The biggest issue as I see it, or "crime", as you say, is that OP was never given a chance to argue ANYTHING regarding the AAA22K claims. The arbitrator explicitly told both parties he will only hear the issues presented under AAA3K case number, yet the attorney continues to include AAA22K claims and evidence. OP did not refute this evidence, rather only objected to their inclusion against the arbiters previous ruling on the matter. But then the arbiter, instead of addressing OP's objections, simply awards the 22K to Unifund. That seems like a fundamental miscarriage of justice. This is the exact way I would present it to the judge. The arbiter made a major error and the attorney used frivolous actions against the orders of both the court and the arbiter in order to force her claims into the already opened, yet unrelated, AAA case (AAA3K).
This is also the argument I would make sure AAA is clear on. That the arbiter said "I will only hear claims regarding AAA3K" yet went on to rule and award AAA22K claims when that case was closed for non payment AND the OP never got the ability to present their side of those issues due to the actions of the arbiter.
If AAA will not correct that issue, and given this is for an amount of $22k that will end up as a judgement as a result, I would strongly look into filing a Federal lawsuit against AAA, personally for damages of $22k. I don't even know if that is possible or what case laws might be available, but I would start looking into that if this were me.
I hate for this to sound like TVaughn's experience with AMEX, but, at this point, it seems like they called your bluff and now you will have a 22K judgement to deal with. At the end of the day they can sleep at night knowing that you charged 22K that you decided to not pay back. To add to what I said earlier - we leaned two things: (1) don't do preemptive arb; (2) use JAMS, not AAA. Maybe @fisthardcheese has more, but this looks like last minutes of Titanic. Only hope I see is using technicality of AAA Case Numbers to get judge to rule that they lost on a clerical error at Unifund.
Exactly. This is why I am almost certain she contacted the arbitrator directly even though she was not supposed to. It's very strange how her MTD my Sanctions story coincides with the way the arbitrator worded some of the stuff in the award. Her latest story in court (because it has now changed so many times) is now the pending AAA case IS for AAA3K and that Defendant is using this court order to argue a different account which is not allowed. The story before I filed sanctions was the case still pending is for the 22K and the case closed was for account AAA3K. If she told him this, it would make sense why he would then decide to make a decision on both cases, even though at the initial hearing he knew there were two case and he was only appointed to one and can't make a decision on the other. I am just thinking without her telling the arbitrator this, there is no way he would make a decision on a 22K account, after saying he was not authorized to make a decision on both cases. But if she told him what she told the judge in her MTD and he believed the one case opened was for the court order and I was frivolously using the court order to argue the 3k account, then it would make total sense that he would make a decision on both. (Which I might add that I STILL haven't received her MTD in the mail, so she clearly did not want to me even know she filed this)