Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Motion For Extraordinary Relief Under The Court's Inherent Authority (November 21, 2014)

Case 14-4328, Document 7, 11/21/2014, 1379771, Page 1 of 309
I '" \ .
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
1
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s): Not Available.

------------------------------ Caption [use short title]
Motion for: Restoration of In Fonna Pauperis, Suspend Filing Injunction
and Remove AU Prejudice Pending "Good Faith" Appeal, Or in the Alt.,
Vitiate All Orders Due to "Fraud Upon the Court" and "Fraud Upon the Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Enl et al. (10 Clv. 9647)
Court, by the Court." Request to Transfer Case to Another Circuit.
Set forth below precise, complete statement ofrelief sought: c: 1'-,)
Seeking extraordinary relief mentioned in the Motion's title pursuant Z
-- U)
('./-..
=
•..t:
c-:: r l c:,T
(j ;0
~
to the court's inherent powers.
---I
C)
c:' ::-2
c: c::;
....-.t:::::
rn
C) ->,
_.j fr~)
.·:.t~
N
-.-'- •.
r-(j C)
(-)
C-·I
.. I
I' n
C'~)
c. , ., -. -0 ,,(;::
., ;
,~'-.
,0
; -. 111
~.
(~ ---,
.. , , C1
c.)
'"
,.:
,
..:
MOVIN~RTY: Marcus Isaiah Washington
~Plaintiff
~AppenantIPetitioner
B Defendant
AppelleelRespondent
OPPOSING PARTY: William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.
MOVING ATTORNEY: Marcus Isaiah Washington (pro se) OPPOSING ATTORNEY: Michael P. Zweig & Christian Cerbone
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]
54 Boerum St., Apt. 6M Loeb & Loeb LLP
Brooklyn, NY 11206 345 Park Avenue., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10154
646-504-6497 humanrights.areamust@gmail.com 212-407-4000 mzweig@loeb.com ccarbone@loeb,com
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Southern District of New York I p, Kevin Castel
Please check appropriate boxes: FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND
INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
Has mo~ noti~opp06ing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1): Has request for relief been made below? ~Yes DNo
~ YesUNo (explain):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Has this relief been previously sought in this Court? ~ Yes No D
Requested return date and explanation ofemergency: Between September 2011
Opposin~unsel·s position on motion:
and June 2012, I submitted four motions/petitions seeking to vacate the
U UnopposedDopposed ~on't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
the July 20,2011 Stay Order of P. Kevin Castel which ignored my
Dyes 0"0 [aJon't Know
arguments, omitted pertinent facts and refused to apply antidiscrimination
law to detennine appropriate jurisdiction for this case. Same Issues raised.
Ts oral argument on motion requested? ~Yes D No (requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
Has argument date of appeal been set? D Yes ~No Ifyes,enterdate:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
_si_g~
atu~A~to=~=-j(~.\t~:~:.;;;;o~t+-e-y:----'Date:
.... 1\ l~ \ 'Z0\1 Service by: DCMlECF ~ Other [Attach proof of service]
Form T·1080 (rev. 12-13)

f ' ,'
No. 14 cv
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC~ formerly the WILLIAM MORRIS
AGENCY; JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINlARSKI,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the U.S. District Court

for the Southern District of New York
No. 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC) (JCF)
EXPEDITED MOTION TO RESTORE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, SUSPEND FILING
INJUNCTION AND REMOVE ALL PREJUDICE PENDING "GOOD FAITH" APPEAL, OR
IN THE ALTNERATIVE, VITIATE ALL ORDERS RENDERED BY P. KEVIN CASTEL
AND THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION DUE TO "FRAUD UPON THE
COURT" AND "FRAUD UPON THE COURT, BY THE COURT."
REQUEST TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT.
Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
humancights.areamust@gmail.com
Pro Se Litigant
I .
"
"I think you'll find sir, that there will come a time when black people wake up and become intellectually
independent enough to think for themselves as other humans are intellectually independent enough to think
for themselves, 1Iw! 11:!! black man will think like i! black man, and he will feel for other black people. And this
thinking and feeling will cause black people to stick together and then, at that point, you'll have a situation
where when you attack one black man. you are attacking all black men. And this type of black man thinking
will cause all black people to stick together and this type of thinking will also bring an end to the brutality
inflicted on black people by white people. And it is the only thing that will bring an end to It. No federal court,
state court or city court will bring an end to it - it's something the black man has to bring an end to himself."
- Malcolm X, October 11, 1963. 1
"I want it to be known - that we're going to work with grim and bold determination - to gain justice•••And we
are not wrong. We are not wrong in what we are doing. If we are wrong - the Supreme Court of this nation is
wrong. If we are wrong - God Almighty is wrong!...If we are wrong justice is a fie." - Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.:!
Introduction
I - pro se Appellant Marcus Isaiah Washington - respectfully submit this Emergency Motion to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit seeking extraordinary relief under the court's inherent
powers pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8, 24 and 46, as well as the Court's Local Rules, to correct the
fraudulently procured decisions rendered by Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel and the
allegedly "neutral," privatized, quasi-judicial forum known as the American Arbitration Association
("AAA").
While working on this Motion, I sent a "final request" to Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian
Carbone on November 3, 2014, asking him to disclose infonnation about his relationship to General
Counsel for the American Arbitration Association - Sasha AngeJique Carbone no later than November 7,
2014 since he remained silent about this infonnation for eight months. See Exhibit A. After the Appellees'
counsel remained silent, I filed my Notice ofAppeal with the Southern District of New York on November
12, 2014. On November 17, 2014, Michael P. Zweig filed a letter to Castel seeking a Protective Order
against me" that would prohibit me "from engaging in a continuing course of conduct that threatens to
undermine the Order and Judgment of this Court. entered on September 5, 2014, confirming the
http://meagainstiniguity. wordpress. comJ2014111116/there-will-come-a-time-when-black-peop le-wake-up-and

become-intellectually-independent!
2 See e.g., Taylor Branch, The King Years: Historic Moments in the Civil Rights Movement, 10-11. 2013.
- 1
arbitration award issued by Judge (Ret.) Timothy K. Lewis." 3 See Exhibit B. Since Zweig claimed
that my November 3, 2014 "Final Letter to Christian Carbone," which sought for Carbone to confirm and/or
deny information about his relationship to AAA executive Sasha Angelique Carbone by Affidavit only,
gave Castel jurisdiction to grant this relief, I took considerable time away from working on this Motion to
respond to Zweig's letter. See Exhibit C. On the same day that I submitted my response - today - Castel
denied the Appellee's request. 4 See Exhibit D.
For a number of unjust reasons, this could very well be my last real opportunity to challenge the
erroneous decisions ofP. Kevin Caste1. 5 It is already extremely difficult for an Appellant to prevail on an
appeal in an employment discrimination case,6 especially an African American pro se Appellant. Castel
has also prejudiced my appeal by erroneously confirming the "Final Award" issued by Schnader LLP
attorney and AAA board ofdirector Mr. Timothy K. Lewis and stating in his September 5,2014 Final Order
that my appeal would not be made in "good faith" although he has flouted our nation's antidiscrimination
3 Keep in mind that I am one individual litigating a case against an elite law firm of more than six attorneys and three
paralegals.
4 I e-mailed the Appellees' counsel and Castel the letter at 12:07 PM. At 3 :30 PM, Florence Nacanther, Deputy Clerk
to Castel, submitted Castel's Order, in which he denied the Appellee's request.
s Ifthe appellate court denies my motion and/or appeal, I can submit a petition for a writ ofcertiorari with the Supreme
Court ofthe United States ofAmerica, however, the SCOTUS only accepts 1 percent ofthe petitions that are submitted
each year and due to the 5 to 4 conservative, Republican appointed majority, it is likely that they would deny my
petition like they denied the class of black concert promoters' petition in Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris
Agency on December 30,2005. See Exhibit E.; See e.g. Stuart M. Gerson. "A Primer: The Supreme Court Labor and
Employment Docket." Corporate Counsel. November 10, 2014. http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202675860830?.
(None of the cases on the Supreme Court's docket this term deal with race-based employment discrimination issues.)
See Exhibit F.
6 See' e.g., Hon. Mark W. Bennett. From the "No Spittin', No Cussin' and No Summary Judgment" Days of
Employment Discrimination Litigation to the "Defendant's Summary Judgment Affirmed Without Comment" Days:
One Judge's Four Decade Experience. 57 N.Y.L. Sch. L. Rev. 685 (2012-2013). ("Summary judgment abuse and
overuse occurs in all types of cases, but is especially magnified in employment discrimination cases. This problem
is exacerbated by the daily ritual of appellate courts affirming summary judgment grants to employers. often
without comment. at a rate that far exceeds any other substantive area of federal law.") Id. at 686. ("The trends
that are described here have driven employment discrimination plaintiffs from our federal courts 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 filings. This is even more dramatic, given the rise in charges filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).") Id. at 709. ("For much of my judicial career, employment
discrimination cases 'reigned as the largest single category offederal civil cases, at nearly ten percept ofthat docket."
Now, they are exceeded by personal injury, product liability, and habeas corpus petitions. Employment discrimination
cases have been dropping as a percentage of the federal court docket every year since 2001") Id. ("Is it simply a
coincidence that, when summary judgment was adopted in 1938, 19.9% of all federal civil cases were tried, and, by
2003, the number had dropped to 1.7%?") Id. at 711. (emphasis added)
- 2
and hwnan rights laws since the inception of this case, and has never explicitly discussed or resolved my
claims that Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone were engaging in
"fraud upon the Court" - claims that I am now prevented from pursuing in a separate legal action.
Additionally, Castel revoked my in forma pauperis (IFP) status despite being aware that as a result of
challenging institutionalized racism throughout the American workplace and society, I have been
unemployed for four years and am living below the poverty level in my fight to ensure that Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 be fully upheld in this landmark employment discrimination, antitrust and hwnan
rights case. Ifmy in forma pauperis status is not restored, there's no possible way that I would be able to
afford the $505 filing fee and any other costs associated with the appeal. Whatever you do, just keep in
mind that the federal judge who has claimed that my claims are "without merit" and "frivolous" has also
pretended my claims of institutionalized racism, systemic disparate treatment, disparate impact, conspiracy
to maintain a race-based monopoly have no merit despite the fact that there were zero African American
Agent Trainees, Coordinators or Agents employed at the New York office when I began employment in
September 2008.
Since many of these argwnents were ignored by panel judges Gerard E. Lynch, Peter W. Hall,
Denny Chin and the court en bane when I made four attempts to appeal P. Kevin Caste's erroneous July
20, 2011 Stay Order, which erroneously compelled this case into arbitration, I respectfully ask that my case
be transferred and decided by another circuit. 7 Ifthe case is not transferred, I ask that Lynch, Hall and Chin
be disqualified. a Regardless of who decides any aspect of this appeal, I ask that the finder of remain
"impartial" and "independent." I also ask the appellate court issue an ethical and objective judicial opinion
which discusses the argwnents of both parties because this Motion -like the last three that were submitted
to P. Kevin Castel - demonstrates that despite the statements and judgments ofP. Kevin Castel, the
7 Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael P. Zweig sits on the Grievance Committee for the Second Circuit. Zweig is also
admitted in the First, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, so I ask that the case not be transferred to any of these circuits
as well.
S I also ask that Joseph M. McLaughlin, Rosemary S. Pooler and Barrington Parker be disqualified as well (if any are
still active), since a favorable decision in my appeal would also "undermine" their decision to confirm Robert P.
Patterson's January 5,2005 Final Order in Rowe Entertainment v. William Morris Agency. See Exhibit E.
- 3
"
American Arbitration Association, Timothy K Lewis, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig, Christian
Carbone, etc., my appeal, if need be submitted, would not be "frivolous" and would actually be made in
extreme "good faith." Ultimately, I ask: If the finder of fact intentionally flouts antidiscrimination law in a
human rights and employment discrimination case over the course offour years, can ANY ofthat finder of
fact's decisions - e.g. procedural issues such as jurisdiction - be lawful?
Appellate Review of Motion Pursuant Fed. R. App. P. 8,24 & 46 and Local
Rules 24.1,46.2 and 46.3.
Both procedurally and substantively, this case is one of a kind. 9 Due to the 20 page limit imposed on
Motions submitted in the appellate court, I am including the procedural history that [ included as an exhibit
to my October 3,2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion. See Exhibit G.
On September 5, 2014, P. Kevin Castel issued his final Order ("Final Order") (Okt. No. 59), which
pretended to summarize, then denied, all of the arguments raised in my March 17, 2014 Motion to
DisqualifY Due to Fraud Upon the Court (Okt. No. 40) and April 10, 2014 Motion for Reconsideration (Okt.
No. 46). In the Final Order, he granted the Appellee's July 3,2014 Motion to Confirm the "Final Award"
ofSchnader LLP attorney and AAA board ofdirector Timothy K Lewis and upheld Lewis' award granting
William Morris $43,707.60 (Dkt. No. 49). See Exhibit H. Castel also granted William Morris and Loeb
& Loeb LLP's July 10, 2014 Motion for a Filing Injunction, and then placed the nail in the coffin, by
revoking my in forma pauperis (IFP) status JO and prejudicing my appeal, by stating that it would not be
made in "good faith."
Fed. R. App. P. Rule 24(a)(1) directs that "a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal
in forma pauperis must file a motion in the district court" and states that the party must "attach an affidavit
that: (A) shows in the detail prescribed by Form 4 ofthe Appendix of Forms the party's inability to payor
to give security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues the party
9 The original arbitrator in this case - David L. Gregory of the American Arbitration Association stated throughout
his decisions: "In my thirty years as an Arbitrator of Labor & Employment Disputes, this case presents the most
extensive Motion practice that I have encountered" [Arbitrator Gregory Partial Final Award, 3.]
10 On January 4,2011, ChiefJudge Loretta A Preska granted my in forma pauperis status. See Exhibit I.
- 4
intends to present on appeal." In Rule 24(a)(5), it states that "[t]he motion must include a copy of the
affidavit ftled in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for its action."11
Pursuant Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C), a party must "ordinarily move fIrst in the district court" for
"an order suspending ... an injunction while an appeal is pending."12 Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2), a
"motion for the relief mentioned in Rule 8(a)( 1) may be made to the court ofappeals or to one ofits judges."
"The motion must (i) show that moving fIrst in the district court would be impracticable; or (ill state that,
a motion having been made the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief reg uested
and state any reasons given by the district court for its action." Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A) (emphasis
added). The motion must also include: "(i) the reasons for granting the relief requested and the facts relied
on; (li) originals or copies of affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject to dispute; and
(iii) relevant parts of the record." Fed. R. App. 8(a)(2).
The relief that I am seeking in this Motion, is essentially the same relief that I sought in my 54
page October 3,2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion: This Motion demonstrated that all
of Castel's legal conclusions were erroneous as a matter oflaw, and that his decisions contravened public
policy. (Dkt. No. 61) If my motion seeking to reverse this "manifest injustice" was not granted, I asked
Castel in the alternative, to restore my IFP status so that I could submit my appeal in considerable "good
faith" to the appellate court. I included an updated, notarized Affidavit detailing this information as an
exhibit to my October 3,2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion. See Exhibit J. On October
22, 2014, P. Kevin Castel issued a two page Order, denying the entire Motion as being "without merit" and
refusing to restore my in forma pauperis status based on a statement made in the footnote of my Motion.13
11 Pursuant to Local Rule 24.1: "A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis ... must include (1) the affidavit
prescribed by FRAP 24(a)(I), and (2) a statement that identifies the relevant facts and makes a showing oflikely merit
as to each issue the appellant intends to present on appeal."
12 See Plaintiff's October 3, 2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion. (Docket No. 61). I sought
extraordinary relief, including the revocation of the permanent filing injunction that was imposed against me since
Castel refused to resolve this issue and never compelled the Defendants or their counsel.to submit a response.
13 1 stated: "1 can fill in the blanks [contained in my October 3, 2014 Motion] in my appeal to the Second Circuit or
'under oath' before a jury trial in a separate action when 1 sue P. Kevin Castel for intentionally depriving me of my
rights under the color oflaw."
- 5
See Exhibit K. Based on Castel's improvident response and repeated refusal to acknowledge or resolve
claims of "fraud upon the Court," it is clear that it was impracticable to move first in the district court and
expect Castel to four years later, acknowledge his errors and uphold the law.
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.: A Quintessential
Case of a Race-Based Conspiracy to Commit Fraud & Black Robe Corruption
[Introduction] I have made some pretty serious allegations against a seemingly well-respected federal judge
and highly accomplished officers ofthe court. Thoughout this nearly four year litigation, 1 have never met
Castel, nor have I stepped foot in his courtroom. I met Michael Zweig one or two times years ago when I
used to personally serve Loeb & Loeb LLP my pleadings, and I have never met Christian Carbone. I have
also never met David L. Gregory in his capacity as arbitrator, nor have I met Timothy K. Lewis. No fmder
of fact has granted my request for an oral hearing. Thus, the one of the only ways for me to demonstrate
the "appearance" and/or Castel's actual bias, prejudice, impropriety and/or partiality in favor of William
Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, is through the five, one-sided Orders that he has rendered. 14
In or around the time Arbitrator David L. Gregory was scheduled to issue his "omnibus fmal
decision," I informed federal judge P. Kevin Castel by letter on February 28,2014 that I would be filing a
motion which sought his disqualification, and would be addressing the overall "pattern" of "fraud upon the
Court" that attorneys from Loeb & Loeb LLP were engaging in on behalf of William Morris to ensure that
African American litigants challenging William Morris' institutionally racist employment and business
practices would be deprived of their full constitutional and statutory rights under the color of the law. See
Exhibit L. At first, Castel endorsed my letter and set a schedule in which the parties were to submit their
14 July 20, 2011 Stay Order erroneously staying the case in the district court and compelling the case into arbitration,
(2,) March 7,2014 Order (Dkt. No, 38) staying the schedule to submit my proposed Fraud Upon the Court Motion in
response to Christian Carbone's March 5, 2014 letter (Dkt. No. 37) that the award issued by Arbitrator Gregory was
not a "final Award" and thus the federal court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this Motion, (3,) March 27, 2014
Order (Dkt, No, 43) refusing to disqualify himself and refusing to address otherissues raised in March 17, 2014 Fraud
Upon the Court Motion, (4) September 5,2014 Final Order (Dkt, No, 59) which confirmed the Appellees' Motion to
Confirm the "Final Award" of Timothy K. Lewis which dismissed my case with prejudice and on the merits and
awarded William Morris $43,707.60 in [quote], granted the Appellee's request to issue a filing injunction against me,
revoked my in forma pauperis status and prejudiced my appeal by stating that it would not be made in "good faith,"
and (5.) October 22,2014 Order (Dkt. No, 63) denying my October 3,2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion as being
"without merit" and denying my request to restore my IFP status.
- 6
'.
pleadings. On March 7,2014, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone submitted a letter to Castel
stating that Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was not a "fmal Award." See Exhibit M. On March
10,2014,2014, Castel issued an Order which basically told me I could not submit the Motion and that 1
had to continue arbitrating in "good faith." See Exhibit N.
On March 17, 2014 - 90 days after Arbitrator David L. Gregory issued his Partial Final Award - I
submitted a voluminous, 97-page Fraud Upon the Court Motion, which sought extraordinary relief,
including the disqualification ofboth federal judges assigned to the case or the disqualification of attorneys
Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb LLP due to "fraud upon the Court" and "highly
unethical and criminal activity." Two days later, Loeb & Loeb LLP filed a Motion to hold me in Contempt.
On March 27, 2014, Castel issued an Order refusing to disqualifY himself and stated that "[v]iewed as a
totality, an objective, disinterested observer fully informed of the underlying facts would not entertain
significant doubt that justice would be done in this action absent recusal of the undersigned." See Exhibit
O. On April 10, 2014, I submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, which was nothing more than a condensed
version of my March 17, 2014 pleading.
After Timothy K. Lewis dismissed my case with "prejudice and on the merits" on June 25,2013,15
the Appellees sought to confirm Lewis' fraudulently procured "Final Award" on July 3,2014. On July 12,
2014, I submitted a letter to Castel stating that the arguments raised in my March 17, 2014 and Apri11O,
2014 Motions "diametrically oppose[d] and void[ed] any 'legal' argument put forth by WME Entertainment
and Loeb & Loeb LLP" and that their motions should be denied. See Exhibit P. Caste] then pretended to
break down the arguments raised in my March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court and April 10, 2014 Motion
for Reconsideration into four parts. He stated:
"In opposition to the defendants' motion to confmn the award, Washington provides four arguments
as to why the arbitral award should be set aside. First, Washington argues that Arbitrator Gregory was
improperly removed and, consequently, all of Arbitrator Lewis' orders, including vacating Arbitrator
Gregory's partial award, are void. Second, Washington asserts that Arbitrator Gregory and Arbitrator
Lewis's decisions to enforce the arbitration agreement were in manifest disregard of the law. Third,
15 On [insert date], I filed a Motion seeking to Modify Lewis' Final Award due to the numerous factual errors and
inaccuracies contained in the Award. On [insert date], he denied my Motion because pursuant to AAA Employment
Rule --' the "arbitrator [was] not empowered to redetermine the merits" although I simply asked him truthful.
-7
'.
Washington argues that the failure to disclose the alleged relationship between opposing cOURsel
and an AM employee biased the arbitral proceeding in the defendants' favor. Finally, he asserts that
!
the opposing counsel has been engaging in a pattern of bad faith litigation warranting their removal
and sanctions."
[PKC Final Order, 14.] In one way or another, he "omitted pertinent facts and misapplied the law" in order
to deny all ofthese arguments, and then for extra protection, he granted Willi~ Morris and Loeb & Loeb's
July 10, 2014 Motion for a Filing Injunction, revoked my in forma pauperis status although my economic
circumstances have only worsened since filing my Complaint with the Southern District of New York in
December of 20 10 and prejudiced my appeal by stating that it would not be made in "good faith."
On October 3,2014, I filed a 54-page Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion. My final
pleading was submitted to "realign the record in the direction of truth" and written in a way as if I were
submitting an appeal directly to the appellate court due to the fact that it was highly unlikely that Castel
would in his last Order, acknowledge his wrongdoing since it would ultimately support that he has
intentionally deprived me of my constitutional and statutory rights under the color ofthe law. My primary
goal was to demonstrate that ifI did have to appeal Castel's various Orders, my appeal would be made in
extreme "good faith." Local Rule 24.1 requires that this Motion "identifies the relevant facts and makes a
showing of likely merit as to each issue the appellant intends to present on appeal." I essentially did this
when I addressed P. Kevin Castel's errors in my October 3, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court. Below is a
summary ofthose arguments:
[Po Kevin Castel Erred By Determining Arbitrator Partial Final Award Was Not Reviewable] After
the Second Circuit refused to fully consider my four appeals and denied them as "moot," I filed a Demand
for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on June 15, 2012. The AAA appointed David L.
Gregory on August 1, 2012. In the 16 months that Arbitrator Gregory presided over the case, he issued
three Interim Decisions and on December 17, 2013, he issued his Partial Final Award. See Exhibit Q.
Castel concluded that Gregory's Partial Final Award was not reviewable, but the facts and the case law
support otherwise. On pages 17 through 22 ofmy October 3, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion I discuss
the numerous reasons why Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was reviewable. See Exhibit R.
- 8
"
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. John's University. Castel only relied on one case to
support his erroneous conclusion - Michaels. Even if Lewis' appointment was lawful, I state the numerous
reason.... The Review Standards of the AAA'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." Castel relied on "or other terminating order" to say that the AAA I cannot fmd one case in which
the American Arbitration Association as disqualified an arbitrator after the arbitrator issued a "Partial Final
Award," especially in a bifurcated proceeding. [s it a coincidence that my case could be the first? [think
not.
[Po Kevin Castel Erred By Confirming the Final Award of Fraudulendy Appointed "Arbitrator"
Timothy K. Lewis] Since Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was reviewable as a matter oflaw, then
clearly, the AAA should not have entertained William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's second Motion to
DisqualifY Arbitrator Gregory after he found them liable during phase one of our bifurcated proceeding.
Since Castel did not disqualifY Arbitrator Gregory, all decisions issued by Schnader LLP attorney and AAA
board ofdirector Mr. Timothy K. Lewis should be vitiated. After being involved in the case for four months,
Lewis issued his Final Award" on June 25, 2014, dismissing the case with prejudice and on the merits, and
awarding William Morris $43,707.60 due to the fact that I continued to publicly object to the fraud that was
occurring in my case. See Exhibit S. If Lewis' appointed was lawful; I still explain on pages 26 through
35 of my October 3,2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion the numerous reasons why the AAA should have
disqualified Lewis, as well as why an impartial finder of fact in the district court should have vitiated all
decisions rendered by Lewis pursuant to § 10 of the FAA. See Exhibit T.
[p. Kevin Castel's Orders Never Discuss Claims that Loeb & Loeb LLP and its Attorneys Have
Engaged in a "Pattern" of Fraud Upon the Court" Despite Granting William Morris' and Loeb &
Loeb LLP's Request for a Filing Injunction and Stating My Appeal Would Not Be Made in "Good
Faith."] Although Castel tried to pretend that all ofthe arguments raised in my March 17,2014 Fraud Upon
the Court Motion were not reviewable, this is false because he attempted to resolve many of those issues
- 9
'.
five months later in his September 52014 Final Order. One of the issues that he never addressed, were my
claims that Loeb & Loeb LLP were engaging in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" - claims that were
also raised to the Second Circuit in my fourth appeal. On pages 22 through 26 ofmy October 3, 2014 Fraud
Upon the Court Motion, I discuss the numerous reasons why I believe Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys
have engaged in a pattern of. See Exhibit U.
• Rowe Entertainment and Arbitrator David L. Gregory's Interim Decisions Regarding

"Exhibit 31": The Second Circuit is familiar with Rowe Entertainment v. William
Morris Agency, . While working on my third appeal, I came across an article
written by CNN titled "Corruption in Our Federal Courts." See Exhibit V. This
information was included in my third appeal, but my motion was denied in [#]
sentences. In my fourth motion to the 2 nd Cir., I presented a copy of the concealed
document that Leonard Rowe found on the desk of his attorney and was including as
"Exhibit 31." In response, my motion was returned to me by the Clerk of Court.
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe. After four denials, I took the case into arbitration, where I
demonstrated that despite Republican appointed federal judge Robert P. Patterson
conclusions in his January ---:> 2005 Final Order granting summary judgment in favor
of the Appellees was erroneous because Rowe's claims that his attorneys from
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP (now known as Dentons LLP) conspired with
attorneys for the Booking Agency Defendants" Loeb & Loeb LLP and Wei! Gotshal
& Manges LLP - to ensure that. See Exbibit W. In Arbitrator Gregory's first Interim
Decision, he asked both parties to submit more information about "Exhibit 31 's"
authenticity and relevance. See Exbibit X. Leonard Rowe also submitted an Affidavit.
See Exhibit Y. In response to the parties June 15, 2013 submission, Arbitrator Gregory
admitted "Exhibit 31" into the evidence of record in his third Interim Decision on
September 25, 2013, he. Leonard Rowe's Affidavit See Exhibit Z. This was
important, because after each one of Rowe's former attorneys submitted perjurious
Declarations between May 14-15,2012 saying that "no derogatory terms" were found
during e-discovery, Patterson ignored this evidence and denied Leonard Rowe's Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court on November 8, 2012 as being "full of hot air and
paranoid suspicions. "
• Christian Carbone's Failure to Disclose Marriage to General Counsel to the American

Arbitration Association, Sasha Angelique Carbone. Days before filing my March 17,
2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion, I learned that Christian Carbone was married to
the General Counsel for the American Arbitration Association - Sasha Angelique
Carbone. Carbone - an African American women. If I'd been married to someone
employed at any forum deciding the merits ofmy claims, I would have had to disclose
that information or Castel would have sanctioned me and dismissed my case. He also
would not allow me to remain silent about this information, especially since according
to Castel, it's not unethical anyway. I just want to confirm if my claims are "without
merit." I ask that Christian Carbone submit an Mfidavit along with William Morris'
response to this Motion and my November 3, 2014 e-maililetter, in which I made a
final attempt at having Christian respond to my questions. See Exhibit A. The
- 10
American Arbitration Association knew about their marriage while Arbitrator Gregory
was still involved in the case, yet they made sure to select a person of color who'd
worked closely with Christian's wife and never disclosed that information to me.
Clearly, I would have requested that Lewis be taken out of consideration. Even after
learning of this information, the AAA refused to disqualify Lewis.
• William Morris "Pays" Schnader LLP Directly in Violation ofAAA Employment Rule
44 and the AAA Allowed It: AAA Rule states: "Any arrangement for the
compensation of a neutral arhitrator shan be made through the AAA and not
directly between the parties and the arbitrator. Payment of the arbitrator's fees
and expenses shall be made by the AAA from the fees and monies collected by the
AAA for this purpose." The AAA complied with Rule 44 when Arbitrator Gregory
presided over the case. See Exhibit AA. However, when they unlawfully disqualified
Gregory, they allowed Lewis to direct William Morris to pay his law firm directly by
providing the firm's bank routing nwnber on the invoices. See Exhibit BB. Ofcourse,
this was ignored. The AAA does not know how much William Morris and/or Loeb &
Loeb LLP paid Schnader LLP. Aside from the limited information on Lewis' invoices,
it's not entirely certain the dates William Morris paid Schnader LLP either. I asked
Carol Placella AAA Case Manager - for a copy of records ofwhen William Morris
paid Schander LLP and she couldn't provide me with that information due to the fact
that William Morris paid Loeb & Loeb LLP directly. See Exhibit CC. The AAA
allowed Lewis to use an Associate - Bradley Nakerville - although Lewis' contract
states that can only happen "conditioned upon the parties' express consent." See
Exhibit DD. My objections were ignored.
When I filed my Demand, I specifically asked for the arbitration to be stayed so I could address the
newly discovered evidence supporting that Loeb & Loeb LLP were engaging in fraud and should not have
been allowed to represent William Morris in this case. My request was denied. During ourftrst conference
call with Arbitrator David L. Gregory, Michael P. Zweig emphatically denied my claims. 16 It is well settled
that a motion to disqualify a law fmn and/or an attorney for purported violations of professional rules of
ethics, can only be decided by the federal court, not arbitrators. 11 Bidermann Industries Licensing, Inc.v.
16 Regarding allegations ofunethical misconduct: "And I'll state for the record that the allegations and accusations are
absolutely false, scurrilous and disreputable, but I don't think I want to say any more than that ... " Regarding his
involvement in the corrupt conspiracy to commit "fraud upon the Court" in Rowe: "It appears that he claims -- I would
note that without any personal knowledge or any knowledge at all -- that somehow, everyone conspired against the
plaintiffs in that case to effectuate the result of a summary dismissal. Obviously, those allegations are wholly false
and beneath my dignity to respond to."
11 See e.g., Steven C. Bennett. Who Is Responsible For Ethical Behavior By Counsel In Arbitration? Dispute
Resolution Journal (May/July 2008). pg. 5-6.
https:llwww. aaau.org/mediaJ I 7775/where%20do%20we%20draWOIo20the%201ine%20-%20rnaterials.pdf. ("Certain
sanctions for attorney misbehavior, such as disqualification from representation for conflicts ofinterest and disbarment
belong under the purview of the courts.")
Avmar N.V., 570 N.Y.S.2d 33 (1st Dep't 1991) ("Issues of attorney disqualification ... involve
. interpretation and application ofthe Code ofProfessional Responsibility and Disciplinary Rules, as well as
the potential deprivation of counsel of the client's choosing," traditionally issues for a court); See a/so
Northwestern Nat'! Ins. 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 impartially resolving all of the
issues that were raised in my March 17, 2014 Motion.
Neither ofP. Kevin Castel's last three Orders discuss my claims of"fraud upon the Court" although
he's saying that all of my arguments are "without merit." Castel's Orders also never discuss Loeb & Loeb's
numerous violations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct 'S and New York Judiciary Law
§487. Have Loeb & Loeb LLP acted ethically throughout this entire litigation? lithe appellate court's
answer is yes, then I ask: If Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP was a
predominately African American law finn, would the appellate court conclude that the Appellee's counsel
have acted ethically? Can my appeal be "without merit" or "frivolous" if these arguments are true and the
federal judge chose to complete ignore my claims? Please explain. When I filed my Demand for Arbitration,
[Po Kevin Castel Avoids Title VII, NYCHRL, Sherman Act and Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 Like the
Plague: His Orders Never Acknowledge That My Claims Included Systemic Disparate Treatment,
Disparate Impact & Pre-Hiring Individual Disparate Treatment, and Never Discusses That I Sought
Permanent Injunctive and Affirmative Relief] At no time throughout this entire case has P. Kevin Castel
acknowledged my that claims included intentional systemic disparate treatment, disparate impact and pre-
hiring individual disparate treatment. In his July 20, 2011 Stay Order, he summarized my 80 page
Complaint in 1 Y4 pages and made it appear that my claims only consisted ofpost-hiring individual disparate
18 Pursuant to Rule 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer or law firm shall not: (a) violate or
attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through
the acts of another; (b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or
fitness as a lawyer; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration ofjustice or (e) state or imply an ability: (1) to influence improperly
or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body or public official; or (2) to achieve results using means that
violate these Rules or other law.
-12
treatment. See Exhibit EE. It almost appears that Castel's decisions to ignore any and all evidence of
intentional race-based discrimination signaled to the arbitrators to do the same. Since William Morris and
Loeb & Loeb LLP did not object to Gregory cancelling discovery and the oral hearing, they submitted a
Final Position Statement on November 20,2013 and Gregory then closed the record, then the parties fully
litigated the case as much as Arbitrator Gregory would allow before rending what he stated would be his
"omnibus final decision. "19
Here are some of the undisputed facts: In 1898, the William Morris Agency was created by a
German "Jewish" immigrant in New York City. From 1898 to 1961, the company had an explicit policy of
not hiring African Americans and people of color into its Agent Trainee program. When I began
employment on September 2,2014, there were zero African American or Hispanic Agents, Coordinators
or Agent Trainees employed in the New York office of William Morris.20 See Exhibit FF. This is also
referred to as the "inexorable zero."21 Although William Morris claimed that there is a 10 percent rate of
promotion in the company's "competitive" 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 "licensed" Agents. There were more African American Agents
employed in the New York office (one), than there were employed between 2008 and 2010.
The fact is that I signed William Morris' mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreement as a
condition of employment within the first 30 minutes of my employment, along with a number of other
19 And if a new arbitrator was lawfully appointed, does this change the fact that William Morris and Loeb & Loeb
LLP argued in arbitration that any evidence of racial discrimination outside ofa 300 day period of filing my complaint
with the EEOC was not actionable.
20 Based on the statistical evidence presented, how can Justice Scalia views civil rights and employment discrimination
be taken serious is he honestly believes that disparate impact is possibly unconstitutional because it constitutes
disparate treatment against those classified as whites? See e.g., Ricci v. Destefanio. See Exhibit GG.
21 See Barner v. City of Harvey, No. 95 C 3316, 1998 WL 664951, at *50 (N.D. m. Sept. 18, 1998) ("In cases, such
as this one, the 'inexorable zero' speaks volumes and clearly supports an inference of discrimination."); Ortiz-Del
Valle v. National Basketball Ass'n, 42 F. Supp. 2d 33 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (recognized that evidence of an inexorable
zero can support a jury's finding of discrimination against a motion for judgment as a matter of law); Victory v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, 34 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D.NY 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. ")'
-13
contracts. At the time I signed the agreement, I did not know what arbitration was and never heard of the
tenn. I am not a lawyer. If I wanted to start working, I had to sign all of the agreements that were before
me and on their face, they appeared to be reasonable. Soon after, I learned that I was the only African
American employed at any level of the Agent Trainee program. Inexorable zero. Over time, I also realized
that I was extremely more qualified than all of my white/ "Jewish" counterparts who were hired into the
Agent Trainee program, and due to my academic and professional achievements, I was just as qualified as
the Agent Trainees who were promoted after spending two to three years assisting for an Agent. See
Exhibit BB. I tried to give the company the benefit ofthe doubt that I was not being discriminated against,
but there were a number of incidents that occurred that made me feel that I was being treated differently
because of my race, color and/or national origin in the company's predominately all white/"Jewish" work
environment.
This evidence alone establishes that I entered into a company that was already violating Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless they had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason or "business
justification" as to why I was the only African American in the United States of American (and world)
"qualified" enough to be hired at any level ofthe Agent Trainee program in New York City. The Appellees
never met their heightened burden ofproduction and persuasion. During discovery, they refused to produce
any relevant documents to support their claims that. They never produced the underlying e-mails to "Exhibit
31" and/or the e-discovery e-mails, compact discs (CDs), etc. that were allegedly received from Electronic
Evidence Discovery ("EED") in around late September/early October of2002. Although Arbitrator Gregory
was disqualified, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, Lewis could not then say that this smoking gun
evidence could not be admitted into my case. Since he also did not vacate any of Arbitrator Gregory's
Interim Decisions, he should not have concluded that arbitration was the only forum in which I could pursue
the merits of my claims.
This issue is not limited to William Morris. All of the other talent agencies employ similar
employment practices, policies and procedures as William Morris, hence the reason why their workplaces
also have zero and/or a gross underrepresentation of qualified African Americans employed as Agents,
- 14
Coordinators and Agent Trainees. Letter from former CAA Agent Trainee Quentin Embree - a document
submitted in Rowe. See Exhibit II. It's unconscionable that Title VII specifically provides certain
procedural protections and egregious violators of Title VII - e.g. William Morris - can induce token
minority employees with little to no bargaining power to waive their right to the forum that is meant to
ensure that the broader public policy goal of ending workplace discrimination entirely is achieved.
Adjudication of Title VII claims in the federal court allows for deterrence - not just for William Morris,
but for other employers like Creative Artists Agency, IMG, etc. who are intentionally and/or unintentionally
violating Title VII.
Even if I were never employed at William Morris, does that not mean they are guilty ofviolations
of Title VII, NYCHRL and other antidiscrimination laws under my claims of intentional pattern and
continuing practice discrimination against African Americans and disparate impact. At the end ofthe day:
If William Morris valued diversity, there would be diversity in the workplace, especially in the 21 sl century
and that's a fact. Based on the evidence, had I been white and/or "Jewish," I have been hired and/or
promoted to Agent by William Morris's New York office. What makes William Morris' actions so
egregious, is that is happening in New York City - one of the most racially diverse cities in the world. 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 narrowly." Restoration Act § 1. The law explicitly rejects the "carbon copy" theory: "In particular,
through passage of this local law, the Council seeks to underscore that the provisions of New York City's
Human Rights Law are to be construed independently from similar or identical provisions of New York
state or federal statutes." Id 198. The Restoration Act states that provisions of state and federal civil rights
statutes 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) Restoration Act § 1. Of course, Castel
refused to apply the New York City Law. His narrowed approached and ideologically conservative views
on this statute can be demonstrate in Wang, and society's response thereafter. 22
[Based On P. Kevin Castel's Inability to Remain Impartial and Uphold Our Nation's
Antidiserimination Law, He Should Have Disqualified Himself Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and
Canon 4 of the Judieial Code of Condud) Between September 28, 2011 and June ---> 2012, I made four
attempts to also have P. Kevin Castel and Magistrate Judge James C. Francis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2106.
I patiently waited 32 months after he issued his erroneous July 20, 2011 Stay Order to personally seek his
disqualification. After he refused to disqualify himself, he continued to ignore our nation's
antidiscrimination laws in order to issues decisions in favor of William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP. If
he was never going to apply antidiscrimination law in case of this magnitude, then why did he disqualify
himself ifthe federal court is "vested with the fmal responsibility for [Title VII's] enforcement through the
construction and interpretation of the statutes, the adjudication of claims, and the issuance ofreJief." See,
e.g., Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 454 U.S. 461, 479 n.20 (1982) ("federal courts were entrusted with
ultimate enforcement responsibility" of Title VII); New York Gaslight Club, Inc. v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 64
(1980) ("Ofcourse the 'ultimate authority' to secure compliance with Title VII resides in the federal courts").
If it is true that William Morris has engaged in an intentional pattern and practice ofdiscriminating
against qualified African Americans in all areas of its business, with an emphasis on employment, am I not
justified in raising the arguments that I made? Castel stated in his July 20, 2011 Stay Order that I "ha[d]
not shown that Congress intended to preclude arbitration for claims asserted under either Title VII or 42
U.S.C. § 1981," but it's clear that I have. [PKC Stay Order, 10.] Am I not justified in trying to ensure that
the this racist company not be allowed enforce its mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreement since I was
unaware of this company's history of racial discrimination at the time of signing the agreement and the
22 ("The New York City Council on Wednesday unanimously voted to amend the city's human rights law, extending
the protections of workplace anti-discrimination laws to unpaid interns and giving them the right to sue for alleged
violations. Passed in a 50-0 vote, the legislation will prohibit employers from discriminating against interns on the
basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex, disability, marital status, partnership status, sexual orientation,
citizenship status or status as a victim of domestic violence, sex offenses or stalking.")
- 16
company has continued to deny any and all wrongdoing despite the pyramid of evidence that been
presented. Based on the facts, am I not justified in raising claims that the Appellees and their counsel have
engaged in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court"? Is it ethical for an attorney to refuse to disclose to the
other party that hislher significant other is an executive at a privatized forum hislher clients wants the federal
court to compel the case to? Am I engaging in bad faith for trying to ensure that the broader public policy
goals of Title VII are upheld? These questions and more were raised
I am not the only one who recognizes that something is horribly amiss with the way the federal
courts are handling civil rights and employment discrimination cases in our 21 st century, "post-racial
America." Speaking from experience, Hon. Mark Bennett recognizes that the courts are using summary
judgment and other procedural devices, like compelling cases into arbitration, to ride the court of
"undesirable cases" like this one. Bennett states:
Let me be blunt. Employment discrimination cases today are to the federal judiciary what prisoner
rights cases were before the passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act in 1996. In Yogi Berra terms,
it's deja vu allover again: "Plaintiff's claims lack merit," "Plaintiff's claims are frivolous," and the
newest Twom-bal induced mantra, "Plaintiff's claims are implausible" - all incantations heard with
stunning frequency in the federal district courts. In the courts of appeals the mantra morphs slightly:
"Defendant's Summary Judgment (or Motion to Dismiss) afftrmed without comment" appears with
alarming frequency. One recent study "revealed that over 80 percent of defendants' motions for
summarv judgment in employment discrimination cases are either granted or granted-in-part
when decided by the district court." The same study also found that, between the six and twelve
months following the decision in Twombly, almost 81 % of district court decisions citing Twombly in
employment discrimination cases granted, in whole or in part, a motion to dismiss. Two Cornell law
professors, who have done extensive empirical studies of "win" rates in employment
discrimination cases from data from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, note,
"The most significant observation about the district courts' adjudication of employment
discrimination cases is the long-run lack of success for these plaintiffs relative to other plaintiffs."
From 1979 to 2006, "the plaintiff win rate for jobs cases (15%) was lower than for non-jobs cases
(51 %)." Employment discrimination plaintiffs fare even worse on appeal! Federal appeals courts
"reverse plaintiffs' wins below far more often than defendants' wins below." A plaintiff who wins
at trial has "a chance of retaining [the] victory that cannot meaningfully be distinguished from a
coin flip." In contrast, a defendant who wins at trial "can be assured of retaining that victory" on
appeal. The Cornell Law professors reach a very disturbing conclusion: "In this surprising
plaintiff/defendant difference in the federal courts of appeals, we have unearthed an anti-plaintiff
effect that is troublesome." Of course, even a casual reader of the courts of appeals' employment
discrimination decisions would not have needed an empirical study to observe this trend. There is
something seriously amiss here, and it cannot be blamed solely on the number of employment
discrimination cases filed that lack merit. 23 (emphasis added)
23 Bennett at 697-699.
- 17
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 discrimination, throughout the
American workplace. Title VII was a direct legislative byproduct ofthe black-led civil rights movementl4
and the larger struggle of African Americans to live free from both invidious and institutional racism
in aU areas of life in America. 25 As a human being and American citizen of African descent, am I not
justified in all of the actions that I have taken to ensure that the public policy goals of Title VII and the
NYCHRL are upheld? Mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration, as well as the "expanding use of summary
judgment, particularly in federal employment discrimination litigation, raises the ominous specter of serious
erosion of the 'fundamental and sacred' right of trial by jury." Kampouris v. St. Louis Symphony Soc'y,
210 F.3d 845,850 (8th Cir. 2000) (Bennett, J., sitting by designation, dissenting) (quoting Jacob v. City of
New York, 315 U.S. 752, 752 (1942)).
This case is a testament to the fact that 50 years after passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and 23 years since it was last amended, that Congress must restrengthen the Act. It is also imperative
that Congress pass the Arbitration Fairness Act as well. I - a victim of racial discrimination - will not be
made to feel that blowing the whistle on this company's unlawful employment practices, policies and
procedures was wrong. At the end of the day, I know that I am not wrong, because I know that race is
nothing more than a social and legal construct and one's belief of whiteI "Jewish" superiority is nothing
more than a myth that has already been scientifically disproven.
24 See e.g., Eyes on the Prize: America's Civil Rights Years (pBS television broadcast, 1986). Each episode of this
six part series can be viewed on Youtube.; see also, Daniel B. Rodriquez and Barry R. Weingast. The Positive Political
Theory of Legislative History: New Perspectives on the Civil Rights Act and Its Interpretation. 151 U. Pa. L. Rev.
1417, (2002). .
25 Adjoa Artis Aiyetoro. Can We Talk? How Triggers for Unconscious Racism Strengthen the Importance ofDialogue.
22 Nat'l Black L. 1. 1,21 (Fall 2009) (""During slavery and Jim Crow it was not unusual for African descendants to
be treated in debasing ways, including being address with demeaning labels such as 'nigger.' Race and racism were
part of the very fabric of the society, and although other racial groups were treated in a discriminatory fashion, the
premier story of racism in the United States has been the treatment of African descendants."); S. Con. Res. 26, lith
Congo (2009) (Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of African Americans.) (Whereas the system
of de jure racial segregation known as 'Jim Crow,' which arose in certain parts of the United States after the Civil
War to create separate and unequal societies for Whites and African-Americans, was a direct result of the racism
against people of African descent that was engendered by slavery; Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially
existed until the 1960s - a century after the official end of slavery in the United States - until Congress took action to
end it, but the vestiges ofJim Crow continue to this day.
- 18
[Conclusion] Not only has fraud been committed upon the Court, but fraud has been committed upon the
Court by the Court itself. Castel, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Timothy K.
Lewis dishonest statements constitute what Julia Simon-Barr refers to as "systemic lying."26 Of course, so
much more can be said, but I am limited to 20 pages in this Motion. The arguments discussed above have
been expounded upon in the last three Motions that were submitted to P. Kevin Castel. Have I engaged in
"bad faith" or is it William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, their attorneys Michael P. Zweig and Christian
Carbone, as well as others, who have engaged in "bad faith" by conspiring to ensure that I would be
deprived of my full constitutional and statutory rights under the color of the law? Any objective and
reasonable person aware of all ofthe facts and circumstances would conclude that I as well as the concert
of black concert promoters in Rowe have been defrauded.
Prayers for Extraordinary Relief Under the Court's Inherent Powers

