Exhibit I

conceding that an award would fiarther the underlying policy of the rule); Salamon v. Messina. No. 87-C-2097, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6118 (N.D. 111. May 1, 1991) (denying fees on grounds that movant acted pro se), affd., Nos. 912248, 91-2400, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 5884 (7th Cir. Mar. 25, 1997); Rynkiewicz v. Jeanes Hosp.. Civ. A. No. 865209, 1987 WL 7842 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 1 1, 1987) (awarding fees in light of Rule 11's goals); cf Chemiakin v. Yefimov. 932 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1991) (awarding attorney's fees to a pro se litigant under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38). Throughout the last two years, this case has consumed my life. I've dedicated more than 80 hours a week to this case. And the quality of my work is comparable, i f not superior, to that of any lawyer. I mean, I have represented myself better and more ethically than Leonard .Rowe's former attorneys did - and they were paid millions of dollars before throwing them under the bus. I f the Arbitrator decides that the arbitration agreement and/or its provisions are unconscionable and decides that a jury should determine the merits of this case in the federal court, I ask that attorney's fees, monetary sanctions and other costs should be awarded. This will level the uneven playing field by allowing me to ability to continue fighting this case under reduced economic uncertainty and stress.

IV.

MR. WASHINGTON'S OPPOSITION T O RESPONDENTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.

At this stage, it should be obvious that Congress evinced an intention to preclude arbitration of an employment discrimination and antitrust case of this caliber. However, on December 17, 2012 - the date I intended on submitting this Emergency Motion - the Respondents filed a Motion For A Protective Order to request that I be prohibited "from publicly disseminating, directly or indirectly, statements or materials concerning this proceeding, including submissions made by parties in the course of this arbitration." [Res. Protective Order, 1.] As I've stated on numerous occasions above, none of my pleadings before the A A A contain information that the Respondents weren't already aware of due to the fact that these same issues were already presented publicly before the Southern District of New York and Second Circuit over the last 25 months. Mare importantly, I raised various arguments to demonstrate the "strong public interest" of having this case remain in the federal court although those arguments were also ignored by various judges before the Second Circuit. The Respondents have never challenged those arguments so the fact still remains. This problem - institutional racism throughout Hollywood and the American workplace - is much bigger than William Morris and broad industry discrimination can only be eliminated by judicial oversight - not arbitration. Society will always have an interest in deterring and punishing all intentional or reckless invasions of our federally protected rights and no protective order will supersede that. Since filing my Demand for Arbitration with the A A A on August 15, 2012, no "media campaign" has taken place.^^' This issue became public literally the minute I left William Morris as 75 employees forwarded my "goodbye" e-mail and it eventually landed on a popular Hollywood blog. (See Exhibit "Z") After I was denied due process and equal protection under the law, I eventually decided to utilize litigation public relations^"" via the Internet to add transparency to my case and inform the world about the obstacles and injustices I faced challenging institutional racism in Hollywood and judicial corruption without legal representation. I never imaged that at the age of 28, I would be doing this, but unfortunately, William Morris discriminated against the wrong African American. On March 1, 2012, I began uploading all of my pleadings (as well as those filed in Rgwe) online at http://vAvw.scribd.com/Mr%20Akebu-lan and on April 10, 2012, I officially launched my blog www.meagainstiniquity.wordpress.com - which provides social commentary on global white supremacy.

' The "media campaign" actually started on my last day at William Morris Endeavor Entertainment on April 9, 2010 when Hollywood blogger Nikki Finke wrote an article about my exit and the infamous e-mail I sent to the entire company. Karia K. Gower, Bryan H. Reber and Jennifer A. Robinson, 18 Journal of Public Relations Research 23, 24 (2006). (stating that a "2003 survey of the top 200 corporate law departments revealed that nearly 50%) use[d] public relations techniques in litigation and 23% say they do often or always.")

