We will help your strategy get better

These terms establish the legal framework for arbitration and dispute resolution between parties.

(a) An arbitrator and or Eeon and or the Eeon Foundation and 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:

(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 the 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 EEON AND OR THE EEON FOUNDATION. 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 agreement and or challenge and or otherwise claim, without exception. All parties associated with this agreement are bound by the terms of the agreement, henceforth, forthwith, heretofore. The Threat Outbreak Preparedness Program, AKA TTOPP (Casul Arms) shall be held 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 irrespective of their date, and/or time, and or mode of creation.

Parties recognizing that the arbitration process is a private 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. EEON AND OR THE EEON FOUNDATION, 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 equality, 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 harmless the arbitrator and the arbitration organization, and agreed that the arbitration decision shall be final, no-appealable, 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.

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").

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).

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.

26801. Eeon and or the Eeon Foundation ™ respects the intellectual property of others. *Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

Arbitration agreement- WSEFH7- 3YEN1-5SD5FSDLHG SAE-WEGTAF1- 6EEON© by accessing, utilizing, and or taking advantage of any information contained on this site, and/or services under any circumstance shall constitute your agreeing to the terms and conditions associated with the Eeon and or the Eeon Foundation, organization (s) and/or its affiliates. You also agree that knowledge and/or information cannot be patented and or copywritten, as knowledge cannot be the possession of any one-person Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing, for no one person is the inventor of knowledge, as there is nothing new under the sun! Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS* WE take matters of Intellectual Property very seriously and We are committed to meeting the needs of content owners while helping them manage publication of our content online. We are a non-profit education and information service provider, here to educate the public and all of our work is in full compliance with the fair-use act. If you believe that your copyrighted work has been copied in a way that constitutes copyright infringement and is accessible on this site, you may notify our copyright agent, as set forth in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA).

WE CAUTION YOU THAT UNDER FEDERAL LAW, IF YOU KNOWINGLY MISREPRESENT THAT ONLINE MATERIAL IS INFRINGING, YOU MAY BE SUBJECT TO HEAVY CIVIL PENALTIES. THESE INCLUDE MONETARY DAMAGES, COURT COSTS, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES INCURRED BY US, BY ANY COPYRIGHT OWNER, OR BY ANY COPYRIGHT OWNER'S LICENSEE THAT IS INJURED AS A RESULT OF OUR RELYING UPON YOUR MISREPRESENTATION. YOU MAY ALSO BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY. This information should not be construed as legal advice, for further details on the information required for valid DMCA notifications, see 17 U.S.C. 512(c)(3).

1010.10501 3.1 Please understand that while EEON AND OR THE EEON FOUNDATION the Undersigned wishes and desires to resolve all disputed matters as promptly as possible, EEON AND OR THE EEON FOUNDATION the Undersigned can only do so upon Respondent (s') 'official response' to this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim by Respondent(s) providing the Undersigned with the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above.

1010.10502 3.2 Therefore, as the Undersigned is not a signatory; NOR a party, to your "social compact" (contract) NOR noticed NOR cognizant, of any agreement/contract between YOU, and the Undersigned and specifically any obtained through FULL DISCLOSURE and containing any FAIR/VALUABLE CONSIDERATION therein, which would act/operate to create and establish a "relationship" (nexus) and thereby; and therein, bind the Undersigned to the specific "source of authority" for the creation and existence of the alleged statute(s)/law(s) as contained and allegedly promulgated within the "Code" known as the United States Code; which, with the privity of contract or contract itself would thereby; and therein, create and establish legal force and or effect of said statute(s)/law(s) over and upon the Undersigned; and, would also act/operate to subject the Undersigned to the "statutory jurisdiction" of the UNITED STATES, its laws, venue, jurisdiction, and the like of its commercial courts/administrative tribunals/units and thereby; and therein, bind the Undersigned to said courts/administrative tribunal's/unit's decisions, orders, judgments, and the like; and specifically as within the above referenced alleged Instant matter/Criminal Case/Civil Cause/Action upon exercise of a right; and, which would act/operate to establish and confer upon said court/administrative tribunal/unit the necessary requirement/essential of "subject-matter jurisdiction" without which it is powerless to move in any action other than to dismiss. The Undersigned once more respectfully requests the Respondent(s) provide said necessary Proof of Claims so as to resolve the Undersigned's confusion and concerns within this/these matter(s). Otherwise, the Undersigned must ask, "What is the Undersigned's remedy?"

10000. ADDITIONALLY it is exigent and of consequence for the Undersigned to inform Respondent(s), in accordance with and pursuant to the principles and doctrines of "clean hands" and "good faith," that by Respondents(s) failure and or refusal to respond and provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above and thereby; and it shall be held and noted and agreed to by all parties, that a general response, a nonspecific response, or a failure to respond with specificities and facts and conclusions of common law, and or to provide the requested information and documentation that is necessary and in support of the agreement shall constitute a failure and a deliberate and intentional refusal to respond and as a result thereby and or therein, expressing the defaulting party's consent and agreement to said facts and as a result of the self-executing agreement, the following is contingent upon their failure to respond in good faith, with specificity, with facts and conclusions of common-law to each and every averment, condition, and/or claim raised; as they operate in favor of the Undersigned, through "tacit acquiescence," Respondent(s) NOT ONLY expressly affirm the truth and validity of said facts set, established, and agreed upon between the parties to this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim, but Respondent(s); having agreed and consented to Respondent(s) having a duty and obligation to provide the requested and necessary Proof of Claims raised herein above, will create and establish for Respondent(s) an estoppel in this matter(s), and ALL matters relating hereto; and arising necessarily therefrom;

10010. NOTICE: In this Conditional Acceptance for Value and counter offer/claim for Proof of Claim(a) the words "include," "includes," and "including," are not limiting; (b) the word "all" includes "any" and the word "any" includes "all"; (c) the word "or" is not exclusive except when used in conjunction with the word "and"; as in, "and/or"; and (d) words and terms (i) in the singular number include the plural, and in the plural, the singular; (ii) in the masculine gender include both feminine and neuter. That due to the fact that this presentment/document/contract can only be construed contextually and not otherwise, it is not necessary for a question to contain a "?", And whether or not a "?" Is followed by a specific question such instances does not excuse a party from having an obligation of responding with specificity and facts and conclusions of common-law.