No.______
`IN THE
`
`upreme Court of the Suiteb otateg
`R. S. RAGHAVENDRA, Founder,
`Racial Equality Struggles For Columbia University
`Employees (RESCUE) Ad Hoc Committee,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`JANE E. BOOTH, THE TRUSTEES OF
`COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`In. Re. R. S. RAGHAVENDRA
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`(on Mandamus Petition) to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`R (Randy) S. Raghavendra, M.B.A..
`RESCUE Ad Hoc Committee
`P.O. Box 7066,
`Hicksville, New York, 11802-7066
`RSRaghavendra@Yahoo.Com
`(646) 229-9971
`Petitioner
`
`
`IN THE
`
`upreme Court of the Suiteb otateg
`R. S. RAGHAVENDRA, Founder,
`Racial Equality Struggles For Columbia University
`Employees (RESCUE) Ad Hoc Committee,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`JANE E. BOOTH, THE TRUSTEES OF
`COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,
`Respondents.
`
`In. Re. R. S. RAGHAVENDRA
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`(on Mandamus Petition) to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`R (Randy) S. Raghavendra, M.B.A..
`RESCUE Ad Hoc Committee
`P.O. Box 7066,
`Hicksville, New York, 11802-7066
`RSRaghavendra@Yahoo.Com
`(646) 229-9971
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`On July 11, 2018, by disregarding even the
`U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's
`recent 2016 finding, the Appeals Court denied
`Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus petition to reverse a
`permanent injunction issued by non-recusing
`District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty -- against whom
`Criminal Complaints are already pending before
`U.S. Attorney/FBI and New York State Attorney
`General for obstruction of justice and other corrupt
`practices to induce payment of at least a $215,000
`"BRIBE" in the guise of bogus attorney fees to his
`friend] financial-interest and Petitioner's own one-of-
`six-cases/out-going/40-hours Attorney Louis Stober
`by Defendant Columbia University in exchange for
`betraying, masterminding an elaborate fraud
`scheme, and also engaging in other disbarrable
`attorney misconduct by demanding even totally
`baseless, unprecedented, and UNTHINKABLE
`$5,000/day fines against his own client (Plaintiff) to:
`fl prevent a $200 Million Dollars (Coca Cola &
`TEXACO-Style) Class Action against Columbia;
`indefinitely stay the already scheduled jury
`trial as ordered by New York State Supreme
`Court Justice Joan Kenney; and
`
`prevent completion of expressly agreed
`arbitration for immediate organization of an
`Anti-Discrimination Minority Employees
`Association even after the period (2003-2009)
`of that 265-years old prestigious University's
`worst racial crisis.
`
`
`
`Previously, on July 30, 2009, Columbia
`attorneys, in collusion with his own one-of-six-
`cases/out-going/40-hours attorney Stober induced
`Petitioner - a 57-years old, highly respected
`executive with the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King
`- to sign a 2-Page Arbitration Contract by using
`false pretexts and promises to complete an expressly
`agreed arbitration under exclusive jurisdiction of
`labor arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, for
`immediate organization of the first Equal
`Opportunity Promoting "Minority Employees
`Association" at 265-yeears old Columbia.
`The FOUR questions presented are as follows:
`Did the Appeals Court Err or Violate Petitioner's
`First Amendment Right to Petition the
`Courts by Failing to Issue a Writ of Mandamus
`for Reversing the Permanent Injunction Issued
`by Non-Recusing District Judge Paul A. Crotty -
`Who Has Also Been Criminally Charged with
`Obstruction of Justice and Aiding & Abetting
`Perjury and Fraud to Induce Payment of At least
`a $215,000 Bribe in Guise of Bogus Attorney
`Fees to His Friend/"Financial-interest and
`Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases/Out-Going/
`Client-Betraying/40-Hours Attorney Stober?
`
`Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce
`the Federal Arbitration Act and Chevron
`Doctrine by Not Compelling Expressly Agreed
`Arbitration Under Jurisdiction of the Labor
`Arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, for
`Organization of the EEOC-Authorized First
`Equal Opportunity Promoting "Minority
`
`
`
`Employees Association" at the 265-Years old
`Columbia University?
