No

IN THE

mpreme Court of tjje Mniteb States;

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,
V.

W I L L I A M M O R R I S E N D E A V O R E N T E R T A I N M E N T L L C (formerly the W I L L I A M
M O R R I S A G E N C Y ) , J E F F M E A D E and S A R A H W I N I A R S K I ,
Respondents.

On Petition for Writ o f Certiorari to the United States

Court o f Appeals for the Second Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

Pro Se Petitioner
54 Boerum Street, Apt. 6 M
Brooklyn, N Y 11206
(646) 504-6497
humanrights.areamust(^graail.com

Questions Presented For Review

The very concept of "race," and the ideology and practice of racisin are relatively modern in the overall
history of man. Racism as an ideology is a form of biological detemiinism, premised on the idea that
ditferent human populations ("races") have different capacities because of their genetic makeup. Inevitably
such categorizations are aimed at rationalizing an existing social hierarchy. In the book, Tlie his (YSSIS)
Papers: The Keys to the Colors, general and child psychiatrist Dr. Frances Cress Welsing provides a
"functional defnition of racism" and describes "global white supremacy" as:
"the local and global power system structured and maintained by persons who classify themselves
as white, whether consciously or subconsciously determined; this system consists of patterns of
perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action and emotion response, as conducted
simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics, education, entertainment, labor, law,
politics, religion, sex and war). The ultimate purpose of the system is to prevent white genetic
annihilation on Earth - a planet in which the overwhelming majority of people are classified as
non-white (black, brown, red and yellow) by white-skinned people. AU of the non-white people
are genetically dominant (in terms of skin coloration) compared to the genetically recessive whiteskinned people." (emphasis added).
Since there is an ideological divide amongst the Justices on the Supreme Court regarding race and
the realities of racism, I ask the Justices to resolve these two questions first:
1. Is race a legal & social construct and are those classified as "white" racially "superior" to other
"races"?
2. Is global white supremacy (racism) and institutionalized white racism the reality throughout
American society & the world or is it a figment of one's imagination?
3. I f majority of the Supreme Court's Justices have voted in a way that continues to deny the
realities of institutionalized racism, is the Court capable of impartially deciding whether or not
a company and/or an entire industry is engaging in a race-based conspiracy to maintain a
monopoly over higher-status, higher-paying jobs or should this human rights issue be resolved
by an international body such as the United Nations
Other questions presented for re\'iew in tins petition include the following:
4. Has P. Kevin Castel, Laura Taylor Swain and the various appellate judges on the Second
Circuit intentionally violated the U.S. Constitution, their Oaths of Office and the Judicial Code
of Conduct in order deprive Mr. Washington of his constitutional, statutory rights and Godgiven rights imder the color?
5. Is it a violation of the 5* and 14^ Amendments for an Article I I I judge to ignore claims and
evidence of "fraud upon the Court," then issue a filing injunction against the aggrieved party
to prevent them from pursuing independent claims of "fraud upon the Court"?
6. Is it unethical for an attorney to fail to disclose to opposing counsel and/or the Court, that his
or her partner/spouse is employed as an executive at the foruin he or she wants to have the case
decided?
7. Is it possible for an "impartial" and "independent," Article I I I federal judge to simultaneously
comply the Judicial Code of Conduct, U.S. Constitution and Oath of Office i f they ignore
federal, state and local antidiscrimination law in a case challenging the legality o f
1

institutionalized, structural and systemic white racism tliroughout Hollywood and America's
multicultural, "democratic" society?
8. I f talent agencies like William Morris and Creative Artists Agency arbitrarily select and
discriminately hire and/or promote individuals to Agent based on an individual's race, is the
Talent Agencies Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1700 et seq. unconstitutional?
9. Under the Civil Rights Act o f 1964, should an individual litigant be precluded from showing
intentional systemic disparate treatment and disparate impact to establish that his or her race,
color and/or other protected characteristic played a "motivating factor" for the adverse
employinent decisions taken by the employer simply because it is not a class-action lawsuit?
10. I f race is not a prerequisite for one's abilit}' to perform a job, should the "inexorable zero" not
create an "inference of racial discrimination" for companies in coiporate ^America that continue
to segregate the workplace by occupation and industries that have historically remained
racially homogenous 51 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act o f 1964?
11. I f racism is the reahty in oiu" society and there continues to be an overrepresentation of whites
employed on higher-status, higher-paying jobs across various industries, does taking
affirmative measures to eradicate employment practices, policies and procedures that create a
disparate impact against African Americans constitute disparate treatment against whites?
12. I f an employer has maintained a racially segregated workforce and engaged in an intentional
pattern and practice of excluding qualified African Americans from employment for more
than a century, is it against the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to allow the
employer to decide the forum in which an employee's civil nghts claims are resolved by
compelling all employees to sign mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements as a condition
of employment?
13. I f an arbitrator issues a Partial Final Award that makes a "final" determination regarding issues
of arbitrability and liability, and indicates what monetary damages w i l l be awarded during
phase two of a bifurcated proceeding, is that Award both "ripe" and " f i n a f for the sake o f
judicial review?
14. After the arbitrator issues an Award that can be confiimed, modified and/or vacated by the
district court pur.suant to 9-11 of the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, is a violation o f due
process for the arbitral association to disqualify the arbitrator?
15. I f the lower courts refuse to resolve claims of "fraud upon the Court" and the state disciplinary
committee refuses to conduct an investigation into claims of highly unethical attorney
misconduct, does the "Highest Court of the Land" have the "inlierent power" to discipline
attorneys for engaging in "conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar" before a petition for a
writ of certiorari is filed Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 8 or is the Court "only" able to take
disciplinary action "upon written notification from a state that an attorney has been
disciplined"?
16. Did the actions o f the Clerk o f Court, Erik Possum and Cynthia Rapp constitute an obstruction
of justice by refusing to accept Mr. Washington's July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb &
Loeb LLP Due to Engaging In A "Pattern" of "Fraud Upon the Court"?

11

List of All Parties To The Proceeding

Petitioner:
Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington
54 Boerum Street, Apt. 6 M
Brooklyn, New York 11206
(646) 504-6497

humam-ights.areamust(fl^gmail .com

Respondents:
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (formerly the William Morris Agency), Jeff Meade
Sarah Van Hoven (now known as Sarah Van Hoven)
Represented by. Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb LLP
345 Park Avenue, 18"' Floor
New York, New York 10154
(212) 407-4960
mzweig@loeb.com | ccarbone@loeb.com

111

T A B L E OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

LIST OF A L L PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING

iii

T A B L E OF CONTENTS, APPENDICES & T A B L E OF CITED AUTHORITIES

iv

CITIATIONS OF THE OFFICAL A N D UNOFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE OPINOINS A N D

ORDERS ENTERED I N THE CASE
1
STATEMENT FOR THE BASIS OF SUPREME COURT'S JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES I N V O L V E D I N THE CASE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

L E G A L ARGUMENTS A M P L Y F I N G THE REASONS RELIED ON FOR A L L O W A N C E OF

THE WRIT
5
I.

A L L LOWER COURTS H A V E IGNORED W I L L I A M MORRIS'117 Y E A R

PATTERNAND PRACTICE OF R A C I A L EXCLUSION AGAINST A F R I C A N
AMERICANS A N D MR. WASHINGTON'S CLAIMS OF DISPARATE IMPACT ....5

II.

ARBITRATOR GREGORY'S P A R T I A L F I N A L A W A R D WAS B O T H "RIPE" A N D

" F I N A L " FOR THE SAKE OF J U D I C I A L REVIEWED
10

III.

DUE TO SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CASE, A R B I T R A T I O N WAS A N

INAPPROPRIATE FORU TO ACHIEVE THE PUBLIC POLICY GOALS OF OUR
N A T I O N ' S A N T I D I S C R I I N A T I O N LAWS; MERITS OF CASE SHOULD H A V E
U L T I M A T E L Y BEEN DECIDED B Y A N I M P A R T I A L JURY
12

IV.

A L L LOWER COURTS H A V E IGNORED P Y R A M I D OF EVIDENCE PROVING

LOEB & LOEB LLP'S "PATTERN" OF ENGAGING I N "FRAUD UPON THE
COURT"
19

V.

