No.

11-3576 CV
C)
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
o
MARCUS ISAIAH W ASHlNGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; formerly the WILLIAM
MORRIS AGENCY; JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINIARSKI,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York
No. 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC)(JCF)
APPELLANT'S REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY
MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL AND OPPOSITION TO APPELLEES'
CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
[email protected]
Pro Se Litigant
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 1 10/17/2011 421063 18
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
i TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
TABLE OF AUrnORITIES
ARGUMENTS 1
MR. WASHINGTON IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON APPEAL 1
1. Arguments Within Appellees' Oppositional Motion Are Moot and
1
Substantively Insufficient
II. An Extraordinary Showing Of "Good Cause" Is Demonstrated And
4
Appellant's Emergency Motion Is Not "Moot"
III. Hon. Castel's Issuance of An Interlocutory Order Represents Yet
Another Indication That His Biased Order Was Deliberately Meant to
Harmfully Delay This Case From Being Litigated 7
N. Appellant Demonstrates At The Least, An "Appearance" OfJudiciary
Bias and Prejudice. Through The Lens ofHon. Castel's Extremely Biased
Stay Order, Appellant's Brief Show Actual Bias By Showing The
9
Intersection Between Racism, Politics and the Law.
10
CONCLUSION
-i
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 2 10/17/2011 421063 18
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144,157 (1970) ........................... 5
Bensadouft v. lobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171, 175 (2d Cir.2003) .........................5
Breftftaft v. Baf!y Tolal Fitness, 198 F. Supp.2d 377, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) .........4
1ft re DrexelBurnham Lambert, Iftc., 861 F.2d 1312, 1313 (2d Cir. 1988) ..........9
In reo Estate tifFriedman v. Egan, 64 A.D.2d 70 (2d Dept. 1978) ............... ..4
GianfltlUo v. Cif) tifNew York, 322 F.3d 139, 140 (2d Cir.2003) ..................5
Int'l Bhd. tifTeamsters v. United States. 431 U.S. 324 (1977) .......................... 5
Martens v. Smith Barnry, Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d 596, 601 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) ........7
North Fork Bank p. Abelson, 207 B.R 382,389-90 (B.D.N.Y. 1997) ............ 5
O'Regan p. Armtratioft Forums, Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7th eir.2001) ..................2
SI. Mary's Honor Cenler v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993) ........................2
Texas Dept. tifCommunif) Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,254 (1981) ............2
In re XO Commc'ns Inc. v. Start Investments, Inc., Civ. No. 03-1898,2004 WL
360437 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2009) ..................................................5
STATUTES
9 U.S.c. 16 (b)(1), (3) ............................................................ 1
28 U.S.C. 1292(b) ..................................................................4
28 U.S.C. 455(a), (b) ............................................................... 9
Fed. R App. P. 4(a)(1) ..............................................................8
Fed. R. App. P. 10(b) ............................................................... 9
-u
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 3 10/17/2011 421063 18
Fed. R.. Civ. P. 56(c) ................................................................5
Fed. R.. Civ. P. 59(e) ............................................................... 7-8
BOOKS AND JOURNAL ARTICLES
"Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law." Federal Judicial
Center. 2nd ed. (2010) ............................................................9-10
"Taking Disqualification Seriously." American Bar Association Judicial
Disqualification Project. Judicature, Volume 92, Number 1. July - August
2008................................................................................. 10
-iii
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 4 10/17/2011 421063 18
Appellant Marcus Isaiah Washington respectfully submits this reply memorandum of law in
support of his motion for an expedited appeal to reverse Hon. P. Kevin Castel's extremely biased and
harmfully erroneous Stay Order compelling this case into arbitration, and to additionally, oppose the
Appellee's Cross-Motion to Dismiss Appeal For Lack of Jurisdiction, based upon 9 U.S.C. 16
(b)(l), (3).
