• Arbitrations
• a20141027.2

• Case Number: a20141027.2
• Status: init
• Claimant: Reinhard

• Respondent: EvaStöwe

• initial Case Manager: MartinGummi, later EvaStöwe disclosed dispute based on DRO decision m20161119.3 and 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: Dispute against the arbitrator of case a20140518.1

• Relief: TBD

Before: Arbitrator name arbitrator (A), Respondent: name respondent (R), Claimant: name claimant (C), Case: a201YMMDD.n

History Log

• 2014-10-27 (issue.c.o): case [s20141027.177]
• 2015-09-08 (iCM): added to wiki, request for CM / A

Private Part

• Link to Arbitration case a20141027.2 (Private Part), Access for (CM) + (A) only

EOT Private Part

Original Dispute

• Dispute against the arbitrator of case a20140518.1
  
  The attached and signed document is this text.
  
  To
  Committee of Cacert Incorporation
  
  Leipzig, 2014-10-27
  
  complaint about arbitration case a20140518.1
  The standing alone capital letter A,C and R refer to arbitrator,
  claimant and recipient in this case.
  
  Dear board members,
  
  i hereby file a dispute against the arbitrator in case a20140518.1
  because the arbitrator acts in manner best described as egomaniac and
  autocratic. A failed the tasks of an arbitrator.
  
  My relief: revoke the task of arbitration from A and replace A by
  another arbitrator.
  
  Reasons:
  I filed my dispute on 2014-03-25.
  Just to remember: my dispute asked board to act in regards of § 12 which
  is disciplining of a member of CAcert Inc.. On 2014-03-26 i received a
  first email from support stating that arbitration will get involved.
  Arbitrator wrote the first email on 2014-06-27 to introduce this case.
  The second email dated on 2014-07-01 was about to ask C and R to provide
  their point of view. I was asked „if we should follow this case through,
  as the original incident and your (C) request was over 3 months ago and
  maybe it has resolved itself. If you think that the case is not needed
  anymore, please inform us.“
  I did not inform anybody which means that the case has to be ruled by
  arbitration.
  And furthermore i was pleased to „elaborate a little bit more, why you
  (C) think that R mails are hurting the interests of CAcert Inc. (or
  CAcert).“ There have been more questions addressed to board and R. Three
  weeks later, on 2014-07-20, I received an email from A telling us that
  nobody answered the questions and board was released as claimant in this
  case. The case was described as „mainly a dispute between members (of
  CAcert Inc or the community), where board originally was asked to decide.“
  
  I wondered that this case was downgraded by A to be a dispute between
  members. R deployed his personal claim „CAcert is dead“ to more than
  1100 people because he send this email to some mailinglists. The email
  itself is of some bragging habit. He signed using some „former titles“
  and of course his email account at cacert.org. It is evidently that such
  an email will be interpreted by third parties as an affront against
  CAcert Inc. In compliance with our statues §12 2.(b) I expected to
  receive a notification from board within 14 days which did not happen.
  Of course I did not „eloborate a little bit more“ because such an
  eloboration does not help. The wording in our statutes is „acted in a
  manner prejudicial to the interests of the association“. „interests“ are
  by definition some kind of immateriell asset or properties. Nobody can
  damage an immaterial thing. But any member of a group can act
  prejudicial to the interests of that group.
  From my point of view the case could be ruled just on inspecting the
  papers. Of cours we all have to ensure that a member is not disciplined
  if his actions could not be verified. From my point of view arbitration
  MUST question R for any motivation, may be that R has no idea about the
  consequences of that email in question, may be R acted ingenuous.
  
  At the beginning of October a discussion of the case started. A tampered
  with lots of arguments which had nothing to do with the case. To give an
  example: In an email send on Friday 2014-10-17, A states „Violation of
  policies is not something that automatically hurts CAcert Inc or at
  least so drastic that it should directly lead to such consequences. A
  lot of people have violated our policies. A lot of people of the core
  team of CAcert and members of CAcert Inc have violated our policies.
  Even board members.“
  All these mentioned actions happened far outside of this case. And if
  nobody files a dispute no ruling will be done.
  On 2014-10-23 12:18 h i received an email from A declared to be private.
  You may study the text which i append as a mbox file. The arguments from
  A are not acceptable and have nothing to do with this case. An example:
  „Mein Problem ist, dass schon viele Leute viel schlimmeres und auch schon
  viel heftigeres gegen einzelne Personen gesagt haben. Und das z.B. aus
  Rollen heraus wie Präsident, Board-Member und möglicherweise auch Auditor
  (in dem einen Case kenne ich die Details nicht). Das wurde alles nicht
  entsprechend verfolgt, wie Du es jetzt verlangst. Ich müsste jetzt
  recherchieren, aber man hat mir gesagt, dass es in einem Fall auch schon
  mal zu einem Case gekommen ist, der aber ebenfalls eingestellt wurde.
  