-93-

incorporating antidiscrimination case law, excerpts from the extensive literature I've read, documentaries and news articles dealing with current events around the world on the subject matter. I've never done this for the spotlight it's merely a reaction to what has been done to me. Before pursuing legal action, my goal was always to understand why racism existed and continued to persist into the 21*' century. To answer that question, I volunteered internationally and have spent nearly every day over the last three years to now know that "race" a social and legal construct created by the world's minority (Whites/"Jews") to maintain its unjust power and dominance over the world's majority (people who produce melanin). I have an obligation to humanity to educate others - that's the only way this myth can be defeated and world peace can begin. So far, visitors from over 70 countries and six continents have visited both of my sites and I'm reaching new readers throughout the world each day. None of the examples provided by the Respondents to justify this frivolous "motion" occured after the date I filed my Demand with the A A A - aside from the e-mail I sent to various attorneys at Loeb & Loeb LLP in regards to obtaining information about the "litigation hold." As stated in my reply to similar arguments raised by Christian Carbone on December 6, 2012, Loeb & Loeb LLP is liable for the unethical and criminal actions of their employees and this was my way of giving the company notice. {See Exhibit "AA") Given that there is pending disciplinary and criminal action being taken against the attorneys involved in this case, the A A A should not be a forum to protect unethical and corrupt attorneys from being held accountable for their actions. Although they had the opportunity to deny claims of being involved in this conspiracy in their Opposition filed on November 6, 2012, they instead waited nearly a month to request a protective order under the false pretenses they have acted ethically and have done no wrong. I f the Arbitrator grants the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, I will take whatever action is necessary to vindicate my God-given rights and no protective order will be able to deny me of that right. One of the Respondents' main arguments in their Opposition to my Emergency Appeal was that Judge Castel's interlocutory order was "not a final judgment," and thus could not be appealed. [Resp. Opp. Em. Appeal, 4.] They also stated: "The District Court clearly communicated its intent to keep this case open, making its decision non-final and non-appeatable" [Res. Opp. Em. Appeal, 6.] Due to the strong public interest of this case and the fraudulent actions of Michael Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP, I will always be afforded the opportunity to seek redress fi-om the Court - especially i f the Arbitrator fails to remain "impartial and independent." A A A Rule 16(a). Although the 2009 Arbitration Agreement states that the Arbitrator's decision is "final and binding on the parties," in 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act, it states: (a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (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 refiising 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 definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. Therefore, i f you fail to remain impartial and your decision is erroneous as a matter of law, I will submit all of these pleadings that have been filed with the A A A as an exhibit to my motion to vacate your decision. As the Supreme Court stated in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.. 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974), "final responsibility for enforcement of Title V I I is vested with federal courts." Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP are committing injury to the public by continuing to engage in unlawful and unethical practices on behalf of William Morris and its employees and it must finally be stopped. I am giving the A A A the opportunity to remain "impartial and independent" by applying the prevailing law in this landmark civil and human rights case, but that's ultimately a decision Arbitrator David Gregory will have to make. Whether or not -94-

the Arbitrator rules in my favor, I will be made whole when it's all said and done. Given these exceptional circumstances of this case, no protective order will prevent me from submitting these pleadings in "good faith" to the Southern District of New York i f the law is not upheld or to serve as additional evidence of William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael Zweig and Christian Carbone's wrongdoing in the pending disciplinary and criminal proceedings that currently being pursued in conjunction with Leonard Rowe. The United States has never undergone a reconciliation process. An open and free flowing dialogue on race and racism is needed.Efforts to chill or silence discussions about racism will not work, especially not in this case. A day after his inauguration, the New York Times reported that African Americans expect President Obama to "move to the forefront of his agenda the issues that Dr. King championed: civil rights and racial and economic equality."^'" Whether Whites/ "Jews" of European descent want to address it or not, it will have to occur during President Obama's second term. African Anerican leaders and those sympathetic to our plight weren't brutally attacked and killed for African Americans to be unable to secure a jury trial against one of the most egregious institutions in the world that continues to spread racism, violence and hate throughout the world to further divide the hue-man race. Martin Luther King, Jr. said it best: "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." My ancestors' fight for human rights will not be in vain and until those who have violated our human rights are held accountable for their actions, I will not be silenced. Although Republican appointed federal judges Patterson and Castel have failed to nip the bud, the Government may still pluck the flower of evil." (emphasis added) U. S. v. Grinnell Corp.. 236 F. Supp. 244, 258 (D.R.I. 1964), affd in part, rev'd in part, 384 U.S. 563, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 16 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1966). This lawsuit is my non-violent form of "creative protesf and I will not stop fighting until I receive justice for vv'hat I've endured over the last five years at the hands of William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig.

V.

CONCLUSION

When I requested an extension, 1 didn't realize that I would be submitting this motion in between two historical events symbolic of the African's progress in America: President Obama's second inauguration which took place on Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday and Black History Month which starts tomorrow. Although "massive white denial" is real, I pray that the Arbitrator remains impartial and refijses to allow the loyalty he may have for his "race" prevent him from acknowledging these unfortunate truths and holding William Morris accountable for their acfions. Malcolm X once stated, " I ' m for truth...no matter who tells it" and the Arbitrator