ARGUMENTS
MR. WASHINGTON IS LIKELY TO SUCCEEED ON APPEAL
1. Arguments Within Appellees' Oppositional Motion Are Moot and Substantively Insufficient
In my Emergency Motion, I argue that: (1) Hon. Castel ignored my argument entirely,
omitted pertinent facts and applied the wrong legal standard by failing to incorporate
antidiscrimination law within the framework of the Federal Arbitration Act to determine
unconscionability of the "discrimination" and "retaliation" provisions located in William Morris'
Arbitration Agreements; (2) I was told by the Pro Se office that my case was "closed" and that an
appeal had to be made with the Second Circuit; (3) there ~ an extraordinary public interest that this
case remain in the Southern District of New York to address insidious and institutional racism in the
American workplace, the ineffectiveness of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and additional civil and
human rights laws in eradicating these intentional barriers, and how Hollywood's cabal-like practices
playa direct role in perpetuating racism through powerful mediums of persuasion and influence such
as television and film; and (4) further delay will create additional irreparable harm given my economic
circumstances and deteriorating health. Additionally, I conclude the Emergency Motion by
introducing a small portion of the evidence I have which suggests that the true and only reason ~
this appeal is before the Second Circuit today, is due to the extreme bias, prejudice and impropriety of
both judges currently assigned to this case.
In their second chance to provide a rebuttal to the substantial prima facie plus pretext evidence
demonstrating that the "discrimination" and "retaliation" provision in the Appellees' Arbitration
Agreement entered into between myself and William Morris was tainted with illegality, substantively
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 5 10/17/2011 421063 18
unconscionable, and malum in se, Appellees instead argue that: (1) "the Federal Arbitration Act does
not create a right to appeal interlocutory orders compelling arbitration;" (2) procedurally, the Second
Circuit has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal because I didn't receive permission from the District
Court to appeal this "unappealable order;" (3) my Emergency Motion is "moot" because there is no
"good cause" shown; and (4) my "reckless claims" of "collusion between Judge Castel and Judge
Francis" are "wholly unsubstantiated." Appellees err by stating that this dispute is a "basic question of
contract interpretation, which can be resolved by looking at the relevant provisions of the Mutual
Arbitration Agreement." (Appellees Opp., 8.) That would only be true if unconscionability, undue
influence, economic duress and other challenges weren't raised by myself. They never counter or
refute my first or third argument the essential reasons this matter is before the Court. Throughout
this Reply Motion, I will demonstrate further that their counter arguments are moot, substantively
insufficient and serve as nothing more than a to deceive the Court into believing that
their words are of meaning.
As stated in the Emergency Motion: The establishment of the prima facie case creates a
mandatory presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee. St. Mary's
Honor Center v. Hicks. 509 U.S. 502, 506 (1993). If the employer fails to respond to Appellant's
prima facie case, or if it fails to carry its burden to dispel the prima facie case, then the Court "must
find the existence of the presumed fact of unlawful discrimination and must, therefore, render a
verdict for the [Appellant]" Hicks, 509 U.S. at 509-10 n.3 (emphasis in original); See also Texas
Dept of Community Affairs v. Burdine. 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981) ("[J]fthe employer is silent ill the
face Qf the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the [Appellant] because no issue of fact
remains in the case.") (emphasis added) Additionally, O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums Inc., 246 F.3d
975 (7th Cir.2001) and the law literature cited buttress the fact that my arguments are valid and Hon.
Castel applied wrong standard of law to rule against me. Since it is well-settled that avoidance is not
an actual defense, a "verdict must be [entered] for the [Appellant]"
According to Loeb & Loeb, LLC's website, William Morris' legal counsel (Mr. Christian
Carbone and Mr. Michael Zweig both partners in the firm) have a combined average of 27 Y2 years
-2
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 6 10/17/2011 421063 18
studying and practicing law.! Among Mr. Carbone's notable achievements, he has been named "New
York Rising Star" in Business Litigation by Thomson Reuters this year and in the 2010 edition of
Media, Technology and Telecoms: Marketing and Advertising, he was included in The Lega/500 US.
With almost four decades under his belt, Mr. Zweig has "a diverse national1itigation practice with an
emphasis on complex litigation, business torts, entertainment, employment and advertising/media
matters." For the last five years, he has been named "New York Super Lawyer" in General Litigation
by Thomson Reuters and interestingly, he is a member of the Federal Bar Council and Second Circuit
Courts Committee, amongst a number of other notable organizations of vast influence and reach.