`111. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce
`the Seventh Amendment of the United
`States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 2283
`(Anti-Injunction Act/Younger Abstention)
`by Not Issuing a Declaratory Order Allowing
`Petitioner to Complete Already Scheduled
`But (Fraudulently) Stayed Jury Trial that was
`Ordered by New York State Supreme Court
`Justice Joan Kenney in His 2003 Main Action
`Where Defendant Columbia President Lee C.
`Bollinger Would Have Been Compelled to
`Testify Regarding His Prestigious University's
`Institutionalized Race Discrimination
`Practices?
`
`W. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce
`28 U.S.C. § 455 (Federal Judge Recusal
`Law) and Code of Judicial Conduct by Not
`Ordering the Recusal of District Judge Crotty
`-- Who Had Openly Engaged in Various Corrupt
`Practices to Legitimize the Payment of At Least
`a $215,000 Bribe in the Guise of Bogus
`Attorney Fees to His Friend/Financial-
`interest and Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases
`/Client-Betraying/40-Hours Attorney Stober by
`the Powerful Defendant Columbia University?
`
`
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING' AND
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE
`Petitioner is R (Randy) S. Raghavendra,
`Founder of the Racial Equality Struggles for
`Columbia University Employees (RESCUE) Ad Hoc
`Committee. Petitioner is not a corporation.
`Respondents are Jane E. Booth, General
`Counsel of Columbia University, and The Trustees of
`Columbia University in the City of New York (a
`private institution of higher education). Hon. Paul
`A. Crotty is the district judge against whom the Writ
`of Mandamus Petition is being sought.
`
`This writ of certiorari petition is based on the most recently
`filed 17-cv-4480 (Continuing Employment Discrimination &
`Retaliation and Breach of 2009 Arbitration Contract) case
`that was originally assigned to District Judge Robert W.
`Sweet but was improperly transferred to the non-recusing
`District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty who had repeatedly
`denied any kind of fact-finding whatsoever in this matter
`during the past eight years in any of the Petitioner's
`improperly dismissed three other cases and without
`allowing for the completion of the expressly agreed
`arbitration under. Judge Crotty had openly condoned
`perjury, attorney fraud and other misconduct and has
`obstructed the independent prosecution of any "perjury,
`fraud and bribery" related claims in any other courts.
`As of July 2009, Petitioner had an impending $200 Million
`Dollars (Coca Cola & TEXACO-Style) Class Action on behalf
`of thousands of alleged victims of institutionalized
`discrimination in employment and three other already
`pending actions. Petitioner had two main pro se cases in the
`New York State Supreme Court and two supplementary
`cases in the Federal District Court. One-of-six-Cases/Out-
`Going/40-hours/attorney Louis Stober was attorney on
`record in one and only the 2006 (back-pay damages) case.
`
`iv
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................i
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE ......................... ,iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................xi
`ORDERS ("OPINIONS") BELOW .............................. 1
`JURISDICTION..........................................................4
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED.........................................5
`INTRODUCTION........................................................7
`STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................12
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.......22
`A. Mandamus Provides the Only Adequate
`Means to Relief as Non-Recusmg District
`Judge Paul A. Crotty's Absurd & Totally
`Baseless $5,000/Day Fines DEFY All
`Congressionally-Established Structures
`of Federal Courts and Also Blatantly
`Violate the Federal Arbitration Act by
`Denying Petitioner's Right to Organize
`the First Equal Opportunity Promoting
`"Minority Employees Association" at
`the 265-Years Columbia University....................23
`
`
`
`Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's 2017
`$5,000/Day Fines Injunction Directly
`Contradicts the 2011 and 2017
`Second Circuit Mandates by Condoning
`Continued Illegal Discrimination
`Practices and Obstructing Prosecution
`of the Recently Discovered "Elaborate
`Fraud (RICO), Collusion & ($330,00)
`Bribery" Scheme.................................................23
`
`Judge Crotty's Refusal to Recuse
`Himself From Improperly Transferred
`17-cv-4480 Case -- Originally Assigned
`to Judge Robert W. Sweet -- for
`Ensuring $215,000 "Bribe" Payment
`to His Friendl"Financial-Interest" &
`Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases!