In the 21" Century: The President's Initiative On Race. One American Dialogue Guide. March 1999. hftp://clinton2.nara.gov/Initiatives/One.'\merica/pirdocl.pdf. ("We cannot underestimate the power of dialogues. When people can explore perspectives and ideas, they discover how much they share m common and leam to appreciate their differences. Dialogue is an opportunity for growth and change. Dialogue can help open our minds. Dialogue can help each of us listen better. And dialogue can bring us closer together.") Susan Saulny, "Among Blacks, Pride Is Mixed With Expectations For Obama." New York Times. January 20, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/2 l/us/politics^lacks-see-new-patience-and-high-expectatio^s-forobama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=l&; See also, Jessica Chasmar, "NACCP President: Black People Worse Off Under Obama," Jfie Washington Times. January 28, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/28/naacp-presidentblack-people-worse-under-obama/?utmsource=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS. ("NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Jealous said Sunday, perhaps unwittingly, that black Americans "are doing far worse" than when President Obama first took office.'The country's back to pretty much where it was when this president started,' Mr. Jealous told MSNBC host David Gregory on "Meet the Press." 'White people in this country are doing a bit better. Black people are doing far worse.'") See e.g., Humility, Humanity and Judicial Diversity, p. (quoting Sherrilyn A. IfiU, Racial Diversity on the Bench: Beyond Role Models and Public Confidence,57Wash. & Lee L. Rev.405, 423 (2000).) (""[T]he most important and elusive benefit of white racial identity is the ability of whites to deny the existence of whiteness at all. Thus, an important privilege of whiteness may be the abilit)' to think of oneself without regard to race-to see oneself instead as neutral.

-95-

Exhibit J

AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION X

AAA Case No. 13 160 01426 12

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON, Claimant,

CLAIMANT'S OBJECTIONS T O

-again stW I L L I A M MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, fofmerly known as the W I L L I A M MORRIS AGENCY, INC., JEFF MEADE and SARAH V A N HOVEN, Respondents.
X

RESPODNENTS' [PROPOSED] O R D E R ON P A R T Y S U B M I S S I O N S , D I S C O V E R Y AND C O N D U C T

Since the Respondents' [proposed] order is premised on the false notions that I am racist or "anti-Semitic," that I am the party that's being vexatious and engaging in unethical conduct and/or that I am engaging in "defamation, libel and slander" against the Respondents and their counsel, I ask that the Respondents' [Proposed] Order for Party's Submissions, Discovery and Conduct be denied in part, for the following reasons discussed below. Reauirements for any written submission 1. A l parties and counsel shall avoid unnecessary motion practice and shall be required, prior to making of any motion or submission, to submit a letter to the Arbitrator of no more than three pages in length (doublespaced) setting forth the nature of the relief sought. 2. No motion or submission shall be made, or considered by the Arbitrator, or need to be responded to, unless the Arbitrator has approved, in advance, the filing of the same. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. All written submissions are to be double-spaced, with a short "Statement of the Issues" section at the beginning explaining the issues the submission is discussing. Maximum length for a submission is 10 pages (excluding exhibits), double-spaced, unless a request is made to the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator grants such request prior to the submission, for a longer page limit. No single footnote may be longer than 100 words. A party must send an arbitrafion-related submission or communication through the AAA case manager, and may not send a submission or communication Unless the Arbitrator orders otherwise, or a party requests and is granted a longer period, a party has 7 business days to respond to another party's motion or submission. The Arbitrator, in his discretion, may disregard a written submission that fails to comply with the foregoing rules or issue such other order as he deems just and proper.

Objections I don't agree to any stipulation which changes the procedures that have been in effect this entire arbitration, especially any stipulations that place page limitations or formatting restrictions on any subsequent motion or any type of pleading submitted to the Arbitrator. Thus, I immediately object to sfipulations 3, 4, and 5. The reasons many of my pleadings have been as lengthy as they have, is because this "landmark human rights and antitrust case" not only deals with William Morris' 115 year pattern and practice of discrimination to prove my individual claims of pre and post-hiring disparate treatment and disparate impact, but my pleadings also focus on the conspiracy that took place to conceal smoking gun evidence in Rowe. and discusses how William Morris actions have violated federal

and state antitrust laws and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). In addition to everything else, I am only one person - a pro se litigant - who is challenging institutional racism in Hollywood against four experienced attorneys who have been engaging in a "pattern" of unethical and criminal conduct on behalf of their client William Morris. Since no oral hearing has even taken place, my written submissions are all I have to plead my case which deals with an extremely complex and highly important social issue. Given that I have accused ,A-bitrator Gregory of also engaging in serious misconduct due to his own implicit and/or explicit racial biases - made evident through his second and third Interim Decisions - I do not agree to stipulations 1, 2, and 8. For example, the arbitrator should not be able to decide whether or not my second Motion for Modification to correct the gross factual errors and inaccuracies of his third Interim Decisions (which is singlespaced and currently over ten pages like the first Motion for Modification) can be submitted or not.' Nor should I have to submit a letter asking for his approval before I submit the actual Motion. That will give Arbitrator the ability and power to prevent the record from being properly preserved. This process will also cause considerable delay i f a letter has to be submitted and approved, before any motion can be accepted by the arbitrator. Honestly, at this stage in the case, there shouldn't be too many more motions or submissions submitted to the arbitrator, aside from the documents requested in Gregory's third Interim Decision. I f it only takes the arbitrator three to four days to read and write his decisions, there is no reason to warrant imposing these restrictions on me since none of my motions have been frivolous, vexatious or made in "bad faith." I do not object to stipulation 7, and 1 partially object to stipulation 6. Concerning stipulation 6, language should be added which states that the case managers overseeing this case must abide by the AAA's procedures and submit a party's submission to the arbitrator by the end of the business day that the submission is received by the AAA. Discovery 9. Any discovery request must first be submitted to the Arbitrator, who will rule on the propriety of the request(s) after giving the opposing party or parties 3 business days to object or otherwise respond to the request(s). The Arbitrator may, in his discretion, approve, modify or deny any discovery request, and may impose appropriate limitations on the total number of document requests and interrogatories that a party may make. 10. All discovery requests must be made on or before November 15, 2013. A party must be given a minimum of 15 business days to respond to any discovery request. Ohiections I object to stipulation 9. On July 15, 2013, in the second Interim Decision of Arbitrator Gregory, he stated "As to Exhibit [31] and any and all potentially forthcoming proferred evidence, I continue my April 18, 2013 First Interim Decision Order in fijll force and effect. Each party has the continuing duty of facilitating discovery. Pursuant to New York law, discovery requests, and the statutory law against unlawfijl employment discrimination, shall be liberally construed." The fact is, I am the only one seeking discovery and although none of my discovery requests have been unreasonable and each request that I have made is permitted under New York law, the Respondents are abusing the discovery process by intentionally engaging in contumacious behavior.