SUPREME COURT CLERKS' REFUSAL TO ACCEPT JULY 18,2015 M O T I O N

TO DISQUALIFY LOEB & LOEB LLP CONSTITUTES A N OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE A N D RAISES FURTHER DOUBTS TO THE COURT'S A B I L I T Y TO
I M P A R T I A L L Y ADMINISTER JUSTICE A N D UPHOLD THE L A W W I T H O U T
REGARDS TO RACE OR CLASS
24

CONCLUSION

25
iv

APPENDICES'
Second Circuit's March 11, 2015 Order Denying Appeal
Appendix A, pg. 1
P. Kevin Castel of Southern District of New York's September 5, 2014 Final Order
Appendix B, pg. 3
Arbitrator Da\dd L. Gregory o f the American Arbitration Association's December 17, 2013
Partial Final Award, A A A Case No. 13 160 01426 12
Appendix C, pg. 30
Arbitrator David L. Gregory's September 25, 2013 Interim Decision No. 3, A A A Case No.
13 160 01426 12
Appendix D , pg. 44
P. Kevin Castel July 20, 2011 Stay Order CompelUng Arbitration, Washington v. Wilham
Morns Endeavor Entm't, L L C , No. lO-cv-9647 (PKC)(JCF), 2011 W L 3251504, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2011)
Appendix E, pg. 52
Second Circuit's December 13, 2011 Order Denying Petitioner's Appeal of P. Kevin
Castel's July 20, 2011 Stay Order, Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entm't, L L C ,
No. 11-3576-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2011)
Appendix F, pg. 71
P. Kevin Castel's March 27, 2011 Order Refusing to Disqualify Himself From the
Case
Appendix G, pg. 73
Castel's March 7, 2014 Order Modifying Order To Prevent Petitioner From Submitting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion
Appendix H , pg. 77
Second Circuit's April 30, 2015 Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration
Appendix I , pg. 80
Second Circuit's June 16, 2015 Order Denying Petitioner' Motion to Recall & Stay
Mandate
Appendix J, pg. 82
P. Kevin Castel's October 22, 2014 Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration
Appendix K, pg. 84
Second Circuit's February 3, 2012 Order Denying Petitioner's Motion for
Reconsideration
Appendix L , pg. 87
Second Circuit's May 23, 2012 Order Denying Petitioner's Motion to Recall
Mandate
Appendix M , pg. 89
Second Circuit's June 12, 2012 Notice of Non-Jurisdiction In Denial of Petitioner's
Petition for Rehearing To Ailiculate Reasoning
Appendix N , pg. 91
Constitutional Provisions and Statutes Involved In The Case
Appendix O, pg. 93
Pyramid Chart Detailing Racial Composition of William Morris' New York Office in
September 2008 and April 2010
Appendix P, pg. I l l
Table Chart Demonstrating Differences In Qualifications Between Myself and Similariy
Situated White/ "Jewish" Counterparts in Agent Trainee Program
Appendix Q, pg. 114
L.A. Weekly Article "How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out" by Dennis Romero,
February 25, 2015
Appendix R, pg. 116
Variety Aiticle "Showbiz Managers Get Another Shot at Challenging Talent Agencies A c f '
by Ted Johnson, March 19, 2015
Appendix S, pg. 129
' Since 1 do not have access to WestLaw or Lexis Nexis, 1 do not know all of the citations for the opinions
and orders that have been entered throughout this case. Therefore, it is impossible for me to caption the
opinions and orders pursuant to Supreme CoiutRule 14(i)(i) through (iii).
V

"Exhibit 3 1 "
Appendix T, pg. 132
Pertinent Documentaiy Evidence From Rowe Proving Conspiracy to Conceal Smoking
Gun Evidence Dm'ing E-Discovery
Appendix U , pg. 150
Petitioner's July 18 Motion to Disbar Loeb & Loeb LLP and Subsequent Con-espondence
Between Cynthia Rapp and Petitioner
Appendix V , pg. 172
Petitioner's July 18, 2015 Motion to Leave To Proceed In Forma Pauperis Cover
Page
Appendix W, pg. 181
Petitioner's August 8, 2015 Letter to Justice Ginsburg
Appendix X , pg. 184
Petitioner's September 10, 2015 Application to Stay Extension Pending Resolution of
Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP and Erik Possum's Reply
Appendix Y, pg. 208
Moore's Federal Practice Law Article Conceining Attorney Disquahfication in die
Supreme Court
Appendix Z, pg. 217
Michael P. Zweig's July 24, 2015 Letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg In Response to
Petitioner's July 18, 2014 Motions
Appendix A A , pg. 221

vi

TABLE OF CITED

AUTHORITIES

Case Law:
Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting Co.. 560 F.2d 389 (8th Cir. 1977)

15

Bidermann hidustiies Licensing. Inc. v. Avmar N.V.. 570 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1st Dep't 1991)

10

Dealer Computer Services. Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford. 547 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2008)

11

Desert Palace, he. v. Costa. 539 U.S. 90 (2003)

Home Ins. Co. v. RHA/Pennsvlvania Nursing Homes. L i e . 127 F. Supp. 2d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

11

Hughes V. UPS. (2004 N.Y. Slip Op 510008 [NY Sup Ct 2004])

15

In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Antibiotic Antitrust Actions. 538 F.2d 180 (8th Cir.
1976)
19
Kenner v. C.I.R.. 387 F.3d 689 (1968)

23

Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp.. 454 U.S. 461 (1982)

16

McDonnell Douglas v. Green. 411 U.S. 792 (1973)

6, 7

Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping. S.A.. 624 F.2d411 (2d Cir. 1980)

10, 11

Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Insco Ltd. 2011 WL 4552997 (S.D. N.Y. 2011)

10

O'Regan v. Arbitration Fomms. Inc. 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001)

16

Parents Involved in Cominurut\ Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. 551 U.S. 701 (2007)

18

Providence Journal Co. v. Providence Newspaper Guild. 271 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001)

11

Quinn v. JP Morgan Chase & Co.. 12 Misc.3d 1160, 819 N.Y.S.2d 212 (Sup CtNew York County
2006)

15

Rogers v. Lodge. 458 U.S. 613, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed,2d 1012 (1982)

Rowe Entertainment. Inc. v. William Monis Agency. L i e . No. 98 CV 8272, 2005 W L 22833
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005), a f f d, 167 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 887, 127
S.Ct. 283, 166 L.Ed.2d 152 (2006)
3, 19, 21
The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling. 357 111. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934)
vii

23

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for
Equality bv Any Means Necessary. 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014)

18

Trade & Transport. Inc. v. Natural Petroleum Chatterers. Inc., 931 F.2d 191 (2d Cir. 1991)

11

Victory v. Hewlett-Packard Company. 34 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D.N. Y. 1999)

13

Constitutional Provisions:
5th Amendment of U.S. Constitution

7th Ainendment o f U.S. Constitution

14th Ainendment of U.S. Constitution

Statutes:
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981

2, 15

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq

2, 3, 7, 16

Deprivation of Rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983

2, 25

Disquahfication of Justice, Judge, Or Magistrate Judge, 28 U.S.C. 455

2, 16

Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 et seq.,

Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq

2-3, 14
2, 6, 10-11, 16

Ru Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)

2, 3, 25

New York City Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 et. seq

2, 3, 17

New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq
Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. 1503
Sherman Antitrust Act, I 5 U.S.C. 1 et seq
Talent Agencies Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1700 et seq

2, 3
2, 24
2, 3, 14
2, 6, 14-15

Law Articles:
Leslie W. Abramson. The Judge's Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and
Lawyers and its Effect on Judicial Independence. Hofstra Law Review; Vol. 25: Iss. 3, Article 4.
(1997)
24
Joseph J. Anclien. Broader Is Better: The Inherent Powers of Federal Courts. 64 N Y U Annual
Survey of American Law 37, 47 (2008)
24
Thomas E. Baker. The Inherent Power To Impose Sanctions: How A Federal Judge Is Like A
800-Pound Gorilla, 14 Rev. Litig. 195 (1994)

24

Hon. Mark W. Bennett. From the "No Spittin', No Cuss in' and No Summary Judgment" Days of
Employment Discnmination Litigation to the "Defendant's Summary Judgment Affimied Without
Comment" Days: One Judge's Foui' Decade Experience. 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 685 (2012-2013)

18

James Gaitus. The Federal Arbitration Act: Risks and Incongruities Relating to the Issuance of
Interim and Partial Awards in Domestic and International Ai-bitrations, 16 A m . Rev. Int'l Ai-b. 1,
2006
11
James Gaitus. Finality, Ripeness, and Fundus Officio: The Interlocutory Arbitral Award
Conundrum. Journal of the ACCL. Vol. 7, No. 2. (2013)

11

Stephen Gillers. Lowering The Bar: How Lawyer Discipline In New York Fails To Protect The
Public. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, V o l . 17, No. 2, (2014)..24
Mark J. Goldberg and Michael P. Zweig, Electronic Discovery: A Brave New World, WALL ST. LAW.,
July 2005
22
Judith A. McMorrow. The (F)utilily of Rules: Regulating Attorney Conduct In Federal Court
Practice. 58 SMU Law Review 3, 20 (2005)