`Client-Betraying/40-Hours Attorney
`Stober................................................................25
`
`Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's Baseless
`& Non-Appealable $5,000/Day Fines
`Even Before Completion of Expressly
`Agreed Arbitration Under Jurisdiction
`Of Labor Arbitrator, Martin F.
`Scheinman, Exceeds His Authority
`and is in Blatant Violation of the
`Federal Arbitration Act....................................28
`
`Vi
`
`
`
`Non-Recusing Judge Crotty Cannot
`Use Baseless & Non-Appealable
`$5,000/Day Fines to Cover-Up His
`Own Corrupt Practices and
`Obstruction of Prosecution of the
`"Elaborate Fraud (RICO), Collusion,
`& Bribery" Scheme Litigation in
`Other Federal and State Courts......................29
`
`Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's
`Baseless $5,000/day Fines is in
`Blatant Violation of 28 U.S.0 2283
`(Younger Abstention /Anti-Inj unction
`Act) and Improperly Prohibits
`Completion of Already Scheduled
`Jury Trial in Petitioner's 2003
`"Employment Discrimination" Main
`Action in New York State Court and
`Prosecution of Attorney Misconduct
`Claims in State Courts......................................33
`
`B. Mandamus is Appropriate Here
`Because Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's
`Baseless $5,000/Day Fines Raise
`Novel and Important Questions
`Regarding Condoning of Attorney
`Fraud, Bribery and Curtailment of
`Basic Constitutional Rights of the
`Petitioner and Issuing a Writ Will
`Aid in Administration of Justice.........................34
`
`VII
`
`
`
`I. Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's Baseless
`$5,000/Day Fines and Injunction that
`Obstructs Expressly Agreed Arbitration
`and Prosecution of Recently Discovered
`"Elaborate Fraud (RICO), Collusion &
`Bribery ($330,000)" Scheme Masterminded
`by Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases/
`Client-Betraying Attorney Stober Raises
`Novel Questions of Law.....................................35
`
`2. Resolution of Non-Recusing Judge
`Crotty's Extrajudicial Favoritism,
`Corrupt Practices, and Obstruction of
`Justice Related Issues Raised by this
`Petition Will Aid in the Administration
`of Justice Without Any Criminal
`Prosecution........................................................36
`
`C. The Petitioner's Right to the Writ is
`Clear and Indisputable........................................37
`1. Because Non-Recusing Judge Crotty's
`$5,000/Day Fines and Any Related
`Civil Rights Conspiracy Allows the
`Defendants -- Including His Friend/
`"Financial-Interest" & Petitioner's
`Own One-of-Six-Cases/Client-Betraying
`Attorney Stober - to Prevent Organization
`of First Anti-Discrimination "Minority
`Employment Association" at 265-Years
`Old Columbia, Petitioner Lacks Any
`Adequate Alternative to Mandamus Relief ........ 37
`
`VIII
`
`
`
`2. Preventing Non-Recusing Judge Crotty
`from Further Aiding & Abetting the
`Elaborate Fraud Scheme Masterminded
`by Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases!