Like the first Motion for Modification, my second Motion for Modification is single-spaced and will be similar in page length to the first since I am addressing nine of Arbitrator Gregor)''s errors or inaccuracies that need to be discussed at an oral hearing and then clarified and/or modified in writing. I've briefly addressed many of these ertors and inaccuracies throughout my Emergency Mofion to Compel and this reply. The Respondents did not respond to the first Motion for Modification and more likely than not, they v/on't bother to submit a reply to the second. They should not be able to enter stipulations that limit my ability to fijily raise my legitimate concerns and discrepancies. Also, my submission concerning damages, fees and costs is also single-spaced and over 20 pages because I ' m providing extensive case law and evidence to justify why I should receive more than SI25 million from William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P. Zweig in damages for their unlawfiil conduct. -2-

Gregory has already stated in his third Interim Decision that he has to approve my deposition and witness list, as well as approve my e-discovei^ expert. He will also have to approve or deny the Respondents' pending Protective Order "governing the retrieval review and confidentiality of any e-mail or other document potentially the subject of discovery in this case." [Resp. October 11, 2013, 5; Claimant Em. Motion to Compel, 2.] I don't have a problem with that, but due to the fact that Arbitrator Gregory stated during our July 30, 2013 conference call that he "[couldn't] be in the role of attorney to either party," he then denied my discovery requests to depose Michael Zweig, Helen Gavaris and Ariel Emanuel in his third Interim Decision without providing a legally sufficient explanation or citing any applicable case law. Arbitrator Gregory should not be allowed to have total control over my discovery strategy. I have already submitted Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, in which the Respondents are to respond by October 28, 2013 pursuant to N. Y. CVP. LAW 3131. I f this stipulation were put into place, this would mean Gregory would have to read and approve each and every single one of my Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents that have been submitted, which means there will be yet another delay in having my discovery requests complied with. This would defeat the entire purpose of granting the Emergency Motion to Compel since all of my discovery requests have been submitted and were communicated in my Proposed Discovery and Oral Hearing Schedule on August 7, 2013 and my Reply (that was not mentioned in Arbitrator Gregory's third Interim Decision) that was filed on August 27, 2013. The Arbitrator needs to compel the Respondents and their counsel to comply with your three Interim Decisions and comply with my various discovery requests given that they have not produced one 5in2le e-mail or complied with one of my discovery requests in six months Of course the Respondents don't want to produce this spoliated, smoking gun evidence, but they have been ordered to do so by the Arbitrator on three separate occasions. I am not "gaming, and thereby, abusing the arbitration system." for asking for documents which shows William Morris and its employees using their e-mails to refer to African Americans as "nigger," "monkey," "Uncle Tom" and other racially derogatory terms now that "Exhibit 31" has been admitted into the evidence of record, [pg. 3] I am also not "abusing the arbitration system" for making standard discovery requests in an employment discrimination and antitrust case. The Respondents have failed to provide one specific example of how discovery requests have been abusive or inappropriate and therefore, this stipulation is overburdensome and unreasonable. As for stipulation 10, I partially object. It's premature to state that all discovery requests must be made on or before November 15, 2013 when the Respondents have reflised to comply with any of my discovery requests over the last six months. I f the November 15, 2013 deadline is set, I ask that the minimum number of business days to respond to any discovery request be lowered to 5 days, not 5 business days. Conduct rcQuirements 11. A party must confine himself to discussing the claims and defenses asserted in the case. A party may not, for instance, make threatening, defamaton,' or disparaging remarks about a participant and/or employees of the American Arbitration Association; provided, however, that the criticism of another party's factual assertions or legal arguments is permitted. 12. Each party and counsel shall respect the policy objectives of Rule 9 of the A A A Rules for Employment Cases. .A. party may not breach the confidentiality of the arbitration by, among other things, discussing the case or posting case documents on the Internet; transmitting documents or information learned from the case to non-participants'^; making defamatory or disparaging remarks about a participant; and/or publicizing the case in any other way. 13. No party or counsel shall tape any telephonic conference with counsel or the Arbitrator without having provided advance nodce of doing so.