Due to page limitations, I had to include my prayers for extraordinary relief to correct this "manifest
injustice" as an exhibit. See Exhibit JJ. If this Motion is not granted, there will be no way I can afford to
appeal the clearly erroneously decisions of P. Kevin Castel and the American Arbitration Association. If
this Motion is not granted, the appellate court would be confmning Castel's statements that my claims are
"without merit" and "frivolous," so pursuant to Fed. R. App. 38, the Court should also award the Appellees
"just damages and single or double costs" for wasting everyone's time.
I am entitled to back pay, front pay, compensatory & punitive damages, "recompense ... for
avoidable delays," and "reasonable fees and costs, as a pro se non-attorney prevailing party on statutory
claims in a case ofconsiderable procedural and substantive complexity." Additionally. extreme disciplinary
26 Julia Simon-Kerr. Systemic Lying. pg. 1. September 2014. "Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple
actors in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their
conception of justice ... Through a series of case studies, it shows that systemic lying emerges as a saving mechanism
that mediates between culture and law. Rather than allow the law to take its course and deliver what would be
perceived as unjust outcomes, participants lie and preserve the facade of a system that delivers results consonant with
popular moral intuitions. Systemic lying is both persistent and powerful because it achieves a type of licitness that
individual lies or underground deception lack. At the same time, it poses a unique threat to the legitimacy ofthe system
by signifying that truth is not paramount in the courtroom."
- 19
and monetary sanctions should be imposed against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb
LLP for their egregious violations ofthe New York Rules ofProfessional Conduct and New York Judiciary
Law § 487, including, but not limited to default judgment. Since Castel has issued a filing injunction
against me, my claims of "fraud upon the Court" and "fraud upon the Court, by the Court," must be
explicitly resolved by the appellate court.
Conclusion
Is the appellate court going to echo Castel's statements and agree that my appeal would be "frivolous" and
"without merit," or is the Second Circuit going to be honest and truthful by concluding that Loeb & Loeb
LLP has intentionally engaged in a "pattern" of"fraud upon the Court' on William Morris' behalf to prevent
meritorious racial discrimination cases from being decided by an impartial jury and that P. Kevin Castel
has intentionally violated the Constitution, the law, numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct,
as well as violated his Oath of Office, in order to deprive myself, as well as African Americans as a class,
of our constitutional and statutory rights under the color of the law so that the merits of my claims could
never be decided by an impartial jury.
Castel's actions are reprehensible. He should be impeached for being nothing more than a "criminal
in a black robe." As demonstrated by this case: What's in the dark, will eventualJy come to the light. Any
past prejudicial claims that I have engaged in "bad faith," that my appeal would not be made in "good faith"
and that my claims are "without merit" or "frivolous," should be ignored by the appellate court. If these
statements were actually true, Arbitrator Gregory would not have acknowledged that this case was my form
of "creative protest" to William Morris' 116 year pattern and continuing practice of excluding qualified
African Americans and people of color from meaningful positions such as Agent, he would not have
compared my efforts to those of prominent human rights activists such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Thurgood Marshall and Nelson Mandela.
For the following reasons discussed, I pray that the appellate court uses its inherent powers to grant
the extraordinary relief required to correct this "manifest injustice."

/
- 20
Dated: New York, New York By: 3"t.1~. ~ iJ=.

November 21, 2014 Marcus 1. Washington
Pro Se Litigant
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504"6497
humanrights.areamust@gmail.com
)
I ' ..
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CAPTION:
Marcus
_ ___ Isaiah
_ _Washington
__ ---'~_v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment Docket Number: .;;.;N;;.;.,/A.:...-_ __
LLC; Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski
I. Marcus Isaiah Washington • hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on

(name)
November 21, 2014 , I served a copy of my Ex. Motion to Restore In Forma
(date)
Pauperis Status, Suspend Filing Injunction and Remove All Prejudice Pending "Good Faith- Appeal, Or in the Alternative,
(list all documents) Vitiate All Orders Rendered By P. Kevin CaseI and
the American ArbItration Association Due to ~Fraud
Upon the Court" and "Fraud Upon the Court, By the
by (select all applicable)* Court: Request to Transfer Case to Another Clrcuh.
o United States Mail

o Federal Express
o Overnight Mail
DFacsimile
[Z] E·mail
o Hand delivery
on the following parties (complete all information and add additional pages as necessary):
Michael P. Zweig 345 Park Avenue, 18th FI. New York NY 10154
Name Address City State Zip Code
November 21, 2014

lrv\~~£ ~. l..~
Today's Date Signature
·If different methods of service have been used on different parties, please indicate on a separate
page, the type of service used for each respective party.
Certificate of Service Fonn

, ..
Exhibit
,---.
950 Warren Avenue
STMTDATE AMOUNT DUE
East Providence,RI 02914
10/09/2013 22625.00
American Arbitration }\ssociiltion
CASE#
13-160-01426-12 02 CAPL:~
L -_ _ _ _ _
.
INVOICE/STATEMENT Payment Due Upon Receipt
Michael Zweig Representing William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

Loeb & Loeb, LLP Re: Marcus WaShington
345 Park Avenue
New York NY 10154-1895
Please Detach and Return with Payment to the Above Address Please Indicate Case No. on check
"~'I~~~l~ic<~n~·~'i~:'~;i~'I~·~~'~~ciati~'~'
950 Warren Avenue
•
Di.iJl/I/~ UP..((I/u/il)// SUllicf.\ W()rldu'i(l~
NAME Michael Zweig Representing William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
Loeb & Loeb, LLP Re: Marcus Washington
345 Park Avenue
New York NY 10154-1895
-~~-F
STMT DATE
10/09/2013
CASE#
13-160-01426-1202 CAPL-R
_+_ PREVIOUS BALANCE
---------~-
0.00
r ._-_.
CURRENT CREDITS
31975.00-
+-
NEW CHARGES
54600.00
f TOTAL BALANCE DUE
22625.00
~~TE REF# DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CREDITS BALANCE

I
07/11/2012 10349205 Initial Administrative Fee 925.00
07/12/2012 127875 Payment recvd from: Reali., Chk# 000127875 925.00
08/07/2012 10360381 Administrative Fee for Hearing -DATE: 08/24/2012 300.00

08/07/2012 Cancellation: Billed in Error 300.00
08/07/2012 10360391 Your Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit covering 4 hours 2000.00
of Preliminary Matters
08/24/2012 14292 Payment recvd from: LOEB & LOEB 2000.00
08/24/2012 10367649 Administrative Fee for Hearing -DATE: 11/30/2012 300.00

02/07/2013 520386 Payment recvd from: LOEB & LOEB LLP 300.00
01/16/2013 10428675 Opposing Party's Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit 9075.00
covering 18.15 hours of Study
02/07/2013 520386 Payment recvd from: LOEB & LOEB LLP 9075.00
04/02/2013 10462797 Your Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit covering 18.75 9375.00
hours of Study
04/02/2013 132429 Payment recvd from: WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR 9375.00
ENTERTAINMENT
----~-.
Remarks: For any inquiry please call: 401-431-4890

This is a full statement showing all financial activity on this case. 22625.00
IJ)case Indlcatt Case No. 011 check

NET BILLED NET PAID NET DUE
INVOICE SUMMARY: INITIAL/COUNTERoCLAIM FEES 925.00 925.00 0.00
HEARINGIPOSTPONEMENTIROOMIPROCESSING FEES 300.00 300.00 0.00
REALLOCATION AT CASE END FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00
NEUTRAL COMPENSATIONIEXPENSES 53075.00 30450.00 22625.00 EIN: 13-0429745
•
t2
950 Warren Avenue ~-STMT DATE I AMOUNT-DuEi
American Arbitration Association , 10/09/2013 I 22625.00 I
. CASE# . i
13·160·01426·12 02 CAPL~R]
INVOICE/STATEMENT Payment Due Upon Receipt
Michael Zweig Representing William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

345 Parl< Avenue
New York NY 10154·1895
Please Detach and Retm"TI \lith Payment to the Above Address Please Indicate Case No. on check
_____ "__ "_""" ............... _~_.~ ... ""............. ~.. .. _. ____ ........................ __ ............ ,............"..... _.0 .. .
~_
950 Warren Avenue

• American Arbilration Association
Di$p1ilf! RI!H)III/;()II Satliff.1 WOI'l<ftrhl,
NAME Michael ZWeig Representing William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
345 Parl< Avenue
New Yorl< NY 10154·1895
CASE# PREVIOUS BALANCE CURRENT CREDITS NEW CHARGES TOTAL BALANCE DUE
13·160·01426·1202 CAPL·R 0.00 54600.00 22625.00
REF# DESCRIPTION BALANCE

10475174 Your Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit covering 20 hours
of Study
08120/2013 136201 Payment recvd from : WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR 10000.00·
07/19/2013 10514480 Your Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit covering 30 hours
of Study
9750.00
10/09/2013 10550039 Your Share of the Neutral Compensation Deposit covering 2 days of
hearing, 3 days of study time and any ooutstanding amounts due to
date
12875.00
Remarks: For any inquiry please call: 401·431-4890

This is a full statement showing all financial activity on this case. 22625.00
Plcase Indicate Case No. on .beck

NET BILLED NET PAID NET DUE
INVOICE SUMMARY: INITIAUCOUNTER·CLAIM FEES 925.00 925.00 0.00
HEARINGIPOSTPONEMENTIROOMIPROCESSING FEES 300.00 300.00 0.00
REALLOCATION AT CASE EN D FEES 0.00 0.00 0.00
NEUTRAL COMPENSATION/EXPENSES 53075.00 30450.00 22625.00 EIN: 13·0429745
f •
Exhibit BB
Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street, NW

Suite 550
Washington, DC 20001-4534
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date March 10,2014

AlTN: Carol AI Placella Invoice Number 2364904
950 Warren Avenue Client No .6000170
Providence; RI 02914-1414
For Professional Services Rendered through February 28,2014
Matter Matter Fee Cost

Number Name Amount Amount
6000170-0001 Marcus Washington v. William MOrris $ 28,998.00 0.60

Endeavor Entertainment
#131600142612
Total Services $ 28,998.00

Total Costs 0.00
Total Services and Costs $ 28,998.00
Total Due $ '~,i~§.QQ
DUD upon re(DIPt

Please send payments by chec'k to: Please send payments by wire transfer to:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP PNC Bank, N.A.
P.O. BOX 828404 249 Fifth AvenUD
PHILADELPHIA. PA 19182·8404 Pittsburgh, PA 16222
(Please reference cllent# and Invoice' on check.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA#; 031000063 ACCOUNT#: 8611846474
(Please referente cllentt# and Involce#.)
Federal tax identification number: 23·1383844
Please enclose the remittance copy of this Invoice with your payment to ensure proper credit
Note that payments received after the Invoice date are not reflected,
Page: 2 March 10, 2014
Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2364904
American Arbitration Association
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William MorriS Endeavor Entertainment

#131600142612
Date Name Description Hours Rate Amoynt

02120/14 TKL Correspondence; arrange Conference call; begin review of materials. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
02/20/14 BAN Review claimant's correspondence with AM and attempted 0.40 230.00 92.00
correspondence with T. LewiS; email T. LewiS re: prep'for conference
call; phone caU with L. Benn re: NBR.
02121/14 TKL Review, outllne,and analyze all papers received; confer with AAA; 3.50 1,000.00 3,500.00
begin prepa~tion of confidentiality agreement.
02121/14 BAN Receive assignmentfrom T. Lewis to draft confidentiality stipulation. 0.50 230.00 115.00
02122/14 BAN Per l Lewis, read procedural orde,rs and Intertm decisions; review 4.00 230.00 920.00
AM employment arbitration rules on confidentiality and cost shifting;
review confidentiality agreements from previous arpltratlons; draft
confidentiality stipulation and email to T. Lewis.
02/24/14 TKL Review previous opinions and orders; revi,ew draft confidentiality 3.50 1,000.00 3,500.00
order; re~draft order; review revisions to re-draft; review; confer with
AAA re: Tuesday conference call.
02/24/14 BAN Incorporate T. Lewis' edits Into draft confidentiality order. 1.20 230.00 276.00
02125/14 TKL Prepare for conference calli conduct conference call; follow-up. 5.50 1,000,00 5,500.00
02/25/14 BAN Continue Incorporating T. Lewis' edits Into draft confidentiality order; 5.90 230.00 1,357,00
research issues re: legality of recording telephone calls and authority
of arbitrator to sanction aparty, and discuss findings with T. Lewis; sit
In on conference call with T. Lewis and the parties; discussion with T.
Lewis and W. Kipnes re: extra-arbitral commentary by claimant; per T.
LeWis, begin drafting post-status conference order.
02/26/14 TKL Review mat~rial$.re: Order; research FAA; drafts of Order. 4.80 1,000.00 4,800.00
02126/14 BAN Research issues re: possibility of default judgment in arbitrations and 5.20 230.00 1,196.00
arbltrato~sauthority where party refuses to comply with orders; email
findings to T. Lewis; continue drafting post-status conference oreler
and email to and discuss with T. Lewis; Incorporate T. LewIs' edits into
post-status conference order.
02/27/14 TKL Continue revisions to Order; re-draft order; research cases re: Rule 4 4.00 1,000.00 4,000.00
of FAA; enter Order.
02127/14 BAN Continue incOrporating T. Lewis' edits into draft post-status 4.30 230.00 989.00
conference order; work with library to locate relevant documents from
claimanfs SONY and Second Circuit cases, and read the same;
research issues re: 9 U.S,C. § 4and discuss findings with T. Lewis.
Page: 3 March 10,2014

Schnader Harrlson. Segal &Lewis LLP InVOice No: 2364904
6000170-0001 Marcus Washing~on v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

#131600142612
Date ~ Description ti2J:!m Rate AlMYD1

02128114 BAN Continue incorporating T. Lewis' edits into draft post-status 1.10 230.00 253.00
conference order and email final draft to L. Behn; review email from
claimant to T. Lewis re: post-status conference order; receive
assignments from T. Lewis to conduct follow-up research re: legality
of recording phone calls and to monitor claimanrs blog for violations
of confidentiality order; discuss with Information services procedure for
archiving a website's contents.
Total Hours and Services 46.40 28,998.00
~ ~ !::\Qy[§ ~
Timothy K. Lewis 1,000.00 23.80 23,800.00
8radly A. Nankerville 230.00 22.60 5,19B.00
46.40 $ 28,99B.00
Total Costs Amount $ 0.00

Total Services and Costs $ 28,99§1Q.Q
Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street, NW

Suite 550
Washlngtoni DC 20001-4534
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date April 7, 2014

ATTN: Carol A. Placella Invoice Number 2366226
Manager of ADR Services Client No 6000170
950 Warren Avenue
Providence. RI 02914·1414
For Professional SerVices Rendered through March 31, 2014

NYOJbQr Name Amoyot Amount
6000170-0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris $ 33,313.00 746.20

#13 160 142612

Total Costs 746.20
Total Due $ ~~,Q~a.20
Due upon receipt

Please send payments by check to: Plea•• send paymontsby wire transfer to:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP PNC Bank. M.A.
P.O. BOX 828404 249 FIfth Avenue
PHILADELPHIA, PA 18182-8404 PI1:t.Sburgh. PA 18222
(PINse nlfarencB cllent# and Ir~volce# on check.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA.: 031000063 ACCOUNT.: 8611846474
(f:tleIiBe reference cllenttl and InvoICGfl.)
Federal tax Identillcation number: 23·1383844
Please enclose the remittance copy of tl111 Invoice with your payment to ensure proper credit
Note that payments received after the Involes dale are not reflected.
,Page: 2 April 7, 2014

6000170-0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

#13160142612
Date Name Description !:!mAl! ~ Am9.Yn!

03/02/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, archive contents of claimant's blog; draft update on the 1.40 230.00 322,00
same and send to T. Lewis.
03/03/14 BAN Exchange emalls with T. Lewis re: claimant's request for stay and 1.50 230,00 345.00
draft order re: the same; email draft to T. Lewis; archive contents of
claimant's blog.
03/04/14 TKL Issue order; correspondence; rese~rch. 1.00 1,000,00 1,000.00
03/04/14 BAN Discuss with T. Lewis draft order re: claimant's request for astay; 1.20 230.00 276.00
finalize order. send to T. Lewis for review and signature, and send to
AAA for distribution to parties.
03/05/14 TKL Review correspondence; review orders; conversation with AAA; 2.50 1,000,00 2,500.00
consider Issues.
03/05/14 BAN Review order of March 3 In SONY case and emalls re: claimanfs 0.10 230.00 23.00
attempt to obtain statement from previous arbitrator.
03/06/14 TKL Review Orders; review issues and violations; research. 2.00 1,000.00 2,000.00
03/06/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis; research arbitration issues and prepare memo 2.20 230.00 506.00
re: the same.
03/07/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis; research arbitration issues and prepare memo 8.90 230.00 2,047.00
re: the same.
03/08/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis; research arbitration Issues and prepare memo 5.50 230.00 1,265.00
re: the sama.
03/10/14 TKL Review memo; analyze. 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
03/10/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, archive contents of clalmanfs blog; exchange emails 0.20 230.00 46.00
with T. LeWis re: the same.
03/11/14 AL Research to locate article by Georgene Vairo for B. Nankerville. 0.50 170.00 85,00
03/11/14 TKL Research; confer with AAA. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
03/11/14 BAN Review March 10 order In SONY case; exchange emalls with T. Lewis 1.60 230.00 368~00
re:research; review portion of article by G. Valro re: the same and
attempt to locate full text; attempt to locate copy of parties' arbitration
agreement.
03/12/14 AL Research to locate and borrow Handbook on Commercial Arbitration 0.70 170.00 119,00
for B. Nankervllle.
03/12/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, review parties' 2008 amltraUon agreement. 0.70 230.00 161.00
03113/14 TKL Review matenals; correspondence; research. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
PagEi:3
·
April 7, 2014
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris Endeavbr Entertainment

#13160142612
~ NMm Description ti91!m am AmQ.ynt
03/13/14 BAN Review emails from claimant to AAA and from AM to claimant; 3.00 230.00 690.00
consult wIth T. Lewis; research arbitration issues and prepare memo
re: the same.
03/14/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis; research arbitration Issues and prepare memo 10.80 230.00 2,484.00
re: the same.
03/14/14 TKL Complete review of transcripts of hearing. 4.30 1,000.00 4,300.00
03/17/14 TKL Review memoranda; rEisearch. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
03/18/14 BAN Review email from T. Lewis re: arbitration issues. 0.10 230.00 23.00
03/20/14 BAN Conduct preliminary review of parties' cross moijons to vacate; 0.50 230.00 115.00
exchange emails with T. Lewis re: the same.
03/21/14 BAN Conduct preliminary review of respondent's contempt motion. 0.20 230.00 46.00
03/22/14 BAN Research arbitration Issues and email findings to T. Lewis. 0.30 230.00 69.00
03/27/14 TKL Review research; consider options; correspondence. 4.50 1,000.00 4,500.00
03/27/14 BAN Review email from T. Lewis re: arbitration Issues. 0.10 230.00 23.00
03/31/14 TKL Review motions; research. 1.50 1,000.00 1,500.00
MD &1m tim ~
Timothy K. Lewis 1,000.00 24.30 24,300.00
Bradly A. Nankerville 230.00 38.30 8,809.00
Annemarle Lorenzen 170.00 1.20 204.00
63.60 $ 33,313.00
Costs/Charges
Amount
Duplicating 12.60
LEXIS 690.00
03/12114 Other Legal Research· Tliomas M. Cooley Law School: Borrow Handbook of 12.00
Commercial Arbitration
Subtotal: Other Legal Research 12.00
Page: 4 Apri17,2014
Schnader Hanison Segal &Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2366226
6000170-0001 Marcus Washington v. William Monis Endeavor Entertainment

#13160142612
03/12/14 United Parcel Service United Parcel Service: From Thomas M. Cooley Law 31.60
School to Library,Schnader Hanison Segal &Lewis on March 12, 2014
Subtotal: United Parcel Service 31.60
Total Services and Costs $ 34.059.2Q
Summary of Outstanding Invoices
Qg ~ Amount Payments Balance

03/11/14 2364904 28,998.00 0.00 28,998.00
5 c 'h n a d e r
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street. NW
Suite 550
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date April 7, 2014

950 Warren Avenue
Providence, RI 02914-1414
Remittance Copy (please send this page with your payment)
For Professional Services Rendered through March 31 2014 t

Number ~ame Amount Amoynt
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris $ 33.313.00 746.20

#131600142612
Total Services $ 33.313.00

Total Costs 746.20
Total Services and Costs $ 34.059.20
Total Due $ 3~,Q5a,2g
Due upon receipt
Please send payments by check.to: Pleasa send payments by wire transfer to:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS U.P PHC Bank. N.A.
P.O. BOX 828404 . '. 249 Fifth Avenue
PHILADELPHIA, PA19182-6404 Pittsburgh. PA 18222
(Please reference cllen.. and Involce# on Oheck.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA": 031000053 ACCOUN1W: 8811848414

(Please reference cllenli! and Involce#.)
Federal tax Identification number: 23-1383844
Please encl06e the remittance copy of this Inllolce with your payment to ensure proper credit.
Note that payments received after the InvoIce date are not reflected.
Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street. NW
Suite 550
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date May 8,2014

950 Warren Avenue
Providehce, RI 02914-1414
For Professional Services Rendered through April 30. 2014

Number Name AmQunl Amoynt
6000170'()001 Marcus Washington v, William Morris. $ 51,655.00 433.58

#13160142612

Total Costs 433.58
Total SerVices and Costs $ 52,088.58
Total Due $ §~IQaa,§~
Due upon nrcalpt
PI91188 eend pal/menta by check to: Ple8se send paymenta by wire transfer to:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP PHC Bank, N.A.
P.O. BOX 826404 249 Fifth Avenue
PHILADELPHIA, PA 18182-6-404 Pittsburgh, PA 15122
(Plllaao reference ~lIl1iriltl8nd Invoice' on chack.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCU&33
ABAft: 031000083 ACCOijNT#18611848474

(Plea" reference cilentlllnd Involoe#.,
Federal talC ldentlRcatlon number: a3-1383844
Pleose enclose the remittance copy of thl& Invoice with your payment to ensure proper credit
NOlO that payments received after the invoice dete are not refleded.
Page: 2
May 8, 2014
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis lLP Invoice No: 2368269
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

#13160142612
Date ~ Description Hours Him Alm?Jm\

04/01/14 TKL Review motions and exhibits; confer; outline. 5.30 1,000.00 5,300.00
04101/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues. 1.90 230.00 437.00
04/02/14 TKL Continue review of e~hibits and work on motions and decision. 3.30 1,000.00 3,300.00
04/02/14 BAN Work with library re: ari:litration issues. 0.10 23a.oO 23.00
04/03/14 TKL Continue study re: pending motions; begin draft opinion. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
04/03/14 BAN Consuft with 1. Lewis re: arbitration Issues. 0.30 230.00 69.00
04/04/14 TKL Continue review of motions and exhibits and file; draft opinion. 3.30 1,000.00 3,300.00
04/04/14 BAN Review email from T. Lewis re: motionS'to vacate. 0.10 230.00 23.00
04/07/14 TKL Review motions again: continue work on qpinion. 2.50 1.000.00 2,500.00
04/07/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues; per T. Lewis, research 4.90 230.00 1,127.00
arbitration issues.
04/08/14 TKL Review response to contempt motion; review exhibits; outline.
2.80 1.000.00 2,800.00
04/08/14 BAN Per T. leWis! research arbitration issues.
5.20 230.00 1,196!00
04/09114 TKL Review record again; research re: motions.
3.50 1,000.00 3,500.00
04/10114 TKl ' Re-draft and shorten memorandum opinion. 2.60 1,000.00 2.800.00
04110/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues; per T. Lewis. research 3,30 230.00 759.00
arblltation issues.
04/11/14 BAN Consull with 1. Lewis re: arbitration Issues; per T. LewiS, research 1.60 230.00 368.00
arbitration Issues.
04/13/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration issues.

3.00 230.00 690.00
04/14/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration Issues.
3.10 230.00 713.00
04114/14 TKL Wo!1( on drafts.
2.50 1,000.00 2.500.00
04/15/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues; per T.lewis. research
8.50 230.00 1.955.00
arbitration Issues.
04/15114 TKl Re-draft opinions; confer.

8.80 1.000.00 8,800.00
04/16/14 BAN ConsUlt with T. Lewis re: arbitrat!ol'l issues; pet T. Lewis, research
3.30 230.QO 759.00
arbitrati9" issues.
04/16/14 TKl Finalize opinions.

2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
04/17/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration Issues.
0.20 230.00 46.00
I
I
I
II
1 ". -.-~~ -.~--

Page: 3 Maya. 2014

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2368269
6000170-0001 Marcus Washington Y. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

#13160142612
Qm§ t::liwJE! PflscripUQD .I:kumi .Bi1ft Amount

04118/14 BAN Consult wiltl T. Lewis re: arbitration issues. 0.20 230.00 46.00
Q4129/14 TKL Prepare for conference call: conduct conference call with parties; 2.00 1,000.00 2,000.00
follow-up {lnd Issue ortler.
04/29/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration Issues. 2.10 230.00 483.00
04/30/14 TKL Re-draft and finalize Order. 1.00 1,000.00 1,000.00
04/30/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis ra: arbitration issues. 0.70 230.00 1.61.00
Nmni B!t! I:mY!! Value

Timothy K. Lawls 1,000.00 42.80 42,800.00
Bradly A. Narikervllle 230.00 38.50 8.855~00
81.30 $ 51,655.00
Costs/Charges
Am!:!Yn1
Color Copies 0.75
Duplicating 33.18
Image Processing 2.38
04/08114 Lexls (BAN) 76.00
04/10/14 Laxl& (BAN) 100.00
04114114 Lexls (BAN) 100.00
04115/14 LeKls(BAN) 100.00
Subtotal: Lexie 376.00
03111114 PACER Database (BAN) 12.90
Subtotal: PACER Database 12.90
04/23114 United Parcel Service - United Parcel Service: From Schnader Hamson &Igal 8.37
& Lewis to Law School Ubrary on April 23. 2014
Subtotal: United Parcel Service 8.37
Total COlts Amount $ 433.58
Total Services and Costs $ ~2Iga§,5a

Page: 4 May 8, 2014

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2368269
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

#13160142612
QA1g ~ Amount payments Balance

03/11/14 2364904 28,998.00 (10 j 200.00) 18,798.00
04108/14 2366226 34,059.20 0.00 34,059.20
Previous Balance Due $ 52,857.20

Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street, NW

Suite 550
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date June 9,2014

950 Warren Avenue
For Professional Services Rendered through May 31,2014


#13 160 1426 12
Total Services
$ 6,437.00
Total Costs
0.00

------
Total Due $ 6.437.00
Due upon receipt

Please send payments by check to: Please send payments by wire transfer to:
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19182-6404 Pittsburgh, PA 16222
(Please reference client# and invoice# on check.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA#: 031000053 ACCOUNT#: 8611846474
(Please reference client# and invoice#.)
Federal tax identification number: 23-1383844
Please enclose the remittance copy of this invoice with your payment to ensure proper credit
Note that payments received after the invoice date are not reflected.
Page: 2 June 9,2014

#13160142612
Date Name Description Hours Rate Amount

05/08/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues. 0.30 230.00 69.00
05/13/14 TKL Review Washington fee motion. 0.50 1,000.00 500.00
05/16/14 TKL Review response; prepare Order. 1.50 1,000.00 1,500.00
OS/20/14 TKL Review motion and memorandum for dismissal; outline; research. 4.00 1,000.00 4,000.00
OS/20/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration issues. 0.30 230.00 69.00
Name Rate Hours Value

Timothy K. Lewis 1,000.00 6.00 6,000.00
Bradly A. Nankerville 230.00 1.90 437.00
7.90 $ 6,437.00

Total Services and Costs $ 6.437.00
Date Invoice Amount Payments Balance

03/11/14 2364904 28,998.00 (10,200.00) 18,798.00
04/08/14 2366226 34,059.20 0.00 34,059.20
05/09/14 2368269 52,088.58 0.00 52,088.58

Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street. NW
Suite 550
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date June 9,2014

950 Warren Avenue
Remittance Copy (please send this page with your payment)
For Professional Services Rendered through May 31,2014


#13160 142612

Total Costs 0.00
Total Due $ 6 1431,QQ
Due upon receipt

Please send payments by check to: Please send payments by wire transfer to:
(Please reference client# and invoice# on check.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA#: 031000053 ACCOUNT#: 8611846474
(Please reference client# and invoice#.)
Federal tax identification number: 23-1383844

Please enclose the remittance copy of this invoice with your payment to ensure proper credit.
Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street. NW
Suite 550
Washington. DC 20001-4534
(202) 419-4200
American ,Arbitration Association Date July 21. 2014

ATIN: Carol A. Placella Invoice Number 2372167
950 Warren Avenue
Providence. Rl 02914-1414
For Professional Services Rendered throug,h June 30,2014

NumQer Name AmQunt Amount
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris $ 20,327.00 0.00

#13160142612

Total Costs 0.00
Less Credit (Overpayment) (11.379,78)
Net Due $ §I~~Z!"
Due upon receipt

Please send payments by check to: Please send payments by wire trans'er to:
P.O, BOX 826404 249 Fifth Avonue
(Plesee referenco cll.ntl# and Involcei# on chaok.) SWIFT CODS: PNCCUS33
ABA.: 031000053 ACCOUNT#: 8611846414
(Please reference cllent# and Involce#,)
Federal tax Identification number: 23·1383844
Please enclose the remittence copy of this ln\lolce with your payment to ensure proper credit
Note that payments received after the Invoice date are nol reflected.
Page: 2 July 21, 2014
Schnader Hamson Segal &Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2372167
American. Arbitration Association

#13160142612
Qim tlEl Description tl9.Ym B.§m Amount

06/02/14 TKL Work on·draft. 2.50 1,000.00 2,500.00
06/02114 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbltratlon issues; per T. Lewis, research 2.70 230.00 621.00
arbitration issues.
06103/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re:arbltratlon Issue$. 0.20 230.00 46.00
06/05/14 TKL Work on draft. 2.80 1,000.00 2,800.00
06/08/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration issues. 2.00 230.00 460,00
06/10/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration issues. 1.10 230,00 253.00
06/11/14 TKL Work on draft. 3,00 1,000.00 3,000.00
06/17/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration IssIJes. 1.10 230.00 253.00
06/18/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration Issues. 6.50 230.00 1.495.00
06/19/14 BAN Per T. Lewis, research arbitration Issues. 2.90 230.00 667.00
06/20/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbltration issues; per T. Lewis, research 4.20 230.00 966.00
arbitration Issues.
06/23/14 TKL Finalize draft opinion. 3.50 1,000.00 3,500.00
06/23/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewlsre: arbitration issues; per T. Lewis. research 2.80 230.00 644.00
arbitration issues.
06124/14 TKL Revise and complete flnal draft. 2,80 1,000.00 2,800.00
06/24/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration Issues; per T, Lewis, research 1.10 230.00 253.00
arbitration Issues•.
06/26/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re:arbltration issues. 0.10 230,00 23.00
~ ~ tl2YrI Value
Timothy K. Lewis 1,000.00 14.60 14,600.00
Bradly A. Nankervllle 230.00 24.90 5,727.00
39.50 $ 20,327.00

Total Services and Costs $ ~al~~Zlgg
Page: 3 July 21, 2014

S.chnader Harrison S.egal &Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2372167

#13160142612
Date Invoice Am2Y.nl payments Balance

06/09/14 2370081 6,437.00 0.00 6,437.00
Schnader
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
750 9th Street, NW
Suite 55'0
(202) 419-4200
American Arbitration Association Date August 11 2014j

950 Warren Avenue
For Professional Services Rendered through July 31,2014

Number Name Amount AmQunt
6000170·0001 Marcus Washington v. William Morris $ 3.473.00 395.00

#13160142612 .

