employed by both sides in the arbitration.  The whole reason to have the arbitration is to keep negative  information about Quixtar and their lines of sponsorship out of the public domain.

An interesting new twist in (3) is that even if JAMS refuses to arbitrate, arbitration can still be forced with another arbitrator.   For example in Kaldi's upline  vs. Steve Kaldi, Kaldi could have been forced into arbitration even though JAMs refused to hear the case since he was no longer an IBO.   All Quixtar would have to do is continue to search for an arbitrator willing to make some money by taking the case.  Another arbitrator could have ruled differently and force Kaldi to deal with the bogus complaint. Kaldi was accused of defamation and intentional interference of business relationships by contacting other distributors in his line of sponsorship and after he distributed a public court complaint, in which his upline, an attorney, was being sued for fraud in two separate incidents as an attorney for an loan brokerage service, Wolf and Turner Investments.  Wolf and Turner were being sued by United American Capital Company and Inderra Houston LP.  Kaldi also filed a complaint with the Nevada Attorney general, which the upline attorney somehow thought misrepresented them.  The upline was demanding $100,000 in damages.  The demand for arbitration was refused by JAMS.  It is Interesting to note that Kaldi's upline did not pursue the case in a public court.  If the case was a so good for arbitration then why not for the public court system?  Maybe Kaldi's upline knew the JAMs arbitrators can be manipulated. 

See the Gooch vs. Anderson case for a true perversion of arbitration, where JAMs retries an already completed court case in Amway private court. 

back to the home page