^ Non-participant includes all persons and entities other than parties to this proceeding; any attorney acting on behalf of any party; any employee, former employee, agent or former agent of any party; the Arbitrator; any deponent or witness; and any person retained to perform arbitration-related services for a party. -3-

Ohiections I don't entirely object to stipulation 11. There would be absolutely no need to make "threatening, defamatory or disparaging remarks about a participant and/or employees of the American Arbitration Association" i f certain "participants and/or employees of the .American Arbitration Association" were not colluding, intentionally violating the A A A ' s procedures, disregarding the law and/or attempting to deny me of my constitutional and God-given rights. At all times, I try my hardest to be respectful, cordial and civil, but there is only so much injustice a person can take. For example, there was absolutely no reason why Carol Placella and/or Heather Santo were allowed to withhold my Emergency Motion to Compel and prevent the arbitrator from receiving it for more than eleven days. There is no reason that after being informed that this was happen, Gregory did nothing about it. They are case managers, not the arbitrator. Procedurally, this case is governed by state. State (and federal) courts don't allow clerks to withhold motions and submissions from being submitted onto the record. I've had this conversation with Placella in the past and that's why I asked that she now be removed from overseeing this case since she continually has problems performing her routine administrative duties. Since I am my own legal counsel, any motion or submission I submit needs to be forwarded to the arbitrator by the end of the business day, especially i f it's an emergency motion This has never happened at any other time in this case and should not happen again. As to stipulation 12, the Respondents attempted to address the issue of confidentiality in their December 17, 2002 Motion for a Protective Order. In my January 31, 2013 Reply to my Motion for Summary Judgment, I opposed this protective order largely due to the fact that the case was already public due to "pattern" of criminal and unethical conduct being engaged in by the Respondents and their counsel. The arbitrator denied their request in his April 18, 2013 Interim Decision. Before I filed this case with the AAA, I uploaded all of my pleadings online to add transparency to my case. I did not decide to make the pleadings submitted to the A A A public unfil after Gregory did a complete about-face with his second Interim Decision. In order to add transparency to the case and demonstrate to the world what was happening to me, I had no choice but to make the pleadings public. In the same April 18, 2013 Interim Decision, Gregory asked me to explain "how, going forward, [ I would] effectuate [my] repeated express promise in writing 'to keep the award confidential and... execute all documents necessary to maintain such confidentiality.'" [pg. 13] I replied to the arbitrator's question on pages 26 through 29 of my June 14, 2013 reply to your April 18, 2013 Interim Decision and you said nothing about my response in your second Interim Decision filed on July 15, 2013. See Exhibit J - 1 . Also, I had a phone conversation with either Heather Santo or Carol Placella a few months ago about the issue of confidentiality. I was told that my pleadings didn't have to be kept confidential, only the "final" decision. However, there will be problems with even keeping the "final" decision confidential because I've asked for my name to be included in the award and the award will ultimately have to be submitted along with all of my other pleadings when 1 seek to have the award confirmed, modified and/or vacated by the Southern District of New York. A A A Rule 42(c). Due to the fact that fraud is occurring in this case by the mere presence of Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys, I will continue to make my pleadings public. And as to stipulation 13,1 object because William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and others are engaging in highly unethical and criminal conduct - which the A A A has stated on numerous occasions they are unable to do anything about. Since 1 have given the Respondents and their counsel notice that criminal action is pending, any conversations that are had between both parties, as well as the AAA, may or may not be recorded. Over the last three years, I have communicated directly with Zweig and other attorneys at Loeb & Loeb LLP anywhere between three to four times, for a matter of minutes. 1 never attempted to record those conversations and there's nothing really to worry about. It's actually a good thing that I recorded the telephonic conferences with David Gregory and Heather Santo. Even though the A A A didn't give the parties any notice that the July 30, 2013 conference call was going to be recorded, all parties have made mention of the recording's somewhat poor quality. Had I not also recorded the call, the pooriy transcribed and highly inaccurate transcription provided by the A A A ' s Linda Hendrickson - not entirely due to the quality of the recording - would have allowed the A A A yet another opportunity to whitewash the record and distort the truth in favor of William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig. As for the conference call with Heather Santo on August 7, 2013, the A A A did not record this call. I ' m glad I did, because it shows Santo -4-

repeatedly trying to steer me away from having discovery and an oral hearing regarding "Exhibit 31" and ediscovery before Arbitrator Gregory decided whether or not the mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements I signed as a condition of employment should be enforced, pursuant to his July 15, 2013 Interim Decision. I have no problems giving the A A A and Respondents audio copies of these recordings. In fijndamental fairness, I propose that all future verbal conversations between the Arbitrator and both parties take place under oath, at an oral hearing in New York City.

