• Arbitrations
• a20151021.1

• Case Number: a20151021.1
• Status: init
• Claimant: Reinhard M

• Respondent: EvaStöwe

• initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe - managed case based DRO decision m20161119.4

• Case Manager: name case manager
• Arbitrator: name arbitrator
• Date of arbitration start: 201Y-MM-DD
• Date of ruling: 201Y-MM-DD
• Case closed: 201Y-MM-DD
• Complaint: appeal against case a20140518.1
• Relief:
  1. Open all emails in that case to the public.
  2. Delete all written comments from the wiki. Just show the final ruling
     • "Final Ruling The dispute is dismissed. "
  3. no more comments to follow.

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: Eva Stöwe (R), Claimant: Reinhard M (C), Case: a20151021.1

History Log

• 2015-10-21 (issue.c.o): case [s20151021.100]
• 2016-11-20 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A
• 2016-11-20 (iCM): notification about case send to C, R

• Link to Arbitration case a20151021.1 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

• I, Reinhard M[...], member of CAcert Inc., hereby file a dispute for
  appeal against the case a20140518.1.
  
  My relief:
      Open all emails in that case to the public.
      Delete all written comments from the wiki.
      
      Just show the final ruling.
      
      "Final Ruling
       The dispute is dismissed. "
      
      no more comments to follow.
  
  
  To keep my answer short and clearly represented I will focus on a few
  issues as there are:
  
  1. the representation of the facts is in part done upside-down.
  
  2. an arbitrator has to establish the facts
  
  3. arbitration is a procedure and never a link or reference to common law
  
  4. any ruling of any arbitrator shall be based on the contract the
      parties have agreed to.
  
  
      
  1. I will start and show some facts.
  It is proof true that the respondent in that case wrote some emails and
  claimed "Cacert is dead". The writer undersigned this email with some
  titles using patterns like "former role".
  
  He published this email on a publicly available mailing list.
  
  It is true that I wrote to board and asked for an action considerating
  our statutes article 12.1. I wrote this letter on 2014-03-25.
  Board made no decision about the matter itself but instead handed over
  my letter to arbitration.
  
  Later on the arbitrator prompted me to show more facts where and how
  this statement in question "damages" CAcert or CAcert Inc. My answer all
  the time was that I refuse to give more than the email in question. The
  reason given is my opinion that this email and its presentation to the
  public by R shows  that R "has persistently and willfully acted in a
  manner prejudicial to
  the interests of the association." (CAcert Statutes Article 12.1(b).) I
  am convinced that interests are always an immateriell asset and can
  never be damaged. One may act against interests; but no one will ever be
  able to vandalise interests.
  
  In the following time there have been a lot of emails. The arbitrator
  wrote several emails which may be interpreted as juristic lessons. She
  wrote about "in dubio pro reo" which is a well known rule in the Code of
  Crime. Unfortunately arbitration is part of the Code of Civil Procedure.
  
  I filed a dispute against this arbitrator and requested her challenge. I
  received an answer from the arbitrator in January 2015. She wrote that
  an arbitrator cannot be challenged.
  So I wrote another dispute to challenge her.
  
  The presentation of the emails with a timeline as done by the arbitrator
  in the wiki is far from being a fair presentation.
  I request that all emails are opened to the public. Who ever wants to
  know more about the details should read it.
  It should be said to the public that the arbitrator of this case called
  for copyright of her own mails in this arbitration case especially for
  the "mismatched" email. This issue gives reason to challenge her as
  arbitrator.
  
  2. Our Dispue Resolution Policy says in article 2.6 Process: "
  The Arbitrator follows the procedure:
      Establish the facts. The Arbitrator collects the evidence from the
  parties..."
  The facts are shown above. The respondent wrote an email claiming
  "CAcert is dead" and the arbitrator did not recognise it as the ground
  for arbitration.
  