24

Judith A. McMorrow. Rule I I and Federalizing Lawyer Ethics. Brigham Young University Law
Review. (1991)
24
Daniel J. Meador, Inherent Judicial Authority in the Conduct of Civil Litigation, 73 Tex. L. Rev.
1805, 1805 (1995)
24
Charles J. Ogletree, Jr. From Dred Scott to Barack Obama: The Ebb and Flow of Race Jurisprudence. 25
Han'ard Blackletter L. J. 1. 2009
18
Analysis: Federal Law of Attorney Conduct. "Structure of Federal Rules Governing Attorney
Conduct." Moore's Federal Practice - Civil. (2015)
24

IX

Additional Secondary Sources:

Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan, African Origins of the Major 'Western Religions' (1970)

19

Cara Bucidey. "A.C.L.U., Citing Bias Against Women, Wants Inquiry Into Hollywood's Hiring
Practices." New York Times. May 12, 2015

14

Tom Burrell, Brainwashed: Challenging the Myths of Black Inferiority! (2010)

19

Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin Of Civilization: Myth or Reality (1957)

19

Neal Gabler. An Empire of Their O w : How The Jews Invented Hollywood. (1989)

14

Neal Gabler. "Jews, Blacks and Trouble In Hollywood." New York Times. September 2, 1990

12

Oliver Gettel. "ACLU Calls For Investigation Into Gender Discnmination In Hollywood." LA Times.
May 12, 2015

14

Jack Gratus, The Great Wliite Lie: Slavery, Emancipation and Changing Racial
(1973)

19

Attitudes

John G. Jackson, Introduction to African Civilization (1970)

19

Ted Johnson. "Showbiz Managers Get Another Shot at Challenging Talent Agencies Act." Variety.
March 19, 2015

15

LLbLibra, "Corruption In Our Federal Courts." CAW. December 20, 2011

J.A Rogers, Sex & Race Vol I (1952)

19

Dennis Romero. "How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Ouf" LA Weekly. February 25, 2015

14

Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America.
(1976)

19

Kevin Stainback and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey. Discrimination & Desegregation: Equal Opportunity
Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces Since the Civil Rights Act. The ANNALS of tire American
Academy of Political and Social Science, p. 63 (2007)
14
Laura Wagner. "Federal Government To Pay Long-Overdue S940 Million to Native American Tribes."
NPR. September 17, 2015
19
Marisa Warren, "Do The Right Thing: Policing the Profession and the Attorney's Duty to Report
Misconduct." American Bar Association. March 19-23, 2013
24

Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, The his (YSSIS) Papers: Tlie Keys to the Colors (199!)
Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1964)

xi

Citations Of The Official and Unofficial Reports of the Opinions and Orders Entered I n
the Case^
The order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was entered on March 11, 2015.^
The Court's en banc order denying my Motion for Reconsideration was entered on April 30, 2015."*
The Second Circuit's order denying Motion to Recall & Stay Mandate as entered on June 16,
2015.^
The opinion of federal judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District o f New York
("S.D.N.Y.") was entered on September 5, 2014.'^ Castel's opinion denying my Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
"Fraud Upon this Court" Motion was entered on October 22, 2014.^ Castel's opinion refusing to
disqualify himself from the case was entered on March 27, 2014.'^ Castel's order compellmg the
case into arbitration was entered on July 20, 2011 and is reported at Washington v. William Morris
Endeavor Entm't, LLC, No. lO-cv-9647 (PKC)(JCF), 2011 W L 3251504, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 20,
2011).^ The order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denying my appeal of
Castel's July 20, 2011 order was entered on December 13, 2011 and is reported at Washington v.
William Moms Endeavor Entm't, LLC, No. 11-3576-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 13, 2011).'"
The Partial Final Award of Arbitrator David L. Gregory of the American Arbitration
Association ( " A A A " ) was entered on December 17, 2013" and three Interim Decisions were

^ Since I don't have access to WestLaw or Lexis Nexis, I don't know all of the citations for the opuiions
and orders that have been entered throughout this case.
^ See Appendix A.
See Appendix I.
See Appendix J .
^ See Appendix B.
' See Appendix K.
^ See Appendix G.
' See Appendix E.
'"i'ef Appendix F .
" i'ei'Appendix C.
1

entered on April 17, July 15 and September 25, 2013.'^ The fraudulently procured "Final Award"
of Schnader LLP attorney and A A A board of director Timothy K. Lewis was entered on June 25,
2014. The case number is A A A Case No. 13 160 01426 12. A l l opinions are umeported.
Statement For The Basis Of Supreme Court's Jurisdiction
On March 11, 2015, Second Circuit panel judges Dennis Jacobs, Raymond Lohier, Jr. and Laura
Taylor Swain of the S.D.N.Y. entered an order denying my appeal. On April 30, 2015, the Second
Circuit en banc denied my timely filed Motion for Reconsideration without explanation and on
June 1, 2015, the panel judges denied my Motion to Recall & Stay the Mandate without
explanation.
On July 29, 2015, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg granted me a 60 day extension, giving me
until September 28, 2015 to my petition for a writ of certiorari. The principal statutory bases for
the Court's certiorari jurisdiction is 28 U.S.C. 1254.
Constitutional Provisions & Statutes Involved In The Case
The various constitutional provisions & statutes discussed throughout this petition are: 5*, 7"^ and
14"^ Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, Titie V I I of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified,
42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. 1981,
New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq, New York City
Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 et. seq., Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. 1 et seq., Donnelly Act, N . Y . General Business Law 340 et seq., K u Klux Klan Act
of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983,42 U.S.C. 1985(3), Federal Arbitration Act o f 1925, 9 U.S.C. 1 et
seq.. Talent Agencies Act, Cal. Lab. Code 1700 etseq., 28 U.S.C. 455, 18 U.S.C. 4 and 18

'- See Appendix D.

2

U.S.C. 1505 and New York Judiciary Law 487. The text for each constitutional provision and
statute is located in Appendix O.
Statement of the Case
On December 22, 2010, I filed a detailed 80-page Complaint against the oldest talent agency in
Hollywood with the Southern District of New York. In the Complaint, I alleged that my fonner
employer William Morris Endeavor Entertainment L L C (formerly known as the William Morris
Agency) was intentionally engaging in a pattern and practice o f discriminating against African
Americans spanning 112 years, maintaining employment practices, policies and procedures that
created a glaring disparate impact against qualified African Americans from being hired and/or
promoted to higher-status, higher-paying positions such as Agent and Agent Trainee, pre and-post
hiring individual disparate treatment, retahation and aiding & abetting claims against HR
personnel Jeff Meade and Sarah Wmiarski (now known as Sarah Van Hoven) in violation of
Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981 ("Section 1981"), Title V I I of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Titie V l f ) , the New York
State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq. (the "NYSHRL") and the New
York City Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 et. seq.

(the

"NYCHJIL").'^
Since learning in Januaiy of 2012 of Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P. Zweig's
involvement in a conspiracy to engage in and commit "fraud upon the Court" in a prior racial
discrimination case - Rowe Entertainment. Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc.. No. 98 CV 8272,
2005 W L 22833 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005), a f f d, 167 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005), cert, denied, 549

I foimally added claims of antitrust violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
and Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 et seq., as well as claims of conspiracy to interfere with
the human rights of Afi-ican Americans in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)
when 1 submitted my Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on June 15, 2012.
3

U.S. 887, 127 S.Ct. 283, 166 L.Ed.2d 152 (2006)'^ - as well as lead attorney Michael P. Zweig's
continuation to commit "fraud upon the Court" in this case, I've filed numerous motions with the
lower courts detailing the frnn's highly unethical and criminal activity. None o f Castel or the
Second Circuit's orders explicitly resolve these issues, although "clear and convincing evidence"
has been presented that proves that Loeb & Loeb LLP should have never been involved in this
case and all decisions in favor of William Monis and Loeb & Loeb should be vitiated due to "fraud
upon the Couit."
Although I opposed arbitration, I complied with Castel's July 20, 2011 Stay Order and
obtained a favorable verdict from Arbitrator Gregoiy. Castel refused to acknowledge his Award,
and in his September 5, 2014 Final Order, he confirmed the fraudulently procured June 25, 2014
Award of Schnader LLP attorney Timothy K. Lewis that dismissed my case "with prejudice and
on the merits" and confirmed Lewis' judgment that awarded William Moiris $43,707.60 as a result
of my allegedly "bad faith" conduct. Castel also revoked my in forma pauperis

status and

prejudiced my appeal by stating that it wouldn't be made in "good faith." He additionally granted
William Morris and Loeb & Loeb's July 10, 2014 Motion for a Filing Injunction which prevents
me from taking future legal action in a separate case against all parties that have committed fraud
and engaged in an unconscionable scheme to deprive me of my constitutional and statutory rights
under the color of law.
Although my legal arguments have never changed. Second Circuit appellate judges Dennis
Jacobs and Raymond J. Lohier, Jr. and S.D.N.Y. district judge Laura Taylor Swain denied my

LLbLibra.
"Corrupdon
In Our
http://ireport.cnn.cQm/docs/DOC-724105.

