Tagged: inference
“In an unpublished opinion, Fujitsu Software Corp. v. Hinman, No. A112781, 2006 WL 2789139 (Sept. 28, 2006), California’s First District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision confirming a partial final arbitration award, where a losing party made a variety of state and constitutional claims to try to get the award overturned.”
The partial final award was confirmed [by the trial court] on Oct. 31, 2005. Yet, in my case, Arbitrator David L. Gregory issued a Partial Final Award on December 17, 2013, and federal judge P. Kevin Castel of the Southern District of New York pretended Gregory’s Award was not final for the sake of judicial review, and because the Award was not “final” in Castel’s mind, this gave the AAA the jurisdiction to disqualify Gregory after determining liability and indicating what monetary damages both parties would receive in part 1 of a bifurcated proceeding.
This case is important because Fujitsu also happened under the jurisdiction of the American Arbitration Association and the party that lost certainly did not seek to have the AAA disqualify the arbitrator after he issued his Partial Final Award. “On July 31, a ‘Partial Final Award’ in Fujitsu’s favor concluded that ‘zBatch LLC’ and the principals had continuing support obligations that survived the master agreement’s termination, and that source code needed to be deposited in escrow within 10 business days. The award included attorney fees and costs.” When the petitioners moved to confirm the Award, the respondents “filed a motion to oppose the arbitration award’s confirmation, and cross-motioned to ‘modify/correct or, alternatively, vacate’ the award, recuse the arbitrator, and ‘obtain a return of fees.'” Procedurally speaking, this is what should have happened in my case since both parties were dissatisfied with Arbitrator Gregory’s Award. Instead, William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP asked the AAA to disqualify the arbitrator, when as a matter of law, that decision should have been made to P. Kevin Castel. The AAA improperly disqualified Arbitrator Gregory without reason and gave another arbitrator the jurisdiction to vacate Arbitrator Gregory’s Partial Final Award. These unlawful actions constituted further violations of my constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.
As I’ve always argued: The AAA did not have jurisdiction to disqualify Arbitrator Gregory after he issued his Award — even if he rendered a “Partial Final Award.” Loeb & Loeb LLP and the AAA knew that only the federal court could vacate Arbitrator Gregory’s Award and disqualify him from the case after he determined liability, however, they did it anyway because they were engaging in fraud against a pro se litigant and knew that Castel would also turn a blind eye to the overall fraud that was occurring in my case, since he ignored my March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court Motion and told me to continue arbitrating in “good faith.” It is clear that any decision rendered by Timothy K. Lewis is null and void and the $115,000.00 that he and Schnader LLP received from William Morris should be given to me.
Based on the pyramid of evidence I’ve presented demonstrating William Morris’ intentional pattern and CONTINUING practice of discriminating against African Americans and people of color in employment spanning 116 years, any “final” decision that doesn’t grant my request for affirmative and permanent injunctive relief, is erroneous as both a matter of law and public policy.
“In sum, Washington has presented and can present no factual basis to support any of his claims. Based largely on vast conspiracy theories, discredited allegations of institutional racism and his own animus, his claims are not only utterly implausible, they are such that no reasonable finder of fact could rule in his favor. Accordingly, under the applicable and governing law, they must be dismissed.” — Michael P. Zweig, November 6, 2012
If I did not present any factual basis to support any of my claims, then please explain to me how David L. Gregory — an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association and professor in employment & labor law for 31 years — determined in his Partial Final Award on December 17, 2013 that William Morris Endeavor Entertainment discriminated against because of my race in violation of federal, state and local law prohibiting discrimination in employment. What’s crazy to me is that if the AAA disqualified Gregory due to a number of reasons indicating gross arbitrator misconduct after he issued his Award, why didn’t they remove him entirely from arbitrating any further cases on their behalf, particularly those related to employment discrimination and civil rights? It’s all a sham because the AAA served as one of the sponsors for St. John’s University (where Gregory teaches) and NYU’s recent symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Although it is a truism that no litigation system achieves perfect justice or optimal efficiency, the current move toward more aggressive use of summary judgment risks too many sacrifices of justice with little efficiency gain, or perhaps even net efficiency loss. Restoring pre-trilogy judicial humility, by rule change if necessary, to permit trial and jury deliberation in more cases can help to combat the innate cognitive illiberalism and error that afflicts judges making overly aggressive use of summary judgment.”
With regards to employment discrimination and civil rights cases, when you factor in the conservative judicial agenda that has taken place since Ronald Regan was appointed to President, what is happening is not “accidental” or “due to chance.” It’s intentional!
Source: Jeffrey W. Stempel, Taking Cognitive Illiberalism Seriously: Judicial Humility, Aggregate Efficiency, and Acceptable Justice, 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J.627, 635, 687 (2012).
Me Against Iniquity: Understanding the Complexities of Global White Supremacy (Racism) Through The Eyes of an Unapologetically BLACK Intellectual 