`Client-Betraying Attorney Stober Against
`His Own Client in Exchange for At Least
`a $215,000 "Bribe" Payment From
`Columbia Warrants Mandamus Relief .............. 38
`
`CONCLUSION..........................................................39
`
`APPENDIX
`
`Appendix A: Order Denying Petitioner's
`Motion for Reconsideration by Second
`Circuit En Banc (July 11, 2018) ......................... App. 1
`
`Appendix B: New York State Court Order
`for Proceeding With Jury Trial in the
`Employment Discrimination Main Action
`Against Columbia University
`(June 16, 20098).................................................App. 2
`
`Appendix C: Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus
`Petition to Order Recusal of "Jurisdiction-
`Lacking" District Court Judge for Displaying
`Extrajudicial Favoritism (April 26, 2018).........App. 3
`
`ix
`
`
`
`Appendix D: Order Denying Writ of
`Mandamus Petition by an "Attorney
`Disqualification" Motion's Panel
`of the Second Circuit (May 17, 2018) ................. App. 6
`
`Appendix E: "Non-Recusing" District
`Court Judge's Order/Injunction With
`$5,000/Day Fines Against Plaintiff-
`Petitioner to Ensure At Least a
`$215,000 "BRIBE" Payment in the
`Guise of 9Bogus) Attorney Fees to
`One-of-Six-Cases/Client-Betraying/
`40-Hours Attornet Louis D. Stober
`(for Masterminding an Elaborate
`Fraud & Bribery Scheme Against
`His Own Client (Petitioner))
`(December 1, 2018)...........................................App. 7
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`FULL TEXT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF
`THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT,
`9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16
`Section 3: If any suit or proceeding be brought in any
`of the courts of the United States upon
`any issue referable to arbitration under
`an agreement in writing for such
`arbitration, the court in which such suit is
`pending, upon being satisfied that the
`issue involved in such suit or proceeding
`is referable to arbitration under such an
`agreement, shall on application of one
`of the parties stay the trial of the
`action until such arbitration has been
`had in accordance with the terms of
`the agreement, providing the applicant
`for the stay is not in default in proceeding
`with such arbitration. 9 U.S.C. § 3.
`Section 4: A party aggrieved by the alleged failure,
`neglect, or refusal of another to arbitrate
`under a written agreement for arbitration
`may petition any United States district
`court which, save for such agreement,
`would have jurisdiction under title 28, in
`a civil action or in admiralty of the subject
`matter of a suit arising out of the
`controversy between the parties, for an
`
`xi
`
`
`
`order directing that such arbitration
`proceed in the manner provided for in
`such agreement. Five days' notice in
`writing of such application shall be served
`upon the party in default. Service thereof
`shall be made in the manner provided by
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
`court shall hear the parties, and upon
`being satisfied that the making of the
`agreement for arbitration or the failure to
`comply therewith is not in issue, the
`court shall make an order directing
`the parties to proceed to arbitration
`in accordance with the terms of the
`agreement. The hearing and
`proceedings, under such agreement,
`shall be WITHIN THE DISTRICT IN
`WHICH THE PETITION FOR AN
`ORDER DIRECTING SUCH
`ARBITRATION IS FILED.
`If the making of the arbitration agreement
`or the failure, neglect, or refusal to
`perform the same be in issue, the court
`shall proceed summarily to the trial
`thereof. If no jury trial be demanded by
`the party alleged to be in default, or if the
`matter in dispute is within admiralty
`jurisdiction, the court shall hear and
`determine such issue. Where such an issue
`is raised, the party alleged to be in default
`may, except in cases of admiralty, on or
`before the return day of the notice of
`application, demand a jury trial of such
`issue, and upon such demand the
`
`XII
`
`
`
`court shall make an order referring the
`issue or issues to a jury in the manner
`provided by the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure, or may specially call a jury for
`that purpose. If the jury find that no
`agreement in writing for arbitration was
`made or that there is no default in
`proceeding thereunder, the proceeding
`shall be dismissed. If the jury find that an
`agreement for arbitration was made in
`writing and that there is a default in
`proceeding thereunder, the court shall
`make an order summarily directing
`the parties to proceed with the
`arbitration in accordance with the
`terms thereof. 9 U.S.C. § 4.
`
`CASES
`
`Ankenbrandt v. Richards,
`504 U.S. 689, 698 (1992)......................................31
`Armster u. U.S. Dist. Court,
`806 F.2d 1347, 1352 (9th Cir.1986) ................... 22
`B E & K Construction Co. v. National Labor
`Relations Board,.
`536 U.S. 516 (2002)..............................................6
`Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB,
`461, U.S. 731 (1983)......................................6, 31
`Blatt v. Sochet,
`199 A.D.2d 451 (1993)........................................29
`
`XIII
`
`
`
`Borja v. U.S. Dist. Court,
`919 F.2d 100, 101 (9th Cir. 1990)....................36
`Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Card egna,
`546 U.S. 440, 449, 126 S. Ct. 1204,
`163 L. Ed. 2d 1038 (2006).........................29
`Caribbean Trading & Fidelity Corp. v.