Total Costs 395.00
Total Services and Costs $ 3;868.00
Total Due $ 3.B§lMlQ
Due upon receipt

PleaS8send payments by check to: P188~8 send paymentS by wire tranafer to:
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP PNC Bank. N.A.
1='.0. BOX 828404 24& Plfth Avenue
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19182·8404 Pittsburgh, PA 16222
(Plea.a "feren~ cJlant1# and .Involcell on check.) SWIFT CODE: PNCCUS33
ABA': 031000053 ACCOUNT": 8611846474
(Please reference cllentl# and Involcell.)
Federal tax Identification number: 23·1383844
Please enGlOBe the remittance copy of this Invoice with your payment to ensure proper oredlt
Page: 2 August 11, 2014

Schnader HarrisOn S~gal & Lewis LLP Invoice No: 2373134
6000170-0001 Marcus Washington v~ William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

13160142612 .
Citft ~ Description t\Q.ym Rate Amount

07/03114 BAN Consult with T. Lewis ra: arbitration issues. 0.30 230.00 69.00
07/07/14 TKL Review Rule 40; revise draft order. O.SO 1,000.00 BOO.OO
07/07/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration issues; per T. Lewis, research 1.70 230.00 391.00
arbltratlQn is~ues.
07/08/14 BAN Consult wIth T. Lewis ra: arbitration Issues, 0.60 230.00 136.00
07/22/14 TKL Review Claimant's motion: review attached exhibits and emalls; enter 1.50 1,000.00 1,500,00
order.
07/22/14 BAN Consult with T. Lewis re: arbitration Issues; per T. Lewis, research 2.50 230.00 575.00
arbitration Issues.
Total Hours and ServIces 7.40 3.473.00
~ Bill Hours ~
Timothy K. Lewis 1,000.00 2.30 2,300.00
Bradly A. Nankerville 230;00 5.10 1,173.00
7.40 $ 3.473.00
Cosls/Cbarges
06/17/14 LEXIS(BAN)
95.00
06/18/14 LEXIS(BAN)
100.00
06/19/14 LEXIS(BAN)
100.00
06/20/14 LEXIS(BAN)
100.00
Subtotal: LEXIS
395.00
Total Costs Amount
$ 395.00
Total Services and Costs

$ 3IB68.g,g
Page:~3 August 11, 2014

Schnader Harrison Segal &Lewis LLP Invoioe No: 2373134

13160142612
Qa1!i! Invoice Amrum! Payments Balance

06/09/14 2370081 6,437.00. 0.00 6,437.00
07/22/14 2372167 20,327.00 (11.379.78) 8,947.22

Exhibit CC
Marcus Luther X
From: AAA Carol Placella <CaroIPlacella@adr.org>

Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 4:16 PM
To: Alkebulan X; AAA Carol Placella
Cc: Michael Beck; AAA Heather Santo; Michael Zweig; Christian Carbone; Michael Barnett
Subject: RE: Timothy K. Lewis final invoices 13 20 1200 1426
Dear Parties,
This will acknowledge receipt of the email message below from Mr. Washington. As previously advised the Association
will not be issuing a further response to the information requested, other than to add that both AAA and Arbitrators
Gregory and Lewis have been paid in full. Inasmuch as this case has been closed, this will be the Association's final
communication on this matter.
Sincerely,
Carol Placella
From: Alkebulan X [mailto:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:30 PM
To: AAA Carol Placella; India Johnson
Cc: Michael Beck; AAA Heather Santo; Michael Zweig; Christian Carbone; Michael Barnett
Subject: Re: Timothy K. Lewis final invoices 13 20 1200 1426
Carol:
You stated on August 22,2014:
"Good afternoon Mr. Washington, the invoices were just provided to William Morris' counsel today. I would expect they
will submit payment in a timely manner and, if you like, I can let you know when we receive the payment."
The e-mail that YOU wrote can be seen below. Since I have not received this information, the AAA's
administrative role has not ended. Please provide me with the information I have requested.
Marcus Washington
On Tue, Sep 9,2014 at 2:23 PM, AAA Carol Placella <CaroIPlacella@adr.org>wrote:
Dear Parties,
In response to Mr. Washington's requests, the AAA provided information regarding the Arbitrators' invoices and will not
be issuing a further response on that issue.
The arbitration has been closed, and accordingly, the AAA administrative role has ended.
1
Sincerely,
Carol Placella
From: Alkebulan X [mailto:humanrlghts.areamust@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, September 08,20147:31 PM
To: AAA carol Placellai India Johnson; Michael Becki AAA Heather Santo
Cc: Michael Zweig; Christian Carbone; Michael Barnett

SUbject: Re: Timothy K. Lewis final invoices 13 20 1200 1426
Now that I have had time to review Timothy K. Lewis' June 9, 2014 invoice, I need for the AAA to also explain
why this invoice states that the balance to be paid by William Morris was $104,954.78 and shows that the only
payment William Morris made to Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP between March 11,2014 and May 9,
2014 was $10,200.00, yet, in the next invoice submitted by Lewis on July 21,2014, the section titled "Summary
of Outstanding Invoices" doesn't mention his first three invoices or show that the $104,954.78 had been paid by
William Morris·· instead, this invoice only shows the June 9, 2014 invoice and states that there is a balance of
$6,437.00. Between June 9,2014 and July 21, 2014, when did William Morris make this $104,954.78 payment
to Schnader LLP or did Lewis tell William Morris that they no longer had have pay this amount due to my
allegedly bad faith conduct? I need answers.
I also find it strange that the August II, 2014 invoice shows that two months later, William Morris still hadn't
made a payment on Lewis' June 9, 2014 invoice, but supposedly made an $11,379.78 payment on Lewis' July
22,2014 invoice which totaled $20,327.00. This simply does not make any sense, which why I have requested
that the AAA provide me with all of the dates (as well as the amounts) that William Morris paid to Schnader
LLP for Lewis serving as an arbitrator in my case on behalf of the American Arbitration Association from the
date of Lewis' appointment to present. The AAA had no problem supplying this information when I requested it
for Arbitrator David L. Gregory and there wouldn't be an issue now if the AAA wouldn't have given WME,
Loeb & Loeb LLP; Lewis and Schnader LLP permission to violate AAA Employment Rule 44.
In total, Lewis' invoices show that William Morris has only paid $21,579.78 out ofa total of$145,777.78. The
information provided by Lewis is simply not "adding up" and I need documentation showing when the rest of
the balance was paid by William Morris [further showing that Carol was lying, she stated in an e-mail on
August 22,2014 that when William Morris submitted.
Marcus
2
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Alkebulan X <humanrights.areamust@gmaiLcom> wrote:
Attached is the October 9, 2013 invoice.
Marcus
On Mon, Sep 8,2014 at 4:35 PM, Alkebulan X <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>wrote:
Carol Placella:
It is pretty disturbing how much you can lie, especially since you are a case manager for the allegedly "neutral" American
Arbitration Association.
The AAA does "provide an accounting" of the financial information I requested as "the opposing party" in this case.
Attached is copy of an invoice submitted to the parties by Placella on October 9, 2013. It clearly provides all of the dates
that William Morris made payment to the AAA, including when William Morris made payment after receiving the invoices
submitted by Arbitrator David L. Gregory.
The only reason the AAA cannot provide me with the financial information that I am privy to, is because the AAA allowed
Employment Rule 44 to be violated. As discussed in the e-mails below, the AAA should have never allowed Timothy K
Lewis to have provided Schnader LLP's banking routing number so that William Morris could pay his law firm directly,
especially since Arbitrator Gregory was improperly disqualified by the AAA after issuing a "final and binding" decision on
the merits and stated that I would be awarded back pay, front pay, compensatory & punitive damages, pro se attorney's
fees, etc. There is absolutely no way to know exactly how much William Morris and/or Loeb & Loeb LLP paid Lewis and
his firm to fraudulently dismiss my case with prejudice. This information is pertinent since I have already accused Michael
P. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP of engaging in a "pattern" of fraud and highly unethical activity on William MorriS' behalf.
Please give me an honest response and provide me with the information that I requested.
Marcus
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:50 PM, AAA Carol Placella <CarolPlacella@adr.org> wrote:
Dear Mr. Washington,
3
Attached please fmd the June 2014 invoice of Arbitrator Lewis that you requested.
While we do share copies of arbitrator invoices with all parties, we do not provide an accounting of one party's fmancial
infonnation to the opposing party.
Sincerely,
Carol Placella

Sent: Friday, September 05,20147:08 AM
To: AM carol Placella
Cc: AM Heather Santo; India Johnson
Hi Carol,
I want to follow up with the AAA regarding my August 22, 2014 e-mail, which requested various documents
pertaining to Timothy K. Lewis' invoices and the payments that have been made by WMElLoeb & Loeb LLP to
Lewis' law firm, Schander LLP. The e-mail also sought answers regarding AAA Employment Rule 44.
Although the rule states that "any arrangement for the compensation of a neutral arbitrator shall be made
through the AAA and not directly between the parties and the arbitrator," all of Lewis' invoices requested for
WME/Loeb & Loeb LLP to make direct payment to Schander LLP. I once stated my concerns about this, but
the AAA pretended like nothing was wrong with their financial arrangement. I now need to know why the AAA
once again diverted from the protocol and al10wed the Rules to be violated.
I have tried my hardest to be understanding and patient with the American Arbitration Association and its staff
over the last 26 months but I will not tolerate any further disrespect from an organization that has blatantly
conspired to deprive me of my constitutional and statutory rights under the color oflaw. Since sending my last
e-mail, I have received absolutely no response from the AAA -- not even an acknowledgment that the e-mail
was received. It should not take two weeks or longer for me to receive the various documents that I have
requested from my "case manager" (e.g. the June 9,2014 invoice should not take 14 days to locate since Lewis
most likely sent it via e-mail and I received invoices for February, March, April, May, July & August 2014) or
4
answers from the AAA regarding the various issues that were brought to their attention in my August 22, 2014
e-mail.
Please inform me of when I should expect the AAA to fully respond to my e-mail and provide me with the
various financial documents that I have requested.
Marcus Washington
On Fri, Aug 22,2014 at 2:46 PM, Alkebulan X <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com> wrote:
After inspecting the invoices a little more closely, it appears that we [or most likely I] never received an invoice
corresponding to whatever work Lewis claims he did during the month of May. The invoices I have received
from the AAA are:
1. Invoice #2364904 dated March 10,2014 [Amt. Due: $28,998.00]
2. Invoice #2366226 dated April 7, 2014 [Amt. Due: $34,059.20]
3. Invoice #3268369 dated May 8, 2014 [Amt. Due: $52,088.58] [this invoice shows that WME made a
payment of $10,200.00 to the March 10, 2014 Invoice]
4. Invoice #2372167 dated July 21, 2014 [Amt. Due: $20,327.00] [this invoice is strange because it shows that
the no payment had been made pertaining to the June 2014, but it indicates that WME received a "credit
(overpayment)" of $11,379.78. This needs to be further explained since the invoice shows that no payment had
been made re: Lewis' June invoice and I have seen nothing showing that WME made a payment of more than
$115,000.00 to between May 8 and July 21,2014.]
5. Invoice #2373134 dated August 11,2014 [Amt. Due: $3,868.00]
The last two invoices I just received from the AAA indicates that Lewis submitted an invoice (#2370081) on
June 9, 2014 in the amount of $6,437.00. Can you please send me this invoice as well, since it should have been
sent to me in June?
While writing this e-mail, I consulted the AAA Employment Rules, and Rule 44, titled "Neutral Arbitrator's
Compensation," states: "Any arrangement for the compensation of a neutral arbitrator shall be made through the
AAA and not directly between the parties and the arbitrator. Payment of the arbitrator's fees and expenses
shaH be made by the AAA from the fees and moneys collected by the AAA for this purpose." All of Lewis'
invoices have directed WME to make payment directly to Schnader LLP (providing their bank routing number,
etc.) and this is yet another thing added to the growing list of things the AAA should not have allowed to
5
happen since they publicly proclaim to be "neutral." I understand that generally speaking, the AAA would like
for things to be kept "private and confidential," but monetary transactions to the arbitrator are not going to be
kept "private and confidential" from the opposing party who initiated the proceeding.
Since the numbers are just not adding up, can the AAA also provide me information on each date that WME has
made a payment to Schnader LLP re: Lewis' six invoices and the amounts of each payment. Ultimately, I need
to see all documentation showing that WME has paid $145,777.78 to Schander LLP.
Best,
Marcus Washington
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM, AAA Carol Placella <CaroIPlacella@adr.org>wrote:
Good afternoon Mr. Washington, the invoices were just provided to William Morris' counsel today. I would expect they
will submit payment in a timely manner and, if you like, I can let you know when we receive the payment.
Please let me know if that is what you would like me to do.
Thank you
Carol Placella

Sent: Friday, August 22, 20141:30 PM
To: AAA Heather Santo; India Johnson; AAA carol Placella
Cc: Michael Zweig; Christian carbone; Michael Barnett
Thanks Santo.
6
Please inform me of the date that WME pays this outstanding balance.
Best,
Marcus
On Fri, Aug 22, 20] 4 at 1: 19 PM, AAA Heather Santo <heathersanto@adr.org> wrote:
Dear Parties, this will acknowledge receipt ofthe email message below from Mr. Washington.
Attached please fmd copies ofthe arbitrator's fmal invoices.
Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
e. Heather Santo
Director
950 Warren Ave.
East Providence. RI 02914-1414
T:401 431 4703

F:401 4356529
E:heathersanto@adr.org
The information in this transmittal (including attachments. if any) is privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any
review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmittal is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this transmittal
in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. Thank you.
From: M.Washington [mailto:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]

Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2014 11:49 AM
To: AAA Heather Santo; carol Placella; India Johnson; bnankerville@schnader.comi Marcus Isaiah Washington
Subject: Re: TImothy K. Lewis
I also need a copy of any additional invoice Lewis has submitted to the AAA.
Best,
7
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: Alkeb~lan X <humanrights.areamust@gmai1.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 17:27:35 -0400
To: Heather Santo<heathersanto@adr.org>; Carol Placella<PlacellaC@adr.org>; India

Johnson<johnsoni@adr.org>; <bnankerville@schnader.com>
SUbject: Timothy K. Lewis
Hi,
I am just now noticing that Timothy K. Lewis served and/or still currently serves as a member of the Board of
Directors for the AAA (http://www.constitutionproject.orglbio/timothy-k-Iewis/). Although I have been able to
see that Lewis has also served as the former President of the AAA's Diversity Committee, I cannot find any
prior cases online (e.g. Google, LexisNexis, etc.) in which Lewis actually presided as the arbitrator. Can the
AAA please provide me with a list of cases, particularly those pertaining to employment discrimination, that
Lewis has actually arbitrated on behalf ofthe AAA from 2010 to present?
Best,
Marcus Washington
Carol Placella
•, . Manager of ADR Services
T:401 431 4890
F:866 644 0234950 Warren Ave.
East Providence, RI 02914-1414
www.adr.org
Heather Santo, Director

Northeast Case Management Center
The information in this transmittal (including attachmenlq, if any) is privileged and/or confidential and is intended only for the recipient(s) listed above. Any
review, use, disclosure, distribution or copying of this transmitta1 is prohibited except by or on behalf of the intended recipient. If you have received this transmittal
in error, please notify me immediately by reply email and destroy all copies of the transmittal. Thank you.
S
I
, ' ,
Exhibit DD
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
In the Matter of Arbitration Between:
Re: 13 16001426 12
Marcus Washington
and
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
and Jeff Meade and Sarah Van Hoven
CASE MANAGER: Carol A. Placella
Notice of Compensation Arrangements
To: Hon. Timothy K. Lewis
You have been invited to serve as an arbitrator in the above matter. It is important that you understand the tenns of your
compensation and the role you play in ensuring that you receive payment for fees and expenses that you may incur during
your service. This invitation to serve is based on our assumption that unless your panel biography states otherwise, you
are willing to comply with the Association's Billing Guidelines/or Commercial, Construction, and Employment Neutrals,
which are enclosed. If you expect to assess charges that fall outside those guidelines and those charges are not detailed on
your panel biography, you must notify the Association prior to accepting your appointment so that the parties can
determine whether they still seek your services as an arbitrator.
Your Compensation
This matter is being administered under the Employment Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. As such, you will
be compensated at the following rates, per the rate structure indicated on your biographical record:
Hearing Time: $1,000. per hour

Study Time: 1,000. per hour
Cancellation: if a scheduled event is cancelled with less than thirty (30) days notice, the parties are fully
responsible and will be billed for eight (8) hours of time for the particular day or days in
question, unless able to fill that time with other billable matters, which a good faith effort
will be made
Other: "You have also indicated that you sometimes use an associate at your finn experienced in
arbitration matters to perfonn certain logistical tasks and conduct research where appropriate in the interest of
saving costs to the parties and may elect, conditioned upon the parties' express consent, to do so in this matter. If
the parties agree, the associate's billing rate shall not exceed $250 per hour."
Inasmuch as you are agreeing to serve in this matter at the above rate, any subsequent change to your published rate after
your appointment will not apply to this case.
Your Expenses
On most cases, your expenses should be nominal and will be reimbursed immediately after you submit them. For any
single expense over $25, please include a receipt with your request for reimbursement.
If you anticipate that you will incur significant expenses, such as airfare or hotel room costs, please advise your Case
Manager in advance so that the parties can be asked to make deposits prior to you incurring the expense.
Deposits and Payment

\
Payment for your compensation is the obligation of the parties and it is understood that the American Arbitration
Association has no liability, direct or indirect, for such payment. During the course of the proceeding the Case Manager
will ask that you provide an estimate of the amounts needed to cover your fees. Generally this occurs immediately after
the preliminary hearing, although on longer or more complex cases it can occur immediately upon appointment or after
each series of hearings.
Unless you specify otherwise, the parties are advised that deposits are due 30 days prior to the first hearing. No later than
two weeks prior to the hearing, the Case Manager will advise you of the total amount on deposit. Should the parties fail to
make deposits in a timely manner, you must determine whether to go forward or suspend the proceedings until such time
as deposits have been made. If you decide to go forward without full deposits, you may not subsequently delay the
rendering of the award for lack of payment of your fees. The time to deal with this issue is prior to the commencement of
the hearings. Should you decide to suspend the proceedings, your Case Manager can assist you in issuing an appropriate
order to the parties.
If you realize that you are spending more time on this matter than you originally estimated, it is your obligation to inform
the Case Manager prior to exhausting the current deposit. The Case Manager will then make arrangements with the
parties for additional deposits per your instructions.
In order to receive payment, please submit bills promptly. Your bills should be submitted in a format that is presentable
to the parties, should detail the dates on which the charges were incurred and must correspond with the terms of
compensation outlined herein. Upon receipt, the AAA will release payment from the amounts deposited by the parties.
Should there be insufficient funds on deposit, you will not receive payment until the parties have made additional
deposits. Further, we will not use one party's deposit to cover another party's obligation without written permission to do
so.
In the event your Award is delivered prior to payment by the parties of the agreed upon compensation, the Association is
authorized but not obligated to seek to collect these monies on your behalf by all lawful means to represent you in any
action or proceeding for such recovery and to file a claim in any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding for such monies.
The Association may prosecute and receive any recovery on behalf of the undersigned and has full authority to
compromise or settle such claims as may be, in its discretion, appropriate. However, under no circumstances whatsoever
will the Association be liable for any failure to collect any or all the monies due. The Association is authorized to subtract
a reasonable amount for collection and attorney's fees.
Failure to Disclose and Forfeiting Compensation
As an arbitrator in this matter, you have an ongoing obligation to disclose any direct or indirect relationship with the case
participants. Your failure to make disclosures in a timely manner would be a serious transgression and may be grounds
for your removal as arbitrator from this case and/or from the AAA's Roster of Neutrals. Should this occur, you may be
required to forfeit the compensation for the time you spent on this matter after you should have made such disclosures.
If you are willing to serve on this matter per the compensation terms detailed above, please complete and sign the
following section and return it, along with your Notice of Appointment, to your Case Manager.
==============~~~~==~===============================--====
ARBITRATOR MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTION
Compensation payments, and the corresponding IRS reporting, will be made to either to you individually (attributed to
your Social Security Number) or to your employer (attributed to the Employer Identification Number), based on the
preference you indicated and as recorded in your panel record. If you are unsure ofyollr current payment preference, you
may contact your Case Manager or the AAA Department of Neutrals' Services. Promptly inform the AAA if this
information is incorrect or changes during the case, or if an address correction is necessary.
If the AAA does not have the payee's tax information on record, we must withhold 31 % of compensation payments, as
required by the IRS. Reimbursements of expenses are not subject to withholding and are not reported to the IRS.
I am willing to accept appointment on this matter under the compensation terms detailed above.
'-.:
-=-+-\l_BI-i-I"'t..:!..""'J-
nate:_.......
Exhibit EE
Case 2:1 0-cv-09647-PKC -JCP Document 18 Filed 07/20/11 Page 2 of 18
SUMMARY OF FACTS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff started working for William Moms Agency, a talent agency that
represents actors, authors, musicians and public figures, as an "Agent Trainee" on September 2,
2008 in their New York City office. I (CampI. ~ 5, II, 14.) Plaintiff alleges that Meade and
Winiarski, two employees within the Human Resour-ces Department at WilHam Moms, were
constantly assigning him "dead-end assignments that involved working more with support staff
(mailroom, accounting, reception, business affairs, IT, etc.) or being an Assistant's Assistant,
than getting the opportunity to work with/for Agents:' (Compl. ~~ 83,87.) He alleges that
"[a]lthough Whites were also given similar assignments, the frequency in which [plaintiff] and
the other African American Agent Trainee were assigned these [dead-end] tasks exceeded that of
Whites significantly." (CampI. ~ 83.) According to plaintiff, this was a tactic designed "to
impair his interest in [William Morris] so that he would quit on his own accord or ... leave
involuntarily as a result of not being able to advance ...." (CompI. '187.)
Shortly after plaintiff expressed his belief that he was being discriminated against,
plaintiff was informed "that because of [a] new [c]ompany polky, Floaters and Trainees who
couldn't land a desk within three months would be asked to leave the [c]ompany ...." (CampI.
~, 144, 149.) Thereafter, plaintiff scheduled a meeting with Carole Katz, the head of Human
Resources, "to express his certainty that he was being set up to fail and [was being]
discriminated against ... ," (CampI." 95, 150.) During the meeting, plaintiff delineated the
numerous incidents that "led him to believe .•• he was being discriminated against" (CompL ~
) 51.) He also told Ms, Katz, "I'm talking about this with you behind closed doors, but I can
I Plaintiff explains in his opposition memorandum that William Morris Agency merged with "Endeavor" in April
2010 to become Wi11iam Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, the defendant in this lawsuit. (PI. Opp. Mem. 14.)
In file Complaint, plaintiff refers to both William Morris AgG11cy and William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC
as either the "Company" or "William Morris." I refer specifically to William Morris Agency or William Morris
Endeavor where the facts permit a distinction.
- 2
Case 2:10-cv-09647-PKC -JCF Document 18 Filed 07/20/11 Page 3 of 18
make this a much bigger issue." (Compl. ~ l52.) Ms. Katz "immediately gave [plaintiff] the
option of either working for the next five mOl'lths[,] or being paid with insurance benefits for the
next five months ..... and using the five months to look for another job. (Compi. ~1153.) The
next day, April 9, 2010, plaintiff was given a check in an amount equivalent to five months pay.
(CompI. ,154.) This was plaintiff's last day as all employee of William Moms. (Compi.,
156.)
THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
The parties agr~c that plaintiff signed two arbitration agr@rummts during the
course of his employment. (PI. Opp. Mem. 13; Defs. Mem. 3; Reply 4.) On the first day of
plaintiffs employment, he executed the first agreement with William Moms Agency (the "2008
Arbitration Agreement") as a condition of employment. (PI. Opp. Mem. t3.) He entered into a
second agreement with William Morris Endeavor on July 1,2009 (the "2009 Arbitration
Agreement") as a condition of remaining employed before William Morris Agency merged to
become William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC in April 2010. (PI. Opp. Mem. 14.)
The 2009 Arbitration Agreement provides in relevant part:
The parties agree that any claim, dispute, and/or controversy that either Employee
may have against the Company (as define above), or that the Company may have
against Emptoyee, arising from, related to, or having any relationship or
connection whatsoever with Employee's seeking employment with, maintaining
employment by, or other association with the Company, shall be submitted to and
determined exclusively by binding arbitration under the [FAA] . . .. Included
within the scope of this Agreement are all disputes, whether based on tort,
contract, statute, including, but not limited to, any claims of discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation, whether based on city, state or federal law, claims for
wages or compensation, claims based in equity, or otherwise.
(2009 Arbilration Agreement at 1, attached as Carbone Decl. Ex. B.) It also provides that U[tJhe
Arbitrator, and not any federal, state, or local court or agency, shall have exclusive authority to
resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this
-3
Exhibit FF
Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Agency (September 9, 2008).
Total: 52
White: 51, 98.1%
African American: 0, 0%
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Asians: 1, 1.9%
Total: 10"
White: 10, 100%
African American: D, 0%
Coordinator
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Asian:O,O%
Total: 56*
White: 46, 82.1%
Assistant/Floater African American: 5, 8.9%
Hispanic: 2, 3.6%
Asian: 2, 3.6%
Total: 56* Indian: I, 1.8%
White: 51, 91.1%
African American: 1,1.8% Agent Trainee
Hispanic: 1, 1.8%
Asian: 3, 5.3%
Support Staff (HR, accounting, reception, IT, special services, etc.)

Total: 31
White: 19, 61.3%
Total: 11 African American: 8, 25.8%
White: 2, 18.2% Hispanic: 3, 9.7%
African American: 4, 36.4% Asian: 1, 3.2%
Hispanic: 5, 45.4%
Asian: 0, 0% Mailroom Staff
"'Double counting occurs at the Agent Trainee, Assistant/Floater and Coordinator levels.
In the classic "glass ceiling" pattern of occupational segregation, African Americans and other minorities are restricted and i:lisproportionately clustered into
the lowest levels of responsibility, authority and influence within the organization.
Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Endeavor Ent. (April 10, 2010).
Total: SO
White: 49, 98%
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Asian: 1, 2%
Total:S'"
White: 8, 100%
Hispanic: 0, 0% Coordinator
Asian: 0, 0%
Total: 65·
Assistant/Floater White: 58, 89.2%
African American: 3, 4.6%
Hispanic: 2, 3.1%
Total: 30·
Asian: 2, 3.1%
White: 26, 86.7%
African American: 2, 6.7%
Hispanic: 1, 3.3% Agent Trainee
Asian: I, 3.3%
Support Staff (HR, accounting, reception, IT, special services, etc.) Total: 23
White: 13,56.5%
Total: 7 African American: 7, 30.4%
White: 2, 28.6% Hispanic: 2,8.7%
African American: 2, 28.6% Asian: 1, 4.3%
Hispanic: 3, 42.8%
Asian: 0,0% Mailroom Staff
After telling former co-workers that I was going to sue the company for discrimination, I was informed that the company hired five African American (and other
minorities) floaters in July 2010. This is neither coincidence nor a panacea for a century long history of institutional racism and discriminatory practices.
Exhibit GG
Cite as: 557 U. S. _ (2009) 1
SCALIA, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 07-1428 and 08-328
FRANK RICCI, ET AL., PETITIONERS

07-1428 v.
JOHN DESTEFANO ET AL.
FRANK RICCI, ET AL., PETITIONERS
08-328 v.
JOHN DESTEFANO ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[June 29, 2009]
JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion in full, but write separately to
observe that its resolution of this dispute merely post
pones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront
the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the dispa
rate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of
equal protection? The question is not an easy one. See
generally Primus, Equal Protection and Disparate Impact:
Round Three, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 493 (2003).
The difficulty is this: Whether or not Title VII's dispa
rate-treatment provisions forbid ''remedial'' race-based
actions when a disparate-impact violation would not oth
erwise result-the question resolved by the Court today
it is clear that Title VII not only permits but affIrmatively
requires such actions when a disparate-impact violation
would otherwise result. See ante, at 20-21. But if the
Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating on
the basis of race, Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497, 500
(1954), then surely it is also prohibited from enacting laws
2 RICCI v. DESTEFANO
SCAUA, J., concurring
mandating that third parties-e.g.. employers, whether

private, State, or municipal-discriminate on the basis of
race. See Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 78-82 (1917).
As the facts of these cases illustrate, Title VII's disparate
impact provisions place a racial thumb on the scales, often
requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of
their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of)
those racial outcomes. That type of racial decisionmaking
is, as the Court explains, discriminatory. See ante, at 19;
Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256,
279 (1979).
To be sure, the disparate-impact laws do not mandate
imposition of quotas, but it is not clear why that should
provide a safe harbor. Would a private employer not be
guilty of unlawful discrimination if he refrained from
establishing a racial hiring quota but intentionally de
signed his hiring practices to achieve the same end?
Surely he would. Intentional discrimination is still occur
ring, just one step up the chain. Government compulsion
of such design would therefore seemingly violate equal
protection principles. Nor would it matter that Title VII
requires consideration of race on a wholesale, rather than
retail, level. "[T]he Government must treat citizens as
individuals, not as simply components of a racial, reli
gious, sexual or national class." Miller v. Johnson, 515
U. S. 900, 911 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
And of course the purportedly benign motive for the dispa
rate-impact provisions cannot save the statute. See Ada
rand Constructors, Inc. v. Peiia, 515 U. S. 200, 227 (1995).
It might be possible to defend the law by framing it as
simply an evidentiary tool used to identify genuine, inten
tional discrimination-to "smoke out," as it were, dispa
rate treatment. See Primus, supra, at 498-499, 520-521.
Disparate impact is sometimes (though not always, see
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U. S. 977, 992
(1988) (plurality opinion» a signal of something illicit, so a
Cite as: 557 U. S. _ (2009) 3
SCALIA, J., concurring
regulator might allow statistical disparities to play some

role in the evidentiary process. Cf. McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802-803 (1973). But argua
bly the disparate-impact provisions sweep too broadly to
be fairly characterized in such a fashion-since they fail to
provide an affirmative defense for good-faith (i.e., nonra·
cially motivated) conduct, or perhaps even for good faith
plus hiring standards that are entirely reasonable. See
post, at 15-16, and n. 1 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (de
scribing the demanding nature of the "business necessity"
defense). This is a question that this Court will have to
consider in due course. It is one thing to free plaintiffs
from proving an employer's illicit intent, but quite another
to preclude the employer from proving that its motives
were pure and its actions reasonable.
The Court's resolution of these cases makes it unneces
sary to resolve these matters today. But the war between
disparate impact and equal protection will be waged
sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about
how-and on what terms-to make peace between them.
Exhibit HH
Qualifications of Myself & Similarly Situated White/"Jewish" Agent Trainees That Began Working At the New York office of William Morris in September 2008.
Four years' relevant

work experience as a
Constructively
music journalist tor
discharged in April
Ego Miami/Six
2010 after raising
Degrees, publicist for
complaints of racial
Bachelor's in Media music producer
discrimination to upper
Management and Danjahandz (Justin
management and
September 21, 1984 Psychology in May 2006 Timberlake, Nelly
Human Resources with
Marcus Isaiah
Washington
Africa':na~erican, I September 2, 2008 I Music
Orlando and
Miami, FL
(23, going on 24
years old later that
and Master's in Music
Business and
Furtado, Keri Hilson),
two years co-managing
no action being taken
by organization.
month.) Entertainment Industries in and establishing the
Blacklisted for blowing
May 2008, both from the career of J Records'
whistle on cabal's
University of Miami. recording artist
unlawfully
Jazmine Sullivan, and
discriminatory
GRAMMY®U
practices. Unemployed
for nearly three years.
ldpll."-'l UI. .1.1..110."
gAcadem~.
No experience to my
knowledge. At most,
online
journalistlblogger.
Voluntarily left the
Applied and was
company to PUTllue
Agent Trainee Whitel"Jewish, " July 23, 1985 Bachelor's in May 2007. rejected for an
No. I (JDF) male. I September 2, 2008 I Music
I
Long Island, NY
I (23 years old) College unknown. Assistant position for
other career ambitions
sometime in 2009. Now
Cara Lewis before
an online journalist.
applying to Agent
Trainee Program.
Failed test the first
time.
Bachelor's in
Production/Stage Former Assistant
September 25, 1986 Production Intern at
Management from throughout Theater
Agent Trainee (21, going on 22 The Public Theater in
No.2 (LD)
White, female. I September 2, 2008 I Theater Boston, MA
years old later that
Emerson College in May
May to September
Department. Now
2008. Referred by furmer Assistant in the
month.) 2006.
co-COO of New York Television Department.
Kabak.
Assistant m
Commercial
Department between
March 2009 and June
2010. Promoted to
Bachelor's in Music Coordinator in or
In or around
Agent Trainee White/"Jewish,.. June 4,1988 Business and Spanish from around June 2010. By
September 22, Music New Paltz, NY No experience.
No.3 (MG) male. (20 years old) SUNY Oneonta in May age 23, promoted to
2008.
2008. Agent sometime in
2011. Now, working on
endorsementlbranding
opportunities for
company's established
clients.
Exhibit II
CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY

INTER..OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8; 1997
TO: Richard Lovett 0:: Arlene Newman, Bruce King
FROM: Quinton Embree
RE: Our Meeting
Thanks (or final1y allowing me the time to diSL"U5S with you some of my views nnd feelings at'cut
practices at CAA. Hopefully you have had a c:banc.e to think about some of the things we
discus."led:
1. The lack of color (Asian, Latino, Black) and women in the trainee proglam.
2. The fact that there hasn't been a person of color promoted a::l an agent in the last six years I've
bf:ell a pr\lud participant in lht: t:UUlPIULY.
I
Think of yourself 8S a famler who plants a seed and goes through all the ne::eAsary steps to see
that normal seed grow and blossom into a wanted, ripe. ready,beauHful pJece of truit.
Understand that n farmer who Just growslemol\s, (not lilce lemons can't make lemonade) without
('Jther fruits like bananas, oranges, strawberries, etc: leaves the buying nation without variety and
Bavor. . ','
The future is in your hands. You are the head~chlef of 1he farmers. Hopefully you will walk
through you!' field and see for yourself the lack of flavor and understa:~td the need for it.
Yo~ said to me, fnce-to--face, that you've been looking for "the right one" (meaning Black,. Latino,
Asian, etc.). That was the same phrase that Lee Gabler and. friends said. to me five y('ars ago.
Now it is five years later and you have used the ex~ct same line. That leads me to believe it's a
team ·saying" or theme song. It doesn't make sense that aIter live years, given a nation of peopk
with a million Bold draft picks that nobody qualifies; it seems easier to win the lottery.
Please broaden your view or fmd a new line. R~ember, you can seek to help people in the
community, but it's the examples in your own house that show your true leadership.
Thank you.
Exhibit
Prayers for Extraordinary Relief Under the Court's Inherent Powers
As far as immediate relief is concerned, I am seeking for the appellate court to restore my informa pauperis
status l and vacate P. Kevin Castel's filing injunction pending a determination from the appellate court on
whether or not: (1) P. Kevin Castel has intentionally violated the Constitution, various laws prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color and/or national origin under 42 U.S.C. 1983,42 U.S.c. 1985(3),
numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, as well as his Oath of Office and (2) Michael P.
Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" on
William Morris' behalf in two racial discrimination and human rights cases and whether or not their actions
have violated the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Judiciary Law § 487. These are
issues that would be generally decided in a separate action, but since Castel has issued a filing injunction
against me without ever resolving these serious issues, and then stating my claims were "without merit," I
ask that the filing injunction that has imposed on me be vacated so that I am not deprived of due process.
Based on the facts and the actions of P. Kevin Castel, I have a right to take legal action for intentionally
flouting the law in order to deprive me of my full constitutional and statutory rights, in violation of 28
U.S.C. § 241 and 28 U.S.C. § 242.
The procedural relief that I am seeking, is so closely interconnected to the substantive relief that I
am ultimately the appellate court to grant. In Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,324 (1989), the Supreme
Court stated, "The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C.
1915, is designed to ertsure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts. Toward this
end, 1915(a) allows a litigant to commertce a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by
filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit." On [insert
date], Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska granted me in forma pauperis. 1915(d) authorizes federal courts to
dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis "if the allegation of poverty is untrue." Since pursing this case in
1 On th~~~rt:9~ieJ; Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska of the Southern District ofNew York granted my in forma pauperis
status and since filing my complaint in the federal court, my financial circumstances have only worsened due to being
unemployed for four years.
the Southern District of New York nearly four years ago, my financial circumstances have only worsened.
[included an updated Affidavit detailing my financial circumstance when I submitted my October 3,2014
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion.
1915(d) also authorizes federal courts to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis "if satisfied that
the action is frivolous or malicious. II (emphasis added) In Neitzke, the Court held that an in fonna pauperis
complaint "is frivolous [under § 1915(d)] where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact." Id., at
325. Section 1915 (d) gives the courts "the unusual power to pierce the veil of the complaint's factual
allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless." rd., at 327. However,
in Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992), the Supreme Court stated: "[I]n order to respect the
congressional goal of assuring equality of consideration for all litigants, the initial assessment of the in
forma pauperis plaintiffs factual allegations must be weighted in the plaintiffs favor. A factual
frivolousness finding is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly
incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them, but a complaint
cannot be dismissed simply because the court [mds the allegations to be improbable or unlikely." In a lot
ofways, Castel's decisions to issue a filing injunction against me, revoke my in fonna pauperis status and
prejudice my appeal by stating that it would not be made in good faith, are "without merit" - as stated in
his 2 page October 22,2014 Order to my 54 page October 3,2014 Fed. R. Civ. 60 Fraud Upon the Court
Motion. When I asked to restore my in forma pauperis status, he denied the request due to the fact that I
stated that I would
In review a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court must give the complaint the benefit
ofa liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). The Court must also weight all factual
allegations in favor of the plaintiff, unless the facts alleged are clearly baseless. Denton v. Hemandez, 504
U.S. 25,32-33 (1992); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232,236 (1974).
I ask that the Appellees not be given an extension to submit their opposition to this Motion because
they never responded to the last three Motions that were submitted to P. Kevin Castel in the Southern
District of New York and the arguments raised here are essentially the same. I ask that the last two issues
be resolved, due to the fact that P. Kevin Castel chose to ignore all evidence proving that Loeb & Loeb LLP
should have never been allowed to represent William Morris in this present litigation. I also ask that these
issues be resolved, because Christian Carbone has continued to make numerous misrepresentations to the
Court while remaining silent about his relationship to AAA executive Sasha Angelique Carbone. As a
result, I ask that in addition to the Appellees' response, that Christian Carbone submit an Affidavit
discussing his relationship to Sasha A. Carbone throughout this case. Ifthe Second Circuit refuses to resolve
these issues,
[footnote] I decided to include as an exhibit, a more detailed, albeit still incomplete, explanation of
the extraordinary relief I am seeking pursuant to the Court's inherent powers. If my in
forma pauperis status is not restored
Castel has always been made aware of my dire fmancial circumstances. Pursuant to Fed. R. App.
P. Rule 24(a)(l), I submitted. Even after I submitted an updated and notarized Affidavit detailing my
current fmancial situation as a result of being unemployed for four years, he still refused to restore my
status.
This case is dealing with an extremely important social issue. This year marks the 50 year
anniversary ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964' s passage. Based on the facts ofthis case and unrefuted evidence
presented, is there real reason to celebrate the "progress" that we've made?
In forma pauperis was because of the comment made in my footnote, which stated: "I can fill in
the blanks [contained in my October 3,2014 Motion] in my appeal to the Second Circuit or 'under oath'
before a jury trial in a separate action when I sue P. Kevin Castel for intentionally depriving me ofmy rights
under the color oflaw."
I have absolutely no reason to lie on William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig,
Christian Carbone, the American Arbitration Association, Timothy K. Lewis or anyone else for that matter.
With the amount of evidence I've uncovered and presented, why would 1 need to do that?
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 33, the "court may direct the attorneys - and, when appropriate, the
parties - to participate in one or more conferences to address any matter that may aid in disposing of the
proceedings, including simplifying the issues and discussing settlement."
I have proven that my race, color and/or perceived national origin played a motivating factor in
why I was not hired and/or promoted to Agent by William Morris. As stated in Arbitrator Gregory's Partial
Final Award, I am entitled to back pay, front pay, compensatory & punitive damages, "recompense ... for
avoidable delays" and "reasonable fees and costs, as a pro se non-attorney prevailing party on statutory
claims in a case ofconsiderable procedural and substantive complexity." Additionally, extreme disciplinary
and monetary sanctions should be imposed against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb
LLP for their egregious violations ofthe New York Rules ofProfessional Conduct and New York Judiciary
Law § 487.
with the human rights of people of African descent and crimes against the United States of America, these
claims are clearly ofmerit. P. Kevin Castel was appointed to the bench to a lifelong term as a representative
of the United States of America. He made an oath to uphold the Constitution, but it appears he's upholding
the original version of the Constitution in which people of African descent were classified as "three-fifths
a person" due to the fact that the "black man had no rights to which the white man was bound to respect."
[cite case law.] In her book titled The Isis'2 (ySSIS) Papers: The Keys to the Colors, general and child
psychologist Dr. Frances Cress-Wei sing provides one of the best "functional defmition[s] of racism." She
describes "global white supremacy (racism)" 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
2 Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, The Isis (ySSIS) Papers: The Keys to the Colors. p. vii. ("Isis was the most important
goddess of ancient Africa (specifically, Egypt). She was the sister/wife of the most important Egyptian god, Osiris
("Lord of the perfect Black"), and the mother of Horus. In the astral interpretation of the Egyptian gods, Isis was
equated with the dog star Sirius (Sothis). According to the ancient African story, after the murder and dismemberment
of Osiris by his evil brother Set (Seth), Isis discovered the crime, recovered the pieces of the body of Osiris, and put
them together again, restoring his existence and his power, According to legend, Isis admired truth and justice and
made justice stronger than gold and silver,")
simultaneously in all areas of people activity (economics. education. entertainment. labor. law,
politics, relieion. 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. All of the non-white people
are genetically dominant (in terms ofskin coloration) compared to the genetically recessive white-
skinned people." (emphasis added). .
Although William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Since Arbitrator Gregory denied both ofmy conspiracy
claims under the political question doctrine, I ask that my antitrust and conspiracy to interfere with the
human rights of people of African descent claims be forwarded to Congress and President Barack H.
Obama. I have filed complaints with the EEOC, the New York Attorney General's office, the Departmental
Disciplinary Committee [in 2012] and neither department has done an investigation. The reason is because
majority of the members who comprise these organizations are white and/or "Jewish." [GITE:'€ASES
Am I wrong for trying to diversifY the executive ranks of Hollywood and other industries
throughout America? No! John W. Cones, Esq. a white male - said it perfectly:
[Ilt is time 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 through this significant medium for the communication ofideas. After all, it is also
clear that regardless of who Controls Hollywood and with what results, it is absolutely
inappropriate in our multi-cultural society for any readily identifiable interest group (whether the
group identity is based on ethnicity, culture, religion, class or otherwise) to be allowed to dominate
or control this, or any important communications medium. Diversity is the key.
Affirmative action and quotas. Disparate impact theory. Passing the Arbitration Fairness Act so
mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements will not be deemed enforceable in employment related
disputes. United Nations. 2015 - 2024 Marks.
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 44, this case also raises important constitutional issues, one being: If
the Constitution was created by all-white, distinguished group of men who believed that people of African
descent were inferior and only "three-fifths" of a person and in 2014, society and the world are still
governed by the myth ofwhite racial superiority, ? Talent Agencies Act constitutional if it is being used by
Hollywood to maintain a race-based monopoly over who is hired and/or promoted to Agent, when the
decision by these historically all-white//"Jewish" institutions is ultimately subjective and tined with racial
bias?
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 46(b), this motion and/or the appeal also seeks the imposition of
extreme monetary and disciplinary sanctions against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Michael
Barnett, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris, including the disbarment of each attorney that has
"represented" William Morris and profited from engaging in fraud throughout this case. Each Loeb & Loeb
LLP attorney is "guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the court's bar" and has violated numerous
Rules under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct., as well as violated New York Judiciary Law
§487. See Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(l)(B). "The court must enter an appropriate order after the member
responds and a hearing is held, ifrequested, or after the time prescribed for a response expires, ifno response
is made." Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)(3). Since Zweig, Castel and Loeb & Loeb LLP have not responded to my
last three Motions addressing the immense "fraud upon the Court" that has happened in my case and Castel
never compelled them to do so before denying my claims as being "without merit," I ask that this Motion
not be denied without compelling Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys to respond to these serious claims.
Majority ofthese arguments discussed in this Motion are not new to the Second Circuit Essentially,
I've in one giant circle, with no finder of fact explaining how as a matter of law and public policy, the
mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements I signed as a condition of employment were enforceable
based on the fact that William Morris was engaging in an intentional pattern and practice of excluding
qualified African Americans and people of color from meaningful positions of employment such as Agent
without a having a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" or "business justification," and were thus
violating Section 1981, Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL before, during and after my employment at the
company? Was arbitration the most appropriate forum for this particular case? No. Since employers are
using these contracts as a "savvy, legal loophole" to deprive token minority employees of the procedural
protections afforded under Title VII, Congress must pass the Arbitration Fairness Act and strengthen the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 to combat more institutional, insidious systemic and pervasive forms of
discrimination in the workplace, as well as throughout society.

The unlawful actions ofP. Kevin Castel have helped to strip the substantive and procedural strength
that it once had. It is clear the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be restrengthened to combat the role a
company's "institutional practices, organizational structures and work culture defined along racialized
lines" perpetuates existing inequality throughout the America workplace, and society as a whole.
As the Second Circuit is aware, I made four attempts to appeal the July 20,2011 Stay Order ofP.
Kevin Castel which erroneously compelled my case into arbitration between September 28, 2011 and June
-,-,-,2a'l~ to address many of the exact same issues that are being raised in this motion three years later. I
result, I have doubts that the Second Circuit will be able to remain impartial in deciding all aspects of my
appeal, 3 especially since P. Kevin Castel has prejudiced my appeal by stating that it would not be made in
"good faith." As a result, I ask that this Motion, as well as other pleadings pertaining to this appeal, be
transferred to another circuit or in the alternative, the appellate judges Gerard E. Lynch, Peter W. Hall and
Denny Chin be recused from making any decisions concerning my attempts to have this manifest injustice
corrected.
Castel has essentially wasted four years ofmy life issuing five one-sided decisions that completely
disregarded the facts and our nation's antidiscrimination laws. Since Castel has granted the Appellees and
their counsel granted an unwarranted amount ofrelief despite engaging in a "pattern" of "highly unethical
and criminal activity," I am seeking extraordinary relief from the Second Circuit that is intended to correct
this "manifest injustice" and make me "whole" in the least amount oftime as possible.
Castel knew that I was going to appeal his decision ifhe ignored the fact that that the arbitrator's
decision regarding the issue of arbitrability and jurisdiction was made in "manifest disregard of the law,"
due to violations under § 10 of the FAA tiTE,§ASE ,J;;A:\v.' Although Arbitrator Gregory or Mr. Lewis
decided to enforce William Morris' arbitration agreements, neither were able to show how the law
3 My doubts are also based on my knowledge of what happened to Leonard Rowe and the class of black concert
promoters when they tried to appeal the January 2005 Order ofRobert P. Patterson. Panel judges
supported their conclusions. In fact, no law was cited and Mr. Lewis never once acknowledged what my
arguments were.
Lastly, I ask that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34, that this Motion or any other aspect of my appeal
to vitiate all decisions rendered by P. Kevin Castel not be decided by the appellate court without allowing
for oral argument so all sides can speak under oath. Before any aspect of my motion or appeal is decided I
am seeking an expedited oral hearing so the parties can speak under oath pursuant to Fed. R. App P. 34.
I respectfully submit this Motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8, 24 and 46 and Local Rules l1li
IIIlII seeking extraordinary reliefunder the court's inherent powers, including but not limited to restoring
my in forma pauperis (IFP) status, vacating the filing injunction imposed against me until issue of "fraud
upon Court" is decided and/or vitiating all decisions rendered by P. Kevin Castel and the AAA and granting
default judgment on all claims as a disciplinary sanction against the Appellees and their counsel for
engaging in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court," violating numerous Rules under the New York Rules of
Professional Conduct and New York Judiciary Law §487.

Exhibit A
November 3,2014
Mr. Christian Dominic Carbone

Loeb & Loeb LLP
345 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10154
Re: Final Request For Loeb & Loeb LLP Attorney Christian Carbone to Disclose Information on
Relationship to Sasha AngeJique Carbone I Marcus I. Washington v. William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF)
Christian Dominic Carbone:
On March 10, 2014, I first reached out to you and asked if it was true that you were married to Sasha Angelique
Carbone - former employee of Loeb & Loeb LLP and a current and/or former executive (e.g. "Associate General
Counsel") for the American Arbitration Association, which just so happens to be the same arbitral forum you sought
Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York to have my employment
discrimination and human rights case against William Morris compelled to. The same arbitration association that
allowed their arbitrators to erroneously decide the issue of arbitrability without discussing the parties' arguments
and/or citing any case law although P. Kevin Castel's July 20,2011 Stay Order directed the arbitrator to decide that
issue. The same arbitration association that unlawfully disqualified Arbitrator David L. Gregory after he issued his
Partial Final Award on December 17, 2013, which concluded that I proved by a "preponderance ofthe 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
full gamut of monetary damages (including punitive damages and pro se non attorney's fees) during phase 2 of our
bifurcated proceeding. The same arbitration association that allowed AAA board of director and Schnader LLP
attorney Timothy K. Lewis - who has worked closely with Sasha Angelique Carbone as a member of the AAA's
Diversity Committee - to vacate Gregory's Partial Final Award in violation of § 10 ofthe Federal Arbitration Act [the
Award was ripe and final for the sake of judicial review and only Castel had jurisdiction to confirm, modity and/or
vacate Gregory's Award or disqualify him after issuing the Award]. The same arbitration association that refused to
disqualify Lewis and allowed him to dismiss my case "with prejudice and on the merits" because I continued to
publicly object to the clear fraud that was taking place in my case. The same arbitration association that advertises
itself as being "neutral."
1 believe that as a licensed attorney in the State of New York, you had an ethical obligation to disclose information
about your marriage to Sasha Angelique Carbone to both the Southern District of New York and myself when you
decided to "represent" William Morris alongside Michael P. Zweig in this case. Since you knew that this case was
being compelled to the same forum that your wife worked for, you should have opted against representing William
Morris and you should have never been allowed to profit from this case. If this information is true, I believe that you
highly unethical actions constitute violations under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct
[www.nycourts.govirulesljointappel1ateINY-Rules-Prof-Conduct-1200.pdfl and New York Judiciary Law § 487. I
also believe your actions constitute further evidence of the overall "pattern" of fraud Loeb & Loeb LLP has engaged
in for decades throughout America's judicial system on William Morris' behalf (e.g. Rowe Entertainment et aI. v.
William Morris Agency et a!. (98 Civ. 8287 (RPP) (JCF») and Arbitrator Gregory's decision to admit "Exhibit 31"
into the "evidence ofthe record" in my case) to ensure that African American litigants seeking to effectuate the public
policy goals of our nation's civil & human rights laws by challenging William Morris' institutionally racist
employment and business practices in the federal court, are deprived of their full constitutional and statutory rights
under the color oflaw and prevented from having the merits oftheir case be decided by an impartial jury.
Since Castel denied my request to have you confirm or deny this information by Affidavit, stated months later in his
September 5, 2014 Final Order that the marriage was "alJeged" [despite Heather Santo's response to my inquiry],
issued a filing injunction against me from going against Loeb & Loeb LLP, its attorneys and other co-conspirators for
fraud and any other claim I deemed necessary to correct this manifest injustice, revoked my in forma pauperis status,
prejudiced my appeal by stating that my appeal would not be made in "good faith" and denied my October 3, 2014
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion as being "without merit," I want to give you one last opportunity
before I submit my appeal to the Second Circuit, to be honest by either confirming or denying that you are and/or were
married to Sasha Angelique Carbone ("Sasha AngeUque Smith") at any time during your representation of William
Morris in Washington v. William Moms Endeavor Entertainment et aI. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF).
I just did a brief search online and the first link directed me here:
.,.
U
. PeopleSmart'
Search Successful! 1 Public Record Report Found .
.., 0::>,"1 ReO)m~ •.,t' Bdnkrupto(!S, 'f' Mal n39P.- J:i;!'~ords ..; Jud$.!ments l tl'i'f\$
...t .4(h1f8$~ HiS!cuy ..," P,iJpe.ftv· Rt:r.oid~ I¢' Re,tJ! Estat~ tnio "'" Much Mo,,,'
SASHA
~ r;~'- +;: • .,: I ~'," ," , .... -, "I;'" "' '1:" 1- :.," My 7/ ' . ~ " y'" ~ . . /1
'Na~ I ~ ~ ,l;ooed4n j Posdl:»e,~Mi(}"" " ~COM~le De1tw.. ,
" ~. . ' . ' . \ t" • , j
M!ddleN~me
ChBDP<'lq'R NY Chrt,t!an [)amlnlc 1 \' \'"p;,1 j~~ ()n-::<).) ,
N<?w YOlk. NY C"rbone -<- _ " >, _::<L\.~_~. "''''' ~ ... , .1
.sc~r.5da-je_ NY
By ~(;'f! ~.(;,;~ 'J_t:t!4Ht: Y';:'II ~;r{i-'; .~~ r,'l1t 1~f}~';; <,~'lt'S,: '<lQ ?~t"Iiii.":" ?~l1t:r. P~,,::;:'iv~lm.tn;:;s. [i~t e 1i:i..H';$!.:f:'l-e-1 Utp{mmg e>;''l;',n{,), GrJJ il(;~~~
CARBONE nCfU--:!ii!' tDn!'.umii' :ap,ai{l; d$ CI.iJd'I~ ey !'.h;o ~..~t1.f.i"":I!"J).itn(' fnrr (rtoWI '1;€.OilIUtlg !'.....:1lFCf:I,.t),t p{JI'.l'~Sflmn U"...H:·";- l"'.ofv4;mf, r..?
v'illll1!l!{' ~n<:l'1 ~11)';-5 ¢f ~~~ {}f:~~ f!'tt"'lKe~ n;} \43~fdfin,,~ t~! g-U~!lr.;l?'H MJOt~~ L'l"! l!!:C{ll~~;'''i, AAt.!:lW -off1iiTt)'l'J CjJme.s rtf-,m P;U:tM!~
SOIlft;i:;S NOf1i' ot \hA ,~f,)tmilttrH! !)f1fiN'i!iJ Dj' P~,~&S.mdn (.Tt!'! tot: !l'~j tor ':;Lvr&~-"9: -0: ~1f~!l~1jt.~ -t't iJ~r'.iOO -;, O:'i9tt)O'fJ~.( fru 6m91C>1'f::lffPt
!iOI.:.ttrlg, ft"4".1:e-:j<;'''::!. (",r,:tlt, ~ f::,t ""r.y ::m',(n I!IJlU';'~~ t:<:,".,.-,'tf~~j ~l!:Jl~1 u-.~ ~C"A f.:i',:'oY.v ~ft ("',¥{}~;Ht l!}t !'.t1 r.':t:J <ifn~t~!imtlni. scfeoer ';1l<3
~!!'~:.
And the second link directed me here:
Proflte Sections
MRM!b1f
,C<mt2'.:t tnlD
Euucaiion Into
: I"IlIle1r.;lonallnlo
"~CI~I NelWort< tn!o
Sasna Angellque SfI'JIh
SasIla A catbone
Age
Sasha Mgel.qut' Smllh '5 mher
40's
5••118 11M liveclln

CIl.cago.ll
Chappaqua. NY
NewCastle, DE "'_",onat
--AI_
ScarSlJaIe, NY sta...
Alsodals ......",11
Coo• ..,1
s...ha·s Relative.
A_OIl
CllflSllan C-lIrbOne
JO)"'" E\f!rr, Pinks
A_lIoo
A lSO_at
AmRlan
ArDllrIIIIon
A.....1alIoo
Addllionallnlomatlon on Suha Anuellque Smith
profile Sec.tions
M~"Al
'0mIact1llfo
Edufilllmllmu
IMiniM's!
'Soc!31_M<1I!fo
S/lsIlIAngt!lque _ IIMV._",._
@__ IM.~
$:WIOAIogdiIpIt _ . f_ionaI
_ _ c_
--..
--~.\I-
. AmI!~ren Albllra!roll Assoda!loo
)~~;f,tkM
tIc<lprofll; &11·1000 ~_; IIlIe!1taWell!sput0 Re-s-_U1Ilu!lJ'l', TI\I! ~>\OOoaIt.adef inoonflldmartilllemelllsmc& 1926. JIM>
AI'NIIlClll' Adli1rBlion AilSOdatOllIS a not.for-proM. ~UIlI«: saviCelllganl::!1llOJl comm:ll&d to Ul0 resoIIJ!I!lII III ~;!IIT. U\e
. U!lQQI arn!trdlIOO, meaialiOll, ~~. ~ e!edlOll5an~ omervoNl\1llIy ~1!!.ln2002., moralllan
230.000 cases \l111e I11e;j \'Illl'III'Jl ~OCUltilllln a1ll!I range 111 malIm ~ COIIIlI1~ Ilnan(.e., ~'I, IaIlOl and
, empI411TllM~ lJISuraru:e, mass Claim. aM 1~1 /IlSiJU1ef. TllIoIIlIIl iii 30 oI!k:I\$lIl Ul0 UMed StalU and Eutoll'l, I/lo MIl
1'llI"'lIIIsaMrumfl:lr1!lt1ll!al1n!l oldlsj)ll\'tS. rule'! andploce<tum and aIIlSlETllIllI1Ilmallll'l"f!S tof8SllMltS!I!S.
-lCIebS U)eIl LLP

....~.~"''$
ParlnelShi!>: 2ll1·SOO erto;JIoyeas, la;. i'tadit9 indlJ;l!y
Had I been married to an executive at the American Arbitration Association or any forum with the jurisdiction to
decide any aspect of my case, and did not disclose that information to William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and the
Southern District of New York, you, Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP would have moved for the Southern District of
New York to throw out any decision made in my favor and requested that serious sanctions be imposed against me
for engaging in considerable "bad faith" and having "unclean hands." For eight months, you have refused to
acknowledge or answer my request for information about your relationship to Sasha Angelique Carbone, but had I
been married to an executive at the American Arbitration Association, I would not be allowed to wait 'eight months to
answer your question because Castel would have compelled me to disclose this information and had I been an actual
attorney, there's no question that Castel would have immediately disbarred me,
As you are aware: fraud vitiates everything and pursuant to New York Judiciary Law § 487(1), an attorney or counselor
"who is guilty ofany deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any
party ... is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the pWlishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits
to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action." The irreparable harm that I've suffered as a
result of the overall fraud you, Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris have engaged in is astronomical. Four
years of my life have essentially been wasted litigating a case whose outcome was largely pre-determined no matter
the unrefuted pyramid of evidence that I presented to prove my claims of intentional systemic disparate treatment,
disparate impact, pre and post-hiring individual disparate treatment under Section 1981, Title VII, NYSHRL and
NYCHRL, as well as claims ofconspiracy to interfere with the human rights ofpeople of African descent and antitrust
violations under the Sherman and Donnelly Acts. Since the Constitution guarantees "equal protection under tile law"
and justice should be blind to race in our allegedly "post-racial" United States of America, then the punishments I
would receive as a result of my "highly unethical and criminal conduct" should be no different than the punishments
you, Michael P. Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP, William Morris and other various parties should receive for intentionally
engaging in fraud and conspiring to ensure that I was depriVed of my full constitutional and statutory rights under the
color of law.
Whether you decide to dignify my last request or not, just know that you will not be able to remain silent about this
information forever, so you might has well tell the truth now. I ask that you reply to this e-mail no later than Friday,
November 7, 2014. MyFRAP 8, 24, 46(b) Motion to the Second Circuit will be submitted on or before November 21.
2014.
Best,
ItItJ bS.J.*
Marcus Washington
CC: ChiefJudge Loretta A. Preska., Southern District ofNew York (U.S. mail)
Federal Judge P. Kevin Castel, Southern District of New York (U.S. mail)
Federal Judge Robert P. Patterson, Southern District ofNew York (U.S. mail)
India Johnson, President of the American Arbitration Association (e-mail)
Michael Beck, Chairman of Loeb & Loeb LLP (e-mail)
Michael P. Zweig, Partner at Loeb & Loeb LLP (e-mail)
Michael Barnett, Associate at Loeb & Loeb LLP (e-mail)
Tal Dickstein, Senior Counsel at Loeb & Loeb LLP (e-mail)
Exhibit B
Case 1:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 66 Filed 11117/14 Page 1 of 3
MICHAEL P. ZWEIG
Partner
345 Park Avenue Direct 212.407.4960

New York. NY 10154 Main 212.407.4000
Fax 212.208.2582
mzweig@loeb.com
Via ECF
Via Messenger
November 17,2014
Hon. P. Kevin Castel

United States District Judge
United States District Court
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC et a/..

Case No. 10-CV-09647-PKC-JCF (S.D.N.Y.)
Dear Judge Castel:
We represent the Defendants in the above-captioned action and write pursuant to your Honor's
Individual Practice Rules to seek leave to file a motion for a Protective Order. The Order would
prohibit Marcus Washington, a party in the above-titled action, from engaging in a continuing
course of conduct that threatens to undermine the Order and Judgment of this Court, entered on
September 5, 2014. confirming the arbitration award issued by Judge (Ret.) Timothy K. Lewis.
Mr. Washington has, since the issuance of your Honor's Order, continued the type of conduct
that led Judge Lewis. in the underlying arbitration, to issue a Confidentiality Order (Exhibit A)
prohibiting Mr. Washington (and all other parties) from making negative or derogatory
comments about anyone involved in the arbitration. Judge Lewis subsequently found Mr.
Washington to be in contempt of this Order. Exhibit 8.
Notwithstanding Judge Lewis's prior Confidentiality Order and contempt finding - which clearly
outlined for Mr. Washington the boundaries of acceptable litigant conduct - Mr. Washington has
embarked on a campaign to harass, insult, defame and threaten William Morris Endeavor
Entertainment, LLC ("WMEIJ) and its counsel, as well as this Court. Such recent
communications include, without limitation:
• A November 3, 2014 letter sent to your Honor, Chief Judge Preska, Judge Patterson and
others, in which Mr. Washington accuses WME, its counsel and the American Arbitration
Association ("AAA") of defrauding him and engaging in criminal conduct. Exhibit C.
• A November 3,2014 email forwarding Mr. Washington's November 3 letter to numerous

Loeb & Loeb attorneys, as well as to several AAA employees. Exhibit D.
• A November 7.2014 email forwarding Mr. WaShington's November 3 letter to numerous

high-level employees of IMG. a WME affiliate. Exhibit E.
Los Angeles New York Chicago Nashville Washington. DC Beijing "';;. ", .kwh,,·,,·,
NY1310057.1
It. timitl"d 1;"b!IH~# pan:nl!rsnip including p,ofc!':.ional corpuratums 058426--10022
Case 1:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 66 Filed 11/17/14 Page 2 of 3
November 17, 2014

Page 2
• A November 12, 2014 email forwarding his November 3 letter to all members of the
Second Circuit's Committee on Admissions and Grievances. Exhibit F.
• Numerous defamatory and virulent blog posts in which Mr. Washington makes such
statements as "the southern district of new york needs to be "FUMIGATED"!!! get those
racist and corrupt rats out of there!!" Exhibit G.
This Court has already enjoined Mr. Washington from filing any action in a federal court that
arises out of his employment with WME or the arbitration, and from filing any lien against any
person involved in the arbitration or litigation. Dkt. No. 59. Mr. Washington, through his filings,
has already submitted to the jurisdiction and authority of this Court, and it is necessary for the
proper administration of justice that he be expressly enjoined from engaging in the
aforementioned extrajudicial conduct - which threatens, among other things, to impair the
Judgment previously issued by this Court.
We note that the "substance" of Mr. Washington's latest communications is identical to

allegations he asserted in the arbitration - namely, to accuse every person who has found his
claims to be meritless, or opposed his antics, or otherwise not agreed with him, of engaging in
criminal conduct and participating in a vast conspiracy against him.
Although Mr. Washington has appealed this Court's September 5,2014 Order (Dkt. No. 65), this
Court retains jurisdiction to enter a Protective Order. See, e.g., Marrese v. American Academy
of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 379 (1985) (filing of a notice of appeal "divests the
district court of control [only] over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal"); Red Ball
Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa, 947 F. Supp. 116,120 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (district court
retained jurisdiction to "impose contempt sanctions for disobedience of an Order currently on
appeal").
This Court also retains the inherent authority to enter a Protective Order for the purposes of
policing the conduct of the litigants still appearing before it - and, in this case, who continue to
make submissions to the Court. See, e.g., Robert v. DOJ, 439 Fed. Appx. 32, 35 (2d Cir. 2011)
(district court has inherent authority to impose sanctions and restrictions on litigants who abuse
the judicial process).
Finally, Mr. Washington's efforts to undermine the Judgment of the Court, and the underlying
arbitration award, provided an additional basis for this Court's authority to regulate the conduct
of the parties before it. See, e.g., Wyly v. Weiss, 697 F.3d 131, 145 (2d Cir. 2012) (affirming a
district court's injunction against state-court litigation that was inconsistent with district court's
judgment and denial of Rule 60(b) motion).
Defendants therefore respectfully ask for leave to file a motion for a Protective Order that would
prohibit Mr. Washington (and all other parties), upon penalty of contempt, from publishing or
disseminating (whether by mail, electronic or other means), or filing in a court, any harassing,
threatening, denigrating, defamatory or disparaging statements, of and concerning a party to
this proceeding, WME, its affiliate IMG, their respective employees, WME's attorneys at Loeb &
Loeb LLP (including without limitation, Michael Zweig and Christian Carbone), and/or the judges
and arbitrators who have overseen and currently oversee this matter; provided, however, Mr.
NY1310057.1
058426·10022
November 17. 2014

Page 3
Washington would not be prevented from making factual or legal arguments in his pending
Second Circuit appeal.
We thank your Honor for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/~~-~Zb
Partner
cc: Marcus Washington (via email)
NY1310057.1
058426-1 0022
Exhibit C
November 21, 2014
Mr. P. Kevin Castel

Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
Re: William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's November 17,2014 Letter Seeking A Protective Order I
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. (10 Civ. 9647) (PKC) (JCF)
Mr. Castel:
You, as well as Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Michael Barnett, are
well aware that "no later than November 21, 2014," I would be filing a Motion pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8,24
and 46 in the Second Circuit, which ultimately seeks the extraordinary relief of vitiating all decisions rendered by
yourself and the American Arbitration Association due to "fraud upon the Court" and "fraud upon the Court, by the
Court," and granting default judgment on all claims in my favor. Due to the fact that you have already violated the
Constitution, the law, numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, as well as your Oath of Office over
the last four years ofpresiding over this case, it wouldn't surprise me ifyou decided to continue to abuse your power
and grant the Defendants' new request for a Protective Order against me. Although I was supposed to spend this
week completing my motion to the appellate court, I have taken the last four days to respond to Zweig's request "to
seek leave to file a motion for a Protective Order" that would prohibit me "from engaging in a continuing course of
conduct that threatens to undermine the Order and Judgment of this Court. entered on September 5, 2014.
confirming the arbitration award issued by Judge (Ret.) Timothy K. Lewis" just so I can ensure that the record
is preserved. (emphasis added) For the following reasons, I ask that William Morris and Loeb & Loeb's request
should be denied:
First and foremost, any legal action that I take to undo the fraudulently procured decisions ofyourself, the American
Arbitration Association and Schnader LLP attorney Timothy K. Lewis, will be viewed by yourself, William Morris,
Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and others involved in this race-based conspiracy to deprive me of my
constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law, as "conduct that threatens to undermine the Order and
Judgment of this Court." Isn't that the entire point of an appeal? If not, then what is? Although you stated that my
October 3, 2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court was "without merit," I, as well as the law, clearly disagree.
So now, your predominately all-white comrades in the appellate court have the jurisdiction to review your decisions
de novo and determine the issues you refused to decide andlor chose to decide erroneously.
In my March 17,2014, April 10,2014 and October 3,2014 Motions, I demonstrated a number of reasons why
Arbitrator David L. Gregory's December 17, 2013 Partial Final Award was reviewable by the federal court pursuant
to §§ 9-12 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Your sole reliance on Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, S.A., 624 F.2d
411,414 (2d Cif. 1980) was erroneous and you know that. If Arbitrator Gregory's Award was not "fmal, for the
sake ofjudicial review," it was most defmitely ripe for judicial review and you allowed my due process to be further
violated by letting the AAA disqualify Arbitrator Gregory without reason after he issued his "fmal award" on the
issue of arbitrability/jurisdiction, liability and indicated what damages both parties would receive during phase two
ofour bifurcated proceeding. Your September 5, 2014 Final Order doesn't acknowledge that I requested a bifurcated
proceeding. Whether or not both parties agreed, Arbitrator Gregory was aware that I asked for a bifurcated
proceeding ifhe decided to exceed his powers by enforcing William Morris' unconscionable mandatory, pre-dispute
arbitration agreements in order to prevent an impartial jury from issuing a "fmal" verdict on the merits ofmy claims.
Since you did not confirm andlor vacate Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award and did not disqualify
Mr. P. Kevin Castel

November 21, 2014
Page 2
Arbitrator Gregory, all decisions rendered by Schnader LLP attorney and AAA board of director Timothy K.
Lewis should be vitiated because he had no lawful authority to preside over my case against William Morris.
And even ifhis appointment was lawful, he should have been disqualified by the AAA once I became aware
that he worked closely with Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone's wife - Sasha Angelique Carbone
as members of the AAA's Diversity Committee.
Secondly, as of today, I have not violated or thought about violating your September 5, 2014 Order and Judgment.
Although I have demonstrated throughout my last three Motions! the numerous ways in which you have
intentionally deprived me of my full constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law in violation of 28
U.S.C. § 241, 28 U.S.c. § 242, 42 U.S.c. § 1983 and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, I have complied with your
filing injlUlction by not suing you in your individual capacity, as well as sue the United States of America, for
intentionally conspiring to oppress and interfere with the human rights of people of African descent. I also have not
filed a commercial lien against you or anyone else who has engaged fraud, conspiracy, racketeering activity, perjury,
obstruction of justice, violations of New York Judiciary Law § 487, crimes against humanity, etc. Although my
due process has been violated, I am still trying to remain respectful ofthe concept ofdue process by first submitting
my issues and concerns to the appellate court to see if they agree with the lUllawful decisions rendered by the district
court and the American Arbitration Association.
Third, you no longer have jurisdiction over this case and by sending you a S!!J!l: of the November 3, 2014 letter
addressed to Christian Carbone, I did not "submit[ ] to the jurisdiction and authority of this Court." I submitted my
fmal request to Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone to disclose information about his marriage to AAA
executive Sasha Angelique Carbone on November 3, 2014. In the letter, I asked Christian Carbone to provide his
response by Affidavit only no later than November 7,2014. I wanted to give Carbone one last opportunity to disclose
this information before I submitted my Motion to the Second Circuit. Once again, Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP
chose to remain silent. On November 12, 2014, I submitted my Notice to Appeal - officially relinquishing the
Southern District of New York's jurisdiction over this case.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. 1(a) explicitly states that "If a timely motion is made for relief that the court lacks authority to grant
because of an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion; (2) deny
considering the motion; or (3) state either that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose
or that the motion raises a substantial issue" Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. 1(b) states that "the movant must promptly notify the
circuit clerk under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12.1 if the district court states that it would grant the motion or
that the motion raises a substantial issue" and Fed. R. Civ. P. 62. 1(c) states that the "district court may decide the motion
if the court of appeals remands for that purpose." Also, in the 2009 Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. App. P. 12.1,
it states: "After an appeal has been docketed and while it remains pending, the district court cannot grant relief under a
rule such as Civil Rule 60(b) without a remand. But it can entertain the motion and deny it, defer consideration, state that
it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose, or state that the motion raises a substantial
issue."
Zweig is aware ofthis fact, because he states in his letter that the filing of a notice ofappeal "divests the district court
of control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopedic
Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373,379 (1985). (emphasis added) Based on Zweig acknowledgment and citation of this case,
it is clear that he only submitted this letter to you to be vexatious and to distract me from completing my motion to
the appellate court. 2
I March 10,2014 Motion to Disqualify Due to Fraud Upon the Court, April 10, 2014 Motion for Reconsideration and
October 3,2014 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion.
2 Of course Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP would try to keep this case going as much as possible since they are
making hlUldreds of thousands of dollars to obtain favorable verdicts through deception and fraud.
Mr. P. Kevin Castel

November 21,2014
Page 3
Fourth, I sent copies of the letter to the three federal judges in the Southern District of New York who are familiar
with this case and my additional claims of "fraud upon the Court." conspiracy, engaging in attorney misconduct,
etc. that I cannot pursue due to a fIling injunction that you have placed on me. The Pro Se office uploaded the letter
that I sent to Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska onto the docket sheet and as a result, the document, as well as all
pleadings that will be submitted to the Second Circuit and Supreme Court, is public record. Your Orders create the
impression that since the inception of this case, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Zweig and Carbone's conduct has been both
ethical and lawful and that I - the victim of William Morris' racially discriminatory employment practices, policies
and procedures according to Arbitrator Gregory's December 17,2013 Partial Final Award am raising "frivolous"
claims that are "without merit" and am engaging in considerable "bad faith." This is untrue, and you know it. This
is one of the reasons I decided to also forward this letter to many members of the legal community, since pursuant
to Rule 8.3(a) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, "A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has
committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's
honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority
empowered to investigate or act upon such violation."3
Fifth, you have somehow been appointed as the Chairman to the Grievance Committee for the Southern District of
New York - the committee specifically created to resolve complaints alleging attorney misconduct. In your
September 5, 2014 Final Order, you essentially said there was nothing unethical about an attorney's willful failure
to disclose to the opposing party, that hislher significant other was employed by the judicial or quasi-judicial forum
deciding the case. However, I know that Christian Carbone's refusal to disclose information that his wife was and/or
is General Counsel for the American Arbitration Association to myself or the federal court when he sought to compel
the cause under the jurisdiction of the AAA is extremely deceptive and highly unethical because as stated in my
final letter to Carbone, had I been married to someone who worked for the federal court or arbitral forum deciding
the merits of my case, your reaction would not be the same. For you, news that I failed to disclose that I was married
to someone ofinfluence for the forum deciding my case would have supported your false narrative that I've engaged
in "bad faith" throughout this case, and you would have dismissed my case with prejudice. You also would not
allow me to remain silent about this information for eight months. You would have stayed the arbitration and
resolved those issues, but for me, you gave the AAA permission to continue violating my constitutional right to due
process and equal protection under the law. So I ask this rhetorical question: If you were truly impartial and honestly
believed in your heart that my claims were "without merit," why did you deny my request to have Christian Carbone
confirm or deny his marital status to Sasha AngeJique Carbone by Affidavit only and state that their marriage was
"alleged"? Now or later, disciplinary and monetary sanctions must be imposed against Carbone for intentionally
violating the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, as well as New York Judiciary Law § 487 and other statutes.
Lastly, no protective order issued by a federal judge engaging in extreme levels of fraud and corruption will suppress my
First Amendment right to "freedom of speech." No one can stop me from speaking about the fraud that has occurred in
my case since you wouldn't even mention it the phrase "fraud upon the Court" in your Final Order. No one can stop me
from speaking about things that have a negative effect and adverse impact on the African American community and
society as a whole (e,g" institutionalized racism, corruption in our federal courts, Hollywood's direct role in projecting
and perpetuating the myth of black racial inferiority, etc.). You will never be able to silence me from publicly discussing
how you have violated the Constitution, the law, numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, as well as your
3 Pursuant to Rule 8.4 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, "a lawyer or law firm shall not: (a) violate or
attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the
acts of another; (b) engage in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as
a lawyer; (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; (d) engage in conduct that is
prejudicial to the administration ofjustice or (e) state or imply an ability: (1) to influence improperly or upon irrelevant
grounds any tribunal, legislative body or public official; or (2) to achieve results using means that violate these Rules or
other law."
Mr. P. Kevin Castel

November 21,2014
Page 4
Oath of Office to deprive me of my constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law since these are issues the
Second Circuit must decide. You will never be able to prevent me from telling the world that you are nothing but a racist
"criminal in a black robe" and that you are unfit to serve a lifelong term as a federal judge in the United States of America.
You should be impeached for abusing your power and authority to aid in the evil acts of conspiring to interfere with the
human rights of people of African descent and wasting four years of my life, by issuing deceptively written, one-sided,
predetermine decisions which never discussed the arguments of both parties and never applied antidiscrimination law in
an employment discrimination and human rights case!
Ifwe truly live in a democracy, then let due process run its course. In addition to ignoring antidiscrimination law, your
September 5, 2014 Final Order and October 22,2014 Order never address my claims and the pyramid of evidence
proving my claims of "fraud upon the Court." This is an issue that must now be decided by the appellate court since
you issued a filing injunction against me. You, an allegedly "impartial" and "independent" Article III federal judge,
cannot silence me from speaking about the issues that you purposefully refused to acknowledge or resolve. Thus,
every opportunity I get to communicate to the world about the overall fraud that has been committed upon the Court
by Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys on William Morris' behalf, as well as the immense fraud being perpetrated
upon the Court, by the Court itself (e.g. Republican appointed federal judges Robert P. Patterson, Chief Judge
Loretta A. Preska and yourself), I will take the opportunity since it will always be in the public's interest for the
Constitution and out nation's human & civil rights laws to be upheld.
Pursuant to § 16 of the FAA, I have a legal right to an appeaL Since my motion ultimately seeks to have all of your
legally erroneous decisions vitiated due to fraud, it would actually waste more time having you grant the Protective
Order, as opposed to the Second Circuit granting the Defendants' request. [fthe Second Circuit determines that "fraud
upon the Court" has occurred in this case, then my statements would not be "threatening, denigrating, defamatory or
disparaging," My statements would actually be truthful, honest and factual. Either the Second Circuit will agree with
you, William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Zweig, Carbone and others who have made a complete mockery out of
nation's judicial system by conspiring to flout the law and intentionally violating my constitutional and statutory
rights under the color of the law in order to prevent the merits of my case from being decided by an impartial jury,
by concluding that my claims are "without merit" or they will agree with me by concluding that my claims are not
"without merit" and that my appeal would be made in extreme "good faith," If the Second Circuit agrees with your
conclusions, then most naturally, the appellate court would grant the additional relief that William Morris & Loeb
LLP are now improperly seeking from you.
In the reviewable December 17, 2013 Partial Final Award of Arbitrator Gregory, he concluded that I proved by a
"preponderance of the evidence" that "William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC discriminated against [me] in
violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of face," and indicated
during phase two of our bifurcated proceeding that I would be awarded the full gamut of monetary damages,
including back pay, front pay, compensatory & punitive damages, "recompense... for avoidable delays" and
"reasonable fees and costs, as a pro se non-attorney prevailing party on statutory claims in a case of
considerable procedural and substantive complexity."4 Until William Morris, as well as Hollywood, is held
fully accountable for conspiring to maintain its discriminatory employment practices, policies and procedures,
I wilJ continue to fight in "good faith" for justice. Until William Morris, as weJJ as Hollywood, is held fully
accountable for the tremendous role it plays in perpetuating the myth of black racial inferiority throughout
society and the world, I will not stop speaking out against William Morris' overall crimes against humanity.
4 Arbitrator Gregory also granted William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's request for $1,000 for defamation and libel,
although they, nor Arbitrator Gregory, never identified one thing that [ said about them that was not true and they failed
to meet their heightened burden of production and persuasion after having four years to refute the pyramid of evidence
which supports my claims and justifies the type of statements that [ have about the Defendants and their highly unethical
legal counsel at Loeb & Loeb LLP.
Mr. P. Kevin Castel

November 21,2014
PageS
Until I collect the monetary relief I am owed from William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP, and permanent
injunctive and affumative reliefis also imposed to deter future violations of Section 1981, Title VII, NYSHRL
and NYCHRL, I will never stop fighting for diversity and equal employment opportunities in the American
workplace.
In conclusion, I ask that Zweig's request to file a Motion for a Protective Order be denied for the following reasons
discussed above and that the Defendants and their counsel seek for the Second Circuit to grant this reliefwben they
submit their response to my Fed. R. App. P. 8, 24 and 46 Motion within the next two weeks.
Best,
~~"'o\'JT-
Marcus I. Washington
Enclosure:
cc: Mr. Michael P. Zweig of Loeb & Loeb LLP (delivered via e-mail)
Exhibit D
I~SDNY
~~r~jJ~
DOCUMENT rp~ (L ilJ;i 111hr. j 1-/ ;20/~ ~ ] ) Cill o. ;tt.. e.