The point of this is to say that, as a pro se litigant, I am going against two fully experienced
and competent lawyers who in no way, could be so accomplished if they had difficulties being able to
read. My logical arguments are supported with a substantial amount of case law, sociological research,
law literature and other credible sources - written by judges and scholars who are majority White.
Appellees demonstrate their delusional thinking by still continuing to believe that the evidence
showing 113 years of systemic disparate treatment towards African Americans and persons of color
in which they failed to dispute - are "unfounded allegations." (Appellees Opp., ].) It makes absolute
sense for the Appellees to pretend my arguments were never raised - for admitting that William
Morris has always been race conscious in their employment practices, policies and procedures
(evident by the historical and statistical evidence provided), there would be no longer be a case. This
is the same strategy used by William Morris when I confronted them about my beliefs that I was being
discriminated against and the Court should not enable the Appellees to do the same. ~ ~ 143-155.
A noticeable pattern between the Appellees and Hon. Castel is that they rely heavily on
selective memory, misremembering, taking my words out of context and then misapplying case law.
For Hon. Castel to also pretend that the historical, statistical and circumstantial evidence of
discrimination is meaningless when analyzing the conscionability of the contract's "discrimination"
provision is deeply troubling. My problem is not that Hon. Castel ruled against me per se, it's that he
I Information available from the biographies of Christian Carbone and Michael Zweig on the Loeb &
Loeb, LLC website at www.loeb.comlchristian_carbone and www.loeb.comlmichael_zweig.
-3
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 7 10/17/2011 421063 18
deliberately chose not to apply a "'flexible' approach, examining 'all the facts and circumstances of
[this] particular case.'" See Brennan v. Bally Total Fitness, 198 F. Supp.2d 377,383 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
(quoting In reo Estate of Friedman v. Egan. 64 A.D.2d 70 (2d Dept. 1978)).
Ron. Castel's Stay Order gives the impression that my argument is intellectually inferior,
illogical and/or not worthy enough to be taken seriously. Although I am not a lawyer, I am an avid
reader, a deeply critical thinker, knowledgeable in many disciplines and am more than capable of
expressing my thoughts and ideas - orally or in writing. Academically, my essays have help me see
the world as a youth ambassador for the City of Orlando in Urayasu, Japan and helped partially put me
through college and graduate school having been awarded over $100,000 in college scholarships from
the University of Miami, McDonalds and Papa Johns to name a few to. Professionally, I also spent
four years as a writer for a popular entertainment/fashion publication without any experience in
journalism. ("Exhibit A") Just because this unique defense hadn't been raised before didn't give Hon.
Castel permission to "liberally" construe my words against me. (PKC Order, 12.)
n. An Extraordinary Showing Of "Good Cause" Is Demonstrated And Appellant's Emergency Motion
Is Not "Moot"
Appellees state that the issues raised in my Emergency Motion are "moot." Their first
argument to support this statement is that "Mr. Washington has not provided sufficient justification
for expediting his appeal" because no "good cause" was shown. (Appellees Opp. Motion, 10.) They
state that "'[g]ood cause' is generally found where there are a set of exigent circumstances that will be
affected by the outcome of the appeaL" In my Emergency Motion, I present an extraordinary showing
that "good cause" ! shown because the dispute with Ron. Castel's Stay Order involves a "controlling
issue of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion" and "an immediate
appeal from the order ... [will] materially advance the ultimate termination ofthe litigation." 28 U.S.C.
1292(b).
Throughout my Emergency Motion, I give notice that my Brief will seek the following: (1) a
reversal of Ron. Castel's decision; (2) the disqualification of both Hon. Castel and Hon. Francis due to
extreme bias and prejudice; (3) a grant of partial summary judgment for my disparate impact claims;
~ 4
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 8 10/17/2011 421063 18
(4) a grant to an expedited discovery and jury trial; and (5) reimbursement of unemployment lost as a
result of appealing this harmfully erroneous decision that was intentionally meant to delay this
landmark civil and human rights case from being litigated. Reversing Hon. Castel's deliberate errors
dramatically changes the entire outcome of this case.