`Nigerian Nat'l Petroleum Corp.,
`948 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir. 1991),
`cert. denied, 118 L.Ed. 2d 547,
`112 S. Ct. 1941 (1992)...........................30
`Cary v. Curtis,
`3 How. 236, 245 (1845)...................................31
`
`Cf. In re Korean Air Lines Disaster
`of Sept. 1, 1983,
`829 F.2d 1171, 1176 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
`(R.B. Ginsburg, J.).......................................33
`Cf. Ligon u.City Of N.Y,736 F.3d 118,
`125-26 & n.17, 130 (2d Cir. 2013)....................27
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Crt. For Dist. Of
`Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)...............30
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist.Court,
`542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)..........................23
`Citibank, N.A., v. Fullam,
`580 F.2d 82, 86-87 (3d Cir. 1978)..................24
`
`xiv
`
`
`
`CitiFinancial Corp. v. Harrison,
`453 F.3d 245, 251 (5th Cir. 2006)..................32
`Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd
`U.S. _, 105 S. Ct. 1238, 1243,
`84 L. Ed.2d 158 (1985)...........................6,28
`Dhalluin v. McKibben,
`682 F. Supp. 1096, 1097 (D. Nev. 1988)..........32
`Donovan v. City of Dallas,
`377 U.S. 408, 412, 84 S. Ct.1579,
`1582, 12 L. Ed. 2d 409 (1964)......................34
`Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis,
`138, S.Ct. 42 (2017)..........................................9
`Excelsior 57th Corp. v. Lerner,
`160 A.D. 2d 407, 408-09, 553 N.Y.S.
`D 763, 764 (18t Dept 1990).........................38
`GSI Commerce Solutions, Inc. v.
`BabyCenter, L.L. C.,
`618 F.3d 204, 209 (2d Cir. 2010).............26
`Hall v. Small Business Admin.,
`695 F. 2d 175, 178 (5th Cir. 1983).................26
`Hallock v State of New York,
`64 NY2d 224 [1984]........................................18
`In Chevron USA.,Inc. v. Echazabal,
`536 U.S. 73 (2002).........................................24
`
`xv
`
`
`
`In, re Motor Fuel,
`711 F.3d at 1052-54 .......................................27
`In re City of New York,
`607 F.3d 923, 943 (2d Cir. 2010)..............23, 34
`In re Flight Transportation Corporation
`Securities Litigation,
`764 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1985)...........................33
`In re Intl Bus. Machines Corp.,
`45 F.3d 641, 645 (2d Cir. 1995).......................31
`In re Justices of the Supreme Court of P.R.,
`695 F.2d 17 (Pt Cir. 1982)..............................30
`In re McBryde,
`117 F.3d 208, 222-25,
`229-31 (5th Cir. 1997)..................................27
`In re Roman Catholic Diocese of
`Albany, N.Y, Inc.,
`745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014).........................23
`In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer,
`374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004).....................34
`In re School Asbestos Litigation,
`977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992).............................25
`In re von Bulow,
`828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987).........................38
`In re Warrick,
`70 F.3d 736, 740 (2d Cir. 1995).......................27
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`In re Motor Fuel,
`711 F.3d at 1052-54 .......................................27
`In re City of New York,
`607 F.3d 923, 943 (2d Cir. 2010)..............23, 34
`In re Flight Transportation Corporation
`Securities Litigation,
`764 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1985)...........................33
`In re Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`45 F.3d 641, 645 (2d Cir. 1995).......................31
`In re Justices of the Supreme Court of P.R.,
`695 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1982)...............................30
`In re McBryde,
`117 F.3d 208, 222-25,
`229-31 (5th Cir. 1997)..................................27
`In re Roman Catholic Diocese of
`Albany, N.Y. Inc.,
`745 F.3d 30, 35 (2d Cir. 2014).........................23
`In re S.E.C. ex rel. Glotzer,
`374 F.3d 184, 187 (2d Cir. 2004).....................34
`In re School Asbestos Litigation,
`977 F.2d 764 (3d Cir. 1992).............................25
`In re von Bulow,
`828 F.2d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 1987).........................38
`In re Warrick,
`70 F.3d 736, 740 (2d Cir. 1995).......................27
`
`xvi
`
`
`
`Johnson, et al v. Nextel
`Communications, et. al,
`660 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2011)...............................18
`La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.,
`352 U.S. 249 (1957).........................................22
`Liljeberg v. Health Svcs Acquisition Corp.,
`486 U.S. 847, 860, 100 L. Ed.