ELECTRONICAUY JIIU!D W~/~~~.~~~
DOC~vember 21,2014
~ -r~ ~ ~ rfl- ;:tf/~ ~/
DATE FILED: I/.-cP.I-/Y· ~ ~~7li-PM-)1~4P/i V.S.
n.lI •. srAv.(J """ -~
/_. rrr M- .-
u~
-I.. ~4r7..-::r-r
'--1 I7i(T ..' - .,
Southern District of New York ~ ~,n~~~C1.-~~,
500 Pearl Slreet ./ . --rI::-;. 7' ~ ~
-r~~~~~~. I'Q,
~/~;:Ti;. ~~~7-Pd~i~
Re: William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's November 17.2014 Letter Seeking A Protective Order I ~A_~
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertai~ment et a~1) (PKC) (JCF) ~ "- r~' ~
f""W' W'k- / - - '(1 4- ~ -f}etlf/J·
Mr. Castel: :IS 0 ...... _ 'I<
You, as weU as Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys Michael P. Zweig, Christian .;;;;;;: lch.. ett, are tJ:> OJ
. ',
wel1 aw-are that "no later than November 21,2014," 1 would be filing a Motion pursuant to Fed. R App. P. 8, 24
and 46 in the Second Circuit, which ultimately seeks the extraordinary relief of vitiating all decisions rendered
LJ.J yourself and the American Arbitration Association due to "fraud upon the Court" and "fraud upon the Court, by the
Court," and granting default judgment on all c1aims in my favor. Due to the fact that you have already violated the
by ) !
i
.-;J)- )
C':'.) Constitution, the law, numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, as well as your Oath of Office over
the last four years of presiding over this case, it wouldn't surprise me if you decided to continue to abuse your power
and grant the Defendants' new request for a Protective Order agwnst me, Although 1 was supposed to spend this
week completing my motion to the appellate court, I have taken the last four days to respond to Zweig's request "to
seek leave to file a motion for a Protective Order" that would prohibit me "from engaging in a continuing course of
conduct that threatens to undermine the Order and Judgment of this Court. entered on September S, 2014,
confirming the arbitration award issued by Judge (Ret,) Timothy K. Lewis" just so I can ensure that the record
is preserved. (emphasis added) For the following reasons, I ask that William Moms and Loeb & Loeb's request
should be denied:
First and foremost., any legal action that I take to undo the fraudulently procured decisions of yourself, the American
Arbitration Association and Schnader LLP attorney Timothy K. Lewis, will be viewed by yourself, William Morris,
Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and others involved in this race-based conspiracy to deprive me of my
constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law, as "conduct that threatens to undennine the Order and
Judgment of this Court." Isn't that the entire point of an appeal? If not, then what is? Although you stated that my
October 3, 2014 Fed. R. Civ, P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court was "without merit," 1. as well as the law. clearly disagree.
So now, your predominately all-white comrades in the appellate court have the jurisdiction to review your decisions
de novo and determine the issues you refused to decide andlor chose to decide erroneously.
In my March 17,2014, April 10,2014 and October 3, 2014 Motions, I demonstrated a number of reasons why
Arbitrator David L. Gregory's December 17,2013 Partial Final Award was reviewable by the federal court pursuant
to §§ 9·12 of the Federal Mbitration Act Your sole reliance on Michaels v, Mariforum Shipping, SA, 624 F.2d
411,414 (2d Cir. 1980) was erroneous and you know that If Arbitrator Gregory's Award was not "final, for the
sake ofjudicial review," it was most definitely ripe for judicial review and you allowed my due process to be further
violated by letting the AAA disqualify Arbitrator Gregory without reason after he issued his "fmal award" on the
issue of arbitrability/jurisdiction, liability and indicated what damages both parties would receive during phase two
ofour bifurcated proceeding. Your September 5, 2014 Final Order doesn't acknowledge that I requested a bifurcated
proceeding. Whether or not both parties agreed, Arbitrator Gregory was aware that I asked for a bifurcated
proceeding ifhe decided to exceed his powers by enforcing William Morris' unconscionable mandatory, pre-dispute
arbitration agreements in order to prevent an impartial jury from issuing a "fma!" verdict on the merits ofrny claims.
Since you did not confirm andlor vacate Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award and did not disqualify
Exhibit E
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
THIS SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

REPORTER AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO THIS
OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAYBE CALLED TO THE ATTENTtON OF THIS
OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS CAS~, IN A
RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
OR RES JUDICATA.
At a stated teno of the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Second (1;ircuit, held at the
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, Foley Square, in the City of New York; on the
30th day of Decembner, two thousand and five. .
Present: JOSEPH M. McLAUGm..IN.

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
Circuit Judges.
ROWE ENTERTAINMENT. INC., LEONARD ROWE, SUN

SONG PRODUCTIONS, INC., JESSE BOSEMAN, SUMMITT
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, FRED JONES JR., LEE
KING PRODUCTIONS, INC., AND LEE KING,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
-v- (05-Q854-cv)
; ".
THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC., CREATIVE ARTISTS
AGENCY, L.L.C .• RENAISSANCE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
JAM PRODUCTIONS, LTD., AND BEAVER PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
D~fendants-ARPel1ees.
Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellants: Keils Ravelo, Wesley Powell, Valeria Calafiore, and
Myriam Gilles, New York, NY.
Appearing for Defendant-Appenee Jam Productions, Ltd: James Roberts, Chicago, IL" and
Monica McCabe, New York, NY
Appearing for Defendant-Appellee Beaver Productions, Inc.: Matthew F. Popp~ New Orleans,
LA
Appearing for Defendants-Appellees booking agencies: Michael P. Zweig and Helen Gavaris,
New York, NY (The William Morris Agency, Inc.); Jeffrey Klein, Gregory Coleman, and
Andrea Berner, New York, NY (Creative Artists Agency, LLC); Steven Hayes.and
Gregory Clarick, New York, NY (Renaissance Entertainment, Inc.); and Jeffrey Kessler,
New York, NY (Creative Artists Agency, LLC) "
Appeal from the United States District Court for Southern District of New York, (Robert
Patterson, District Judge).
ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED; AD.niDGED,

AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs-appellants ("appellants") originally brought this action on November 19, 1998,

in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. (Patterson, I.)
Defendants-appellees ("defendants") successfully moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Rowe Entm't, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc., No. 98
CN. 8272 (RPP), 1999 WL 335139 (S.D.N.Y. May 26, 1999). All dismissalsiwere with leave to
amend. Appellants then filed a single amended complaint, dated August 9, 1999, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Patterson, L). Remaining as
defendants were two concert promoters and three booking agencies. Appellants survived
defendants' second Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Rowe Entm't, Inc. v. WiUiam Morris
Agency, Inc., No. 98 Civ. 8272, 2000 WL 896929 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2000). After the
completion of three years of discovery, defendants brought five individual motions fot summary
judgment, and one joint motion by the booking agency defendants. The distriQt court granted
every motion for summary judgment. Rowe Entm't,lnc. v. William Morris Agency. IDC" No. 98
Civ. 8272, 2005 WL 22833 (8.D,N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005). '
We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history, ruitd specification of
issues on appeal. The district court below wrote a very thorough and useful opinion, which
carefully searched the record, discussed the pertinent facts, and examined the appellants' claims.
This Court reviews ~ IlQ.YQ the granting of sununary judgment by a district court.
Pe.psico, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 315 F.3d 101, 104 (2d Cir. 2002). Summary judgmeht is
appropriate only where, "examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the nobmoving
party," Adjustrite Sys.. Inc. y. GAB Bus. 8erys., InC., 145 F.3d 543,547 (2d Cir. 1998), the
record shows "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movi~g party is
2
";:'
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law," Fed. R. Civ. P, 56(c). A motion for summary
a
judgment must be rejected "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return verdict
for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U,S. 242, 248 (1986). Apellants
do not address or raise several issues and claims set forth in their amended complaint .. An
argument or an issue that is not raised in the appellate brief may be considered abandoned.
LoSacco v, City of Middletown, 71 F.3d 88,92-93 (2d Cir. 1995).
,
Section 1981 provides, in pertinent part, that all persons "shall have th~ same right ... to
make and enforce contracts ... and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for
the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a). In
order to succeed under § 1981, a plaintiff must present evidence to "show both: that he was
subjected to intentional discrimination, and that this discrimination interfered with a contractual
relationship." Krulik v, Board of Educ" 781 F.2d 15,23 (2d Cir. 1986) (citatiohs omitted); ~
also Runyon y. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 170-71 (1976)("[A § 1981] right to 'l11ake and enforce
contracts' is violated if a private offeror refuses to extend [on account of race] 'the sante
opportunity to enter into contracts as he extends to white offerees."). Discrimination claims
under § 1981 are governed by the three-part test of McDonnell Douglas COll? V. Greeh, 411 U.S.
792, 802 (1973). See Lopez y. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184, 1188 (2d Cir. 1987). As to the
§ 1981 claims against all defendants, appellants have put forth no facts on which a relisonable
juror could conclude that racial discrimination interfered with a contractual relationship.
Section 1985(3) makes illegal, in relevant part, conspiracies undertaken "for Ule purpose
of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of
the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws" and provides for "an action for the
recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against anyone or more of the
conspirators." 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). In Thomas v. Roac11165 F.3d 137 (2d Cit. 1999), this Court
held that "a plaintiff alleging a conspiracy under §1985(3) must allege, with at: least some degree
of particularity, overt acts which defendants engaged in which were reasonably relateq to the
promotion of the claimed conspiracy." Id. at 147. As the district court found, ~ere is ~o
evidence that any alleged conspiracy was racially motivated. Appellants have put forth no
evidence from which any reasonable juror could infer the existence of a conspiracy.
Section 1 ofthe Sherman Act makes illegal "[e]very contract, combination in the form of
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or conunerce among the several States, or
with foreign nations." 15 U.S.C. § 1. While most antitrust claims are analyzed under the rule of
reason, some types of restraints "have such predictable and pernicious anticontpetitive effect, and
such limited potential for pro competitive benefit, that they are deemed unlawful." State Oil Co.
y. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10 (1997) (citing Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United StateS, 356 U.S. 1,5
(1958). "Conduct considered illegal rua: ~ is invoked ... where a defendant's actions are so
plainly harmful to competition and so obviously lacking in any redeeming pro~competitive values
that they are conclusively presumed illegal without further examination .... Most cases fall
outside these narrow, carefully demarcated categories held to be illegal rua: ~.' In the general run
of cases a plaintiff must prove an antitrust injury under the rule of reason." CAPital hriaging
" '
Assocs.·v. Mohawk VaUeyMed. Assocs., 996 F.2d 537, 542-43 (2d Cir. 1993}{citation and
internal quotations marks omitted). .
Here, the district court properly applied the ruJe ofreason analysis. Had the di~trict court
applied the W[ se analysis, however, the summary judgment motion would have been granted.
There is no evidence in the record from· which any reasonable juror could infer that any
agreement existed.
. .
Accordingly. for the reasons, set forth above. the judgment of the District Court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
FOR THE COURT:
Exhibit F
11/1812014 A Primer The Supreme Court Labor and Employment Docket I Corporate Counsel
NOT FOR REPRINT

CORPORATE COUNSEL
~ Click to Print or Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document.
Page printed from: Corporate Counsel
From the Experts
A Primer: The Supreme Court Labor and
Employment Docket
Stuart M. Gerson, Corporate Counsel
November 10, 2014
Most U.S. Supreme Court observers-particularly those in the general press-have labeled the
Court's current term an uninteresting one. There are relatively few cases on the docket that
would appear to be a blockbuster, but employers in particular should not be among these bored
observers. Some of the cases spotlighted below were argued last month, and some will come
before the justices starting this week. The current docket is heavily weighted toward labor and
employment cases that will have significant precedential effect in the workplace of the future.
Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk

The Court already has heard argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk concerning
whether the Portal-to-Portal Act (which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act) requires
employers to pay warehouse employees for the time they spend (which in this case runs up to
25 minutes) going through post-shift antitheft screening. Integrity is a contractor to
Amazon.com, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled against the
company, holding that the activity was part of the shift and not noncompensable postliminary
activity.
Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Labor is on the side of the employer, fearing a -nood of
FLSA cases generated from any activity in which employees are on the employers' premises.
This case will affect entities that require post-shift activities affecting security and other matters
not involving the performance of operational job requirements.
M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett

On November 10, the Court will hear argument in M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett, which could
affect companies profoundly in their labor relations, and in the provision and maintenance of
benefits. The question in this case involves the so-called "yard-man presumption" in the context
of whether the courts should infer that silence as to the duration of retirement health insurance
benefits established under a collective bargaining agreement are meant to apply for the
lifetimes of covered retirees.
http://www.corpcounsel.com/pri nlerfriendlylid= 1202675860830# 1/3
11/18/2014 A Primer The Supreme Court Labor and Employment Docket I Corporate Counsel
The petitioner company is asking the Supreme Court to impose a blanket rule that the duration
of health benefits must be stated in the collective bargaining agreement itself. However, there is
a substantial history of allowing extrinsic evidence in interpreting labor contracts, and in this
case there are adverse factual 'findings suggesting at least the possibility that healtl1 benefits
were intended to run concurrently with pension bene'fits that indisputably continue after contract
expiration. It is not unlikely that the yard-man presumption, applied only in the Sixth Circuit, will
be negated, but that the literalism sought will be rejected as well, leaving a fact-specific test in
which bargaining history could be considered.
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n and Nichols v. Mortgage
Bankers Ass'n
In two other cases involving an issue of discretion and judicial review set for argument on
December 1, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n and Nichols v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, the
Court will decide whether the labor department violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
by not affording notice-and-comment rulemaking to a reversal of a wage and hour opinion letter
issued in 2006.
The D.C. Circuit ruled against DOL in both cases (one in which DOL is the petitioner; another in
which affected loan officers are petitioners), rejecting DOL's contention that the policy change
was an "interpretive rule" not subject to APA notice-and-comment strictures. The case at bar
itself doesn't involve much, but as a precedent concerning how administrative branch agencies
like DOL (a particular worry to employers during this administration) are to regulate unilaterally,
free of judicial oversight, it will be important--especially in the D.C. Circuit, where there are
many agency cases.
Young v. United Parcel Service

On December 3, the Court will hear argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, which poses
the question of whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to
accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same
manner as it accommodates a nonpregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not
related to pregnancy.
The Fourth Circuit had ruled in favor of the company, which offered a "light-duty program" held
to be pregnancy-blind to persons who have a disability cognizable under the Americans With
Disabilities Act, who are injured on the job or are temporarily ineligible for U.S. Department of
Transportation certification. Young objects to being considered in the same category as
workers who are injured. This case, too, will create a precedent of interest to many employers
whose employees perform physical labor.
Mach Mining v. EEOC

In a case not yet fully briefed or set for argument, Mach Mining v. EEOC, the Court will decide
whether the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's pre-suit conciliation efforts are
subject to judicial review, or whether the agency has unreviewable discretion to decide the
reasonableness of settlement offers. The Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of the EEOC in this
case, but every other circuit that has considered the matter has imposed a good-faith-effort
http://www.corpcounsel.com/pri nterfriendly/id= 1202675860830# 2/3
11/1812014 A Primer The Supreme Court Labor and Employment Docket I Corporate Counsel
standard upon the EEOC. Employers await a decision on whether the sincerity and
effectiveness of pre-suit conciliation can be reviewed judicially.
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

On October 2, the Supreme Court granted cert. in a Title VII religious accommodation case,
EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores. The case concerns whether an employer is entitled to
specific notice, in this case of a religious practice-the wearing of a head scarf-from a
prospective employee before having the obligation to accommodate her. In this case, the
employer did not hire a Muslim applicant. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the employer was entitled
to rely upon its "look" policy and would not presume religious bias where the employee did not
raise the underlying issue. Retail clients and others will be affected by the outcome.
Tibbie v. Edison Int'l

Finally, also on October 2, the Supreme Court granted cert. in TibbIe v. Edison Int'l, which
raises the issue of whether retirement plan fiduciaries breach their duties under ERISA by
offering higher-cost, retail-class mutual funds when identical lower-cost institutional class funds
are available, and the plan fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost funds as plan investments
more than six years (the notional statute of limitations) before the claim was filed.
This issue has been around for years, and the Court finally will resolve it. The dueling rationales
have been discussed in depth on many financial pages and in trade and legal publications. The
potential importance of the case relates to whether trustees have a separate duty to reconsider
their past decisions under a continuing violation theory that would supersede ERISA's statute of
limitations.
The solicitor general, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of
ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund
options and offer available lower-cost, institutional-class investments during the six-year period
prior to the filing of the complaint. The Court apparently took the case on the SG's
recommendation that noted the unresolved split on the issue in the circuits. If the solicitor
general proves correct, and the petitioner prevails, fiduciaries all across the employment
spectrum will be exposed to greater risk of scrutiny for their past actions.
In sum, what is an uninspiring term to some will be very important to others, particularly
employers.
Stuart M. Gerson is a partner at Epstein Becker & Green and a member of the firm's litigation
and health-care and life sciences practices, in the firm's Washington, D.C., and New York
offices. He concentrates on the defense of complex civil and criminal fraud cases, antitrust and
securities cases, and class action litigation generally.
Copyright 2014. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
rMp:/Iwww.c:orpc:ounsel.c:om/printerfriendIYlid=120267586083O# 3/3
Exhibit G
)
Procedural History of Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment Before the

S.D.N.Y., Second Circuit and American Arbitration Association ("AAA").
On December 22, 2010, I filed an 80 paged Complaint with the Southern District of New York alleging claims
of intentional systemic disparate treatment spanning 112 years and cOlmting, disparate impact, pre and post
hiring individual disparate treatment and retaliation against William Morris, and claims of retaliation and aiding
and abetting against William Morris' Human Resources personnel Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski under 42
U.S.C. §1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C §§2000e-1 et seq., as well as New York State
Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §296, and New York City Human Rights Law, N.YC Admin. Code §§8
107 et seq. On January 5, 2011, the Southern District of New York assigned Republican appointed federal judge
P. Kevin Castel to the case, and on the same day, Castel selected James C. Francis to serve as the Magistrate
Judge for the case. The sole attorney representing William Morris at the beginning of the litigation was Loeb &
Loeb LLP attorney Michael P. Zweig.
On March 21,2011, I submitted my Oppositional Motion to Arbitration. I raised a unique arbitration in
opposition to the enforceability of William Morris' mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements I signed as a
condition of employment: I argued that I was "oblivious" to William Morris' history of racial discrimination
against African Americans in employment and that it wasn't until after I exited the company, that I discovered
that what happened to me was not an isolated event or occurrence.
On July 20,2011, P. Kevin Castel issued his Order, staying the case, pending arbitration. ("Stay Order")
Between September 2011 and June 2012, I made four attempts to appeal Castel's decision with the Second
Circuit, as wen as seek his disqualification due to the "appearance" and/or "actual" racial bias, prejudice,
partiality and impropriety I believed existed pursuant to 28 US.C §2106.
I filed a Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on June 15,2012. After On
July 30,2012, William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP denied all of my claims and raised 11 affmnative defenses
and 2 counterclaims, one being that I breached their arbitration agreement and thus my claims should be
dismissed. Arbitrator Gregory was appointed by the AAA on August 1,2012. I submitted a 55 page Motion for
Summary Judgment (sans exhibits) two weeks later on August 15,2012.' Since filing my complaint, with the
S.D.N.Y, this was the frrst time William Morris and their counsel gave any real response to (some) ofmy claims,
although they denied everything. On November 6, 2011, the Defendants, for the frrst time, gave a more detailed
response to the merits of my claims in their Opposition to Summary Judgment and Cross Motion to Dismiss. On
January 31, 2013, I submitted a 97 page, single spaced Reply to my Motion for Summary Judgment (not
including Exhibits A to AA).
On April 18, 2013, Arbitrator Gregory issued his first Interim Decision. In the frrst sentence of the
decision, he stated: "In my thirty years as an Arbitrator of Labor and Employment Disputes, this case presents
the most extensive pre-hearing motion practice that I have encountered." [pg. 1.] Gregory acknowledged my
assertion that I was "using the legal process as an instrument for social justice," and cited "noble examples of
courageous leaders who sought, and ultimately achieved, social change through the legal process," such as Rev.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall. [pg. 9.] Gregory also denied the Defendants' Motion for a
protective order and stated "[w]ere it not for the following unresolved evidentiary issue, I would have granted
the requested protective order in part, if not in whole." [pg. 8-9.] Because of "Exhibit 31," Gregory granted a
"temporary stay," because he was "persuaded that a particular document [was] critically important and should
be produced and truthfully explained by both parties to the extent that they [were] realistically able to do so."
[pg. 5.] As a result, he wanted to know "what Exhibit [31] is, and who authored it. Is it genuine? Is it relevant?
I want to know the context" in which "each of the objectionable term(s) [were] uttered." [pg. 10-11.]
I Fully titled Motion: Claimant's Reply to Demand for Arbitration, Opposition to Dismiss Respondents' Affirmative
Defenses and Counter-/c1aims, and Request for Full Summary Judgment and Imposition of Sanctions Against Michael
Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris for Answer Made in Bad Faith.
In Order to "spur further responsive discovery," Gregory stayed "further decisions on the remainder of
the still~pending claims at this Arbitration's summary judgment phase," "in hopes that th[ ose] measures facilitate
the ascertainment of sufficient contextual clarity regarding Exhibit [31]." [pg. 12.] He "order[ed] the parties to
meet and confer and, if possible, to enter into joint stipulations regarding Exhibit [31]" and that if the parties
were able to "come to some stipulation(s) regarding Exhibit [31]," he ordered each party to submit a "written
memo regarding their particular understanding of Exhibit [31]." rd. Although Gregory preferred the production
of the original documents constituting "Exhibit 31," he asked the parties, at the minimum, to "endeavor to
provide the full name, title, and dates of employment for each and every person named in whole or in part in
Exhibit [31 ]," as well as "identify all named persons within Exhibit [31] who are present[ly] employed" by
William Morris and to "identify any such persons named in whole or in part in Exhibit [31] who was involved
in in the recruitment, hiring, orientation, training, supervision, discipline, severance and/or cessation of the
employment of Respondent." [pg. 11·12.]
In the frrst Interim Decision, Arbitrator Gregory informed the Defendants that they "fully retain their
right to pursue tort remedies against Claimant if they belief they have been defamedllibeled/slandered by
Claimant." [pg. 9]
On July 15,2013, Arbitrator Gregory issued his second Interim Decision and did a total about·face. In
rssponse to the submissions of both parties, Gregory stated that "the facts respectively marshaled thus far make
Summary Judgment rendered exclusively by Motion practice not viable" and then, incorrectly cited Rivera v,
Rochester and Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, F, 3d, No. 11 762 (December 21, 2012), saying
"subsequent to the August 24,2012 conference call, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
expressed jurisprudential apprehensions about the propriety of Summary Judgment on submitted papers alone
as the instrument to resolve employment disputes." [pg. 3~4.] Making no mention of the pyramid of evidence I
presented regarding "Exhibit 31," Gregory stated that "the continuing troubling indeterminacy of potentially
very important possible evidence ("Exhibit [31]") may be thoroughly and, hopefully, fmally resolved by sworn
testimony in a hearing." [pg. 3-4.]
Concerning the issue of arbitrability, Arbitrator Gregory acknowledged that I wanted a "jury trial in
federal court," but then partially described my arguments ("He regards the 2008 and 2009 arbitration agreements
he signed as unconscionable, tainted with illegality, malum in se, and signed under duress in the depths of the
Great Recession) as being "rhetorically rich" and "merely conclusory rote," ... "unless and until the larger factual
context explicates Claimant's abjectival cascade with tangible, credible, objective facts sufficient to authenticate
'Exhibit [31]' and establish its relevance." [pg, 4.]
Regarding "Exhibit 31 ," he stated that the document "appear[ ed] to be losing some ofwhatever possible
evidentiary traction it may have previously had" because there was "less than a handful of named persons
meeting all of the conditions set forth in Interim Decision I." [pg. 11] He stated that I "summarily truncated"
my "most recent opportunity to potentially authenticate Exhibit [31]" after I stated that I would no longer discuss
"Exhibit 31 " with Christian Carbone due to his "arrogant and defiant response to my request to 'meet and confer,'
coupled with the fact that he was not involved in Rowe and clearly [knew] nothing about what actually occurred
in electronic discovery." [PI. Fraud Upon the Court Motion, 18; Arbitrator Gregory July 15, 2013 Interim
Decision, 10.] He incorrectly stated that the Affidavit Leonard Rowe submitted, came from "another proceeding"
although the AAA case number and caption to my case was listed at the top of the notarized document. He also
stated that I asked that "[William Morris] and their lawyers provide $200,000 to cover ediscovery costs incurred
in prior litigation." [pg. 11.] This was entirely false I never made a request for a specific amount of money
because I did not know how much it was going to cost to retrieve the underlying e-mails to "Exhibit 31 "I simply
asked that the costs be shifted onto the Defendants, so that they would have to pay the costs of my e-discovery
expert to research the 1998-1999 backup tapes and retrieve the e-mails that were concealed in Rowe. He also
stated: "Claimant remains free throughout continuing discovery and at the forthcoming arbitration hearing to
continue to try to provide credible information about Exhibit [31 ]," and that as "the proponent of Exhibit [31]
coming into evidence," he "expect[ed] [me] to take the initiative." [pg. 6, 11.]
After ignoring the pyramid of documentary evidence that I submitted on June 14,2013, Gregory stated
again: "In this case before me at this Arbitration, I continue to need to know more about proposed Exhibit [31].
The parties' assessments of Exhibit [31] dramatically vary, to say the least. The author(s) have not been
defmitively identified. I still want to know who authored it. Is it genuine? Is it relevant?" [pg. 12.] He suggested
that the "possible testimony of Messrs. Raymond Heslin, Esq. and Mr. Leonard Rowe seem[ed] essential in
clarifying the chain of custody and control regarding Exhibit [31 ]," although Rowe stated in the Affidavit
Gregory incorrectly stated came from "another proceeding," that he discovered the document on Heslin's desk,
and Gregory acknowledged this fact in the same decision. [pg. 8-9, 12.] He then deferred his decision to the
Motions for Summary Judgment and Cross Motions to Dismiss, and stated that "each party has the continuing
duty of facilitating discovery" and that "pursuant to New York law, discovery requests, and the statutory law
against unlawful employment discrimination, shall be liberally construed," and that the "convening and
commencement of the arbitration hearing" would take place no later than December 16, 2013. [pg. 14.]
On July 26, 2013, I filed an Emergency Motion for Clarification and Modification, addressing the
numerous factual inaccuracies and errors contained in Arbitrator Gregory's second Interim Decision. On July
30,2013, Gregory scheduled a conference call with both parties, in which the conversation was recorded by both
the AAA and I. During the call, Arbitrator Gregory made many statements that supported that his second Interim
Decision was extremely inaccurate and dishonest, saying to me during the call, "Mr. Washington ... [y]ou were
quite precise in much of your reading and your commentary and I appreciate that. .. I do appreciate your urging
of a more precise read." Regarding "Exhibit 31," he stated, "I will say this, when I first saw the list, there was
very little information on it. After I saw the Claimant's papers ... there was a great deal more information on that
document and it sounds like much it, if not all of it, but much of it came through the Claimant's endeavors and
in some part of the Claimant's papers, the Claimant .Mr. Washington talks about staying several days in the
federal courts going through documents to do [his] best to comply with my requests for more specificity. And
now, we have a document, thanks to Mr. Washington's efforts primarily it seems, that has significantly more
information on it than did the original copy ... "
After Arbitrator Gregory ordered both parties to conduct discovery and have an oral hearing in his July
15,2013 Interim Decision, he stated: "I cannot be in the role of attorney to either party so I'm in sort of a yellow
line, middle-of-the-road spot here. But 1 can see reasons why both parties may want to either conclude any
discovery now or my wish to pursue extensive discovery. I'm agnostic on that. Each party is entitled to present
their cases as they see fit." He also stated, "[B]oth parties have the rights, and 1 think the role of responsibility,
to decide whether they wish a decision from me without a hearing and the papers alone." Although Jargued that
Gregory had enough evidence before him to make a decision regarding the enforceability of the arbitration
agreements, I did not want to go back to the district court without the underlying e-mails and other tangible
evidence in my possession - to remove any and all doubt that "Exhibit 31" was not authentic and so that all
parties not just William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP - knew what context those racially derogatory terms
were being used. [PI. Fraud Upon the Court Motion, 19-20.]
On August 20, 2013, the Defendants submitted a Motion to Disqualify Arbitrator Gregory, listing a
laundry list of reasons as to why Gregory should not have been allowed to continue overseeing this case. They
also disclosed Gregory's medical condition to suggest that he was "physically and/or mentally impaired." The
AAA gave me seven days to reply. I asked the AAA if they were aware of Gregory's medical condition, and
they stated they were not. The Review Standards of the AAA's ARC, stated that [QUOTE]. The AAA Director
Heather Santo refused for five days, and on the sixth day, conceded she was wrong and Gregory issued his
statement. On September 10, 2013, the unknown members of the ARC determined that "David L. Gregory
[would] be affirmed as an arbitrator in the above matter."
Over the course of five months, Arbitrator Gregory issued three Interim Decisions. His last Interim
Decision was issued on September 25,2013. Gregory erroneously stated that the called "reflect[ed] the parties'
continuing express preferences that J decide this entire matter on the parties' Motions and cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment and related Motions." [pg. 1-2.] Although Judge Patterson deemed "Exhibit 31" to be an
"unidentified and unauthenticated document," Arbitrator Gregory did not reach the same conclusion based on
the pyramid of evidence I submitted in my June 14, 2013 submission. After acknowledging this evidence,
Arbitrator Gregory "admitted [Exhibit 31] into the evidence of record." Lpg. 2.] Furthermore, he ordered WME
to "cooperate with the e-discovery expert of Claimant's choice to facilitate access to and be permitted to retrieve
the emails contained onWME's 1998-1999 back up tapes." He also ordered "a cost shift to Respondent WME
for reasonable costs associated with this retrieval" and informed me that by October 7, 2013, I had to submit an
"itemized list of the projected reasonable costs associated with this retrieva1." Lpg. 2-3.]
Despite the substantial case law that I submitted to support my deposition requests, denied my three
deposition requests. "[I]n deference to their Fifth Amendment rights," Arbitrator Gregory refused to allow me
the opportunity to depose co-CEO of William Morris Endeavor Entertainment - Ariel Emanuel and the two
attorneys from Loeb & Loeb LLP who were involved in handling e-discovery in Rowe - Michael P. Zweig and
Helen Gavaris. [pg. 3.] Instead, he continued to suggest that Raymond Heslin and Leonard Rowe be deposed
and ordered 'WME to bear $2,000 immediately in a cost shift of deposition costs reasonably incurred by
Claimant." Lpg. 3.] Although discovery and an oral hearing had not taken place, he determined that the arbitration
agreements I signed as a condition of employment were "not unconscionable" and also decided that he, nor did
"any other court or arbitrator," had "jurisdiction over the quintessential political questions precisely because of
the political question doctrine," without ever discussing the facts of the case or citing any case law. Lpg. 4.] This
is denying my conspiracy to interfere with human rights of people of African descent claims. He also determined
that "[t]he antitrust law elements of Claimant's case are likewise not justiciable in this arbitration" because
"[t]hey [were] too closely interwoven with Claimant's repeated reiterations of alleged criminal conduct."
Therefore, he ordered that my antirust claims were also dismissed. Lpg. 4.]
He then stated that WME' s "lawyers and employees have been subjected to a stream of invective from
the inception" and stated that my "tortious speech" "had already crossed over the line from constitutionally
protected First Amendment speech into unprotected torts of defamation, libel and slander." [pg. 4-5.] He then
gave the Defendants the opportunity to set forth an amount of damages for their "suffer[ing]." Lpg. 5.] He also
refused to clarify or modify his second Interim Decision and ordered for both parties to "submit a complete
itemized list offees, damages, and costs that they seek through, and beyond" by October 4,2013. [pg. 5.] Had I
been allowed to obtain the various financial documents during discovery, I would have been able to submit this
document. I did send Loeb & Loeb LLP a draft of the damages I believed I was entitled to, including substantial
case law to support my calculations. He concluded his Decision by saying that a hearing would be "scheduled
and thereafter promptly convened on any and all remaining issues" within 30 days "of the date of this Interim
Decision Three, or within thirty days'from the date that concludes Claimant's jury duty, whichever is later." [pg.
6.]
For nearly six months, the Defendants produced zero documents and refused to comply with any
Gregory's Interim Decisions or my reasonable discovery requests made in good-faith. After William Morris and
Loeb & Loeb LLP refused to have William Morris' IT department answer preliminary questions regarding the
1998-1999 backup tapes, I was left with no choice than to file an Emergency Motion to Compel Respondents to
Produce Documents, Request for Sanctions on September 30,2013. In response to my Motion to Compel, the
Defendants submitted a "letter" to the AAA on October 11, 2013, informing Gregory that the backup tapes in
question had been located and that they were planning on conducting their own search on the backup tapes - a
clear violation of Gregory's third Interim Decision. When I tried to submit my Reply on October 15,2013, AAA
Case Manager Carol Placella refused to accept the pleading, in which I forwarded the pleading directly to
Arbitrator Gregory. On October 16, 2013, Gregory abruptly "suspended" discovery and cancelled the oral
hearing without deciding the Emergency Motion to Compel. He instead instructed both parties to submit a Final
Position Statement by [insert date].
Arbitrator David L. Gregory issued his Partial Final Award on December 17, 2013. On the first page of
the Award, he summarized his fmdings, concluding 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," that 1 suffered money damages2 and that 1 was "entitled to reasonable fees
and costs, as a pro se non-attorney prevailing party on statutory claims in a case of considerable procedural and
substantive complexity." [pg. 1.] He acknowledged once against that in his "thirty years as an Arbitrator of Labor
and Employment Disputes, this case present[ed] the most extensive Motion practice 1 have encountered." [pg.
3.] In the beginning of his Award, he now stated that the "AAA rules allow for [a] decision of employment
disputes without a hearing and based solely on the parties' submission" and then stated that during our July 30,
2013 conference call, I "abruptly changed [my] mind and said [I] wanted a hearing" and "thereafter promptly
demanded to depose [WME's] ChiefExecutive Officer Ari Emanuel and [WME's] principal attorneys, including
Mr. Michael Zweig, Esq. and his colleagues at the Loeb law fmn." [pg. 2-3.]
Regarding the issue of arbitrability, he stated: "I fmd both of the Arbitration Agreements in this
arbitration to be conventional, garden variety, and nonproblematic. There is no credible evidence that they are
unconscionable in whole or in part." [pg. 3, 1].] Gregory stated that I "situate[ed] [my] individual experience at
[W illiam Morris] against the backdrop of Exhibit [31] and the macro backdrop of [my] interdisciplinary critique
of deeply embedded racism," which was not entirely true because I learned about "Exhibit 31" more than a year
after I filed my complaint with the S.D.N.Y. [pg. 5.] He then stated that my "extensive Motion papers reflect
sophisticated jurisprudence ground in some of the leading scholarship of the critical race theorists," although
most of the jurisprudence that I incorporated into my motions were not written by individuals who would be
classified by the academic and legal community as "critical race theorists" (e.g. law professor Tristin K. Green).
[pg. 5] Again, he likened my efforts to "courageous leaders who ultimately achieved, social change through the
legal process" like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Nelson Mandela, while
simultaneously stating that "parts of [my] Motion papers [were] counterproductive anti-Semitic rant" even
though William Morris and their counsel ~ refuted the historical and statistical evidence demonstrating the
company's century-plus year pattern and continuing practice of race-based employment discrimination. [pg. 5.]
Regarding "Exhibit 31 ," he acknowledge that "[Plaintiff], not [Defendant], did most of this tedious work
in a good faith effort to answer my questions" and that "[a]lthough [Defendant] is the presumptive custodian of
the email and other communication archival records. [Defendant's] efforts in that regard were relatively
desultory, compared with the resolute tenacity of [Plaintiff]." [pg. 6.] And while Gregory admitted "Exhibit 31"
into the evidence of record on September 25, 2013 and no discovery ever took place in the case before he abruptly
decided to "suspend" discovery without deciding my Em. Motion to Compel, he now stated that this document
was "something less than a smoking gun - but it is not necessarily nothing." [pg. 6.] He incorrectly stated that
Leonard Rowe discovered "Exhibit 31" "two decades" ago, although Rowe discovered the document on the desk
of Heslin in October 2002.
Ignoring the discovery abuses of the Defendants, he stated that "[r]eliable estimates were not
forthcoming, with the parties blaming one another for blocking discovery" and that "discovery efforts as to the
genesis and history of 'Exhibit [31]' were not productive." [pg. 2, 9.] He also stated that the "elaborate
conditional discovery calendar I had set forth in Interim Decision 3 on September 25,2013 ... was eclipsed by
the reality that nothing not already exhaustively addressed in the parties' thousands of pages of Motions was
remotely likely to surface" from "hundreds of thousands of emails beyond a grossly huge bill." [pg. 2-3,9.] As
a result, "[slome of [his] original questions about Exhibit [31] remain[ ed] open. Who authored it? What was the
context?" [pg. 2]
On three separate occasions throughout Gregory's Partial Final Award, he discussed my attempt to
conduct depositions with Michael P. Zweig and Helen Gavaris of Loeb & Loeb LLP, s well as WME co-CEO
Ariel Emanuel. Stull fixated on me deposing Raymond Heslin while ignoring his peJjurious May 15,2012
Declaration, Gregory stated: "The possible testimony of Mr. Raymond Heslin, Esq. seemed essential in
clarifying the chain of custody and control regarding Exhibit [31]. [Plaintiff], however decided he would rather
depose Respondent's CEO and lawyers. That was a classic non-started, designed to keep this matter going
nowhere indefinitely. [Plaintiff's] deposition 'strategy' is analogous to Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch (5 U.S.
2 On the last page ofthe Partial Final Award, he awarded me back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages.
137,2 L.Ed. 60 (1803). It necessarily meets with a similar result It is a sensationalistic in terrorem tactic
designed to induce chaos among the opposing side." (emphasis added) [pg. 10.] Ge stated "deposing [WME's]
CEO in the first stance flies in the face of established procedure" and that "Attorneys Zweig, Carbone, and
Gavaris, and WME Co-CEO Ari Emanuel shall not be deposed and shall not be called to testify by Claimant."
[pg. 10.]
Towards the end of his Partial Final Award he stated: Much of Claimant's theory of his case invokes
his desire to achieve the eradication of what he alleges is a White Supremacist Jewish regime and the
corresponding structural redesign of the political, economic and social order of the United States." [pg. 11.1 As
a result, he stated that he did "not have jurisdiction over political question doctrine" (e.g. my claims ofconspiracy
to interfere with human rights of people of African descent, in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, now
codified as 42 US.c.. §1985) and "related issues" (e.g. antitrust claims) because there "were too closely
interwoven with the political question doctrine and with Claimant's repeated reiterations of [William Morris and
their attorneys'] alleged criminal conduct" Lpg. 11.] Yet, he concluded that I "libeled" William Morris' counsel
for alleging that "Messrs. Zweig and Carbone engaged in 'criminal conduct on William Morris'
behalf. . conspiracy, collusion, and fraud,' violating, inter alia, RICO" and awarded their requested $1,000
counterclaim before the Defendants, their counselor the arbitrator identified anything I said that was not true.
No case law was also provided.
Pursuant to AAA Employment Rule 40, a party can seek to have the arbitrator "modify" the Award
within 20 days. On January 2,2014, I filed an "Appeal" pursuant to AAA Employment Rule 40, which addressed
the numerous factual errors contained in the Partial Final Award and addressed Loeb & Loeb LLP's refusal to
discuss producing various fmancial documents so I could compute my damages, amongst a number of other
things. On January 6, 2014, William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP filed their second Motion to Disqualify
Arbitrator Gregory, which sought Gregory's disqualification and having his Award vacated. WiJIiam Morris and
Loeb & Loeb LLP pretended to be the victims, saying that "the former arbitrator issued a 'Partial Final Award'
dated December 17, 2013 without holding an evidentiary hearing or permitting the parties to present
documentary evidence and testimony subject to cross-examination," yet, I was the only party that objected to
the AAA when Gregory abruptly "suspended" discovery and cancelled the oral hearing. 3 On January 27,2014],
the AAA's Administration Review Council disqualified Arbitrator Gregory without any explanation.
Despite my objections to Arbitrator Gregory's "procedurally improper" disqualification from the case,
the AAA announced on February 18, 2014 that the arbitrator to replace Arbitrator Gregory would be Timothy
K. Lewis a former Republican appointed federal judge and current attorney for Schnader LLP and board of
director for the American Arbitration Association. Refusing to read any ofthe pleadings submitted by the parties
prior to our scheduled conference call on February 25, 2014, Lewis issued a Confidentiality Order less than
[number] minutes before the call took place.
On [insert date], I wrote a letter to P. Kevin Castel pursuant to his Individual Rules, informing him that
I would be ftJing a motion which would seek his disqualification from the case, as well as address the overall
fraud that had been perpetrated upon the Court by Michael P. Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris.
On [insert date], P. Kevin Castel endorsed my letter and set forth a ftJing schedule for the motions. On [insert
date], Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone, submitted a letter to P. Kevin Castel stating [QUOTE]. On
[insert date], P. Kevin Castel rescinded his schedule and although I had accused Loeb & Loeb LLP of engaging
in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court," he told me to continue arbitrating the case in "good faith."
On February 28, 2014, Lewis issued an Order stating that the parties had until March 14, 2014 to submit
Motions addressing the Defendants' request to vacate Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award. On March to,
2014, I discovered that Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Christian Carbone's wife - Sasha Angelique Carbone
worked as the Associate General Counsel for the American Arbitration Association. On March 13, 2014, I
informed Castel by letter that I would not proceed any further under the AAA's fraudulent "jurisdiction and
3AAA Employment Rule 36 clearly states: "Any party who proceeds with the arbitration after knowledge that any
provision or requirements ofthese rules has not been complied with, and who fails to state objections thereto in writing
orin a transcribed record, shall be deemed to have waived the right to object."
supervision." Without addressing this conflict of interest, the Defendants submitted their Motion to Vacate
Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award on March 14, 2014.
On March 17, 2014, I submitted my omnibus Motion ("Fraud Upon the Court Motion"), which
addressed a number of issues. On March 26, 2014, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV issued an order refusing
to disqualify himself from the case and on March 27,2014, P. Kevin Castel did the same. P. Kevin Castel made
no mention ofthe other claims that were raised in my Motion. On Aprilll, 2014, I submitted a 33 page Motion
for Reconsideration. Castel did not decide to address these arguments until after a "fmal Award" was rendered.
On March 28,2014, I submitted a letter to Castel stating that "[d]ue to the on-going fraud that has occurred since
the inception of this case, I cannot and will not continue litigating this case any further under the
jurisdiction and supervision of the American Arbitration Association ... " (emphasis in the original)
On April 18,2014 Lewis issued an Order vacating the Partial Final Award of Arbitrator Gregory. In
that same decision, he decided to enforce William Morris' arbitration agreement and stated that this was the only
forum that I could adjudicate my claims without any citation ofthe law or discussion of the arguments raised
in my motions for summary judgment. On that same day, Lewis also issued an Order concluding that I had acted
in bad faith and granted an award to William Morris of two-thirds of their legal fees and costs as a sanction
against me in the amount of $43,707.60.
On April 29, 20] 4, the parties had a second conference call with Lewis. After defiantly refusing to
properly decide the issue of arbitrability, I informed Lewis that I recorded the call and I had his statements on
tape. Lewis immediately directed the Defendants' counsel to move to dismiss my claims. On May 12,2014, the
Defendants filed their Motion for Dismissal and to Terminate the Proceeding. Due to my laptop's hard drive
crashing unexpectedly, I was unable to submit a formal response. Instead, I submitted two e-mails to the AAA
on May 15,2014 and May 19,2014. On [insert date], Lewis issued an Order stating .. .In the second e-mail, I
asked ....
On June 25, 2014, Lewis issued his Memorandum & Order ("Lewis Final Award"), dismissing the case
"with prejudice and on the merits" although Lewis never discussed the merits ofmy claims and awarded William
Morris $43,707.60. On July 16,2014, I submitted a Motion for Clarification and Modification pursuant to AAA
Employment Rule 40. On July 22, 2014, Lewis refused to modify his decision because pursuant to the Rule, he
stated he was "not empowered to redetermine the merits" of claims already decided, although he ignored ethical
obligation as an arbitrator to [insert language about being honest, impartial, etc.]. On [insert date], I submitted a
letter to Castel on July 15,2014 stating that the motions submitted by the Defendants were "premature" and that
the arguments raised in both my Fraud Upon the Court Motion, as well as my Motion for Reconsideration,
"diametrically opposed" any argument raised in both of the motions submitted by William Morris and its
counsel. On July 29, 2014, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael Barnett submitted a letter to Castel stating
On September 5,2014, P. Kevin Castel issued a 26 page Order ("Castel Final Order"), granting William
Morris' Motion to confirm the Award issued by Timothy K. Lewis, which dismissed my case with prejudice and
awarded William Morris $43,707.60 in damages. He also stripped me of my in forma pauperis status although
my fmancial circumstances have worsened since filing my Complaint with the S.D.N.Y. and prejudiced my
appeal, by stating that if! decided to appeal, it would not be made in "good faith."
Castel's Final Order, as well as the Final Order of Timothy K. Lewis, wants the reader to believe that I
have engaged in "bad faith" for trying to ensure that the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1864 are
complied with by my former employer and all businesses in the United States of America and enforced by the
federal court.
Exhibit H
'--. - ~ .......
I
Case 2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 0 lnbJ1 JI O",no 1 nf 26
~U~S~O~S~S~ON~Y~.~~====~
·DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: _ _-;;"""_~_
-----------------------------------------------------------x DATE FILED; ~5-11 : q
MARCUS T. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff, lO-cv-9647 (PKC)
-against- MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR

ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, fOlmerly known as
the WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC., JEFF
MEADE, and SARAH WINIARSKI,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------~-----------ox
CASTEL, U.S.D.l.
Plaintiff Marcus Isaiah Washington, proceeding.RrQ se, bcingli this action against
defendants William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (,'William Morris Endeavor"), and
c~ 1\Cihc. ~I'J two WiHiam Morris Endeavor Human Resources employees, Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski.
t:J.t:.dkd t'fIl Washington moves for reconsideration ofthis Court's Memorandum and Order, filed March 27, ~' "wok i,
"'t..t..f,.l'1,'UIt""'Q."",*~ .
'Fa-i /vIO¥~"
CDlrl
!'"
~~" 2014, denying his motion for recusal. Defendants move to confinn an arbitration award rendered ACt-.. 1~lf.l.+
~ "f'!,.t
ke tlItl1 oU!C4.H4by Arbitrator Timothy K. Lewis on June 25,2014. which dismissed Washington's claims and IUoJ ,,"{2~~
~~~a·. . ,~~~
"""",I. t l+ lSuIP""Wdered he pay $43,707.60 in costs and fees.. Defendants also seek a filing injunction against tJw..\$ i.. vlot~
M~-F" ~.lc,~ . . . . .. cf ';,(tlO~~
{I f"'t.:NWe.1' Washington. For the reasons fwthcr diSCUSSed, Wnshington's motion 15 denIed and defendants'
~ ~..cL..",
~ Cask: I motions are granted.
VJC.S+-,/ ~.,. ~"'1<WIU" ~ .
vt'r.c.d· lJ:.~ ~rtf'-+., BACKGROUND
,~c.(,J..otS t'A#d.c <~~..s'" . .
(..ct\, ~ \,oDe\' LL,' .. ~t.~ The following facts are derived from the parties' evidentiary submissions and
I,
~ ~~ ~a~ers of which judicial notice may approprimcly be taken, and are undisput-ed unless otherwise
t.;~It"J \.M~c.AI
w....c..;"ft"'ll/lol, noted..
~t#1l WM~J \,t~\f'.
O/l,~ ..... ..fA.4~' Go_+ c..r.
~Q.~Cl. u.kctfl,. 4t. d-lsbv
.c".('fes',' c....,~ ~,., W-"I~
" ....u...,l4 '5 .
Plaintiff Marcus Washington initially filed suit against the defendants on
December 22,2010, asserting claims of discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-l et seq., as well as New York
State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, and New York City Human Rights Law,
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107. (Compi. ~ 1, Docket # 2.) In a Memorandum and Order dated
July 20, 201], the Court stayed the litigation pending an award in arbitration. Washington v.
William Morris Endeavor Entm't, LLC, No. 10-cv-9647 (PKC)(JCF), 2011 WL 3251504, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 20,201]). Familiarity with the facts as described in the Memorandum and Order
is assumed.
Washington subsequently appealed the Court's ruling to the Second Circuit. A
panel dismissed the appeal for lack ofjruisdiction as a final order had not yet been issued by this
Court. Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entrn't, LLC, No. 11-3576-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 13,
2011), Docket # 39. The panel also denied Washington's motions for reconsideration en banc
and for a stay pending the filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Washington v. William
Morris Endeavor Entrn't, LLC, No. 11-3576-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 3, 2012), Docket # 46; Washington
v. William Morris Endeavor Entm't, LLC, No. 11-3576-cv (2d Cir. May 23,2012), Docket # 65.
Washington subsequently sent a letter to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York to
"inform [her] about the bias, impropriety and corruption that is happening within the Southern
District of New York and Second Circuit." (Washington Letter, Apr. 20,2012, at 1, Docket
# 28.) In the letter, he requested that the Chief Judge "personally intervene and enlist a special
committee to investigate the facts and allegations in [the] letter to prevent 'manifest injustice.'"
CI.!h at 3.)
-2
On JUDe 15,2012, Washington submitted a demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (the "AAA"). (Zweig Decl., July 3,2014, Ex. 1, at 1-2.)
DavidL. Gregory was initiallyselecled as the .arbitrator. (See Emergency Mot to DisgualifyP,
Kevin Castel & James C. Francis (,'Washington Mot.") Ex. Y, at 3, 15, Docket # 40.)1 In the
arbitral proceeding, the parties indicated to Arbitrator Gregory that they were amenable to him
deciding the matter without an. on-site hearing,. iliL at 3.} Washington. moved. for summary
judgment on his claims and the defendants moved for the claims to be dismissed. (ld. at 3-4.)
Washington also argued that the arbitration agreement he signed was "unconscionable, tainted
with illegality,malum inse,andsi gned :underduressin:tbedeptbs·of tbeGreatRecession,"
(Washington Mot. Ex. CC, at 4.)
Ina series of '<Interim Decisions," Arbitrator Gregory set discovery schedules and
ruled on threshold issues. (SeeWaslungton Mot. Ex. EE, at 1,2-6.) In addition, Arbitrator
Gregory expressed concerns as to Washington's behavior during the course of the arbitration,
and found that Washington bad defamed the defendants:
Claimant appears to re,gardas:part of a White Supremacist

M,)o(, I'tO ~.j.::o"of"""'" criminal conspiracy virtually every person he perceives as
...p~~-+ ~\S ~\oc>t not in complete agreement with him, including'
.f.wJ~ DI\ ·&.~a,~4 '1" - distinguished federal judges Patterson and Castel.
Q ~ ~'"" "f'I. uw"""",,+ Claimant, taking issue with Interim Decision 2, surmises
\~
•
+e' ~~ of~~ that I must have been "threatened" or "bribed" in order to
tZ 41-~~ Jvk" ~CIf\ have written such a "deceptive" Interim Decision Z. I can
J assure everyone, including Claimant, that I have never been
4Ji¥~S\i ~.G( :~+ bribed or threatened in my entire career. Respondents'
+,l .~J (;.A~flltk-t\4\""'l;1wyers and employees have been subjected to a stream of
~ \J"""~-.hC4~.,l cJ.a:;v",ofinvective from the inception. Every person, including
'" ~ crdet'. Cl~imant, is entitled to their opinions. But, we are not each
-6...cr],l+·... ~~ ~ Sf/'IA·lS 11:1\)
''-' I
1 Though Washington has not submitted sworn statements support ofbis submissions, the Conn will consider the
assertions in his briefs and the accompanying exhibits to the extent that they are otherwise admissible . .fu:£
Geldzahlerv. N,Y. Med, Coil" 746 F. Supp. 2d 6L8, 620 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) C'[D]espite (plaintiff] having received
the 56.1 Notiee,we take. into account his status as a mY ~ litigant and will consider the Wlsworn statements in bis
56.1 Response on the assumption that he. would ha.ve testitied to these statements in his Declaration, ").
- 3
entitled to our own facts. . .. Before [ arrived on the scene

as tbe Arbitrator jn the summer of 20 12, Claimant bad
already crossed over the line from constitutionally
protected First Amendment speech into unprotected torts of
defamation, libel, and slander. I FIND that Claimant's
.,tortious yspcech ~corrtill11es ,substantiaUyunabated.
(Id. at 4-5.) On December 17,2013, Arbitrator Gregory issued a "Partial Final Award" finding
t\e ..s\l..........·u.s tbat William Morris Endeavor had discriminated against Washington in vioJation of "pertinent
~~'F_l fedel'aJ, Slate, andloeallaw}' {Washington Mot. Ex, A, at l! n.} ArbirratQf GregQry then
If.w..... ".",...-
~utS' ordered Washington to file a motion for reasonable fees and costs. ad. at 12.)
Approximately one month later,on defendants' motion, the AAA's ~t..t;.~~
t:........ •
t 01 f,
,' "tnlstratlve;
•.Adm . R '
'ev.lew· C'ounCI,
.) (tb er.\.'
"""Re") l'fied..Arb'
, . d'IsquaJJl 1""_ ,A AA ~4~J
nd er ..i'::1h,
, 'ltr.a:tor;vlegory,u. ',:1...... It' VI '06..'
4ll'OO
, .rl......... (IW,. ,...... IMI
~~
Employment Arbitration Rule 16. (Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014, Ex. 4, at 2.) In February 20 14'1N:
co.se. ~ W&t~~,
the parties selected Timothy K. Lewis as a replacement arbitrator. (@
, . .... -Me. "~Q.L.QIJI~1
After hrs appmntment as: tile replacementarbrtrator., Atbtrator Lewis:ts5ued a· t'IfI' QN'f\.~' f-:
'1l:suwld Otli I.a. ~~ ftNy tAe~s\"'"
~(ld..1- Confidentiality Order in order to "restore order, efficiency, and decorum to a process that hadi't -n.is WC,.
~SL.~ .,.... • \_' . .11....1.' __ J"flS_QIO/IM .
Mlrf:i~ 1'' ' become bogged down in personal attacks ami unwarranted innuendo, and to enable [the] matter ~4;l.,.J1U
~s: ~~r.
,to procec,d'In:good'f:
.\"I!.,.jf ~ . h"
., alt ' , '(Z'welg'
' D, ec)" J' .u·1 y ·3 , 20
. 14 'EX. 3"at 2·')
'J,,' ,. Th 'C nfid
", eo· . t·ltY'VI'
. entIa .r...der i~,~ ~DVC4.
f~itl ~";Q,.tXPlicitlY prohibited parties from discussing the proceedings through "any fonn of
communication,including.but not limited to the internet, blogs. and other online media."
(Washington Mot. Ex. KK, at 2.} Arbitrator Lewis rea(Hhe'contents ofthe Confidentiality OFder
c. during his first conference calJ with the parties. (See Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014, Ex. 3, at 3.)
'1:ftc..O\JWoot.IM
,.., . bcd~" WhHc the call was in progress, Washington made ,posts to his blogconceming.tbe
t..-ct..c.t""'"'"
L&M'r ---tw.. ConfidcntialityOrder and attached the'ConfidentiaJityOrdcr to 'one of the posts. (Id.at 4.)
~vluij~
i2f~"~ According to Arbitrator Lewis, the posts were Uin:flamrnato~~!.in direct violation of
,l~~,:
the Confidentiality Order." (IQJ - " ' 'Dr. c.~d. ~~'vs,.. -d D-tuvJ
, )
~,.;,.., rA4Stn.
"",,,.r6lSc;..nf,
-4
\Nh..t t"~"i~;
Case 2:10,.cv-09647·PKC.JCF Document 59 Filed 09/05/14 Page 5- of 26
1)is~~(!) of- Ic.+s

~c.t \IIIG-& oJ ,,~ ... I ~cI..j.p
Fromthetime.of Arbitrator Lewis'sappointrnent, Wasbingtonexpressed 'TA\\ti., eo.d
~ .
;~ I(i 11 (~frustration with both him and the .proceeding. (See Washington Mot. Ex. 11, at 1 ("If Hon. Lewis 1).1 ::,~~ I..J.
Jt...."". 1W("~1-:l
·2;:Dl? -btla-c.is not given and does not begin to read these pleadings before our conference call OR submit a~I"5 ~.,
L,t.v. r w..J 4l~t-1'--- hi\'j\~
~~. notarized version of his oath, then there is absolutely no point in me getting on this call. I am not \It'Ie.+-kc-ot ~
~",:~I ~'~
going to waste my time talking with someone who is going to receive $T,OOOlhour about my '*W\ Lo«Ja
u.r~·t~
1\c..~~~
~"-r'
case, who knows very little about what has happened and has made a conscious decision to
~w~
~~~ n1"lDI~ remain in the dark. ").) According to Arbitrator Lewis, during the firstcortference call
'fM-l V~+c. Washington was "extrernely disruptive," repeatedly interrupted other parties on the call, and
CI\I~M'r~
~k. ~~aned Arbitrator Lewis "crazy." (Washington Mot. Ex. LL ~ 2.)
~~\,~~~
H+ UI ~p~ After the call~ Arbitrator Lewis decided to bold separate calls with each party.
~Yft~+-.\J~ct )
<.sr' ~~ 1- (Id.~ 4.) The call with Washington did not go welL Arbitrator Lewis described the call as
.L . .._ILl
,,-c; ~..,...t. ...
.I·~·
~"':011~\ -.c.~Ou follows:
of L...,e~~, ~~(..Lp.
I then spoke with Claimant. I explained to Claimant that

his claims are serious and deserve careful consideration but
that he must conduct himself in an appropriate manner as
he is acting as ;his '()wRrounselarni ,is ,a party t-o this
arbitration. Claimant refused to listen. Claimant insisted
that I have no authority to conduct this arbitration; that he
will not read, respond to, or abide by any of my orders; and
that, despite the previous arbitrator's fmding of
oa~ '"' ' ' 1-<-, ~ : d.~Jf~ I
~-d . \N~ • -P...\.' ~ ~IS Mt
discriminatio ll, he plans to file a motionjn federal court to
have iliis arbitration "thrown out" (even though, as l
.fv..q...l ,,~o .... 1 ~t +-c
explained to Claim.ant, only a partial award has been ~f-f-~ ~ r~~ ~J....
entered and this arbitration is, tberefore, not final; and +-
~ u,;~., <tH- Aff 6tl) ; Ir'U • ~,.l,
despite tilt: fact that the United Stated District Court for the
Southern Djstrjct of New York previously ruled that .he is
.....
1-- S"\& ~J.-lf4" '&1.
4
bound by the agreement he signed to have his claims ~").l.dlh,)1o.MA u.~~--j

arbitrated and hisappeall}f -that 'ruling 1:0 -the United States -11\ ~~ w~ - VV£'IC
Court of ~ppeal~ for the Second ~ircuit was dismissed). I cJ.et';.N; "",Let '1lA\~'-4
asked ClaImant lfthere was anything more he wanted to a....tJ..s~ ".5~f-"~" r ~o--
discuss, and he said no. ~~. l ~ ~1 db l/~
ilih ~ 6.) ~Gf.4.~L~.s (,. ~.1 ~A (Iov~ i~"~
tft~ ~t ~N-fc:;,l!t:~-t-r cUcAllido/'
I ~1tA. ~~\c: (.. J~w ~olA,f\O\ of
- 5 <iIO -.f~" .
Case 2:10.,cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 09/05/14 Page 6 of 26
C~t;'1.~L~$ i..lif~~j
l~ i, oS,;!.., iJ ~t.
After concluding the telephone conversations, Arbitrator Lewis ordered the
parties to participate in good faith and warned that further violations of the Confidentiality Order
"may result in the dism.issal of an claims for abuse of the arbitration process." iliL. ~ 7.) let~~crt'
Cc.f"l~Jd
*
Arbitrator Lewis then invited the parties to submit cross motions to vacate Arbitrator Gregory's ~++,.,q,~&..
. C.,..t, ~c,r
Partial Final Award. iliL.) ........1 CAIIIIIIItIl ~·t
-
I
v~~
Defendants subsequently submitted.a.motion to. vacate.. Arbitrator Gregory's ~f~
Partial Final Award. (Zweig Decl., July 3,2014, Ex. 4, at 3.) Wash.ington neither submitted his
own motion, nor submitted a response to Arbitrator Lewis. (ld.) On April 18, 2014, pursuant to '"]"J"ip'''~ (\,,~
ts J_'~ ""+'
AAAEmploy,ment...Arbitration Rule l&, AtbitratorLewisgrantedthe motion and vacated ~l .f
c..!Jt-h.+-w .1\4
Arbitrator Gregory's award. iliL. at 3-5.) (hM-l.
1'1a. Of!\1 V~ ,-/I v-lir • CIMtA
While defendants' motion to vacate was pending before Arbitrator Lewis, v~. r<.t,~ I.U
~s. ?·~I\C~.
Washingtonsoughtleave from this Courtto file an· ....E mergencyMotion'· requesting that boththe
undersigned and Magistrate Judge Francis, to whom the case had been assigned for general
L<o ""t ~.1o.....~ :
pretrial supervision, recuse themselves from the case. (Docket # 33.) As the arbitration was still c..*\,~
'*'-~ t'I~"f
'pending-before'the·AAA at tbattnne,tbeCourtomeredthat Ufn]o 'motion 'to disqualify maY'be -{. ;).. \.,...~t'1
~V(O~
filed until 14 days following a Final Award in the arbitration proceeding." (Order, Mar. 7, 2014, ~ ~O'I.
1+ """)II '+v I\+i\
at 2, Docket # 38.) Despite the Court's explicit Order, Washington filed his proposed motion. Ck"~Uw-\.rc.
. 9J1.?';,\fed. ...
1"':~ft\;~) (Docket#,4fr.} In addition to requesting recusal'. Washington requestedtftat a reptacementjud'ge l~1'»
t\t'IM'f 'l'0~ C '" {P t,..,
~.,..~ "' .....,., sanction opposing counsel and issue a default judgment in his favor. (Wasllington Mot. 3.) ~ OL~.
k~)~.f6 .. 1l-Lt-CIiI>\e\~c(
tt'? l.Dl. Washington's motion was denied by both Magistrate Judge Francis and the undersigned. ,,:so.t.c:\~lo\ ~
ttt.~.. tvN~ -b»\tl ""(. ~
Q;'-'f..ws Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entm't, No, 11)~cv ..'9647 {pK:C)(lCF), 2014 WL ~"t' "''-'i~1\"
~ tII!Jldw~J.i"f '" "C;oo.t ~{\ ~
--h- \'~' 258308, at "'1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2014); (Order, Mar. 27,2014, at 3, Docket # 43.)
of-'W I V ~I~'
__ ~~
',II Ar-'l b\+.
-Washington subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration. (Docket # 46.) In support of his
Y. 11'1,
-p' 00'\111'\4 ~*
cf l.ic:ae~ :. f;..cd., Lt.,.. tII<I,().>
Iha.~""'St N1 /II\~'o...
-6 ..
~1'tt ~- ~t.o .sav.,ltt-4.
~rj ~~ ~ ~ ?'ft\ ~ t
rur,....
~ C'U.\e. f.. Jv\~ 2-1"lq\ ~ 0tvJ.t;. ~ ~~'!l
.utI.d1.lJ..IAI:,(.. Jo(~.
motion, Washington stated that, should the Court rule against him, he would file a separate
action "against all parties involved" including the undersigned, Magistrate Judge Francis, and
Judge Patterson::!. (Pl!s Mot. for Recons. 30-31.)

, j'4 ~ ...Iijot.fMM.;'&W'\
In addition to rus submissions in support of his motion, Washington also
01\£ Idle.. Ij!>.t~
C~~ -I. &.(·1 submitted a letter to the Court in which he stated that U[ d]ue to the on-going fraud that has
y-,.'e>
.<"'.f.Rc.t.....+
N°TH.f:'ac
e....J~ 4U
, occurred since the inception oftbiscase, I cannot and will not continue litigating this case any
---------
further under the jurisdiction and supervision of the American Arbitration Association ...."
btt. 2.otJ~
Q""",e.; z.o\~· (Wasbington Letter, Mar. 28,2014, at 2, Docket # 2 (emphasis in original).) Washington made
similar statemen.ts to Arbitrator Lewis and tbe ~4;.A on a number of occasions. (See, tl,
Washington Letter, Mar. 13,2014, Ex. A, at 1, Docket # 39 ("I am not proceeding any further
with the AAA and Lewis can do whatever he wants to do ...."); Pl.'s Mot. for Recons. Ex. D, at
8-9 ("I refuse to re-arbitrate the merits of my case or entertain other legal aspects of this case
'S(-~\.l". t-Pu.tC OA;-watti 6t.ci-'<.( +'-tc~ M"lcl ~c.. c:tc~~ b~ ~QI\) I I ~J;. Lf"~ ~-IC."'1f'ot1
....").) .f..v~ ~ '~'Q. w¥\ttQ$ ""1Iw..f.({~ Aft';, I\~"".
Between the time Arbitrator Lewis issued the Confidentiality Order and the time
he vacated Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award, Washington continued to post updates to
rus blog concerning the litigation, in violation of the Confidentiality Order. (Zweig Oed., July 3,
2014, Ex. 3, at 4.) The posts contained private communications, the text ofArbitrator Lewis's
orders, as well as personal attacks directed at both Arbitrator Lewis and his law finn. (Id. at 3-4
n.2 (detailing and quoting Washington's blogposts from February 25, 2014, through March 15,
2014).) Washington also admitted to recording conference calls.:I ilih at 5 n.3.)
,.....0.
ftc. ~I:> ~.. 2 Judge Patterson has had no role in Washington's case. Washington's inclusion of Judge Patterson appears to stem ~I'~
\
~"'\" ""i from his role as the presiding judge in a separate discrimination case against The WiUiam Morris Agency, Inc. Seek-' ~~g
CQsa. ~i rt~ Rowe E~~'t v. Wjlli~m Morris Agency Inc., N~. 98-cv-8272 (RPP), 2012 WL ?464~11 (S.D..N.Y. No.v. 8, 2012). ~ Wd
~ (lowe,'J ) In additIOn to recording conference calls, Washington 'has apparently been posunghis.recordl1lgs on-line. (~ Al," '" I ~.
'\\.f",fV,~.F Washington Mot. 28 & n.2 (quoting from a recording and providing a link to it).) ~ tI ~
~ ',,..~ . I., \«".: Lodp L.LP . ~tJ.WlI p. 2.""~ 6k
Isftll.f "'t6ot.. o.d~~ ~t'fc:o..s c...Q~t' -7·
~ttf' ~L:t')l tt ~ i~~~...c.f· -t1:~~C+:-{A\I<NJ&4
wi UlNi'l MQ";" +- ~'1~ ..ft\eA" tJ"c.;.~""'f-1 --:tl",,-¢r ~tct) I ""~ If tJ...i ~
~e£ 'Ze(l.O "'*' ' ft~J ~f~&4'~1'Q ~i off:~ wl.", \ht,~'~ )~t-Zo6t.
~i 1N'''l~ ~ ~ ,utGM.(.f(!cf-+-,) ..e~~ . . . n.:p

u.i,(/\ \\(. ~t~ +0 ~ j ~~\II~ \,\ ~ cc If?
One of the issues Washington detailed in his postings was the alleged relationship
between the AAA and William Morris Endeavor's counsel. On March 10,2014, Washington
,\Nko? """~t. "'c4i-~.
discovered that one member of defendants' legal team was married to an attorney employed by
~tc\lcc.\t:.. the AAA. (Washington Mot. 55.) According to Washington, as the relationship had not been
l).'\cttAl'_'-\1t r1>t
\.... ~#_ +0 previously disclosed, this was "undeniable proof' that opposing counsel and the AAA had
~~~ eJ.ce.. conspired against him. (hlJ In response to Washington's allegations, Arbitrator Lewis attested I
~, ( t. '5 .
(1(,.&.01" /l.t "'~A- ~
-'\k MIT Vitlt-L.that, though he knew the AAA employee and had worked with her, he did not know her husband, ct~ ~
'7 btCI:IIAI.)/I,
1'tA...~ ~1t'J . . .
-\oll~ or that she was married, before Washington raised the issue. (Zweig Dec\., July 3,2014, Ex. 3, , t::.~ "'4'ot1'1"
b~ N+ilt~ . l+-"--+ul.. ~lJ4.f.m
Q ;tJ);,.fo, at"8 n.7.) Arbitrator Lewis further stated: "In any event, the fact of this previously unknown """,.\s ....., ~~
\II. f\ ~t' "( ....~s."u:vep.~' .. f-'A\. t:t....u.~~1"'t
4'~tM~ relationship has absolutely no bearing on my impartiali!,X in this arbitration just as it did not, and .;.e *A-WlJ
A.J,t~~ ~~I"'\ ~.~)
loVo\Ui!:\C obVIOusly could not have. before Mr. Washington made me aware of it!' (hlJ lot WIl t.. c-+-"cl
~ ~ ~fck) Defendants subsequently moved for sanctions for violations of the confidentiali:~:"Jk
+c. c.u.. ... t...d W
Order. (Id. at I.) In response to the motion, Washington repeatedly stated that he would ~&A+ lJIA.4e ~~
R· ~~GI\.f..,
0...._" continue to violate the Confidentiality Order. [CPl.'S Mot. for Recons. Ex. D, at 9 ("Lewis cannot
.~
-butt .... I,i~
~ ~ .
wu u
~
~_' 1\"'" I.sCl~;; Ufjenuinely believe that he can come into a three year litigation and issue a Confidentiality Order t1!:f~
". ~f. - .,... .... 1 . ""t!lo(."., '"(
~t +- not knowing the facts of this case, and think that I'm goiug to comply ...."); rd. at 10 ("Until I c,~.
"'" a...J.: (
Y(,l'Y' receive complete and totaljustice, I will continue to publicly share with the world, the truth
L~,r"'c'\lfA
,.~
...
~ On April 18,2014, Arbitrator Lewis concluded
about what is happening to me in this case."W A-tr\- ·~ot
.J";'S ~.. fN.
that Washington had acted in bad faith and ordered an award to defendants oftwo-tbirds of its JJd 'D~ \I:.t.~
'1k p-f\e~ ';-'.Ij.
Jegal fees and costs as a sanction. (Zweig DecL, July 3, 2014, Ex. 1, at 7, 9-10.) Based on l ~"'fi-&w.'
~) tAt "1vAl;r61.
UtIoN\S ~AS. flo defendants' accounting, the fees totaled $43,707.60. (Zweig Decl., July 3,2014, Ex. 2, at 15.) -kIf '-eAb
:t~1~ Arbitrator Lewis noted that he had authority to sanction Washington through the 2009 arbitration ~..,~ I
t f ~~~~~
~:~ Que: ~eeDlent between Washington and William Morris Endeavor as its scope included "all ~tIl ...'1
-h"",,~~ . ~,'<Ir.
He c."o1 .s~t"" PN! ....
, S$tlC "'1 O,.A,.,-s;, A. ~ CA.t!. - 8

disputes" betWeen the parties. (Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014, Ex. 3, at 8-9.) Arbitrator Lewis
further warned Washington that his conduct was "unacceptable" and that further actions "may
result in additional sanctions, including [a] recommendation to the AAA that it terminate [the]
arbitration, with prejudice." (Id. at 10 (emphasis removed).)
Despite Arbitrator Lewis's warning, Washington continued to make posts to his
blog discussing the proceeding$. (Washington Letter,July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 2-7 nn.1-9,
Docket # 57 (detailing and quoting Washington's blog posts from April 18,2014, through June
10,2014).) In one blog post, Washington stated that he was working on a new complaint against
opposing counsel, Arbitrator Lewis, and others and threatened to file commercial liens against
"all parties involved." (Id. at 2-3 & n.l; Zweig Decl., July 10,2014, Ex. C, at 2.) In a later post,
Washington posted an image of the cover page of a complaint he was drafting narning as
defendants, inter alia, opposing counsel, Arbitrator Gregory, Arbitrator Lewis, three named
Circuit Judges, Judge Patterson, the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York, the
undersigned, the AAA, and the United States of America. (Zweig Decl., July 10,2014, Ex. E, at
1.)
In his subsequent communications, Washington repeatedly suggested that

O\~ ~"-' ~~"
f'jI~ t.lO~M ~
Arbitrator Lewis dismiss the case. (PI.'s Mot. for Recons. Ex. D, at to; Zweig Decl., July 3,
{taDn J i " trl.rf\ ~ J
~[c)oI\,t'~ t\o~ 2014, Ex. 2, at 2.) On April 29, 2014, Arbitrator Lewis held a conference call with the parties.
~~~~~ ~. Wa..rr.~'"
\..ew'i~. I (Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 3.) The call quickly descended into disorder. (Id.) -.fer. c·... i.~•
• 1:».,+-61J ~ .
re.r~-.(cal~ IU~ct " -- -- ,
L~ .1 '- \.,' According to Washington, this occurred when he raised the issue of arbitrability and asserted that CA'''' t-J \.
",I"'.,.. '\.Sll~ ~IJ u,,&..u. "c -tksfOl
.p;~l kWIOIl. his due process and equal protection rights were being violated, fraud was being committed, and tr:-:t':-~
\'i~~Ioo(~llI.f et~ c.IIIf.
fw. c:l4~~r.flrc- Arbitrator Lewis was exceeding his powers. (Id.) Arbitrator Lewis repeatedly asked whether l ~~_w.b'I-~lli)
-~~~
CU(.
iL
y,,~
• •
rJ'odI(l( l..c.i.., l-rA-oF,,-I.
w& l.fo"" \,.""- Washington would proceed in good faith, or whether he desired a dismissal of the arbitration.
. r
1- +-u.., f.~lr~-+J
~ 'vi ~~ ~tJ,..
- 9
(Id.) Each time, Washington stated that due to "ongoing fraud" he would not continue in good
faith. (MJ Near the end ofthe call, Washington stated that he would "soon" be suing Arbitrator
Lewis as well. (ld.) Washington states that "of course" he recorded the call and recorded all the
conference calls. (ML)
Arbitrator Lewis then invited defendants to move to dismiss Washington's claims
-
given Washington's request to do so and his violations of the Confidentiality Order. (Id.)
Defendants subsequently moved for an order dismissing Washington's claims. (See id. at I.) In
response to the motion, Washington sent an e-mail to opposing counsel stating that an adverse
ruling wouJd not prevent him from litigating his case and promising that neither defendants nor
opposing counsel would "get away" with their actions. (Zweig Decl., July 10,2014, Ex. F, at 1.)
On June 25, 2014, Arbitrator Lewis dismissed Washington's claims "with
prejudice and on the merits." (Washington Letter, July 15, 2014, Ex. A, at 14.) Arbitrator Lewis I"" l4.ld
1"_. 1..1 d' L L~'.t .J.,.
V'~ • lei".,.. provided two bases for his dismissal. First, he ordered dismissal because Washington requeste4, f>t\tO.I<.t his
~U4VC. ~i 4! ".. 1•tA,w; ell•
"'~ .,...,. the arbitration to be tenninated. CI!l at 8) Second, Arbitrator Lewis found that dismissal was ~ 110+ ~,*
M,.cLIf;~iII\ / . :L!~./YtIe
+ -
Le-w.J>' .. warranted as a sanction for Washington'S repeated violations of his orders, including the
A'~ ~ ...ol'
I,d\Kad1 ~r.!::G.f.
.f'h+ 1.(. w-.)
.
V~\:!\.«;t+- Confidentiality Order. (Id.) Arbitrator Lewis drew authority for the sanction from the parties' ~'~l ....
~ t.e ' locl : UtJ,