"In the context of motions to compel arbitration brought under the Federal Arbitration Act ... ,
the court applies a standard similar to that applicable for a motion for summary judgment." Bensadoun
v. lobe-Riat. 316 F.3d 171,175 (2d Cir.2003). Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the
pleadings ... show that there is no genuine issue M ill !mY material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter oflaw." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (emphasis added). The burden is on
the movant to show that there is no genuine factual dispute. Giannullo v. City of New York 322 F.3d
139, 140 (2d Cir.2003) (citing Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.. 398 U.S. 144, 157 (1970). Based on my
argument, I have demonstrated through the historical, statistical and circumstantial evidence spanning
more than a century showing odious systemic disparate treatment towards African Americans and
other minorities resulting in a glaring disparate impact. "The proof of the pattern or practice supports
an inference that !mY particular employment decision, during the period in which the discriminatory
policy was in force, was made in pursuit of that policy." Inn Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States. 431
U.S. 324,362 (1977) (emphasis added). This shows consistency in William Morris' behavior and the
crystallization of the company's biased and irrational "state of mind." Fearful that their past would
one day come back to haunt them, William Morris needed to create a contract superseding various
civil and human rights laws so that it could continue engaging in their discriminatory practices without
the scrutiny and possible intervention of not only the Court, but the public at large.
Granting partial summary judgment for my disparate impact claims provides the necessary
context in which a jury will be able to fully understand my individual disparate treatment claims, thus
"materiallyaffect[ing] the outcome of the litigation." In re XO Commc'ns Inc. v. Start Investments.
Inc.. Civ. No. 03-1898,2004 WL 360437 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26,2009) (citing North Fork Bank v.
Abelson. 207 B.R. 382, 389-90 (E.D.N.Y. 1997. Three months have already elapsed since Hon.
Castel issued his biased Stay Order. For a year and a half, I have been without a job. My livelihood,
-5
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 9 10/17/2011 421063 18
reputation, earning potential and health are all on the line. Had I not been discriminated against, I can
show that based upon my academic and professional achievements, I wouldn't have been hired as an
Agent Trainee. I will also be able to demonstrate that had I been free from working in a racially
discriminatory environment, my career would be continuing to blossom - independent of the
economic meltdown. In just one of the many examples demonstrating my work ethic and ability to
identifY critically commercially and acclaimed talent, I present an email correspondence between
myself to SVP of Urban Contemporary Music Carn Lewis - regarding an upcoming artist that I
thought the company should sign. On October 5, 2011, after building a loyal following and selling out
shows internationally, this same artist debuted on the Billboard 200 with the number one album in the
country, selling 218,000 copies in the first week. ("Exhibit B")
I demonstrate that additional irreparable harm will occur due to my dire economic
circumstances and deteriorating health resulting from the stress from being unemployed, maneuvering
around the insurmountable barriers created to keep this case out of the public's awareness, substantial
amount of debt incurred for pursing an advanced degree, etc. There are days when I am unable to
leave the bed due to the discomfort I feel in my body and the fact that I've been unable to receive
foHow ups with my doctors could possibly lead to unforeseeable long term health problems. The
constant worrying about my future and seeing what's happening not only to the African American
community, but our dysftmctional nation as a whole, creates additional sources of stress. My
unemployment is set to expire on November 20,2011 so granting reimbursement for the total number
of weeks my unemployment has been used to fight this harmfully erroneous Stay Order, will give me
additional time to hopefully gain in employment and/or be able to economically survive the next phase
of this case (discovery). There's no question that had Hon. Casters harmful errors not been made, this
case would be closer to a resolution.