`2d 855, 108 S. Ct. 2194 (1988)...............26
`Louima v. City of New York,
`2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28886,
`2004 WL 2359943, at 88, 90-91
`(EDNY Jul 21, 2004.).............................39
`Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court,
`490 U.S. 296, 308 (1989)................................30
`Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.,
`446 U.S. 238, 242-43, 64 L. Ed.
`2d 182, 100 S. Ct. 1610 (1980)...................26
`Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v
`Transport Workers Union of Am.,
`Local 110, AFl-CIO,
`99 NY2d 1, 6 780 NE2d 490,
`750 NYS2d 805 [2002]..................................29
`Matter of Town of Haverstraw
`[Rockland County Patrolman's
`Benevolent Assn.],
`65 NY2d 677, 678, 481 NE2d 248,
`491 NYS2d 616 [1985]...............................29
`
`xvii
`
`
`
`Nash v Y & T Distribs.,
`207 AD2d 779, 780 [2d Dept 1994]..................18
`Offutt v. United States,
`348 U.S. 11, 14, 99 L. Ed.
`11, 75 S. Ct. 11 (1954)...............................26
`Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v.
`Dayton Christian Schools, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 619, 627 & n.2 (1986)......................34
`Raghavendra v. Stober,
`11 Civ. 9251 PAC HBP,
`2012 WL 2334538
`(S.D.N.Y. June 18,2012) ........................ 32
`Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson,
`561 U.S. 63, 71, 130 S. Ct. 2772,
`177 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2010).............................29
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n,
`319 U.S. 21, 25 (1943)................................5, 36
`Schiagenhauf v. Holder,
`379 U.S. 104 (1964).......................................22
`SEC v. Razmilovic,
`738 F.3d 14, 29 (2d Cir. 2013)......................25
`Sims v. Blot,
`534 F. 3d 117, 132 (2d Cir. 2008)..................23
`Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environ,
`523 U.S. 83, 101, 118 S. Ct. 1003,
`140 L. Ed. 2d 210 [1998].............................34
`
`XVIII
`
`
`
`Stein v. KPMG, LLP,
`486 F.3d 753, 759 (2d Cir. 2007)....................30
`Taylor u. Hayes,
`418 U.S. 488, 41 L. Ed. 2d 897,
`94 S. Ct. 2697(1974)................................26
`Telesco v. Telesco Fuel & Mason's
`Materials, Inc.,
`765 F.2d 356, 363 (2d Cir. 1985)...................34
`United States v. Canton,
`534 F.3d 97, 100 (2d Cir. 2008).....................25
`United States v. Anderson,
`160 F. 3d 231, 233 (5th Cir. 1998).................26
`United States v. Coppa,
`267 F.3d 132, 138 (2d Cir. 2001)..................35
`United States v. Microsoft Corp.,
`147 F.3d 935, 954 (D.C. Cir. 1998).................38
`United States v. Ming He,
`94 F.3d 782, 795 (2d Cir. 1996)......................25
`Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Ritter,
`461 F.2d 1100, 1102-1104
`(10th Cir. 1972)............................................27
`
`Ax
`
`
`
`CONSTITUTIONS, STATUTES
`AND OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`28 U.S.0 2283 (Younger Abstention/
`Anti-Injunction Act)...................................33
`28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (Recusal Law for
`Federal court Judges) ...................... 25, 26
`9 U.S.C. § 4 (Federal Arbitration Act)....................28
`Article III of the U.S. Constitution ........................... 30
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1)..................................................4
`28 U.S.C. § 1291.......................................................4
`28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)...................................................4
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)......................................................5
`28 U.S.C. §455(b)(4).................................................7
`28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1)..................................................7
`28 U.S.C. 1331..........................................................4
`
`xx
`
`
`
`ORDERS ("OPINIONS") BELOW
`
`In a 2007 New York Times article titled "With
`the Bench Cozied Up to the Bar, the Lawyers Can't
`Lose", the recent Chief Judge of the United States
`Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Dennis G.