1....c.CA/rIQ.::~. arbitration agreement and the "rules and applicable law" governing the arbitration. ffih at 8-9,) NM.\ ~ +'-«
I
lAt•• I,trt'te.vtal AJrrA {"-t I.",

l s",. .,' If-ett Washington subsequently moved for reconsideration of the dismissal. (Washington Letter, July 6.~.... of
~-d vtM ~ .--Iot. ..)
LeW, ~.cf 15,2014, at 2.)
INt#\ ~ I, c..d
M 00II(£ ~.;" After Arbitrator Lewis dismissed Washington's claims, defendants moved to
r,oAOofl ~
;.:c.tl ",cA conftrm the arbitral award and moved for a filing injunction against Washington. (Docket # 49,
..,Ii~"1lJ -\ic. ~.
55.) As Washington's motion for reconsideration was still pending before Arbitrator Lewis, he
viewed defendants' actions. as premature .. (Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. C, at 2.)
- 10
Washington informed opposing counsel that its actions throughout the litigation ensured that he
would be "deprived of [his] rights under the color of law" and was the primary reason he would
be "taking legal action against [the firm] and other involved in this heinous conspiracy to
interfere with the human rights of African Americans." (Mh)
Arbitrator Lewis denied Washington's motion on July 22, 2014. (Barnett Letter,
July 29,2014, Attach., at I, Docket # 58.)
DISCUSSION
As Washington is proceeding J2!Q se, the Court construes his submissions "to raise
the strongest arguments that they suggest." Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
L Washington's Motion for Reconsideration Is Denied.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 60(b),
1\iswf,J. iii M·o"I...\.1

~&OlIliJ",-I"'" Fed. R. Civ. P. A motion to reconsider is "addressed to the sound discretion of the district
~nl20l~
;:-" IIfM 1k court[.]" See Mendell ex reI. Viacom, Inc. v. Gollust, 909 F.2d 724, 731 (2d Cir. 1990). A
w-r ~~~~'"
~ s~~. -trr:4'I1 .
motIon fior recons)"d erat·Ion ..·IS genera IIy not &'I,avore
. d and'~s proper1y grante d on1y upon ashowmg
'.
, I~ \IIf~ic.hC4l;.>.\e'
',l"IIrU ftlllI>'\-ofexceptionalcircumstances." Pichardo v. Ashcroft 374 F.3d 46,55 (2d Cir. 2004) (internal
"of- +.t IIoW cJ
~-t ,,«.,ttll! citation and quotation marks omitted). "The standard for granting such a motion is strict, and
+- t,& ,,~\o{Pu(
=-:::t::~teconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling
t:Vti f:i ............. decisions or data that the court overlook:ed~, in other words, that might reasonably be
expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d
255,257 (2d Cir. 1995). "[AJ motion to reconsider should not be granted where the moving
party seeks solely to re1itigate an issue already decided:" Id.
Motions for reconsideration "should be granted only when the defendant
identifies an intervening change oflaw, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a
- l1
-
clear error or prevent manifest injustice." Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil ofTartikov, Inc. v. YLL
.
Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99, 104 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal citation and quotation marks
omitted).
('~I~.,( ".t ;.J11f,N$( M£)O"'-N
.f +hc llS ull ~·h~K. .'Washington's submission does not identify any new facts that were not before the
JJ. ,So tI'Ijj eA. i" ~ .,:;...... til uft't'
i1.l Cov",.j. M.t·Court when it issued its Order. Further, Washington does not identify an intervening. change in.
.
Ii~ClIII+ .l'~ ~
u
not ~,f'!1"'l\fhw that would alter the Court's prior ruling. Washington argues that the Court in its prior ruling
h' I'/\$~ "". ~t .
~ ..-t~"l+
",j"".tu
4J
1 l· 'J."d not rea d h'IS motIon
re &D'\Su'l.J.ll "10,ItS entIrety
. . h actua 1compreI
or " Wit ' " becauselt
lenSlon . d'd
I not reac
h th
e
...if ~Q~;O"-.d
~~dt. 411.+- issue of sanctions against opposing counsel or ther~quest for a defaultjudgment. Washington
~iS5.J~.
~~~~c.-l had explicitly requested that these issues be decided by a replacement judge and not the
L.£.\' I. ""~ u.r) .
undersigned. (Washington Mot. 3 ("Secondly, I am asking for the impartial federal judge that
replaces Castel todetennine .... "H As the Court's Order denied the portion of Washington's
-
It Will) /'lot 1\~(.Cjj -# .j...
motion seeking recusal, it was not necessary to reach the remainder of the motion. ~t",\;I .. It 14d1lL1 h&d
~4..,(I/I'" (I~ of
Because the additional issues raised in Washington's motion were contingent on ~::e~~
th . I'
. e grantmg fi al h C d'd ' d..l-' th'
liS requestor recus ,t e ourt 1 not err m nota wessmg
. d
e Issuesralse. +---+"'clo,,,\ f~ 0,.
~ s\....oNlcl 116
e.U'1",,,I\,«:'uMtl
Consequently, Washington's motion for reconsideration is denied. a.;,,,,",,(,d ~
't'1"~:ca1~ e..tkiCA.\ vi., ~~$'"
II. Defendants' Motion to Confmn the Arbitration Award Is Granted~ ~f p FA I/IIAI J\~"
f! ......\~~ .s. C.(.
The FAA provides a "streamlined" process for a party seeking "ajudicial decree :U;:;~;,J
1+ ..".s".,.,. ~~'i
confinning an award, an order vacating it, or an order modifying or correcting it." Hall Street .f.oc:lC.\c-'"C. ..,,~
..,.... A~~ v\oW-cd
Associates L.L.C. v. Mattel. Inc .• 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008). Under section 9 of the FAA, "a 'ft
(J\I'~ '(1,11"J
.fD tAJ ""","II.l." ~
court 'must' confmn an arbitration award 'unless' it is vacated, modified, or corrected 'as
~:.;~-t4i
prescribed' in §§ 10 and 11." Id. (quoting 9 U.s.c. § 9). Section 10(a) of the FAA enumerates IIV"" c.l~~s) ~
14-- wcs ~_""
four situations in which a court may enter an order vacating an arbitration award: ~..,..." Jt~. .ICI\
....,J .,.. "'& . ,f.".,J "" 41(
(1) where t~e award was procured by corruption, fraud, or bil'dl..,. If
undue means;
- 12
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the

arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in

refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause
shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and
material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by
which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers; or so

imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and defmite
award upon the subject matter was not made.
9 U.S.c. § W(a).
In thisCircuit,grnunds for vacatur under section 10 include an arbitrator' s
"manifest disregard" for the law. T.Co Metals, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc., 592 F.3d
329,339-40 (2d Cir. 2010). An award is in manifest disregard of the law if the arbitrators are
"funy aware of the existence of a· clearly defined· governioglegal principle, but refuse[ ] to apply
it, in effect, ignoring it." Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AllimalFeeds lnt'l Corp., 548 F.3d 85, 96 (2d Cir.
2008) (alteration in original and citation omitted), rev'd on other grounds, 559 U.S. 662 (2010).
Section] 1 oftheFAAprovjdesthat.a court may "make an order modifying or
correcting" an award:
(a) Where there was an evident material miscalcuJation of

figures or an evident material mistake in the description of
any person, thing, or property referred to in the award.
(b) Where the arbitrators have awarded upon a matter not

submitted to them, unless it is a matter not affecting the
merits of the decision upon the matter submitted.
(c) Wherethe_award.isimperfectin matter of form not

affecting the merits of the controversy.
9 U.S.c. § 11. Finally, a court may remand an award to an arbitrator if the award is so indefinite
or ambiguous that the court does not "know exactly what it is being asked to enforce." Ams. Ins.
Co. v. Seagull Compania Naviera, S.A., 774 F.2d 64, 67 (2d Cir. 1985).
- 13
In opposition to defendants' motion to confirm the award, Washington provides
four arguments as to why the arbitral award should be set aside. First, Washington argues that
Arbitrator Gregory was improperly removed and, consequently, all of Arbitrator Lewis's orders.
including the order vacating Arbitrator Gregory's partial award, are void. Second, Washington
asserts thatArbitrator Gregory and Arbitrator Lewis's decisions to enforce the arbitration
agreement were in manifest disregard ofthe law. Third, Washington argues that the failure to
tfc~ .. .J~
oI-fot. PtA A disclose the alleged relationsbp between opposing counsel and an AAA employee biased the
c.v. fi.tII etJ M

OC:~~.IMU arbitral proceedings in defendants' favor. Finally, he asserts that opposing counsel has been
"'-' ~.J.c, ~ AA~U.·
W'I., A. engaging in a pattern of bad faith litigation warranting their removal and sanctions.
c-.,.,~ .. a. Neither Arbitrator Gregory's Removal, Nor Arbitrator Lewis's Actions
Were Unlawful.
Washington.'s claims in arbitration were governed by the AAA Employment
Arbitration Rules & Mediation Procedures. Rule 16 of these rules governs the procedure to
disqualify an arbitrator. Under Rule 16, a party may object to an arbitrator to the AAA, which
detennines whether an arbitrator should be disqualified. Am. Arbitration Ass'n, Employment
Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures ("Arbitration Rules"), Rule 16(b). The AAA's
decision is conclusive. ld. Within the AAA. objections to appointed arbitrators are heard by the
ARC. See Am. Arbitration Ass'n Admin. Review Council, Review StandardS I, available at
https://www .adr.org/cs/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=ADRSTAGE2012632&Rev
isionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased. According to the ARC, an objection to an arbitrator may

I ......I.. M/~<~.
be made "at any time in the arbitration, up to the issuance of the Award or other tennjnating 1tR'~" UI~ J
order." Id. at 2. The inclusion of the clause "other terminating order" indicates that the" Award" '!lo:t
tUl\;f.lC.
1"-< ~e...4s(.11 \~
contemplated by the ARC in this context is a final award conferring jurisdiCtion to a competent -~~~.
court. See Michaels v. Mariforum Shpping. S.A., 624 F.2d 411,414 (2d CiT. 1980) (construing ~~~~~
c>.s..( ~ t:Af
shwl~ ,.,He
-14· "'r"-cI.,c",~4~~~
l ......... """'" ~blic.~'jGtf J
l,,",,~ fo-- 4 \;'fw'~
~(I eJ.~') vo-to\:Q. ,,~ c-..J,f
. ""f-I9(' ~ ".wi"'ll-t i+.vo
..;, "". ~ k~li\& ,~.
Le llYi1 ~iJ, tI".,r

IJj(.~~ -k.. i\o\
.. ~o.r~' I" ~he phrase "the award" in 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) to confer jurisdiction on a federal court only after a
h; s l-i Nr.' c:4 Co ",ICItI
dJSM;'.s"'~ Mj final award).
CGtJt. oIIj\-IK
""'t:},,~c.L\,.i+ ~.+ Washington asserts that the ARC exceeded its authority by removing Arbitrator
k()"'~"",re.JI~
(,r ~~~ ·~~I~
Gregory as an award had already been issued. The Court assumes, without deciding, that
decisions by the ARC are reviewable under the same standards as a decision by an arbitrator. An
inquiry as to whether an arbitral panel exceeded its powers focuses on whether the panel had the
authority to reach an issue and not whether the issue was correctly decided. DiRussa v. Dean
Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 824 (2d Cir. 1997).
1\&A(lC. S\2IM~S~d~ . . .
. tl., AO~ ~1\.If. ~ ..f;M.1 ~ ~ In order for an award to be "final," an arbItratiOn award "must be mtended by the
j+fH\I~ jA1~ ~~. ) . . . .. .
arbItrators to be theu complete determmation of alJ claIms subnutted to them." MIchaels, 624
t2f ~ \.. f1' I" ,
J'1 6 of FA.1'r - ~.2d
at 413. Arbitrator Gregory's "Final Partial Award" was not a complete determination of all ,
$'1 ....,. N"a"rJ. . . . . It ""oJ .. ',.fov-~
O'''''101l,,/\· claims. In the award, Arbitrator Gregory explicitly left open the issues ofWash.in on's ("1U2~,,-flt,
Ao~ ",t $';( I'M'C.'" PIW,f:'hN"'tPf.l,CoMfe"H·~~ .', PV"'ITIv'E'C7frMAt(f.f,~ 4I(~"':\.'d
.. .14"4\ a.w~. reasonable fees and costs. (Washington Mot. Ex, A, at 12.) "Generally, in order for a claim to
LA...,.....
I",':..., ~iOllJ
l'
4\,. ~)A~
",,~.."l . .,~() I
I
wMe- AoO"I \.oet,

~"~;'J be completely detennined, the arbitrators must have decided not only the issue ofliability of a , .......,IG( ~lIt '-!fI'I
\I~lc~ ' + < f 1 . L . . . ""~ -ry o.f ""1
IVbf~~ h.' party on the claim, but also the issue of damages." Michaels, 624 F.2d 413-14. ~~'!"~r*CJf1
;L~~1l c:4 'fIf'OJ-oI u ..A"..,"'~
t"f\~-t.s. \~) ~~ By leaving open the issue of costs, Arbitrator Gregory's award did not end the c:t.oCooo~.,So
C'-lc.l~ :,,~ . . . . . . . l c..,[,1 '-f~
r~ vr~ arbItration proceedmgs and was therefore not a "final" deCISIon. As the award did not temunate "'i """,,-~es'
~'" ~... ~~/~u\
0'Wl(.. ",o~~... +..t ~. I c,.
17 .#c.o",·,tic-c. ~~. the arbitral proceeding, the ARC had the authority to decide on arbitrator objections. .J'\~~ f)J~!~
\_.. , """'~vtl."'l &.e~oJ.'
(' Washington also argues that Arbitrator Lewis exceeded his powers when he \Ow~~ rz,E='A (I •
fN.~~i';!o vacated Arbitrator Gregory's award. When Arbitrator Gregory was removed, an arbitrator
:.f,'Nl.,\ ;(o"f-e., vacancy was created. Under Rule 18 of the Arbitration Rules, a vacancy is filled "in accordance
~ '¥< .f)'''''GilDI
~~ ~With applicable provisions ofthese Rules." Arbitrator Lewis was chosen to fin the vacancy by
'Ot~ kc:..NJ. .
At~+foil\t) mutual consent of the parties. (Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014, Ex. 4, at 2.) The appointment of
~~I..c'-fl/""',
~Qt:A;B c..,.aJo.- v~~ ~~
D.rd./~ ,,&:. "vO.IJ~ ,."p,'~. _ 15 _
Arbitrator Lewis as a neutral arbitrator was consistent with Rule 12 of the Arbitration Rules.
M~ cue. kill
When an arbitrator is chosen tofiU a vacancy as a substitute arbitrator, the panel "shall determine 'L ~~:~c
'\0 Inbvil\SI
in its sole discretion whether it is necessary to repeat al1 or part of any prior bearings." , .\-ou\'
LtWi S t'f,fVJed .
f'''" .
Arbitration Rules, SUpr!b Rule 18,
tt- c:I.Iicl c.(G( _hiJ
As Arbitrator Lewis had the authority to determine whether prior proceedings ~.;;~~l+
Cl'" ,,(;.CA....... fr"
were to be repeated, he did not exceed his powers in vacating.the previously issued award~ ~"iJ. ot
Ali.:4'r...fo.-- AD+
~~ ... ,.\,i.t-4.p"
b. The Decisions to Enforce the Arbitration Agreement Were Not in
Manifest Disregard of the Law. t'WlVUll-1-o
-!l 0 -t~ ffrA '
In support tlfhis,.argument .that the . arhitrdtion .agreement should not have been t1C";;'!L.)~
((jew telA ""'~
enforced, Washington asserts that claims brought under Title VII arc not arbitrable and that the ~'<I4J
arbib'ation agreement was unconscionable. A party seeking to vacate an arbitration award based ~:ft'i
V~I
on an:allegedmanifcbtdi5regard-ofthelaw must show some "egregious impropriety on the part. ~.
~~otJ.
of the arbitrator." T.Co Metals, LLC, 592 F.3d at 339. Thus, an award will be enforced if there
V'4 '" t:!'"~4 to6 t.Lf ~t. ,nt>1 .. ~hkJ N~i.d
.is a "barely colorable justification" for the outcome reached. ld, t:;-tMJ.-...c:I....,_s-M..li... S, "'!' Ill...... M".-!!t
I \ (..~ "'f'"'*"" .....J.~ ....,,\;j\t..Gtc..c. o+
T_ • • Md'
urn an dOd
:lJJlts pnoremoran
. th e 1"It1gatIOn
. r erstaymg • .In pend'mg·an award In
. ~ ~"'I;I\A,.fI-
I- "1\1ir~td
"l:rJ~s
~.t, ~.", CNJ .
arbitration, the Court.held that Washington "ha[d] not shown that Congress intended to preclud: Nc..villlo t'lt-t
..f..a.i,
arbitration for claims asserted under either Title VII or 42 U.S.c. § 1981." Washington, 2011 t'I~"~et:4
,",v...tA,ttI Dr
•L I WL 3251504, at "'lO~The Court also held that the arbitration agreement provided the arbitrator
p...... ~4'DI. .
IT 'NCJ .. ".
~J. pc.-svc.Jl""
Hi~·~·-~
u~CcWG4Q11""'4
fo &"""'''ilSl-4c Wit . h th
e exc ' auth'
IuSlve onty to d eCI 1 Ity an d th at th e' 'De1egatlOn
' de 'Issues 0 f arb'ltrab'l' . P rovislon,"
.. l,",,~&h'~
c...NJ.filG4
fw.,t +'- ""~ 1"",.h Vl
~.., .....u.r ~S' which granted tbe arbitrator this authority, was not unconscionable. Id. at *5-6. The Court cI'''''tZtA iw~\~.
'( w\.,,\a. \N"~
;.;,,,,~~,,c.lt declines to revisit its prior decision.
'-dftO~lll
\I~~CI"IAI.IIIZ.~ In sanctioning Washington and dismissing his cJaims, Arbitrator Lewis drew
~hu (, """,ij&. +
'P,:,~~~r\~"I1 authority from the arbitration agreement. (Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 8-9.;
fgtl
(No ~\ " " '
~-;:;t~ . Zweig DecI., July J, 2014; Ex; 3, at 8-:-9.) Arbitrator Lewis did not directly address
.f,./Y'" fo.. . ~I.s
CJA.Il.-. I.". ~ 01'
- 16
-N fNPI: Co (N'li'"'l ~Vo'I'~l !#-,f'-
-tw. 7.. d 0 t'. ~ -f-t4 '" A- '" .
Case 2:10-cv-09.647-PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 09/05/14 Page 17 of 26
Washington'S argument that the agreement was unconscionable. (See Washington Letter, July
15,2014, Ex. A,at·8--9.; Zweig Dec!., July 3,2014, Ex. 3, at 8--9.) In relying on the arbitration
agreement for authority, Arbitrator Lewis implicitly determined that the agreement itselfwas not
unconscionable.
So ll--(.A ri- vie..: :'7'.~~: ft;\po/\ -k1.rbitrator Lewis was under no obligation to provide the reasoning for his award
l H~ti4~
~c ... t'!J",,",·r,..- ~ . -.A.o\:l\~,~d'
..so It)INII w,... c.4~and courts wi II generally not attempt to analyze the reasoning process of an arbitrator. Rich v. "e~~'ls
...,c.s tJI'.~ -+my
()J'().. ~ ~""'-'r J
c..\,J IWlS \ 1\
""~:~(4. Spartis. 516 F.3d 75,81 (2d Cir. 2008). However, "where a reviewing court is inclined to find r-..J M.,.r;t.t\
~j, it -. viol ...+;GI' .. " . . . . . ~S"W\71
of-~t~~. that arbItrators mamfestly disregarded the law or the eVidence and that an explanatIon, IfgIVen, J~... «-\t
~.b' to o.;'\'V, (;. "·1 ~ y./(AS
JJJ. ""'" >#tNt., would have strained credulity, the absence of explanation may reinforce the reviewing court's (.AW\v'\~~ -+0
;"i~. ~ ~£.~I
confidence that the arbitrators engaged in manifest disregard." Halligan v. Piper Jamay, Inc., J..7~""/~-T
- 1 ,,1-' VI,"" I\cof1,l"')
148 F.3d 197,204 (2d Cir. 1998). l-,II+-t/\ £(.t..":1 tc,,,,r
l~fh"l(. ~c:...
There is a "barely colorable justification" for Arbitrator Lewis's detenninatioo i :~t~~l~
that the agreement was not unconscionable. In its prior opinion, the Court held that the
)0 C"'~ is . C".Ie\I·'.,""(c:J~'
"dft\:W~ "Delegation Provision" itself was not unconscionable and addressed arguments similar to those
~e·s~ti...,.e .
Ot.i"". tic.. Washington raised with Arbitrator Lewis. See Washington, 2011 WL 3251504, at ·7-8.
rr f.~;rd f-o d.fcAiA(.. - - - - - - - - - - -

1\; ~"'ft'I u+) reasoning could conceivably justify a finding that the agreement as a whole was also not
~f- "."I.f.. _ ..
~~!i""J unconscionab.!.e. Consequently, the Court concludes that Arbitrator Lewis did not act in manifest
Mo-fw~ . t>cc('cAJ~ t.A-~~ c.'\ ew-I,,'f.....f-.. c""J.ef<-'~ tA,1"J.o.loiliH
(Col~ .. ~li""") dIsregard of the law. wvI'"'t~tJ.J,., ~-"+,w,,. .,."01" """ tA,"'I~f't'..", ~..,e-"-4t~bt
'1c. ~ (.oW""" /!Ar(. T'tIIJO '[)\ f'Ptf~N't "1ft /I'J ED·
"-'~I'ilCI. "j"OI1'''5 ....,." ~ ....1\ ••
.fA\o(ll(..(. ~ W; 11f--. tv1DJ"t'IS c, The Arbitrator Did Not Exhibit Evident Partiality in Favor of
vi"\""Fol'IJ f1i'f-l e. ~II ~(.fwc,~ Defendants.
t:/V..\"5 ft.-, ~I'I\tJ l.JijAU
-f"'e Do-":h~t2j.., .... c:JIt.Washington IIfgues that Arbitrator Lewis exhibited evident partiality in favor of
I • defendants due to the relationship between opposing counsel and the AAA. Under section
7l'~~'"
I~~:~.,.. 1O(a)(2) of the FAA, "evident partiaJity" will be found ''when a reasonable person, considering
?to e,o..c.. " P.-1l of the circumstances, would have to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to one side."
tlDlf C s(oJIf"'tAlfy
\J'&..f1<~ 'j yeew if
he: ''!~fJ "" ~ I'J.-~ 1¥..s ~ - 17

J-lGii:U. iSJue MtMG~ 1-;
~(~~/-';II oot'4;C""'7,~ ~
j-+ .V>(4J Cvvl\+--c;:,"t~ ~ I b"'1oWDt~
~1"f C-CJl+.
Applied Indus. Materials Com. v. Ovalar Makine Ticaret Ve Sanayi. A.S., 492 F.3d 132, l37 (2d
Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in originat). An arbitrator
who knows of a material relationship with a party and fails to disclose it meets this standard. Jd.
The party asserting evident partiality has the burden of proof. Andros Compania Maritima, S.A.
v. Marc Rich & Co., 579 F.ld 691, 700 (2d Cir. 1978).
m.. I • t~~c,. SIlJS~A Cit",.
'Cc,":;:I.I./Ot ~I;, ~ l.ocb(,tr. Four factors are helpful in determining whether nondisclosure meets the evident kAJ~l
H tk41'ot ..l4.rc.u»~ 10 \1'\('.f;A~v ft
~ .lON ~ partiality standard: H( I) the extent and character of the personal interest, pecuniary or otherwise, ~:~~+ hC
0,. ~Jstlf b" . th· fth l ' . b th' e... eo.. ';'i4J(!.
~'kM ~L of the ar ltrator m the proceedmgs; (2) e dIrectness 0 ere atlonshlp etween e arbItrator f~~1It; IIIW
(.A t£, t.,c ",-10 ~ ~ is tf"of
c~e.""""'+ and the party he is alleged to favor; (3) the connection of that relationship to the arbitrator; and Ioc:..)qd \If'
loll' JV'iifc- W~J .fw ~,~ .~

Aft Ilyec. ,,+(4) the proximity in time between the reJationship and the arbitration proceeding." Scandinavian ~
~ f+1rA. . tWJ. """";~.,
Reinsurance Co. v. Saint Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 668 F.3d 60, 74 (2d Cir. 2012) (internal .f." ~e."'e.
~f. ~J~wts·
quotation marks and citation omitted). Though the factors are useful, they are not "mandatory,
exclusive, or dispositive." Id. "Partiality need not be actuaUy proven to be the basis for a
reasonable conclusion of partiality. but it may not be based simply on speculation either."
United States v. Int'l Bhhd. of Teamsters, 170 F.3d 136, 147 (2d Cir. 1999).
1l-t ~"A \4..e- ~4- Arbitrator Lewis has stated that he was unaware of the relationship between
S-""",.. (!.c,t,..lie t:JI'VJ.
AL..wts ~opposing counsel's law firm and an AAA employee before Washington brought it to his
~ f.'fW.o bf\ ftc.
t>cv'~+J ~attention. (Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014, Ex. 3, at 8 n.7.) Once it bad been brought to his attention, ..
e.-.d ~(.W ~",t I H,', '""(h•..,.;,,, /141 "tW~
""c....+t~ (;.. . Arbitrator Lewis attested that the relationship had no bearing on his impartiality. (Id.) If,f.f-C. (~""':; DfI,c
a,,"'I'''''~'' 4 c:olo- c. H+ ..r.v..d'.,+ .
l.f ~ "04~ vt,ashington bas not submitted evidence that Arbitrator Lewis was dishonest in these statements .. ~~. cL,Jts~
\}f4U
~",...1-\1
,.,j" f-. 'x. Because there is no evidence in the record that Arbitrator Lewis was influenced in
.. " ~~
If' IT - , ~c .
A4S,"--\I~t'lt .
~,,$t..... ICC his decisions, Washington has not met his burden of showing that a reasonable person would
:::'u,:;- necessarily conclude, and the Court will not speculate, that solely on the potential relationship
\.I p J;,... c.t\sit:A~.w,1\
tI
~{vt.A- AI\""~~ V' flcvboP. IS,

..
l ..~~ 4if Iso C{c'VsttA .t-K ft-/t f(CF - 18

~~ L~/(.r tc b~,*
;..I wcJ-e., ft... .f1-t. ftlr/+· It elf. '-'fliGl
# f I~>f.. f' c..t;t>t lili j" ft;..A,,,~ C'f +c.IrIrA J ~
.ff. ~ l,o, ~ ~ (Pc. '" ~ NI\o1'6' •
Case 2:10-cv·09647·PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 09/05/14 Page 19 of 26
1,.lE\lli(LQ.\I,e,td
~Q,t Lt."",} .".,DJ
bl rut.d
lal~or
.s OLa.'1between opposing counsel and a single AAA employee, that Arbitrator Lewis was biased toward.
~
~~ t. ~efendants.
~J CO'" wo-"'" d. Defendants Did Not Secure the Award Through Improper Means.
~t{l.t AlA·
1\i.s\.5 ~I ~" I
Washington refers to the actions of opposjng counsel as engaging in bad faith
~~Ollast ()IIC(.. ~"'II.
~d"'tJ litigation. Bad faith is not a basis for vacatw· under the FAA. In light ofWasbington's ID:Q se
wLt< ~c.,(.
Q.~~'':r status,. the. Court construes this argument asanassertiontbatopposing counsel used undue means.
L~ ~. .to procure an award in defendants' favor. See 9 U.S.C. 1O(a)(1). "Undue means" requires
F}'~li \I"'~ ... IC'"
~+. 1"'- "nefarious intent or bad faith, or conduct that is immoral, ifnot illegal." ARMA, S.Ra. v. BAE
;,,~f.rS)lS. Overseas, Inc., 961 .F. Supp. 2d 245, 254 (D.D.C. 2013) (internal citations and qUotatiOll
CUt \llfU GoMpdlt'c(
~+ "bll-~"', marks omitted).
~CI( 01\ 'o"-f'''' ca.( ~
(.oActQ.!..r--"'''':5 ~ In bis submissions, Washington accuses opposing counsel of withholding
~(A. ',,, 1-o~1I..

~:c.v~:.lttD(. evidence, and caUs them "kings of deception" and "masterful manipulators." Assuming,
1\"".f..~vltl-...H1'l
",",,"1
1,1.
Wf'Aa stw-c. ""'(.,1'1111'1 tfA .... .rot
o...~1aoI t. arguendo, that Washington's assertions are true, those actions did not cause defendants to .fo.. \I"'" f-t
c..o ~.f;1t w,. U1 ~ltIL
c;::-"1ttbj
" (.o(:t4 ,*..
procure an award in their favor. Arbitrator Lewis provided two bases for his dismissal of '11\ ~~
(Zo~E...t Washington's claims-Washington requested dismissal, and as a sanction for his repeated ~~ =~'J,f-1
~t.~iiO(~iolations of the Confidentiality Order. (Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 8.) ~~=~~~
p.'2.wu,....\1-lcI. ". Vb
;.orL,te».l{O..Neo( Washington's actions, and not the defendants', resulted in the adverse ruling. Wasbington may \"1JI) He. I l'
(-. +
\101Mb: ~Jst1 f-/ tJjt.rl/t
tf\.~ not now claim thaf OJ!pDsing counsel caused Arbitrator Lewis to terminate the arbitration. ,Sk.......UI ~
t.-o Ctl~~. f)'~:\.;~ 1\ - t:>ClMcll--l Ac.1
r, ""~""+' e, ~1iII-+' III. Defendants' Motion for a Filing Injunction Is Granted. Crop( ~ 14")1
A-ij-"'1 s ~ SN(t ~~.)
LI'oVw b~l w) ~G.j",td A district court possesses the authority to issue a filing injunction when "a
,,()~,,+-~~.c "",o..e
l;;, .Ac"J.rk
loLl
~!I..Gl.A!1I.~hplaintiffabuses ·the .processofthe.Courts to harass andanno)l.others with meritJess,frivolous, ~fi'" is ~ I

~ -f...,{ul ~t;..1 ~•.,..,.
~:, ~1I'\f4tvexatious or repetitive proceedings." Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2000) (per '-t'A.SDtI ~k'"
-tP tw. ""ali c.. ~a,
~ Fi~ curiam) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted); ~ also Malley v. N.Y. 1\""'i;-.....t,q{
- eA.'f1"'~
fs
.,..et;.. . (S", 'lttcT2;:. --'....,NO ;... f.tr,'j

Dtf.""'I~t.f',~ftf'+I.s L;g~.ri,/I"f\·~~' CItt!& tJf:JI,*tL:.
... f ofJ. Zoo l'CIO.06 • _ 19. tJ,i.l'fAtll..i c..~",~. v"~iCA.1 .-1It..(;+-.f
e"..,yJ oV 1/,."'/' t.. 1--. orlG. 4cJW e.. Jrfp~ .. -V e,.,. ".f bit
Co~tJ""""
f.ew~ /tAL "J '~c:.
+
c. f"'f,)
,J..... L'
.I
P-f*'t 'fflS~vltA j"

~"';~ jJ, 1,....,. ~ .f.&. J £""';\111.1 ~L, ""'fl~'
"11..1 f?1'fJ li1D.·f-;I\(I1-t /e1c..,f... INMf',L-e."'/Ir4A'
Case 2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 09/05/14 Page 20. of. 26

l~AotJl ,J~ ~f ~"" e i..s tl/l\;li"5 l5<y~~'5
its 'el ...j"".
CoMflo.t b~ I"Ac:.c.,t.GIa.-CI.Io/'A Ie> N.,.W1lOIQ.\

t:A. ~I+ '3\ ~, -'''~i.ijc~ \~ tM.t.tA ctL
:"i~~~'. City Bd. ofEduc., 112 FJd 69, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (filing injunction appropriate if
r t\... +~~.U~numerous complaints filed based on the same events).

,..'" Cr .""Tl".... •
v""S(\rt.Ot ""I
loeb ",
1- CWjC.S£.\A·~ "to' To protect a party's due process rights, "[t]he unequivocal rule in [the Second
t,,~:f ~~ircuit] is that the district court may not impose a filing injunction on a litigant.§ill! sponte
~~+- without providing the litigant with notice and an opportunity to be beard." Moates v. Barkle~.
"'1 tJitJ. 111\( tJ
147 F.3d 207, 208 (2d Cir. 1998). Where. as here. plaintiff was provided with notice and the .t.: ~jC""d""'"
\Io'\\i1M/\ r4 o",'s
opportunity to be heard on defendant's request for a ftiing injunction, the requirements of due ~" ..cs~e4
. "'tlY\C.M~
Process are satisfied. 1- "'1 ~ ut""'

~~~
.. whet her a fil'
I n detennmmg .. .. .
1. 10g Injunction IS appropnate,
the Second C'IrcUit
. has o~ IIAof-1o. f.v
~;""iiQ\!
enumerated a number of factors for the district court to consider, including "(1) the litigant's ~4:.1~~('D1\4
history oflitigation and in particular whether it entailed vexatious, harassing. or dupl.icative
S"1\1'., our
~"M.uf1 (rC...
III Dt;G.w\~~ ~Ii
lawsuits; (2) the litigant's motive in pursuing the litigation ... ; (3) whether the litigant is Off~~I·Mo!
~t\~u4~
represented by counsel; (4) whether the litigant has caused needless expense to other parties or f. otec.4.tt.
has posed an unnecessary burden on the courts and their personnel; and (5) whether other
"'i I"'~ou.
sanctions would be adequate to protect the courts and other parties." Safir v. U.S. Lines, Inc.,
.
-
792 F.2d 19,24 (2d Cir. 1986). "Ultimately, the question the court must answer is whether a
litigant who has a history of vexatious litigation is likely to continue to abuse the judicial process
and harass other parties." ld:.
The Court concludes that the circumstances of this case warrant restrictions on
Washington's further ability to pursue litigation in federal court arising out of his employment
with William Morris Endeavor.
First, Washington has repeatedly threatened to continue litigation, even if the
instant action were to be dismissed with prejudice. In a blog post, he provided an image of a
- 20
rI,..
CcrI\Sfi"~ ,,~roposed complaint that names as defendants every person who he feels has wronged him
t.s
fIIlt'- h"..",..,.
lI"I,nt.J
..
~'\I'", -"".fc..(c.c.
through the course of this litigation, including judges of the Second Circuit and the Chief Judge
of the Southern District of New York. (Zweig Decl., July 10,2014, Ex. E, at ).) Washington
has also explicitly threatened to sue both Arbitrator Lewis and the undersigned should an adverse
a,,.;,,,-w-Df
"" ,,, t.l \l1\~ Cor ruling be issued. (Washington Letter, July] 5,2014, Ex. A, at 2-3 & n.l; PL's Mot. for Recons.
~ to\.. of
t....",·
30--3 L) Further, he stated that, should subsequent suits not be successful, he would file
commercial liens against "aU parties involved." (Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 2
3 & n. J.) Washington's threatened actions would constitute "vexatious, harassing, or
J VC ~ ~\"'d ~\I(,.. Second, Wa..'ihington's motive in pursuing additional litigation appears to be in c".d..r~~
~5~tJ'.
PI'I:IUlSS ~ eqb\().d
l
,,,*,cJ.;"\J~c.. alai £: 'th .. . . all d'IS not I"umte d to compensatIon
, IS pUllItlve, . fior a perceLve
. d wron,_ W as h'mgton 1M/oJ\s ~ICll{~
~1oM'1 ~+t~
t.. rAcut, made statements to opposing counsel that they would not "get away" with their actions. (Zweig .t-~~
fkp-»(jl¥:il' "'f0vik~ a,ot'~~
~,te.o.~c. Decl., July 10,2014, Ex. F, at 1.) With each decision of an Arbitrator, or a court, Washington's 0"£_+
P"'" Clot' +-
list of defendants for his threatened suit increased. Arbitrator Gregory noted that Washington ~c.o..+
appears to regard those who disagree with him as members of a vast conspiracy. (Washington O'"~~
~ . . J.f!"'' ',
-k.t W\~+.) ol
Mot. Ex. EE, at 4-5.) There is ample support for Arbitrator Gregory's observation in ......, c lo..il'l\J
ro.--~,..,,~
Washington's llUmerous submissions to this Court. (See,~, Zweig Decl., July 10, 2014, Ex. F, ~cL ~
r"~.slry
at 2 ("... I will be left with no choice but to being the process ofming a commercial lien against UI\~
~.
[the undersigned] and the other predominately all-White/"Jewish" officers that have not only
violated my constitutional and God-given rights over the last three years, but have also engaged
in a sinister conspiracy to interfere with the human rights of African Americans by ensuring that
racism (global white supremacy) is maintained through America and the world ....");
Washington Letter, July 15,2014, Ex. A, at 14 ("Lewis, the AAA, [opposi.ng counsel], and
~ 21
William Morris are PRETENDING that Lewis has the actual authority to make the numerous
adverse decisions that he's made against me.").) Washington's assertions and behavior indicate
that claims in pursuit of his motives would be frivolous ifbrought. See Ransmeier v. Mariani,
718 F.3d 64, 70-71 (2d Cir. 2013) ("What [a litigant] is not allowed to do, however, is to let his
misguided views cloud his judgment regarding what arguments may properly be made to this
Court.").
Tbird, the Court takes note of Washington's R!Q se status. However, "a court's
special solicitude towards R!Q §S litigants does not extend to the willful, obstinate refusal to play
by the basic rules of the system upon whose very power the plaintiff is calling to vindicate his
rights." Lipin v. Hunt, 573 F. Supp. 2d 836, 845 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted). "[W]hile R!Q se litigants may in general deserve more lenient treatment than
:,,:':~~i:bose represented by counsel, all litigants, including.PrQ ses, have an obligation to comply with
:-fit. 6.-,'r"j court orders." McDonald v. Head Crim. Ct. Supervisor Officers, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir.
~""(rS1 l~
Q.\\ 'c;tO" '? 1988). .
wiUiG.ofl M-V SO"5"1- Fourth, Washington has caused needless expense to the opposing party.
'"~"IJ
c:..\lScf"CM·#.f;tA~ Washington violated orders issued in the arbitral proceeding. His behavior led to the imposition
,,~:: ~:",~f sanctions totaling two-thirds of defendants' additionally incurred costs, computed to be
f,"·PP~·I~
M"'S"II\~.f..i43,707.60. (Zweig DecL,July 3,2014, Ex. 2, at 15; Zweig Decl., July 3, 2014,.Ex. 3, at 7, 9
~ro+
10.) Washington has repeatedly refused to cooperate in the arbitral proceeding, leading to
b~1'
additional delay and costs to the defendants. (See Washington Letter, Mar. 28,2014, at 2;
Washington Letter, July] 5,2014, Ex. A,at 3.)
Finally, Washington has repeatedly stated that he intends to continue Jitigation
and intends to file commercial liens against "all involved," regardless of any court order.
- 22
Case 2:10-cv-09647-PKC-JCF Document 59 Filed 09105114 Page 23 of 26
l '''e.~ . JIl. ~ flcf· ",""t ,.~ ()..JIr..JI. at
"'1°P~0IU' tl°IJlCllo/f" -'I i""Hc..l
~"""'iI\S Arbitrator Lewis's issuance of monetary sanctions has not appeared to have an effect on
c...-w+ $\tcNI ~
"~~i~ cfWashington's actions. Consequently, t!!; Court concludes that lesser sanctions would not be
u~-..«~
"",ovl'" "e adequate to protect the courts and other parties. The evidence demonstrates that Washington "is
f'oD ,,~uJ. {\ f; It..
(.oM'I .... ~ likely to continue to abuse the judicial process and hamss other parties ...." The Court will
\i..;\J.
impose an injunction that is tailored to be the least restrictive to achieve its purpose. See ad. of
Managers of2900 Ocean Ave. Condominium v. Bronkovic, 83 F.3d 44, 44 (2d Cir. 1996) (per
curiam).
CONCLUSION
11\1"'''' M~ f.~'1. ~.
,,&112 \,1 - •
rr 0 ., ( Due. esc;;.. .
c""F6r the reasons explained, Washington's motion for reconsideration (Docket
I
~~!7 =: # 46) is DENIED. Defendants' motion to confirm the arbitral award (Docket # 49) is
~:!",~RANTED. Defendants' motion for a filing injunction against Washington (Docket # 53) is
l~.r: (..oeI,~ GRANTED.

l.f:i ~"J)' ~~
\,W(( cu ~ ~~A. FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, MARCUS I. WASHINGTON AND
J,f.IA- ~) ~s Wh. ?
~J'''lip(4+a- THOSE ACTING IN ACTIVE CONCERT OR PARTICIPATION WITH HIM ARE
'C.4Uo"{ f~~al . .
~ v.,
¥w PERMANENTLY ENJOINED AND PROHIBITED FROM THE FOLLOWING:
drci'cleliv d,"~
~ ~~. -Jf~\lCZt"c.m (I) FILING OR OTHERWISE COMMENCING ANY ACTION IN ANY
FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ARIS:ING OUT OF OR RELATING TO",
IDS EMPLOYMENT BY OR TERMINATION FROM WILLIAM
MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT LLC, FORMERLY
,::t\'U~f-\iAfj-l ~C~ '''~:KNOWN AS THE 'WILLIAMMORRIS·AGENCY,INC., AGAINST
e.Nti,~"'~I'ct t:L)~'...i'IAfel\
Nc4 ~~ f..~f. IV~ ~~_ ~t ANY PERSON OR ENTITY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
~I(c"'" ~.., W.J VI .,<11."".,
~t (~.f....jQ &.1\1. \~ l"'- DEFENDANTS AND THEIR PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES,
~ \;r.' I' .J ~ ". - I ' \Dltl_.