Not only do I show that Hon. Castel applied the wrong legal standard and suggest that it is due
to bias, but I further demonstrate that there is a substantial public interest that this case remain in a
public forum given its challenge to insidious and institutional racism in the American workplace, the
ineffectiveness of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and holding Hollywood accountable for their cabal
-6
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 10 10/17/2011 421063 18
like practices - all for the greater good of society. This is supported with a substantial amount of
scholarly research and law literature in which the Appellees offer no counter arguments. Although "a
pre-dispute agreement requiring compulsory arbitration ... is enforceable with regard to Title Vll
claims' is well-settled law in the Second Circuit, the unique facts and arguments presented clearly
demonstrate that this case is an exception to the rule. See Martens v. Smith Barney, Inc., 238 F. Supp.
2d 596,601 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). My circumstances of my case should not be reduced or diminished to
try to fit within the parameters of other cases dealing with a fraction of what I've presented. I have
more than demonstrated that this case is an exception to the rule and should remain in the Court under
a new set of impartial judges.
Ill. Hon. Castel's Issuance of An Interlocutory Order Represents Yet Another Indication That His
Biased Order Was Deliberately Meant to Harmfully Delay This Case From Being Litigated
Given my pro se status and the fact that "interlocutory order" is not used anywhere in the Hon.
Castel's Stay Order, I didn't know what the term meant until I saw that it was being used against me
as a defense by the Appellees to have my appeal dismissed. Given my belief that Hon. Castel
deliberately tried to delay this case from being litigated through the District Court because of his own
personal bias, this further confirms my belief that "by any means necessary," Hon. Castel wanted to
prevent this case from being litigated because of the sweeping precedent this could establish amongst
corporations who are more likely than not, engaging in widespread employment discrimination like
William Morris.
Immediately after receiving Hon. Castel's Stay Order, I began researching what my options
were for appealing his decision. I began working on a Fed. R. Civ. P 59( e) Motion for Reconsideration
which had to be filed by August 17, 2011 (no later than 28 days after the Stay Order was entered on
July 21, 2011). The only evidence I can submit to the Court to show that I was working on this motion
to address Hon. Castel's errors directly are copies from the cover pages of my various Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e) rough drafts, which were also dated at the time I initially worked on them. ("Exhibit C") On
August 9, 2011, I called the Pro Se office with questions concerning the motion and was informed that
my case was "closed," and that any form of appeal had to be submitted to the Second Circuit.
-7
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 11 10/17/2011 421063 18
According to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(I), an individual has 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal in the
District Court which gave me until August 19,2011 to submit the Notice. On August 10,2011, I filed
the Notice of Appeal with the District Court and Form D-P with the Second Circuit. ("Exhibit D")
However, because it is well-settled that appealing interlocutory orders are "not final and therefore
unappealable," this created a Catch 22. Not only was I was unable to file a Fed. R Civ. P. 59(e)
Motion for Reconsideration, but according to the Appellees' argument, I am also unable to have the
Second Circuit review my biased and prejudiced judge's Stay Order because the Court doesn't have
jurisdiction. Hon. Castel ruled in a way that locked me into arbitration, even though his ruling was
made in error. I attempted to address Hon. Castel directly, but if I was told I couldn't ask him
personally to reconsider his erroneous order, how could I then be able to ask him to lift his
"unappealable" order so that I can challenge his decision to a higher court? It simply doesn't make
sense. The fact that I submitted the Notice of Appeal one day after being notified by the Pro Se office
demonstrates my urgency in having Hon. Castel's wrongs corrected. This is true reason for why "the
District Court did not certify the Stay Order for appeal, nor did Mr. Washington ask it to do so."
(Appellees Opp. Motion, 6.)
To further expose the inconsistencies and lies of both the Appellees and the Court, I have to
address the fallacious statements made by the Appellees in their Oppositional Motion regarding my
Form D-P. On August 15,2011, the Second Circuit erroneously sent me a notice stating that the form
had not been received and the case would be dismissed if not submitted by October 4, 2011. ("Exhibit
E") As shown in Exhibit D, my signed Form D-P is stamped from the "Second Circuit" and reads that
it was submitted on "2011 AUG 10 AM 11 :26." I personally went to the Court on September 16,
2011, to have this corrected. At the least, falsely accusing me of not turning in this form creates the
impression in the mind of the reader deciding whether or not my Emergency Motion should be
granted (even if for a split second), that I'm having problems following directions. At the other end of
the spectrum, this could be enough reason to grant the Appellees' cross-motion for dismissal since the
docket sheet they provide, dated October 7, 2011, shows that this form was never submitted.
