This is my opinion concerning Alan Stamm, Arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association. A recent case concerning Alan Stamm can only invoke thoughts of judicial lunacy and a desire to be cherished by corporate America while refusing to be honorable and complying with California. Alan Stamm demonstrated his inability to remain impartial when, weeks after filing his disclosure in arbitration, he supplemented his arbitration which allowed recusal. When a party recused Alan Stamm, Alan Stamm attempted to allow his thoughts to infect the remaining of the arbitration proceedings by trying to make additional orders or otherwise influence the next arbitrator. Clearly, by making a concentrated effort to influence the next arbitrator is improper and demonstrates his need to keep his name circulating with corporate clients by making demeaning towards a consumer for simply invoking his right to recuse Alan Stamm.
Arbitration bias is a well known fact. Companies opt for arbitration due in part many of the arbitrators are former corporate attorneys and rely on references and keeping there name in circulation within the corporate community. Some arbitrator's may be driven by the desire to retain corporate client who include the name of the arbitration company they are employed by, by providing bias decisions. In fact, one of the largest arbitration companies, National Arbitration Forum (NAF), had such a long history of being anti-consumer, the attorney general sued them and NAF is now barred from administering consumer arbitration. See, http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/chicago-law/2009/07/the-reputation-of-consumer-arbitration-took-another-hit-as-one-of-the-biggest-companies-that-specialized-in-resolving-small.html
Simply put, Alan Stamm represents the pinnacle of being bias. Although he graduated from Harvard per the state bar website, it is likely a typo and he went to Howard and lived on Harvard street (No offense to Howard, but it's definitely not ranked like Harvard) since Alan Stamm appears to not know how to comply with the law or appear unbias.
P.S. I know it should be Mr. Stamm after initially stating Alan Stamm first, however it by repeating his full name will force this post and other posts to appear with more frequency in WWW searches.
The above comments are within the scope of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that citizens may continue speaking, printing, or broadcasting statements about topics of public concern and are cannot be subject to prior restraints. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713(1971); Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).