* Case Number: a20151021.1 * Status: init * Claimant: Reinhard M * Respondent: EvaStöwe * initial Case Manager: EvaStöwe - managed case based DRO decision [[https://community.cacert.org/board/motions.php?motion=m20161119.4|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. " . 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 [[Arbitrations/priv/a20151021.1|a20151021.1 (Private Part)]], Access for (CM) + (A) only''' ## ==> INCLUDE SECTION BOT <> ## <== INCLUDE SECTION EOT ==== 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[...] }}} ## You may remove unneeded sections at your discretion... == Discovery == == Elaboration == == Ruling == == Execution == == Similiar or Related Cases == * appealed case || [[Arbitrations/a20140518.1|a20140518.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20140518.1|Maybe exclusion of a member]] || * cases referenced in original case || [[Arbitrations/a20121228.1|a20121228.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20121228.1|Abuse of position]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20140324.1|a20140324.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20140324.1|Arbitration against the removal of Dominik G from all mailing lists]] || * known cases with involvement of C, which could be of relevance (also named in original case) || [[Arbitrations/a20141027.2|a20141027.2]] || [[Arbitrations/a20141027.2|Dispute against the arbitrator of case a20140518.1]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150420.1|a20150420.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150420.1|Dispute against: Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150916.1|a20150916.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150916.1|remove defamatory statement]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20151125.1|a20151125.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20151125.1|Strike down AGM resolutions]] || * other appeals or appeal-like cases against cases from R || [[Arbitrations/a20141027.2|a20141027.2]] || [[Arbitrations/a20141027.2|Dispute against the arbitrator of case a20140518.1]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150420.1|a20150420.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150420.1|Dispute against: Block of SE and other HR issues, abuse of authority, assumption of authority]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150825.1|a20150825.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150825.1|Req. to remove EvaStöwe as (A) and (CM) from cases of (C)]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20150924.1|a20150924.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20150924.1|Appeal against a20150420.1]] || || [[Arbitrations/a20160913.1|a20160913.1]] || [[Arbitrations/a20160913.1|Appeal of Arbitration Case a20150823.1]] || ---- . CategoryArbitration . CategoryArbCaseAppeal