`Jacobs, himself had already admitted in a candid
`interview with a famed Legal Journalist, Adam
`Liptak, that at least the attorneys practicing in the
`Second Circuit jurisdiction could easily get away
`with perjury, fraud, and other serious misconduct
`by openly conceding that:
`
`"Judges can be counted on to rule in favor
`of anything that protects and empowers
`lawyers"
`
`In this S.D.N.Y. case, Columbia Respondents'
`own two attorneys, Edward Brill and Susan Friedfel,
`had repeatedly admitted/conceded that, pursuant to
`the 2009 Arbitration Contract, all pending disputes,
`including the most important EEOC authorized
`"continuing illegal retaliation in hiring and the
`organization of the first anti-discrimination Minority
`Employees Association at the 265-years old
`prestigious institution" related claims, had to be
`arbitrated under the expressly agreed jurisdiction of
`the labor arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, without
`prejudice to the attorney fraud and other misconduct
`claims against Petitioner's own one-of-six-cases/out-
`going/40-hours attorney Louis Stober and the
`Proskauer Rose attorneys. Petitioner is separately
`and independently prosecuting his "Elaborate Fraud
`(RICO) & Bribery Scheme" claims in other federal
`and state courts.
`
`1
`
`
`
`On July 11, 2018, the Appeals Court en banc,
`App-1, denied reconsideration of the Petitioner's
`Writ of Mandamus Petition (18-1230) without
`reversing the December 1, 2018 permanent
`injunction issued by a non-recusing
`(and
`jurisdiction-lacking) district court Judge Paul A.
`Crotty -- against whom Criminal Complaints are
`already pending before the U.S. Attorney/FBI and
`New York State Attorney General for aiding and
`abetting fraud, CORRUPTION, and obstruction of
`justice for legitimizing payment of a $215,000
`"BRIBE" in the guise of bogus attorney fees to his
`friend/ financial-interest (and Petitioner's own one-
`of-six-cases/client-betraying/40-hours)
`Attorney
`Louis D. Stober by Defendant Columbia University.
`
`The December 1, 2018 Injunction, App-7-10
`deprives Petitioner even his Basic First Amendment
`Right and Seventh Amendment Right to petition the
`Courts and complete jury trial and expressly agreed
`arbitration because it unconstitutionally:
`
`fl Obstructs the completion of the already
`scheduled Jury Trial as ordered by New York
`State Supreme Court Justice Joan Kenney,
`App-2-3 to seek relief for extraordinary damages
`suffered by Petitioner - a highly accomplished
`executive with Two Masters degrees in
`Engineering and also Business Administration -
`due to illegal employment discrimination at
`Columbia University;
`
`Obstructs the completion of the expressed
`agreed arbitration under exclusive jurisdiction of
`the labor arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, for
`
`01
`
`
`
`immediate organization of the first Equal
`Opportunity Promoting "Minority Employees
`Association" at the 265-yeaers old Columbia
`University;
`
`Qfl Obstructs the litigation of the EEOC-authorized
`Continuing Employment Discrimination!
`Retaliation Claims against Defendant Columbia
`University; and
`
`Obstructs the litigation of the Elaborate Perjury,
`Fraud, and Bribery" Scheme involving the
`Petitioner's own one-of-six-cases/client-betraying
`/40-hours attorney in various federal and state
`Courts.
`
`In the interest of Justice and pursuant to the
`Rules of Judicial Conduct and because non-recusing
`S.D.N.Y. District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty had
`already condoned the (unbelievable) attorney fraud
`and other serious misconduct, on April 26, 2018,
`Petitioner filed a Writ of Mandamus Petition, App-4-
`5, that would allow the Second Circuit to order
`Judge Crotty's recusal or transfer of the 17-cv-4480
`case back to District Judge Robert W. Sweet.
`
`On May 17, 2018, Appeals Court Panel (Hon.