("Exhibit F") However, upon further inspection, the exhibit submitted by the Appellees to "prove" this
-8
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 12 10/17/2011 421063 18
form had not been filed, is interestingly the docket sheet from Southern District of New York. On
October 11, 2011, I went to the courthouse to understand why my Form D-P was not correctly entered
onto both docket sheets and was informed by docket service manager of the S.D.N.Y, Drew T.
D' Agostino, as well as my case manager Yadira Vargas, that this form would never be entered onto
the S.D.N.Y.'s docket sheet because this case and form was filed in the Second Circuit.
2
With an
average of 27 Y2 years studying and practicing law, this is not an accidental blunder. TIus is nothing
but a calculated move to deceive the Court. The fact is, I have always been in compliance with Fed. R.
App. P. 1O(b), as indicated by the docket sheet for the Second Circuit wmch shows that the
documented was "entered" on August 24, 2011. ("Exhibit G") These nlistakes are not coincidental.
IV. Appellant Demonstrates At The Least, An "Appearance" Of Judiciary Bias and Prejudice.
Through The Lens of Hon. Castel's Extremely Biased Stay Order, Appellant's Brief Show Actual
Bias By Showing The Intersection Between Racism, Politics and the Law.
I present a prelinlinary showing of evidence to bring to the Court's awareness that there are
legitimate concerns regarding the impartiality of both Hon. Castel and Hon. Francis in tms particular
case. Although I state in my Emergency Motion more than once that I am not seeking a ruling for
disqualification in this particular motion, Appellees still argue that I make "no such showing" that a
"reasonable person knowing and understanding all the relevant facts would rescue the judge[s]." In re
Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc .. 861 F.2d 1312, 1313 (2d Cir. 1988). Since I have not yet submitted
"all [of] the relevant facts," tlleir challenges are premature at best. Based on 28 U.S.c. 445, I only
have to demonstrate an "appearance" of bias. I do this by focusing mostly on the extrajudicial actions
ofHon. Francis - who did not write the Stay Order - because ms bias is most observable.
Section 455(a) requires disqualification for the appearance of partiality (i.e., when a judge's
"impartiality might reasonably be questioned") as compared to 455(b)(l), wmch requires
disqualification for actual partiality (i.e., when a judge "has a personal bias or prejudice toward a
2 I first spoke with Don Bolden - a supervisor to case managers in the Second Circuit. He adamantly refused to
acknowledge any wrongdoing on behalf of the Court's administrative staff regarding my Form D-P not being
entered onto the docket although it was received and stamped, which caused me to receive Exhibit E. He stated
that I couldn't turn in the form until after the record was received. However, on the actual form (Exhibit D), it
states: "A pro se appellant must file the original ofthis form with the clerk ofthe Second Circuit in all civil
appeals within 14 calendar days after filing a Notice ofAppeal." This demonstrates one ofnumerous
discrepancies between the rules and actual practice.
-9
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 13 10/17/2011 421063 18
party"). Whether the judge is, in fact, impartial is detenninative of disqualification under (b)(1);
but it is not dispositive of disqualification under (a).
3
Using Judge Castel's Stay Order as a lens, I will show in my Brief the intersection between
racism, politics and the law. "Collusion" is an understatement and doesn't merely reflect the
magnitude and insidious effects of institutional racism and white supremacy on non-Whites,
particularly African Americans in our hypocritically democratic nation. There's no possible way that
God could have allowed me to uncover such a substantial amount of evidence showing judicial
corruption. This is ultimately no different than when I uncovered William Morris' century-plus history
of discriminatory practices when I only had "gut feeling" I was discriminated against at the time I
filed with the EEOC in June 3, 2010. At the end of the day, it must always be remembered that:
Judges are not automatons who apply the law mechanically, in a political vacuum. They are
people too, whose thinking is influenced by their educations, backgrounds, experience, and
personal values, and who are subject to the same prejudices that afflict the rest of us. As with the
rest of us, it is only natural that a judge's personal prejudices will sometimes get the best of [him],
or at least appear to do so. When that happens in a case [he] has been called upon to decide, the
judge should step aside, to protect judicial impartiality and promote public confidence in the
courts.
