Has anyone heard anything? A friend involved with the show said that the case was moving forward this week and that some of the cast (as expected) has been told that they're on witness lists. Any idea if this is a public trial?
How sickening. This is the best the justice system has to offer us these days? Julie Taymor? I remember when this country had real trials. John Scopes. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Leopold and Loeb. Even the Charles Manson and O.J. Simpson trials, which broke the bank and singularly disgusted in terms of their romanticism and sensationlism, were better than this flapdoodle. Some may say lyrics like "Give 'em show that's so splendiforous / Row after row will grow vociferous" are cute, but they actually illustrate such a clear and thorough decline in the quality of the criminals that go through our justice system that I don't know why I keep going to every trial.
Oh, wait a minute. Never mind. I go because I have the freedom to go. That's right. And I have the freedom to come here and tell you about it, just like you have the freedom to read my words or not read them and the freedom to un-read them if you don't like them. You all make me sick, every last one of you, but I respect your thoughts very much. You are all so much better than you actually are. If only we could see Nuremberg all over again right here at BroadwayWorld. Thanks for reading.
Remember when nom wanted to get out the torches and storm the theater because "our actors" were getting injured in Spider-Man? God that was hilarious. Maybe she should go to the arbitration too, since the whole thing gave her severe emotional distress! (I remember all this clearly because I DID MY HOMEWORK!)
Who would be your dream cast for "Julie Taymor vs. Spider-Man"? And how many pairs of shoes will the Julie Taymor character have to wear in order for her to enter the same astral plane as Spider-Man?
Crazy Cat Lady From The Simpsons...........Julie Taymor Adam Lambert..........................................Reeve Carney Chris Colfer..............................................Jennifer Damiano Cheyenne Jackson....................................Bono John McMartin..........................................The Edge Lea Delaria...............................................T.V. Carpio
"Arbitration clauses are put into contracts to prevent the parties involved from suing each other."
Arbitrations are a type of lawsuit, and going to arbitration IS "parties involved suing each other." The difference is an arbitration and its rules are determined by a contractual agreement between the parties, and therefore the decisions hold the force of law. They can't generally be appealed. However, decisions can be taken to Court and overturned if a party can prove that the arbitrator was biased or overstepped his or her authority.
"This is not a lawsuit. It's an arbitration hearing."
That's merely a technicality. They are, for all intents and purposes, lawsuits. Just more informal. And an arbitration hearing is essentially the same as a trial (again, with different rules).
Actually the difference is more than a technicality. Arbitration is a privately moderated dispute resolution which the parties agree to be bound by. The parties choose the arbitrator(s) who is supposed to be both knowledgeable and impartial. The parties pay the arbitration costs. So there is no access to, or use of, the civil courts (paid for with public tax revenues). The theory is reduction of court congestion, slightly eased rules of evidence, and generally a higher degree of privacy as the parties can agree to keep the proceedings and the outcome confidential. Mandatory arbitration clauses are very standard in personal service contracts and brokerage firm agreements.
joined:9/6/05
Posted: 9/22/11 at 08:09am