Federal

Courts."

CNN.

December

20,

2011.

appeal i n two sentences, concluding that it "lack[ed] an arguable basis in either law or in fact" on
March 11, 2015.
Legal Arguments Amplifying The Reasons Relied On For Allowance Of The Writ
L

AU Lower Courts Have Ignored William Morris' 117 Year Pattern and Practice of
Racial Exclusion Against African Americans and M r . Washington's Claims of
Disparate Impact.

Title VII was a direct legislative byproduct o f the black-led civil rights movement and the larger
struggle of African Americans to live free from both invidious and institutional racism in all
areas of life in America. Title VII explicitly states that it is "unlawful" for an employer to:
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants lor employment in any
way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a). (emphasis added) Under the theory of disparate impact formulated in
Griggs V. Duke Power Co., 401 U . S. 424 (1971), an employer can be found liable of violating our
nation's antidiscrimination laws even i f discrimination isn't intentional. Pursuant to 2000e2(k)(l)(A), an employer can also be found guilty of \dolating the Civil Rights Act o f 1964 i f :
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment
practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is
job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or (ii) the
complaining party makes the demonstration described in subparagraph (C) with respect to an
alternative employment practice and the respondent refuses to adopt such alternative
employment practice.

On March 25, 2015,1 filed a Motion for Reconsideration and on June 11,2015,1 filed a Motion to Recall
& Stay the Mandate. Both were denied without the issuance of an ethical judicial opinion.
5

(emphasis added) Ultimately, disparate treatment and disparate impact are two ways of proving
the same thing: discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 41] U.S. 792, 801 (1973)
("it is abundantly clear that Title V I I tolerates no racial discrunination, subtle or otherwise.")
After a rigorous three-part interview process to join the William Morris Agency's Agent
Trainee program, I started my first day as an Agent Trainee on September of 2008. Before realizing
that I was the only African American employed at any level of the N Y office's Agent Trainee
progiam. See Appendix P, I signed a mandatory, pre-dispute arbitiadon agieement, in addition to
numerous other contracts, in the first 30 minutes on the job. In part, the contract stated that "all
disputes" that arose in the context of employment should be "submitted to and determined
exclusively by bmding arbitration" under the Federal .Arbitration Act. A t the time of signing the
contract, I didn't know what arbitration or the F A A was, but I had no problems signing the
agreement because I knew from my days of artist management that a manager had to be "licensed"
in order to procure engagements for his or her client, pmsuant to the Talent Agencies Act, and I
wanted to advance my career by working for one of the most prestigious Hollywood institutions
in the world.
Although I have excelled in predominately all-white envirormients my entire life and I got
along with majority of ray white co-workers, I had a "gut instincf' that I was working in an
environment in which I was being "set up to fail."'^ During two meetings with Human Resources,
I was told by Meade that "Agents did not want to work with me" and that I needed to communicate
better with Agents. This was surprising to me because I was mostly assigned to work with Support
Staff or in the Mailroom and when I was assigned to work with Agents, majority had little
workload. After the first infoimal meeting with Meade, I asked to see my evaluations and they

The various microaggi-essions I experienced are detailed throughout my 80 page Complaint.

6

didn't reflect Meade's statements. His response that many of the statements were "verbal." During
the second meeting, in which Van Hoven was also present, very few details were provided and
when I asked for specifics, they explicidy mentioned that I received a poor evaluation after
working with television Agent Jason Hodes for less than an hour. After expressing my concerns
with the former co-CEO of the New York Office - Cara Stein - her response was that the company
"would never" discriminate against black people.'^
M y exit from the company in April of 2010 was semi-public, which created considerable
debate online about William Morris and Hollywood's problems with racism and employment
discrimination. Shortly after, I filed a complaint widi the EEOC.'^ While looking for
representation, 1 contacted Michael Zweig of Loeh & Loeb LLP - unaware that he and his firm
represented Wilham Morris in a prior racial discrimination case involving William Morris.'^ In
between the time I filed complaints widi die EEOC and S.D.N.Y., I spent a considerable amount
of time reading the law and various law articles pertaining to employment discrimination, as well
as learning about William Monis, Hollywood and America's egregious histoiy of racism and racial
exclusion towards blacks. After realizing that racism was Wdliam Morris' "standard operating
procedure" and that the company had been engaging in an intentional pattern and practice of
excluding qualified African Americans fi-om Agent, Coordinator and Agent Trainee positions
since 1898,1 decided to file a complaint with the S.D.N.Y. in order to effectuate the public policy
goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and our nation's other antidiscrimination laws.""

During our second meeting. Stein stated that my evaluations "weren't bad."
"* The investigator - Andrea Hahm - never conducted an investigation.
In the e-mail, I informed him that I was planning on taking legal action against Wilham Morris. Although
Zweig responded by stating to not contact him any further, he never once mentioned arbitration.
^^' The objectives of Title V I I are twofold: (1) to end workplace discrimination, and (2) to remedy individual
injuries. See e.g., McDonnell Douglas v. Green. 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973) ("The language of Title V I I
makes plam the purpose of Congress to assiue equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate
7

took a holistic and multidisciplinary approach

by using the law, sociological

jurisprudence, current events, etc. to show diat my race, color and/or national oiigin played a
"motivating factor" as to why I wasn't hired and/'or promoted to an Agent position at William
Morris and that William Morris was intendonaUy conspiring to maintain employment practices,
policies and procedures that maintained zero and/or a gross underrepresentation of qualified
African Americans and people of color from meaningful positions of employment throughout all
of its offices in the America and abroad.
In response to my 80 page Complaint, Michael P. Zweig stated via letter that my claims
were "without merit, legally and factiaally." Based on the fact that the evidence supported that
William Morris was violating our nation's antidiscrimination laws before and during my
employment, I raised a unique, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 compliant argument in opposition to the
enforceability of the two mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements I signed as a condition of
employment. Castel ignored my arguments and concluded that pursuant to the second contract's
"Delegation Provision," the issue of arbitrability had to be decided by the arbitrator. Although I
tried to appeal his decision four times with the Second Circuit,"' I eventually filed a Demand for
Arbitration with the A A A on June 15, 2011. Both parties initially asked Arbitrator David L.
Gregory to decide the case entirely on summary judgment motions. However, after Loeb & Loeb
LLP denied all claims and raised frivolous legal arguments i n opposition to my Motion for
Summary Judgment, I asked in my Reply, for the arbitrator to stay the case pending discovery so
that I could obtain the necessary documents exclusively in their possession to show that their
arguments were pretextual. M y request was granted in Arbitrator Gregoty's fust Interim Decision,

those discriminatory practices and devices which have fostered racially stratified job environments
to the disadvantage of minority citizens."1 (emphasis added).
2' See Appendices A, F, I - J & L-N.
8

issued on April 18, 2013. Although I was granted "liberal discovery," Loeb & Loeb LLP complied
with none of my good-faith discovery requests over the course of six months.
After five years of litigation, William Morris has never been unable to reftite the pyramid
of historical,'^ statistical, circumstantial,'^ anecdotal and the forms of admissible evidence to
establish a prima facie-plus case of intendonal racial discrimination. William Morris and Loeb &
Loeb LLP have had the opportunity to refute the pyramid of evidence establishing all of my
legitimate claims, but they have been miable to meet dieir heightened burden of producUon and
persuasion. Their Strawman arguments have been legally insufficient and on December 17, 2013,
Ai-bitrator Gregoiy issued his Partial Final Award, concluding that I proved by a "preponderance
of evidence" that "William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC discriminated against [me] in
violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the
basis of race,"^'* and indicated that I would be awarded the ftill gamut o f monetaiy damages,
including but not limited to punitive damages, pro se non-attorney fees and

"recompense...for

avoidable delays.

Evidence of historical discrimination can draw "an inference of purposeful discrimination" in cases where
it can be shown that "discriminatoiy practices were commonly utilized, [and] were abandoned when
enjoined by courts or made illegal by civil rights legislation, [then] were replaced by laws and practices
which, though neutral on their face, serve to maintain the staUis quo." Rogers v. Lodge. 458 U.S. 613, 102
S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982).
^'Circumstantial
evidence
can
be
just
as
useful
and
persuasive
as
direct
evidence, and sometimes more so. See Desert Palace, hic. v. Costa. 539 U.S. 90, 100 (2003) ("The reason
for treating circumstantial and direct evidence alike is both clear and deep rooted: 'Circumstantial evidence
is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence."')
(citation omitted).
Arbitrator Gregory has more than 30 years' experience as both an Arbitrator for the AAA and labor &
employment law professor at Castel's alma mater, St. Jolm's University.
9

II.

Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award Was Both "Ripe" and "Final" For the
Sake Of Judicial Review.

For differing reasons, botfi parties were unhappy with Arbiti-ator Gregoiy's decisions.-^ Although
Ai-bitrator Gregory issued a decision in my favor, his Award was incomplete because he didn't
address my claims of systemic disparate treatment, disparate impact and erroneously denied
antitrust and conspiracy claims under the "political question doctrine." I fded an appeal with the
A A A , and in response, Loeb & Loeb LLP filed a second motion seeking Gregory's disquahfication
although the Review Standards of die A A A ' s Administrative Review Council ("ARC") states that
the parties can seek the disqualification of an arbitrator "up to the issuance of the Award or other
terminating order." Pursuant to 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a party has 90 days to seek to
have the Award vacated, so 1 filed a voluminous Motion addressing all issues that had arisen in
the case on March 17, 2013.^*^
It cannot be disputed that Arbitrator Gregory made a final decision regarding the issue of
arbitrability and liability, and indicated that during phase two of the bifurcated proceeding, I would
be awarded the full gamut of monetary damages. Ignoring the facts of the case and supporting case
law, Castel erroneously relied on one case - Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d 411
(2d Cir. 1980) - to conclude that Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was not "final" for the
sake of judicial review. This was one of two cases cited by Christian Carbone in the footnote of

As argued from die inception of this case, the arbitration agreements I signed are unenforceable and the
merits of my case should have been decided by an impartial jury in the S.D.N.Y., not an arbitrator.
-^^ It is well settled that a motion to disquaUfy a law firm and/or an attorney for purported violations of
professional rules of ethics, can only be decided by the federal court, not arbitrators. Bidetmann Industries
Licensing. Inc. v. Avmar N.V.. 570 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1st Dep't 1991) ("Issues of attorney
disquahfication...involve interpretation and apphcation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Disciplinary Rules, as well as the potential deprivation of cotuisel of the client's choosing," traditionally
issues for a court); See also NordiwesternNat'l his. Co. v. Insco Ltd, 2011 WL 4552997 (S.D. N.Y. 2011).
This further supports that Castel should have allowed for due process by staying the arbitration and not
modified his scheduling Order on March 7, 2014. See Appendix H.
10

his March 7, 2014 letter. In order to understand this unique area of the law, I read a number of law
articles on this topic. James Gaitis has published two informative and extremely insightful law
articles on this topic,-'' and it is without question that Michaels is not controlling or applicable to
the Award issued by .\i-bitrator Gregory.'^ In a desperate attempt to prevent me from filing a
motion that would seek Loeb & Loeb LLP's disqualification. Christian Carbone wrote a letter to
Castel on March 7, 2014 that intentionally created the false impression that Ai'bitrator Gregory and
the A A A were not aware that I sought a bifurcated proceeding in this employment discrimination
dispute. See Providence Journal Co. v. Providence Newspaper Gudd, 271 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2001)
(an interlocutory arbitral determination on liability could be immediately enforced by the district
court, even though the parties had only 'informally agreed' upon bifurcation). Even i f bifurcation
hadn't been discussed, Ai-bitrator Gregoiy had no choice than to bifurcate the proceeding since
William Monis and Loeb & Loeb LLP engaged in bad-faith and contumacious conduct to prevent
discovery over the span of six months.
After the arbitrator issues an "award" that is "ripe" for review, it is the federal court - not
the arbitral forum - who has the power to confirm, modify and/or vacate the award, as well as

The two articles are Finality, Ripeness, and Functus Officio: The Interlocutory Arbitral Award
Conundrum. Journal of the ACCL. Vol. 7, No. 2. 2013 and The Federal Arbitration Act: Risks and
Incongruities Relating to the Issuance of Interim and Partial Awards in Domestic and International
Arbih-ations, 16 Am. Rev. Inf 1 Arb. 1, 2006.
It is well settled that "non-final arbiti-al decisions" and "interlocutoiy ai'bitral awards" (e.g., "Interim
Decisions" and "Partial Fmal Awards") have been deemed reviewable by the federal court since Michaels'
decision m 1980. See e.g., Trade & Transport. Inc. v. Natural Petroleum Charterers, Inc., 931 F.2d 191 (2d
Cir. 1991) ('partial final award' that solely adjudicated die issue of liabihty, but not damages, was subject
to immediate judicial review); Dealer Computer Seivices. Lie, v. Dub Herring Ford. 547 F.3d 558 (6tli Cir.
2008) (court of appeals concluded that an interlocutoiy ai'bitral decision that was not final might nonetheless
be subject to immediate judicial review based on a finding of ripeness); Home Ins. Co. v.
RHA/Pennsylvania Nursing Homes. Lie. 127 F. Supp. 2d 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (district court concluded
that an interim award that adjudicated only a portion of a damages claim and ordered immediate payment
was final and subject to immediate enforcement even though other liability and damages issues relating to
same claim remained). Additionally, 16(a)(1)(D) of the F.AA states that an appeal can be taken from an
order "confirming or denying confinnation of an award or partial award." (emphasis added)
11

detemiine whedier the arbitrator should be disqualified pursuant to 9-11 of the FAA. For these
reasons alone, Castel's Final Order must be vacated due to the fact that he has upheld the Final
Award issued by an "arbitrator" who was unlawfully appointed by the A A A since Castel refused
to vacate Arbitrator Gregory's Award and/or disqualify Arbitrator Gregory from the case.
III.

Due to Social Significance of Case, Arbitration Was An Inappropriate Forum To

Achieve the Public Policy Goals of Our Nation's Antidiscrimination Laws; Merits of
Case Should Have Ultimately Been Decided By A n Impartial Jury.

William Morris and Hollywood's history of racism is well-documented^^ and the historical and
statistical evidence that I presented cannot be ignored merely because I am an individual litigant.
It camiot be disputed that in 1898, the Wdliam Moiris Agency was founded in New York City by
a German "Jewish" immigiant named Zelman Moses and that from 1898 to 1961, William Morris
maintained an explicit policy of not hiring blacks, especially as Agents. Out of the 50 Agents
employed in the New York office in September of 2008, only one was a person of color and she
was Asian. There were more African American Agents employed in the New York office in 1961
(one), than there were employed between 2008 and 2010. Although William Morris claimed that
there is a 10 percent rate of promotion in the company's "compedtive" Agent Trainee Program, it
is clear that that only applies to White/"Jewish" Agent Trainees, because from 2000 and 2010,
zero African American Agent Trainees were deemed "qualified" enough to become "hcensed"
Agents. Whether this is intentional or not, our nation's antidiscrimination laws caie about the
"effects" of discrimination in the workplace.
The company cannot deny that in or around the time I submitted my resume and cover
letter to the company, the company created an Agent position in the urban contemporary music

See e.g.. Neal Gabler. "Jews, Blacks and Trouble hi Hollywood." New York Times. September 2, 1990.
http://www.nvtimes.com/1990/09/02/movies/filin-view-iews-blacks-and-n-ouble-in-hollvwood.html.
12

division - the exact area that I was interested in - and fdled that position internally when more
than 95% of the Agent Trainees were white and/or "Jewish." Since these positions are fdled mosUy
by word of mouth, referrals or tlirough die Agent Trainee program, this prevents people of color
from having the opportunity to apply for these positions. Although William Morris argued that my
similarly situated white/"Jewish" counterparts were more quahfied than me, they are lying. I was
extremely more qualified than all of the similarly situated white/"Jewish" Agent Trainees who
were mostly recent college graduates with no experience in the entertainment business and my
relevant work experience was equivalent to that of those who had recently been promoted to
Agent.^'' See Appendix Q. The pyramid of evidence proves that had I been white and/or "Jewish"
with the exact same resume, William Morris would've hired and/or promoted to Agent.
Racism is embedded into culture of the company and to this day, the company has remained
highly race conscious - hence the reason the "inexorable zero" existed in die New York office
during my employment. See Victoiy v. Hewlett-Packard Company, 34 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D.N.Y.
1999) (read Teamsters as holding that an inexorable zero standing alone could support a disparate
impact claim of sex discrimination in promotions, asserting that "[t]he Supreme Court has repeated
countenanced the use of statistical evidence, and evidence of the absence of a single minority
employee being hired, labeled the 'inexorable zero,' would in and of itself support an inference of
discrimination."). This problem is not lunited to William Morris. Most talent agencies, studios,
networks, media conglomerates, etc. employ similar practices as William Morris in order to
maintain a race-based monopoly over decisionmaking positions over the marketplace of ideas,
hence the reason for my antitrast claims.^' The T A A - a law William Mortis played a role in