Exhibit J-1

"Concurrent with the production of the above, I order Claimant to provide a memo as to how, going forward, he will effectuate his repeated express promise in writing "to keep the award confidential and...execute all documents necessary to maintain such confidentiality." [pg. 13]
In the Arbitrator's Interim Decision, Arbitrator Gregory expressly states: " I am staying further decisions on the remainder of the still-pending claims at this Arbitration's summary judgment phase at this time...Except for those elements specifically addressed in this interim Decision, I am reserving judgment at this time on all other elements of the parties' Motions before me." [Arbitrator Interim Decision, 12] One of those "elements" that still requires a decision concerns whether or not the arbitration agreements 1 signed in September 2008 and April 2009 as a condition of employment is enforceable. See Exhibit A A . At this stage in the proceeding, it is clear that these agreements are permeated with unconscionability. I initially raised these arguments 28 months ago - in February of 2011 - and the issue has yet to be resolved by a finder o f fact.^' Since Judge Castel relied on the "Delegation Provision" contained in the 2009 Arbitrafion Agreement to compel this case into arbitration, this is yet another indicator that the Arbitrator must decide this question. I will not allow this issue to be ignored or forgotten because as a matter of law, it is clear that this case was erroneously compelled into arbitration, especially given the egregious, race-based crimes committed by the Respondents and their counsel. Therefore, I feel it's premature at this stage for it to be stated that I made "repeated express promise[s]" to "keep the award confidential" because the contract and/or its provisions which state that issues of discrimination must be arbitrated should be voided, unenforced and/or invalidated. See e.g.. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling. 357 III. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions"). On numerous occasions throughout the Reply to my Motion for Summary Judgment, I make it known that the Arbitrator should decide this issue before making any determination about the merits o f the case.^^ On pages 26 through 29 in the Reply to my Motion for Summary Judgment, I summarize the various arguments raised before federal judges in both the Southern District of New York and Second Circuit. See Exhibit BB. My next moves in this case are entirely dependent on the next decision of Arbitrator Gregory. After an arbitration award has been made, a party to the arbitration may move to have the award confirmed, modified or vacated by a federal district court. Since Judge Castel has stayed this case in Southern District of New York pending arbitration, I've created a proposed decision flow chart which explains what I feel should happen next in this case and the actions I will take depending on whatever decision the Arbitrator decides to make. See Exhibit C C . Given that the Respondents will more than likely decide to not come forward with the underlying e-mails that were to accompany "Exhibit 31," I think the Arbitrator should deem the arbitration agreement unconscionable and allow this case to go back to the district court so a diverse, impartial jury can decide the merits of this case. Also, due to the substantial amount of time has been wasted dealing with corrupt attorneys and judges, I am also amenable to the Arbitrator granting summary judgment on all claims and recommending that affirmative relief be enforced by the federal court i f it is

^' According to the 2008 Arbitration Agreement, "The Arbitrator, 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 o f this Agreement, including but not limited to any claim that all o f any part of this Agreement is void or voidable." The 2009 Arbitration Agreement states: "The arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties, except as provided by law. The Arbitrator shall render a written award and opinion which reveals the essential findings and conclusions on which the award is based consistent with AAA rules and applicable law." I state: " I f the Arbitrator is unable to impartially remedy this extreme miscarriage o f justice, I ask that he determine the enforceability of the arbitration agreement I signed as a condition of employment so this case can be decided by an impartial and diverse jury in the Southern District of New York. No matter what decision is reached, I ask that the Arbitrator provide an objecfive and ethical opinion discussing all facets of this complex case in accordance with A A A Rule 39." [Reply Motion for Summary Judgment, 1-2]