`Sack, Raggi, Kaplan) (the "Panel") denied the
`Petitioner's Writ of Mandamus petition, App.-6
`without ordering the recusal of the "jurisdiction-
`lacking" District Court Judge Crotty and to prevent
`him from improperly obstructing the prosecution of
`the attorney fraud and other misconduct litigation in
`other federal and state courts.
`
`
`
`Previously, on the same day May 17, 2018 --
`in the context of denying Petitioner's three months
`4 (emphasis added) January 2018 motion for
`disqualification of recently retained attorney
`Mashberg - the same Attorney Disqualification
`Motion panel had issued sua sponte a procedurally
`defective order, that revoked even Petitioner's right
`to appeal.
`
`The Appeals Court Panel's simultaneous
`dismissal of the Petitioner's appeals sua sponte and
`the denial of even his writ of mandamus petition
`simply does not make any sense to say the least
`other than giving the obvious impression that the
`Second Circuit Panel may have been attempting to
`cover-up the "Corruption Practices" of District Court
`Judge Crotty who until recently had shared the
`offices with the Second Circuit judges.
`In July 2018, the Second Circuit also denied
`the Petitioner's Motion to Publish the Orders
`denying the Writ of Mandamus Petition as its
`Opinion.
`
`JURISDICTION
`The district court had jurisdiction over all the
`litigated matters under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The court of
`appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's
`order and injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28
`U.S.C. § 1292(a). The court of appeals filed its order
`revoking Petitioner's right to appeal and related
`Writ of Mandamus Petition on May 17, 2018, and it
`denied Petitioner's timely petition for rehearing en
`
`4
`
`
`
`banc on July 11, 2018. This Court has jurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this petition
`pursuant to the All Writs Act, which authorizes the
`Courts of Appeals to issue extraordinary writs "in
`aid of their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. §
`1651(a); Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S.
`21, 25 (1943). The "traditional" use of the
`extraordinary writs is "to confine an inferior court to
`a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or
`tocompel it to exercise its authority when it is its
`duty to do so," and "to remove obstacles to appeal."
`Roche, 319 U.S. at 26.
`
`CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY
`PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`
`(1) The right of petition the courts is expressly set
`out in the First Amendment:
`"Congress shall make no law ... abridging
`the right of the people ... to petition the
`Government for a redress of grievances. !--
`from the First Amendment
`
`The petition clause concludes the First
`Amendment's ringing enumeration of
`expressive rights and, in many ways, supports
`them all. Petition is the right to ask
`government at any level (including a circuit
`court) to right a wrong or correct a problem.
`
`This United States Supreme Court in Bill
`
`
`
`Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461, U.S.
`731 (1983), set out the principle that "the right
`of access to the courts is an aspect of the First
`Amendment right to petition the Government
`for redress of grievances." In B E & K
`Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations
`Board 536 U.S. 516 (2002) this court noted
`that it had long viewed the right to sue in court
`as a form of petition as follows:
`
`"We have recognized this right to petition
`as one of the most precious of the liberties
`safeguarded by the Bill of Rights,"
`
`Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of this court
`further observed that the First Amendment
`petition clause says nothing about success in
`petitioning - "it speaks simply of the right of
`the people to petition the Government for a
`redress of grievances (including those resulting
`from attorney fraud, perjury and other
`misconduct.'
`
`(2) The statutory provisions of the Federal
`Arbitration Act remain mandatory, as this U.S.
`Supreme Court emphasized in Dean Witter
`, 105 S. Ct.
`Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd - U.S.
`1238, 1243, 84 L. Ed.2d 158 (1985):
`
`"The [Arbitration] Act leaves no place for the
`exercise of discretion by a district court, but
`instead mandates that district courts shall
`direct the parties to proceed to arbitration
`on issues as to which an arbitration
`agreement has been signed.
`
`
`
`(3) 28 U.S.C. 455(b)(1) provides that a judge should
`disqualify himself in any proceeding in which he
`has "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
`party, or personal knowledge of disputed
`evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(b)(4), a judge must
`disqualify himself if he knows that he,
`individually or as a fiduciary......has a financial
`interest in the subject matter in
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
