In my last promised post of what I was being sent by various people against Joe Haley and what is attempting to be pushed through, I need to convey with some much smarter legal people than me. That is exactly what I did. We read the OGI Operating agreement and subsequent arbitrary penalties to be enforced by those who don’t sign.

In Part. 2, we summised that the OGI Operating agreement and subsequent penalties for the failing of the COA to agree to what it demands. In a true “take it or leave it” or “gun to the head scenario”, the proposal is extremely one sided.

Well it so has it that the previous rulings and participants in the US court system had the foresight to recognize these types of occurrences. Might be the reason Joe and RFB show absolutely no fear of the Panamanian court system,

Please read carefully the definition of this document, and try to surmise if it sounds familiar.
adhesion contract (Contract of Adhesion)
Primary tabs—–
An adhesion contract exists if the parties are of such disproportionate bargaining power that the party of weaker bargaining strength could not have negotiated for variations in the terms of the adhesion contract. Adhesion contracts are generally in the form of a standardized contract form that is entirely prepared and offered by the party of superior bargaining strength to consumers of goods and services. Adhesion contracts are commonly used for matters involving insurance, leases, deeds, mortgages, automobile purchases, and other forms of consumer credit.

Because adhesion contracts do not afford consumers a realistic opportunity to bargain, the consumers are often faced with adhesion contracts on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Under such conditions, the consumer has little to no ability to negotiate more favorable terms. Instead, consumers cannot obtain the desired product or service except by acquiescing in the form contract.

Courts may look at the doctrine of reasonable expectations to determine whether to strike down an adhesion contract. The doctrine of reasonable expectations states that a party who adheres to the other party’s standard terms does not assent to the terms if the other party has reason to believe that the adhering party would not have accepted the agreement if he had known that the agreement contained the particular term. In other words, people are bound by terms a reasonable person would expect to be in the contract.

Courts may also look at whether the provisions are written in clear, unambiguous terms when determining whether to strike down an adhesion contract. This is based on the doctrine of unconscionability.

Procedural unconscionability deals with the contract formation process and whether the bargaining process was deficient. Some factors of procedural unconscionability include duress, fraud, undue influence, and fine print. Substantive unconscionability deals with the content of the contract and whether the nature of the contract terms is oppressive. Some factors of substantive unconscionability include inflated price, unfair disclaimers, immoral clauses, and contracts that contravene public policy.

Friends and readers, I am not Perry Mason. But I’m far from a fool also. It does not take much to see the similarities of a one side Adhesion Contact, and what OGI is pressuring to sign.
I have had some server issues between Panama and my US address that has led to some correspondence being missed or overlooked.
Please feel free to comment in the POST directly, or contact me at jb@panamanowonline.com   or  jbryson.pno@gmail.com. 

It seems there is finally a groundswell of real people that are really mad and ready to get organized and coordinate a true legal case with the teeth behind it to back it up.

Saludos-
“JB”