4
CONCLUSION
This Emergency Motion is essentially a condensed version of my Brief. There is no need to
grant the Appellees' 45 day request to respond to my Brief because they have no nondiscriminatory
reason to refute the arguments demonstrating that the "discrimination" provision in William Morris'
arbitration agreements signed by myself were unconscionable, tainted with illegality, malum in se and
ultimately, the actual contract, serves as a deceptive tool to have minorities waive their civil and
human rights as a condition of employment while William Morris continues to engage in these
unlawful, immoral, unethical and illegal acts. I respectfully ask that the Court grant my proposed
scheduling order and request for an expedited appeal. Additionally, I request that the Appellees' cross-
motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction be denied for the reasons stated above.
3 "Judicial Disqualification: An Analysis of Federal Law." Federal Judicial Center. 2nd ed. (2010)
4 "Taking Disqualification Seriously." American Bar Association Judicial Disqualification Project. Judicature,
Vo1ume 92, Number 1. Ju1y - August 2008.
-10
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 14 10/17/2011 421063 18
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,
October 17, 2011
By: ____________~ _____________
Marcus I. Washington
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
[email protected]
-11
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 15 10/17/2011 421063 18
Dated: New York, New York Respectfully submitted,
October 17,2011
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
[email protected]
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 16 10/17/2011 421063 18
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CAPTION:
_W_a_s_h_in-.;:g'--to_n _______ v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
William Morris Endeavor Ent., LLC et at
Docket Number: 11-3576-CV
I, Marcus Isaiah Washington , hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on
(name)
October 17, 2011 ,I served a copy of Appellant's Reply Memorandum of Law,
(date)
Affirmation of Appeflant's Reply for Emergency Motion and Form T-1080.
(list all documents)
by (select all applicable)*
D United States Mail
o Federal Express
o Overnight Mail
DFacsimile
DE-mail
[ZJ Hand delivery
en
on the following parties (complete all information and add additional pages as necessary):
345 Park Avenue. 18th FI. New York NY 10154
Name Address City State Zip Code
Name Address City State Zip Code
Name Address City State Zip Code
Name Address City State Zip Code
October 2011
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 Form
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 17 10/17/2011 421063 18
IPlease time stamp below.
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
NIGHT DEPOSITORY FORM
4:30 P.M. - 8:30 BUSINESS DAY
24 HOURS ON SATURDAYS, SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS
INSTRUCTIONS
1. For all appeals commenced on or after January 1,2010, a counseled party may submit only
briefs and appendices in the night depository. Thissqbmission f:Joes not substitute for
CMIECF filing. Motions may be filed in the night depository only in pre-2010 appeals.
2. Complete the case title and identify the submitted documents.
3. Stamp 1 copy of the brief and appendix or the original motion.
4. Stamp this completed form and affix it to the entire package submitted.
5. Documents are deemed filed on the business day they are date/time stamped or on the
next business day if date/time stamped on a Saturday, Sunday or Federal Holiday.
6. Documents date/time stamped after the date they are due m,ust be accompanied by a
motion for permission to file out of time.
7. The correct number of copies of aU documents must be included.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS MAY UNDULY
DELAY FILING WITH THE COURT.
The night depository box is located at the Worth Street entrance of the United States District
Court, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500
Court Security office.
NY near the
Please complete the following information
Case Title (short title) V VV;IIie- tvto",,:S Case Number:
t;nf, LLC.
e..to.l.
Documents Included
Briefs
Appendices/Transcript Volumes
Motions (T-1080 form + affidavit)
Other (Please identify):
Proof of service
11 -'3S11,,- c.:"
Required Copies
6 copies
3 copies
original +2 copies
original + 2 copies
original only
Case: 11-3576 Document: 30 Page: 18 10/17/2011 421063 18