~ "'j._Jt.., "'1~11' ~ AGENTS, ORATTORNEYS, THE AMERU::ANARBITRA:TION'
l ~ ~tl.f"M~) 4f """~)
t(~,. l~IIIl>(f. ~'.J4i ASSOCIATION AND ITS PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OR
~'........,n.. Te:..-.~J· ",~.
I"~.~· I WAJ I\O+",~I. j.. '+'t'1 - 23 - , '"

\I\~"'¥ -I ..:ahtJ \'" ~"i.k~"" MC~tf/.sfM'1a ~ ~ ~ ij-s dllt~ ~., 0"-,, ~al btAJ~'" hAS""" ka.vL
de~_l,,01 ,Itt (J\ '~~Ij"~ . l'e..-..At iAj.~'¥C~ 'fA vc..1.r-.-A'~~·id'!.ol~c,qj~tlA~~""vi~f"4
.a.tf.......~~\;lff ~..~ .~f;... "j".jRl. \i.w,.. ~~Jlj ~-c~.·~~~tA~"',~"'4~,

AWl(~~er. ~ CPwI"'1-r~~~ ~rf-C+WJ<?f"VfZ...(.
of <'11.1 ~.{o,:~lSo\t'A A~ ¥..~~"'fl (:LI\D4 ~ ~ k ... ",f
$'t r. fw,..,s. I. ~"~"\oA~ Ql",1-.!II~ l.QcJd ~ +-'s ~.
AGENTS, ARBITRATORS, OR ANY JUDGE, CLERK, COURt
REPORTER, EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF ANY COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A
WRITTEN ORDER FROM THIS COURT AUTHORIZING HIM TO

I d.nq. ,,'~J. ~." +-~i (.o...t.f.. :r.s".cW... tof~
DO SO. ~ -~Jd ~JP""" , V;~'5 ~Ot!.u~ "'I........'+; I r~~ Vi fefc.. N- ..AJ.lt2~ t.. A.
~~ '-t-ll eGi
(2) FILING OR OTHERWISE COMMENCING ANY ACTION IN ANY J"J,;"'hf w,-IIkt
. Aflt)lo ff· +0
ND I~ ~i'~I
.. :) .'" FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT ~SING OUT OF OR RELATING TO ~eA •
.,. 4.C."'o- ,.. cc4 I" S:'J) N • I)
2."" el'. or-"fW. ~A-. THIS ACTION OR THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDING BEFORE
ARBITRATORS GREGORY AND LEWIS AGAINST ANY PERSON
OR ENTITY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DEFENDANTS
AND THEIR PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR
ATTORNEYS, THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
AND ITS PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS,

t1c.'s f"'''c~ ~iMntf .
~ ~f. Wol \~II~ ARBITRATORS, OR ANY JUDGE, CLERK, COURT REPORTER,
fle\l~ ~ ~c.c4
~"ttit IIIl 6f ""i EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF ANY COURT OF THE UNITED 8TATES
~~~~~\~~~
y""t.s ~C,1M "'*'" tf 0F AMERICA WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A WRITTEN ORDER
.
~.
FROM THIS COURT AUTHORIZING HIM TO DO SO.
(3) TRANSMITTING OR FILING ANY DOCUMENT WHICH
PURPORTS TO CREATE A LIEN OR RECORD OF ANY DEBT
AGAINST ANY PERSON OR ENTITY INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION
OR THE AIUUTRATION PROCEEDING BEFOBRARBITRATORS
GREGORY AND LEWIS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DEFENDANTS AND THEIR PRESENT OR FORMER EMPLOYEES,

AGENTS, DR ATTDRNEYS, THE AMERICAN ARBITRATIDN
ASSDCIATIDN AND ITS PRESENT QR FORMER EMPLQYEES QR
AGENTS, ARBITRA TDRS, DR ANY JUDGE, CLERK, CDURT
Wj \IICI"~ \""""'~'1L# . REPDRTER, EMPLOYEE DR AGENT DF ANY CDURT DF THE

~IM ~ .-.'"- '1\ c~
/hil'lGt J \ ."..,,~ All .(-1--15 ~ UNITED STATES DF AMERICA WITHDUT FIRST DBTAINING A
~~~lfH WM£/{J.Id,~
ok a.c.-t-' vi~4"I ''''f''u out.· 'WRITTEN QRDER FRQM TillS CQURT AUTHDRIZI~G illM TO.
1Ni ~1It1GAfC.- ~~"" f'IoL
-tv J.o~1~ ~+w«U .DO. SQ •
....'ke (.O\"t"'Cc:t~lS 1'IW&\fN't .
~
('\'I&\-itJe~ "')(rost~(. A VIDLATIQN DFTHIS INJUNCTIQN MAY RESULT IN A FINDING
tJ. r-d ~~ +CiM hGJ
, tJ. M~ OF CQNTEMPT QF CDURT AND IMPDSITIQN QF SANCTIDNS. NDTHING IN
.~. .
~I.~ THIS DRDER SHALL PREVENT MARCUS I. WASHINGTDN FRQM

~ ?
I~"'~c.(. ,''ow..' PARTICIPATING IN ANY ARBITRATIDN QR PRDCEEDING HERETQFQRE
~rc;q~tS(...
~
~~ca~ CDMMENCEDQR APPEALING ANY DRDER o.F THIS CQURT. ..H ICoo\'i',-I·
'MARCUS I. WASHINGTDN IS ADVISED THAT IT IS A FEDERAL
CRIME, PUNISHABLE BY FINE DR IMPRISDNMENT DF UP TO. TEN YEARS, TO.
FILE, ATTEMPT TO FILE, QR CDNSPIRE TO. FILE, "ANY FALSE LIEN DR
ENCUMBRANCE AGAINST THE REAL QR PERSDNAL PRQPERTY" QF ANY
1\1~41::""!.t ~ "QFFICER QR EMPLQYEE QF THE UNITED STATES DR DF ANY AGENCY IN

t.C>( i .",.. t!. .r iN1blTI~AL.L~
~~ f~l t" ANY BRANCa: QFTHE UNITED STATES GDVERNMENT •.• WHILE SUCH 'Dtr'~.,~ct
I'T~"'- "1"'\>
c. .~ .
~\
,,,,,,,..
.. ...I
.~\10\
""r T QFFICER QR EMPLQYEE IS ENGAGED IN DR QN ACCDUNT QF THE ~ ~"f.-\ooy f\jH~
ur-4. ~ iojo- .f
PERFQRMANCE QF QFFICIAL DUTIES, DR ANY PERSQN ASSISTING SUCH AN (,uN i I "'-1 t1~
; ... 4. "jw.i~A.1
QFFICER QR EMPLQYEE IN THE PERFQRMANCE QF SUCH DUTIES QR QN C~#o.,;...;,y ."
ACCQUNT QFTHAT ASSISTANCE." 18 U.S.c. §§ 1521,1114.
- 25
The Clerk shall enter judgment for the defendants and close the case. Counsel for
defendants is directed to supply plaintiff with copies of all unreported decisions cited herein.
'~cl~"~~
*"..,"f- """-I-c. The Court certifies pUT8uanl to 28 U.~.C. § 1915(.)(3) tbat a~y appeal from this ~
""40- oF- I~· order would not be laken in good faith and therefore in fanna pa~peris status is denied. See b 0( (aM
~r~"'C;-+-f k 'rf...f ~ I
t4c-~.. "'7to Coppedge v. United State~, 369 U.S. 438,444-45 (1962). f"'Pf~OL IV"e..
L.~",~ "+fJ /~
cf~'A--"";c-M SO ORDERED. ~A4 rd J.~{.t.,1¥
"'T",I~
(I)fI{;r·(i "~~I\lt~kf;' ~~ t~~t.

. P. Kevm Castel c:,;( Affdl~
United States District Judge ·J"~t. 'tte
""i:~ .JI(IA l '*' (a
~"r ~ Dated: New York, New York
0..'10+ ':;.c ~CA(etA _ September 5, 2014
CVft"Al k~ 0tIA"J
fi.4d....;.c." ~~
14--\o,c ~H&~,t ('Vt ~

~+ ft \,Vj!\l1d 1\"
V'~r('i1Q 4 ~ i tw. ~~~'~Dq'
~~....
>A(f. ..f;"', "1 c.c., ~+ f ~; 11,_ Mo"",,J .~ Loe\..:. ~'" LI,..P \~ fort\.-. .p~ rll\.C' .
~( f\C4II' ~~...rc h~a:c.1 Do'\tA ..s~.t;.sl-ioJ ..e-t~cL ~\sa~leJ,
es~ p~ ,....,c e""~c..... J..4~iOIi~ ~ liJ+~ ·~~et.
1'hi, i) "~(""M ~ll\-.(. \ ~ 1-.... ~~ M· ~'ClII;II ~f'~It" I'V~ 6.,,4I\i~-+-l:.J+&...e
"1'h......,~"""t W;l{i_ Mo.,;.) ~-tt+'\-4A1Q ~ VI rJl.No ~ .. (c:.c.t4y J -t... ~~G"Js' M"'~
~.1A~. 'N. Be"u~.tt l"'Zi)\2.:- 20 I'i)I
u.l.l~ eA's",..ueI '"'~ \QS.t:(e.
. ~J.c.....IJII"'cr l-<. "e.CA
~\-~ ,-,,1'1.1 ~... \)fc.fOOl\! \AI Ul f\Or ~~d' ~ Vlfto1N'\c.r.,t~u...~
~"\I.it.\ - ec-cett\etA ~Ol' \JIGS' 4d....:~'.,f. C4J(" tSfecau~ /-t: r~A( J.i~...
1
~ e...Ad..~ of-~ t" . . ~(.~.ffa. I r...r)Cl\te~ . 'Ptt')\ l"1".fa 2ctfo I ~ ·plai4.~ff
~.t.-,\~ AAtNMo.1ui ~ot.u.C(. .s~~+~ ~ c.tOc.c,""ut !Mil ...~ fw 1''''' c~$ (lr; '(J
~) ~6""b. ~ ~~1\4t'J lAki ~~.... ~., ~j"" ~u<.t. Vtl.) \0""" ...,.,.Q"..f. . . i\~ -Je"J
Vt'S ~~+ 4-0 A.tt "f-....i c.\.zl..u.
~lU ('Ii.)'~" ·....... f'~ ....at
I"""'" ~ptcleA ~ f.c. P'f-'S M·~~

"-'t.CiMlSC. "'1 ~ \Jr.f\~ (.o., .. ~
+
w-.
c.o.~.11'\
llAorllll'l
J..)~",r~~ (\~"F~~
ftJ./fJ\ IJIrOtS-t. .,.. 6f ftAI . Is 't
f •
J- ~d~ ~.. ~ -k..+-~\\ *~I s:t":'f''I &t cQ-.c.'rJ....cI1c.t. ~! ~ ~ ~~

\I
Otc4&foll.) ~'" 1,..."" l,c~ V~'A+t"q ~CIt {lo.+ J"~ ...et \N«.r ~r+ttA I' r., 38' ( \.,.~,i'
.Jv4yt c~, ~lQ ~ VUA.-tat "i1 J"'('j '1ot~1 o~Ll\~~c;v\1 CAsej~~'~
~ Cnl... _/ov-
&"'f'.. l~e;. k~ll\U\f ~1H- wd. I ~ ~ '3 I ~ 1\\"'11 bt. W cA,.orfl.d,
)
~ t:luf. .(. \II:" r-f."Hj ( \,1 c.S I ~ ~ ret. ~ !.1f.

t~'i1' - 26
Exhibit I

UIDODI!
DGcuIIB1\'
B.ICftIlQNCNJ.V,.,.
DOCt, .
UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT DAta fI.U!D:)anuary 4,2011
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------x
MARCUS I. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff(s), ORDER
-against- 10 C·IV. _9647

__ (UA)
WILLIAM MORRlS ENDEAVOR
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendant(s).
--------------------------------------------------------------x
Leave to proceed in this Court without payment offees is authorized. 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
SO ORDERED.
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Chief Judge
Dated: January 4,2011

New York, New York
Exhibit
','
Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
Marcus Isaiah Washington V. William Morris Endeavor Eo!.. LtC et 01. Appeal No. ___________
-------------------
District Court or Agency No. _I_0_Ci_·,_,.9_6_4_7_ _ __
Affidavit in Support of Motion Instructions
I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that, Complete all questions in this application and then
because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket sign it Do not leave any blanks: if the answer to a
fees of my appeal or post a bond for them. ( believe question is "0," "none," or "not applicable (N/A),"
I am entitled to redress. 1swear or affirm under write that response. (fyou need more space to answer
penalty of perjury under United States laws that my a question or to explain your answer, attach a separate
answers on this form are true and correct. (28 sheet of paper identified with your name, your case's
U.S.C. § 1146; 18 U.S.C. § 1621.) docket number, and the question number.
Date: September so. \101+
My issues on appeal are: (required):

Tne two key IBlues tm appcllllire: (I.) detemlining whether Hepublican appointed !ederlll judge P. Ke\;n Cutel has intrntionaUy violated the Constinulon. the law, numerQln, Cunons under me JudiciDJ Code of Couduct. &6 well aI hill Outh of OfficI!!
in ordtr fa dqmve nw ufmy cun.titutional lind Statutory righti under the colOTuflaw due to my race, color. national urigin and PN) Se titiSl'tU SUtUI by inuing lhrH'~ one--vidltld Ordf!"" th"t art fIn'Onf!OlJJ as a III&Uer an.w IIndior publir.. polir.:,)' and
the -5e«tnd Qreuit IQUU allIO dett:rminc (i.) ifllttl'lmcy Mith.d P. ZMtl!!lg .nd the elite Lau- lim) I...oeb &: l..o4!'b l..LP hl!l\~ ~lJl'ged in Q "pattem~ of"rr.ud upon t~ COUTt" on WilHam MOl'1'ia' bchoJf since Caste'l rC'tbsed ro I!IIcknowlcdRc my nrgument,
while gr,andng the Defen<innu' ~\.iefIt to imfIMl!! II ming injunction apin.t n1t~ and p~itldlcf:11 nly appeaJ by !lIning it would not lit. made in "'good fAith,'"
Otncr Uoluel include: Oetmnining whl!'thc:r both arbitratQfJ' ck:cisjo",1 tQ enrorce William MQTrii Ilfbitratit")n a.gntmnml \Rf¢ t:nade in "m.tnirMldiartglltd of r~ law" dU4! tn \;Q1aliotl& of ~ to oftht: "~AI' .nd whether CHt(!)'. decl.",ll)f1 to uphold
their deciaion.s WIN also madi.dn "nmnif~l dllfJ"egl1rd of the luw," gken lhlt neitht'f arlJilrlUlIr ciu:cl any.cue law and Clunei $8Yo' no ilrohlem whh _haL Afiu m::ctving II-Pvtial FinaJ A",anl" an Dc:.ocCllIUct 11. iOJ:t {tom ArbiUilWf U.vid r.. vtl:'gVry
whit'h dt!termincd that William Moma "discriminated ag.aitut [me] In "I'''!,litton ufp«tinf!flt Itdend• .t~t~ .nd lur;.! law prohib.ting dilCnminarion on tI~ bub (lr rat:fo:- and indJClItt.'d lba. I \\'f'luld hr: .\l,'.rdniltUl-tunrial ~arJ dlillUlJl1!'l, the:
AAA dilqttaUfw:d AmitMI:tor G1't:gt»'ll wilhoot re8liOJl and a fieW arbitrator - Sthnw~ UP atrarner TintQthy K, L!wia - "'IS Ipp"inwd in vlollltlQII .,f Uffi AM'lt rules pertaining 10 diaqualiftcarion, On March 1-:,9013. I ,uhmiued H F'nud Upon dIe
<,ouri Molion, addrcs.ajng tht!tWtn'nU fraud 1.Alt!blt. Loeb u...r Yffln:!'etlgaged ill befor~ durmg and afWr I lIJed my Com.plai.nt lind t uA'd Arbitntw Gl'f:IWy'e: Award If) wppot't thl' c.t,d', July {IO, 'ZO\ t Stay Oruer wu erroneous U bq,h .. tnlttt:rof
law and public poiic,y.and to furtln!'f .tlpPO" that nrbitrotion wa)l an inapprup"trr fflf'UID f{n- tilt. partKulaf" calli! to achi~'~ flk' public policy goab "fthe en'll Righu Act of 196+ given fh.t Wim••" MC'lrtt-l and ib ootlh;tlel tlt\"er refqted tJl~ pyrantid nr
~id~ce ~I!!JTl('>I~lit~t}n~ the ~plny'a infentional panern and continuing practict' nfdisr.riminutm& apinsl African Americms in employment lpanhing 116 yearS, Castel refused to dilq!"lit, lUmMi! or AUY the pibimuoo. and imtad told me to
n
:;:;:;';:i:~.!rbl.,.."ng.n I. For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount ofmoney reCeived from ~ach
'The SecondCircu;l m... .

alS(} d~c:nn\nt: whethM' Arbhntnt
01' thefiollowing
r.J
sources during the past J2 monthJ·. Adjusl any amount thai I was receIved
U. '"
;r

Grcgul'y', P,Tti" filloJ A..Dn1 "'.. weekly biweekly quarterly. semiannually. or annually to show the month y raJe. se ~ "":::t ~'
"fin.l. rur Ih, ..k, ofj.Jid,l ""i.",·

u",,"i•.,h.rtl..,,\AAhnd.ud.ority
•
gross amollrus. .J d
' .IS, amounts before any ue
thai . fior taxes or 01he rwlSe.
uctlOns . ~
to difql.l.liry t,ht! htwfully "ppoinl:f!'d ~

arbitrator aflt!:f dett!:rmining I'" b'lI
• ty and ; ".j~'
jodie... d..., whal mnfICtIlry -! tt) N
n:liufl wu cmtitle:d to in '" Average montbly Amount expected next . i u 0;' 11
thi. bifur("..! ~Ing. Income source )0 ~ J~
month ~ .....
~
Oceiding whether my due amount during the past
Jm
:! i: .
pnKe. WUIll fi:archer ,'iot.ted
ww> aut"l ",&«."<110 fully 12 months f C ~
~£iVI
ttdd~ d,~ .rKumc.:m:.IS _
t'OJltamed In my 1:
M,ret. n .•01< rrtlud Upvn You SRQuse You SRQuse (
l! .•
<h. COl.." Motion .nd 'iil !!~
~:!:~:~::~::~r.J1O $0 I $0 $N/A ~ 6 '§
!lOught ligni~nl disciplin4t~~ Employment
$N/A
5,
and monetary slIncciona. U
including default judgment $400.00 $N/A
and , • .so m,lIjon. against Self-employment $400.00 $N/A
Michael P. Zweig, Oristillft
Corbon•• wid 1.001> & IAeb
LUl rQr tnlt.'f'ItionaU.:y Income from real property (such as $0 $N/A $0 $N/A
v;DlatJng nuft\tf'OU!J Rults
\Inder the N~' "ork Rutt. Dr rental income)
Pmfenional Candw::1.. violatln \" mt: f'iCW I UT.K ..rUU1CUJ.l'.}' ..41\\' 1 ""., 3no tngngmg tn a rafter" Q rilU upon t It: \..OUrt on w IUlam Morn.' behalf - \lntillfter the fraudulently appointed arbitrator dismiued nry "ue "-it'h "prejudice and on Ute
merits" on Jl.Ml~ :!M. 001·••nd Willialtl MOITil!l8oughf to~nfirm thAt AWArd.
[)ccidlng "'hether IA\oIo'iN unlawlUUy \lIClted the AWDrd ofArbitrator Gregory in \lirnntlon of ~ In uf the: FAA and whed,et hi. "'Fil'U\~ Award" was mlde in \'ioll!lfIOn ill' thl!! -A8ff\(' ,uarute. Oeddlng ",hcd~ l...Deb.& Int"b I..I.,P auomcy Chrititian Cart)()ht!
.b{'lul.! h4\'4 di.cioa.u tb the SI)N'\' or rnyutrrhat he \Io'P mllrritffl to an flet.:uth"l!: (br th. AAA - Suha Ang~Jil')ue C.rl!'nt - ~h() wnrlted i."Jolitly Iol.;lh Lr.\\'\.I; iUI a mmlber of the AAA'. "I)'ivcr.itr Cnrnmittf!'f:,W IAedding ~h«ther tlu: AAA alll)wed
1.e"';1 and SchnQder U..P U\ enga..r in fmud. by-allowing U!Wls tt'J provide Schnooer Lf.P'1i bank "outing number 4nd huvirtg \ViUiarn Mom" Mtlk~ dil"CC{ pDyment to the lirm Cmo~ ["an $lljj..ooo il') lew. thon six nlOnthsJ.ln viohnion t\f AlAA
Etnplo)'tnenlllul...... 1210 11201) see
lkdding whetht::r CMtd'$dtcisiQI) tu iuue a filing Injunction against n\C and .trip me ofmy in ron". paupcri" J.tatw ",hUt.: being u~"are t)f my dire: C'COl1omiccircum!OtAncc# i. further detnotutrution 0[1Ii, racial biu.. prejudice. pnrtintil)' ,and
imP"'f'riety in fa\"OI' of\Villinm Mon"U. t~h & LOl'b Lt.P. Timmh)' K.1..t'''''i6, tht!: AltA and othen. wUrT1!nting hi. disquaUfkation punuant to f:S US,C, § 1Z loa ond impr.achmtnt for intMluona.lly engaging in rraud. Mtlspiring ilK-WI "pl!.
conspiring to inrcrfcro: with the fnmtall righbfofpcoplcufArrlean JbM.:\l:nt alru depriving me ofm¥conttitudiOtlal_lld .«nutory rights under the color OflOla'. in vitda:tiQ.n 9f IS USc. f. 11+1. the Ku l{)ux Klan ACl of Hi'1I.u('.udltlcd ill ~ U,s.c.,
19J15{~). +t! u.s.c. S HiS3 nnd HI U.S.c, § 9+11 to name a few. (trlhe ront iii (00 sn,aU, I\re indU(ltd W 14fM "vmmary at tnt' end of chis docutl'ltnL]
'.
Interest and dividends $0 $N/A $0 $N/A
Gifts $0 $N/A $0 $NII\
Alimony $0 $N/A $0 $N/A
Child support $0 $N/A $0 $:-"1.'\
Retirement (such as social security, $0 $N/A $0 $N/A

pensions, annuities. insurance)
Disability (such as social security, $0 $N/A $0 $N/A
insurance payments)
Unemployment payments $0 $N/I\ $0 $N/A
..
Public-assistance (such as welfare) $ 17+.00 $N/A $IU.OO $NI/\
Other (specify): $0 $N/t\ $0 $N/A
Total monthly income: $15H.,~. SO Sl,m.oo SO
2. List your employment history for the past two years, mOSI recent employer first. (Gross
momhiy pay is before taxes or other deductions.)
Employer Address Dates of Gross

employment monthly pay
N/A N/A N/A $N/A
$
$
3. List youispouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer firsl.
(Gross monthly pay is before laxes or other deductions.)
Employer Address Dates or Gross

employment monthly pay
N/A NI,\ N/I\ $N/A
-2
4. How much cash do you andyour spouse have? $ SI.LOCt
Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any olher
financial institution.
FinaDciallnstUutioD Type of Account Amount ),ou have" Amount your

spouse has
Bank !If .'\merit:>! Ch"cking $ 2.0l! $ N/,.\
$ $
$ $
1/you are a prisoner seeking to appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, you mUst
attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional office,. showing all receipts,
expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. If you
have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions, attach one
certified statement of each account
5. List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing
and ordinary household furnishings.
Home Otber real estate Motor vebicle #1

(Value) $ N/A (Value) $ NI.<\ (Value) $ N/A
Make and year:

Model:
Registration ,,:
Motor vehicle}t2 Other assets Other assets

(Value) $NIA (Value) $ N/A (Value) $N/....
Make and year:
Model:
Registration #:
"j
•t
6. Stale every person. business, or organization owing you or yow spouse money, and the
amounlowed.
Person owing you or your spouse Amount owed to you Amount owed to your
money spouse
William MOrTis Enoeavor Entertainment. LLC
$ TBD [bId. p.y. frorll pay, '''..pe.".tory
punitive dlll'll:Q~ ptU ire 11M IIUOTnt:y fee;, L"tC.~ $N/A
$ $
$ $
$ $
7, Slale the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support.
Name [or, if a minor (i.e., underage). initials only] Relationsbip Age

N/A N/A N/A
8. Estimate the average monthly expenses ojyou and your family. Show separately lhe
amounts paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly,
quarterly, semiannually, or annually 10 show the monthly rate.
You Your Spouse

Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for $ 75.00 $N/A
mobile home)
Are ref{' estate taxes included? : Yes ~NO
Is property insurance included? Yes No
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone) $ 80.00 $N/A
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep) $N/A $N/A
Food $200,00 $N/A
Clothing $N/A $N/A
Laundry and dry-cleaning $ 1500 $N/A
Medical and dental expenses $N/A $N/A
- 4·
II. Provide any other information lhal will help explain why you cannot pay the dOCUI/US
for your appeal.
I\S dClnnnst,nted nbcwe. I am pn'" and nl11 currently Ihin/!: below the po'-ert)' leve1. 'flle rce alone to tile a Nr,tice nf .'\pre~1 is $50.5.00
Hnd fUI' mur~ tlmn IWu y~arll. I have bttl1 sun'iving uff uf $·100.00 a munth in "a~h due tu ~olltributiull. &om Illy par"lIt-~. A$ • r.sult uf pursuing
thin "undesirable case" am! challenging the discriminatory employment prRctices, polices and procedures of my former employel', the
William Morris .'\gcncy (now known as William Morris EndC'u\'or Entl"rtllinlnl'nt). I havc becn bla~kli6tcd from this industry 111,0 it has Illude it
tXlr~Dldy difficult fCJr m~ to gain "mpllJym~nr, ,,"tn in jub~ lJutllid"..,f the entertainn1t,nt indu.~try, Although I huxt: actively lwk,:d for employment
over the last li,ur ycars, I ha"" be"n un.ucccssful due 10 the damage [his ca~e h~. had ltn my pro(l"",ion81 and pel'"onaJ reputation, A.. demonstrated
".v the [let.:"",""r 17, ~(, 1:1 A"'lird ;s;'Uc'li "y ,\ rbitrator David L Gregory of tlte ;'meric"" Arbito'arion As.,.x'ation, I am <'I1tided to substllntial
mnncr,ry ,lanlflg<'" including punici,,!: <lam.",...,~ and pr...."" alturney" r....s, anoll mllst I.e "",'en the uPJlllrtullity to ha\'" thils nllUlift"St injustil'" <:urn"f~.,j.
12. Identify the city and slate o/your legaL residence.
City Brooklyn State New York
Your daytime phone number: _6_46-_'~_·04_-6_·_4!l_.i_ _ _ __
Your age: _11_0_ __ Your years of schooling: _1_'_ __
Last four digits of your social-security number: ..;.;;l'l~2..:....!1_ _
.. 6
"
6. Slale every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and lhe
amoumowed
Person owing you or your spouse Amount owed to you Amount owed to your
money spouse
TRU .Jt",,-\ lUI). tt-ont. jl:1)'. (,"Drull~~"l.~lJ')·
William M""";,. Enck3\7OT!:':lftenainmcont•.1.1.(' $ r~uiilh'.. dp'~J;:~, !W\\.or IMIt ;tlh'!of'f\t"." Il"'D'.. rlf. J $'N/A
$ $
$ $
$ $
7. State the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support.
Name [or, if a minor (Le., underage), initials only) Relationsbip Age

NtA N/A N/A
8. Estimate Ihe average monthLy experlSes ofyou and your family. Show separately the
amounls paid by your spouse. Adjusl any payments ,hal are made weekly, biweelcly,
quarterly, semiannually, or annually 10 show Ihe monthly raJe.
You Your Spouse

Rent or home~mortgage payment (including lot rented for $75.00 $W/A
mobile home)
Are r~f' estale taxes included? Yes )4 No
[8 property insurance included? Yes No

~
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone) $ Stl.fl(i " $NtA
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep) $NIt\ $NtA
Food $200.00 $N/A
Clothing $ NtA $NtA
Laundry and dry-cleaning $ l.'i.fifj $.N/A
Medical and dental ex.penses $ Nt."$NtA
-4
Name: Marcus Isaiah Washington

Case Caption: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC) (ICF')
Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
My issues on appeal are:
The two key issues on appeal are (1.) detennining whether Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel
has intentionally violated the Constitution, the law, numerous Canons under the Judicial Code of Conduct, as
well as his Oath of Office in order to deprive me of my constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law
due to my race, color, national origin and pro se litigant status by issuing three, oDe-sided Orders that are
erroneous as a matter of law and/or public policy and the Second Circuit must also determine (2.) if attorney
Michael P. Zweig and the elite law fmn Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in a "pattern" of"fraud upon the Court"
on William Morris' behalf since Castel refused to acknowledge my argument, while granting the Defendants'
request to impose a fil inS injunction against me and prejudice-d my appeal by stating it would not be made in
"good faith."
Other issues include: Determining whether both arbitrators' decisions to enforce William Moms
arbitration agreement were made in "man.ifest disregard of the Law" due to violations of § J 0 of the FAA and
whether Castel's decision to uphold their decisions was also made in "manifest disregard of the law," given that
neither arbitrator cited any case law and Castel saw no problem with that After receiving a "Partial Final Award"
on December I?, 2013 from Arbitrator David L. Gregory which determined that William Morris "discriminated
against [me] in violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race"
and indicated that I would be awarded substantial monetary damages, the AAA disqualified Arbitrator Gregory
without reason and a new arbitrator -- Schnader LLP attorney Timothy K. Lewis -- was appointed in violation
of the AAA's rules pertaining to disqualification. On March 17,2013, I submitted a Fraud Upon the Court
Motion, addressing the overall fraud Loeb & Loeb LLP were engaged in before, during and after I filed my
CompLaint and I used Arbitrator Gregory's Award to support that Castel's July 20, 20 II Stay Order was erroneous
as both a matter oflaw and pubhc policy, and to further support that arbitration was an inappropriate forum for
this particular case to achieve the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 given that William Moms
and its counsel never refuted the pyramid of evidence demonstrating the company's intentional pattern and
continuing practice of discriminating against African Americans in employment spanning 116 years. Castel
refused to disqualify himself or stay the arbitration, and instead told me to continue in arbitrating in "good faith. "
The Second Circuit must also detennine whether Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was "ftnal,
for the sake ofjudicial review" and whether the AAA had authority to disquaJify the lawfully appointed arbitrator
after detennining liability and indicating what monetary reJief I was entitled to in this bifurcated proceeding.
Deciding whether my due process was further violated when Castel waited to fully address the arguments
contained in my March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion and April 11, 2014 Motion for Reconsideration
-- which al!;O !;Ought significant di!;ciplinary and monetary ~anction):;, including default judgment and $250
million, against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, and Loeb & Loeb LLP tor intentionally violating
numerous Rules under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, violating the New York Judiciary Law §
487 and engaging in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" on William Morris' behalf -- until after the fraudulently
appointed arbitrator dismissed my case with "prejudice and on the merits" on June 25, 2014 and William Moms
sought to confirm that Award.
Deciding whether Lewis unlawfully vacated the Award of Arbitrator Gregory in violation of § 10 of the
FAA and whether his ·'.Final Award" was made in violation of the same statute. Deciding whether Loeb & Loeb
LLP attorney Christian Carbone should have disclosed to the SONY or myself that he was married to an
executive for the AAA -- Sasha Angelique Carbone - who worked closely with Lewis as a member of the AAA' s
"Diversity Committee." Deciding whether the AAA allowed Lewis and Schnader LLP to engage in fraud, by
allowing Lewis to provide Schnader LLP's bank routing number and having William Morris make direct
payment to the firm [more than $115,000 in less than six months], in violation of AAA Employment Rule 44.
Deciding whether Castel's decision to issue a filing injunction against me and strip me of my in forma
pauperis status while being aware of my dire economic circumstances is further demonstration of his racial bias,
prejudice, partiality and impropriety in favor ofWilliam Moms, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Timothy K. Lewis, the AAA
and others, warranting his disquaJification pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2106 and impeachment for intentionally
engaging in' fraud, conspiring against rights, conspiring to intertere with the human rights of people of African
descent and depriving me of my constitutionaJ and statutory rights under the color of law, in violation of 18
U.S.C §, 241, the Ku KllLx Klan Act of 1871, as codified as 42 U.S.C § 1985(3), 42 U.S.C § 1983 and 18
US.C § 242 to name a few.
Exhibit K


Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Motion For Extraordinary Relief Under The Court's Inherent Authority (November 21, 2014)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Motion For Extraordinary Relief Under The Court's Inherent Authority (November 21, 2014)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Case 14-4328, Document 7, 11/21/2014, 1379771, Page 1 of 309

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT

Docket Number(s): Not Available.

Motion for: Restoration of In Fonna Pauperis, Suspend Filing Injunction

and Remove AU Prejudice Pending "Good Faith" Appeal, Or in the Alt.,

54 Boerum St., Apt. 6M Loeb & Loeb LLP

646-504-6497 humanrights.areamust@gmail.com 212-407-4000 mzweig@loeb.com ccarbone@loeb,com

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from: Southern District of New York I p, Kevin Castel

arguments, omitted pertinent facts and refused to apply antidiscrimination

Form T·1080 (rev. 12-13)

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC~ formerly the WILLIAM MORRIS

AGENCY; JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINlARSKI,

Appeal from the U.S. District Court

EXPEDITED MOTION TO RESTORE IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, SUSPEND FILING

INJUNCTION AND REMOVE ALL PREJUDICE PENDING "GOOD FAITH" APPEAL, OR

IN THE ALTNERATIVE, VITIATE ALL ORDERS RENDERED BY P. KEVIN CASTEL

AND THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION DUE TO "FRAUD UPON THE

COURT" AND "FRAUD UPON THE COURT, BY THE COURT."

REQUEST TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT.

Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

http://meagainstiniguity. wordpress. comJ2014111116/there-will-come-a-time-when-black-peop le-wake-up-and­

denied the Appellee's request. 4 See Exhibit D.

fact's decisions - e.g. procedural issues such as jurisdiction - be lawful?

made in "good faith."

(iii) relevant parts of the record." Fed. R. App. 8(a)(2).

Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.: A Quintessential

Case of a Race-Based Conspiracy to Commit Fraud & Black Robe Corruption

had to continue arbitrating in "good faith." See Exhibit N.

version of my March 17, 2014 pleading.

for Reconsideration into four parts. He stated:

summary ofthose arguments:

decisions rendered by Lewis pursuant to § 10 of the FAA. See Exhibit T.

have engaged in a pattern of. See Exhibit U.

• Rowe Entertainment and Arbitrator David L. Gregory's Interim Decisions Regarding

• Christian Carbone's Failure to Disclose Marriage to General Counsel to the American

issues that were raised in my March 17, 2014 Motion.

"omnibus final decision. "19

the merits of my claims.

violating Title VII.

on this statute can be demonstrate in Wang, and society's response thereafter. 22

disqualification. After he refused to disqualify himself, he continued to ignore our nation's

"undesirable cases" like this one. Bennett states:

New York, 315 U.S. 752, 752 (1942)).

more than a myth that has already been scientifically disproven.

of black concert promoters in Rowe have been defrauded.

Prayers for Extraordinary Relief Under the Court's Inherent Powers

explicitly resolved by the appellate court.

never be decided by an impartial jury.

Thurgood Marshall and Nelson Mandela.

the extraordinary relief required to correct this "manifest injustice."

Dated: New York, New York By: 3"t.1~. ~ iJ=.­

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

LLC; Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski

I. Marcus Isaiah Washington • hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on

o United States Mail

Name Address City State Zip Code

Name Address City State Zip Code

Name Address City State Zip Code

Name Address City State Zip Code

November 21, 2014

Certificate of Service Fonn

Case 14-4328, Document 7, 11/21/2014, 1379771, Page 26 of 309

Michael Zweig Representing William Morris Endeavor Entertainment

East Providence,RI 02914

http://meagainstiniguity. wordpress. comJ2014111116/there-will-come-a-time-when-black-peop le-wake-up-and

Dated: New York, New York By: 3"t.1~. ~ iJ=.

6000170'()001 Marcus Washington v, William Morris. $ 51,655.00 433.58