-26-

determined that arbitration is an inappropriate forum to achieve the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Due to these unique circumstances of this case, it's going to be extremely hard for this award to be kept "confidential." Whenever 1 seek to have the award vacated, modified and/or confirmed, I will have to submit the arbitral award to the Southern District of New York. "The paity seeking to have the award confirmed must file with the Clerk of the Court copies of the arbitration agreement, any documents regarding the appointment of the arbitrators, the award and any documents evidencing any extension of time to make the award, and copies of any documents relating to any previous motion to confirm, modify, vacate, or correct the a w a r d . S i n c e I have already attempted to have both district court judges assigned to my case recused when I appealed to the Second Circuit, I will revisit this unresolved issue with Judge Castel directly when I return to the district court. [Claimant Em. Appeal, 18-20.] His obvious bias, prejudice and partiality against civil & human rights litigants caused him to ignore my arguments, omit pertinent facts and misapply the law in order to enforce a largely predetermined decision compelling this landmark employment discriminadon case into arbitration. [Claimant Rep. Em. Appeal, 1, 4-7; Claimant Em. Appeal, 1, 4-5] In the same way that he intentionally denied me equal protection under the law and due process, I believe that he would go out of his way to drastically reduce any judgment made in my favor, especially i f a large, but justified, monetary award is granted. I f the Arbitrator determines that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and allows this case to be resolved by a jury in federal court, I ask that disciplinary and monetaiy sanctions be imposed against Respondents' counsel so that they are finally held accountable for their unethical and criminal actions that have allowed William Morris the ability to continue intentionally violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and additional human rights and anfitrust laws of this country. The Respondents' counsel should pay severely for their conspiratorial actions and "pattern" of colluding with federal judges and engaging in "fraud upon the Court." In the midst of my real life pain and suffering, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig have been unjustly enriched from their legal efforts that have helped William Morris maintain its unlawful practices, policies and procedures. This monetary sanction should "hit [the Respondents and their counsel] where it hurts," and should total an amount no less than $100 million. Additionally, I am seeking attorney's fees and other costs. Although I am a pro se litigant, I am requesfing that I be awarded attorney's fees in an amount no less than what Loeb & Loeb LLP has been paid to represent William Morris in this two and a half year litigation. [Claimant Reply Summary Judgment, 92-94 ] Whether or not the Respondents comply with your Interim Decision and produce the actual e-mails, by you issuing a decision compelling them to produce the e-mails that were fraudulently concealed in Rowe over a decade ago, this supports that as a matter of contract law, the arbitration agreements I signed should be voided. Given that Arbitrator Gregory has served the Executive Director of the Center for Labor and Employment Law at St. John's University from 1982 to present, I would love to read his well-reasoned opinion supported with case law which explains why those arbitration agreements I signed are in fact conscionable and arbitration is an appropriate forum for a case of this magnitude. I f he is able to do this, he should also grant the Respondents' Cross-Morion to Dismiss since all claims are interrelated and based on the same historical, statistical, circumstantial, anecdotal and smoking gun evidence. I f the Arbitrator grants the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, I will take whatever action is necessary to vindicate my God-given rights and no arbitration award will be able to deny me of that right. Due to the strong public interest of this case and the fraudulent actions of Michael Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP, I will always be afforded the opportunity to seek redress from the Court - especially i f the Arbitrator fails to remain "impartial and independent." A A A Rule 16(a). Although the 2009 Arbitrafion Agreement states that the Arbitrator's decision is "final and binding on the parties," in 10(a) of the Federal Arbitrafion Act, it states:

Judith L. Mogul, Michael C. Silberberg and Edward M . Spiro. Civil Practice in the Southern District of New York (2d ed.) December 2012. -27-

(a) In any o f the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration (1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; (2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them; (3) where the arbitrators were guilty o f misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in reftising 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 definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. Any decision that is not supported by law and does not demonstrate that both parties had a full and fair opportunity to be heard at the arbitration will immediately trigger one of these grounds to vacate the award due to the unique circumstances in which this case has been brought forth to the AAA. Additionally, many courts have taken the view that an arbitration award can be vacated if the award is issued in manifest disregard of the, the award violates public policy, or i f the awards are arbitrary and capricious. See e.g. American Postal Workers Union v United States Postal Service (1982, CA9 Cal) 682 F2d 1280, 110 B N A L R R M 2764, cert den 459 US 1200, 75 L Ed 2d 431, 103 S Ct 1183, 112 SNA LRRM 2752, Diapulse Corp. of America v Carba. Ltd. (1980, CA2 N Y ) 626 F2d 1108, Lifecare Int'l V CD Medical (1995, C A l l Fla) 68 F3d 429, 9 FEW Fed C 610, mod, motion gr ( C A I l Fla) 85 F3d 519, 9 FEW Fed C 1170. Therefore, i f you fail to remain impartial and your decision is erroneous as a matter of law, I will submit all of these pleadings that have been filed with the A A A as an exhibit to my motion to vacate your decision.'^" One of the major shortcomings of antidiscrimination law today is that it is not in alignment with the extensive sociological literature on the topic of unconscious racism or implicit bias, nor does it take into account the covert and subtle role a company's "discriminatory organizational structure, institufional practices and work culture defined along racial lines that make it impossible for minorities to succeed" in the workplace. [Claimant Em. Appeal, 15.] This problem - institutional racism throughout Hollywood and the American workplace - is much bigger than William Morris and broad industry discrimination can only be eliminated by judicial oversight - not arbitration. Arbitration is not an appropriate forum to effectuate the public policy goals o f the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Sherman Act. Therefore, society will always have an interest in deterring and punishing all intentional or reckless invasions of our federally protected rights and no arbitrafion award will be able to supersede that. [Claimant Reply Summary Judgment, 9 3 ] Given that WME Entertainment "ufilize[s] binding arbitrafion as a means for expeditiously resolving workplace disputes," I think this matter being before the A A A for nearly a year is more than enough time for the Arbitrator to make a determination on this matter based on all of the facts and circumstances. Until this issue has been decided by the Arbitrator, I maintain my position that the arbitration agreements I signed as a condition of employment are unconscionable, tainted with illegality, malum in se, and nothing but a decepfive, "savvy legal loophole" which allows William Morris to continue violating federal, state and city human rights laws without being held accountable in a public forum for their sinister and diabolical crimes against humanity. [Claimant Reply Summary Judgment, 22; Em. Appeal, 3, 20; Claimant Opp. Arbitration, 3-15.]. I consider myself to be an extremely fair person, but if I wholeheartedly believe that I received an unfair judgment, I will do whatever it takes to have the award reversed. Even i f I am unsuccessful, the record will have to be made public to maintain transparency due to the bias and prejudice of Judge Castel. I f judgment is made in my favor and declaratory, injunctive, monetary and