^ The artist 1 co-managed for tv\'o years and helped get signed to William Morris is stiU a client of WME
and has smce been nominated for more than 11 GRAMMY Awards.
^' It's impossible forme to present my legal arguments as to why William Morris and others are "engag[ing]
in a perse, race-based conspiracy containing horizontal and vertical elements to exclude African Americans
13

creating -

insulates the Hollywood talent agencies and allows them to maintain their

discriminatory and anticompetitive practices, policies and procedures without any scrutiny or
regulation from the government. Whde I have been labeled "racist" and "anti-Semitic" by William
Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP for "Jews" of EurAsian descent's oven-epresentation

in

Hollywood,^^ on February 25, 2015, L.A. Weekly writer Dennis Romero published an article dtled
"How Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out," which buttresses many of the legal arguments that I've
raised in this case.''^ See Appendix R. And on May 12, 2015, the A C L U also announced that it was
"taking on Hollywood's boys-club mentality." ^'^ The organization "called on state and federal
agencies to investigate gender discrimination at major Hollywood studios, networks and talent
agencies, contending that 'women are systematically excluded from or underemployed in directing
jobs.'" Although gender equality doesn't exist, it doesn't change the fact that the biggest
beneficiaries of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have been white w o m e n . W h i l e William Moiris and
other businesses publicly proclaim to be an "equal opportijnity employer" that hires and advances

and people of color from meaningful employinent opportunities throughout Hollywood and the
entertainment industry. In the January 31, 2013 Reply to my Motion for Summaty Judgment with the AAA,
it took me 34 pages (single-spaced) to explain why Wilham Moms should also be foiuid liable of violating
the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. In Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award, he erroneously denied these
claims under the "political question doctrine."
See e.g., Neal Gabler. An Empire of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood. 1989.
Denms Romero. How Hollyu'ood Keeps Minorities Out. LA Weekly. February 25, 2015.
http://www.laweeklv.com/news/how-hollvwood-keeps-minorities-out-5402815.
Oliver Gettel. "ACLU Calls For Investigation Into Gender Discrimination In Hollywood." LA Times.
May
12,
2015.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movics/movicsnow/la-et-mn-aclu-genderdiscrimination-hollvu'ood-20150512-stotv.html; Cara Buckley. "A.C.L.U., Citing Bias Against Women,
Wants
Inquiiy
Into Hollywood's Hiring
Practices." New York
Times.
May
12,
2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2QI5/05/13/mQvies/aclu-citing-bias-against-women-wants-inquiry-intohollvwoods-hrring-practices.html.
'^ Kevin Stainback and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey. Discrimination & Desegregation: Equal Opportunity
Progress in U.S. Private Sector Workplaces Since the Civil Rights Act. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, p. 63 (2007). The researchers concluded:
...while almost all workplaces have incorporated women and racial/edinic minorities as employees,
status segregation within workplaces remains very high, white males continue to have advantaged
access to the best quality^ jobs, most racial progress in E E O stalled after 1980, and white women
seem to have benefited the most from the struggles for E E C , (emphasis added)
14

individuals based on "merit," the reality is, that is a lie. It is tlu-ough nepotism, cronyism and other
forms of favoritism drat this "old boy's network" has remained racially homogenous, and thus, the
T A A should be declared unconsdtutional.

See Appendix S.

From the inception of this case, Castel repeatedly ignored historical evidence o f
institutionalized racism and the reahties of racism present-day.''^ While "Title V I I . . . i s to be
accorded a liberal construction in order to cairy out the purposes of Congress to eliminate the
inconvenience, mifairness and humiliation of [unlawful] discrimination." Baker v. Stuart
Broadcasting Co.. 560 F.2d 389, 391-92 (8th Cir. 1977), the Defendants and the various finders of
fact have nanowly construed our nation's antidiscrimination and/or ignored the statutes altogether.
Should an individual litigant be precluded from presenting evidence of systemic disparate
treatment and disparate impact simply because the case isn't deemed a class action lawsuit? This
presents a question of first quesfion that must be resolved by the Supreme Court.
Castel stated in his Jidy 20, 2011 Stay Order that I "ha[d] not shown that Congress intended
to preclude arbitradon for claims asserted under either Tide V I I or 42 U.S.C. 1981," but it's clear
that I have. [PKC Stay Order, 10.] Although there is a "strong federal policy favoring arbitration,"
there should be an even stronger federal policy to eradicate racial discrimination, as well as other
types of discriminafion, throughout the American workplace. It's unconscionable that Tide V I I
specifically provides certain procedural protecdons and egregious violators of Tide V I I - e.g.
William Moiris - can induce token minority employees with litde to no bargaining power to waive

Ted Johnson. "Showbiz Managers Get Another Shot at Challenging Talent Agencies Act." Variety.
March 19, 2015. http://varietv.com/2015/film/news/showbiz-managers-get-another-shot-at-challengingtaient-agencies-act-1201456474/.
In his July 20, 2011 Stay Order, he summarized my 80 page Complaint in 1 % pages and made it appear
that my case only consisted of post-hiring individual disparate treatment claims.
Ouinn V. JP Morgan Chase & Co.. 12 Misc.Sd 1160, 819 N.Y.S.2d 212 (Sup Ct New York County 2006)
and Hughes v. UPS. (2004 N.Y. Slip Op 510008 [NY Sup Ct 2004]) ai-e two cases decided in New York
that have allowed pattern and practice claims in non-class action settings.
15

their right to the forum that is meant to ensure that the broader pubhc policy goal of ending
workplace discrimination entirely is achieved. To this day, no finder of fact has been able to render
an ethical judicial opinion explaming why Wdham Morris' aibitration agreements are not
"unconscionable" based on the arguments raised by both parties and I am entitled to that. Since
the lower courts in my case have refused to explicidy resolve this issue and the Seventh Circuit
had no problems applying antidiscrimination law within the framework o f the FAA to deteimine
issues of miconscionability and contract enforceability in O'Regan v. Arbitradon Forums, Inc, 246
F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001), this creates another issue of first impression for the Supreme Court.
I patiently waited 32 months after Castel issued his Stay Order to ask him directly to recuse
himself from the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 and Canon 3(C) of Judicial Code of Conduct.
In his March 27, 2014 Order, he concluded: "Viewed as a totality, an objective, disinterested
observer fiilly informed of the underlying facts would not entertain significant doubt that jusdce
would be done in this acdon absent recusal of the undersigned." After he refused to disqualify
himself, he continued to ignore our nation's antidiscrimination laws in order to issue decisions in
favor of William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP. I f he was never going to apply antidiscrimination
law i n a case o f this magnitude, then why didn't he disqualify himself i f the federal court is "vested
with the final responsibihty for [Title V I I ' s ] enforcement tlirough the construction and
inteipretation of the statutes, the adjudication of claims, and the issuance of relief" See, e.g.,
Ki-emerv. Chemical ConsU". Corp.. 454 U.S. 461, 479 n.20 (1982) ("federal courts were entmsted
with ultimate enforcement responsibility" of Title V I I ) .
Racism is a learned behavior and through powerful mediums of persuasion such as
television and film, Hollywood plays an hifluential role in conditioning, shaping and distorting the
values, thoughts, beliefs, and worldviews of the masses, especially with regards to race.

16

Sociological research has proven that these raediuins are a large source for unconscious racism, so
it's not surprising that die racial animus and biases found at the decisionmaking level of Hollywood
is projected onto the collecdve conscience of society to perpetuate and maintain the myth of black
inferiority, black criminality and other lies that keep us at the bottom of America's racial caste
system, h i his extremely informadve paper dtled "Who Controls Hollywood?," John W. Cones,
Esq. expresses one of the reasons why I decided to pursue this case:
[I]t is dme that this privately controlled culture-promotion machine be dismantled, so that all
segments of this nation's multi-cultural society have an equal opportunity to tell their important
cultural stories dirough this significant medium for the communication o f ideas... Diversity is
the key.^^
Furthermore, the thing that makes William Morris' actions even more egregious, is that
this is taking place in one of the most racially diverse cides in the world - New York City."*" O f
course, none of the finders of fact applied NYCFLRL. At the end of the day: I f Wilham Morris
valued diversity, there would be diversity in the workplace. I f there wasn't any truth to my claims
against William Morris, why would the Van Hoven and Meade hire five (5) black Floaters in one
month after filing EEOC complaint when in the first year after the merger between William Morris
and Endeavor, they hired zero? This is also statistically significant and "not due to chance."
Although I am an individual htigant, I am trying to correct a systematic wrong - hence the reason
I am additionally requesting affirmative relief.