  Die Mails von Dominik mögen nicht schön sein, aber Schaden kann ich -
  außer vielleicht persönlich für Benny - nicht sehen. Kurioserweise gab
  es sogar
  einen kleine Erhöhung des Mitgliedswachstums kurz nach der Mail von
  Dominik.“
  
  A tried to force me to revoke the dispute. A wrote:
  „... Da muss ich jetzt schon die
  Frage stellen, was ist bei denen von Dominik anders oder schlimmer, als es
  bei den anderen war. Warum lassen wir sowas einem Präsidenten (damals
  Werner) durchgehen, aber keinem zurücktretenden Mitglied?
  
  Das Problem ist auch, wenn ich jetzt so drastische Dinge in dem Fall mache,
  OHNE dass konkret belegt wird, was hier schlimmer ist, als in den anderen
  Fallen, dann müssen wir ziemlich sicher, ziemlich bald die gleichen Dinge
  gegen ein paar andere Leute auch machen. Damit wären bald ziemlich sicher
  zumindest Werner und Benny weg, vielleicht auch andere. Das könnte uns
  selbst jetzt schon passieren, wenn Dominik geschickt vorgeht, …..
  Ein Urteil gegen Dominik auf der Fakten-/Begründungslage, die ich derzeit
  habe, gibt Dominik das Futter mindestens Werner und Benny "mit" zu nehmen
  und das gleiche Urteil gegen diese zu verlangen - was er dann ja ebenfalls
  nicht groß belegen müsste. Damit ware Software derzeit lahmgelegt und
  Support auch ziemlich angeschlagen. ...“
  
  I attach my answer too as mbox file and please you to read the full text.
  IMHO it is not a seriously performed arbitration whenever an arbitrator
  tries to pressurize an involved party in an arbitration case.
  
  As everybody knows shit happens. A send this as private marked email to
  R as well. So it is no longer a private email. In a follow-up email A
  tried to obligate C and R to keep this said „incident“ discreet.
  I received that email on 2014-10-24 18:12 h, A wrote:
  „Ein Paar Kommentare zu Punkten aus den Folgemails:
  Meine Mail war als privat markiert. Sollte ich auf irgendwelchen Wegen
  mitbekommen, dass diese an jemand anderen, als den Empfängerkreis geht
  (Ausnahme durch mich oder den CM im Rahmen des Cases), wird das
  Konsequenzen haben. Das gilt auch für Auszüge und schließt auch mein
  Urheber- und Persönlichkeitsrecht mit ein.“
  Please read the attachments for the details.
  And A confirmed that an arbitrator has the right to choose the method of
  communication.
  A wrote: „Als Arbitrator stehen mir in einem Case die
  Kommunikationsformen offen,
  die ich wählen möchte. Das steht explizit in der DRP drin. Wenn ich
  denke, dass ein bestimmter Weg hilfreich ist, dann darf ich den wählen.
  Ok - es war nicht so gedacht, wie es gelaufen ist, aber ein Arbitrator
  hat da explizit ziemlich viel Freiheiten. Das wurde auch gerade noch
  einmal bei der CCA-Diskussion als erwünscht angesehen und da sogar die
  früheren Einschränkungen weggenommen.“
  Just to note A wrote a remark:
  „Was frühere Entscheidungen anbelangt, so ist es in einem
  Präzedentsfall-Rechtssystem durchaus so, dass man diese berücksichtigen
  muss.“ Please allow 2 statements.
  1. No jurisdiction is bound to former decisions. It may happen that a
  verdict was willingly done false sa it happened e.g. during
  Nazi-Dikatatur in Germany. And it may happen that a verdict is
  permanently a drawback. Such a case happened in Germany after a company
  „Bremer Vulkan“ ran into bankruptcy. In this case jurisdiction made a
  180 degree turnaround to former verdicts pertaining the GmbH Law.
  2. It is the first time in this case that A recognises that this case is
  new to Cacert. That is a fact which should have happened at the very
  beginning of the case. I used the word downgrading to explain what
  happened by this decision to make the case a dispute between members. A
  recognises that in fact that dispute pertains CAcert as association. I
  am convinced that this
  awareness having made at the very beginning would have helped all
  involved parties to be well on their way through arbitration.
  
  A has imho made several mistakes so that this case should not be finally
  ruled and closed by A. Please revoke the task of arbitration in this
  case from A and appoint somebody else as arbitrator.
  
  Kind regards
  
  Reinhard, CARS
  
  Attachments
  - a20140518.1_20141024.eml
  my answer to A regarding the „private“ email
  
  - a20140518.1_201410241812b.eml
  A pressurizing involved parties
  
  - a20140518.1_201410241812a.eml
  A again sends a „private“ email ignoring my wish to end such private
  communication.
  
  
  -- 
  mit freundlichen Grüssen/kind regards
  
  Reinhard M[...]

Discovery

Elaboration

Ruling

Execution

Similiar Cases

• CategoryArbitration

• CategoryArbCaseOthers