And in no way am I making 'thinly veiled threats" - as the Respondents stated in footnote 6 of the Reply to their Cross-Motion to Dismiss. I am simply making the Arbitrator aware, that I am aware of my legal opfions should he ignore substantial case law and erroneously rule in favor of the Respondents. The party with superior bargaining power cannot intenfionally engage in this type of unlawful behavior and use savvy legal loopholes to unjustly prevent me - a victim of their "frozen" discriminatory employment practices, policies and procedures - from holding them accountable in a public court of law. -28-

affirmative relief is granted, I am open to any reasonable suggestions made by the Arbitrator to keep the monetary award private. As the Supreme Court stated in Aexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.. 415 U.S. 36, 44 (1974), "final responsibility for enforcement of Title V I I is vested with federal courts."

"Although I do not order either party to submit on these points, I would certainly be interested in the views of the parties on the (non)preclusive influence." [pg. 14]
First and foremost, based on your Interim Decision, the Respondents and their counsel should be barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata from rearguing that they and CAA are not in possession of hundreds of concealed e-mails which underlie "Exhibit 31." However, in continuation with the last secrion, I want to briefly discuss the "(non)preclusive influence" of any decision made in favor of the Respondents (e.g. determining that the arbitrafion agreement is conscionable or granting their Cross-Motion to Dismiss). I f the Arbitrator ignores substantial case law and the unrefuted pyramid o f evidence to enter a judgment in favor of a party that has demonstrated on multiple occasions that their proffered reasons are not worthy of credence or belief, I don't see how there could be issue or claim preclusion. Since I have already stated that I will seek to have your decision vacated under 10 of the FAA, the Respondents will more than likely argue to the court that I am precluded from litigating these issues and claims again. However, during our conference call on August 24, 2012, you stated that there were certain "issues" you were unable to address - the unethical actions engaged in by the Respondents' counsel.'^' When this case was in the Southern District of New York, I never raised any accusations of unethical conduct against the Respondents' counsel - although I had a gut insfinct that they were colluding with the judge, which is why Judge Castel ignored my legally valid arguments in order to compel this case into arbitration. Now that this litigation will soon make its way back to the Southern District of New York after two years, I have every intention on informing Judge Castel or the federal judge that replaces him about the serious unethical and criminal conduct that Michael Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in when I seek to have the award modified, vacated and/or confirmed. - no matter what decision is reached by the Arbitrator.^^ There's no way these morally corrupt attorneys should be allowed to continue practicing law or go unpunished for their actions. I f it is ever determined that the lawyers have engaged in serious criminal and ethical misconduct,^' that should vifiate your decision due to the Respondent's perpetual engagement of "fraud upon the Court." During this conference call. Arbitrator Gregory stated that he did not have authority to remove Loeb & Loeb LLP as representation for the Respondents although I raised claims that Zweig and Carbone were engaging in systematic pattern and practice of serious ethical and criminal conduct on William Morris' behalf However, you did state that in order to "guarantee the integrity of the arbitration," if I confinued to persist in making these allegations against Respondents' counsel, I would be "entitled" to have that "issue resolved" by the courts because you did not have the authority to do so. In Michael's delusional mind, these were "ad hominem attacks" and responded, " I ' l l state for the record that the allegations and accusations [of unethical and criminal conduct] are absolutely false, scurrilous and disreputable." Regarding his involvement in the conxipt conspiracy to commit "fraud upon the Court" in Rowe he stated: "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." Eight months later, your Interim Decision suggests otherwise. If judgment is entered in my favor, 1 am additionally seeking that you make a recommendation in your decision to the district court to issue disciplinary sanctions against Michael Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP for their numerous violations. As stated in Leonard Rowe's Affidavit, additional legal action is pending against all parties involved in this conspiracy and after this action is resolved, I am contemplating taking legal actions against Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and others for conspiracy to interfere with my civil rights, fraud, obstrucfion of justice, spoliation of evidence, and for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and additional

-29-