3''
John
W.
Cones,
Esq.
"What's
Really
Going
On
In Hollywood!"
(1997)
http://www.filmreform.org/whats.htm.
In 2005, the enactment of the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act ("Restoration Act"), N.Y.C. LOCAL
LAW NO. 85 OF 2005, reflected the New York City Council's concern that the NYCHRL had been
"construed too nairowly." Restoration Act 1. The Restoration Act states that provisions of state and
federal civil rights stamtes should be viewed "as a floor below which the City's Human Rights law cannot
fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise." (emphasis added)
17

Despite the fact that black unemployment reached a 27 year peak in August of 2011 at 16.7
percent"" and blatant forms of white racism are on the rise, the A A A , Castel and the Second Circuit
have tried to trivialize a complex, social issue that has plagued our nadon for more than 400 years.
In large part, the obstacles that I have faced in this case are the result o f the Supreme Court's
conservative decisions in the area of arbitration, employment discrimination"*- and civil rights."*^ A
clear ideological divide exists amongst the Justices regarding the issue of race and racism,'*'* and
the Supreme Court must come to a consensus on whether or not institutionalized white racism is
the reality in our multicultural society and i f whites are racially "superior" because history proves

It is well documented that there is a gross underrepresentation of qualified African Americans employed
in higher-status, higher-paying positions throughout industries including advertising, Silicon Valley, Wall
Street, fashion, our nation's judicial system, etc.
''^ See e.g., Hon. Mark W. Bennett. From the "No Spittin', No Cussin' and No Summary Judgmenf Days
of Employment Discrimhiation Litigation to the "Defendant's Summaiy Judgment Affirmed Without
CommenC Days: One Judge's Four Decade Experience. 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 685 (2012-2013).
("Siunmary judgment abuse and ovemse occurs in all types of cases, but is especiallv magnified in
employment discrimination cases. This problem is exacerbated bv the daily ritual of appellate courts
affirming summar>' judgment grants to employers, often without comment, at a rate that far exceeds
any other substantive area of federal law.") Id. at 686. ("Tlie trends that are described here have driven
employment discrimination plaintiffs from our federal cotuls in unprecedented numbers. In the last few
years there has been a shocking drop of nearly 40% in the number of federal court employment
discrimination fJings. This is even more dramatic, given the rise in charges filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).") Id. at 709.
See e.g., Charies J. Ogletree, Jr. From Dred Scott to Barack Obama: The Ebb and Flow of Race
Jurispmdence. 25 Harvard Blackletter L. J. 1. 2009.
The same ideological divide regarding race that exists between myself and the various finders of fact in
this case is the same ideological divide that exists amongst the Justices on the Supreme Court. In Parents
Involved in Coinmunit\ Schools v. Seatde School Distnct No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 748 (2007) (plurality
opinion). Chief Justice John. G. Roberts, Jr. stated that the "way to stop discrimination on the basis of race
is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." In Justice Sotomayor dissent in Schuette v. Coalition to
Defend Affirmative Action. Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means
Necessary. 134 S. Ct. 1623, 1676 (2014) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) she disagreed that "examining the
racial impact of legislation only pen^etuates racial discrimination," and criticized what she characterized as
the majority's decision to "sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in
our society." Sotomayor wrote: "Race matters. Race matters in part because of the long history of racial
minorities being denied access to the political process.. Race also matters because of persistent racial
inequality in society inequality that cannot be ignored and that has produced stark socioeconomic
disparities."
18

beyond a reasonable doubt that this is also a lie.

I f presidendal hopefuls Bemie Sanders and

Hillary Clinton are explicidy campaigning to eradicate insdtudonal racism, then the Supreme
Court w i l l have to eventually address this issue. This is the perfect case to do so since many of the
gains made during civil rights movement have been eviscerated and black America is currently in
a state of crisis due to the genocidal effects of global white supremacy (racism)."*^
IV.

All Lower Courts Have Ignored Pyramid of Evidence Proving Loeb & Loeb L L P ' s
"Pattern" of Engaging In "Fraud Upon the Court."

The doctrine of "fraud upon the Court" has been characterized "as a scheme to interfere with the
judicial machinery performing the task o f impartial adjudication, as by preventing the opposing
party from fairly presenting his case or defense." In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in
Antibiotic Antitrust Actions, 538 F.2d 180, 195 (8th Cir. 1976).
Thirteen months into the case, I read a CNN article tided "Corruption in Our Federal
Courts," in which the author discussed Rowe and the conspiracy that took place between his foirner
counsel, opposing counsel, Robert P. Patterson and others to defraud and deprive the class of black
concert promoters of their constitutional and statutory rights imder the color of law. During ediscovery in this case, the plaintiffs paid $200,000 to have their e-discovery expert search the
1998-1999 backup tapes of WiUiam Morris and Creative Artists Agency. On the day the search

'^ See e.g., Dr. Yosef A.A. ben-Jochannan, 4/nca Origins of the Major Western Religions' (1970); Cheikh
Anta Diop, The African Origin Of Civilization: Myth or Reality (1957); John G. Jackson, Introduction to
African Civilization (1970); Jack Gratus, The Great White Lie: Slavery, Emancipation and Clxanging Racial
Attitudes (1973); J.A Rogers, Sex & Race Vol. 1 (1952); Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus:
The African Presence in Ancient America. (1976); Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, The Isis (YSSIS) Papers:
The Keys to the Colors (1991); Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1964); Tom Biurell,
Brainwashed: Challenging the Myths of Black Inj'eriority (2010).
I read about the Justices attending events for Pope Francis' visit to U.S. Do you know he and others pray
to the black Madonna and child behind closed doors? See e.g., Laura Wagner. "Federal Government To
Pay Long-Overdue $940 Million to Native American Tribes." NPR. September 17, 2015.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-wav/20l5/09/17/441203982/federal-govemment-to-pav-longoverdue-940-milhon-to-native-american-tribes.
19

results came in, Rowe's attorneys informed him that no derogatory tenns were found. In a twisted
tui-n o f fate, Rowe madvertendy saw the actual summary results a month later during a meeting
with former Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP (now known as Dentons LLP) attorney
Raymond Heslin. According to Rowe, when he glanced down at his attorney's desk, he saw a piece
of paper with the name of his case and the word "nigger" lined down the entire first page.
SNR withdrew from the case before the Defendants filed for surmnary judgment. Although
this document was included as "Exhibit 3 1 " to the plaintiffs' opposition for summary judgment.
See Appendix T, Patterson issued a 175-page Order in favor of the defendants and in a footnote, he
deemed "Exhibit 3 1 " to be an "unauthenticated and unidentified document" due to the negligence
of Rowe's co-counsel - the Willie Gary Firm - to bring to the Court's attendon that Rowe's former
attorneys and attorneys for the defendants were committing "fraud upon the Court" by refusing to
produce the underlying e-mails.
In March of 2012, Rowe - as a pro se lidgant - filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Motion, seeking
to have his case reopened due to "fraud upon the Court." Although Loeb & Loeb LLP never
responded to Rowe's Motion, federal judge Robert P. Patterson compelled Rowe's former SNR
attorneys - Martin R. Gold, Richard Primoff, Raymond Heslin and Christine Lepera - to respond.
Between May 14-15, 2012, each attorney submitted a Declaradon "under penalty o f perjury"
stating more or less, that "no derogatory tenns" were ever found. One attorney went as far as to
say that no e-mails were produced at all and that the S200,000 spent was meant only to obtain
search results. Robert P. Patterson denied Rowe's motion on November 8, 2012 and stated that
his claims were "full o f hot air and paranoid suspicions." Not surprising, he made absolutely no
mention of the perjurious Declai-ations that were submitted.

20

In Ai-bitrator Gregory's first Interim Decision, he granted ray request for discovery, in part,
because he wanted to learn raore about "Exhibit 3 1 " and its relevance to my case."*^ I spent
countless hours at the S.D.N.Y., going through the case files in Rowe to obtain die necessary
documentary evidence to show that Rowe's former attorneys did in fact conspire with opposing
counsel to conceal smoking gun evidence from their clients. See Appendix U. One o f the ways
this complex conspiracy took place, was that Rowe's former attorneys allowed W M A and CAA's
counsel to obtain and delete the underlying e-mails before they reviewed EED's results. Judge
Francis' e-discovery protocol explicitly stated that plaintiffs' counsel were to obtain possession of
the e-mails first and that i f the defendants wanted the e-mails first, they had to pay e-discovery. It
cannot be disputed that "Exhibit 3 1 " shows that the document was faxed from "SNR New York"
on "October 15, 2002" and no attorney from SNR has accused the Gary Finn o f fraud. Because of
these intentional errors, there was no possible way the evidence produced by EED would have
been admitted into the evidence of record in their case.
In Arbitrator Gregory's third Interim Decision, dated September 25, 2013, he did
something Patterson refused to do - admit "Exhibit 3 1 " into the "evidence o f record." Gregory
made this decision after nearly a year of presiding over this case. Even i f the A A A ' s
disqualification of Arbitrator Gregory was lawful and Timothy K. Lewis had the authority to
vacate Gregory's Partial Final Award, Lewis did not vacate Gregory's evidentiary decision to
admit "Exhibit 3 1 " into the "evidence of record." Thus, Loeb & Loeb LLP and their coconspirators are collaterally estopped from making statements that raise doubts as to the

One of the reasons this spoliated, smoking-gun evidence is relevant to my case is because I never argued
that I was blatantly discriminated against. Since e-mails are typically private, this demonstrates that racist
and racially biased messages can still be communicated without the intended target ever knowing.
21

document's authenticity since this document did not magically appear out of thin air and Rowe's
former attorneys have never claimed that this document was fraudulently produced.
After spending six months in discovery, WiUiam M o m s and Loeb & Loeb LLP refused to
comply with any of my good-faith discovery requests. To this day, the underlying e-mails to
"Exhibit 3 1 " have never been produced. Loeb & Loeb LLP's contumacious conduct and discovery
abuses are intendonal because I discovered a law article co-authored by Michael Zweig, which
discusses how ethical attorneys should conduct themselves during discovery.''^ In this case, he did
the opposite of everything he stated an attorney should do. And further evidence that Zweig is
dishonest and engaging in fraud, is demonstrated by the fact that while he has accused me o f being
"racist" and "and-Semitic" for trying to effectuate the public policy goals of our nation's
antidiscrimination laws, he served as the Chairperson for the firm's Diversity Initiative Committee
between 2002-2010 for his predominately a]l-white/"Jewish" law fiim.
Additionally, after Arbitrator Gregory was unlawfully disqualified, I learned days before
filing my March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion, that Christian Carbone's wife - Sasha
Angelique Carbone - served as General Comisel for the A A A and was a former employee o f Loeb
& Loeb LLP. After doing some research on Mrs. Carbone, I also learned that she worked closely
with the newly appointed "arbitrator" - Schnader LLP attorney and A A A board of director
Timothy K. Lewis. While the A A A proclaims to be "neutral," this is impossible i f the A A A and
Loeb & Loeb LLP are literally sleeping in bed together. On numerous occasions, I tried to bring
this to the attention of P. Kevin Castel. h i Castel's September 5, 2014 Final Order, he described
the marriage as being "alleged" although I asked him on numerous occasions to have Carbone
submit an Affidavit confirming or denying his mairiage to Sasha. Castel refused and pretended

Mark J. Goldberg and Michael P. Zweig, Electronic Discovery: A Brave New World, W.ALL ST. LAW.,
July 2005. http://wuw.paralegalstudv247.comA)ooks/handouts/The%20Electronic%20Courtroom.pdL
99

that Carbone's failure to disclose was not unethical. I f this were actually true, then what would be
the harm in Chrisdan confirming his mardal status to Sasha?
In furtherance of their fraud, William Morris paid Schnader LLP Direcdy in violadon of
A A A Employment Rule 44 and the A A A allowed it to happen. The Rule states: "Any
arrangement for the compensation of a neutral arbitrator shall be made through the A A A
and not directly between the parties and the arbitrator. Payment of the arbitrator's fees and
expenses shall be made by the A A A from the fees and monies collected by the A A A for diis
purpose." (emphasis added) For Arbitrator Gregory, the A A A complied with this Rule, but after
he was unlawftilly disqualified, they allowed Lewis to direct William Monis to pay his law firm
directly by providing the firm's bank routmg number on his mvoices. This raises further doubts to
the A A A ' s "neutrality]."
Loeb & Loeb LLP should have absolutely no involvement in this case. Their actions
constitute willful violations of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York
Judiciary Law 487, in addition to violations of numerous federal and state laws, and extreme
disciplinary and monetary sanctions should be imposed against Zweig, Carbone, Loeb & Loeb
LLP and William Morris, including but not limited to vitiating all decisions in their favor.

It is well settled that "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and
never becomes final." Kenner v. C.I.R.. 387 F.3d 689 (1968); see also The People of the State of Illinois v.
Fred E. Sterling. 357 111. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into
which it enters applies to Judgments as well as to contracts and other ft-ansactions.").
23

V.

Supreme Court Clerks' Refusal To Accept July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb
& Loeb L L P Constitutes An Obstruction of Justice and Raises Further Doubts To
Court's Ability to Impartially Administer Justice and Uphold the L a w Without
Regards to Race or Class.

On three separate occasions, the Clerk of Court and its staff, including Erik Possum and Cynthia
Rapp, returned my July 18, 2015 Modon to Disquahfy Loeb & Loeb LLP back to me.^ There is
no mendon on the docket that I have submitted this pleading to die Coiut,"' as well as my July 18,
2015 Motion to Proceed In Fomia P a u p e r i s , m y August 8, 2015 letter to Justice Ginsburg^^ or
my September 10, 2015 Application to Stay Extension Pending Resolution of July 18, 2015
Modon to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP.^'* Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 8 and 21, my Motions
should have been accepted and decided by the Supreme Court. I've read numerous law articles on
this topic to buttress my p o s i t i o n . S e e Appendix Z. Due to the intentional errors of the Clerk
and its staff, this case has been harmfully delayed and I have wasted more S413.75 on printing and
shipping these documents to the Court.^^ Their actions constitute a clear obstruction of justice and

Since the Clerk of Court refused to accept my pleadings, they can be read here:
https://www.scribd.com/Mr%20Alkebu-lan or www.meagainstiniquitv.wordpiess.com.
^' See Appendix V.
See Appendix W.
" See Appendix X.
See Appendix Y .
See e.g., .Analysis: Federal Law of Attorney Conduct. "Structtire of Federal Rules Governing Attorney
Conduct." Moore's Federal Practice - Civil. (2015) See Appendix Z; Stephen Gillers. Lowering The Bar:
How Lawyer Disciphne In New York Fails To Protect Tlie Pubhc. New York University Journal of
Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2014); Marisa Waircn. "Do The Right Thmg: Pohcing the
Profession and the Attorney's Duty to Report Misconduct." American Bar Association. March 19-23, 2013;
Tliomas E. Baker. The Inherent Power To Impose Sanctions: How A Federal Judge Is Like A 800-Pound
Gorilla, 14 Rev. Litig. 195 (1994); McMoirow. The (F)utility of Rules: Regulating Attorney Conduct In
Federal Court Practice. 58 SMU Law Review 3, 20. 2005; Judith A. MCMOITOW. Rule 11 and Federalizing
Lawyer Ethics. Brigham Young University Law Review. (1991); Leshe W. Abramson. The Judge's Ethical
Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its Effect on Judicial Independence. Hofstra
LawReview: Vol. 25: Iss. 3, Article 4. (1997); Daniel J. Meador, Inherent Judicial Authority in the Conduct
of Civil Litigation, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1805, 1805 (1995); Joseph J. Anclien. Broader Is Better: The Inherent
Powers of Federal Courts. 64 NYU Annual Sur\'ey of American Law 37, 47. 2008.
This total does not include the costs of printing and submitting this petition. As of September 21, 2014,1
have spent more than S239.35 on ink, paper and additional supplies. It will cost me more than $75 to ship
these pleadings to opposing counsel and the Supreme Cotirt.
24

as a result, each gatekeeper that has acted above the law should be fired for abusing their authority
to K i m Davis me.
Conclusion
It is clear under the 7* Amendment, an impartial jurj' should have decided the merits of my case
and that my pedtion is "certworthy." Each Ardcle I I I federal judge has intentionally violated their
Oath of Office, numerous Canons under die Judicial Code of Conduct, the U.S. Constitution, 42
U.S.C. 1985(3), 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. 4 m order to deprive me of my consdtutional
and statutory rights under the color o f law.
Since it is not "mandatory" for Loeb & Loeb LLP to respond to my petition, I am not
allowed an oral hearing due to my pro se status and Zweig submitted a letter to Justice Ginsburg
on July 24, 2015 denying all wrongdoing and continued to defer to the fraudulently procured
decisions of the lower courts, there is no need for me to submit an additional brief i f my pedtion
is granted. See Appendix AA. For the following reasons, I ask that the Supreme Court correct this
extreme "miscarriage of justice" by granting the extraordinary rehef requested in both my Motion
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and this petition.

25

Respectfully submitted.

Marcus Isaiah Washington

Pro S'e Petitioner
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6 M
Brooklyn, New York
(646) 504-6497
humanrights. areamust@gmail. com