  This ignorance is one of the tesserae why arbitration does not work.
  DRP says in article 2.4.:
  "Basis in Law
  Each country generally has an Arbitration Act that elevates Arbitration
  as a strong dispute resolution forum."
  
  Lets look at the German Arbitration Act which became part of the German
  Code of Civil Procedere. [1] Article 1051 says:"(4) In all cases, the
  arbitral tribunal is to decide in accordance with  the provisions of the
  agreement and is to take account of any commercial  practices that may
  exist."
  Just one question to answer, what is the agreement between members of
  CAcert? This agreement is called "CAcert Inc. - Association Rules". Our
  statutes are the contract of the parties.
  
  You may contradict because CAcert Inc. lives in NSW? Then look at the
  Arbitration Act of NSW. [2] Rules 28 reads: "
  (5) In all cases, the arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with
  the terms of the contract and must take into account the usages of the
  trade applicable to the transaction."
  
  Why is this arbitrator not able or not willing to accept, that a
  decision should be made based on our stutes and the emails in question?
  
  3. The arbitrator explicitly links the case to "common law". This term
  is used two times.
  The arbitrator expresses her view of the world in "About value of
  volunteer time and frivolous cases". All her private opinion has nothing
  to do with the case.
  This writing should simply be dropped from the wiki.
  Please read her words: "
  
    * 2015-06-27 (A of a20150420.1) has  reviewed this case with the
      conclusion "This arbitrator holds that none  of the reviewed
      material has given any indication of an abuse of power  or authority
      nor any violations of policy by the respondent Eva Stöwe.  In fact
      her work as an arbitrator has been exemplary. She has not acted  in
      any evident way contrary to the best interests of CAcert in either
      her role as arbitrator or policy officer."
  
    * 2015-09-22 (A): gives ruling
  
    * 2015-09-22 (A): informes the RA-audit team lead about precariousness
      of the C regarding arbitration and the CCA "
  
  It is unbelievable that such an arbitration will be accepted from any
  court. The violations of arbitration procedure are evident.
  The German Code of Civil Procedure say in article 1059: "d)  The
  formation of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration  proceedings did
  not correspond to a provision of this Book or to an  admissible
  agreement between the parties, and that it is to be assumed  that this
  has had an effect on the arbitration award; ...".
  
  OK, you will read the Arbitration Act of NSW. Rule 34 2 reads: "...
  (iv)     the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral
  procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties,
  unless such agreement was in conflict with a provision of this Act from
  which the parties cannot derogate, or, failing such agreement, was not
  in accordance with this Act, ...".
  
  4. The final ruling is not based on our statutes nor on our policies.
  The arbitrator wrote: "
  Reinhard should be warned that:
  
    * It  is a direct CCA and DRP violation to not answer the Arbitrator
      in an  arbitration case, or to even refuse to provide the requested
      information, if asked a reasonable request by the Arbitrator.
  
    * It  is the responsibility of the claimant to base a dispute on facts
      or  arguments, especially if the claim is labelled "obvious", at
      least if  asked to do so by the Arbitrator. To file a dispute or to
      ask it to be  continued without being ready to provide according
      evidence is an abuse  of Arbitration."
  
  
  As already mentioned the arbitrator is not capable or willing to accept
  the basics of this case which are our statutes and the said emails.
  Instead she affronts me.
  
  My relief:
      Open all emails in that case to the public.
      Delete all written comments from the wiki.
      
      Just show the final ruling.
      
      "Final Ruling
       The dispute is dismissed. "
      
      no more comments to follow.
      
      
      Kind regards
      
      Reinhard
  
  [1] http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/englisch_zpo.html
  [2] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/caa2010n61246.pdf
  
  -- 
  mit freundlichen Grüssen/kind regards
  
  Reinhard M[...]

Discovery

Elaboration

Ruling

Execution

Similiar or Related Cases

• appealed case

• cases referenced in original case

• known cases with involvement of C, which could be of relevance (also named in original case)

• other appeals or appeal-like cases against cases from R

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseAppeal