Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Reply To Ex. Motion For Extraordinary Relief From The Second Circuit (December 17, 2014)

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page1 of 152
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-857-8500
MOTION INFORMATION STATEMENT
Docket Number(s): _1_4_-4_3_2_8_-C_V
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _----:C""a"'p.:.tio""n"-'-!:[us""e::..=sh""0""rt:....:ti::,:tl"'e1.L._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Ent., LLC et al.
Motion for: Appellant's Reply to Ex. Motion to Restore In Forma Pauperls,
Suspend Filing Injunction and Remove All Prejudice Pending "Good Faith"
c:
Appeal, Or in the Alt., Vitiate All Orders Due to "Fraud Upon the Court" and
"Fraud Upon the Court, by the Court." Request to Transfer Case to Another Circuit.
Set forth below precise, complete statement ofrelief sought:
(f'I
:z:
-We)
r;?rrJo
:.:-CJc:
~o ._.,
:::J::: :~
,:{~ :~.:~ '?
1- ..
, _.
Seeking extraordinary relief mentioned in the Motion's title pursuant
to the court's inherent powers.
."'~'1 ~~
<:
I'.J
<=:;)
..r:
.;,:)
(J
rn
U1
::11
-0
OJ''''
::c
-..J
.0-...."
MOVlN~RTY: Marcus Isaiah Washington
~Plaintiff
:::0
W
-..J
("')
....
rn
0
OPPOSING PARTY: William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.
Defendant
AppelleelRespondent
~AppellantlPetitioner
MOVJNG ATTORNEY: Marcus Isaiah Washington (pro se)
OPPOSING ATTORNEY:
Michael P. Zweig & Christian Carbone
[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

54 Boerum St., Apt. 6M
Loeb & Loeb LLP
Brooklyn, NY 11206
345 Park Avenue., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10154
646-504-6497
humanrights.areamust@gmail.com
Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:
212-407-4000
mzweig@loeb.com
ccarbone@loeb.com
Southern District of New York I P. Kevin Castel
Please check appropriate boxes:

Has mo~ noti~opposing counsel (required by Local Rule 27.1):
~ YesUNo (explain):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Opposin~unsel's
position on motion:
U Unopposed 0opposed Gon 't Know
Does opposing counsel intend to file a response:
FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

INJUNCTIONS PENDING APPEAL:
~YesDNo
Has request for relief been made below?
Has this relief been previously sought in this Court?
~ Yes
No
Requested return date and explanation of emergency: Between September 2011
and June 2012, I submitted four motions/petitions seeking to vacate the
D Yes ~o D>on't Know
the July 20,2011 Stay Order of P. Kevin Castel which ignored my

arguments, omitted pertinent facts and refused to apply antidiscrimination
law to determine appropriate jurisdiction for this case. Same issues raised.
D No
Is oral argument on motion requested?
~Yes
Has argument date of appeal been set?
D Yes ~No
Slgna~ture\..f_~MO.lL.Af:tQr~~ttyy::
'1tok rt"'-
If yes, enter date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Date: December 15,2014
----~~--~--~-.~----~
Fonn T-1080 (rev. 12-13)
(requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)
Service by:
D CMIECF
~ Other [Attach proof of selvice]
No. 14-4328 CV
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(=
(f'
c;c.nn
::t: "1 Co
-1 ( J c.:
0,-,
C.1
MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant
::l:: :.::
~C:I
~.
r;
'.
.:.::
0:.
, () :::0 "
I"..;)
~7"""
,-=.1
f"T1
U1
')
-, t.~l ~.~
c~ c:
.~.-
v.
.=
'.
.~" :,~
- -1;-;
--',
_i~
-0
::x
-.J
C,..)
;;J
rn
rn
<
111
CJ
-.J
WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; formerly the WILLIAM MORRIS
AGENCY; JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINIARSKI,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the US. District Court
for the Southern District of New York
No. 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC) (JCF)
APPLLANT'S REPLY TO EXPEDITED MOTION TO RESTORE IN FORMA PAUPERIS

STATUS, SUSPEND FILING INJUNCTION AND REMOVE ALL PREJUDICE PENDING
"GOOD FAITH" APPEAL, OR IN THE ALTNERATIVE, VITIATE ALL ORDERS RENDERED
BY P. KEVIN CASTEL AND THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION DUE TO
"FRAUD UPON THE COURT" AND "FRAUD UPON THE COURT, BY THE COIlRT."
REQUEST TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT.
Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
Pro Se Litigant
For the following reasons below, I - pro se Appellant Marcus Isaiah Washington - respectfully submit this
Reply Motion in extreme "good faith" to ask the appellate court to: (1.) transfer this appeal to another circuit
or (2.) deny the strawman arguments 1 raised throughout the Appellees' December 4, 2014 Oppositional Motion
and grant the extraordinary relief sought in my November 21,2014 "Ex. Motion for Extraordinary Relief'2 in
favor ofthe Appellant.
Washi~gton
v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.: A Quintessential Case

of a Race-Based Conspiracy to Commit "Fraud Upon the Court" & Black Robe
Corruption.
On November 21, 2014, I respectfully submitted a 20 page Expedited Motion to the United States Court of
Appeals for .the Second .Circuit-pursuant to Fed. R. App.P..8, 24 and 46 seeking extraordinary relief under the
court's inherent powers to vitiate the decisions rendered by Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel
and the allegedly "neutral," privatized, quasi-judicial forum known as the American Arbitration Association
("AAA"). In the Appellees' December 4, 2014 Opposition Motion, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael P.
Zweig continued to play the role of the victim, never refuting the various legal arguments and pyramid of
evidence which proves that all ofCastel's legal conclusions throughout this case are erroneous as both a matter
oflaw and public policy and that the only reason William Morris has obtained its favorable verdicts, is through
collusion, conspiracy, racketeering and fraud. As discussed, here are some of the reasons why all of Castel's
decisions should be vitiated:
[p. Kevin Castel Erred By Concluding that Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award Was Not
Reviewable] The case law concerning the reviewability ofinterim, partial final and other types ofinterlocutory
arbitral awards is probably most developed the Second Circuit. Based on all of the facts and circumstances of
this case, Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping. S.A., 624 F.2 411 (2d Cir. 1980) is not controlling and Castel knew
1 The arguments raised in my November 21,2014 were a condensed version ofthe last three Motions that were submitted
to P. Kevin Castel between March 17,2014 and October 3,2014. the elite law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys
Michael P. Zweig, Christian D. Carbone and Michael Barnett had three opportunities to refute the pyramid of evidence
presented to support all of my legal arguments, but they chose to remain silent. Castel, acting as their attorney, did the
same and issued a final judgment in favor ofWi iii am Morris, as well as issued a filing injunction against me.
2 Actual Name: "Expedited Motion to Restore In Forma Pauperis Status, Suspend Filing Injunction and Remove All
Prejudice Pending "Good Faith" Appeal, Or in the Alternative, Vitiate All Orders Rendered by P. Kevin Castel and the
American Arbitration Association Due to "Fraud upon the Court" and "Fraud Upon the Court, By the Court."
- 1
that. Since Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was reviewable as a matter oflaw, then the AAA should
not have entertained William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's second Motion to Disqualify Arbitrator Gregory
after determining liability and should have allowed him to determine the issue of monetary damages during
phase two of our bifurcated proceeding. See Exhibit A. Since Castel did not vacate Gregory's Partial Final
Award pursuant to 10 of the FAA and/or disqualify Arbitrator Gregory, then this means that Castel violated
my constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law [yet again] by allowing the AAA to
unlawfully disqualify Gregory and unlawfully appoint Schnader LLP attorney and AAA board ofdirector Mr.
Timothy K. Lewis. Due to my repeated objections to the fraud that was occurring, my case was "dismissed
with prejudice and on the merits" six months after Arbitrator Gregory was disqualified without reason.
[p. Kevin Castel's Orders Never Diseuss Claims that Loeb & Loeb LLP and its Attomeys Have Engaged
in a "Pattem" of Fraud Upon the Court."] Castel never addressed my claims that Loeb & Loeb LLP were
engaging in a "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" - claims that were also raised to the Second Circuit in my
fourth appeal on June 6,2012. 3 In my November 21, 2014 Ex. Motion, I provided a number of examples to
prove that from the inception ofthis case, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P. Zweig were engaging in "fraud
upon the Court" on William Morris' behalf and should have never been allowed to represent William Morris
in this case. The Appellees do not mention or discuss these claims in their December 4, 2014 Opposition
Motion.
When I filed my complaint with the S.D.N.Y., I knew nothing about Rowe Entertainment Inc. v.
William Morris Agency. Inc.. et al.. 2005 WL 22833 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5,2005), affd, 167 Fed. Appx. 227 (2d
Cir. Dec. 30, 2005) and I most certainly did not know about their diabolical conspiracy to conceal "Exhibit
31.'''' See Exhibit B. Although Castel issued a filing injunction against me on September 5,2014 and stated
on October 22, 2014, that all of my arguments were "without merit," zero out of Castel's last three Orders
Castel's Orders also never mentions the New York Rules ofProfessional Conduct or the New York Judiciary Law 487
by name, despite being the Chairman ofthe Grievance Committee that handles complaints ofattorney misconduct in the
Southern District ofNew York. IfLoeb & Loeb LLP did in fact engage in "fraud upon the Court" in Rowe. then it is clear
that this firm should not have been allowed to "represent" William Morris in Washington.
4 Michael P. Zweig and Helen Gavaris ofLoeb & Loeb LLP represented the William Morris Agency. James C. Francis
was also the Magistrate Judge in Rowe.
- 2
3
mention Arbitrator Gregory's decision to admit concealed evidence known as "Exhibit 31" into the evidence
of record or that William Morris Endeavor were compelled to pay the costs of having my e-discovery expert
retrieve the underlying e-mails to this document and produce other tangible evidence pertaining to e-discovery
in Rowe.
Late last week, the racist e-mail exchange between SONY Pictures Co-chairwoman Amy Pascal and
film producer Scott Rudin concerning President Barack Obama were made public. See Exhibit C. In
discussing this embarrassing fiasco, L.A. Times writer Daniel Miller wrote:
Issues ofrace have long bedeviled Hollywood, which has been criticized for not giving minorities enough
opportunities for work, and for not doing enough to represent African Americans, Latinos and others in
films and television shows.
Darnell Hunt, a sociology professor at UCLA, said he was not surprised by the nature ofthe emails "This
is where we are in Hollywood," said Hunt, who is director of the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African
American Studies, which produces the annual Hollywood Diversity Report. "We have a diversity problem
... the fact that you can have these perceptions that are made jokingly give us a peek into the underlying
culture of the industry."
It should be noted that these two never used racially derogatory tenns like "nigger" in reference to Obama.
However, it still doesn't change the fact that their "racially insensitive" comments about the President are
extremely racist. I'm sure that prior to the release of their private conversations, Pascal and Rudin, like most
whitesl"Jews," would be the first to deny being racist, but the e-mails suggest otherwise. S While some believe
that Sony are the true victims in this situation due to the fact that their private e-mails were hacked, William
Morris was compelled to produce the underlying e-mails to "Exhibit 31" by Arbitrator Gregory on September
25,2013 and refused to do so. There's no way my case should have been "dismissed with prejudice and on the
merits," especially since this smoking gun evidence was never produced. See Exhibit D. After receiving my
March 17, 2014 Motion to Disqualify Due to Fmud Upon the Court, Castel should have ordered William
Morris to produce this concealed, smoking gun evidence, but like Robert P. Patterson, he refused to do so.
'Pascal's "apology" stated in part: "The content of my emails were insensitive and inappropriate but are not an accurate
reflection of who I am" and Rudin's "apology" stated in part: 'I made a series of remarks that were meant only to be
funny, but in the cold light of day, they are in fact thoughtless and insensitive - and not funny at all. To anybody I've
offended, I'm profoundly and deeply sorry, and I regret and apologize for any injury they might have caused."
- 3
Castel also failed to adequately resolve the fact that Christian Carbone refused to disclose to myself,
the Southern District of New York and/or the Second Circuit that he was married to an executive for the
American Arbitration Association - Sasha Angelique Carbone. The AAA was aware of this information and
said nothing to me. Carbone has remained silent about this information for nine months and refused to submit
an Affidavit confinning or denying this information as requested in my November 21,2014 Motion. I learned
of this information three years after litigating this case. Since Castel refused to address my claims of "fraud
upon the Court," have Loeb & Loeb LLP and its various attorneys acted ethically throughout this entire
litigation?6 Ifthe appellate court's answer is yes, then I ask that the appellate court please explain how so since
it is clear that these "kings of deception" and "masterful manipulators" should be disbarred.
(p. Kevin Castel Avoids Title VII, NYCHRL, Sherman Act and Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 Like the
Plague.] Since my initial claims included intentional pattern and practice discrimination, disparate impact and
pre-hiring individual disparate treatment, I had to rely on historical and statistical evidence to show that
excluding people of color from higher-status, higher-paying positions was William Morris' "modus
operandi"I"standard operating procedure" and that it was not "accidental" or "due to chance" that there were
zero African American Agents, Coordinators or Agent Trainees employed in the New York office when I
began the Agent Trainee program in September of200S.7 See Exhibit E. In federal court, Zweig denied all of
6 Loeb
& Loeb LLP's overall "pattern" offraud and highly unethical activity can be seen by the fact that although Michael
P. Zweig has always been the lead attorney in this case, he never submitted a Notice of Appearance ("NOA") when I
made the first set of attempts to appeal Castel's Stay Order. They have tried to make it appear that Carbone is the lead
attorney of record in the case. On December 4,2014, Christian Carbone submitted his NOA, while Zweig submitted a
NOA for Substitute, Additional or Amicus Counsel. I stated objections and it does not appear on the record. See Exhibit
F. On September 13, 2013, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael Barnett officially joined the arbitration and submitted a
Notice of Appearance with the S.D.N.Y on March 3, 2014. (Docket No. 35) To my knowledge, Barnett is still involved
in his case although he did not submit a NOA. There are also other attorneys that have never formally made their
appearance known, but who are profiting from their firm's unlawful conduct See Exhibit G. Also, after filing my Notice
of Appeal with the S.D.N.Y. on November 12,2014 and informing Loeb & Loeb LLP that I would be submitting my
Motion for Extraordinary Relief with the Second Circuit no later than November 21,2014, Michael P. Zweig submitted
a letter to P. Kevin Castel on [insert date] asking him to grant a Protective Order against me knowing that the S.D.N.Y.
no longer had jurisdiction. Nowhere in the Appellees' December 4,2014 submission do they request the Second Circuit
to issue a PO.
7 On July 2, 1964 Congress passed the Civil Right Act of 1964, as codified, 42 US.C. 2000e to 2000e-17. The Act
states that it is unlawful for an employer to: (1) "fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any indiyidual, or otherwise to
discriminate against any individual with rcspect to his compensation. terms. conditions. or privileges of
employment. because of such indiyidual's race. color. religion. sex. or national origin" or (2) "limit. segregate. or
rclassify his employees or applicants for employment in any Way which would deprive or tend to deprive any
- 4
my claims, saying that my legal arguments were "without merit, legally or factually." However, Loeb & Loeb
LLP never met their heightened burden of production and persuasion throughout this entire litigation. They
also never provided a "legitimate, non-discriminatory reason" or "business justification" to explain why I was
the only African American "qualified" enough to be hired
a~
any level of the Agent Trainee program in New
York City. Instead, they tried to defame my character by saying that I was "anti-Semitic" and falsely portraying
me as the worst performing employee.
The pyramid of evidence established that I entered into a company that was already violating Title vn
ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 at the time I signed their mandatory arbitration agreement. Due to the fact that
the company has always factored race in its employment decisions and believes that race/culture is a
prerequisite for being hired andlor promoted to Agent, African American Agent Trainees had a zero percent
rate of promotion ("the inexorable zero") to Agent between 2000 and 2010. See e.g., Griggs v. Duke Power
Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971); International Brotherhood ofTeamsters v. United States. 431 U.S. 324 (1977). I was
more qualified than all of my similarly situated whitel "Jewish" counterparts in the Agent Trainee program,
See Exhibit H, and William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP refused to produce any documents or comply with
any ofmy discovery requests because it would have shown that their statements were pretextua1. See Exhibit
L The pyramid ofevidence shows that had my race, color andlor perceived national origin played a "motivating
factor" in why I [or someone ofcolor] was not hired andlor promoted to Agent and that had I been white andlor
"Jewish," I would have been hired andlor promoted to Agent by William Morris. 8
Since the problem of institutionalized and structural racism is not limited to William Morris,9See
Exhibit J, I additionally raised a number of "strong public interest" arguments with the Second Circuit to
individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee. because of such
individual's race. color. religion. sex. or national origin," 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a) (emphasis added).
In or around the time that I submitted my resume, the company had just promoted a white Agent Trainee to book urban
contemporary acts who was not licensed under the Talent Agency Act The artist that I co-managed between 2006 and
2008 has been a client ofWME Entertainment for six years and is now an l1x GRAMMY nominated singer/songwriter.
Majority of my white! "Jewish" counterparts had absolutely no prior experience working in the entertainment industry
and were recent college graduates.
9 Over the last five years, the William Morris Agency has merged with two predominately all-white! "Jewish" talent &
sports agencies that represent and make millions off of African Americans due to their race-based monopoly: Endeavor
Talent Agency and !MG. All of the other talent agencies, studios, networks, etc. employ similar discriminatory
employment practices, policies and procedures as William Morris, hence the reason why their workplaces also have zero
and/or a gross underrepresentation ofqualified African Americans employed as Agents, Coordinators and Agent Trainees.
8
- 5
further show why arbitration was an inappropriate forum to resolve the merits of this particular case. These
racist, historically allwhitel"Jewish" institutions wield such an enonnous amount of influence over the
collective thoughts, beliefs aJ)d worldviews of society, particularly when it comes to race. The racial animus
and/or implicit racial biases displayed by Hollywood's top executives and gatekeepers to the "marketplace of
ideas," is not only dangerous to the people ofAftican descent, but to society as a whole.
As an example, the S140M fIlm Exodus: Gods and Kings was released last Friday. In this controversial
fIlm about Moses, the director casted all of the main characters were white, while majority of the slaves and
thieves were black or of color. This is just another example of Hollywood using its control over powerful
communicative mediums to whitewash history and perpetuate the myth that Afticans have made absolutely no
contributions to civilizations and have been slaves, inferior, subservient, secondclass our entire lives. This
predominately "Jewish" industry continues to be enriched immensely from their exploitation and
misappropriation of African history and culture. 1o This case, in part, also seeks to put an end to their
monopolistic control over our image and likeness.
[Ideologically Conservative, Republican Appointed Federal Judge P. Kevin Castel Should Have
Disqualified Himself Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455 and Canon 4 of the Judicial Code of Conduct} I have
also showed the various ways that Castel has intentionally violated the Constitution, his Oath of Office,
numerous Canons under the Judicial Conduct and the law to deprive me of my cosntitituional and statutory
rights under the color of the law, in violation in 28 U.S.C. 242. Although Castel refused to disqualify himself
in his March 27, 2014 Order, he stated that "[v]iewed as a totality, an objective, disinterested observer fully
infonned of the underlying facts would not entertain significant doubt that justice would be done in this
action absent recusal of the undersigned." Since Castel intentionally ignored the "underlying facts" and
flouted the law throughout this entire case, he's in no position to discuss how an "objective" person would
react to the ''underlying facts" ofthis case - hence the reason for this appeal. I patiently waited 32 months after
10 See e.g., "Examining EgyptlKemet With Dr. Yosef Ben Jochannan" On Like It Is with Gill Noble.
https:llwww .youtube.comlwatch?v=zEQE30xfmOk#t=1322. Kemet was the original name for Egypt, which meant "land
of the blacks." See e.g., J. A. Rogers, Sex & Race
Castel issued his Stay Order to personally seek his disqualification. After he refused to disqualify himself, he
continued to misapply the law and issue one-sided Orders in favor of William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP.
Although there is a "strong federal policy favoring arbitration," there is an even stronger federal policy
to eradicate racial discrimination, as well as other types ofdiscrimination, throughout the American workplace.
Although Castel stated in his July 20, 2011 Stay Order that I "ha[d] not shown that Congress intended to
preclude arbitration for claims asserted under either Title VII or 42 U.S.C. 1981," it is clear that I have. [PKC
Stay Order, 10.] When William Morris' histOlY of intentional racial discrimination is acknowledged by the
impartial finder of fact, it is clear that the two arbitration agreements I signed as a condition of employment
were both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, tainted with illegality and malum in se. See e.g.,
O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums. Inc., 246 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2001).
Prayers for Extraordinary Relief Under the Court's Inherent Powers

On January 4, 2011, Chief Judge Loretta A Preska granted my in forma pauperis status but on September 5,
2014, Castel revoked my status despite being aware of my dire economic circumstances. When 1 sought to
have my in forma pauperis status restored in my October 3,2014 Motion, he denied my request, concluding
that my claims of "fraud upon the Court" were "without merit." In his Order, the reason provided for refusing
to restore my IFP status, was that I stated the following in a footnote: "1 can fill in the blanks [contained in my
October 3,2014 Motion] in my appeal to the Second Circuit or 'under oath' before a jury trial in a separate
action when I sue P. Kevin Castel for intentionally depriving me ofmy rights under the color oflaw." Castel's
reason is not sufficell and it becomes blatantly obvious, that Castel revoked my in forma pauperis status to
create a procedural hurdle that would further violate my due process rights.
Pursuant to the court's inherent powers and Fed. R. App. P. 46(b), extreme disciplinary and monetary
sanctions should be imposed against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Michael Barnett and Loeb & Loeb
LLP for their egregious violations of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Judiciary
II In Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners. Inc., 364 F.3d 1305 (lIth Cir. 2004), the Eleventh Circuit reversed u.s. District Judge
Ursula Ungaro-Benages's decision to deny the plaintiff's in forma pauperis status because she "denied Martinez's motion
for leave to proceed IFP without explanation."
-7
Law 487, including, but not limited to default judgment. In the December 4,2014 Motion ofthe Appellees,
Zweig stated in a footnote, that my request for "sanctions against WME's counsel under Fed. R. App. P. 46(b)"
should be denied because the "request lacks merit, as Appellant provides no credible basis for concluding that
WMEs counsel have engaged in 'conduct unbecoming a member ofthe court's bar."'12 [pg. 6.]
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffinned the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance
of justice." Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960). Thus, without procedural justice,
substantive justice is impossible. Had Castel and/or the AAA allowed me an oral hearing, Christian Carbone
would have been able to state under oath whether or not he is and/or was married to AAA executive Sasha
Angelique Carbone and resolve the issues Loeb & Loeb LLP has remained silent about. 13 As demonstrated by
Notarized Affidavit, this case also raises constitutional challenges to federal and state statutes pursuant to Fed.
R. App. P. 44. See Exhibit K. Ifthe appellate court agrees with me, extraordinary monetary and non-monetary
relief should be granted. 14 See Exhibit L.
Conclusion
12 They also state that my "allegations ofsanctionable conduct are nothing more than rank speculation, and are yet another
manifestation of [my] malicious attacks upon those whom he believes are participating in a 'vast conspiracy' against
him."
13 Michael Zweig states in William Morris' Opposition Motion that I engaged in "flagrant misconduct during the course
of the arbitration" and have a "history of vexatious and harassing conduct towards WME, its counsel, the American
Arbitration Association, and the federal judiciary." [pg. 1.] Based on aU the facts and circumstances, does the appellate
court agree? If my request for an oral hearing is granted, I ask that the Court also compel William Morris and Loeb &
Loeb LLP to produce any and aU documents, compact discs (CDs) and other tangible evidence pertaining to e-discovery
in Rowe, particularly, the e-mails that were received from Electronic Evidence Discovery since it appears that the fraud
actually occurred by their refusal to search the actual e-mails ofthe nine music Agents.
14 lfmy infonna pauperis status is not restored, there's no possible way that I would be able to pay the $505 filing fee or
any other costs associated with appealing the fraudulently procured Orders of Castel and the American Arbitration
Association. I live off of$400 a month and spent more than $100 on ink and paper since filing my Notice ofAppeaL Even
if I could afford the costs associated with this appeal, it would be futile for me to submit an appeal if my IFP status is not
restored, since the appellate court would essentially be confirming Castel and the Appellees' statements that my claims
are "frivolous." If the appellate court truly believes this, I ask that you explain why and explicitly resolve all ofthe issues
that Castel ignored S014 I can submit my petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States of
America within 90 days. Since many ofthese claims have already been raised to the Second Circuit, I ask that ifmy case
is not transferred to another circuit. Since many ofthese arguments were ignored by panel judges Gerard E. Lynch, Peter
W. Hall, Denny Chin and the court en bane when I made four attempts to appeal P. Kevin Caste's erroneous July 20,
2011 Stay Order, which erroneously compelled this case into arbitration, I respectfully ask that my case be transferred
and decided by another circuit. Since Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney Michael P. Zweig sits on the Grievance Committee for
the Second Circuit and is also admitted in the First, Third, Fourth and Sixth Circuits, I ask that the case not be transferred
to any ofthese circuits as well.
- 8
It is clear that pursuant to 16 of the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, my appeal would be made in "extreme
good faith."1 S Not only has fraud been committed upon the Court, but fraud has been committed upon the Court
by the Court itself. The intentionally dishonest and deceptive statements ofCastel, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael
P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Timothy K. Lewis and others throughout this case constitute what Julia SimonBarr refers to as "systemic lying."16 Castel is nothing more than a "criminal in a black robe" and he should be
impeached for abusing his power and acting above the law in order to ensure that I would be deprived of me
of my statutory right to a jury trial and constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.
While writing what could possibly be my last Motion to the appellate court, the following quotes had a
strong impact on me:
"Truth cannot be concealed ... It literally begs to be revealed, especially when hypocrisy and deceit
[] moves toward domination." - Dr. Frances Cress-Wei sing
"I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of
establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured
darns that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand
that the present tension ... is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in
which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all
men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent
direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is
already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can
never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural
medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the
light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured. In your statement
you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condenmed because they precipitate
violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his
possession ofinoney precipitated the evil act ofrobbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because
his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the
misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because
his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of
crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affinned, it is wrong to
l'
I have always pursued this case in extreme "good faith." I will not allow any finder of fact to conclude that I am racist
andlor anti-Semitic for challenging institutionally racist employment and business practices, policies and procedures
William Morris and other businesses throughout Hollywood. If I were truly engaging in bad faith and raising frivolous
claims, Arbitrator Gregory would not have likened my efforts to that of three extraordinary human rights activists: Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Thurgood Marshall and Nelson Mandela. He also would not have found William Morris guilty
ofviolating federal, state and local law prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis ofrace.
16 Julia Simon-Kerr. Systemic Lying. pg. 1. September 2014. ("Systemic lying involves the cooperation of multiple actors
in the legal system who lie or violate their oaths across cases for a consistent reason that is linked to their conception of
justice... Systemic lying is both persistent and powerful because it achieves a type of licitness that individual lies or
underground deception lack. At the same time, it poses a unique threat to the legitimacy ofthe system by signifying that
truth is not paramount in the courtroom.")
-9
urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may
precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber." Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., Letter From Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963.
"[W]hen you're dealing with something as deeply rooted as racism or bias in any society, you've got
to have vigilance but you have to recognize that it's going to take some time and you just have to be
steady so that you don't give up when we don't get all the way there."17 - President Barack Obama
Antiracist, physicist and Nobel Prize recipient Albert Einstein described racism as humanity's "worst
disease. "18 When one factors in the fact that "race" is a social and legal construct created by those classified as
white, that civilization began in Africa and that racism is a learned behavior, it becomes blatantly apparent that
there is absolutely no truth to claims that whites are superior to blacks l9 or that "Jews" of European descent
are "God's chosen people." Thus, the stark racial disparities that have existed historically between blacks and
whites in all areas ofhuman activity are not "due to chance" or "accidental."
This case helps shed light on the real reasons why in 2014, we as a nation, are so far from achieving
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.' s dream of racial equality and justice for all. This case is a testament to the fact
that SO years after passing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 23 years since the statute was last
amended, it is imperative that Congress strengthen Title VII or pass new legislation aimed at eradicating
institutionalized, structural and the more subtle forms of racism that continue to perpetuate existing racial
stratification and inequality throughout the workplace and American society.20
11 "President Obama Gives His Most Candid Interview on Race." Associated Press. December 7,
2014. htt.p:llthegrio.com/2014112/08/0bama-gives-his-most-candid-interview-on-racel; See also, "Transcript: BET's
Exclusive
Interview
with
President
Obama."
BET.com.
December
12,
2014.
htt.p:llwww.bet.com/news/nationaV2014/12/12/transcript-bet-s-exclusive-interview-with-president-obama.html.
(The
murder of unarmed black men like Eric Gamer "gives us an opportunity... to finallv have the kind of conversation
that's been a long time coming.") See Exhibit M.
18 Fred Jerome and Rodger Taylor. Einstein On Race and Racism. pg. x. 2005.
19 See e.g., Dr. Frances Cress WeIsing. The Isis (Yssis) Papers: The Keys To the Colors. pg. 4. 1991. ("[A]ny neurotic
drive for superiority usually is founded upon a deep and pervading sense ofinadequacy and inferiority.")
20 In response to Amy Pascal's public apology for her racist e-mail exchange, Rev. Al Sharpton slated that Pascal's
"apology is not enough [and that] there must be mOVes by her studio and others to resned the African American
community and reflect that respect in their hiring and businesS practices." (emphasis added) It is clear that William
Morris has absolutely no desire to diversify its workplace and since "power concedes nothing without a fight," no filing
injunction issued by a federal judge that has never applied antidiscrimination law in an employment discrimination case,
is going to stop me from making sure that William Morris and other businesses comply with Title vn, NYCHRL and the
other antidiscrimination laws of our nation which prohibit discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color and
national origin. It is also imperative that Congress pass the Arbitration Fairness Act. The July 23, 2008 testimony of
Elizabeth Bartholet further supports these arguments. See Exhibit N. See a/so, Lost in Fine Print (2014).
https:llwww.youtube.com/watch?v=tgC3N802Sjk.
-10
Dated: New York, New York

December 15, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
By:
~~~J-~
ashington
Marcus I.

Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
CAPTION:
Marcus Isaiah Washington v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
Docket Number: 14-432&-CV
LLC; Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski
Marcus Isaiah Washington
I,
(name)
December 15. 2014
, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on
, I served a copy of AppeUanfs Reply to Ex, Motion to Restore In
(date)
Fonna Pauperis Status, Suspend Filing Injunction and Remove All Prejudice Pending "Good Faith" Appeal. Or in the Alt..
(list all documents) VItiate All Orders Rendered By P. Kevin Casel and
the American Arbitration Association Due to "Fraud
Upon the Court" and "Fraud Upon the Court. By the
by (select all applicable)*
Court, Request to Transfer Cese to Another Circuit.
o ~e8 &fa!!, :hiM.!

fZ] Federal Express
o Overnight Mail
CJ Facsimile
:z ~t"
Q tnC')
[Z]E-mail
Hand delivery
:c:I"'I1C)
:c:
\..::J
2:;) c ;:::?
(Tl
on the following parties (complete all information and add additional pages as necessatY~6 --j
Michael P. Zweig
345 Park Avenue. 18th FI.
Address
Name
New York
City
NY
State
()
VI
;; 3-: 1, 0154"
~ ~p C~
,J
--.J , 'J
)-'
--
:::::4
Name
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Name
Address
City
State
Zip Code
Name
Address
City
State
Zip Code
December 15.2014
Today's Date
Signature
If different methods of service have been used on different parties, please indicate on a separate
page, the type of service used for each respective party.
Certificate of Service Fonn
:::0
-fg ~
,<
fT1
Exhibit A

1211412014
Gmall- Washington v, William Morris Endeava Entertainment, LLC at aI,. Case No, 1Q-CV-09647-PKC-JCF (S,D,N,Y,)
Alkebulan X <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC et al., Case No.1 0

CV-09647PKC.JCF (S.D.N.Y.)
M.Washlngton <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>
To: Christian Carbone <ccarbone@loeb.com>, mbeck@loeb.com
Cc: Michael Zweig <mzweig@loeb.com>, Michael Bamett <mbamett@loeb.com>
Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:38 PM
Why would you even write something like that, knowing that I asked Gregory to bifurcate the proceeding if he
decided to uphold the arbitration agreement in the Reply to my Motion for Summary Judgment on January 31,
2{}13? Factual mlsrepresentaUon numero uno. Also, neither you or anyone from Loeb & Loeb LLP discussed or
sought to depose or "cross-examine" me while we were in' discovery for five months' - in- fact, Loeb & Loeb LlP'
opposed discovery and having an oral hearing entirely. Factual misrepresentation numero dos.
You know that Castel, nor any judge for that matter, can stop me from filing. what is primarily. a Motion to
Disqualify Castel and Francis due to their bias and/or a Motion to Disqualify your firm due to "fraud upon the
Court." And you and the AAA also know that another arbitrator cannot vacate the final Award of another arbitrator
- only .thefederalcourt car.t .do .50. So hasicany~ your frivolous Jetter ,iswitilout '.merit, JegaUy.and factually
Try to read James Gaitis' "The Federal Arbitration Act: Risks and Incongruities Relating to the Issuance of
Interim and Partial Awards in Domestic and Intemational Arbitrations" over the weekend (it's available on
WestLaw). so that you and your team of experienced attomeys raise any further counter arguments, Loeb can
actually appear to be knowledgeable of the law pertaining to the finality of Partial Final Awards.
I took forward to filing this extremely thorough Motion to Disqualify on March 17, 2014 and exposing the highly
unethical and criminal conduct your firm. William Morris and others have engaged in over the last three years of
this case.
Marcus
'CONF'IOENTIAL:lTY -NOltCE: Tilts '&me" transmission, and any documents, ftles or -previous e-mail messages
attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the Intended recipient,
or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any review,
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender.
Please destroy the Original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving. in. any marmer:. Thank
you.
[Quoted text hidden)
hI!ps:llmail.goog\e,com/maiIIulOl?ui=2I1dk=0age2eOdee&view=-pt&searcn=lnbox&msg=-144ge7e2444SBb1b&siml=144ge7c244488bfb.
Exhibit B
Willie E. Gary, Esquire

William C. Campbell, Esquire
Maria P. Sperando, Esquire
GARY, WILLIAMS, PARENTI, FINNEY,

LEWIS, WATSON & SPERANDO
"
221 E. Osceo1a Street

Stuart, FL 34994
Tel: (772) 283-8260
Fax: (772) 221-2177
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rowe Entertainment, Inc., et aI.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ROWE ENTERTAINMENT, INC. et al.,
NO. 98-CV-8272 (RPP)
Plaintiffs.
VS.
THE WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC.
ET AL.,
Defendants
EXHIBITS TO
PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW
. IN OPPOSITION TO BOOKING AGENCY DEFENDANTS'
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
VOLUME II
..........
.

10.
FROM.SNR.NEW YORK
. l' 16- 02
14.46
OC
PAC:&:
OGOLDFARB
spade
[)GROVER
DGR.OVER
!)GROVER
colored
monkey
spade
spook
monkey
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
spade
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
OGROVER
DRABIEH
DTENZER
OTENZER
OTENZER
OTENZER
. DTENZER
DWATTS
OWATTS
DWATTS
DWAnS
DWAnS
DWATrS
EGERSON
EGERSON
EGERSON
EGERSON
EGERSON
EGERSON
,
t
,
,
,
14
28
27
55
35
1 -
26
14
spook
uncletotn
colored
spade
FSAUNAS
colored
monkey
FSAUNAS
spade
FWHrTEHEAO
colored
FWHITEHEAD
FWHITEHEAD
GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GMEREOITH
GMEREDITH
GMEREDfTH
GMEREOITH
GPULIS
. GPUUS
GROTH
GROTH
GROTH
GWATERS
GWATERS
..' HaPDESK1'EMp
,HELPDESKTEMP
'. Het.PDESKTEMP
IPINCUS ..
IPINCUS
IPINCUS'
.
spade
negro
FSAllNAS
spook
colored
monkey
nigger
ELEVY
ELEVY
monkey
(;
spade
colored
22
monkey
I'!egro
nigger
colOred
monkey
negro
19
:2
spook
colored
spade,
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey.
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
negro
. 3
25
-I
'
.'
- '_ ...--_.-------...........,....
,,-
',-"- -.-~-
","-.--,"
-,,~~
..
,~-,
..
, .
2/1 B
.....--.
PAGE
OCT-1S- 0 2 14.48 FROM.SNR.NEW YORK
IPINCUS
IPINCUS
IPINCUS
JADLER
JADLER
JADl.ER
JAOl.ER
JARGIRIOU
JARGIRJOU
JBARBERO
JBARBERO
JCAMPISI
JCAMPISI
JCAMPISI
JCARTY
JCOHEN
JCOHeN
JCOHEN
JCOHEN
JGERSON
JGERSON
JGERSON
JGERSON
JGRIFFONE
JGRrFFONE
JGRIFFONE
JGRIFFONE
JGRIFFONE
JGRIFFONE
JGRIFFONE
JGRfFFONE
JJACOeS
JJACOBS
JJACOBS
JLYWEN
JLVWEN
JMAGID
JMAaIO.
JMAGIO
JMAGIO
JMAGIO
JPEPITO
JPLAGER
JPLAGER
JPLAGER
JRINGQUIST
JSHUE
JSHUe
'JSHUe
.KHARTLEY
KHARTl..EY
KHARTLEY
nigger
spade
spook
cofored
monkey
"'gga
spade
colored
spade
colored
monkey
colored
monkey
spade
spade
colored
monkey
nigger
spade
colored
monkey
spade
uneletom
colored
monkey
negro
nigga
nigger
spade
spook
uncJetom
colored
monkey
spade
3
11
1
1
6
1
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
13
2
14
3
1
2
1
52
54
16
2
18
11
9
2
1
20
colored .
monkey
colored
monkey
1
1
4
negro
1
1 .
2
.1
nigger
.. spook
monkey
colored
monkey
spade
spade
colored
monkey
SJpBde
colored'
monkey
.~pade .
11
12
3
'2 .
2
9
11
4
4
1.
3/18

OCT-1S-02
ID.
14.46 PROM I SNR. NEW YORK
KHWANE
KHUVANE
colored
KHlNANE
KHWANE
monkey
KHUVANE
KHWANE
KHUVANE
KHUVANE
KSACCHI
KSACCHI
KSEARS'
KSEARS
KSEARS
KWHITE
KWHITE
KWHITE
KWHITE
KVlJHITE
KWRIGHT
lGABLER
LGABLER
LGABLER
LGABU!R
LGABlER
LGABLER
lHoRowrrz
LHORO'MTZ
LHOROWlTZ
LHOROWITZ
LKOPElKlN
LLOPEZ
LVllHrTE
MAl<
,MAK
MASTER
MASTER
MBERLINER
MBERLINER
MBERLINER
MCAMACHO
MCAMACHO
_ MCAMACHO
MEOlAlA8
MEOIAlAB
MEDIAl.AB
MHOIST
, MHOIST
,MHOIST
MHOIST
MHO1ST
MHO[ST
,Mt<errHLEY
coon
negro
nigger
spade
spook
63
ti
2
26
colored
spook
coIQred'
negro
spade
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
spade
colored
colored
monkey
negro
14
29
11
20
44
colored
monkey
negro
spook
monkey
monkey
colored
colored
monkey
monkey
negro
colored
monkey
nigger
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
spade
colored
coon
monkey
, negro
spade
'spook
eelered
4/19
24
uncle tom
spade
spook
uncle tom
PAGE
' 1
11
15
13
, ,10 '
12
-,

,CT- 1 5- 02
MKElTHLEY
MKfITHLEY
MKYDD
MKYDD
COOn
monkey
colored
MKYDO
MMCLAUGHLIN
MO'SULLIVAN
MO'SULUVAN
MO'SULLIVAN
MO'SULUVAN
MO'SULLIVAN
MPIRANIAN
MPIRANIAN
MPIRANIAN
. MPiRANIAN
MRlZZO
MRIZZO
MROSE
MROSE
MROSE
MROSENFELO
MROSENFELO
MRUBEL
MRUBEL
MSEMAN
MSEMAN
MSEMAN
MSEYMOUR
MSEYMOUR
MSEYMOUR
MSPANO
MWlMER
.M'NIMER
NJONES
NJONES
NJONES
NJONES
NJONES
NKlSS
NKfSS
NKlSS
POILLON
PDILLON
PETe
PIKE
PIKE
PIKE ..
.PIKE
PIKE .
PPAt.AZZO
PPALAzZo
PPALAZZO
.
monkey
negro
monkey
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
spook
monkey
nlgga
spook
1
1
1
colored
spade
eolored
monkey
spook.
c.:olored
monkey
colored
monkey
colored
monkey
n!gga
c.:olored
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
monkey
6
8
spade
monkey
1
7
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
negro
1
35
7
spade
78
colored
monkey
negro
monkey
negro
monkey
colored
coon
monkey
negro
5/18
1
8
3
1
1
4
4
15
3
1
9
colored
coon
PAGE
10-
14. 4B PROM. SNR NE.... YORK
9
3
4
2
3
5
3
7
4
nigger
eolored
coon
monkey.
'
. ,
,;
-,..,........,. - -- ----
--.-.. --,-"_ ..
-"~
~--
---, -<....
-<,~".". ~
, _.. ,,,.,_,,v_..,..~,"~"""'''-''-

~CT-15-e2
PPALAZZO
PPAlAZZO
PPAl/4ZZ.0
-PPALAZZO
PTORRE
. RLIGHT
RPRINZ
RPRINZ
RROSKIN
RROSKIN
RROSKJN
RROSKIN
RROSKIN
RROSKIN
RROSKIN
RROSKIN
RSCHWeBER
RSCHWEBER
SADAMS
SAlEXANDER
$ALEXANDER
SALEXANOER
SAPR
SAPR
SCUMAN
SCUMAN
seLlMAN
SeLlMAN
SCI.IMAN
SlAFFERTY
negro
nlgga
nigger
1
4
spade
colored
colored
monkey
1
35
monkey
negro
nigga
nigger
spade
sPook
colored
monkey
monkey
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
colored
coon
monkey
spade
spook
colored
SLAFFERTY
SLAFFERTY
SLAFFERTY
SLERNER
SI.ERNER
SPETERSON
$PETERSON
SPETERSON
SPETERSON
SPET1!RSON
SPETERSON
SROSENFELO
SROSENFELD
SROSENFELD
monkey
SSELF
SsELF
$SELF
SSELF
SSElF
3
1
3
negro
coon
.. SSELF
colored
coon
stAFFERTV
SSELF
JD.
14.4B FROM.BNR.NEW YORK
spade
spook
cOlored
spade
colored .
monkey
negro
. nIgger
spook
uncle tom
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
negro
01998 .
nigger
spade
. sJ)09k
2
41
4
2
4
3
3
1
4
1
4
16
14
4
4
5
3
5
1
1
2
2
1
16
1
1
2
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
17
..15
10
1
.2
13
2
l:IACB
6/\9

~JCT-
ID.
16 - 82 14'4 ~, PROM.SNR.HEW YORK
SSMILEY
SSMILEY
colored
monkey
SSMllEY
$SMILEY
SSMILSY
SSMILEY
negro
SSMILEY
SSMOOKE
.
SSMOOKE
SVlSWANATHAN
nlgga
nigger
spade
spook
spade
mOnkey
S\NE(SS
negro
SWS'SS
nigger
spade
SWEISS
spook
SWlllCOX
SWlLLCOX
SWlLLCOX
SVVlLLCOX
SWlLLCOX
colored
monkey
negro
TOJCKERSON
TDICKeRSON
TDORSEY
TEn
TETZ
TETZ
TKAPINOS
iMlLLER
TMILlER
TMILlER
TMURRAY
TMURRAY
TMURRAY
"'998
nigger
spade
monkey
spade
colored
colored
spade
uncJetom
spook
colored
monkey
spade
colored
TMURRAY
monkey
negro
spade
TROSS
colored
TROSS
monkey
TROSS
TSTANLEY
TSTANJ..EY
15
2
1
S\'\IEISS
SWlLlCOX
21
1
6
colored
colored
SViSWANATHAN monkey
SWEISS
colored
SWEI$S
30
68
negro
.$pade
undetom
7
15
2
9
2
4
1
1
17
79
6
4
2
11
1
2
1
6
4
5
1
1
6
9
2
e
1
14
3,
4
1
2
1.
PACE
7/19
OC~-16-02
14.47 FROM.BHR.HEW YORK
Racial slur .sean:h tenns

-JGRlFFONE
NJONES
SSMILEY
DWATrS
128
128
127
121
110
KHUVANE
SWlLLCOX
108
AHARTl.EY
94
RROSKIN
92
6JOEL
84
BViNOKOUR
CSIMONIAN
84
80
71
OTENZER
K\lVHITE
SLONCAR
BSIBERELL
LGABLER
SSELF
DCHUN
IPINCUS
CPARRISH
SPIKE
CKIVOWlTZ
SALEXANDER
ARAlJ'TSORT
FWHfTEHEAO
JCOHEN
MEDlALA8
CDUBNER
MHOIST
EGERSON
AOEVEJIAN
MO'SlIU.IVAN
TMURRAY
ADMINISTRATOR
GMEREOmt
JPLAGER
MCAMACHO
SLAFFER'IY
-SVlSVVANATHAN
JJACOBS
JSHUE
BGRAHAM
S\NEISS
NKISS
PIKE
ASKYLeR
TMlli.ER.
TeTZ -
SellMAN
66
61
58
57
53
4S
44
43
39
37
34
33
31
30
30
29
28
27
25
25
25
24
24
24
23
22
22
22
22
20
18
-17.
17. :
1.7-_
16
15
15
PAGE
8/18

OC~-16-02
10.
14.47 FROM.BNR.NEW yeRK
MKEITHlEY
14
LHOROwrrz
14
14
JMAGID
GGURROLA
MseYMOUR
SPETERSON
DGOLDFARB
FSAUNAS
JADLER
HELPOESKTEMP
KSACCHI
eWAGNER
ABERKOwrrz
SROSENFELD
!<HARTlEY
DGROVER
SAPR
TROSS
MSPANO
MFUz.zO
ANELSON
JGERSON
GROTH
GWATERS
13
13
12
12
11
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
6
BGREENBAUM
I)
MWIMER
PPAl.AZZO
PDILLON
6
6
MKYDO
RSCHVVEBER
JARGIRJOU
JBARSERO
JCAMPISI
GPULIS
KSEARS
ARYAN
CHOLlANOER
CKINZEL
RPRINZ .
4
4
SsMOOKE
MMClAUGHUN
MPIRANfAN
MAl<
. MSEMAN
MROSENF5LC
MRUBEL
PETE' .
PTORRE
. MBERLINER
SLERNER
.TDICKERSON
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
. 3
3
3
3
3
PAGE
B/ IS
P'
OC 1 - 1 &-02
to.
14.48 FROM.BNR.NEW YORK
.TSTANlEY
COALSTON
ELEW
JRlNGOUIST
3
3
3
2
JlYVVEN
ORABIEH
AMCGAEGOR
MASTER
LKOPEtKIN
MROSE
RUGHT
llOPSZ
LWHITE
TOORSEY
TKAPiNOS
SAOAMS
ASTAA
OCARTE
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
JPEPrro
1
1
1
KWRIGHT
JCARTY
All other search tanns
CPAARISH
4552
DTENZER
4103
OWATTS
3761
$SMILEY
JGRIFFONE
2882
NJONES
KHWANE
2169
.2120
2050
AHARTLEY
BVlNOKOUR
GMEREDITH
SWlLLCOX
DCHUN'
MEOIALAB
RROSKIN
2245
1987
1907
1570
14Q1
1466
BJOEL
1460
1416
1398
KVVHITE
1357
EGERSON
MCAMACHO
1352
1203
IPINCUS
SVlSWANATHAN
SSElF
1115
QPUUS
1088
. 8LONCAR
1113
1070 .
I.GABLER
1051
.CS1MONIAN
MKEITHI.EY
. Q95
,958
OGOI.DFARB
902
'DGROVER
885'
'.J
PACE
10/IS
....
OCT~t5-02
t4.48 PROH.BNR.NEW YORK
BWAGNER
MAl<
ADEVEJIAN
SALEXANDER
LHOROWITZ
TMURRAY
838
833
764
762
734
707
ABERKOWITZ
693
ARAUTBORT
670
637
631
CKIVOWITZ
SCLIMAN
SSMOOKE
JCOHEN
F\NHITEHEAD
BSIBERELL
627
612
601
588
TETZ
572
JJACOBS
MHOIST
BPIKE
SROSENFElD
COUSNER
PIKE
GGURROLA
534
531
526
524
SOO
488
486
AOMJNISTRATOR
MRIZZO
ASKYLER
465
~UE
393
ARYAN
391
'NKISS
MSEYMOUR
JPLAGER,
BGRAHAM,
SlAFFERTY
KHARTLEY
368
JADL.E.R
PDfllON '
HElPOESKTEMP
JGER,SON
SPEU;RSON
JRINOOUIST
MRUBEL
439
427
387
358
357
357
352
342
321
289
285
279
274
260
MWlMER,
243
, FSAl.INAS
TMIu.ER
241
233
229
RPRINZ
JARGIRIOU
,JMAGID," ,
.TDICKERSON .
217
~OLLANDER,
210
RLIGHT,
209
'CKINZEL. .,
TROSS
187
216
212
195
ID.
PACE
11/18
.
15-02
OCT'
14.48 PROM.SNR.NEW YORK.
PTORRE
GROTH
JL'l'.#EN
MKYDD
MO'SUWVAN
PPALAZZO
RScHWEeER
S\M!ISS
DEATON
MBERlINER
GWATERS
CDAlSTON
KSACCHI
KSEARS
ELEVY
ANaSON
MROSe
MSPANO
JBARBERO
JCAMPISI
SAOAMS
AMCGREGOR
SAPR
MASTER
TSfANlEY
MSEMAN
SI...ERNER
DCARTE
JCARTY
183
178
181
159
155
148
120
1:20
115
113
112
109
106
106
105
100
92
91
90
86
85
81
78
73
67
63
59
58
58
LLoPEZ
56
00ENTRY
53
CTAAR
TDORSEY
MPrRANIAN
MROSENFELD
BGREENBAUM
U<OPElKJN
51
48
47
47
46
45
ANEVA1AN
41
MMCLAUGHUN
40
LRUNKEL
JWALDRON
34
SCOVERAGETEMP
ASTAR
TREADER
TKAPINOS
PETE
KVVRIGHT
DRABIEH
MPARKS
JTAYlOR .
MJOHNSON
40
34
32
32
26
26
23
23
22
21
19
ID.
PAGE
12/18

PAGE
GZJMMERMAN
MMUNDO
NORM
JPEPITO
PERSONNELOB
SBERGER
JFORSEY
RNORMAN
KSTYKA
ECULLEY-LACHAPELLE
lOADINGOOCK
LVVHITE
FAXROOM
18
15
15
13
12
9
e
6
'3
2
2
1
"
13/19
. Cr-15-02 14.49 FROH.SNR.NBW YORK
PAGE
UserName
SearchTenn
ABIASST
colored
monkey
negro
SO
spade
monkey
spook
ABLASST
ABLASST
ASLASST
AGASMER
AGASMER
AHSASST
AtiSASST
AHSASST
AHSASST
AHSASST
AMGASST
colored
monkey
negro
spade
uncle tom
monkey
AMGASST
negro
AMGASST
AMSASST
AMSASST
AMSASST
ARCHIVE
ARCHIVE
ARCHIVE
ARCHIVE
spade
colored
monkey
CountOfHits
1
17
1
18
12
1
7
1
2
1 ,
2
5
21
7
26
12
ARCHIVE
spade
colored
coon
rronkey
negro
nlgga
ARCHIVE
ARCHNE
BAAASST
spade
spook
colored
28
BARASST
monkey
BARASST
spade
3
2
monkey
spade
BGDASST
BGDASST
BHBUSAFFTEMP colored
BHBUSAFFTEMP spade
BHHRASST
BHHRASST
BHlVCOORD
BHlVCOORO
BHTVCOORO
BH1VCOORD
colored
monkey
colored
rronl<ey
negro
74
9
1
5
10
1
4
4
1
2
66
1
spade
26
BMPCOASST
BMPCOASST
colored
monkey
2
27
BMPCOASST
BMPCOAS$T
BSOKOL
BSOKOL'
BSOKOL
BSOKOL
spade
22
BSOKOL
BWARDElL
BWAROELL
uncle tom
colored
monkey
.negro
nigger
spade.
colored
monkey
BWARDELL
spade
. CBERMAN
OBERMAN :
colored
spade,
26
20
31
. 1
1
4
1
1
1
24
14/16
p.
OC1',1
6 02 14.49 FROM.SNR.NEW YORK
cEASST
CEASST
ceASST
CJW_LSHASST
CJW_LSHASST
CJW_LSHASST
CNASST
CNASST
CNASST
CSHEA
CSHEA
CSHEA
CSHEA
CSHEA
CWNASST
CWNASST
CWNASST
OASASST2
OASASST2
OASASST2
DASASST2
DASASST2
OGEORGIOUS
DGEORGtOUS
DGEORGIOUS
DGEORGIOUS
OKEKST
DKEKST
OKEKST
OKEKST
OKEKST
OSTRONE2
OSTRONE2
DSTRONE2
OSTRONEl
OSTRONE2
OSTRONE2
DWRIGHT
OWRIGHT
eBROWN
.EBROWN
EBROWN
EBROWN
EHOBSON
EHOBSON.
FWASST
.FWASST
FVVASST
FWASST
FWASST
GAILASST
.. GAILASST .
c:olcred
monkey
uncle tom
colored
monkey
spade
monkey
spade
uncle tom
colored
coon
monkey
negro
spade
colored
monkey
spade
colored
coon
monkey
negro
spade
c::otcred
monkey
nigger
spade
colored
monkey
nigger
spade
spook
eolored
coon
monkey
negro
spade
spooK
colored
monkey
colOred
monkey
PAGE
ID
26
11
12
15
11
negro
nigga
colored
negro
colored
monkey
.negro
. colored
26
,3
.$pOCk
.spade
uncletpm
15/19
JP
,CT-1S-02 14.49 FROM.9NR.NEW YORK
10.
PACE
18/18

. JO-
PACE
MPAGE
MSASST
monkey
monkey
MSASST
MSASST
MSCASST
MSC,ASST
negro
spade
5
13
NOASST
colored
7
2
monkey
17
NOASST
NOASST
NMIASST
NMIASST
NNASST
NNISENHOlTZ
NNISENHOLTZ
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
NOVASST
monkey
spade
spade
colored
monkey
spade
32
2
2
3
2
monkey
spade
colored
32
35
6
monkey
negro
nigga
nigger
spade
Spook
uneletom
6
8
1
8
2
le/ie
Exhibit C

12/1212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-MBils Of ExecUllves &Directors: Reactions I Deadline
BUSINESS
Sony E-Malls Shocker:

Amy Pascal, Scott Rudin
Have Hollywood-Size
Egos! Filmmakers React
Update
by Mike Fleming Jr
December 10, 2014 6:53am
3RD UPDATE: Is Hollywood
trying to circle the wagons over

the baring of stolen e-mails?
Here are three tweets from
prominent directors Phil Lord,
who with partner Chris Miller
directed the 2014 hits 22 Jump
Street and The LEGO
Movie; Looper director Rian
Johnson, who'll helm the next
. two Star Wars films; and the
prolific producer-director Judd
Apatow. All of them have made
movies at Sony and probably
know they might surface in e
mails if this sordid business
, continues. Apatow was among
the many victims whose
personal information was
hacked from Sony's computers.
http://deadline.comI2014112Jsony-hack-amy-pascal-e-mails-1201318234l#comment-list-wrapper
1122

Sony Hacking Reveals E-Malls Of Executives & Directors: Reactions I Deadline
1211212014
philip lord
@philiplord
The Sony hack is terrorism.

Publishing the information aids
terrorists. Sony execs are
victims, and filmmakers. We
should stand with them.
1:57 AM - 10 Dec 2014
Rian Johnson
@rianjohnson
This Sony hack is some vile shit.

My policy: don1t click & note
who1s posting stolen emails it
so I can continue to not click in
the future.
3:51 AM - 10 Dec 2014
Judd Apatow, in response to a

piece by Hitfix's Drew
. McWeeny:
;:" DrewAtHitFix
10 Dec
@DrewAtHitFix
Sony's tortured plans for 'Spider
Man' are just the latest details leaked
in the Sony hacking @HitFix
fw.to/MctpOIE
Judd Apatow
Follow
@JuddApatow
.@DrewAtHitFix @HitFix in life

: we all decide what is right and I
think printing private
infar:mation berallse evil. nennle
2ND
UPDATE, WEDNESDAY
ht!p:lldeadline.comI2014/121sony-hack-amy-pascal-e.mails-1201318234l#comment-list-wrappar
2122

1211212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Mails Of executives &Directors: Reactions I Deadline
AM: So much for restraint. The

Wall Street Journal and
Gawker dished out the hacked
e-mails from Sony film chief
AnlY Pascal. Gawker's dialogue
consisted of exchanges over the
Steve Jobs movie, which Sony
let go and which Universal
picked up. The emails between
studio chief Pascal and
producer Scott Rudin consisted
of harsh words over elements
from casting to directing to
script and featured unflattering
. m ention of everyone from
Angelina J olie to David
Fincher, Tom Cruise, Aaron
. Sorkin and Megan Ellison.
_
66 People Commenting
Eric Rice. 12 hours
I wonder if they were non Jews talking about

Jews the way there talking about the President...
RELATED
Bart & Fleming: Are Ruthless
Journalists Re-Victimizing Hack
Attacked Sony?
WSJ's stolen
document
contribution
involved a
comparatively harmless
http://deadline,comI2014/121sony-hack-amy-pascal-e-mails-120131B234l#comment-list-wrapper
3122

12112/2014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Malls Of Executives & Directors: Reactions I Deadline
discussion about a possible

animated Spider-Man and the
prospect of the webslinger
showing up in Captain America
3 for Disney-owned Marvel. The
. e-mails are certainly dishy, but
it's certainly not news that Sony
lost the Jobs film and that
vigorous finger-pointing
followed.
But guess what? Is there
anyone in the movie business
who hasn't been on the
blistering end of an email rant
one day and a wet kiss the next?
Where's the news? My
colleague Jeremy Gerard and I
have had occasion to hear from
Rudin in the heat of battle and
feel both his sting and his
. praise; this is news? ("He called
me a dick and an asshole in one
memorable line, Gerard recalls,
and brilliant the next day ... ")
So it still feels to me that it's
like seeing someone undressing
through a window. Do you
watch or turn away and does
either action reveal something
about you?
; RELATED
. Sony's Michael Lynton Skeds AII
Hands" Briefing On Hacking Damage
An email was sent to me about

a piece written on this subject
by Eliyahu Fink, the Rabbi at
the Pacific Jewish Center. It
seems like a worthy addition to
ht!p:/Ideadline,comI20141121sony-hack-amy-pascal-e-malls-120131 B234l#com menl-lisl-wrapper
4122

1211212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Mails Of ExecutivBS & Directors: Reactions I Deadline
all the discussion going on in

this unprecedented privacy
invasion that Sony is
experiencing. The Rabbi
focuses not so much on the
hackers as those who engage
with the bared secrets:
"Sony Pictures was attacked

by hackers. Attacked is the
proper word to describe
hacking in this context. The
hackers intended to harm
Sony financially and instill
fear into the hearts of the
studio's executives and
employees...ft is destructive
and a form of terrorism ...
When hackers leak stolen
information, the leak is not
the thing that hurts. The
thing that hurts is the public
imbibing in the leak ... The
leak hurts so much because
far too many voyeurs
gleefully devour the
forbidden fruit. That's on the
voyeurs, not the hackers ...
The rest of us are "in
possession of stolen
property." That's also evil ...
Hacking would be
practically useless if we all
agreed to embargo anything
that is leaked by the hackers.
But we don't do that. Sadly,
there is demandfor hacked
data ... There is only one
moral choice: Gawking is a
curse. Look away... When
hackers release pirated
http://deadline.ccmI2014/121sony-hack-amy-pascal-e-mails-12013182341#ccmment-1ist-wrapper
5122

1211212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Malls Of Executivas & Directors: Reactions I Deadlina
movies, it's on us to go to the

theater and pay to see the
film. When hackers want to
tell us secrets, it's on us to
ignore them. When hackers
leak intimate photos of
celebrities, it's on society to
look the other way... When
we gawk, we ... step across
the moral line and we
become the hackers. Let's
care more about the victims
of hacking than our prurient
curiosity. "
There is
every
possibility
more
documents
will surface
and that this
will get uglier
before it's
over. At least
one person
mentioned in
those e-mails tried to find the
humor, after she was
characterized harshly in emaiIs
never meant for public
consumption. Annapurna's
Megan Ellison tweeted:
"Bipolar 28 year old lunatic.. ? I
always thought of myself more
as eccentric."
RELATED
. Sony's Michael Lynton Skeds HAil
Hands" Briefing On Hacking Damage
http://deadline.canI2014/121sony-hack-amy-pascaJ-e-mails-12013182341#canment-list-wrapper
6122

1211212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Malls Of Executlvas & Directors: Reactions I Deadline
The rabbi's words are likely

small consolation to Pascal,
Michael Lynton, and creatives
like Rudin, whose unvarnished
private opinions were bared as
if they were the Pentagon
Papers or Edward Snowden's
damning revelations. These
people are probably going to
have to nlake uncomfortable
phone calls, even though it's
hard to imagine anyone on the
receiving end of an apology
hasn't likely written many
private e-mails that would
cause pain and regret if made
public.
Subscribe to Deadline Breaking News
Alerts and keep your inbox happy
..,
96
More From Deadline
by Taboola
Amy Pascal Formally Apologizes For Racially

Insensitive E-Mail
Sony Pictures' Million-Dollar Execs Revealed

By Alleged Hacker
Scott Rudin Apologizes After Leak Of Sony's

Hacked Racially Insensitive E-Malls On Barack
Obama
More From The Web
Sponsored links
The Truth About Alternative Sweeteners

National Cancer Institute
hltp:lldeadline.comI2014/121sony-hack-amy-pascal-e-malls-12013182341#comment-list-wrapper
7122

1211212014
Sony Hacking Reveals E-Mails Of executives & Directors: ReacUons I Deadline
Tom Cruise's Jaw-Dropping Admission Is

Scientology's Worst Nightmare
Mamas Latlnas
Bruce Jenner Steps Out With Diamond

Earrings, French Manicure and Ponytail
(PHOTO)
Stirring Daily
Jennifer Lawrence's Beverly Hills Home Is

Beyond Extravagant
LonnyMag
28 Celebs Who Have Severe Illnesses

PressroomVlP
5 Password Tips to Protect Yourself Against

Hackers
Llfelock
96 Comments
Enter your comment here ...
Really on Dec 10, 2014 6:63 am

Omg they're all human after all wow
Reply
Anonymous on Dec 10, 2014 6:63 am

If anything it's insight as to how miserable
these people are. I'm often baffled why so
many successful people in H -wood are so
angry and miserable. These people talk as
if they are deciding the fate of the world...
Get over yourselves. Also, the one time
celebs hear how the people that work with
hltp:lldeadline.comI2014/12Jsony-hack-amy-pascal-e-mails-1201318234l#commenl-lisl-wrapper
BI22
How Long Can

Sony
Remain Silent
In Face25,
Of12/15/2014,
Hacking Attack?
I Deadline
Case
14-4328,
Document
1399972,
Page44 of 152 Page 1 of 13
http://deadline.com/2014112/sony-hack-amy-pascal-scott-rudin-barack-obama-120131983 ... 12/12/2014
How Long Can

Sony
Remain Document
Silent In Face
Of12/15/2014,
Hacking Attack?
I Deadline
Case
14-4328,
25,
1399972,
Page45 of 152
Page 2 of 13
_Mike Fleming: How Long Can Sony Stay
=Silent In Bruta'H_RIt'lg~MI'II1=Uliliade?
! FILM
.:,
W '~OMMENTARV
Ii - CONTROVERSIAL
by Mike fleming Jr
December 11, 2014 5:39.tn
"'I - CORPORATE AFFAIRS

~ - EXECUTIVES
:) -MEDIA
UPDATED Thursday, 5:30 AM, adding more context and information

below.
Related
Sony E-Malls Shocker: Amy Pascal, Scott Rudin

Have Hollywood-Size Egosl
EXCLUSIVE: How long is Sony PieturcR going to silently endure this full-on assault,
in which cyber-terrorists are using media outlets to deliver salvos of hacked private
e-mails to embarrass and sabotage the regime of Amy Pascal and Michael Lynton?
Wednesday night was particularly bad, Tabloid-style reports hit both
trades, focusing on hacked dm:uments about a racially tinged e-mail
exchange between Sony Pictures Entertainment chief Amy Pascal
and producer Scott Rudin. In a lame attempt at humor, they
speculated what films President Baraek Obama might like, as they
discussed an Obama fundraiser held by Jeffrey Katzenberg in 2013. All of the
offerings they came up with were black-themed films.
ttl RECENT COMMENTS

What's Hot on Deadline
Scott Rudin Apologbea Arter Leak Of
Sony's Hacked Raclsny Insensitive...
Golden Globes NomInatlDIIIII 'BIrdman',
'Imitation Game' .. 'Boyhood' Lead
Golden Globes Snub.: Sorry 'Modem
Family', 'Walking Daod' .. 'American
Stephen Fry To Host BAFTA Film Award.

FDI' 10th Time
Amy Pascal Formany Apologbes For
Radany Insensitive E-MaIl
Mike Fleming: How Long Can Sony Stay

SUent In Brutal Hacked E-MaIl Fusillade?
ADO COMMENT
26 People Commenting
Lucia
Jared
Jared
5Gmlna
1 hour
lhour
1 don't like what they

said and I have a big
problem with the
entertainment moguls
Did I miss something

in the article above? I
dirln't see anyone
claiming that a racist
Can't be1ieve ROmeone

actuAlly needs to have
this explained to
them. Why exactly do
Is it possible their track records for quality,

thoughtful films and collaborations with top
talent can be set aside and that Rudin and
Pascal could be tarred and defined by
momentary lapses and poor attempts at
humor that paint them as being racially
insensitive, in e-mails meant to be private?
How long before Sony's unwillingness to hit
back or challenge this onslaught of private
documents - the result of a criminal act
being investigated by the FBI - topples this
regime?
SAG Awards NomlnatlDIIII: 'Birdman' '"

'Boyhood' Lead FUm SIde, HBO .....
http://deadline.comI2014112/sony-hack-amy-pascal-scott-rudin-barack-obama-120131983 ... 12/1212014
How Long Can

Sony
Remain Silent
In Face25,
Of12/15/2014,
Hacking Attack?
I Deadline
Case
14-4328,
Document
1399972,
Page46 of 152 Page 3 of13
RELATED
'SOilII Of AnarallY' FInaIe:.lax Tener Ends
HIli Bloody RIm All Sam Crow Lllllder
Sony i-MalIa Sbockllf': Amy PallcaI,
Scott RudIn Have HoIIywDIMI-Slzeu.
10
KevlnHartFlrstActorlnSonyEmaiI
HIICks To Respond
devastated by the release of the memos and how they were amplified by the trades in
her backyard. How can someone justify or defend private e-mails that can be taken
out of context and served up by hackers specifically to destroy the rep of one of the
most accomplished movie executives of the last 20 years? I don't know, but Jthink
she and Sony had better soon figure out a way to convey they won't sit quietly and be
defined by this nastiness, and they had better do it fast.
Amy Pascal Fonnally

Apologizes For Racially
Insensitive E-Mail
Scott Rudin Apologizes After
J..eak OJ Sony's Hacked
Racially Insensitive ...
Mike F7eming: How Long
Can Sony Stay Silent In
Brutal Hacked E-Mail...
S..' PositiVI! Spin
L~
.
SOllY E-Mails Shocker: Amy

Pascal, Scott Rudill Have
Hollywood-8i:ze Egos...
'Sons QfAllarchy' FllIale;
Jax Teller Ends His Bloody
RunAsSom Crow Leader
MORE
Marketplace
SELMA
BEST DIRECTOR
AVA DUVERNAY
St.VUH-r
fOUln~
ANNUAL
CALL FOR EN fRIES
~.~,
lULI'.H",.
1.1 IA'.,
~-
. ' ' ' : ..
DEADliNE FOR 5urlMI5SIONS JANtJMlY HI,
E-Mails On Barack Obama
1R1lM. tM!1t.'b~Hft\'f 1awl~dW@fltiW ~8WtPi\ght now, even before

E-Mall&nb... a l d t h
.
slice of s aClOusness was serve up as unportant news lD IS ongomg,
. Iatest
this
choreographed campaign against the studio. I've heard tonight that Pascal is
More From Fleming Jr
Pcahodv Awards
Scott Rudin Apologizes After Leak Of Sony's Hacked
~01b
LA
000
Featured Jobs
Assistant Professor, Film
University of Central Florida, Orfando, Florida
People in town are wondering how long Pascal and the studio can, under the guise of
not dignifying the damage caused by these stolen documents, continue to weather an
unprecedented media assault without saying anything? Tonight's stories followed
earlier reports about e-mails from Screen Gems president Clint Culpepper about trrA
agent Jeremy Zimmer's ask for extra money beyond his $3 million paycheck if client
Kevill Hart was going to tap his vast social media following to promote a film. In the
missives, Culpepper writes, "I'm not saying he's a whore, but he's a whore."
Now, Culpepper's salty wit is something he wears on his sleeve, and I understand he
and Hart spoke and laughed it off. The relationship they have isn't retlec:ted in the
leaked reports, and so the report, especially when taken out of context, seems like a
vitally important revelation. Guess wbat? It isn't. The fact is, it's not uncommon for
them to talk to each other like that, or for Culpepper to talk to most people in
Hollywood like that. Hart, a core reason for Screen Gems' success, isn't going
anywhere, from what I'm reliably told.
The Pascal-Rudin exchange included a testy string
ofemails where the two go at it over twists and
turns in the Rudin-produced Steve Jobs movie that
eventually moved from Sony to Universal, with
Danny Boyle directing Michael Fassbender as the
Apple visionary. Tonight's Obama dispatch is
wince-worthy and seems difficult to defend. It was
also a private conversation that should never have
been made public. They're not elected officials
determining policy - the banter reflects nothing
more than sophomoric humor regarding someone
to whom they have provided massive and enduring support. Where's the scandal?
Sony to this point hasn't defended itself at all, even when it was clear tbese e-mails
were going to be served up by computer backers who've used selected jOUJ1lalistic
outlets to do its dirty work in carrying out each successive strike. It's hard to blame
any media outlet for not questioning the higher purpose of taking dishy, salacious
documents and playing them for all they're worth, even if they are covering old
ground. Most of the document reveals have come from muckraking websites, but
even the Wall Street Journal got into the act this week, divulging how Sony hied to
better exploit Sony's Spider-Man brand, culled from the stolen e-mails.
You wonder if WS.fs willingness to build marginally interesting stories out ofbacked
data is related to Sony signing on to make George Clooney's adaptation of the Nick
Davies expose HackAttack, which vilifies the phone-tapping scandal at Rupert
Murdoch's tabloids (Murdoch owns WSJ). No matter tbe reason, the result of all this
has been a shock and awe-caliber assault on a Sony regime that was coming to the
end of a rough year filled with restructuring and layoffs.
http://deadline.comJ2014/12/sony-hack-amy-pascal-scott-rudin-barack-obama-120131983... 12112/2014
How Long Can

Sony
Remain Document
Silent In Face
Of12/15/2014,
Hacking Attack?
I Deadline
Case
14-4328,
25,
1399972,
Page47 of 152
Professor of the Business of Media

John Paul the Great CllthoUc University,
::!!!o~dldo,
California
_Iness Affairs Executive

MRC, Beverly Hills, Callfomla
Department Head, Cinema lie Television
Drexel University. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Director, Marketing
Entertainment One, Los Angeles, California
Page 4 of 13
The heat won't let up anytime soon as the studio prepares for Thursday's LA premiere
ofthe Seth Rogen..James Franco comedy The Intel'View, the comedy about the
lftjMpt,..e~~ldll.tY~!IlImt~mJong Un.
Deadlin~'~~~'Robb reported today that Sony has bolstered security and TMZ
reported that the studio won't offer up Rogen and Franco to the media.
RELATED
Sony Beefs Up Security Ahead Of 'The Interview'

Premiere
SEE MORE J08S
Whether anybody speaks or not,

the press viewing the movie will
be buzzing and surely writing
about how the film ends. North
Korea has been speculated as
being complicit ill the hacking of
Sony on November 24. If that is
true, the movie's ending won't help Sony. Widespread buxz is that things don't end
well for the North Korean leader in the film - I've confirmed that Sony has toned
down an ending different from the one audiences will see tonight, for the version of
the film that will be seen in theaters overseas - but neither finale is flattering to Kim.
This back and forth over the film's ending surfaced, naturally, in yet another set of
stolen e-mail correspondence with Sony CEO Ka2uo Hirai.
RELATED
Geopolitics & 'The Interview': No Asian Release
The list of awful things that have happened to Sony because of this
breach - upcoming movies were leaked to the web, along with personal data and
Social Security numbers of employees - will potentially create financial damage and
lawsuits for Sony that will be felt for years to come. All because hackers, possibly with
the assistance of inside help, found a way in through the back door to wreak
unprecedented havoc that includes the Hollywood creative community wondering if
their data and private conversations will be secure if they do business with the studio.
I imagine that if Sony's production team had it back, they would either have insisted
that the North Korean leader be fictionalized in The Intel'view or they would have
passed on making the film. The comedy wouldn't be more or less funny with a
caricature instead of the standing leader of a nuclear-capable country. I bet they wish
they'd never made the film.
But is this the time for such second-guessing and hand-wringing? Studios allover
town are watching every development in what is turning out to be the biggest film
story of 2014. They are relieved it isn't their e-mails being made public, and you'd
better believe they're reviewing their IT systems to batten the hatches against
breaches. Sony is re-building its security systems from the ground up.
RELATED
"Sophisticated" Sony Attack Would Have Penetrated

Most Companies. FBI Tells Congress
However, Sony executives like Pascal, Lynton and others need to decide whether they
are going to continue to absorb these attacks silently in hopes they subside (they
won't), or find a way to speak up and make it clear they will not be defined by (.-yber
terrorists (they should). It's clear tbat restraint is out the window, and that each and
every breach will be served up to fuel news reports that will be reported as important
developments, and set the conversation in Hollywood and the media every day.
http://deadline,com/20 14/12/sony-hack-amy-pascal-scott-rudin-barack-obama-120131983... 12112/2014
How Long Can

Sony
Remain Silent
In Face25,
OfHacking
Attack?
I Deadline
Case
14-4328,
Document
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page48 of 152 Page 5 of 13
==
Sony sat silently several years ago while its worthy film Zero Dark Thirty was
pummeled by politicians for the depiction oftorture scenes in the hunt for Bin Laden.
'lRI.t;:M tlMlm'e~l8taibg&~ 8tl!.y!fjilllUt tD8'*tdbclt8.ll't help its movie's
Oscar c*ii~~II"fJ~'!litting silent. The stakes are much higher here and it is possible this
isn't just Sony's problem, Any studio in town could be going through the same thing
rlghtnow.
Subscribe to Deadline .Breaking News Alerts and keep YDW' inbDx happy
. . 73
More From DeadlIne
by Taboola
Amy Pascal Formally ApaIogI_ For Raddy InMt'IlIItIve E-IIIIII
Another Hacker Scare For Sony - Update
Sony Beefs Up 8ecurtty Ahead Of 'The interview' PremIere
More From The Web
Sp"""",,,d Unka
A Beloved Rebel: The Leathtit' Jacket

TheUne
16 Jokes We TOTALLY Missed In Beloved Films From OUr Youth

RefineFY29
You" Never Guess Who's Relld:ed tD Abraham Lincoln

Ancestry
41b1np You Should Never Buy at Trader Joe',

Revlewed.com
12 Great Movlea We Juat DoIlt Ever Want tDSee AgaIn

MovlCMtfm
10Things No One Ever Told You That Happened on the Pulp FIotIon Set
RontMovie$
http://deadline.com/2014/12/sony-hack-amy-pascal-scott-rudin-barack-obama-120131983 ... 12/12/2014
Exhibit D
- Electronic
Discovery I Please
Info on 1998-1999
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
in Rowe
CaseGmail
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page50
of 152
1211512014
Alkebulan X <humanrlghts.areamust@gmall.com>
Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 19981999 WMA Backup Tapes

Searched in Rowe
M.Washington <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>
To: humanrights.areamust@gmail.com
Sat, Jul27, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Michael,
Since the stay for discovery has not been granted as ofyet, I am sending you this e-mail to obtain preliminary information on the
1998-1999 WMA backup tapes that were searched in Rowe by Electronic Evidence Discovery in or around September 2002.
These preliminary questions below have been asked by various electronic evidence companies that are looking to create quotes
that I will then submit to Arbitrator Gregory for consideration. I believe that all ofthe retrieved e-mails should be delivered to
me first by a company ofmy choosing, and will I request that William Morris and its counsel be responsible for paying all costs
associated with retrieving this spoliated evidence and additional documents. Also, I will argue that I should be allowed to
conduct electronic discovery pertaining to my individual causes of action, and will seek to have the arbitrator grant discovery
on the backup tapes of William Morris in or around the time I was employed as well.
What type of tapes? (eg LTO-I, LTO-2, LTO-3 ... )
What are the size ofeach tape?
What back up software and what version?
Is any encryption software being used?
How many tapes?
What type ofdata is on the tapes?
Exchange (PST's)?
Lotus Notes (NSF)?
Groupwise (not as common)?
Do you have a projection of the total data volume or the percent ofthe tape that was used?
How many tapes per tape set?
How many back up sessions are involved? Or what type ofbackup will be on the tapes? (i.e monthly/weeldy/daUy/yearly)
Will the client be able to send in the tapes?
If I have anymore questions. I will send them your way. In the meantime. please forward these questions to William Morris' IT
department for answers. I am hoping to receive a response no later than Wednesday, July 31,2013.
https:llmail.google.com/mail/U/0I?ui=2&ik=0age2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2OZWeig&qs=true&search=query&msg=140211c7cdb2637...
1/3
1211512014
- Electrooic
Discovery I Please
Info 00 1998-1999
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
in Rcme
CaseGmail
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page51
of 152
Also, I need to know the date you andlor Loeb & Loeb LLP issued a litigation hold on William Morris and its employees? I first
asked for this infonnation on November 27, 2012 (see e-mail below) and you never provided an answer.
Best,
Marcus Washington
CONFIDENTIALITY NOnCE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may
contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for
delivering it to the intended reCipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission
in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
saving in any manner. Thank you.
From: M.Washington [mailto: humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 10:42 AM

To: mzweig@loeb.com; ccarbone@loeb.com
SUbject: Litigation Hold
Michael,
After reading Judge Patterson's November 8, 2012 decision concerning Leonard Rowe's FRCP 60 Motion, it cannot be
disputed that William Morris and their counsel had and should still have in their possession the actual e-maiJs that were
to accompany "Exhibit 31" (the e-mail search summary results discovered in July 2002 which shows your client and
executives from CAA referring to African Americans as "nigger," "nigga," "coon," "monkey," "Uncle Tom" and
other racially derogatory terms hundreds of times) - although you and other officers involved in that case have been
semi-successful in fraudulently conceaJing this "smoking gun evidence" from the Plaintiffs and the Court over the last
decade.
You have been aware that I've had "Exhibit 31" in my possession for the last five months. Since I first presented this
haunting evidence to the Second Circuit on June 6,2012, you have chosen to remain silent and/orreferred to a
deceptively written judicial opinion produced through "fraud upon the Court" because this supports my contentions
that this cabal has maintained its discriminatory and anticompetitive employment practices with malice andlor reckless
indifference to the federally protected rights ofqualified African Americans and people ofcolor for more than a century
to maintain its monopolistic control over Hollywood and the marketplace ofideas. As evident by the New York's
inexorable zero in positions ofAgent, Coordinator and Agent Trainee before I began working at the company on
September 2, 2008, this further demonstrates that the company has intentionally frozen a work culture embedded in
https:llmail.googIe.com/mait/ulOl?ui=2&ik=0age2eOdee&view=pI&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%20zweig&qs=true&saarch=query&msg=140211c7cdb2637...
213
1211512014
- Electronic
Discovery I Please
Info on 1998-1999WMA
Backup
Tapes Searched
in Rowe
CaseGmail
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page52
of 152
racism. Not only have you have also remained silent to this direct evidence, you also ignore the historical and statistical
evidence demonstrating "pattern and practice" or systemic disparate treatment against African Americans and provides
the context in which to fully understand my claims ofpre and post-hiring discrimination, failure to promote, retaliation,
aiding and abetting and violation offederal and state antitrust law. No business justification orprocompetitive reason is
provided as well. This is not accidental. You used this same strategy ofremaining silent when Leonard filed his PRep
60 Motion and although colluding with judges and otherunlawfu] tactics have worked extremely welHoryou in the
past, those days are now numbered. When it's all said and done, the truth will not be silenced.
The newly discovered details from Patterson's order additionally support my previous allegations (and the claims first
raised by Leonard Rowe) that you and your law finn are engaging in a "pattern" of serious unethical and criminal
conduct on behalfof William Morris including conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, racketeering and fraud to name a
few in a desperate attempt to prevent these two landmark civil and human rights cases from being heard and decided by
an impartial jury. Now that I've had a few days to become knowledgeable about electronic discovery, I have serious
concerns that spoliation ofevidence may have already occurred in my case as well. In light ofthese circumstances, I will
file a motion in the next two weeks requesting that these electronic documents (as well as other documents intentionally
withheld and relevant to the merits ofmy case) be produced. Ifnot, no genuine issues will exist in this case and default
judgment should be granted in my favor. In the meantime, I am seeking a copy ofthe document retention notice sent to
William Moms and the identities ofall employees that received this notice. Ifthe actual notice is not produced, I need to
know the date the litigation hold came into effect and the names ofall employees that received this notice. Please be
advised that additional infonnation may be requested at a later date.
Best,
Marcus Washington
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
https:llmail.google.com/mail/u/Ol?ui=2&ik=Oage2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&msg=140211c7cdb2637...
3/3
12/15J2014
Electronic
Discovery I Please
Info 0I11998-1999WMA
Backup
Tapes Searched
in ROOfa
CaseGmail
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page53
of 152
G~ail"
~COO8r('
Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 1998-1999 WMA Backup Tapes

Searched in Rowe
Michael Barnett <mbamett@loeb.com>
To: FRCHoldContact <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Zweig <mzweig@loeb.com>, Christian Carbone <ccarbone@loeb.com>
Fri, Sep 27,2013 at 1:41 PM
Dear Mr. Washington:
Your e-mail to Michael Zweig (below) has been referred to me for a response. We are in the process of putting
together a discovery protocol and protective order, per the Arbitrators Third Interim Decision, and intend to follow
the timeline set forth in his Decision.
Thank you,
Michael Barnett
From: M.Washington [mailto:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27,20131:05 PM
To: Michael ZWeig
SUbject: Re: Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 1998-1999 WMA Backup Tapes Searched in Rowe
Michael,
I just want to know in advance if you expect to submit the answers to the questions below to me by the end ofthe day'? Two
months have elapsed since 1 initially e-mailedthese questions and I have been more than patient with you, so ifnot, I will have
no choice but to bring this to the attention ofthe Arbitrator and ask tor discovery sanctions tor your contumacious behavior.
Best,
Marcus
https:llmail.googla.com/mailiulOnui=2&ik=0a9a2eOdae&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=trua&search=query&msg=1416082dc890b36...
1/1
1211512014
- Electronic
Discovery I Please
Info on 1998-1999
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
in Rowe
CaseGmail
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page54
of 152

Searched in Rowe
M.Washington <humanrights .areamust@gmail.com>
To: Michael Barnett <mbamett@loeb.com>, mzweig@loeb.com
Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:04
PM
No Michael Barnett, you are inconect.
Since you were not involved in this case when Arbitrator GregOl)' issued his second Interim Decision, I must remind you that he
stated: "As to Exhibit [31] and any and all potentially forthcoming proferred evidence, I continue my ApI;1 18,2013 First
Interim Decision Order in fUll force and effect. Each party has the continuing duty of facilitating discovcl)'. Pursuant to New
York law, discovery requests, and the statutory law against unlawful employment discrimination, shall be liberally conshued."
[pg. 13.] rn his third 1nterim Decision issued, after admitting "Exhibit 31" "into the evidence of record," he stated, "1 ORDER
that Respondent WME cooperate with the e-discovet), expett of Claimant's choice to facilitate access to and be petmitted to
retrieve the emails contained on WME's ]998-1999 backup tapes." [pg.2.]
He never asked for the Respondents to put together a discovel), protocol, although he did state that you could submit "a proposed
protective order regarding any such emai Is that may be obtained by Claimant's expert." [pg.2] I cannot obtain quotes from e
discovery companies until these preliminary questions are answered. By refusing to have William Morris' IT department
answer these vel)' basic questions, you are preventing me from submitting by October 7, 2013 "an itemized list oftlIe projected
reasonable costs associated with this retrieval" due to the fact that these e-discovery companies cannot provide me a quote
until they have more information about Wi1Jiam Morris' 1998-1999 back up tapes.
If these questions are not answered by the end of the day, I win have no choice but to address this issue with the Arbitrator on
Monday.
Best,
Marcus
https:llmail.google.com/mail/u/Onui=2&ik=Oage2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&msg=14160cf44525056...
1/2
1211512014
- Electronic
Discovery I Please
Info on 1998-1999
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
in Ravve
CaseGmaH
14-4328,
Document
25,Provide
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page55
of 152
-----------------------_.._----_._-
From: Michael Barnett [mailto:mbarnett@loeb.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 1:41 PM

To: FRCHoldContact
Cc: Michael ZWeig; Christian Carbone
Subject: Re: Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 1998-1999 WMA Backup Tapes Searched in Rowe
Dear Mr. Washington:
Your e-mail to Michael Zweig (below) has been referred to me for a response. We are in the process of putting
together a discovery protocol and protective order, per the Arbitrator's Third Interim Decision, and intend to follow
the timeline set forth in his Decision.
Thank you,
Michael Barnett
From: M.Washington [mailto:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27,2013 1:05 PM

To: Michael Zweig
Subject: Re: Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 1998-1999 WMA Backup Tapes Searched in Rowe
Michael,
Ijust want to know in advance if you expect to submit the answers to the questions below to me by the end ofthe day? Two
months have elapsed since I initially e-mailedthese questions andThavebeenmore than patient with you, soifnot,Twill have
no choice but to bring this to the attention of the Arbitrator and ask for discoveJY sanctions for yow' contumacious behavior.
Best,
Marcus
https:llmail.google.com/mail/u/Onui=2&ik=Oage2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&msg=14160cf44525056...
212
1211512014
I '
Gmail - Electronic
Discovery I Please
Provide Info on 1998-1999
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
Case 14-4328,
Document
25, 12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page56
of 152in Rowe
Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 19981999 WMA Backup Tapes

Searched in Rowe
Michael Barnett <mbamett@loeb.com>
To: FRCHoldContact <humanrights.areamust@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Zweig <mzweig@loeb.com>
Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 5:38 PM
Mr. Washington,
Please be advised that we are still in the process of consulting with our client as to what electronic data in the
form of e-mails still exists from 1998-1999. We will advise you and the Arbitrator of our findings in accordance
with the deadlines that the Arbitrator has set.
Sincerely,
Michael
From: M.Washington [mailtD:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]
To: Michael Barnett; Michael Zweig
SUbject: RE: Electronic Discovery I Please Provide Info on 1998-1999 WMA Backup Tapes Searched in Rowe
[Quoted text hidden]
https:llmail,google,com/mail/u/onui=2&ik=0age2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUM ENTS%20Zweig&qs=true&search=query&msg= 141615b79142645.. ,
1/1
1211512014
Gmail - Electronic
Discovery I Please
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
Case 14-4328,
Document
25, 12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page57
of 152in Rowe

Searched in Rowe
M.Washi ngton < humanrights .areamust@gmail.com>
To: Michael Barnett <mbamett@loeb.com>
Cc: Michael Zweig <mzweig@loeb.com>
Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 4:37 AM
Michael P. Zweig & Michael Barnett,
I am not asking for William Morris or Loeb & Loeb LLP to tell me what "electronic data in thc form of e-mai Is still exists from
1998-1999." The elcctronic discovcry expert of my choice will answer that question for me once William Morris produces the
back up tapes and pays for the search pursuant to Arbitrator Gregory's second and third Interim Decisions. Even ifT did T need to
know that informatiol1, it doesn't take two months for William Morris' TT department to answer that question. For months, Twas
assigned to work in the IT department at William Morris' New York office ("dead-end assignments"), so I know that the
employees in that department have a considerable amount of downtime and are more than capable of providing answers to these
questions because the company backs up its files every day. The answers to the preliminary questions I am asking William
Moms' IT department to answer are the same types of answers William Morris had to provide to Sonnenschein Nath &
Rosenthal LLP ("SNR") (now known as Dentons LLP) and Electronic Evidence Discovery ("EED") when the class of black
concert promoters paid $200,000.00 to have EED conduct this search on their behalf. When Judge Francis denied Loeb & Loeb
LLP's request for a protective order and compelled William MOlns and eAA to produce the e-mails in Rowe, William Morris'
IT department had to answer similar questions raised by SNR and EED. Therefore, Loeb &. Loeb LLP and William Morris's IT
department should havc no problems answering the same types of questions that are being asked by my prospective electronic
discovery experts so I can receive quotes.
After months of asking both partics was "Exhibit 31" authentic, Arbitrator David L. Gregory has now admitted "Exhibit 31"
into the evidence of record. [September 25,2013 illterim Decision, 2.] IfSNR was unsuccessful in concealing "Exhibit 31" from
the class of black concert promoters because Leonard Rowe miraculously discovered it on the desk of Raymond Heslin after
being told no derogatory telIDS were found immediately after EED's search and attorneys from Loeb & Loeb LLP, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges and other officers of the court including Judge Patterson were successful in making sure the underlying e
mails to the search result list - a document which shows executives referring to African Americans as "nigger," "nigga,"
"coon," "monkey" and other racially derogatory tenns - never saw the light of day, then it's without question that Michael P.
Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and Will.iam Morris know where the back up tapes are today or what happened to them if they no
longer exist. Since Arbitrator Gregory has compelled William Monis and Loeb & Loeb LLP to produce spoliated evidence, this
means that at no time after EED's search should the back up tapes been destroyed. So Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and
William Morris: If the e-mails contained on the back up tapes that need to be produced or back up tapes themselves been
deleted, destroyed, and/or tampered with in any way, shape or form after EED's search in or around September 2002, now is the
time to be honest wi th yourselves and admi t the truth to the Arbi trator and mysel f.
I must also state for the record that William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP have also failed to comply with my requests for
production of docwnents, which includes the actual e-mails Loeb & Loeb LLP received from EED pursuant to Arbitrator
Gregory's July] 5, 2013 Interim Decision, the compact discs (CDs) that Loeb & Loeb LLP had EED send to SNR containing all
of the e-mails minus the ones Loeb & Loeb LLP deleted as privileged in violation of Magi strate Judge Francis' protocol and the
privilege & responsive logs that were sent to SNR from Loeb & Loeb LLP. This will immediately prove whether or not the five
music Agents that were supposed to have been searched were actually searched and will possibly be further proof that "fmud
upon the court" did in fact happen in Rowe and by default, is happening in this litigation due to Michael P. Zweig and Loeb &
Loeb LLP's involvement in this case. I now ask that these documents and other tangible evidence be produced to me no later
https:llmail.google.com/mail/ulOl?ui=2&ik=Qage2eOdee&view=pt&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&msg=14163b740b7beb4...
1/2
1211512014
- Electronic
Discovery I Please
WMA Backup
Tapes Searched
Case Gmail
14-4328,
Document
25, 12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page58
of 152in Rowe
. than October 4, 2013. If not, I will have no choice but to conclude that this evidence was also destroyed as part of this sinister
conspiracy which has aIJowed Will iam Morris the ability to intentionally maintain its unlawful discriminatory and
anticompetitive practices, policies and procedures in violation of Section 1981 ofthc Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.c. 1981
("Section 1981"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.c. 2000c to 2000e-17 ("Title VIr"), the New
York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq. (the "NYSHRL"), the New York City Human Rights
Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 et. seq. (the "NYCHRL"), the Shelman Act, 15 U.S.c. 1 et seq, Donnelly Act,
Gelleral Business Law 340 et seq and Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.c. 1985(3). Should you decide to remain
noncompliant, I will ask the Arbitrator for an oral healing to discuss these matters under oath and additionally seek discovery
sanctions for your discovelY abuses and contwnacious behavior which has harmfully delayed this landmark hwnan rights and
antitrust case from being adjudicated in a timely fashion.
Best,
Marcus
CONFIDENTIALIlY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may
From: Michael Barnett [mailto:mbarnett@loeb.com]

To: FRCHoldContact
Cc: Michael Zweig
https:llmail.google.com/mailiu/0I?ui=2&ik=0age2eOdee&view=pI&q=COMPEL%20DOCUM ENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&msg= 14163b740b7beb4...
212
I.
Exhibit E
Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Agency (September 9, 2008).
Total: 52
White: 51, 98.1%
African American: 0,0%
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Asians: 1, 1.9%
Total: 10
White: 10, 100%
African American: 0, 0%
Coordinator
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Asian:O,O%
Total: 56
White: 46, 82.1%
Assistant/Floater
African American: 5, 8.9%

Hispanic: 2,3.6%
Asian: 2, 3.6%
Indian: 1, 1.8%
Total: 56
White: 51, 91.1%
Hispanic: 1, 1.8%
Asian: 3, 5.3%
Agent Trainee
Support Staff (HR, accounting, reception, IT, special services, etc.)

Total: 11
White: 2, 18.2%
Hispanic: 5,45.4%
Asian: 0, 0%
Total:!1
White: 19,61.3%
African American: B, 25.8%
Hispanic: 3, 9.71J6
Asian: 1, 3.2%
Mailroom Staff
-Double counting occurs at the Agent Trainee, Assistant/Floater and Coordinator levels.
In the dassic "glass cetltng" pattern of occupational segregation, African Americans and other minorities are restricted and disproportionately clustered Into the lowest levels of
responsibility, authority and Influence within the organization.
Racial Demographic Breakdown at the NYC office of William Morris Endeavor Ent. (April 10, 2010).
Total: 50
White: 49, 98%
Hispanic: 0,0%
Asian: 1, 2%
Tota!:S
White: 8, 100%
Hispanic: 0, 0%
Coordinator
Asian: 0,0%
Total: 65
Assistant/Floater
White: 58, 89.2%

Total: 30
White: 26, 86.7%
Hispanic: 1, 3.3%
Asian: 1, 3.3%
Hispanic: 2, 3.1%
Asian: 2, 3.1%
Agent Trainee
Support Staff (HR, accounting, reception, IT, special services, etc.)
Total: 23
White: 13,56.5%
Total: 7
White: 2,28.6%
Hispanic: 2,8.7%
Asian: 1,4.3%

Hispanic: 3, 42.8%
Asian: 0,0%
Mailroom Staff
The statistical disparities reflected within these charts, as well throughout the entire history of William Morris' existence, are suffidently substantial In that they show a 'pattern and
practice' of unlawful and Intentional discrimination for the purpose to exdude applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership In a protected group.
After filing a discrimination complaint with the EEOC In June, William Morris hired five African American (and other minorities) floaters In July 2010. This Is neither colnddence nor a
panacea for a century long history of Institutional radsm and discriminatory practices.
I .
Exhibit F
NonCE OF APPEARANCE FOR SUBSTITUTE, ADOmONAL, OR AMICUS COUNSEL

Short TIde: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment. et al.
Docket No.: 14-4328-Clv
Substitute. Additional, or AmiCD! Counsel's Contact Information is u follows.
Name: Michael
P. Zweig
Firm! Loeb & Loeb LLP
Address: 345
Telephone:
E-mail:
Park Avenue, New York. New York 10154
(212) 407-4000
Fax: (212) 407-4990
~~-----------------------
mzweig@loeb.com
Appearance for: Appellees William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC. Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski
(party/designation)
~ectOne:
USuhstltute counsel (replacing lead counsel:_-.,..._ _-:-_""":'::_:--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.J

(namP/finn)
DSubstltute counsel {replating other counsel:,_ _ _ _ _ _ _~_-----------------i
(namp/firm)
[l}Additlonal counsel (co-counsel with: Christian
D. Carbone, Loeb & Loeb LLP

(namtlftrm)
c=JAmi~Onsupporto~____________________ ~-----------------------------------------J)
(party/designation)
CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
I"~ am admitted to practice in this Coun: and. if requlred by Interim Local Rule 46.1(a)(2). have renewed
my admission on __________________________________________________ OR
applied for admission on __________________________________________'
Signature of Counsel! lsi Michael P. Zweig
Type or Print Name: Michael P. lwelg
wan.
For rk ...,cord. J
it to b<: known th.r sin.. the inc"f'tion of this cas. Attornoy Mich""J P. Zweig of Loeb &. L""b UP h... always bttn me Iud AlTctnoy for this ease. When 1 attempted to
appeal tilt July 2U, 201 I Sray Order of P. K..~n Cand which <TToneously comp<:lkd this case into arbimu:ian. Zweig n.,"'" submitted. &igned Narke of Appearance to the Seeon4 Circuit and
in.U:3d. decei.ed mt Cowt and d,e public by pmending m~r Loeb &. Loeb LLP anor"e), Christian D. Carbone ..:u d,e only .ttomoy on the ~cord in d~ case. Based on me pyrnmid of mdence
\,"cov~.d throughouf Thi. nearly four year litigation. it is now wid,out dispute that Loeb &1. Loeb LLP, Zweig. Carbone nor allY odlCt anon,ty !Tom Locb &. Locb LLP shOllld ha". been allowed
to repl'tStnt Willian, Morris in mis case b.utd on the egnginus "fraud upon the Cnutt" d,at was enmmimd in a prinr facial discrimination and antitrusr ase - Rnwe Enten:ainment ,,, Willi...n
Morris Agooey ef. 31. (98 (;IV. 8272) (&D.N.Y.). Their "pattern" of "fraud upon he r.oun:~ ;$ funher confirmed by [hr. fu(l: that nine months ago. 1 learned that r.arbonr was and pD.:l.:libly still
is muried to an "".cun". [Sasha Ang.lique. Carbon.] employed at tht American AcbitA"acion As$ociation - d,e wn. quasi, judicial forum ch.n I argued \\'as an in.tPPNpri~t. fonu.. to ....01.....
landmark employmenl dis,rimination, anorrust and human ri!l"" tase, as bom macr..:r of bw and public policy. At no cim~ throughout this litigation did Carbone disclose du, iniorrnatioro to
myself. the Southern District of New Yorl< or the ,xC!lnd Cir<:uit and in the Appc:Uees ' Deamber 4. 2014 Opposition Motion, Loeb & Loeb LLP again mnains silmt about these issues, while
simultaneously arguing dw: my claims of fraud are "frivoloU5" and th.u: 1 am engaging in "bad faim." Loeb &. Loeb LLP attOrney Michael Barnett did not submit a Noti~. of Ap('lW'U'c. and he
should since h. has also been unjustly .nrichr:J from this conspiracy to depri\'e me of my constitutional and swurory rights und ... the color of law. Th. Second Grewt muft hold this law linn
and its aaomey_ .ccownable for engaging ill "highly u"rclucal .,d C'l'imillaJ couduct" on William Mom.' behalf.l am.,o long... going to go tI
th cI!..anfle ,wi, a law finn that should
have "ever been involved in this case.
Datt: Delllbec i, 2014
.....'
mu
..
_--_._-------.._._--
Exhibit G
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION
-------------------------------------------------------- X
MARCUS I. WASHINGTON,
Claimant,
-againstWILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, formerly known as
the WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC.,
JEFFREY MEADE and SARAH
WINIARSKI,
AAA Case No. ]3 1600142612
Respondents.
-------------------------------------------------------- X
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL P. ZWEIG IN SUPPORT OF AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST CLAIMANT MARCUS WASIDNGTON
MICHAEL P. ZWEIG, an attorney admitted to practice law in the Courts of the State of
New York, declares the following under penalty ofperjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746:
1.
I am a partner in the law firm of Loeb & Loeb LLP ("Loeb"), attorneys for
Respondents William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC ("WME"), Jeffrey Meade and Sarah
Van Hoven (formerly Winiarski). I am fully familiar with the facts discussed in this declaration.
2.
By Order dated April 18, 2014, Arbitrator Lewis found Claimant Marcus
Washington to have repeatedly violated the Arbitrator's previously issued Confidentiality Order
and that Washington's "bad faith conduct" had caused "needless expense and delay." 4118114
Order on Sanctions at 9-10. Arbitrator Lewis sanctioned Washington by assessing against him
two-thirds ofWME's fees and costs incurred in this matter from February 21, 2014, the date of
Arbitrator Lewis's appointment, through the date of the Apri118 Sanctions Order.
I .
3.
In accordance with the Sanctions Order, I respectfully submit this Declaration in
support of an award of attorneys' fees, by which WME accounts for and seeks the fees
reasonably incurred in this matter between February 21, 2014 and March 31, 2014. While the
April 18 Order permits WME to seek its fees and costs through April 18, WME applies herein
only for an award of two-thirds offees for the period from February 21 to March 31. WME
seeks an award ofS43,707.60.
4.
The hourly rates and hours of Loeb attorneys and paralegals who have worked on
this matter, as charged to WME, are listed below. The rates identified below are reasonable in
light of the experience level, and backgrounds of the attorneys and paralegals assigned to
represent WME in this matter. I
5.
I am the attorney with overall responsibility for this matter. I am a partner in
Loeb's New York office and have over 35 years oflitigation experience. Christian Carbone is
also a partner in Loeb's New York office and has more than 15 years of litigation experience.
Michael Barnett is an associate in Loeb's New York office and has three and a half years of
I
As Washington has demonstrated repeatedly his intention and willingness to violate the
Confidentiality Order - and the confidentiality of this arbitration - at every turn, we have not
attached Loeb's underlying invoices to this declaration. The content of this declaration is an
accurate summary of those invoices. We will, however, provide these invoices to the Arbitrator,
upon his request, for in camera review.
litigation experience. Timothy Cummins is a paralegal and the managing clerk in Loeb's New
York office. Antoinette Pepper is a senior paralegal in Loeb's New York office.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, 1declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on the 8th day of May, 2014.
I.
Exhibit H

Qualifications of Myself & Similarly Situated WhiteJ"Jewisb" Agent Trainees That Began Working At tbe New York office of William Morris in September 2008.
work experience !IS a

music journalist for
Ego MiamilSix
Degrees, publicist for
Marcus Isaiah
Washington
ale. can,
Afri canmAmeri
September 2, 2008
Music
September 21, 1984

(23, going on 24
years old later that
month.)
Orlando and
Miami, FL
Bachelor's in Media
Management and
Psychology in May 2006
and Master's in Music
Business and
Entertainment Industries in
May 2008, both flum the
Univel1iity of Miami.
music producer
Danjahandz (Justin
Timberlake, Nelly
Furtado, Keri Hilson),
two yeal1i CO-lIllUlaging
and establishing the
career of J Records'
recording artist
Jazmine Sullivan, and
GRAMMYU
Student Rep. for
Florida Chapter ofThe
Constructively
discharged in April
2010 after rai~ipg
complaints ofFacial
discrimination to I!Pper
management and
Human Resourcc;s with
no action being taken
by organization.
BIacldisted for blowing
",ilistle on cabal's
unlawfully
discriminatory
practices. UneDlPloyed
for nearly three years.
Agent Trainee
No. I (JDF)
Agent Trainee
No. 2 (LD)
Agent Trainee
No.3 (MG)
Whitel"Jewish,"
male.
White, female.
White/"Jewish, "
male.
September 2, 2008
September 2, 2008
Music
Theater
I Long
Island, NY
Boston, MA
Tn oramund
September 22,
2008.
Music
New Paltz, NY
July 23, 1985

(23 years old)
Bachelor's in May 2007.

College unknown.
No experience to my
knowledge. At most,
online
journalistlblogger.
Applied and was
rejected for an
Assistant position for
Carn Lewis befure
applying to Agent
Trainee Program,
Failed test the first
time.
September 25, 1986

(21, going on 22
years old later that
month.)
Bachelor's in
Production/Stage
Management flum
Emel1ion College in May
2008. Referred by furmer
co-COO ofNew York
Kabak.
Production Intern at
The Public Theater in
May to September
2006.
June 4, 1988
(20 years old)
Bachelor's in Music
Business and Spanish flum
SUNY Oneonta in May
2008.
No experience.
Voluntarily left the

company to pursue
other career ampitions
sometime in 2009. Now
an online journalist.
Former Assistant
throughout Theater
Department. Now
Assistant in lhe
Television Dep~ent.
Assistant
Commeh;:ial
Department between
March 2009 and June
2010. PronioU;d to
C~ripor
arounrlJune2010. By
age 23, prOluoted to
Agent sometime in
2011. Now, working on
endorsementlbranding
opportunities for
company's estaplished
Exhibit I
12115(2014 Gmail - WashingtOll

v. William
Morris Endeavor
Entertainment
I CLAIMANT'S EMERGENCY
MOTION
FOR ORDER
TO COMPEL RESPONDENT...
Case
14-4328,
Document
25, 12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page71
of 152
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment I CLAIMANT'S

EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY
WITH DISCOVERY REQUESTS.
Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 3:15 PM
To: AM Carol Placella <CaroIPlacella@adr.org>, heathersanto@adr.org, mzweig@loeb.com, ccarbone@loeb.com
Attached. pJease find my Emergency Motion for Order to Compel Respondents to Comply With My Various Discovery Requests
and Request for Sanctions for Respondent's Discovery Abuses. I ask that an oral hearing be held between October 16~18, 2013 to
discuss this matter under oath, as well as the pending Motion for Clarification and Modification to the September 25, 2013
Interim Decision I will submit on around October 7, 2013.
Please forward this motion to Arbitrator Gregory by end of the business day and send both parties a confirmation once this has
been done.
Best,
Marcus Washington
delivering it to the intended reCipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
in error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and Its attachments without reading or
saving In any manner. Thank you.
3 attachments
~
Motion to Compel without slg page.pdf
341K
!j
Motion to Compel signature page.pdf
268K
!j
Exhibits A thru D.pdf
10681K
https:/lmail.google.com/mail/uJOnui=2&lk=0age2eOdee&view=pI&q=COMPEL%20DOCUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=lrue&search=query&msg=141704e15717a07...
1/1
---------------------------------------------------------------X
AAA Case No. 13 16001426 12

Claimant.
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, fonnerly known as the
WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC.,
JEFF MEADE and SARAH VAN HOVEN,
CLAIMANT'S EMERGENCY MOTION

FOR ORDER TO COMPEL
RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS FOR
RESPONDENTS' DISCOVERY ABUSES.
DEMAND FOR ORAL HEARING.
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------x
In the third Interim Decision of Arbitrator David L. Gregory, he stated: "Claimant shall first submit to me by
Monday, October 7, 2013 an itemized list of the projected reasonable costs associated with this retrieval [of "emails
contained on WME's 1998-1999 back up tape[s]"]. These documents must be submitted and approved by me prior
to any work performed by the ediscovery expert." [pg. 3.] Due to the contumacious and "bad faith" conduct of
William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP and attorneys Michael P. Zweig. Christian Carbone and Michael Barnett,1 am
left with no choice but to submit this motion to ask Arbitrator Gregory to compel the Respondents to comply with
my preliminary e-discovery requests and initial requests for production of documents. I also ask that Arbitrator
Gregory issue monetary sanctions Respondents and their counsel for their repeated discovery abuses and willful
noncompliance with all three of your Interim Decisions.
ARGUMENT
I.
CLAIMANT HAS BEEN GRANTED LIBERAL DISCOVERY BY ARBITRATOR GREGORY,
BUT FOR MORE THAN TEN MONTHS, THE RESPONDENTS HAVE REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH
ANY OF CLAIMANT'S REASONABLE DISCOVERY REQUESTS.
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 full force and effect.
Each party has the continuing duty of fadUtating discovery, Pursuant to New York law. discovery requests.
and tlte statutory law agafnst unlawful employment discrimination. shall be liberally construed." (emphasis
added) [pg. 13.] During our July 30, 2013 conference call, Arbitrator Gregory also stated: "I take arbitral notice on
my sense is that Respondents, corporate Respondents, are in the norm, custodians of the record, maintain the
archives, etc " and ''urge[ d] the Respondents to take a fmal look before we go to any other part ofthis proceeding to
see whether or not the elements of the problematic exhibit can be retrieved." In the third Interim Decision issued on
September 25, 2013, after admitting "Exhibit 3)" "into the evidence of record," Arbitrator Gregory stated, "I
ORDER that Respondent WME cooperate with the e-discovery expert of Claimant's choice to facilitate access to
and be permitted to retrieve the emails contained on WME's J998-1999 hack up tapes." [pg. 2.]
In an "good faith" attempt to comply with Arbitrator Gregory's second Interim Decision, Ie-mailed
Michael Zweig on JuJy 27,2013, and asked him to forward questions I received from various e-discovery experts to
William Morris' IT deparbnent, so I could obtain quotes and submit them to the Arbitrator. Zweig never responded.
Nearly two months later, on September 25, 2013, T forwarded the same e-mail to Zweig and stated that by
September 27, 2013, William Morris' IT department needed to answer these preliminary questions. Again, I
received no response. On September 27,2013, I e-mailed Zweig at 1:05 pm to see if the Respondents were going to
actually comply with my request and stated: ''Two months have elapsed since I initially e-mailed these questions and
I have been more than patient with you, so if not, I will have no choice but to bring this to the attention of the
Arbitrator and ask for discovery sanctions for your contumacious behavior." Instead ofreceiving a response from
Zweig, he had newly added attorney Michael Barnett speak on his behalf to tell me: "[W]e are still in the process of
consulting with our client as to what electronic data in the form of e-mails still exists from 1998-1999. We will
advise you and the Arbitrator ofour findings in accordance with the deadlines that the Arbitrator has set."
Given that the Arbitrator specifically asked the Respondents to do this during our July 30,2013 conference
caU, this response was not acceptable at this stage in the proceeding. In a somewhat more lengthy response, I
explained to Barnett how he was incorrect by quoting verbatim the various Interim Decisions of Arbitrator Gregory.
See Exhibit A. Barnett then gave a similar reply, stating: "Please be advised that we are stiIJ in the process of
consulting with our client as to what electronic data in the form of e-mails still exists from 1998-1999. We will
advise you and the Arbitrator of our findings in accordance with the deadlines that the Arbitrator has set." See
Exhibit A. For the following reasons below, the Arbitrator must now intervene and compel the Respondents and
their counsel to comply with my various discovery requests.
First and foremost, Arbitrator Gregory has never asked for the Respondents to put together a "discovery
protocol," although he did state the Respondents could submit "a proposed protective order regarding any such
emails that may be obtained by Claimant's expert." [September 25,2013 Interim Decision, 2.] I will oppose their
proposed protective order at the appropriate time because it should be denied largely due to the fact that Magistrate
Judge Francis denied Loeb & Loeb LLP's request for a protective order when the class of black concert promoters
sought e-discovery. Also, you have already stated that I could stand in "political solidarity" with Mr. Rowe in your
first Interim Decision, and since this spoliated evidence that you have compelled William Morris to produce for the
third time was paid for by Leonard Rowe and ultimately belongs to him, he cannot be prevented from acquiring this
evidence. He currently has new legal representation and will be pursuing legal action against his former attorneys at
SNR and the Willie Gary Firm for malpractice, and is also expected to file complaints with the Department of
Justice and the attorney ethics committee in the state of Georgia this week. He will need this evidence to prove that
all of the attorneys involved in this sinister conspiracy to interfere with the human rights of African Americans
should be disbarred and imprisoned for their unethical and criminal actions. Additionally, since you said the most
important question of our July 30,2013 conference call was whether or not I brought this matter to the attention of
Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, I will immediately file a complaint once I gain possession of the various
documents that I've requested to be produced.
Secondly, I never asked for William Morris' IT department andlor Loeb & Loeb LLP to tell me what
"electronic data in the form of emails still exists from J998-1999." The electronic discovery expert of my choice
will answer that question for me once William Morris produces the back up tapes and pays for the search pursuant to
Arbitrator Gregory's second and third Interim Decisions. Even if I did I need to know tbat information, it doesn't
take two months for William Morris' IT department to answer that question. For months, I was assigned to work in
. the IT department at William Morris' New York office ("dead-end assignments''), so I know that the employees in
that department have a considerable amount of dowl;ltime and are more than capable of providing answers to these
questions because the company backs up its files every day.
Third, the answers to the preliminary questions I am asking William Morris' IT department to answer are
the same types of answers William Morris had to provide to Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP ("SNR'') (now
known as Dentons LLP) and Electronic Evidence Discovery ("EED'') (now known as Documents Technology, Inc.
or "DTI") when the class of black concert promoters paid $200,000.00 to have EED conduct this search on their
behalf. When Judge Francis denied Loeb & Loeb LLP's request for a protective order and compelled William
Morris and CAA to produce the e-mails in Rowe, William Morris' IT department had to answer similar questions
raised by SNR and EED. Therefore, Loeb & Loeb LLP and WilHam Morris's IT department should have no
problems answering the same types of questions that are being asked by my prospective electronic discovery
-2
experts. In Dunn v. Midwestern Indemnity. 88 F.R.D. 191 (S.D. Ohio 1980), the court stated: "The court is wary of
denying plaintiffs' [sic] full and adequate discovery of the defendants' computer systems, including access to and
information about defendants' computer equipment, raw data, programs, data management systems, and the by
products of their analyses. To deny them this discovery may. in effect. be to deny them their day in court."
(emphasis added) Id. at 196. There is absolutely no reason for me to publicly disclose this information. Answering
these questions poses no danger to William Morris. I only need the information so I can obtain quotes from
prospective e-discovery experts and William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP are well aware of this fact.
Lastly, if SNR was unsuccessful in concealing "Exhibit 31" from the class of black concert promoters
because Leonard Rowe miraculously discovered it on the desk of Raymond Heslin after being told no derogatory
terms were found weeks after EED's search and attorneys from Loeb & Loeb LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges and
other officers of the court, including Judge Patterson, were successful in making sure the underlying e-mails to the
search result list - a document which shows executives referring to African Americans as "nigger," "nigga," "coon,"
"monkey" and other racially derogatory terms - never saw the light of day, then it's without question that Michael P.
Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William Morris know where the back up tapes are today or what happened to them if
the e-mails no longer exist. Since Arbitrator Gregory has compelled William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP to
produce spoliated evidence, this means that at no time after EED's search should the back up tapes been destroyed. I
must also state for the record that William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP have also failed to comply with my initial
requests for production of documents, which includes all documents received from EED, the actual e-mails Loeb &
Loeb LLP received from EED pursuant to Arbitrator Gregory's July 15,2013 Interim Decision, the compact discs
(CDs) that Loeb & Loeb LLP had EED send to SNR containing all of the e-mails minus the ones Loeb & Loeb LLP
deleted as privileged in violation of Magistrate Judge Francis' protocol and the privilege & responsive logs that were
sent to SNR from Loeb & Loeb LLP. These requests have nothing to do with obtaining the actual back up tapes.
It is well established that attorneys have an obligation to preserve evidence fo), 7 years after a case has been
closed. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' petition for a writ of certiorari on October 2, 2006, so even if you
hadn't compelled William Morris and their counsel to produce certain documents pertaining to e-discovery in Rowe
six months ago, these documents had to be preserved until October 2, 2013. The Respondents' failure to produce
any of these documents constitutes a clear obstruction of justice because producing this spoliated evidence will
immediately prove whether or not the e-mails of the five WMA music Agents that the class of black concert
promoters asked SNR to search on their behalf, were actually searched. If the Respondents are unable to produce e
mails from those five music Agents - since the alleged they did not receive e-mails from the names that appear on
"Exhibit 31" - that will serve as further confirmation that "fraud upon the court" did in fact occur in Rowe and
supports my contention that by default, fraud is happening in this litigation due to Michael P. Zweig and Loeb &
Loeb LLP's mere presence in this case. It is well settled that "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in
essence a decision at all, and never becomes OnaL" Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); see also The People of
the State of TIlinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 T11. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every
transaction into which it enters aooUes to Judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); In re
Village of Willowbrook, 37 1ll.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."). (empbasis
added) [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 3, 52.]
''The ease with which e-mail and other electronic documents can be deleted (or at least hidden from view)
leads many in the business world to forget that principles governing document retention are format neutral. The
same legal rules apply to the destruction of documents, whether they are in paper or electronic form and whether
destruction involves hitting a button, shredding, or any other means. An email or other electronic file is just as much
a 'document' as is a paper memorandum.") As you stated during our July 30,2013 conference call, "If the infamous
n-word list were to come forward, it seems that from Mr. Washington's perspective, almost any variation or any
version of that document is going to be vulnerable to, at least the possibility, if not probability, of spoliation." Now
that you have admitted the "n-word list" into the evidence of record, this proves that spoliation of evidence occurred
1 Erin McAlpin Eiselein, Lino S. Lipinsky, and Kirke Snyder. Duty to Preserve Electronic Evidence After Enron and
Andersen. The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 32, No.6 issue. June 2003.
-3
in ~. So, if the 1998-1999 back up tapes or e-maijs contained on the 1998-1999 back up tapes that need to be
produced in WashiAgton have been altered, deleted, destroyed, and/or tampered with in any way, shape or form after
EED's search in or around September 2002, now is the time for Michael Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and William
Morris to be honest with themselves and admit the truth to the Arbitrator and 1. If these back up tapes are not
produced, there will be absolutely no need for me to conduct depositions with Martin R. Gold, Raymond Heslin,
Richard Primof'f'l- and Willie E. Gary and this is further proof that the arbitration agreements I signed andlor its
provisions are in fact unconscionable. tainted with illegality and malum in se and as a matter of law, you
prematurely and erroneously concluded that the "arbitration agreement was not unconscionable." [September 25,
2013 Interim Decision, 4.] This will additionally prove that as a matter of law, William Morris' anticompetitive and
exclusionary practices designed to maintain a race-based monopoly in the workplace. Hollywood and marketplace
of ideas, have also violated federal and state antitrust law and you should not have dismissed these claims under the
"political questions doctrine." Id.
So yes, Tam thankful that you have granted me "liberal[] discovery," but if you are not going to make sure
the Respondents comply with your orders, then you are clearly sabotaging my case because you are simultaneously
chipping away at my claims and harmfully delaying a "fmal" decision from being made. I have demonstrated that
Leonard Rowe's former counsel and counsel for the Booking Agency Defendants have a clear ''meeting of the
minds" with regards to what happened during e-discovery in Rowe. Their statements that "no derogatory terms"
were found during the search are clearly lies and thus, Loeb & Loeb LLP's broad defenses for nearly three years, in
which they have stated that my claims of systemic and individual disparate treatment were "unfounded," "wholly
without merit, legally or factually," and that my pleadings were "filled with outrageous, self-contradictory, and
utterly unsubstantiated allegations about WME and its emp.loyees" have also never been true. 3 [Claimant Summary
Judgment, ~ 159.]
By refusing to have William Morris' IT department answer these very basic questions, the Respondents and
their counsel are preventing me from submitting "an itemized list of the projected reasonable costs associated with
this retrieval" to the Arbitrator by October 7, 2013. Therefore, I ask that Arbitrator Gregory compel William Morris
and Loeb & Loeb LLP to facilitate and fulfill !ll of my initial discovery requests no later than October 4, 2013. If
2 Between May 14-15, 2012, aU four of Leonard Rowe's former attorneys [Gold, Heslin, Primoff and Christine
LqJera] submitted Declarations in opposition to Leonard Rowe's PRCP 60 Motion, denyirlg that any derogatory
terms were ever found during electronic discovery in this case and acted as if they had no clue as to what "Exhibit
31" was since Leonard Rowe hadn't gained possession of the document at the time of filing the motion. Loeb &
Loeb LLP never responded to Mr. Rowe's motion, but Mr. Rowe's perjurious statements were used to support Judge
Patterson's denial ofMr. Rowe's motion to have his case reopened due to his claims that "fraud upon the Court" had
taken place in his case.
l Throughout the Respondents' Cross-Motion to Dismiss, they continued to make duplicitous statements in "bad
faith" such.as: "w.hile .fil1ed :with.unsupported.accusations.and .inv.ectiv.e, Washington's 54-:page '.Reply.and.Request
For Full Summary Judgment' is little more than a compendium of conclusory, incendiary, and speCUlative
statements, lacking any concrete evidentiary support whatsoever" (pg. 1)...."Claims are utterly implausible and
without factual support" (pg. 2) ...."In sum, Washington has presented and can present no factual basis to support
any of his claims. Based largely on vast conspiracy theories, discredited allegations of institutional racism and his
own animus, his claims are not only utterly implausible, they are such that no reasonable fmder offact could rule in
his favor" (pg. 4) .... "Washingtons Complaint, even supplemented by his Motion, is devoid of concrete facts
.showing.any .intentional.discr.imination, or .any .incident.ofracial.animus" .(pg, S); ... "Washington's.Complaint.and
Motion is woefully devoid of hard facts, relying instead on supposition, stereotyping and generalization. His broad
assertions and conclusory accusations fail to establish any issue of material facts and should be dismissed on all
counts" (pg. 6) ..... and "Washington has not - and cannot - point to any instance of direct discrimination or any
circumstantial evidence to support his claim that he was treated different from other Trainees." (pg. 16) [Claimant
Rep. Summary Judgment, 89.] Not once have the Respondents stated that my statements or actions were being done
in "bad faith" although now, Arbitrator Gregory has essentially stated that T am guilty of committing defamation,
.slander .and .libel.against .the .Respondents .andJor .their .counselin .his-.third .Interim .Decision .If what.I.was .saying
weren't true, how could you possibly admit "Exhibit 31" into the evidence of record after sitting with our pleadings
fora year?
-4
not these documents are not produced and answers are not provided by William Morris' IT department about the
1998-1999 back up tapes, then the Arbitrator should also conclude that this evidence was destroyed as part of their
sinister conspiracy to interfere with the human rights of African Americans and other people of color, which has
ultimately allowed William Morris the ability to continue maintaining its unlawful discriminatory and
anticompetitive practices, policies and procedures in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42
U.S.C. 1981 ("Section 1981"), Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e
17 (''Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 ef. seq. (the
''NYSHRL''), the New York City Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 ef. seq. (the
''NYCHRL''), the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.c. 1 ef seq, Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 ef seq and Ku
Klux Klan Act ofl871, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).
REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS DUE TO DISCOVERY ABUSE AND CONTUMACIOUS BEBAVIOR OF
WILLIAM MORRIS, LOEB & LOEB LLP AND MICHAEL P. ZWEIG.
''True discovery abuse is that conduct which hinders justice by hiding needed and relevant evidence.,,4 When this
occurs, especially in a landmark human rights and antitrust case such as this, the types of sanctions that may be
imposed upon an attorney, law firm andlor party for discovery abuses include: striking a pleading, payment of
attorney's fees, barring the introduction of certain evidence, ruling on certain Issues In opposition to the position
of the offending party, entering a default Judgment, dismissal and disbarrment. See Karlsson v. Ford Motor Co.,
140 Cal. App. 4th 1202,45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 265 (2d Dist. 2006), review denied, (Sept. 27, 2006). Also, under N.Y.
CVP. Law 3126, it states:
If any party, or a person who at the time a deposition is taken or an examination or inspection is
made is an officer, director, member, employee or agent of a party or otherwise under a party's
control, refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully falls to disclose Information which
the court finds ought to have been disclosed pursuant to this article, the court may make such
orders with regard to the failure or refusal as are just, among them:
1. an order that the issues to which the information is relevant shall be deemed resolved
for purposes of the action in accordance with the claims of the party obtaining the order;
or
2. an order prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing
designated claims or defenses. from producing in evidence designated things or
items of testimony, or from introducing any evidence of the physical, mental or blood
condition sought to be determined, or from using certain witnesses; or
3. an order striking out pleadings or parts thereof. or staying further proceedings until
the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or any part thereof. or rendering a
ludgment by default against the disobedient party. (emphasis added)
As a result of the discovery abuses mentioned above, various sanctions should be imposed against William
Morris, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP, particularly because this is not the first time
Michael P. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in this type of discovery abuse on behalf of William Morris.
In a motion filed on November 22,2000, counsel for the class of black concert promoters stated: "Plaintiffs bring
this motion because they were left with no other acceptable course of action, after having negotiated in good faith
with defense counsel for months over discovery matters. It Is now over one and a half years since the Document
Requests and Interrogatories were Initially served. four months after plaintiffs wrote to defendants' counsel
demanding compUance with these requests. and three months after this Court's August 1000 conference and
scheduling order, dated September IS. 1000 (the "Order") requiring the completion of defendants' document
4
Russell Smith. Litigating Tort Cases. "Discovery Abuse." 2013.
-5
production by December 1. 2000. and plaintiffs still have recelyed no documents reSDonsiye to their requests.
To be sure, none of the defendants has announced an outright refusal to cooperate with plaintiffs in discovery.
Instead, defendants have attempted to convey a superficial veneer of cooperation. Once defendants' positions are
analyzed and the veneer is stripped, however, it is evidence that defendants consistently have been Wlwilling to
permit plaintiffs any meaningful inspection and/or copying of voluminous, yet necessary, responsive documents."
(emphasis added) See Exhtblt B.
Also, in the October 26, 2001 Affidavit of Charles Kellner - former Eastern Region Vice President of
Electronic Evidence Discovery, Inc. (''EED'') (now known as Documents Technology, Inc. or "DTI") - he discussed
on numerous occasions the difficulty he experienced in obtaining information from William Morris about their back
up tapes. [Claimant Rep. April 18, 2013 Interim Decision, 4, Exhibit F.] The Affidavit was submitted to "describe
the discussions in which [he] participated with defendants' counsel and consultants in this case regarding
defendants' production of e-mail data, to respond to certain assertions of their counsel and consultants, and to
discuss the proposals EED made with respect to defendants' production of e-mail." Tn it, he stated, ''Despite the fact
that we spent two months and engaged in many communications, none of the defendants demonstrated any
willingness to make their e-mail data available to plaintiffs in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We made
proposals that excluded examination of large volumes of e-mail and that would result in significant cost savings.
Each time, we were met by inflated cost estimates based on unnecessary processing and on projects ofbroader scope
than plaintiffs proposed. None agreed even to the concept ofusing search telrns. Each premised their processing and
review costs upon all of the e-mail in question, rather than the small fraction that would resuk from searching.
Despite all of our offers to discuss limitation by names, date intervals, and search terms, no defendant ever offered
or suggested a counterproposal" He also specifically discussed his experiences and difficulty in dealing with
William Morris and their IT department on pages 23 through 30. See Exhibit C.
Due to the similarities of both racial discrimination and antitrust cases, there is a clear and consistent
pattern of behavior and thought regarding the Respondents and their counsel. Five months have essentially been
wasted already and I will not allow the Respondents to engage in the same types of discovery abuses that they
engaged in with Rowe. I have not been overzealous with my discovery requests nor are my initial requests overly
burdensome due to the fact that you have already compelled William Morris to produce "smoking gun," spoliated
evidence on three separate occasions, and although Judge Patterson erroneously concluded that "Exhibit 31" was an
"unauthenticated and unidentified document," you have now admitted this document into the evidence of record.
"When the evidence indicates that a party is aware of circumstances that are likely to give rise to future litigation
and yet destroys potentially relevant records without particularized inquiry, a fact-finder may reasonably infer that
the party probably did so because the records would harm its case." Blinzler v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 81 F.3d 1148 (1st
Cir. 1996). If these back up tapes are no longer available. then I have reason to believe that pertinent evidence
pertaining to my claims bas also been ahered, destroyed and/or tampered with as well
Given the fact that Zweig has been named "Best Lawyer" in Labor & Employment Litigation this year and
bas received similar accolades from predominately white organizations throughout his legal career, he is well aware
that the duty to preserve arises when a party or prospective party has notice of litigation or the potential for
litigation. Theoretically, William Morris should have been preserving evidence when they received notice that I field
a complaint with the EEOC on or about June 9, 2010. However, on November 27. 2012 -.tmmonths ago -I asked
Zweig to inform me of the date he issued a litigation hold against William Morris and its employees because I told
him that I would be pursuing legal action against William Morris via e-mail on October 19, 2010 during the time I
was seeking legal representation and was unaware that he and his law fum represented William Morris in Rowe.
This is not the first time I've brought this to your attention and you have done absolutely nothing to make sure Loeb
& Loeb LLP has complied with your orders and/or complies with my discovery requests. s [Claimant Rep. Summary
S The biggest reason why Loeb & Loeb LLP or any person would take your orders with a grain of salt is based on
the .fact,that after .you.compelled William-Moms, Loeb& LoebLLP and Michael P. Zweig.toproduce.the.J;I year
old, "smoking gun" spoliated evidence that was responsive to EED's search and stated that if both parties did not
comply with your flrst Interim Decision, "an adverse inference" would be created, you did absolutely nothing when
-6
Judgment, 90, Exhibit Y.] See Exhibit D. Only someone who believes they are above the law or knows in advance
that nothing will happen if they disobey your orders, can refuse to comply with simple discovery requests like this
on multiple occasions over a span of ten months. Counsel is supposed to periodically communicate directly with
employees most likely to have relevant information and monitor compliance with the litigation hold. See Zubulake
v. UBS Warburg. LLC, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13574 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2004).When there is absolutely no type of
repercussions or punishment from the Arbitrator for disrupting the arbitral process, that only adds fuel to their fire to
act in contempt. Instead, you think it's more appropriate to punish me by saying my claims against the Respondents
and their counsel have been defamatory, libelous and slanderous without providing one example of something I've
said about the Respondents andlor their counsel that is untrue or hasn't been supported with evidence, case law,
sociological research, law literature, current events and other credible sources. Unless yoU' step in and intervene,
there is no question that the Respondents will only continue their "bad faith" and abusive discovery tactics.
I've had "Exhibit 31" in my possession since May 15, 2012 - when I was appealing Judge Castel's
erroneous decision which compelled this case into arbitration. When I filed my Demand for Arbitration with the
AAA on June 15,2012, "Exhibit 31" was one ofthe ten additional documents submitted in support all of my claims.
Now that you have admitted this document into the evidence of record fifteen months later, it is without question
that this document is authentic. Therefore, the Respondents should be sanctioned for their numerous
misrepresentations about this document and discovery abuses after being compelled to produce various documents
pertaining to e-discovery in Rowe, including the e-mails they allegedly received from EED and the underlying e
mails to this authentic document. Regardless ofwhether or not you are able to punish Respondents and their counsel
for their criminal and unethical conduct in !I!!! arbitration proceeding, you have admitted into evidence of record
spoliated, "smoking gun" evidence and have compelled the Respondents to produce documents that never saw the
light of day. This in and of itself proves that Michael P. Zweig and his co-conspirators engaged in unethical and
criminal conduct in Rowe. 6 As a result, many ofthe assertions made throughout Michael Zweig's pleadings over the
last two and a half years in Washington have been "non-meritorious," "frivolous" and legally insufficient as a matter
oflaw. 7 He has continued to "assert material factual statements that [he knows are] false" and has advanced these
the Respondents failed to produce !!!!I of the e-mails and other pertinent evidence produced andlor received during
e-discovery in Rowe. As a result, five months have been essentially wasted in this case.
6 Michael Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP's intentional spoliation of evidence, failure to issue a litigation hold and
other 'bad faith" tactics involving moral turpitude are in direct violation of the New York Code of Professional
Conduct, including, but not limited to, "engag[ing] in illegal conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer;" "engag[ing] in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation;" "engag[ing] in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;" "knowingly
assist[ing] a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other
law;" and "engag[ing] in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness as a lawyer." Rule 8.4 (b),
.(c), .(d), .(f) .and .(h). The .egregious .and .diabolical.conduct .of.Zweig.and :various .attorneys oin .Rowe. showed. a.blatant
contempt for the Court and a fundamental disregard for the judicial process. Each attorney, without question,
engaged in fraudulent conduct with the ''purpose to deceive" and their behavior contains elements of "scienter,
deceit, intent to mislead" and they "knowing[ly] fail[ed] to correct [their] misrepresentations." Rule 1.0 (i). A lawyer
shall not "counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is illegal or fraudulent."
Rule 1.2 (d). The Rules clearly state that a lawyer shall not "suppress evidence that the lawyer or client has a legal
obligation to reveaV' "conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal,"
'~knowingLy usc .pcr.jurcd testimony or .falsc ev.idcncc" or 'bowingly cngagc .in.othcr .illcgal.conduct.or .conduct
contrary to these Rules." Rule 3.4 (a)(I), (3), (4) and (6). When you understand these Rules, it's not surprising that
the Court recognizes a link between intentional spoliation of evidence and an individual's "bad faith" - a word that
has appeared on numerous occasions throughout my pleadings to describe the actions of William Morris, Loeb &
Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig. Establishing "bad faith" can be established with either direct or circumstantial
evidence where certain factors converge. Thornton v. Blitz USA. Inc., 850 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (S.D. Ga. 2011). Even
if William Morris "made" Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael Zweig engage in criminal activity on their behalf, a
.lawyer '~is.bound.by .these .Rules.notwithstanding .that .the .lawyer.acted.at.the.direction.ofanother.per.son;" .Rule 5;2
~a). Their unethical and criminal [Claimant'S Rep. Summary Judgment, 14-15,97.]
New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.1.
-7
defenses in extreme "bad faith" to "delay or prolong the resolution of litigation." Rule 3.1. Tn the federal court, a
represented party who signs his or her name to documents filed in court bears a personal, nondelegable
responsibility to certify the truth and reasonableness of the document and the failure to meet that duty may subject
the signer to Rule II sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 25-26.] This means that
Loeb & Loeb LLP's intentional misrepresentations on behalf of William Morris furtber demonstrates that they are
guilty of perjury, a violation of 18 U.S.C. I621. Also, the criminal elements of their actions cannot be ignored as
well. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley statute, 18 U.S.C 1519, it clearly states: ''Whoever knowingly alters, destroys,
mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the
intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the
jurisdiction of the United States or any case filed under title II, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter
or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." In Arthur Andersen. LLP v.
United States, 544 u.s. 696 (2005), the Supreme Court made it clear that there must be requisite culpability and that
the defendant must have intended to "corruptly" persuade another in order to be liable under 18 U.S,C. 1512. The
word "corruptly" normally means "wrongful, immora~ depraved or evil" conduct. This again supports the fact that
technically, Loeb & Loeb LLP should not be representing William Morris in this case, and that Zweig and his other
co-conspirators should currently be in prison.
If these back up tapes and additional documents that I have initially requested are not produced, I ask that
you strike your prejudiced, one-sentence decision in your third Interim Decision which erroneously concluded that
the pre-dispute, mandatory arbitration agreement I signed as a condition of employment - six years after this
evidence was concealed - is "not unconscionable"s and allow this case to proceed back in the Southern District of
New York so that it can be decided by a jury that reflects the diversity of America and not the opinions of white
males over the age of SO. [pg. 4.] Ifnot, I ask that default judgment be granted on all claims since you told us during
our July 30, 2013 conference call that if we agreed to not have discovery and an oral hearing about ''Exhibit 31,"
you would have been able to issue a "thorough decision on all of the issues" by "Labor Day," which was
September 2, 2013. In Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 987 F.2d 1536,25 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 560 (11th Cit.
1993), court reaffirmed that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C) default judgment sanction requires a deliberate or bad
faith failure to obey a discovery order. The court concluded that "[i]n this case, the defendants richly deserved the
sanction of a default judgment, where the defendant manufacturers gave misleading answers to interrogatories and
"MeltS fm:..pmdus,tipn..gf d2gtments. refused to apmer fRPml questions, falselY deWed Its lllXarepeSIL of
General Motors decisions to not market the Suzuki Samura, and failed to produce. despite two court orden. the
deposition transcript oftwo Suzuki engineers from another case." (emphasis added)
If default judgment is not granted and the Respondents fail to produce the 1998-1999 back up tapes and
additional documents, I ask that I instead be allowed to conduct a contemporary search of the bard drives ofWilliam
Morris from 2002 and 2013 using similar search terms used in Rowe, as well as searching for any e-mails pertaining
to myself (and African Americans in general) pre and post-hiring.9 [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 90-91.]
This improvident decision should also be stricken regardless of the Respondents' discovery abuses because you are
violating my constitutional rights to due process. Your second Interim Decision claimed that you were not able to
make a "fmal" decision regarding the enforceability of the arbitration agreement and/or all claims until after both
parties conducted discovery and had an oral hearing regarding ''Exhibit 31" and e-discovery in Rowe. During and
after our Ju!)' 3Q. 2013 conference cal~. I expressed that no decision could be made until this h~p'pened, Neither one
of these things have occurred, hence the reason for this Motion. You also cited no case law to support your decision
and I will not allow you to sabotage my case. I wiu be filing a second Motion for Clarification and Modification
next week to address the errors contained in your third Interim Decision.
9 "A second contemporary e-mail search should simultaneously be conQucted in my case as well because it will
allow me to further establish pretext to the Respondents' claims regarding my attitude and work performance, since
it is obvious that e-mails are a major communicative source for William Morris and its all-Whitef'Jewish"
8
..d.eJ<ilii.nnmll\:.e.~ ,tJl
J<l.o.dt:.&tirl.e.ly .e~tes.s lbJ<lr .d~J<rJminat.nty hi!1..s~s Jlll.d .pteiu.di.c~ .!1.hP.ut .~.ft.i.C!l..1l-A!Il.e.tiJ<lll'\S .AI.d.
other people of color. It will also demonstrate what we all know: even after committing these odious, race-based
crimes against African Americans in Rowe, William Morris continued to willfully engage in its discriminatory and
-8
Since the Respondents have argued that "Exhibit 31" is irrelevant because the employees named on the list were not
employed in the New York office, this will allow me the ability to further prove my claims that the company's
''unvarnished racial animus" towards African Americans is company-wide, systemic, institutional and embedded
into the core of the company's "state of mind" - the reason why the company has maintained its employment
practices, policies and procedures that have created a glaring disparate impact against Qualified people of color from
being hired and/or promoted as Agents. Since most employees that I worked with would never suspect that their e
mails could be inspected or searched, this is a large source of off record and informal communication by my peers
and 1 have reason to believe that I will uncover additional evidence to support that I was a victim of pre-hiring
discrimination and once I entered this jnsidiously discriminatory, aU-Whitef'Jewish" work environment as the only
African American employed at any level of the Agent Trainee program, that I was "set up to fail" because of my
race, color and/or perceived national origin.
Lying about my work performance seemed to be the go to strategy of many of the whiterlewish" Agents
and staffT worked with because Human Resources always accepted what they said as truth. III When Ttried to explain
to Human Resources how many of these things that were being said about me were untrue and many of the
evaluations given by Agents did not reflect my actual work performance because I was assigned mostly "dead-end
assignments," they paid my comments no attention and continued to assign me Sisyphean tasks. I I I truly believe this
was an atte"!p-t to eventual!y make me 9!,lit on ll!Y own accord. In the Re~P-Ondents' motions for summlll)'ju~gment,
Michael Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP continued to advance these lies by stating throughout their Opposition that
"many" of my similarly situated Whitef'Jewish" counterparts in the Agent Trainee program "had post-coDege
experience equal or at least far superior to" me although most of my similarly situated whitef'Jewish"
counterparts in the Agent Trainee program were recent college graduates with no work experience in the
entertainment industry. (emphasis added) [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 36-37; Meade Aft'., , 10.] They also
tried to discredit my work performance by falsely stating that my inability to advance above the New York office's
glass ceiling was due to a combination of my poor attitude and ''uneven and erratic performance." [Res. Opp.
Summary Judgment, 12, 16,39; Van Hoven" 10.]] I'm a hard worker and an over-achiever by nature. In no way do
I believe 1 am perfect, but all of these statements, as well as the others advanced throughout their pleadings, are
defamatory and libelous. By expanding discovery, I can further prove this fact and demonstrate that their legally
insufficient defenses are pretextual.
anticompetitive practices with "malice and/or reckless indifference" to the federally protected rights of African
Americans. This explains why there continues to be zero African American Agents or Coordinators employed in the
New York office and why I was extremely overqualified compared to my similarly situated Whitef'Jewish"
counterparts when I started the Agent Trainee program. Additionally, since the Respondents have failed to meet
their burden of production and persuasion by intentionally withholding documents such as the resumes of my
_similarJy .situated Whiter~lewjsh" Agent Trainees ,and .recently-.promotedAgents; .my.e:valuations, job.descriptions
for the Agent position, their response to my EEOC complaint, and other relevant documents, the Respondents
should be compelled to produce these documents." [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 96.1
10 In the Affidavit of Jeff Meade, he also staled that I "received more negative comments [over 20], regarding [my]
perfonnance than any other Agent trainee." [Meade Atf. ~ 22; Res. Opp. Summary Judgment, 16.] This includes the
"evaluation" of Chris Walsh, head of Special Services, who blatantly lied on me in two e-mails to Van Hoven in
which he stated that I was a "few hours" late to a training although I have proven why his statements were not true.
.(Claimant Rep. Summar:y Judgment, .48; -Claimant Summary Judgment, ~ .lOA:; .Exhibit N; .claimant SDNY
Complaint, ,~ 89~97.]
1 I Former COO of the New York office, Cara Stein, admitted during our second meeting on April 7, 2010, that my
evaluations were not bad. During the first meeting, she stated that I was possibly the problem when I al1eged that I
was being set up to fail because of my race or the color of my skin. However, prior to those two meetings, !ill of the
Agent TraineesIFloaters had a meeting with Stein, Van Hoven and Meade, in which they informed the group that the
feedback from Agents was that our performance !!!!l!J!ll was poor. We were told we would all be given a "second
-chance," although -this comment didn 'treaOy -apply -to -me 'DecaUse-lwasgiven-velylittle-opportunities -to'-work-with
Agents and mostly worked with support staff or with tbe Mailroom and this did not change. [Claimant Rep.
Summary Judgment, 45.]
-9
Tn the meantime, one of the best ways to combat discovery abuses of the Respondents and their counsel at
this stage in the arbitration is to "turn stonewalling to the plaintiffs advantage by making the [offender] bear the
costs of its ... abuse."ll Due to their intentional misrepresentations, contumacious behavior, obstruction of justice
and other discovery abuses, I should be awarded reasonable attorney's fees incurred from trying to secure the
Respondents' compliance with their discovery obligations and making the instant motion, in an amount equivalent
to what Loeb & Loeb LLP has been paid by William Morris since you first compelled them to produce these
documents in your April 18, 2013 Interim Decision. ''The award offees and expenses is the mildest of the sanctions
authorized by Rule 37," and a court need not find that a party "engaged in willful disobedience or gross negligence"
before requiring a party to pay its adversary's attorney's fees in connection with a discovery-related dispute. See
Land Ocean Logistics, Inc. v. Agua GulfCornoration, 181 FRO. 229, 239 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) Rather, a court may
impose an appropriate award of expenses wherever, as here, a party unreasonably and unjustifiably delays or
otherwise frustrates discovery or fails to comply with a discovery-related court order. See Hoar v. Sara Lee Corp..
882 F.2d 682, 687 (2d. Cir. 1898) (affirming award of expenses and fees where plaintiff and his attorney "neglected
to respond of their own initiative, ignored due dates, necessitated defendants' motions to compe~ and disobeyed at
least two previous court orders"); John B. Hull, Inc. v. Waterbury Petroleum Prods.. Inc., 845 F.2d 1172, 1177 (2d
Cir. 1988) (atunning dismissal of complaint and award ofattomeys' fees to third.party defendant where defendant
"neither offered a satisfactory explanation for its failure to comply with the court's orders nor demonstrated
circumstances that would make the award unjust"); See Morua v. Compania Dominlcana de Alacion C. por A.. 1990
WL 52104, at -2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 19, 1990) (''Since plaintiffs' failure to respond fully to the interrogatories or to
request for extension of time was not substantially justified, this Court awards reasonable expenses, including
attorney's fees ......); Yaldan Sportswear v. Montgomery Ward & Co" Inc., 591 F.Supp. 1188,1193 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)
(awarding defendants attorney's fees where plaintiff failed, "without excuse," to produce documents by date
specified in court order). In the last year, my unemployment benefits have been exhausted and two months ago, I
was told that I am no longer eligible for food stamps because the State of New York believes I should be working
a decision that I'm in the process of appealing. I am not even able to help support my family who is allowing me to .
live rent free because I'm not able to find employment and I must be restored to a position that takes into account
the financial losses I've incurred as a result ofthe Respondents' counsel's diabolical and "bad faith" conduct.
One thing is for certain, the Respondents cannot be ordered and then fail to produce any documents and
tangible evidence pertaining to e-discovery in Rowe, and then you grant the Respondents' Cross-Motion to Dismiss
and/or award them damages for alJeged defamation, libel and/or slander. (April 18, 2013 Interim Decision, 910;
September 25, 2013 Interim Decision, 5.]
CONCLUSION
The Respondents have succeeded for the past several months in avoiding the production of any documents and
frustrating the Arbitrator's orders. Their attempts to stall and impede the prosecution of this case must be sanctioned.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully ask that the Arbitrator grant my motion in its entirety. I ask that you compel
Michael P. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP to comply with my discovery requests by October 4, 2013. If these
requests are not granted, I ask the Arbitrator to grant an oral hearing between October 16-18,2013 to discuss these
matters, as well as my pending Motion for Clarification and Modification to your third Interim Decision that will be
filed no later than October 7, 2013, under oath in order to prevent this landmark human rights and antitrust case
from sabotaged and harmfully delayed any further, as well as to prevent this clear miscarriage ofjustice.
12
Francis H. Hare Jr. et aL Full Disclosure: Combatting Stonewalling and Other Discovery Abuses, p. 181 (1994).
-10
1211512014
Gmail
Washington v.
William Morris
Case 14-4328, Document
25, Marcus
12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page82 of 152
Marcus Washington v. William Morris

Heather Santo <SantoH@adr.org>
Thu, Oct 3,2013 at 6:47 PM
To: "M.Washington" <humanrights.areamust@gmaiLcom>, "mzweig@loeb.com" <mzweig@loeb.com>,
"ccarbone@loeb.com" <ccarbone@loeb.com>, "mbamett@loeb.com" <mbamett@loeb.com>
Cc: AM Carol Placella <CaroIPlacella@adr.org>
Dear Parties:
Arbitrator Gregory has ordered the following:
"All deadlines in Interim Decision 3 are suspended. At the close of Claimant's jury duty and his notification to
the AM of the same, all dates in Interim Decision 3 shall be revised in accordance with due process. For any
papers or motions filed before the Claimant's notice to MA re the end of his jury duty, Respondents shall have
10 business days to reply. Respondent's request for an extension, until October 11th, to respond to the
September 30th submission by Claimant is granted. I will not read or review Claimant's submission, which was
sent to me directly until the comments of Respondent have been received. The parties are directed to
communicate with me solely through the AAA. Submissions sent to me directly will be redirected to the AAA.
Furthermore, both parties shall have 10 business days following the end of Claimant's jury duty to submit a
proposed revised timetable and a proposed scheduling order to the AAA for transmittal to me .
So ordered,
David l. Gregory
October 3 2013
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Heather Santo
https:llmail.google.com/mail/ulOnui=2&ik=Qage2eOdee&vif!NI=pt&q=COMPEL%2000CUMENTS%2Ozweig&qs=true&searcl'l=query&msg=1418080d3ageb45...
1/1
Exhibit
CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY

INTER.-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 8; 1997
'TO: -RiCftard-[.ovefl
C'C
ArreneNewman, :a-ruce-king
.FROM: Qulnton Embree

RB: Our Meeting
Thanks-torfImdJY'aUowmg--1mf-lJ;te-ctime'to'dJscuS8'witlt'you~some'of.my~view8 llnd-feelingsal-Qut
practices at CAA. Hope.fuUy you have had a cbao.<:e to think about some of the things we
diScusSed:
1. The lack of color ( Asian, Latino, Black) and women in the trainee proguun.
2. The fact that there hasn't been It person of color promoted at; 1n llgent in the last six years I've
beea a pruud participant in llt~ t.'UUl(.ItU,y.
Think of yourself as a famler who plants a lIeed and goes through all the r.eeeseary steps to see
thai normal seed SlOW and blossom Into a wanted. rl~ ready,beautlhil p1ece oflruit.
Understand that a fmner who just grows lemall&, (not like lemons can't Jl\ake lemonade) without
other Imits like bananas. oranges, strawberries, etc.. leaves the buying nation wl!h0ut v~rtety and
flavor.
The future is in your hands. 'You are the head-chlef of the farmers. Hopefu1ly you win walk
through your field and see for yourself the lack of flavor and understa~'\d the need for it.
YO" said to me, face-toofaee, that you've been tookina for "thP. right one" (meaning Black, Latino,
Asian, etc.). That was the same phrase that Lee Gabler and friends sald to me fiye ~ft1ltgo.
-Now-iUsofive:yeal'&JateF-and-ou-.have_used.the_ex~t.sameJine.- IhatJaadull.e-Job.eUeN.e-.w;,a.
team -saying" or theme song. It doesn't make sense that afler fiye years.. given a nation 01 peoplE
with a million sold draft picks that nobody quaUfiesi it aeems easier to win tbe lottery.
Please broaden your view or fOld a new line. R9member, you can seek to help people in the
community, bul it's the examples In your own house that &how your true Jcadership.
-nlarik you.
Exhibit K

'.
'.
Application to Appeal In Forma Pauperis
_'_M_a_rt_Wl_ISI_illh_W_'_ash_in.;;gtol1
___". W1llian, Mntrl$ ndf'JlYOJ' J::nL,l.LCf.'t .1.
AppeaJ No. _________

District Court or Agency No. .....:1~O.:C.:.:.iv:...:.98~+.;.;i~_ _
Affidavit in Support of Motion
Instructions
I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that,

because of my poverty, I cannot prepay the docket
fees ofmy appeal or post a bond for them. I believe
I am entitled to redress. I swear or affirm under
penalty of perjury under United States laws that my
answers on this form are true and correct. (28
U.S.C. 1746; 18 U.S.C. 1621.)
Complete all questions in this application and then

sign it. 00 not leave any blanks: if the answer to a
question is flO,R "none," or "not applicable (N~A),"
write that response. If you need more space \0 answer
a question or to explain your answer, attach a separate
sheet of paper identified with your name, your case's
docket number, and the question number.
Signed:
."f!
~~. 7J.tJ-
Date:
September 80, 20 I"
My issues on appeal are: (required):
Th. two key 00'" on nppeol-. (I.) derom,illini "hath"" Rr.p,dll""" Ijlpr.inu:d fcdend judge P.lk"n C..tcI h.. in,.,uiooolly ,wm,cd"h. Coo,rillt'""" 11101:1.... num""",. CWI". und""IMJudicial CodfConduct, u .."'I .. ~i. o.th ofQIIko
1n order to
met of my c:on.tltution.al"nd stltutory riihtl und..r ttl(!' color oftl"'" due to m)' nee. eol(lr, nltion.l origin and pro Ie litigant' .Uto.l. by iSluing th,.,.... on.e-t'idrd Ord..en thar Ire t'fTtW\eOUS IS I nlluer oflaw and/nr public. policy and
'he _
Cln:uit mult .1", d<:rermlnc (11.) if ...orney Mloh..l p, ZO/tig .nd u.. oil,. law flrm Loeb ole Lo.b LLP hi'" .ngusoo in 'ptlt,C"," of"fl'llud upon 'he Cou,,' Oft Wllllu. MOlTi.' behalf sIn CUtcl rdbtad '0 Klu>mvl<dHo lilY ...gum"'~
while granting th4 Defendnntl' nquat tn impou .. mini injunction I&linlt mt' and pn:judia:tJ my.ppeaJ by "Iring it w~d nat be mtd~ in "r;ood r,ith,'"
Oth ... Ia Indude lletonnining wherher both .riritntonl' ded.I"", If> ""f""'e waH.... Mnrril.,bit,..rion
made In .....,ill!st dllrogvd of ,he law" d.. to ,;ol.do of i 10 of the FAA .nd wIt.th.r CU,.I'. dodolon If> uphold
Ihelr decilloua W8Ji.lao mode In "'..umircsi til"'...."' ofth., low," g1\,..n Ulill neJtherMrbJtr.ill' cited IIny cuo IlIw and C..te-I.,.w no pJ"Oblttn wit.. ,hi\. AJ\eor teeth'ins II"Part.~1 Final Award" un lMc:ernlJl:r 11. iIO)" from Arbilntur' O.\'id t.. G~
whic=h d~tCfff1incd th WtIJilm Mom. "diKrinnnattlgai.n.t [m"'J i~l \1olation ufpminent fedenl, .tate..nd h'.IClt law prohibiting diltriminltion oh me bui. ofP'lct''' .nd intlir.. ted tNt I would ~ I",'arded wMnanrill fIlt'ne'lry damaK~i thn
AM d......nr"'"
o"'gory will"""
.nd I
IthiITllnr - Schnall.. LLP anomer Tim,:nhy K. LewI. - ..... Ippoinl<d in .I6I,don of 0.. AM.,,.I.. pernining 10 di>.qIllUficalion. On Mtrdl 17, lOIS, IlubmitlCd Froud U""" iho
Cnuf' M01ion. 'ddressing rhe UVC.'",l1 fTawJ Loeb i!t I..oreb Ll..f1 "'''tI'C engaged In before. during and after I filed my Complalnt and 1 uallJd luiihntor O'"'Fry's Award to ..upport tn.. Cutel'l July -:10. ~Oll SIIY Order WIll erron~a .. bQch a matter ur
In!.' and public poIK!y, and to IUrrlm .tlpport thlt arbitrlltion 'WIII,n 1n1ppl"'C'lpnlr.e- (oNn, for Ehb: pil'lkt.illr cue- to Khl~'e the puhUf' polley loals oftbe en';l RiShu A(;t of 196+ given lb.t William MMrl" aNi its coun.,J IM!'W'r rd'uted the pyramid ftf
..iW;- ~.m~",":1i111! the """pany'. i... ndonol patte", and """rinuing p...rn.. ofdi.niminating "pins. AIT!<on """'rlco.. 1n employment .ptnning 'I ~ )'C8". culel...ruRd '0 distj~.lif, him...lfor ltay the ,rbirntion, and I......d IDId .... to
'gr<"'''''' "'....
,,""it.......
;:;;r'''''''"8'"
tell"""
I.
Th.SooondCimIi,n,.."
~tt::.~:~~~:.
and """d... 1M AM hodlul!UJril)'

10 di"lu.liry the 1.",1Ully al'f'Olnted
athi.....,. alkr ........ining lilbility and
For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount o/moNlY recellledfrom ~acn
ol'lhejeollowino sources durino lhepasl J2 monlhs. At:!.iwt any amount thai was receIved
;eekly, biweekly, quarterly, s:miannually. or ann~ally to show the monlhJJ! rate. Use
gross amounls. lhat is, amounts before any deductiOn! for llJJ:eS or otherwISe.
"
Income source
wit...
C4stcl
waited ,n ruDy
oddr~
'h~ trgun..,,,,.
con~1nm1
M.m. 17, IIQIt I"l'IIUd Upon
Mj,hatl P. Z....ig. o,rIil!an

Corbo, and Loeb II< Loeb
LU' for lntenti.(mdly
'"::t
Average montbly
amount during the past
12 months
You
Sgguse
Amount expected next

month
You
Sgguse
Employment
$0
$N/A
$0
$N/A
Self-employment
$1()o.oo
$N/A
$400.00
$N/A
Income from real property (such as

rental income)
SO
$N/A
$0
$N/A
~ \"\l
~
'"
tho Coo"
Motion .11<l
Aprtl
Jl,9IJ1+Modcmfor
Reconaidenauon - whidl alit)

,",ugllt almineln' d1sclpllriory
Ind nwnet.ary ..tlnC',~i(Jn..
lndud1nR default judgment
and WO million. "pin..
.....
~~
on
indir.atin, whAt ""'HlCr.r),
rellefl wuendtled loin

thi.blfllTcal<d ~Ing.
Ileciding ",heth.,. my due
procetl V1D"lbrtiwr vlolated
""w
~n
..;~"
.S; W Ii
. Ji I
)0 ~!~
_
I~
fi
.s ~
III
1
II
~'- ~
f.)
vl:oIll1ng nlll'TtCf"OUl Rule.

under rhe New York Ru,,", of
""'f...ion,I Cond...~ vlol,rin i""A~
and on d,e
<o,jldWli"olllnucng,ugtngtnl panern 0 tau U",," t " ....,,' o. \YUHom Mom.' _tlf - U"!iI.n.t .h. hudul.ndy appoln'..! ...bi....lor dilmitted my a .. with
mcritl- on Jlme: I!.ti, 201'" .nd William MO'I"Ti. lOugh' te. ronfirm that Award.
f~idinB whetMt l.towi. unl.,dully ' ..caled tho Award rtf AI'bitrabll' O'''I:F.Y in lI'101otlon nf i 10 ofthll! fAA .nd whethet' hi. "ffn.1 A~.. rd" "'u made in vinl.tion a( the UffIe tltamte. Otciding whr.thet' 1...tIIt'b &. l.aeb i...t..P attorney Chri"tian Carbane
.hnulrl h." dl",I",.d to 'he SDNY or my..If,h h. ~'.. m.rri<d .o.n .. ",uti,.. fnr ,h. AAA - Suh. Anreliqu. CorlI!>nt -ll'ho work.d rJ"",Iy wI,h Lo~;.............., mlh. AAA. "Iliveralry Com mitt..: Deciding ...hem.. 1M A"A .Uow<d
f..ewi. afld Sdl'muier I..I..P to enrJ!Jrt freud. by allowing t.e"";' to prov;de Schrutder LLP'. bank muting: number .nd h.Q\irtg \Villi.m MatTi. makt:; direct puynumt to tnt:; Om [more lhllt'l $llfj/1OO in leu than ala: mondl.), in v;olltion or AAA
Employ,....' R"t.....
1210112013
Deriding: whelher Cute}'. d~ to iuue ~ tiling injwnetion Dgaimrt me md .trip me uf my in fornaa pcrupcri. -'lItUJil wittie OOing P'tIM::' of ruy ~tiR ceo"qnt;e dl"t'utnn,"(.lC:jI hi rlJnMrdemtJfl.trltion 0( ttl. I'I'cW biu. prejudice. r-rtiallt.y I'ftd
imr-nJlOdy in favor ofWtm.m Mc.'If'ria. 1..o11h (I( lJld1 Lt.P. Timolil}' K. I...,,,,,i., th,. MA .nd oth~. "'arnntina: hi5 di-.qu.lifkarion purrulnt to: ca UAC 'I(WI and impeadmwnt for i'numrionally fttpginK in fraud. conl)'lirilllt a".m..t ridtu.
C[IM.pirinC'lD interfere wi.h the hURIan ,igna. orprop1euf Africun de.c:rmt and depriving nJr I){my ron.druoonal .nd I",m~ry n,hu um1er 'he cotor of law. in vlnlaooh.,r 18 UAC. f, a.l. the Ku Klux Kia" Act of 1871, o-codUled .. oY,l: U.S.c. f
I 98$(S}. 10fl Us,c. S 10&3 and 18 USc., t+!I to n.me I fo"", (If the fonl i. tOO .Rllll, [I\'e indudtd thrunee' lummiI')' at tllttnd oftha. docwnc:nt.j
sec
-------_._----
.pnti_
Interest and dividends
$0
$N/A
$0
$N/A
Gifts
$0
$ N/I\
$0
$N/A
Alimony
$0
$N/A
$0
$N!A
Child support
$0
$N/A
$0
$N/..\
Retirement (such as social security,

pensions. annuities, insurance)
$1"1
SN/A
$0
$N/A
Disability (such as social security,

insurance payments)
SO
$N!A
$0
$N/A
Unemployment payments
$0
$N/A
$n
$N/A
Public-assistance (such as welfare)
$"7+.00
$N/A
$174.00
$N/A
Other (specify):
$0
$N/A
$0
SN/A
$ISH,W
SO
SlllN.OIl
SO
Total monthly income:
2.
.,
List your employment
hisloryfOI' the past two years, most recenl employer first. (Gross
mOnLhly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)
Employer
Address
Dates of
employment
Gross
monthly pay
N/A
NtA
N/A
$ N/A
$
3.
List yow"spouse's
employment history for the past two years, most I"f!cent employerfirst.
(Gross monthly pay is before laxes 01' other deductions.)
Employer
Address
Dates or
employment
Gross
montbly pay
N/A
N/A
N/!\
$N/A
S
$
.~.
4.
How much cash do you and your spouse haw!? S SlUlU

Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other
financial institution.
FiDanciailnstiCutio1l
Type of Account
Amount ),ou bave:"
Amouat your
spouse has
Bank IIr AmeriCli
Ch~dung
$ !1.02
$ N/A
1/you are a prisoner seeking to appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, you mUst
attach II statement certified hy the appropriate institutional offlcer showing all receipts,
expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. 1/you
have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been In multiple insIiJuI;ons, attach one
certified statement oj each account.
5.
List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing
and ordinary household furnishings.

Home
(Value) $
N/A
Otber real estate
Motor vehicle #1
(Value) $ N/."
(Value) S N/A
Make and year:
Model:
Registration #:
Motor vehicleJn
Other assets
Other assets
(Value) $N/A
(Value) $ NfA
(Value) $N/:\
Make and year:

Model:
Registration #:
..
6.
Siale ellery person, business. or organization owing YOIl or yow spoIISe mo",y. anti lhe
amount owed.
. Person owing you or your spouse

money
Amount owed to you
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC
$ punitiw danlap. tlfO It! n.nn ttttMtley (eeq, ctc..J
SN/A
7.
Amouat owed to your

spouse
TBD (bac\II"'Y, r""" pay, ,,,mpom..lory
Siale Ihe persons who rely on you or your spouse jor supporl.
Name (or. if a minor (i.e., underage), initials only1
Relationsbip
Age
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.
EsUma.e the average mOn/My expenses ofyou and your family. Show separately lhe
amounts paid by)IOur spouse. Adjust any payments thai are made wee/c1y, biweelcJy,
quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show Ihe monthly rate.
Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for

mobile home)
:
Are !'eft estate taxes included?
Yes ~ No
;==
Is property insurance included?
Yes )II No
You
Your Spouse
$1.5.00
$N/A
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone)

$ 80.00 ,
$N/A
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)
$N/A
$N/A
Food
S~oo.oo
$N/A
Clothing
$N/A
$N/A
Laundry and dry-cleaning
$N/A
Medical and dental expenses
$NJA
-4
1.5.00
$ N/A

,
,.,
11.
Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the dockel/ees
JOT your appeal,
As demon9tratcO above, I "mpo"" and .11' currently li'inK below (he ",werty le""l. 'lne fee .Inne (n file a Nntice nf ,~pl'e.I is $5U5.oo
and fUI' mure tlliln twu YearR, I have bten slIn'ivinl; u/Tuf:NOO.oo a munth in ca~h due tu cllllmbmiunR &001 my parenu;..A~ n rtBult ufpurRuing
this "undesirable case" and challenging the discriminatory employment practices, polices and procedures of my former employel', the
William Morris Agency (now lmown as William Morris Enuca\,or Entertni",nl'nt), I hu\'c becn blacklistcd from this industry "nd it has mude it
extreDldy dimcult fi." me: tu gain t:ntpi"yntl:nr, c,'en in jub" oUlsidt of the elltertainment indu~tr). Althllugh I hll"e .clively Look,!d for empLoyment
over the liLY! Jour yeoTs, I hu,'c been un.uccesllful due. to lhe damage Ihis CBse has had on nly proff:S.!!ionol and per8onoJ reputation. As demonstrated
hy the Det:cltlbcr I i, ~JI:J ,\ward issul'<f by Arbit",tor Daviu L Gregor)' of the ,\meric"n Arbitmtion AStioclntion, I UI11 cnti[I ..J tl) ~ubsul1tiul
monetary ,Janlllges inclu,ling punitive damage.' and pr"-",, aw,rneYN f.,...<, and l must he vcn Ihe uppnTwni[y to have this nt!lJ1ifL.. t iojllsti~ """",,ted.
12.
Identify the city and state ojyour legal residence.

City
State
Bl"Ooldyn
Your daytime phone number:
..:N..:;e:..:.,,;..'Y;,.o:;.:r.:.:h_ _ __
_6_46-_,_50i_~_4_!l_'_ _ _ __
','
Your years of schooling:
...:1,;...7_ __
Last four digits of your social-security number:
~;!'I;;..:9.::...fI_ _
Your age:
_"_0_ __
-6
"
. t
6.
Slate every person. business, or organization owingyou or your spouse money, and the
amount owed.
Person owing you or your spouse
Amount owed to you
mODey
William MO'I'1'i~El'ldt:lvOl" 'Efrwrtlli"m"nt.] .1..(:
7.
THD ,...~ I"f. hu, Jl"Y...."" .......""l
AmouDt owed to your

spouse
$f'I'lIIil"'rd.,"CI~prl\"t' mm aIIL'trJC-rfftll., VIr..:]
$'N/'\
Stale the persons who rely on you or your spouse Jor support.
Name [or, if a minor (i.e., underage), initials only)
Relationship
Ale
N/A
'N/A
Nt},
8.
Estimate the average monthLy expenses oJyou and your Jamily. Show separately tlte
amounls paid by your spouse. Adjusl any paymenls lhal are made weelcly, biweelcly.
quarterly, semiannually, or annually 10 show the monthly raJe.
You
Your Spouse
$76.00
$N/A
Utilities (electricity. heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone)
$Ilo.un
$N/A
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)
$N/A
$N/A
Food
$200.00
$N/A
Clothing
$N/A
$N/A
Laundry and dry-cleaning
$ 1.~.(J(j
$N/A
Medical and dental expenses
$N/A
$N/A
Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented

mobile home)
.--
Are rl!4f' estate taxes included?
Yes
\===:
Is property insurance included?
Yes
-4
for
.....
~ No
)4 No

Name: Marcus Isaiah Washington
Case Caption: Washington v. William Moms Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC) (JCF)
Application to Appeal In Fonna Pauperis
My issues on appeal are:

The two key issues on appeal are: (1.) determining whether Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel
has intentionally violated the Constitution, the law, numerous Canons Wlder the Iudicial Code of Conduct, as
well as his Oath of Office in order to deprive me ofmy constitutional and statutory rights under the co]or of law
due to my race, color, national origin and pro se htigant status by issuing three, one-sided Orders that are
erroneous as a matter of law and/or public policy and the Second Circuit must also determine (2.) if attorney
Michael P. Zweig and the elite law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP have engaged in a "pattern" of"fraud upon the Court"
on William Morris' behalf since Castel refused to acknowledge my argwnent, while granting the Defendants'
request to impose a filing injunction against me and prejudiced my appeal by stating it would not be made in
"good faith."
Other issues include: Determining whether both arbitrators' decisions to enforce William Morris
arbitration agreement were made in "manifest disregard of the law" due to violations of 10 of the FAA and
whether Castel's decision to uphold their decisions was also made in "manifest disregard of the law," given that
neither arbitrator cited any case law and Castel saw no problem with that. After receiving a "Partial Final Award"
on December 17, 2013 from Arbitrator David L. Gregory which determined that William Morris "discriminated
against [me] in violation ofpertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting discrimination on the basis ofrace"
and indicated that J would be awarded substantial monetary damages, the AM disqualified Arbitrator Gregory
without reason and a new arbitrator _. Schnader LLP attorney Timothy K. Lewis -- was appointed in violation
of the AM's rules pertaining to disqualification. On March 17, 2013, I submitted a Fraud Upon the Court
Motion, addressing the overall fraud Loeb & Loeb LLP were engaged in before, during and after I :filed my
Complaint and I used Arbitrator Gregory's Award to support that Castel's July 20. 20 II Stay Order was erroneous
as both a matter of law and public policy, and to further support that arbitration was an inappropriate forum for
this particular case to achieve the public policy goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 given that William MotTis
and its counsel never refuted the pyramid of evidence demonstrating the company's intentional pattern and
continuing practice of discriminating against African Americans in employment spanning 116 years. Castel
refu.<ied to disqualify himself or stay the arbitration., and instead told me to continue in arbitrating in "good faith. "
The Second Circuit must also detennine whether Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award was "fwll,
for the sake ofjudicial review" and whether the AM had authority to disqualify the lawfully appointed arbitrator
after determining liability and indicating wbat monetary relief [ was entitled to in this bifurcated proceeding.
Deciding whether my due process was further violated when Castel waited to fully address the arguments
contained in my March 17,2014 Fraud Upon the Coun Motion and April 11, 20]4 Motion for Reconsideration
-- which al!'U') sought ~ignificant di~ciplinary and monetary ~anctiom~. including default judgment and $250
million, against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, and Loeb & .Loeb LLP tor intentionally violating
numerous Rules under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, violating the New York Judiciary Law
487 and engaging ina "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" on William MotTis' behalf-- until after tbe fraudulently
appointed arbitrator dismissed my case with "prejudice and on the merits" on 1une 25, 2014 and WiUiam Morris
sought to confinn that Award.
Deciding whether Lewis unlawfully vacated the Award of Arbitrator Gregory in violation of 10 ofthe
FAA and whether his "Final Award" was made in violation of the same statute. Deciding wbether Loeb & Loeb
LLP attorney Christian Carbone should have disclosed to the SONY or myself that he was married to an
executive for the AAA- Sasha Angehque Carbone - who worked closely with Lewis as a member ofthe AM's
"Diversity Committee." Deciding whether the AAA allowed Lewis and Schnader LLP to engage in fraud, by
anowing Lewis to provide Schnader LLP's bank routing number and having William Morris make direct
payment to the finn [more than $J 15,000 in Ie!;!; than !;ix month~], in violation of AAA Employment Rule 44.
Deciding whether Castel's decision to issue a filing injunction against me and strip me of my in torma
pauperis status while being aware of my dire economic circumstances is further demonstration of his racial bias,
prejudice, partiality and impropriety in favor ofWilliam Morris. Loeb & LoebLLP, Timothy K. Lewis, the AAA
and others, warranting his disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.c. 2106 and impeachment for intentionally
engaging in fraud, conspiring against rights, conspiring to interfere with the human rights of people of African
descent and depriving me of my constitutional and statutory rights under the color of law, in violation of 18
U.s-C. , 241, the Ku K1tLX Klan Act of 1871, as codified as 42 U.s.c. 1985(3),42 U.S.c. 1983 and 18
U.s.c. 242 to name a few.
Exhibit L
1211517014
Gmail- Washington
v. William Morris Endeavor
Ent.1 Damages
25, 12/15/2014,
1399972,
Page95 of 152
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Ent.1 Damages

1 message
M.Washi ngton <humanrights .areamust@gmail.com>
To: mzweig@loeb.com. ccarbone@loeb.com. mbeck@loeb.com
Tue, Dec 24,2013 at 8:58 AM
Hi Michael,
Ijust wanted to fotward over to you the rough draft of my submission for damages that I was working on pursuant to Arbitrator
Gregory's third Interim Decision. This will be updated to reflect Arbitrator Gregory's partial final award.
Best,
Marcus
III Fees, Damages and Costs 23.docx

- 186K
https:llmail.google,com/maillulOl?ui=2&ik=Qage2eQdee&view=pt&q=damagesO/02Ozweig&qs=true&search=query&th=14324e62411cOf11&Siml=14324e62411cO... 1/1
---------------------------------------------------------------------X
AAA Case No. 13 1600142612
Claimant,
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, formerly known as the
WILLIAM MORRIS AGENCY, INC.,
JEFF MEADE and SARAH V AN HOVEN,
CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO ARBITRATOR

DAVID L. GREGORY'S REQUEST FOR
AN ITEMIZED LIST OF FEES,
DAMAGES AND COSTS.
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------X
In the third Interim Decision of Arbitrator David L. Gregory, he stated: ''By Friday, October 4,2013, I ORDER each
party to submit a complete itemized list of fees, damages, and costs that they seek through, and beyond, October 4,
2013. Claimant shall submit two lists, with one including Claimant returning to work for Respondent WME and the
second list not including such a return to work." [pg. 5.J As stated in the reply my Motion for Summary Judgment
filed on January 31, 2013, I asked that if the arbitration agreement was upheld and the merits of my case were
decided in arbitration, I wanted this proceeding be bifurcated so that if William Morris were found liable, I would be
allowed discovery to obtain various fmancial records and other pertinent documents so my esteemed economic
expert can have a fair opportunity to determine and compute the full extent of my damages. [pg. 54.]
Based on your last two improvident Interim Decisions, which contain a gross number of factual errors and
inaccuracies, you have already: prematurely' dismissed a significant claim that I've been arguing for nearly three
years - arbitration is not an approximate forum for this landmark civil and human rights case and that the arbitration
agreements I signed and/or its provisions were procedurally & substantively unconscionable, tainted with illegality,
malum in se and nothing but a "deceptive to help the company not have to [quote opposition]" - with one sentence
and no citation ofthe law, thus violating my constitutional rights by denying due process and equal protection ofthe
law 1; prematurely dismissed my antitrust claims having never discussed the facts of the case in any of you three
Interim Decisions or mentioning the Sherman Act by name, while simultaneously admitting into the record smoking
gun, spoliated evidence which proves that William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (formerly the William Morris
Agency), Hollywood, and our judicial system have been engaged in a sinister conspiracy to interfere with the human
rights of African Americans and other types of arbitrator misconduct, there is a strong likelihood that in your "final
decision," you could very well do the same - ignore the pyramid of evidence I've presented, omit pertinent facts
and misapply the law - to dismiss my remaining claims and conclude that William Morris has not engaged in 115
year pattern and continuing practice of racial discrimination against African Americans and people of color, that the
company's employment practices, policies and procedures do not create a disparate impact against although there
were zero African Americans employed at any level of the New York office's Agent Trainee program when I was
hired in September 2008 and race is not a prerequisite for the job, and that I was not a victim ofpre and post-hiring
1 Procedurally, Arbitrator Gregory's adverse decision is premature. Stated in his July 15, 2013 Interim Decision that
bcforc bcing able to makc a decision on this or thc merits ofthc casc, therc had to bc discovcry and an oral hcaring
about "Exhibit 31." Niether of these things have happened.
disparate treatment, I am left with no choice but to thoroughly explain why I am seeking no less than $125 million in
damages from William Morris, Van Hoven and Meade.
I would look extremely foolish to seek a judgment in this amount and only provide "an itemized list" of my
fees, damages and costs. Therefore, I am presenting more than an "itemized list" that is still in no way meant to be
exhaustive. It will however, provide the Arbitrator and the Respondents a better idea of the monetary and non
monetary reliefT am seeking in this case. Tn order to prevent further harmful delay, Task that since we are currently
in discovery, you also compel the Respondents to produce the various fmancial documents mentioned throughout
this reply, as well as additional documents that will be asked to be produced to allow myself and/or an economic
expert of my choice to calculate the full extent of my damages. I agree in advance, to not disclose any these
documents to the public and will file these documents under seal when I seek to have your award either confirmed,
modified and/or vacated by the Southern District of New York. I want full remedial, corrective, and preventive
relief.
RECAP: A BRIEF LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964:

Title VII was a direct legislative byproduct of the black-led civil rights movement28 and the larger struggle of
African Americans to live free from both invidious and institutional racism in all areas of life in America. 2 The
objectives of Title VII are twofold: (I) to end workplace discrimination, and (2) to remedy individual injwies.
[Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 19; Claimant Recall Mandate, 5.] While the main thrust, initially, was to
prohibit purposeful discrimination, International Broth. of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.I5 (1977)
("[u]ndoubtedly disparate treatment was the most obvious evil Congress had in mind when it enacted Title VIlli), "it
was clear to Congress that '[t]he crux of the problem [was] to open employment opportunities for Negroes ill
occupations which have been traditionally Closed to them,' ... and it was to this problem that Title VII's prohibition
against racial discrimination in employment was primarily addressed. II United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
CLC v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193,203, (1979) (quoting 110 Congo Rec. 6548 (remarks of Sen. Humphrey)).
Eradicating intentional discrimination and opening up opportunities historically closed to African
Americans served Congress' primary purpose in drafting the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See also McDonnell Douglas
V. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 800 (1973) (liThe language of Title VII makes plain the purpose of Congress to assure
equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices and devices which have
fostered racially stratified job environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens. "); Albermarle Paper CO. V.
Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 417 (1975) (stating that lithe primary objective [of Title VII] was a prophylactic oneil)
(emphasis added). The committee reports and debates are full with references to Congress' intent to improve the
economic status ofblacks3 and the realization that discrimination was "a pervasive practice" throughout the country
Adjoa Artis Aiyetoro. Can We Talk? How Triggers For Unconscious Racism Strengthen The Importance of
Dialogue. 22 Nat'l Black L. J. 1, 21 (Fall 2009) (''During slavery and Jim Crow it was not unusual for African
descendants to be treated in debasing ways, including being addressed with demeaning labels such as "nigger." Race
and racism were part of the very fabric of the society, and although other racial groups were treated in a
discriminatory fashion, the premier story of racism in the United States has been the treatment of African
descendants."); S. Con. Res. 26, lIth Congo (2009) (Apologizing for the enslavement and racial segregation of
African-Americans.) (Whereas the system of de jure racial segregation known as "Jim Crow", which arose in certain
parts of the United States after the Civil War to create separate and unequal societies for Whites and African
Americans, was a direct result of the racism against people of African descent that was engendered by slavery;
Whereas the system of Jim Crow laws officially existed until the I 960s-a century after the official end of slavery in
the United States--until Congress took action to end it, but the vestiges of Jim Crow continue to this day;).
3 For the complete text of the House Congressional reports, including hearing testimony, and the House and Senate
debates recorded in 11 0 Congo Rec. (1964), see U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Legislative
History of Title VII and XI of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1968) (reprinted 1988). For examples of congressional
concern for the economic plight of black people, see 110 Congo Rec. 6547-6550 (\964) (remarks of Sen.
Humphrey). Sen. Humphrey, one ofthe floor managers ofthe bill expressed this concern:
-2
.'
that "permeate[d] the national social fabric - North, South, East and West.',4 The recognition that equal
employment opportunity required Congress to address both "overt and covert discriminatory selection devices,
intentional or unintentional," was evident.34 The embodiment of Congress' broad prohibition of practices resulting
in the denial of employment opportunities was contained in Section 703(a)(2) of Title VII (the provision held to be
the basis of the disparate impact theory).
The general purpose behind Title VII was to correct the societal legacy of discrimination against African
Americans. Except as otherwise provided by statute, an unlawful employment practice is established when the
complaining party demonstmtes that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any
employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice. 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-2(m). Relief in
discrimination cases is designed both to remedy the effects of past discrimination and to prevent similar
discrimination in the future. The requirement of anti-discrimination law to place the victim in as good a position as
if the discrimination never occurred. The United States Supreme Court found that courts have broad power to help
victims of discrimination because "Congress took care to arm the courts with full equitable powers." _
In an action brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the district court
has broad discretion to fashion appropriate equitable relief. Castle v. Rubin, 78 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1996). In
determining which specific remedies are to be afforded, district courts must fashion the relief to the particular
circumstances of each case, in order to effect complete restitution. The other primary purposes of anti-discrimination
employment laws are simply to prevent discrimination in the workplace and achieve equal employment opportunity
in the future. See Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859, 876 (11 th Cir. 1986) (noting the primary purposes
of Title VII). One of the purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to make a person whole for injuries
suffered as a result of unlawful employment discrimination.[ Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.
Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975).J
The statutory requirement that there have been intentional discrimination in order for relief to be available
under Title VII means only that a claimant seeking relief must prove that the discriminatory practice was not
accidenta~ inadvertent, or based on mistake; no showing of discriminatory intent is required.[ U.S. v. Jacksonville
Terminal Co., 451 F.2d 418 (5th Cir. 1971); Waters v. Wisconsin Steel Works ofTntern. Harvester Co., 502 F.2d
1309 (7th Cir. 1974); Schaeffer v. San Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc., 462 F.2d 1002 (9th Cir. 1972); Brito v. Zia Co.,
478 F.2d 1200 (10th Cir. 1973).]
I had to include this section because you have made no mention of words like "Civil Rights Act of 1964"
and "civil rights" or discussed the facts of this case based on the "voluminous" motions that have been submitted in
any of your three Interim Decisions. Given that this case challenges institutional racism and employment
discrimination at the William Morris Agency (now known as William Morris Endeavor Entertainment), how is it
possible that any of your Interim Decisions are accurate based on these glaring omissions?
DAMAGES:
"Tbe Negro Is the principal victim of discrimination In employment. According to Labor Department statistics,
the unemployment rate among nonwhites is over twice as high as among whites. More significantly, among male
family breadwinners, those with dependents to support, the unemployment rate is three times as high among
nonwhites as .among whites. Andalthough nonwhites constitute only 11 percent of the total work force, they account
for 25 percent of all workers unemployed tor 6 months or more. Discrimination also affects the kind of lobs
Negroes can get. Generally, it is the lower paid and less desirable jobs which are filled by Negroes." (emphasis
added)
4 See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 570, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 ("Job discrimination is extant in almost every area of
employment and every area of this country. It ranges in degrees from patent absolute rejection to more subtle forms
of invidious distinctions. Most frequently, it manifests itself through relegation to 'traditional' positions and through
discriminatory promotional practices. ").
-3
"Although the NYSHRL, NYCHRL and federal anti-discrimination laws are analyzed under a similar
legal framework, the NYCHRL is not equivalent and requires a distinct analysis."s Additionally, under the New
York City Human Rights Laws, the 2005 Restoration Act has demonstrated that Under this law, there are no caps
under any of the damages I am seeking. For a number of reasons, this case is unlike any other. Cases by case basis,
based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The fact tinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the
defendant, particularly if disbelief is accompanied by suspicion of mendacity, together with the elements of the
prima facie case, may suffice to show intentional discrimination in violation of the New York City Human Rights
Law; thus, rejection of the defendant's proffered reasons will permit the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of
intentional discrimination. New York City Administrative Code, 8-107(1)(a). 2The New York City Human Rights
Law (N.Y.C. Administrative Code Title 8) 8-107(1)(a) prohibits discrimination based upon a perceived disability
in the work place. Although New York State courts have applied the same standards as federal courts in considering
employment discrimination claims, Aurecchione v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 98 N.Y.2d 21,25-26,
744 N.Y.S.2d 349, 771 N.E.2d 231 (2002); Walsh v. Covenant House, 244 A.D.2d 214, 215, 664 N.Y.S.2d 282 (1st
Dept.1997), in enacting the more protective Human Rights Law, the New York City Council has exercised a clear
policy choice which this Court is bound to honor. The Administrative Code's legislative history clearly contemplates
that the New York City Human Rights Law be liberally and independently construed with the aim of making it the
most progressive in the nation. 6 Thus, the case law that has developed in interpreting both the State Human Rights
Law and Title vn should merely serve as a base for the New York City Human Rights Law, not its ceiling. See also
Section I, Local Law 85 ("Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of2005''); The Council Report of the Governmental
Affairs Division. Committee on General Welfare, August 17,2005. "The Restoration Act's removal of the crutch of
assumed equivalence will persuade more judges to take a look at the actual language of specific provisions of the
City's Human Rights Law. Doing so will cause them to see more differences with federal and state law-including
differences in the areas of individual liability, vicarious liability, punitive damages, availability of compensatory
damages in mixed motive cases, the nature of burden shifting in disparate impact cases, the scope of "public
accommodations," and the obligation of a housing provider to make and pay for reasonable modifications-than
they have previously taken the time to recognize."7
Against William Morris Endeavor Entertainment (formerly the William Morris Agency) for
pattern and practice discrimination, disparate impact, pre and post-hiring individual disparate
treatment, failure to promote and retaliation In violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of
1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981 ("Section 1981"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42
U.S.c. 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), the New York State Human Rights Law, New York
Executive Law 290 eL seq. (the "NYSBRL"), the New York City Human Rights Law, New York
Administrative Code 8-101 eL seq. (the "NYCBRL"), as weD as antitrust violations for this
Kerry W. Langan and Katherine A. Ritts. Labor and Employment. Syracuse Law Review. 64: 831, 850. 2011.
Remarks by former Mayor David N. Dinkins at a public hearing on Local Laws, June 18, 1991, 1-2 (011 file with
Committee on General Welfare). As former Mayor Dinkins noted, it was "the intention of the Council that judges
interpreting the City's Human Rights Law ... not to be bound by restrictive state and federal rulings and are to take
seriously the requirement that this law be liberally and independently construed." Id. at 1; see also Section I, Local
Law 85 ("Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of2005"), which states in relevant part: It is the sense of the Council
that New York City's Human Rights Law has been construed too narrowly to ensure protection of the civil rights of
all persons covered by the law. In particular, through passage of this local law, the Council seeks to underscore that
the provisions of New York City's Human Rights Law are to be construed independently from similar or identical
provisions of New York state of federal statutes. Interpretations of New York state or federal statutes with similar
wording may be used as an aid in interpretation of New York City Human Rights Law, viewing similarly worded
provi!!ion!! of federal and !!tate civil right!! laws a!! a floor below which the City'!! Human Right!! law cannot fall,
rather than a ceiJing above which the local law cannot rise.
5
7_
-4
cabal's monopolistic and anticompetitive practices under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
and Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 et seq.:
According to Title VTl,it .is unJawful fur an. employer to discriminate with ''respect to [an employee's]
compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment" and also lnaIces it unlawful for an employer "[t]o
Hmlt, segregate. or classify his employees or appHcants for employment In any way which would deprive or
tend to depriye any IndMdual of employment opportunldes or otherwise adyersely affect his status as an
employee, because of such individual's race, color, reHgion, sex, or national origin," 42 U.S.c. 2000e-2(a).
(emphasis added) An unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that
any of these impermissible factors was more likely than not, a motivating factor for any employment practice, even
though other factors may have also motivated the practice. 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-2(m). Ultimately, disparate
treatment and disparate impact are two ways of proving the same thing: discrimination. See McDonnell Douglas
Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801 (1973) ("it is abundantly clear that Title VII tolerates no racial discrimination,
subtle or otherwise. ")
I have demonstrated that prior to me signing the mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreement on
September 2, 2008, William Morris was engaging in a 110 year pattern and continuing practice of employment
discrimination against African Americans and other people of color. In support of my claims of pre-hiring individual
disparate treatment, I demonstrated that the company's various employment practices, policies and procedures (e.g.
Agent Trainee program itself) created a glaring disparate impact against African Americans, including the
company's reliance on word of mouth and referrals to hire employees as Agents. It is for this reason that I was
"ONLY" able to apply to the Agent Trainee program Even if this were unintentional, William Morris is still in
violation of the law. Before working at the agency, Tknew that under the Talent Agencies Act, a manager had to be
"licensed" in order to procure engagements for their client. The company's "discriminatory organizational structure,
institutional practices and work culture defmed along racial lines" made it impossible for me to rise above the
company's glass ceiling. Based on these facts, there should have been more than zero African American Agents
working in the New York office. If advancement in the all-White'''Jewish'' Agent Trainee program was based off of
nepotism, cronyism and other forms of favoritism, then I would have had a better opportunity to advance if there
were Agents of color employed . .I had no opportunity to be mentored by Agents like my lesser qualified and
experienced Whitef'Jewish" counterparts.
Essentially, this means that I was working in an insidiously discriminatory environment and every day that
I employed, I was being discriminated against although I was "oblivious" to what was happening .. Due to my
naivety, T never imagined in 100 years that when T moved to New York City, there would exist companies or entire
industries that were all Whiter'Jewish." I thought we were passed that period in American history. However, I now
know that this seems to be pretty commonplace - a reason why judges and arbitrators in this case seem to be
apathetic to this fact. However, this in and of itself, creates an inference of discrimination. [cite "inexorable zero"
case law.lIt wasn't until I worked inside the New York office that I was able to realize that I was extremely more
qualified than those typically hired into the Agent Trainee program, and that my academic and professional
accomplishments actually surpassed that of some of the Agents who were recently promoted. There's no possible
way I could have known this unless I worked for this private company. I worked alongside many Agents who signed
no notable talent throughout their careers and had very little business.
William Morris and its Human Resources personnel had a responsibility to make sure the company was
complying with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but they never did. Because this cabal believes that it can act above the
law, it instead included language that it was an "equal opportunity employer" and that it __ based on "merit,"
while never
. I was denied a position as Agent because of my race, color and/or perceived
national origin gender and perceived, and I was ultimately constructively discharged because the company refused
to investigate my claims of discrimination so that it could continue maintaining its insidiously discriminatory work
environment. If the policies and procedures are used because of a perceived ability to discriminate, they may be
found in violation of Title VII. Where there are substantially fewer minority applicants than there are qualified
-5
minority members in the labor market, an inference of discrimination may be drawn. the employer practice of
assigning minority individuals to low paying. low opportunity jobs while whites or males with the same
qualifications are assigned to higher paying jobs with greater opportunities. Such a practice is unlawful since it
denies equal employment opportunity. Denial of promotional opportunities is one of the largest groups of claims
arising under Title VII. While employers are generaUy not required to promote less qualified minority employees
over more qualified white or male employees, they may not deliberately inhibit the promotion possibilities of
minority employees. consistently failing to promote members of a protected group. decisions were based on the
subjective evaluation of supervisors who rely on their own discretion. Initial discrimination in promotion can have a
long range effect since many employers follow lines ofprogression or career ladders and promotion to higher level
jobs follows from specific lower level jobs. An initial low level assignment may determine the maximum level of
compensation or responsibility which an employee can reach.
The decision to transfer or promote must be based on merit. Difficulty arises when the decision is based on
informal and subjective criteria. When informal aud subjective criteria are used by nonminority or protected class
members the potential for discrimination is increased. It's because of my membership in a protected class, tbat I (an
individual) was treated differently. I bave demonstrated tbat from the moment I submitted my application to
William Morris to the time I exited the company, my race, color and/or national origin played a motivating factor in
my inability to be hired and/or promoted to a position commensurate with my experience and skills. Once employed.,
an employee may be subject to a variety of adverse employer actions. These potentiaUy discriminatory employer
actions include various forms of disciplinary action or discharge (constructive, involuntary and retaliatory, layoff,
reduction in hours and involuntary early retirement). Actions arising under these circumstances are generally
individual actions, not class actions. A discharge is invalid if there is discrimination at any point in the disciplinary
process leading up to the discharge, and a charge of discrimination can be based on companywide policies or the
actions of one particular supervisor. Discrimination arises when these employer actions are a subterfuge. In addition,
when an employer disciplines or discharges employees without specific standards, procedures and objective criteria,
any distinct or different effect on minorities could be the result of discrimination.
Discrimination on the basis of race can occur in all the various aspects of the employment relationship,
such as job advertising and recruitment, hiring, job assignment, admission to a training program, transfer or
promotion, discharge, layoff, compensation, or benefits. Such discrimination can occur as the result of certain job
qualifications, objective or subjective tests, which have a disparate impact on members of racial minorities; or, as
the result of a seniority or merit system which purposefully perpetuates the effect of past discrimination. If the
plaintiff cannot isolate the particular employment practice causing a disparate impact, a prima facie case can still be
presented if the plaintiff can demonstrate tbat "the elements of [an employer's] decisionmaking process are not
capable of separation for analysis" and that the entire process has a disparate impact on a protected group. Title VII,
703(k)(l)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-2(k)(1)(B)(i).
defendant tolerated these racially abusive circumstances and conditions. Essentially, each employment
practice, policy and procedure at William Morris works to screen out qualified people of color from being hired as
an Agent Trainee and/or advancing to Agent. Granted., no company that's being sued for $125 million in damages
and has been accused of engaging in "institutionalized racism" is going to admit its wrongdoing to a judge or
arbitrator. That's extremely unrealistic. However, what does the evidence show? What does the sociological and law
literature say about William Morris' workplace? What do current events regarding race relations in America
demonstrate?
All employer's recruitment policies or practices may overtly exclude minority applicants or may have the
effect of excluding minority applicants. An employer might also recruit by word of mouth. Where such recruitment
takl!S place and the individuals making the referrals are generally members of one sex or a specific racial group,
such action might have the effect of excluding certain groups from employment. If there are substantially fewer
minority applicants and employees than there are qualified minority members in the labor market, an inference of
discrimination may be drawn. There are less discriminatory hiring methods than relying on word of mouth or
nepotism. This produces an intrinsically discriminatory compensation system. "general policy of discrimination"
When evidence of systemic disparate treatment is present in a case, the evidence is almost always used as the
-6
primary method of proving liability rather than at the fmal stage of a McDonnell-Douglas case. This is true even
though the systemic disparate treatment model is much the same whether used (1) at the pretext stage of an
individual disparate treatment case or (2) as the primary method of proving liability.
Certain general principles guide courts in selecting appropriate remedies for violations of federal job
discrimination laws. Relief in discrimination is designed both to remedy the effects of past discrimination and to
prevent similar discrimination in the future.
Monetary Relief:
(Back pay with prejudgment interest under Section 1981(pre and post-hiring disparate treatment,
retaliation), Title vn (pre and post-hiring disparate treatment, disparate impact, retaliation), NYSHRL, and
NYCHRL (pre and post-hiring disparate treatment, disparate impact, retaliation)](TI.I11.e .{r.l\m~:S.ep.te.mb~r
1010 - Date of judgment]
From a myriad of different angles, T have demonstrated that absent William Morris' conspiracy to interfere with the
human rights of African Americans and continued engagement in race-based employment discrimination, T would
have been hired as an Agent in the music department. I was clearly naive to the fact that because of the Talent
Agency Act, which states that one must be licensed to become an Agent, I was still just as qualified as the recently
promoted and mid-level Agents at the company. It took me working in that environment alongside those
predominately all whitel"1ewish" individuals at this private and highly secretive company to realize that. and
thOUght that Once purposeful job discrimination is proved, the victims are entitled to a presumption in favor of
awarding backpay and injunctive relief. Lee v. Washinston County Bd. of Ed., 625 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1980).
Under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, "rightful place relief" must be granted.
"Rightful place relief' only applies to the position that the victim can demonstrate that he or she was denied because
of the employer's unlawful act. "rightful place relief' may denied where continued employment of the victim could
lead to misunderstandings and misrepresentations, mistakes, because the job at issue involves a close working
relationship with the employer's top executives, and the discrimination litigation has engendered a complete
breakdown of trust and faith between the victim and those executives. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
v. }(allir. Philips. Ross Inc., 420 F. Supp. 919 (S.D. N.Y. 1976), aft'd, 559 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir. 1977). In Albemarle
Paper Co. v. Moody, the Supreme Court found that back pay damages were integral to the national system of
employment discrimination laws, and that there is a strong presumption that victims of discrimination are entitled to
backpay damages. [Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S. at 420-21.] The presumption in favor of an award of back pay
stems from the twin objectives for awarding such relief under Title VII, which are to make the victim of
discrimination whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination and to encourage employers to eliminate any
remaining discrimination. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1975).
Because of the presumption favoring backpay, courts do not have to identifY the specific factors that were
considered in making the award, E.E.O.C. v. Rath Packing Co., 787 F.2d 318 (8th Cir. 1986), but must carefully
articulate reasons for denying backpay. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 45 L. Ed. 2d
280 (1975). To demonstrate entitlement to backpay, a discrimination victim need show only that he or she suffered
an actual fmanciaJ loss resulting from the violation for each component of a backpay award.[ Lea v. Cone Mills
Corp., 438 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1971); Mims v. Wilson, 514 F.2d 106 (5th Cir. 1975).] The backpay period for victims
of violations of job discrimination laws usually begins on the date the economic loss starts.[ E.E.O.C. v. Joint
Apprenticeship Committee ofJoint Industry Bd. ofElec. Industry, 164 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 1998).
As an example to demonstrate failure to promote and how subjective decision-making in this all
Whitel"Jewish" work environment maintains occupational segregation in the workplace, one of the Agent Trainees
- MG ("Jewish") - that started with me (and was once a close friend) had considerably less experience than I did,
but was hired over me for an Assistant position. After a year of assisting for a recently promoted Agent - SBC
(White) - who was my age and had less qualifications than I did. This occurred qfter I was told by Cara Stein
-7
former COO of the New York office - that there would be no movement in my expressed areas of interest. After I
filed a complaint with the EEOC, the company hired five black people and one of the African American Floaters
immediately took MG's assistant position and MG was promoted to Coordinator. After a few months, MG was
promoted to Agent in which he was assigned to work with the company's Latin roster for branding and marketing
opportunities. Even after I was passed over for the assistant position, I still presented branding and marketing
presentations for recently signed client Keri Hilson and this led to endorsement deals for her. T even wrote the
generic pitch letter which was e-mailed to various companies contained in William Morris' database. Clearly, I
could perform the job of both music and marketing Agent, but T was unable to rise above the company's glass
ceiling no matter how hard I tried to demonstrate I was an asset to the company. Had MG had similar resume and
"ONLY" applied for the Agent Trainee program, William Morris would have created a position for him as an Agent,
as they do for other individuals who are not "licensed" Agents before joining the company. Whites that started in
the maiIroom with me and were eventually promoted to Agent: Miles Gidaly, Briton Schey, Suzanne Lyon,
Ben Simone, Jennie Levine, Grahm Jeanicke, and get a list of all others who were promoted. I wanted to know
their client list. What projects they've been involved in and the amount of income their clients have brought
into the company?
With my academic achievements and relevant work experience pre-dating my employment at William
Morris, I would have been hired as an Agent if! were Whitef'Jewish" - even if I'd "ONLY" applied for the Agent
Trainee program. No Whiter'Jewish" Agent Trainee in the history has been responsible for bringing a client to the
company that went on to be very successful before joining the Agent Trainee program. If so, William Morris needs
to provide their names, resumes and dates of employment. Since I have proven pre-hiring discrimination and that I
should have heen hired as a music Agent, T am entitled to back pay in amount equivalent to what a starting Agent
would receive. I was privy to the employment agreement of Agent Brad Sheehan - the individual I have reason to
believe William Morris transferred to the New York office to work alongside Cara Lewis after I submitted my
resume and was allowed to book African American artists although he had no interest in urban music and was not a
"licensed" Agent (a violation of the Talent Agencies Act) -- during one of my job assignments of cleaning out files
for former co-COO, Wayne Kabak. It was a five year agreement, in which he was guaranteed an escalating salary
each year, commissions and additional benefits. The reason why my projected salary should be more than what Brad
earned, is because he did not sign talent and he didn't really have an interest or love for this genre ofmusic. After he
was promoted to Agent in late 2008/early 2009, he left the company shortly thereafter. I recommended many artists
for Cara Lewis to sign and had T been an Agent, Twould have signed those artists myself. [Claimant Rep. Summary
Judgment, #.]
I was paid by William Morris from September 2008 until September 2010. I've included my W-2 forms
from WMA and WME for those years.
Below is a chart I created to provide a rough estimate of
what I am owed for back pay based on wages only. Although the figures for each year are not accurate, the total for
the salary received is. As for the salary owed based on wages only, I provided a guestimate of what BSH made an
entry level Agent and derived at the back pay owed amount by deducting the salary that I made as an Agent Trainee
from the salary I should have received as an Agent.
Years of Employment
Sept. 2008 - Sept. 2009
Sept. 2009 - Sept. 2010
Sept. 2010 --Sept. 20B
Sept. 2011 - Sept. 2012
Sept. 2012 - Sept. 2013
TOTAL:
Salary Received
$10,018.60
$35,505.09
-$25,764;00
N/A
N/A
$71 287.69
Salary Owed*
$65,000.00
$75,000.00
-$S5;eOO;00
$95,000.00
$105,000.00
$425000.00
Back Pay Owed

$54,981.40
$19,494.91
~$59, 236;00
$95,000.00
$105,000.00
$353, 712.31
these figures are hypothetIcal.
This amount does not take into consideration fringe benefits and all other forms of compensation such as
commissions that are included in back pay. Fringe benefits may include items such as sick pay, disability insurance,
-8
health or medical iosurance, dental insurance, retirement benefits, pension benefits, annuity benefits, profit-shariog
benefits, vacation time, stock options, personal use of automobile, relocation expenses, and housiog allowances.
Until I receive various financial statements from William Morris, I cannot determioe the actual extent of my back
pay damages.
Recoverable lost frioge benefits ioclude: an employer's portion of contributions to a company saviogs plan,
. Danner v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 447 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1971); Tidwell v. American Oil Co., 332 F. Supp. 424 (D.
Utah 1971); sick leave pay, Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 918 (S.D. N.Y. 1979);
compensation for medical expenses incurred, E.E.O.C. v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836, 1994 FED App.
165P (6th Cir. 1994).]; parkiog benefits, Harmon v. San Diego County, 477 F. Supp. 1084 (S.D. Cal. 1979), affd io
part and remanded, 664 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1981).]; pension contributions and benefits _
life, health, and
medical insurance
A victim's backpay award may include the employer's contributions on his or her
behalf to a pension plan. See Danner v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 447 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1971); Pree v. Stone and
Webster Engineering Corp., 607 F. Supp. 945 (D. Nev. 1985). A salesperson who was terminated for discriminatory
reasons was entitled to the value of the contributions that her employer would have made to her 401(k) plan during
the period in which she sought new employment and the period in which she worked for a new employer that
offered a 401(k) plan for which she did not qualify, Rivera v. Baccarat, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 870 (S.D. N.Y. 1999),
and pension benefits that the victim would have received absent discrimination, Crabtree v. Baptist Hosp. of
Gadsden. Inc., 749 F.2d 1501 (lIth Cir. 1985); Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc., 482 F. Supp. 918
(S.D. N.Y. 1979), such as additional retirement benefits the victim would have received had he or she continued
workiog until retirement, Norman v. Missouri Pac. R. R., 497 F.2d 594 (8th Cir. 1974).
Under the "collateral source rule," third-party payments that serve different purposes from those served by
abackpay award should not be deducted from the losses that a wrongdoer is otherwise compelled to pay the injured
party. Naton v. Bank of California, 649 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1981).] Other collateral benefits that are not deductible
from a backpay award because they serve different purposes include: benefits received under the Aid to Families
With Dependent Children Act; welfare benefits; unemployment compensation awarded to discrimination victims,
McDowell v. Avtex Fibers, Tnc., 740 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds, 469
U.S. 1202, 105 S. Ct. 1159,84 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1985); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor
Co., 645 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1981), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 1030, 102 S. Ct. 565, 70 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1981) and
judgment rev'd on other grounds, 458 U.S. 219, 102 S. O. 3057, 73 L. Ed. 2d 721 (1982); Rasimas v. Michigan
Dept. of Mental Health" 714 F.2d 614 (6th Cir. 1983); Cooper v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 836 F.2d 1544,24 Fed.
R. Evid. Servo 875, 10 Fed. R. Serv., 3d 430 (lOth Cir. 1988); Dailey v. Societe Generale, 889 F. Supp. 108 (S.D.
N.Y. 1995), affd, 108 F.3d 451 (2d Cir. 1997). Unemployment compensation benefits received by a plaintiff under
Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are subject to the collateral source rule; thus, the amount of such benefits
normally is not credited against the employer's liability for backpay. Williams v. Secretary ofNavy, 853 F. Supp. 66
(E.D. N.V. 1994).
Tnterest can be added to backpay awards to victims of discrimination to make them whole for the lost
investment use of their money between the time of the loss and entry of the court's judgment against the violator.
[Conway v. Electro Switch Corp., 825 F.2d 593, 23 Fed. R. Evid. Servo 1024 (1st Cir. 1987), certified question
answered, 402 Mass. 385, 523 N.E.2d 255, 74 A.L.R.4th 737 (1988).] See Loeffler V. Frank, 486 U.S. 549, 557
(1988) ("[A]1l of the United States Courts of Appeals that have considered the question agree, that Title VII
authorizes prejudgment interest as a part ofthe backpay remedy.") (footnote omitted). Moreover, a Title VII plaintiff
who receives unemployment compensation benefits is not deprived of use of earnings and, therefore, is not entitled
to prejudgment interest on the amount ofthe backpay award equal to unemployment benefits received. [E.E.O.C. V.
Corinth, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Ind. 1993).] Prejudgment interest due to a Title VII plaintiff on his or her
backpay award should be calculated on the basis of the gross amount, rather than the net after-tax amount, of the
backpay award. Artis V. U.S. Industry and Intern. Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 822 F. Supp. 510
(N.D. 111. 1993).
Plaiotiffs who receive back pay awards are taxed at a higher, if not the highest, marginal tax rate, and pay
higher net income taxes than they would if their wages were earned in an ordinary fashion and the discrimination
-9
never occurred. As the result ofthe interaction between the annual tax accounting system and the progressive system
of marginal rates, discrimination plaintiffs who receive pecuniary damages for lost wages suffer a tax penalty. The
federal income tax places discrimination plaintiffs in a worse position than if the discrimination never occurred, and
from a policy perspective, this result is perverse because it prohibits the goal of employment discrimination laws, to
make the victim whole, from being achieved. the requirement of anti-discrimination law to place the victim in as
good a position as if the discrimination never occurred. Courts have responded to this dilemma by either I) adjusting
the award to accoWlt for the increase in the marginal tax rate, or 2) ignoring the increased marginal tax rate. The
Tenth Circuit was the first to definitively rule on the matter and it adopted the former approach. [See Sears v.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., Co., 749 F.2d 145], 1456-57 (10th Cir. 1984).] The Circuit Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia ruled roughly a decade later that employment discrimination laws do not allow courts the
discretion to adjust awards for negative tax consequences.[See Dashnaw v. Pena, 12 F.3d 1112, 1116 (D.C. Cir.
1994).] Nearly fifteen years after the D.C. Circuit ruJing, the Third Circuit issued an opinion, which adopted the
approach of the Tenth Circuit, thus deepening the circuit split. [See Eshelman v. Agere Sys., Inc., 554 F.3d 426,
441-42 (3d Cir. 2009).] The principle of Sears, that the IRS should not commit a second injustice on the victims of
employment discrimination by taxing their back pay award at the highest tax rate, has only been bolstered with time
because of the disappearance of income averaging as a tax tool for individual taxpayers. The Third Circuit rejected
Agere's appeal and held that it was within the trial court's "broad equitable powers" to grant "a prevailing employee
an additional sum of money to compensate for the increased tax burden a back pay award may create." In reaching
this decision, the Third Circuit
the broad power to craft an equitable remedy that the ADA, like Title VII,
conferred on trial courts.
With the increasing importance of monetary relief of all kinds - damages, back pay, and attotney's fees-
issues oftaxation have become more important as well. These are not, in general, significant for employers, who can
usually treat such amoWlts as a fully deductible business expense. For individual plaintiffs, however, it makes an
enormous difference whether money obtained through judgments and settlements is included in taxable income. By
an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that specifically addresses this issue, these amounts are generally
included in taxable income. Only damages "on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness" are now
excluded from income. Recoveries for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, aod punitive damages, and any
interest on these amoWlts, are included in income. Court awarded attorney's fees are also included in the plaintiff's
income, on the groWld that the award of fees first goes to the plaintiff and only later to the plaintiff's attorney.
Including any of these amounts in income, without offsetting deductions, necessarily reduces the plaintiff's net
recovery after payment oftaxes.
The first of these consequences, bunching income in a single taxable year, can be cOWlteracted by
"grossing up" the plaintiff's recovery for any amoWlts included in income. Following the principle of making the
plaintiffwhole, this technique works backward from the net income after taxes that the plaintiff would have received
in the absence of discrimination. This amount is then augmented by an additional recovery that would be sufficient
to pay the taxes attributable to the plaintiffs entire, grossed-up recovery. When this recovery is then taxed, the
plaintiff is left with the same after-tax income as he would have received in the absence of discrimination. This
technique requires some approximation, as do all attempts to devise remedies based on what would have happened
in the absence of discrimination. The contentious issue, on which the courts of appeals are divided, is whether the
defendant can be required to pay a grossed-up recovery. Compare Eshelman v. Agere Sys., Inc., 554 F.3d 426 (3d
-10
Cir. 2009) (approving grossed-up recovery), with Dashnaw v. Pena, 12 F.3d 1112 (D.c. Cir. 1994) (denying
grossed-up recovery).
The second consequence, specifically concerned with the AMf, comes into play only if attorney's fees are
included in the plaintiff's income. If they are, they will usually cause the plaintiff's income to rise above the
threshold for application of the AMf, a complex set of provisions that, among other things, disallow deductions to
individuals with a high ratio of deductible expense to annual income. Among the deductions disallowed are those
ordinarily available for attorney's fees. However, Congress alleviated this problem in discrimination cases,
including those brought under the principal federal laws against employment discrimination, by a provision in the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. 118 Stat. 1418 (2004), amending 26 U.S.c. 62(a)(20). The effect of this
provision is to permit a deduction for any attorney's fees and court costs awarded or expended in connection
with such cases, up to the amount of any judgment or settlement included in gross income, even for taxpayers
subject to the AMf.
Ultimately, before myself and/or expert can compute back pay and front pay, I will need William Morris to
produce various Agent employment agreements, specifically from Agents that work(ed) throughout the music
department like Cara Lewis, Peter GrossLight, Samantha Kirby, Seth Siegel, as well as various Agents that are
considered tenpercenters to project what I would have received had William Morris not maintained its
discriminatory work environment with "malice and/or reckless indifference" to the federally protected rights of
African Americans and I truly had an equal opportunity to advance and be mentored. In Bessier v. Precise Tool &
Engineering Co .. Inc.. 778 F. Supp. 1509,57 PEP Cases 1249 (W.O. Mo. 1991). the plaint itT was granted discovery
of defendant's financial records to prepare a case on the issue of punitive damages. The financial records included:
1) financial statements; 2) income tax returns; 3) documents reflecting the defendant's gross income, net income. and
expenditures; 4) bank statements and deposit records; and 5) general ledgers. The defendant was also compelled to
answer interrogatories as to its net worth. See also Heller v. Ebb Auto Co., 55 EPD Par. 40,431,53 PEP Cases 911
(D. Dr. 1990) (plaintiff may be entitled to defendant's profit and loss statements and balance statements after making
a prima facie showing of entitlement to punitive damages). Based entirely on a projection of Agent wages,
the
minimum back pay I am owed will be no less than $500,000.00.

IFront pay with postJudgment Interest under Section 1981, Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRJ...] [Time
frame: Date of Judgment - Next 25 years]
Front pay is compensation for future economic tosses stemming from present discrimination that cannot be remedied
by traditional rightful-place relief, such as hiring, promotion. or reinstatement. An award offront pay is appropriate,
for example, where reinstatement is impractical and where the defendant fails to demonstrate that the plaintiff failed
to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking to mitigate damages. Rose v. Ireco Inc., 872 F. Supp. 1127 (N.D. N.Y.
1994). Front pay is awarded to victims of employment discrimination to compensate them for the continuing future
effects of discrimination until they can be made whole. Pitre v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 843 F.2d 1262 (10th Cir.
1988). District court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded front pay to temporary employee based on a 10
year period in her Title VII action against employer based on employer's failure to offer her a full-time position;
although the employer asserted that the award involved speCUlation regarding market conditions, employee's future
eamings, and her length of employment, jury had recommended front pay for 25 years. Donlin v. Philips Lighting
North America Corp., 564 F.3d 207, 79 Fed. R. Evid. Servo 533 (3d Cir. 2009), opinion vacated and superseded on
reh'g, 581 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 2009). Like reinstatement, front pay is an equitable remedy for violation of Title VII.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 706(g)(I), 42 U.S.C.A. 2000e-5(g)(I). See Sands v. Menard, Inc., 2010 WI 96, 787
N.W.2d 384 (Wis. 2010). Front pay is awarded to victims of employment discrimination to compensate them for the
continuing future effects ofdiscrimination until they can be made whole.
Both front pay and lost future earnings awards are Title VII remedies. Front pay is an equitable remedy and
is a substitute for reinstatement when reinstatement is not possible. An award of lost future earnings compensates
the victim for intangible nonpecuniary loss (an injury to professional standing or an injury to character and
-II
reputation). An award of lost future earnings is a common-law tort remedy and a plaintiff must show that his injuries
have caused a diminution in his ability to eam a living. The two awards compensate the plaintiff for different
injuries and are not duplicative. Williams v. Phannacia, 137 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 1998). In calculating front pay, the
plaintiff must show the amount of the proposed award, the anticipated length ofputative employment and apply an
appropriate discount rate. Bruso v. United Airlines, Inc., 239 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 200 I). Front pay is not subject to the
caps on Title VIT compensatory damages. Pollard v. E.T. Dupont de Nemours &, Co., 532 U.S. 843 (2001). R Salary
projections for front pay computations based on the victim's salary history are to be used only when his salary would
have increased at the historical rate had he continued working for the employer. The Second, Fourth, Seventh,
Eighth and Tenth Circuits hold that both the determination ofwhether front pay is appropriate and the determination
of how much front pay to award are questions for the district court's equitable discretion, and thus, the issue of the
amount of the award should not be submitted to the jury.
Front pay is calculated from the date when the victim of discrimination has ceased to receive backpay,
since front pay is meant to compensate the victim for future economic losses that cannot he remedied by backpay.
Front pay is intended as restitution to the victim ofdiscrimination, not as punishment for an employer that commits
discrimination. [Sheppard v. American Cyanamid, 1988 WL 87906 (E.D. La. 1988).] Front pay is only available
when reinstatement is not possible, such as when there no longer exists a position available to the plaintiff at the
time of judgment or where the employer-employee relationship has been irreparably damaged by animosity.
[Gargano v. Diocese of Rockville Centre, 888 F. Supp. 1274,101 Ed. Law Rep. 809 (E.D. N.Y. 1995), afl'd, 80 F.3d
87, 108 Ed. Law Rep. 78 (2d Cir. 1996); Zampino v. Supermarkets General Corp., 821 F. Supp. 1067 (E.D. Pa.
1993), judgment affd, 27 F.3d 561 (3d Cir. 1994). Although front pay awards necessarily involve some speculation,
only in extreme situations should a court deny front pay because it is too speculative.[ Maxfield v. Sinclair Intem.,
766 F.2d 788 (3d Cir. 1985); Koyen v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., 560 F. Supp. 1161 (S.D. N.Y.
1983).] a front pay award is not unduly speculative where the industry in which the victim has been employed
provides relatively steady and dependable employment. [Buckley v. Reynolds Metals Co., 690 F. Supp. 211 (S.D.
N.Y. 1988).] Front pay is usually calculated in the same manner as backpay-that is, a victim is entitled to the
difference between what he or she is earning and what he or she would have earned without an unlawful discharge
[Reneau v. Wayne Griffin &, Sons, Inc., 945 F.2d 869,20 Fed. R Servo 3d 1396 (5th Cir. 1991).] or a promotion
denial. [StaUwOlth v. Shuler, 35 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 770, 1984 WL 48880 (N.D. Fla. 1984), judgment affd
and remanded, 777 F.2d 1431, 28 Ed. Law Rep. 1035 (II th Cir. 1985).] Front pay does not have to be awarded in
installments, but may be calculated in a lump-sum amount.[FNlO] Lump-sum amounts are based on a court's
calculation of an amount necessary to make the victim whole
The court has the discretion to determine when the front pay period ends for a victim of employment
discrimination. It should consider the length ofprior employment, the permanency of the position held, the nature of
work, the age and physical condition of the employee, possible consolidation ofjobs and other nondiscriminatory
factors that could validly affect the possible post-discharge employment relationship. Because a claimant's work and
life expectancy are pertinent factors in calculating front pay, such an award necessarily implicates a prediction about
the future. Accordingly, the court will not refuse to award front pay merely because some prediction is necessary.
Instead, the district court is allowed to exercise discretion in selecting a cut-off date for an equitable front pay
remedy subject to the limitation that front pay only he awarded for a reasonable future period required for the victim
to reestablish her rightful place in the job market. These decisions are left to the sound discretion of the district court
and every case must be considered on its particular facts. Nevertheless, front pay may be awarded for the number of
years until the victim's projected retirement if she made a good faith effort to find a higher paying or equivalent
position and is unlikely to be retrained or relocated or to match her previous income. The Second Circuit has
repeatedly upheld awards of front pay through retirement where the record contained evidence sufficient to find that
a plaintiff had no reasonable prospect ofobtaining comparable alternative employment and to calculate the resulting
salary disparity. For example, a front pay award period ofover 20 years was afftrmed by the Second Circuit because
of the plaintiff'S unique position. Padilla v. Metro-North Commuter RR., 92 F.3d 117, 72 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas.
8
http://www.illinoislegaladvocate.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.dsp content&'contentID=5 388.

-12
(BNA) 1748, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ,44403 (2d Cir. 1996). Front pay award of $927,237.67, representing
difference between 42-year-old firefighter's retirement income and her annual wages before she retired allegedly
because of discrimination until her normal retirement age, was not excessive; no evidence in record suggested that
firefighter would be able to find work at a salary level commensurate with her pre-tennination salary, her
educational background was limited to only some college classes, and her vocational experience had been limited to
work in firefighting and emergency rescue. Broadnax v. City ofNew Haven, 141 Fed. Appx. 18 (2d Cir. 2005).
The victim has the burden of submitting evidence to the court from which a reasonable projection can be
made as to how long it will take him to find comparable employment. [Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co., 747 F.2d
885 (3d Cir. 1984); Shore v. Federal Exp. Corp., 777 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir. 1985).] A discrimination victim's projected
earnings throughout the duration of the front pay recovery period may include the following types of monetary
compensation that would have accrued absent the unlawful discrimination: anticipated fringe benefits, such as
pension benefits, paid vacation, employer contributions to a savings plan that are not too uncertain and speculative,
and employer-paid insurance premiums; anticipated pay increases based on prior annual increases, if the victim
likely would have continued to receive such increases; and interest on the projected earnings. [Buckley v. Reynolds
Metals Co., 690 F. Supp. 211 (S.D. N.Y. 1988).] Ellis v. Ethicon, Inc., No. 05-726, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106620,
at 7 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2009) (noting that the jury awarded from $311,200 to $486,250 in back pay damages as
compared to $734,000 in frontpay)
Before working at WiUiam Morris, my career in the music and entertainment industry was on a trajectory.
Before working at William Morris, I worked four simultaneously between 2004 and 2008 - "urban editor" of
regional fashion/entertainment pUblication9, publicist for music producer Danja, co-manager to now 8x GRAMMY
nominated singer/songwriter Jazrnine Sullivan lO and GRAMMY U Student Rep. for Florida Chapter. I also
completed my Bachelors in Psychology and Masters in Music Business and Entertainment Industries by age 23.
This is why I was extremely overqualified compared to my similarly situated Whiter'Jewish" counterparts who
mostly were recent college graduates with absolutely no work experience, particularly in the music industry. Had I
been hired as an Agent, I would have excelled itt the same fashion From the inception of my employment
relationship with William Morris, Twas being discriminated against because of my race, color and/or national origin.
The company does not want qualified Amcan Americans to work in very high status and high-paying positions that
as a whole, contribute significantly in maintaining racism throughout America and the world under the disguise of
"entertainment. Even ifI weren't hired as an Agent, I should have been able to advance through the Agent Trainee
program. Probability of promotion can be extrapolated from comparisons and rankings of qualified individuals and
success rates of plaintiffs once discrimination was removed from the process.
To my knowledge, there hasn't been an African American music Agent since Kevin Harewood and he left
the company after one year in or around the year 1990. ','ve demonstrated throughout my pleadings various
instances where I suggested acts for Cara to sign months before they released their number one albums and began to
sell out venues around the world (e.g. 1. Cole, Drake, Nicki Minaj, etc.). Those three artists in particular have
enjoyed considerable success in all areas of entertainment over the last few years and T believe that Twould have
been able to sign at least one of those acts, as well as other unsigned artists that I had my eye on. For various
reasons, Cara wasn't able to sign these acts, although she represented Nicki Minaj briefly. More than two years after
I spoke to Cara about Drake, William Morris signed the rapper in or around November 2011 now that he's a
Many of the artists I interviewed as a journalist for four years were clients of William Morris.
When Tbegan working as a co-manager to singer/songwriter Jazmine Sullivan, she had no record deal. Due to my
efforts, I helped her land a six figure deal with J Records and played a pivotal role in helping her release her 6x
GRAMMY nominated, RIAA gold certified (U.S. sales of 500,000 copies or more) debut album, Fearless. To this
date, her record label has yet to sign another new artist in this genre that has matched not only her sales, but her
professional accolades. Additionally, I took the initial meetings with Cara Lewis in December 2007 to have her
represent Jazmine. For six years, Jazmine has been represented by William Morris and has toured with Maxwell,
Ne-Yo and Mary 1. Blige to name a few, as well as headlined her own shows, in which William Morris and Cara
Lewis received a commission. If you don't know who any of these artist are, that's not important because they are
all represented by William Morris.
9
to
-13
bonafide star that has sold millions of records and already established a name for himself. II Any Agent representing
these acts right now is making a minimum six figure salary, as the average guarantee for those three acts is
approximately $75,000.00 a show, most likely higher for Drake and Nicki Minaj." [Claimant Rep. Summary
Judgment, 78, Exhibit V; Claimant Rep. Em. Appeal, 6; S.D.N.Y. Complaint, ~ 31.] In the first year or two of my
career, these artists would have been signed and I am certain I would have maintained great working relationships
with the artists and their teams. Like Lewis, over time, my roster would have grown - which meant that Twas her
competition in a sense because that business would be taken away from her.
Based on the lucrative contributions and ideas Tbrought to the company before and during my employment
with the company, I have demonstrated that I had an eye and ear for spotting the "next" successful entertainers in
music - not limited to ''urban contemporary" artists .. Cara Lewis also stated
This is further confinned by the fact that I brought to her attention and urged that she sign three of the biggest artists
in urban music today: 1. Cole, Drake and Nikki Minaj.
Had I been a
music Agent today, I am certain that I would have been able to sign one, if not all, of these artists since Cara Lewis
was unsuccessful due to various reasons. Drake is currently a client of William Morris. Additionally, since Cara
Lewis left the company, many of her clients that did not leave with her to CAA were disbursed amongst the other
all-White/"Jewish" Agents at the company - most who have very little knowledge or care about black music or
culture. Many of these artists would have been transferred to me had William Morris maintained its insidiously
discriminatory work environment. [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 78, Exhibit V.] William Morris should
provide financial documents regarding the amount it musician clients have grossed from their tours, particulRrly
those artists on its urban contemporary roster. For the f\fst three weeks of my employment at William Morris, the
debut single of the artist I helped get signed to the company, was number one on the Billboard R&B singles chart. 12
And by the end of the September 2008, her debut album, Fearless, also debuted at number one of the Billboard
R&B Albums chart. None of the Agent Trainees - past or present - can say that they worked with talent in the
capacity that I had.
Title VII specifically requires employees to mitigate their damages. See 42 U.S.c. 2000e-5(g). ''This duty
[to mitigate], rooted in an ancient principle oflaw, requires the claimant to use reasonable diligence in finding other
suitable employment." Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC. 458 U.S. 219, 231 & n.1S (1982). As a general rule, an employee
must look for a substantially equivalent position, for a reasonable period of time, before discontinuing his or her
mitigation efforts."n For the first two years, I was actively seeking employment while litigating this case. I have
applied for jobs relating to entertainment, as well as non-entertainment related work, and have been unable to
receive a call back after working for one of the most prestigious talent agencies in the world. Clearly, any Human
Resources professional that received my resume had the opportunity to research the applicant and if you type in my
name and William Morris, a number of articles come up about my exit from the company and everything that has
happened since. I am clearly blacklisted and my reputation in this industry has been ruined. When I received
unemployment, T had to look for employment and submit records demonstrating that T was actively applying for
jobs. Although you have on separate occasions suggested that Tgo back to work, the Respondents nor their counsel
have proposed this. If this racially homogenous company and its counsel think I'm "anti-Semitic," why would they
want to rehire me or how long do you think my employment would last when I would still be the only African
American Agent at the company's New York office? I don't think you are being realistic and thinking things all the
way through based on the facts and circumstances ofthe case.
II Benjamin Meadows-Ingram. ''Drake: William Morris' Dave Wirtschafer Talks About Agency's Big Plans For the
Superstar MC-Actor." Billboard.biz. November 11, 2011. http://www.billboard.bizlbbbizlindustry/legal-and
management/drake-william-morris-dave-wirtschafter-talks-1 0055 113S2.story.
12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need U Bad.
13 See Sharon Waxman. "Updating: Explosive William Morris Agency Internal Memo." The Wrap. June 11, 2009.
http;llwww.thewrap.comldeal-centrallcolumn-post/updating-explosive-william-morris-agency-internal-memo-360S;
Malinda J. Caterine, Esq. ''Damages and Remedies in Employment Discrimination Cases." The Practical Litigator.
p.
23.
July
2006.
http://files.ali-c1e.org/tbumbs/datastorage/lacidoirep/articles/PUT PLIT0607
CATERINE thumb.pdf.
-14
During our July 30, 2013 conference call you suggested being reinstated. I opposed. Now, in your third
Interim Decision, you state that I should
and cite Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC. 4S8 U.S. 219,
231 & n.lS (1982) - the only case law mentioned in your improvident decision. For the fourth time, I have to
demonstrate why your citation of the law is erroneous and not applicable to this case. When I pulled the actual case
from WestLaw, it stated in the introduction:
''The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued automobile manufacturer claiming Title VII violation
by refusing to hire women at one of its warehouses. The United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, James B. McMillan, J., awarded back pay. The Court of Appeals, 645 F.2d 183, affirmed and
remanded. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor, held that an employer charged with
discrimination in hiring can toll the continuing accrual of back pay liability by unconditionally offering the
claimant the job previously denied and the employer is not required to offer seniority retroactive to date of the
alleged discrimination, and that absent special circumstances, rejection of the unconditional job offer ends the
accrual of potential back pay liability." (emphasis added)
You must keep in my, you are not my former employer. The Respondents have never ''unconditionally
ofTer[ed] [me] the job previously denied" - only you have. That alone demonstrates that you don't understand the
law. They are not objecting to this because if I were to be reinstated, I would still be the only African American
Agent employed in the New York office, William Morris' discriminatory work environment would still exist and
that's essentially the problem here. Perfect example is that of Quentin Embree - the CAA African American
employee who worked in the maiIroom and submitted an Internal Memo discussing his allegations of racism and
employment discrimination. _
Also, you are citing a case concerning back pay, although the Civil
Rights Act was amended in 1991 due to the conservative actions of the judiciary in the 1980s. Of course, this
decision was made in 1982, in which Ronald Regan was President. I've discussed on many occasions Reagan and
the Republican party's conservative agenda to fill the judiciary with like-minded federal judges who have been
unfavorable to civil rights.
Another reason why your suggestion of reinstatement is shortsighted is because you are continuously using
case law pertaining to claims of gender discrimination, in which the class of plaintiffs more than likely are white
women (plural).14 There was really no need to read the rest of the law. One thing is certain: If my claims were
frivolous or pursued in "bad faith," there would be no reason for Arbitrator Gregory to suggest reinstatement after
sitting with motions that span nearly three years. Why would you accuse me of engaging in defamation, slander and
libel against my former employer and then suggest that I go back and work with the company I have defamed? Why
would William Morris want to hire someone that has exposed them for being a "Jewish cabal" and engaging in
institutional racism for liS years? Not logical.
A discrimination victim's projected earnings throughout the duration of the front pay recovery period have
included the following types of monetary compensation that would have accrued absent the unlawful discrimination:
anticipated fringe benefits, such as pension benefits, paid vacation, employer contributions to a savings plan that are
not too uncertain and speculative, and employer-paid insurance premiums, anticipated pay increases based on prior
annual increases, if the victim likely would have continued to receive such increases, interest on the projected
earnings. Buckley v. Reynolds Metals Co., 690 F. Supp. 211, 55 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1508,48 Empl. Prac.
Dec. (CCH) ~38610 (S.D. N.Y. 1988). The U.S. Supreme Court held that front pay is not an element of
compensatory damages under 1981 a of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and is not subject to the cap 011 damages
14"""..1111"""""1111111111111111,,1111,,,,11111111111111,,1111111111111
See
Kevin Stainback and Donald Tomaskovic-Devey. Discrimination & Desegregation: Equal Opportunity Progress in
U.S. Private Sector Workplaces Since the Civil Rights Act. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science. p. 63 (2007). (The researchers conclude: "... from documenting these basic trends ... while almost
all workplaces have incorporated women and racial/ethnic minorities as employees, status segregation within
workplaces remains very high, white males continue to have advantaged access to the best quality jobs, most racial
progress in EEO stalled after 1980, aud white women seem to have benefited the most from the struggles for EEO. 'J
-15
imposed by 1981a(b)(3). However, the Supreme Court contends that because front pay is a remedy authorized
under 706(g) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Congress did not limit the availab ility of such rewards under
706(g), Congress also did not limit the availability of front pay awards under 1981a. The Court found that
Congress sought to expand the available remedies by permitting the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages
in addition to previously available remedies such as front pay. Based on the following reasons above, my front pay
salary should be the comparable to what a White and/or "Jewish" mid to senior-level Agent would make at Year 6
until Year 30.
There are Agents at William Morris who make seven figures a year. On [insert date], a fax by John
Fogelman, former co-head of William Morris' motion-picture department, leaked online revealing a memo written
the
salaries and stock apportioning ofWMA top agents, executives and
by CFO Irv Weintraub,
board members from 2007.
I believe that over time, I would have been one of those Agents based
on my ability to identify talent and the fact that Cara Lewis is no longer employed at the agency. 15 I also worked
with two Agents who worked with the company for decades and eventually retired at ages 89 (Jeff Hunter) and.
_
Based on a rough guestimate, my back pay and front pay relief should amount to a
minimum of
$25,000,000.00 based on the average number of years Whites/"Jews" of Eastern European descent remain
Agents at the company. 16 The sky was the limit for me. There is no reason to believe that I wouldn't have excelled
in this position, based on the notable things I was able to accomplish academically and professionally during the flTst
23 years of my life. Even this case is a reflection of and demonstrates my work ethic. I give a 1000% percent in
everything I do and it was no different during the time I was employed. However, in the minds of this racist
company, it didn't matter because they knew I was never going to become a music Agent when they hired me.
Emily King and Tori Kelly, who are now both signed to Creative Artists Agency.
[Compensatory Damages] [Under Section 1981 and NYCHRL, there are no caps.] When Title VTT was
passed, the statute contained no provision for aggrieved individuals to obtain either compensatory or punitive
damages. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 ushered in a new era in which awards of compensatory damages for
violations of federal employment discrimination laws are the rule rather than the exception. Such damages have
traditionally been available only in cases alleging race or national origin discrimination under the early civil rights
acts, 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 and 1983, but now are also available in cases alleging intentional race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin discrimination, retaliation against opponents of such discrimination under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Some federal job discrimination and employment laws authorize legal compensatory
damages to make the victim "whole" for other injuries caused by unlawful employment practices that cannot be
remedied solely by backpay or front pay. Since compensatory damages are a legal as opposed to an equitable
remedy. they are recoverable for job discrimination violations under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 because legal as well as
equitable relief may be awarded under these statutes. Compensatory damages under 1981 are not limited to
violations involving the victim's right to form and enforce employment contracts. Also, the Civil Rights Act of 1991
authorizes compensatory damages for violations of 1981 involving the victim's right to enjoy of al1 benefits,
privileges. terms, and conditions ofthe contractual relationship.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the types of injuries for which compensatory damages may be
recovered in Title VII cases include future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience. mental
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other nonpecuniary losses, and by implication, past pecuniary
IS Michael Cieply. "Layoffs in the William Morris-Endeavor Merger." New York Times. December 27,2009._
(John Ferriter, who had been an executive vice president in charge of nonscripted television for Morris filed a
lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court on November 17, 2010. "In it, Mr. Ferriter described being pushed out of
his $2-million-a-year job after infuriating Mr. Emanuel by opposing the merger, and then said he was defamed on an
entertainment industry blog (not identified) that, he alleged, was fed false claims about him by William Morris
Endeavor operatives.");
16 During my employment, two of the oldest Agents in the New York office retired. Television Agent Jeff Hunter
was 89 and legendary Theater Agent BiffLiffretired at age 90.
-16
losses. Compensatory damages include monetary relief for emotional distress, pain or suffering, and damages
resulting from the consequences of an adverse employment action, such as a ruined credit rating, but are not
normally expressly provided for in a statute. In these respects, compensatory damages differ from punitive damages,
which are meant to punish wrongdoers. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 authorizes victims of intentional violations of
Title VII to recover compensatory damages, subject to some limits that vary with the size of the employer, unless
damages can be recovered under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the types of injuries for
which compensatory damages may be recovered in Title VII cases include future pecuniary losses, emotional pain,
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other nonpecuniary losses, and by implication,
past pecuniary losses.
The EEOC defmes pecuniary losses as quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a resuh of
discriminatory conduct, and includes expenses for moving, job searches, medical or psychiatric treatment, and
physical therapy. Past pecuniary losses are those that occurred before the resolution of a claim through conciliation,
settlement, or the conclusion of litigation. Nonpecuniary losses are intangible injuries resulting from unlawful
discrimination, and include emotional pain or suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life,
loss of health, and injury to character, reputation, or professional or credit standing. Emotional harm is not presumed
when discrimination is found, but must be proved with regard to its existence, nature, and severity. The employee's
testimony alone may be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of specific evidence of actual harm necessary for the
award of compensatory damages for emotional distress. It may manifest itself through sleeplessness, anxiety, stress,
depression, marital strain, humiliation, emotional distress, loss of self-esteem, excessive fatigue, nervous
breakdown, ulcers, gastrointestinal disorders, hair loss, or headaches.
There are three proof requirements that the victim generally must satisfy before he or she can be awarded
compensatory damages when such an award is appropriate. First, the victim must demonstrate an actual loss sought
to be satisfied by such damages. Proof of an actual loss is required because compensatory damages are not
recoverable based solely on the abstract value of rights guaranteed by a statute, nor can they be presumed from the
mere fact of a violation. The loss may not only be financial or physical, but can also include damages for
humiliation and emotional distress. The second requirement that a victim must satisfy to recover compensatory
damages is to place a monetary value on the loss. Except for damage claims for bodily harm and emotional distress,
compensatory damages must have a money value and be capable of estimation using a pecuniary standard. The third
requirement that the victim must satisfy to be awarded compensatory damages is to show that the wrongdoer's
unlawful conduct caused the loss. The victim's injuries do not have to be solely caused by the wrongdoer in order for
her to recover compensatory damages. For example, a victim was awarded compensatory damages for pain and
suffering caused by the employer's discriminatory actions that exacerbated her preexisting health problems, since the
employer takes the victim as it finds her. Alston v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Greater New York, 37 Fair Empl.
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1792,37 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ~35373, 1985 WL 2469 (E.D. N.Y. 1985). In calculating the
amount of compensatory damages for a nonpecuniary loss, the EEOC recommends consideration of the severity of
the harm and the length of time that the claimant suffered the harm. The extent to which an employer caused a
victim's emotional distress affects not only whether such damages can be awarded, but also the amount ofthe award.
Considerable compensatory damages - future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses - are also owed for what I've had to endure
over the last five years due to being discriminated against because of my race, color and/or perceived national origin
by William Morris and its employees. I didn't work this hard in life to have my potential capped because of the
color of my skin, to then be blamed for my inability to advance within a racist system that intentionally makes sure
that qualified African Americans don't have an equal opportunity at being hired and/or promoted to higher status,
higher-paying positions such as Agent. 17 The entire experience lowered my self-esteem, I felt disrespected and
17 See Tim Wise, Colorblind: The Rise of Post-Racial Politics and the Retreat From Racial Equity, p. 116-26 (2010)
(More than a hundred studies have been conducted over the past several years documenting the effects of racial
discrimination on the health of African Americans in a variety of settings. Research has found that "experiences
with racial discrimination increase stress levels among persons of color, thereby, elevating blood pressure and
-17
ashamed. Just to show how insignificant we were. "Stress, anger, and rage created by the discriminatory practices
and prejudices of everyday racism lead to serious health consequences. When asked in interview studies about the
costs of discrimination they face, black respondents cite a broad range of problems - from hypertension and stress
diabetes to stress-related headaches and heart and stomach conditions. One study researched the connection between
racial stress and high blood pressure for nearly two thousand black Americans and found that those who reported
substantial discrimination tended to have higher blood pressure than those who reported less."IR While working
within William Morris' discriminatory environment, I experienced a number of gastrointestinal and urinary health
problems. [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, Exhibit U; Claimant Recall Mandate, 19; Claimant Em. Appeal, 17.]
For more than two years, I have been unable to receive follow-ups from my physicians because I am now without
health insurance. There are days when I am unable to leave the bed due to the discomfort I feel in my body.
[Claimant Rep. Em. Appea~ 6.] This entire ordeal has created an extreme amount of additional stress and anxiety
due to the hann this case has created to my employability and earning capacity, uncertainty regarding my future,
constant feelings of helplessness, and inability of reaching my full potentia~ amongst other things. [Claimant Rep.
Summary Judgment, 77-78.]
I have presented various fmancial records and medical bills demonstrating my dire economic circumstances
and the toll working in William Morris' insidiously discriminatory, all White/"Jewish" work environment had on me
physically and psychologically. For the three years that I've been unemployed, T have been unable to enjoy my life. T
am naturally an overachiever and hard worker. I have been working since I was 15 and since I was junior in high
school, I have lived without my parents. Now, at 29, I have been unemployed for the last three years and in the eyes
of most employers, I am probably considered a liability due to this lawsuit. I have been unable to repay my student
loans which total more than $100,000.00. Sallie Mae calls me every day asking for their money. This of course, has
negatively impacted my credit and will make it difficuh for me in the future to obtain loans on homes, cars, etc.
Throughout this case, I have exhausted my unemployment benefits and for the last two months, I have been
eligible for food stamps. For nearly the last year, I have been practically living below the poverty level. My parents
have been supporting me with $400.00 a month. I typically eat one meal a day and I barely have enough money for
basic necessities and travel within the city. T have lost a considerable amount of weight, I'm losing my hair, etc.
Compensatory damages may be awarded for future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. 42 U.S.C. 1981 a{b). Medical evidence. is
not necessary to show emotional distress. Farfaras v. Citizens Bank, 433 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2006). In Kathryn Jordan
v. Bates Advertising Holdings, Inc.
(Feb. 7,2006), the Court stated that sufficient evidence existed
in support of allegations of disability discrimination under New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws
affirmed jury's award of $2,000,000.00 in compensatory damages.
This is a brief summary of my damages given that my personal and professional life remains permanently
and severely impaired. With the salary that I would have made as an Agent, 1 would have easily been able to payoff
my student loans in 5 years or less. The payments that Tmade while employed were only enough to cover interest
and now that I've been unemployed for three years, T have been unable to make any payments. This has now
negatively affected my credit, which will cause problems for me in the futures. I most likely won't be approved for
additional loans, especially ifI should decide to go back to college and obtain a degree in an entirely different field.
correlating directly with worse health."); see also Bruce S. McEwen" and Eliot Stellar; "Stress and the Individual:"
Mechanisms Leading to Disease," Archives ofInternal Medicine 153, pp. 2093-2101 (1993); Carl V. Hill, Harold
W. Neighbors and Helene D. Gayle, ''The Relationship Between Racial Discrimination and Health for Black
Americans: Measurement Challenges and the Realities of Coping," African American Research Perspectives J 0: I,
pp. 89-98 (2004); "Racism's Cognitive Toll: Subtle Discrimination Is More Taxing on the Brain," ScienceDaily
(September 24, 2007), www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919093316.htm ("Studies have found that overt
racism is less distressing, mentally, than more subtle forms of bias. When the brain has to expend valuable cognitive
resources merely determining whether or not a racially discriminatory act has occurred, there is more stress
associated with the process than in those cases where the cognitive analysis of a situation is far easier."); National
Geographic's "Stress: Portrait ofaKiller." (20JO).
18 Joe R. Feagin, Costs of Slavery, Segregation and Contemporary Racism. 20 Harv. Blackletter L. J. 57 (2004).
-18
I've been living on my own since I was 16. For the next seven years, I gained scholarships in excess of
$100,000 to help pay for undergiad and grad school. This shows my drive and determination. I would also not have
received these scholarships if I was average, not hard working, etc. That same work ethic is demonstrated from my
professional accolllP.lishments before and while working at William Morris. The damage speaking out against these
injustices has done to my reputation in this industry (as well as others) is undeniable - two years and counting
without work. I've been essentially blacklisted from the industry and dream career that T have spent more than a
decade working to make a reality. Living on a very limited income (and no income at aU at times) in a very
expensive city. Depressed. Mental Anguish. Emotional Distress. Stress related, gastrointestinal and urinary
problems. Not only dealing with the discrimination as an employee, but also as a pro se litigant in which this
company enlisted a corrupt law fIrm to handle its dirty business so that it could maintain its racist practices without
any repercussion from the Court.
I sacrificed a lot for this company. Days after having surgery, I came to work on the weekend to help move
an Agent's office. I did everything that was asked of me, but nothing was ever good enough because many of the
things on my own initiative never seemed to reach Human Resources when they gave their evaluations. After
speaking with former COO of the New York office, Cara Stein, I was informed that there would be ''no movement"
in the areas that I was interested in. However, this was a lie because less than three months after I left the company,
Miles Gidaly was promoted to Coordinator and the company assigned one of the five African American Floaters to
assist for Strand Conover in commercials. This is strange because typically, recently promoted Agents don't
promote Assistants to Agents that quickly. However, all of this seems to have been done in reaction to the notice
they received about me filing a complaint with the EEOC. Again, if Cara Stein responded that the company ''would
never" discriminate against employees on the basis of race and/or color, why would the New York office hire five
African Americans in one month? "Constructive discharge occurs when the employer establishes a working
environment that has been made so difficult that the employee is forced into voluntary resignation ... Proof of
constructive discharge does not require proof of intent, but will require the plaintiff to prove more than inequality in
policies. The plaintiff must establish the presence of conditions so intolerable there was no other choice than to
resign."19 Each day that T litigate this case, I'm reminded of what T, and others who look like me, had to go through
at William Morris.
My compensatory damages should be anywhere between $25-30 million.

Although this figure appears to be high, it is "not so excessive as to shock the conscience" based on the facts of this
case and what Thave had to endure over the last five years.
[Punitive Damagesl [Under Section 1981 and NYCHRL, there are no caps.] The legislative history of this
amendment to Title VII demonstrates that Congress understood the need for adding punitive damages as a weapon
for fighting employment discrimination. 20 A House Report on the 1991 CRA explains that the summary and purpose
of the amendment was to "strengthen existing protections and remedies available under federal civil rights laws to
provide more effective deterrence and adequate compensation for victims of discrimination."21 In considering the
1991 CRA, Congress thus believed that the "existing protections and remedies" in the statute were not "adequate to
deter unlawful discrimination or to compensate victims of intentional discrimination," and that the addition of
exemplary relief was therefore necessary.22 Tn considering the legislation, Congress was thus clear that, based on the
19 Larry Varn. Pattern Discovery: Employment Discrimination. 2013.
See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 102-40, pt.l, at 18 (1991); H.R. Rep. No. 102-40, pt.2, at 1.
21 H.R. Rep. No. 102-40, pt.2, at 1.
22 Id. at 69. Other

before Cnnar'''~~
20
-19
testimony before it, the addition of new remedial relief to Title VII was a critical component of deterring future
wrongful conduct and encouraging ''private enforcement" ofthe statute. 23
Unrefuted historical evidence which demonstrates William Morris' 115 year pattern and continuing practice of
employment discrimination against qualified African Americans and people of color cannot be ignored when
calculating a punitive damage award. "Punitive damages are limited, however, to cases in which the employer has
engaged in intentional discrimination and has done so with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally
protected rights ofan aggrieved individual." Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 529-30 (1999). The court
also stated that evidence of "egregious" behavior may provide a means by which an employee could show mal ice or
reckless indifference needed to qualify for punitive damages. Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 119
S. Ct. 2118, 144 L. Ed. 2d 494, 79 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1697, 99 (1999). Malice or reckless indifference
relates to the employer's state of mind and not necessarily to its actions. The factors that the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission will consider in determining whether misconduct was committed with malice or reckless
disregard for federally protected rights include: the nature and egregiousness of the misconduct-whether it is
shocking or offends the conscience; the nature, extent, and severity of the resulting harm; the duration of the
discriminatory conduct; the existence and frequency of past discriminatory conduct by the respondent; evidence of
the respondent's intent or efforts to conceal the discriminatory conduct; evidence of the respondent's retaliatory
action against the claimant. The employer's "malice" or "reckless indifference," necessary to impose punitive
damages on an employer in a Title VII action, pertain to the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in violation
of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination. Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S.
526,119 S. Ct. 2118, 144 L. Ed. 2d 494 (1999).
Punitive damages are those damages that are "awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant
acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit." Black's Law Dictionary 396 (7th ed. 1999). For the most part, exemplary
damages have been justified by three different rationales: retribution, deterrence, and education. See generally
Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605, 2620-21 (2008) (discussing "various rationales" tor exemplary
damages). Punish the wrongdoer. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has even described exemplary damages as "quasi
criminal" relief that is "specifically designed to exact punishment in excess of actual harm to make clear that the
defendant's misconduct was especially reprehensible." Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 54 (1991)
(O'Connor, J., dissenting) Deter the wrongdoer. A wl'Ongdoer who is required to pay a victim above and beyond the
harm actually suffered will be less likely to engage in the wrongful conduct in the future. , punitive damages are a
way of educating the wrongdoer and society as a whole. punitive damages demonstrate the disapproval "society
attaches to [the] flagrant invasion [of a right] by the kind of conduct engaged in by the defendant." David G. Owen,
A Punitive Damages Overview: Functions, Problems and Reform, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 363, 374 (1994) Punitive
damages have also heen said to serve a procedural law-enforcement mechanism, whereby they encourage "reluctant
victims to press their claims and enforce the rules of law."'14 In Day v. Woodworth. 54 U.S. 363 (1851) the U.S.
Supreme Court resolved any question on the availability ofpunitive relief, stating that it was settled that "a jury may
inflict what are called exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages upon a defendant." rd. at 371. The Court
acknowledged that "the propriety of this doctrine has been questioned," but noted that "repeated judicial decisions"
would support the view that punitive damages were appropriate, depending upon the particulw: circumstances and
the "degree of moral turpitude or atrocity oftbe defendant's conduct." Id.
"Before passage of the Civil Rights Act of 19916 (1991 CRA), punitive damages were not one of the
resources plaintiffs had at their disposal to fight employment discrimination.7 That would change, however, when
Congress passed the 1991 CRA with the express purpose of helping to "combat the persistence of employment
discrimination."8 Through the addition of compensatory and punitive damages to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
Id. at 70; see also Steven Sanborn. Note, Employment Discrimination-Miller v. Maxwell's International, Inc.:
Individual Liability for Supervisory Employees Under Title VII and the ADEA, 17 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 143, 153
(1995) (discussing the legislative history ofthe Ci:vil Rights Act of 1991).
24 David G. Owen, A Punitive Damages Overview: Functions, Problems and Reform, 39 Viii. L. Rev. 363, 380
(1994)
23
-20
of 1964, the *740 1991 CRA was designed "to effectuate a greater level of deterrence."9 In many respects, Title VII
was a ''toothless tiger" prior to the 1991 amendments, which gave litigants the ability to obtain significant monetary
relief. 10 Rather than simply making the plaintiff whole, the addition of punitive damages to Title VII gave courts
and juries a way to punish employers for their illegal conduct.ll Indeed, Congress hoped that imposing additional
damages on those employers that violate Title VII would help to prevent such discriminatory conduct, and the public
certainly perceives that punitive damage awards are instrumental in eradicating unlawful employment practices. I 2
Even the mention of punitive damages strikes a certain fear in the hearts of executives of large and small
corporations alike-though the current statutory caps do provide some level of comfort to employers.13 Punitive
damages are thus widely regarded as one of the single greatest motivators in preventing employers from
discriminating against their workers. 14't2,S
Since the company's inception, their conduct has been motivated by an "evil motive." The biggest way
William Morris, and Hollywood as a whole, have been able to maintain this race-based monopoly is because they
refuse to investigate any claims of race-based discrimination. [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 62-65.] The
duration of the discriminatory conduct is relevant. For instance, an extended period of discriminatory conduct
"suggests an official policy of discrimination as opposed to the work of a renegade supervisor." Williamson v.
Handy Button Machine Company, 817 F.2d at 1296. Evide1lce that the respondent tolerated or condoned the
discriminatory conduct over a period of time could constitute malice andlor reckless indifference. A "finding of
liability does not of itself entitle a plaintiff to an award of punitive damages." Yarbrough v. Tower Oldsmobile, 789
F.2d 508, 514, 40 EPD Par. 36,216 (7th Cir. 1986). However, conscious, purposeful discrimination may be
sufficient to warrant punitive dsmages. As the First Circuit has observed, "can it really be disputed that intentionally
discriminating against a [B]lack man on the basis of his skin color is worthy of some outrage?" Rowlett V.
Anheuser-Busch, 832 F.2d 194, 206, 44 EPD Par. 37,428 (1st Cir. 1987). The existence and frequency of similar
past discriminatory conduct by the respondent should be considered. "[A]bsent explanation, it is ordinarily to be
expected that nondiscriminatory hiring practices will in time result in a work force more or less representative of the
racial and ethnic composition of the population in the community from which employees are hired. Evidence of long
lasting and gross disparity between the composition of a work force and that of the general popUlation thus may be
... Title VII imposes no requirement that a work force mirror the general population."
The Hazelwood court went on to note that "gross statistical disparities" could, by
themselves, constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination.
The question of whether an employer bas acted with malice or reckless indifference ultimately focuses on
the actor's state of mind, not the actor's conduct. An employer's conduct need not be independently "egregious" to
satisfy 1981(a)'s requirements for a punitive damages award, although evidence of egregious behavior may
provide a valuable means by which an employee can show the ''malice'' or ''reckless indifference" needed to qualify
for such an award. See Kolstad v. Am. Dental Ass'n, 527 U.S. 526, 119 S.Ct. 2118 (1999). The "malice" or
''reckless indifference" necessary to impose punitive damages pertain to the employer's knowledge that it may be
acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination. The factors that are relevant
in determining the respondent's fmancial position include: the revenues and liabilities ofthe business; the fair market
value of the respondent's assets; the amount of liquid assets on hand, including amounts the respondent can
reasonably borrow; the respondent's projected earnings; the respondent's affiliation or subsidiary relationship with a
larger entity with additional financial resources. Evidence of these factors may take the form of financial statements,
income tax returns, documents reflecting gross and net income and expenditures, bank statements, bank deposit
records, and general ledgers, as well as responses to interrogatories. Punitive damages are intended to punish
violators and deter them from engaging in similar conduct in the future.
The financial position of the respondent is also relevant. City of Newport v' Fact Concerts. Inc., 453 U.S.
247,270 (1981) ("evidence ofa tortfeasor's wealth is traditionally admissible as a measure ofthe amount ofpunitive
damages that .should be awarded"); Rowlett v, Anheuser-Busch, 832 F.2d at 207 ("a rich defendant may well be
25 Joseph A. Seiner. The Failure of Punitive Damages in Employment Discrimination Cases: A CaD For Change. 50
Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 735, 739-740. 2008.
-21
required to pay more than a poor one who committed the same wrong"). The award should be considered in the
context of the respondent's monetary resources. The amount of punitive damages should "sting," but not "destroy"
the respondent. Keenan v. City of Philadelphia, 55 FEP Cases at 944-45. The following factors are relevant in
determining a respondent's fmancial position. Note, however, that this list is not exclusive and other relevant factors
may also be considered.
A. The revenues and liabilities of the business.

B. The fair market value of the respondent's assets.
C. The amount of liquid assets on hand, which includes amounts that they can reasonably borrow.
D. The respondent's propensity to generate income in the future - projected earnings.
E. The resale value of the business. This is particularly useful where the business has a unique
spot in the market. For instance, large companies may be seeking to buy the business.
F. Consider whether the respondent is affiliate with, or a subsidiary ot: a larger entity that could
provide additional financial resources to the respondent.
The employer's actions after it was informed of discrimination should be considered. An employer who has
notice of discriminatory conduct and fails to take action could incur punitive damages. See Yarbrough y. Tower
Oldsmobile, 789 F.2d at 514-15 (punitive damages warranted under 1981 where the plaintiff testified that his
supervisor reprimanded him in writing, without cause, and transferred him to a less desirable work area after saying
"[w]e don't want no Black guy in the front of the shop;" the plaintiff brought his complaints of discrimination to
management, who failed to respond and was found to be "indifferent to his federally protected rights").
Based on the facts of the case, I will not be receiving a "windfal~" although William Morris should have to
pay me more than $100 million in damages for my losses and as a punishment for their wrongdoing. William Morris
sits at the epicenter of ''Hollywood'' and the entertainment industry, and through powerful mediums such as
television and film, has played a significant role in maintaining the myth of white and/or "Jewish" supremacy
throughout the world. It is nothing but a lie and they, as well as other tortfeasors, have intentionally excluded
African Americans and other people of color from meaningful positions throughout its workplace to assist in the
overall inferiorization of those classified as "black." IfI was able to read the law and determine that William Morris
was violating it, intentionally or not, those who have worked in the Human Resources department have no excuse.
Issue of whether company engaged in cover-up rather than good faith investigation of employee's retaliatory
discharge claim, and thus was not insulated from punitive damages award, was for jury; although employee was
purportedly terminated for poor performance, employee's statistics showed he was meeting, and at times greatly
exceeding, company's expectations, and jury could have reasonably believed that numbers provided by employer to
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were doctored solely to discredit employee and that no
written reprimand, purportedly seen in employee's personnel tile, existed. Lampley v. Onyx Acceptance Corp., 340
F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2003). These punitive damages should be high not only because this company intentionally
maintained a "discriminatory organizational structure, institutional practices and a work culture defmed along
racialized lines," but because this company continued to commit fraud by lying to the outside world that it was in
fact an "equal opportunity employer" that advanced individuals on "merit" and not "race." This company has
pretended to not harbor an ''unvarnished racial animus" against African Americans while behind closed doors, they
refer to us as "nigger," "nigga," "coon," "monkey," "Uncle Tom" and other racially derogatory terms in their e
mails. This is the only reason why the "inexorable zero" could exist for higher status, higher paying positions such
as Coordinator and Agent at William Morris - a company based in New York City, that bas made tens of millions of
dollars exploiting African American entertainers over the decades.
Tn Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 527 U.S. 526 (1999), the Supreme Court granted certiorari in
the case to resolve a split in the circuits over whether a showing of egregious conduct is necessary for a punitive
damage claim to go to the jury.99 In analyzing the damages provision of Title VII, the Court noted that the Civil
Rights Act of 1991 limits punitive awards to cases where the plaintiff has demonstmted that the discrimination was
"intentional."100 The Court rejected the lower court's conclusion, however, that a plaintiff must show that the
-22
intentional discrimination involved in the case was also egregious in nature. I 01 Looking to the plain terms of the
statute, the Court noted that the text does not 753 require a demonstration of an employer's outrageous
behavior.102 Rather, the statute focuses on only "an employer's state of mind."103 The Court acknowledged,
however, that not aU cases of intentional discrimination warrant an instruction on exemplary damages.104Instead,
the statute requires a showing that the defendant acted with "malice or with reckless indifference to the [plaintiff's]
federally protected rights."105 This requirement relates to ''the employer's knowledge that it may be acting in
violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination."106 The Court went on to explain
that a plaintiff can show malice or reckless indifference by demonstrating that the employer "discriminate[d] in the
face ofa perceived risk that its actions [would] violate federal law." I 07
On a claim for punitive damages, egregious misconduct is evidence of the requisite mental state. This
problem is systemic and widespread, not only throughout the company, but throughout all agencies, Hollywood
(studios, networks, distributors, etc.) and many influential institutions (Wall Street, advertising, our judicial system,
government, etc.) throughout America. Through their anticompetitive practices, Defendants have been ''unjustly
enriched" at our expense while committing egregious "crimes against humanity." They have tried and have used
every excuse in the book and have gone through great lengths to maintain their racist practices. That day is coming
to an end. We can no longer allow individuals and companies to get away with these iniquities if we are ever to
progress as a nation and human race. Strong public interest arguments. This cabal's discriminatory employment
practices are aiding in the inferiorization and genocide of the African Americans culture. Even if my antitrust
claims, my arguments demonstrating the effects William Morris' discriminatory employment practices have on
African American community and world cannot be ignored in further determining a reasonable figure that
adequately punishes William Morris for their unlawful, immoral and unethical conduct. Punitive damages award, in
section 1983 action, of approximately $2 million to each Caucasian librarian, who was discriminated against on
basis of race by members of board of trustees for public library system and director of system, was reasonable and
not excessive in violation of the due process clause; there was evidence that defendants knew their conduct was
illegal, and concocted plan to hide their discriminatory motives, and punitive damages award was reasonable and
proportionate to amount of harm to librarians and to general damages recovered. Bogle v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347
(l1th Cir. 2003).
William Morris sits at the epicenter of HoUywood and yields an enormous amount of power and influence
over Hollywood and the entertainment industry. "A traditional talent agent acts as an intermediary broker securing
employment in the entertainment industry for their clients. Talent agents solicit industry contacts to find their artist
client employment, negotiate agreements, and generally exploit opportunities for artists, including licensing rights to
creative work.,,26 The average person knows very little about the identity or racial composition of the actual
gatekeepers of popular culture. That means that hundreds of millions of people in America and billions around the
globe are also unaware of just how much their thoughts, beliefs, values, ideology, worldview and behavior have
been shaped by these companies and its employees that harbor a deep rooted racial animus (and implicit bias)
against African Americans and other people of color. [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 58.] The excluded
members don't serve the "business interests" of the company because it's ultimately a cabal which uses powerful
communicative mediums such as television and film to maintain and perpetuate tIlls fraud known as global white
supremacy. For instance, I recently became aware of a petition that's going around concerning a film titled
_ _ _-', in which the entire case is all-White. This is another attempt at whitewashing history. Ifthe people of that
region have always been a colored group of people, why are they being depicted as white in a film on Egyptian
Gods? Brainwashing. Promoting the myth that the black race has contributed nothing to civilization. The sad thing
is that people who are ignorant to history will look at this film and believe that the people of Egypt who lived
thousands of years before Christ and the Gods they worshipped were white! There can never be racial understanding
if the truth is intentionally being kept from the people. Even if whitesf'Jews" are allowed to misrepresent the truth,
African Americans and other people of color should have just as much as an opportunity to counter these lies in the
26
Michael 1. Plonsker, The Talent Agencies Act: Protecting Artists From Abuse. DailyJournal. September 23, 2011.
-23
marketplace of ideas, by presenting films that accurately tell our stories. As long as the gatekeepers of Hollywood
remain all-whiteI"Jewish," this will never happen. Racism is a learned behavior.
There is no mathematical formula on the proportion which punitive damages must bear to actual damages.
The proper inquiry is whether the size of a punitive damage award is reasonable in light of the particular
circumstances of the case. Thus, the relationship between the amount awarded as punitive damages and the amount
awarded as actual damages is only one factor to be considered. Another factor is the magnitude of harm that could
potentially result from misconduct comparable to that for which the defendant was found liable. ;. . . . .1The Fifth
Circuit commented that injury that results from discrimination under Title vn is often difficult to quantiry in
physical terms, and that preventing juries from awarding punitive damages when an employer has engaged in
reprehensible discrimination without inflicting easily quantifiable physical and monetary harm would quell the
deterrence that Congress intended in the most egregious discrimination cases under Title VIT. Abner v. Kansas City
Southern R. Co., 513 F.3d 154, 102 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 616, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ~43063 (5th Cir.
2008). Since punitive damages are a lega~ as opposed to, equitable remedy, they are recoverable in a private job
discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 and under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983, because legal as well as equitable
relief may be awarded under these statutes. In
the United States Supreme
Court instructed lower courts reviewing punitive damage awards to consider three guideposts: (I) the degree of
reprehensibility of the defendant's misconduct; (2) the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the
plaintiff and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between the punitive damages awarded by the jury
and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S.
559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996). in Campbell the Court makes clear that its jurisprudence establishes
that, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a
significant degree, will satisfy due process concerns. Courts must ensure that the measure is both reasonable and
proportionate to the amount ofharm to the plaintiff as well as to the general damages recovered. However, the Court
identified no "rigid benchmarks" that a punitive damage award may not surpass as ratios greater than those which
the Court has previously upheld may comport with due process if there is a particularly egregious act. The Eleventh
Circuit used the
analysis in determining that a punitive damages award which
exceeded compensatory damages by a factor of 9.2 to 1 was not so excessive as to violate the employer's due
process rights in a racial discrimination and unlawful retaliation suit under Title VII, given that the dismissed
employee suffered both economic and emotional and psychological harm, and that the employer's misconduct was
not isolated but part of a pattern of retaliatory and discriminatory misconduct in failing to discipline white
employees who uttered racial slurs while discharging black employees who complained of such slurs. Goldsmith v.
Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261, 102 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 716, 90 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P
43077, 75 Fed. R. Evid. Servo 601 (11th Cir. 2008). My compensatory damages should also be multiplied by the
highest multiple to calculate punitive damages.
Nonetheless, given that the number of punitive awards in Title VII published decisions was in the single
digits in 2004,224 and given that only about 29 percent of juries that ultimately find in favor of the plaintiff also
award punitive relief(which is still subject to court review),225 it seems a fair conclusion that punitive damages are
simply not achieving their intended purpose. The limited number of published employment discrimination cases
awarding punitive relief is surprising, and it should not go unnoticed or uncorrected. Given the negative effects of
inflation on these awards, their deterrent effect has decreased significantly over time. 27 Thus, it would take an award
of$ 500,093.37 in 2013 to have the same financial impact as an award of$300,000 in 1992. 28
27 Cf. Michael W. Rosklewlcz, Note, Title VII Remedies: Lifting the Statutory Caps from the Civil Rights Act of 1991
to Achieve Equal Remedies for Employment Discrimination, 43 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 391, 413-14
(1993)(statlng that predictable caps reduce deterrent effects); Ruggles, supra note 8, at 155 (same).
28 See Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://databls.gov/cgi-bln/cpicaic.pl (last visited Nov. 25,
2008). See generally Rosklewicz, supra note 264, at 418 ("Only byellmlnatlng the caps on compensatory and
punitive damages available to Title VII discrimination victims can Congress accomplish its initial goal of absolute
-24
When you consider the overall history of William Morris' intentionally maintaining employment practices,
policies and procedures that ensure this influential, Hollywood talent agency's an all-Whitef'Jewish" workforce for
115 years and the experiences I had to endure while being made to believe I had actually had an equal opportunity to
advance and that my race was never a motivating factor for the adverse employment decisions that were made
against me pre and post-hiring, their actions become so reprehensible as to justify a high punitive damages award.
Therefore, I am seeking punitive
damages no less than $100 million.
[Treble Damages for antitrust law violations under Sherman and Donnelly Acts] Although you have
prematurely denied my antitrust claims in your third Interim Decision without any mention of the Sherman Act or
case law surrounding antirust in any of your three Interim Decisions,
my "back pay, front pay and
compensatory damages should be trebled" because by you admitting "Exhibit 31" into the evidence
ofrecord, I have proven that William Morris has been engaged in a conspiracy to maintain its race-based monopoly,
and that there's a larger conspiracy throughout Hollywood to maintain the same through its discriminatory
employment and anticompetitive business practices, policies and procedures .
This is explained briefly in my Motion for Clarification and Modification to the September 25, 2013 Interim
Decision and I am seeking an oral hearing to discuss this matter under oath.
Against Sarah Van Hoven and Meade tor aiding & abetdng in violating of New York City Human
Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-107(6): As employees of the Human Resources
department, it is part of their job responsibility to make sure that William Morris complied with the various EED
laws of this nation. At the Agent Trainee leve~ they served as the initial gatekeepers to who received a call back and
because of their discriminatory hiring practices, there was a gross underrepresentation of qualified minority Agent
Trainees. This is why T was the only African American employed in the Agent Trainee program, although T was
overqualified than my similarly situated whitef'Jewish" counterparts. Although Van Hoven and Meade were simply
acting in the interest of this racist Hollywood organization, another reason why the EED laws were never upheld,
were because William Morris intentionally hired two individuals with little to no experience as Human Resources
professionals or experience in the entertainment industry. Van Hoven was a few months older than I was and before
at NBC. Yet, at William Morris, she had a significant role in
working at William Morris, she worked as a _
determining my job assignments and thus, played a pivotal role in limiting my career trajectory. Although the
company policy manual stated that they would immediately notify you of issues and they stated to all of the Agent
Trainees during my employment that they wanted to see us succeed, it's clear that those statements only pertained to
Whites/"Jews" of European descent. They would wait months to tell me there were problems and when T would
explain myself, they continued to assign me Sisyphean tasks. Had Van Hoven and Meade been knowledgeable in
EED law, it would have become immediately apparent that the company's practices, policies and procedw'es were
creating a disparate impact against qualified African Americans and other people of color due to glaring "inexorable
zero." Yet, they continued to disregard the law so that William Morris, specifically its New York office, could
maintain its discriminatory organizational structure, institutional practices and work culture defined along racialized
lines. As the only two Human Resources professionals employed in the New York office, they playa large role in
who is hired and/or gets promoted, so they cannot be let off the hook for their negligence. This is why they were
able to view my resume, see that I was extremely more qualified than the all of the Whitef'Jewish" Agent Trainees
that were hired, and still believe that my similarly situated whitef'Jewish" counterparts were more experienced than
I was. As a result, I am seeking $50,000.00
from Van Hoven and $50,000.00 from Meade.
Non-Monetary Relief:
equality."); Ruggles, supra note 8, at 164 ("The current statutory caps on punitive damages in intentional
employment discrimination do not allow for effective enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.").
-25
[Declaratory ReUei']
[Permanent Injunctive ReUei'] Courts have authority under virtually every federal employment law to provide
equitable injunctive relief for a violation. A federal district court has broad discretionary powers to craft an
injunction tailored to the specific violations found, in order to ensure that the employer complies with the law.
E.E.O.C. v. Wilson Metal Casket Co., 24 F.3d 836, 1994 FED App. 165P (6th Cir. 1994). District courts have broad
discretion to issue an injunction once discrimination has been established in a Title vn action. Briscoe v. Fred's
Dollar Store, Inc., 24 F.3d 1026 (8th Cir. 1994).
Generally, a person subjected to employment discrimination is entitled to an injunction against future
discrimination, as part of available "makewhole" reliet: unless the employer proves that it is unlikely to repeat the
practice because the discrimination has ceased. E.E.O.C. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp. 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cit.
1987). Injunctions are not limited to employers that have a history of discrimination, but are equa)]y appropriate
against firsttime discriminators. Gregory v. Litton Systems, Inc., 472 F.2d 631 (9th Cit. 1972).] or unJess the victim
is no longer in a position to benefit from the injunction. Permanent injunctive relief is appropriate not only to
remedy discrimination against a single individual, but also to prohibit continued systemic discrimination affecting
both employees and applicants. International Broth. ofTeamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 97 S. Ct. 1843,52 L. Ed. 2d
396 (1977). Moreover, injunctions preventing the repetition of unlawful conduct, such as retaliation, are appropriate
to subject the violator to the court's contempt power in the future, and to reduce the potential chilling effect of such
conduct on the exercise of statutory rights by other persons. E.E.O.C. v. Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539
(9th Cir. 1987).
The most important mctor for a district court to consider when deciding whetber to exercise its discretion to
award injunctive relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is whether the mcts indicate a danger of
future violations ofTitle VII. A permanent injunction is required to prevent continued discrimination where there is
abundant evidence of past discrimination, and no clear and convincing proof that there is no reasonable probability
of further discrimination.[ Cox v. American Cast Tron Pipe Co., 784 F.2d 1546, 4 Fed. R. Servo 3d 521 (11th Cir.
1986).] Where the discrimination is not isolated, the employer will have to provide correspondingly stronger
evidence of effective preventative measures in order to prevent injunctive relief. For example, a violator's cessation
of a discriminatory recruitment policy that resulted in virtually no blacks' applying for clerical positions during an
eightyear period is no guarantee that the prohibited policy will not recur. E.E.O.C. V. Andrew Corp., 54 Empt. Prac.
Dec. (CCH) '1140166, 1990 WL 92820 (N.D. Ill. 1990). The mere discontinuance ofa discriminatory practice will not
prevent a permanent injunction if the discriminatory effects of the practice continue to be felt in other practices.
As is true for aU injunctive relief granted under federal law, an order granting permanent injunctive relief
for violations of federal employment laws must state the reasons for its issuance, specifY its terms, and describe in
reasonable detail the act or acts sought to be restrained. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d). Courts can pennanently enjoin
unlawful employment practices on a companywide basis, even when discrimination has been found to have occurred
at only one facility or against only one group of employees, if there is some evidence that the employer's policies
were subject to a significant degree of centralized control. Where such evidence exists, permanent injunctive relief
should be available on a companywide basis and an independent investigation of each separate mcility is
unnecessary. Brennan v. J. M. Fields, Inc., 488 F.2d 443 (5th Cit. 1973).
[Affirmative Renei']. Not every victim decides to seek relief for a particular wrong. Further demonstration of why
this case is not merely an individual claim of disparate treatment is the fact that I have successfully demonstrated
through case law and statistical evidence that the company's employment practices, policies and/or procedures
create a glaring disparate impact against qualified AtTican Americans and people of color. It is because of my
membership to this federally protected &fJU!Il, that I and others who look like me have not been given an equal
opportunity to be hired and/or promoted to Agent for 115 years. At least for the years that I was employed, if
African Americans comprise _ percent of the popUlation in New York City, at least _ of the 50 Agents that I
worked with should have been African American. At least _ of the _ Agent Trainees should have been African
American. It is because of my membership in a protected group that William Morris' employment practices, policies
and procedures acted as headwinds against me and others whose bodies also produce melanin, resulting in a glaring
disparate impact against qualified people of color, the "inexorable zero," occupational segregation and racial
stratification in the workplace. Theoretically, there should have been at least one African American Agent working
in each division (music, television, literary, theater and marketing/commericals) of William Morris' New York
office. That means, there would have been more opportunities for AtTican American talent to be represented by a
major talent agency, in which they would have been able to share their creative talents to the world. Over time, these
positive black images would aided in defeating the myth of black inferiority created by Whitesf'Jews" of European
descent. Based on William Morris' hiring practices alone, they must truly believe that one's race is a prerequisite for
the job ofbeing an Agent Trainee or Agent, or else there would be more diversity.
Rectifying past discrimination has been the primary justification for affirmative-action plans. The courts
are authorized, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to order whatever affirmative action may be
appropriate to remedy a violation of the Act. Preferential affIrmative relief is appropriate, under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, when an employer or labor union has engaged in persistent or egregious discrimination or
when it is necessary to dissipate the lingering effects ofpervasive discrimination. Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers'
Intern. Assn v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 106 S. Ct. 3019, 92 L. Ed. 2d 344 (1986). Since it is an extraordinary
remedy, under 42 U.S.C.A. 1981 the remedy of affirmative action is one of last resort. Dawson v. Pastrick, 600
F.2d 70 (7th Cir. 1979).
Flexible goals for minorities or women constitute permissible court-ordered relief for job discrimination
violations in appropriate circumstances, but strict, inflexible quotas do not. Although a goal should not be used to
achieve and maintain racial balance, an employer or union may be ordered to select a given percentage or ratio of
women or minorities as a remedy for proven discrimination, if the requirement is flexibly applied and modified to
adjust for changing circumstances.[ Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers' Intern. Ass'n v. E.E.O.C., 478 U.S. 421, 106
S. Ct. 3019, 92 L. Ed. 2d 344 {1986).J Affirmative action in the form of repentance or reform offers insufficient
assurance that the challenged discriminatory practices will not be repeated, where the affrrrnative action is taken in
anticipation of, or to blunt the force of a lawsuit. [Davis v. Los Angeles County, 566 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1977), cert.
granted, 437 U.S. 903, 98 S. Ct. 3087, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1132 (1978) and judgment vacated on other grounds, 440 U.S.
625,99 S. Ct. 1379,59 L. Ed. 2d 642 (1979).] By its very nature, affIrmative action imposed as relieffor a violation
of job discrimination laws has some impact on those outside the group to be benefited. but for it to be permissible
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the United States Constitution, the relief should not
"unnecessarily trammel" third-party interests, should be temporary, and should cease, Morrow v. Crisler, 491 F.2d
1053 (5th Cir. 1974).] or be modified downward [U.S. v. City of Chicago, 663 F.2d 1354 (7th Cir. 1981).] when its
essential purpose has been achieved.
Furthermore, such relief should be specifically targeted toward the discrimination to be eliminated; in other
words, the particular discriminatory acts at issue should be the focus of the relief. See Morrow v. Crisler, 491 F.2d
1053 (5th Cir. 1974); Thompson v. Sawyer, 678 F.2d 257 (D.C. Cir. 1982). However, when the discrimination at
issue involves hiring at boththe entry level and higher levels, affIrmative relief in the form of promotion goals is
appropriate. U.S. v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 107 S. Ct. 1053, 94 L. Ed. 2d 203 (1987). _ __
."
."
hiring
" ' ,
..
,",.
,.
into'
~, J1Q'sition~i'c;jf~udh1it~a'~;iif~ts.~llf!'~T'~{~~"S'f~
"."J;~ """",o.J'}""" ",!Yt,,~"J:i~,<!J~e.:I..W
.'
In addition to monetary sums distributed to plaintiffs, employers have agreed to implement a number of
programs, including revision of management selection processes and increased availability of information regarding
promotion decisions, adoption of benchmarks based on systems of "registration of interest," dissemination of
27
information about job opportunities and promotion procedures, and implementation of systems of monitoring the
rate at which minorities and/or women are promoted. The employer might, for example, be required to alter its
decisionmaking processes, to institute safeguards against bias in its evaluation processes, and/or to implement
monitoring systems for identification of patterns in progress and allocation of opportunity. A defendant who fails to
implement a court-ordered affirmative action plan may be held in contempt by the court. Contempt sanctions may
include fines to coerce the employer into compliance. E.E.O.C. v. Guardian Pools, Tnc., 828 F.2d 1507 (11th Cir.
1987). In order for an employer to be held in contempt, clear and convincing evidence of a violation of the court's
remedial order must be presented. Neely v. City of Grenada, 799 F.2d 203 (5th Cir. 1986). An equal employment
opportunity (EEO) compliance officer needs to be hired.
Private employers can use racial or sexual preferences to address "manifest imbalances" that reflect racial
or sexual underrepresentation in "traditionally segregated job categories." In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court
upheld the University of Michigan's affrrmative action program, recognizing diversity as the compelling state
interest that justified the program. In Parents Involved v. Seattle Independent School District, the Court invalidated a
school district's cons~deration of race in assigning children to schools within a district. The plurality viewed the
practice as a pursuit of racial balance for its own sake. 14 Justice Roberts relied on Grutter to reiterate that any
program that was "simply an effort to achieve racial balance" would be "patently unconstitutional." The Court
cautioned against the adoption of a de facto quota system, in which a "focus on statistics ... could put undue pressure
on employers to adopt inappropriate prophylactic measures." Ricci v DeStefano, 129 S.Ct. at 2675. Whites are not
being denied opportunities based on race if these policies are implemented. The only reason WhitesJ"Jews" have
been overrepresented in the workplace, is due to William Morris' discriminatory employment practices, policies and
procedures. If employment discrimination weren't occurring in the present, there would not still be an
overrepresentation of whites employed nearly 50 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.
''In this case, blacks constitute approximately 50% of the popUlation of the city of Richmond. Five of the
nine seats on the city council are held by blacks. The concern that a political majority will more easily act to the
disadvantage of a minority based on unwarranted assumptions or incomplete facts would seem to militate for, not
against, the application of heightened judicial scrutiny in this case." J.A. Croson v. Richmond. 488 U.S. 469, 495
496 (1989). Quotas may be necessary.29 America's conception of quotas has to change ITom being discriminatory
against whites to something that actually promotes democracy. America has to reframe its conception of quotas.
Racial parity throughout higher status, higher paying positions from various industries in America is the only way to
eliminate and eradicate institutional racism. Balance is needed. Justified broadly as combating past and ongoing
disadvantages stemming from the many fonns of racism. the principle of proportionality is met by the racial quota
because it utilizes a benign racial classification for social purposes that were praiseworthy and obviously hostile to
segregation. Racial quotas promote solidarity - the opposite of social division. 30 "However, the essentialism that
seems endemicto quotas can be overcome when quotas - and race and gender identity - are publicly understood as
disruptions of traditional myths that the twenty-first century democratic state must overcome. "31 Those who have
historically benefited from discrimination against minority groups will regard affirmative action and quotas as an
attempt by a conflicting group to gain advantage. A "critical mass" of minorities is needed throughout the
workplace.
Julie C. Suk. Discrimination As Corruption: Rethinking Quotas in Democracies. "Discrimination as Corruption."
Columbia Law School Legal Theory Workshop, October 28,2013.
30 Id. at 31. ("The judicial discourse around gender and race quotas outside the United States raise serious doubts
about the assumption in U.S. equal protection law that racial quotas are inherently divisive and lead to a "corrosive"
politics of identity. At the very least, the alternative conceptualization of quotas in other jurisdictions should lead
one to demand a more thorough and empirically supported account of how quotas unleash negative consequences
for democracy and the legitimacy of the political process in the United States. Tfany such account were to appear,
one might also demand an account of how, precisely, individualized race-conscious affirmative action avoids the
negative consequences attributable to quotas. ")
31 Suk. Discrimination as Corruption. p. 25-26. 2013.
29
-28
Why would anyone challenge the institutional prerogative in achieving social inclusion and diversity? If
race is a social construct and nothing more than a myth, then "absent explanation, it is ordinarily to be expected that
nondiscriminatory hiring practices will in time result in a work force more or less representative of the racial and
ethnic composition of the population in the community from which employees are hired. Evidence of longstanding
and gross disparity between the composition of a work force and that of the general population ... may in a proper
case constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination." Hazelwood School Dist. v. U.S., 433
U.S. 299, 307, 97 S. Ct. 2736, 53 L. Ed. 2d 768, 15 Fair Empl. Prac: Cas. (BNA) I, 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH)
~7633 (1977) (quoting International Broth. of Teamsters v. U.S., 431 U.S. 324, 339-340 n 20, 97 S. Ct. 1843,52 L.
Ed. 2d 396, 14 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1514, 14 Ernpl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) ~7579 (1977)).
COSTS:
DeposltioBsl Althaugh I f'reseftted substantial ease 18'''' ..:hieh SUf'f'afts that I shauld ....e beeR alla'",eE! ta eaREiliet
depasitialls with Miellael P. Z\veig, flflE! HeIeR Gw+'ftfis afLaeb &, Laeb LLP te E!isetiss e E!isea....ery ill ~ siRee
they were the first ta reeei'!e the email reStilts wam EleetFeflie E"'idellee Disea..'ery, as well as depase ea CEO af
WiUi8Hi Marris BaEielt't'6t" BRteftlltr.rneBt kiel BmllRtiel ta diseuss the diserimiRatary eRlf31aymeRt f't"aetiees af
William Marris ed the atlditiaBtllllU White/"J6'Nish" taleRt ageReies he's warked at tlJreughetit his ell!"ee!".
These re'luests were demed; ed ORee aglliB, ltreitrator Gregory preposetl that I eaRduet depositioBs with
RaymeBd Heslifl aBd Leoftflfd Rowe. k's imf30ftllRt to Bote t:hat tkIr.ag aur July 39, 2913 eaafereBee eaH however,
yeu stated that yeH eaHld Rat "ae iR the role af attofftey ta either f'Elfty'. aRd that "[elaeh party is eRtitled to f'FeseRt
their eases as they see fit." Yet, it BWellfs that yeu Ilfe aetiRg as ea eOWlSel fer the ReSjJoBdeats siRee yeu ha';e Bat
kept yeti{ word as it eaBeefBS my IitigatiaB strategy aBd disea':ery re'ltiests. Withaut IlRY ....alid eJff'laBatiaB ar
eitatiaR of the law, yeu hIi'Ve aBee agaia, deBied me due f'raeess eEl e'lual f'rateetiaB eder the law. As a reStilt,
your aetiafls are makiNg it mare btifdeflsame aR me ta "pra....e" that "E*hibit 31" is "llHtheRtie," althaugh yeH ha':e
1l8W MeR admitted this smekiRg gHft e'AdeBee iRte the reearti.~
As stated iR my BmergeBey MetieB te GeBlJ'el, if William Merris doesR't proEltlee lilly ef the e fRIlils,
eompaet dises aBtl privilege &, respoBsi'.'e lags OR eamply with my dise6"lery refjuests eaaeemiRg iafeFffilltieB
abeut William Marris' 1998 1999 baelcHp t&fles, there's absolHtely BO Beed fer me ta eaREiliet depesitioBs with
IlRyeBe siRee I hw:e alreaEiy pro....ided the perjurieHs DeelllfBtiaas of GoIE!. PrimeffaBtl HesliN. '..<ho eeRtiaue state as
af May 14 IS, 2912, that BO Eleregatary terms were 6''' felmd dur.ag e diseavery ia Rewe. This is elellfly
eeBtredieted by the feet that this daeHffieRt was fe1fed ta the Willie GIlfY Firm by SNR New erk aft Oeteeer 1S,
2QQ2 eiter LeaBar8 Rawe diseo....ered the daetimeRt aft the desk ef fermer ftttefBey RaymeBd Heslift. AdditiaNlllly,
there's fle fleed fer me ta depase LeaNard Rewe, beellHSe Talready submitted his Affidwt'it, whieh was RataRllled aN
_
Yeu elsa g8't'e the ReSjJefldellts the epf'ertHRity to depese Mr. Rewe EiHRllg our lHly 39, 2913
eeBfereflee eall, I3tit they deelifled. Se v.<hy yeH eeBtilme ta Stiggest tflat I Elef3ese these SjJeeifie iadi,,'iduals aafiles
me. Altheugh its Mile fer me te deflese ~ at this stage iR the Ilfaitratien; ael&w is my ,msed depasitiaft list:
Deposition List:
Martin R. Gold
Richard Primotf
Raymond Heslin
Since Arbitrator David L. Gregory admitted "Exhibit 31" into the record. it is clear at this stage in the arbitration
that "Exhibit 3 J" is in fact authentic and thus, he should not have dismissed my antitrust claims or decided that the
arbitration agreement was "not unconscionable," especially since he provided no case law or reasoning to support
his conclusions.
32
-29
Willie E. Gary
UftfuFtlHlately after SHbmittitlg the thifEl IBterim DeeisieB ta the eampaay I tateaaed te haBale the
depasitiaBs U.S. Legal & SIl}Jf'aft my eaBtaet f'ersaB itlfermed me aB September 39, 2913 thet they waeld oot be
&ble ta haftale the Eief'asitiaBs. Althattgh I Bever made the raqeest aBa yeer thira mterim DeeisieB elearly states that
'WMB 'Nas "la bear $2,999 immediately ifl a east shift af depasitiafl easts reasaflably iflel:lfFed by Claimaflt," J "lIftS
gh'efl the e~u!tlSe that they "#attld flet be able ta preYise their serviees far ttflder $2,999.99 8flS therefare they eattld
Bat sa it at all. As a resell, I ha"+'e seeised ta ealist the seMees efD&'lis Feldm8fl Warlswide.
SiRee the fH'St three ltttemeyB haRsles e diseanry eR behalf eethe elass ef blael< eeReett prematef'S 8fle are
eer-reat1y eased itl New YerlE City, it's mast impeftftftt that I eeBeeet eepesitieflS with Gale, Pflmeff aBd Heslitl.
Eaek attemey willpre"lide impefttmt testimeay te preve that a eeBspiraey teek plaee te eeBeeal eviaeaee itl Rewe.
Primeff was the main attemey that haftelee e disee'lery in Rewe and eemmliftieatee ragelarly with ee6ftSei far the
Baalffitg AgeBey DefeBtlaats in setermining the fiflal eserft&tBes that were SHf'f'esed te ha"+'e eeeB searehetl; as well
8.5 the key seareh term werds that '....era te be esea. IB aaaitiaB ta e mails, he alsa reeewea eampllet aises ftfta
privilege & respaftSive lags fram Helea G&varis, "...'hieh were Bever fefwaraea ta the Willie Gary Firm. Heslitl's
testimeflY is impertaflt bee8\ise LeeRars Rewe fattflS "Exhibit 31" eR his deslc afls it was later fltxes by his law firm
te the Willle Gary Firm. And althettgh BeBe ef the aeettmeRts shew ftftY eaRHlll:lBieatiea frem Gala ,....ith this aspeet
ef the ease, he "l't'ftB the erjgitlal &RS leas atteraey itl this litjgatieR. AtltlitiaRally, he still warlES far SeaneflSeheifl
Nath & Reseathal LLP (Be..... I(ftBWB as DeateflS LLP). Mera likely thaft Bet, HesliB ftftd Primeff will Ret be able te
predeee deeemeBts eeeBtlSe they left the eemptmy sheftly after e diseevery teak f'laee anti/er Be laBger werk there.
Hewe>+'er, Geld will net be able te ese that e*el:llle afta the eefBJ3IU1Y sheeld still be in pessessieB ef dael:l:ftleBts 1fem
that ease.
I e*peet eaeh eepasitiaB will take Ba mare thBft feer haers ta eafBlllete. There is aft 8\itamatie, $599.99 pffl
se aepesit that has te be paia Il}JfreBt ta ealtst this eaA'lJ3any's seMees. I am 6ftS6fe if I ".... mda these depasitiaas ia
f'ersaB ar telephaeieally, hawever, eaeh Eief'esitieR will have ta be viaeataf'ea. F~ea eests fer the arst three
eepesitiaRs wattla tatal: $3,982.99. This figere daes flet iRelese 'fBriable easts, whieh iflelede eests far elleh page
that is traftSeribed,
should he
ftB
well as eests fer elleh l1age ef eKhil3its that are esed.
The total depositioD eosts
more thaD S4,OOO.OO,
wheB the eests af hiritlg a eafBJ3ftfty ta serve these SI:lbpaee8.5 are

alsa faetered in. I ask in aW'llftee that if:Arbitratar Gregery grllftts my reqeests ta depase ftftY afthese attameys, that
their reqeests far a prateetive erder be deftied immeaiately. A:Eitlitiaftally, I ask thet yee Mser the depasitiefts af
Riehara Primeff BRe RaymeBd Heslitl te take f'laee ee the same eay.
Withfegards ta depesing Willie Gary, I hlWe itlelttdee hisftame ae the Jist, bet it's Bat Beeessary te '....aste
mafler aRd time ebtaiRiRg his testimaRY bee8\ise the Willie Gary Firm sid flat eafldttet e sisea'/ery ifl ~ (ar else
80
E-Discovery Retrieval: As e*J11aiRea thraeghaet ray Emergeftey MatiaB ta Order RespeaaeBts Te CeffiJ3ly with
Diseevery Reqeests, I hlWe beeft liftable ta abtaitl qeetes frem f'respeetive e aisee"iery e*J1efts beeBtlSe William
Mams' IT eepartmtlflt afld Laah & Leah LLP refuse te J3faviee aRS'l/erS te their f'relimiRary qeestiafls eefleefRiRg
William Marris' 1998 1999 bael< Il}J tapes. Akl1aegh Zweig ideDtiiied 19 tlSemBmes apf'eariag 6ft "~~ibit 31" as
eeiag past BRtiJar preseat effiJ31ayees af William Marris, I belie',e that aU ef the Rames that appear eD pages 14 BRd
18 af that deeumeDt are empleyees ef William Marris. That meaDS, there are 8ft additiaBilI 3 fflsemames that
William Merris refuses te ieeBtify, britlging the tatlll ta 56 ttsemames. TheIl; there are the five masie Ageats wae
the elaek eeBeeft premeters aet6tlHy eammliftieated with that Leah & Laah LLP elaims were searehed Cara Lewis,
Peter Grassljgbt, Rishard RaseBberg, Jeff Frasee, ftftd Shelly Sffit1t2 bet llJ'f'ear BaVAlere eD "BX:hil3it 31." These
-30
esemames will alse htl'f'e te ee seaFehed as well. Therefere, at the mi:ai-mttm; there M'e a tetal ef 61 usemames that
hB".'e te be seftfeaed. I say "at the mi:aimuftl:;" eeelllJ5e this dees ftet inelude the unlmeWft Mmes that appeM eft page
17, Vtrffleh is mysterieesly missiflg wem tae '..siel! ef ''E!lfhibit 31" that WIl5 suemitted te the CeW't.
Waheut m erder eempeUiflg William Merris' IT dep8ftftl:el!t te ftftSWeF the flrelimmarj ElUestieftS
eefteeming William Marris' 1998 1999baelmfl tftJles, I eftllB6t reeeM a fflflge ef ElUetes wem flreSJIeeti'ie e
disee...ery eJiflerts IA my August 7, 2013 Disee...ery BRd Oral Heftf'iAg PrefleSe6 SeheElule, TSUBmitted a ElUete wem
Vestige. Their ElUate was
, but WIl5 based eft eKtremely limited iftfuffllatieft. I alse deeided agamst werkiflg
with them aeeause T deft't feel the eeffiJlaAY has the eftJlahilities er eJlflerieftee that T am seeiciftg. The eftly ather e
disee...ery eetflJlafty that aas heeD flatiest md williflg ta ',vedE with me deSJIite ftet ha...iflg elteft iflfefffillties abeut
the 19981999 WMA llaelmfl tftJles is KfeU OBtfaek. hs af OetaheF 3, 2013, it wiD east
at
a mil1imum, 513,132.00 ta seaFeh the 61 USeFl1ameS eal1tail1ed al1 the 1998 1999
WMA haekup tapes hased 011 the limited IlmOUl1t il1feFmlltioR they eUFFel1t1y hllve.
_
The eest efFeJlreElueiflg this SJleliates e>riseflee is still $186,999.99 ~ thm what the elll5s efelaek
eefleert flremeters flaid BBD te e6fldllet m eleetreaie SeMea efWMA &Bd CAA's eaekufl tftJles. This aeelJlit will he
SlJfe te merease, eeeftlJse it deesa't melude the eests ef efttisting a teressie e*JIert wee the eempftflY, whe will he
able te testifY Il5 te the IlUtheatieity ef these deregatery e mails eaee they Me presueed.
Miscellaneous costs: Beginning from date T began pursuing this case, April 10,2010 to present, approximately 41
months. Given that I was unaware during the earlier parts of this litigation that I could be entitled to costs, I did not
know to keep receipts of all ofthe ink, printing paper and additional things I've had to buy to continue litigating this
case. I have receipts for 20 months out of the 41 months I have represented myself in this case (including filing
complaint with the EEOC). The receipts that I have total $1,251.36, spanning approximately 21 months. I brought a
printer and laptop during that period, so I deducted those cost, as well as deducted the PACER costs since I have all
of those receipts in order to determine the non-receipt total of my ink and printing paper costs for 20 months I don't
have receipts. 3] I approximated my non-receipt total to be $398.63.
Total costs would be approximately
$1,649.99-$4,149.99 (factoring in the costs for a new MacBook Pro).
EXPERT WITNESS FEES:

In 1981 cases, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee and may
include expert fees as part of the attorney's fee. 42 U.S.c. 1988(b-c). Economic expert to compute monetary
damages.
PRO SE ATTORNEY FEES:

The American Rule is that each party in a lawsuit must bear its own attorney's fees. Pro se litigants are generally not
entitled to attorney's fee awards, at least where the litigant is not an attorney. If one took a strict-constructionist
approach, it could very well be argued that since I am not an attorney, I should not be awarded attorneys' fees as a
pro se litigant. However, for these reasons below, that argument should be rejected and an amount equivalent to
what William Morris has paid the elite law firm and experienced attorneys to litigate this case on their behalf should
be paid to me.
33 From May 2010 until December 2010, Tonly have one receipt dated 12/17/2010. Tn 2011, Tonly have two receipts
in my possession, dating September 4,2010 and September 27,2010. In 2012, I have receipts starting April 7,2010
until December 16, 2010 (first four months are missing). I have all receipts for 2013.
-31
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the "prevailing party" is allowed to recoyer "reasonable attorney's
fees." 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k). Although the language of the statute does not distinguish between prevailing
plaintiffs and prevailing defendants, in a Title VII case, attorney's fees are only awarded to prevailing defendants
upon a finding that the plaintiffs action was "frivolous, unreasonable or groundless" or that the plaintiff continued to
litigate after it clearly became so. See Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). In Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that "success on
any significant issue in litigation that achieves some of the benefit sought is sufficient to qualify a party as a
prevailing party for the purposes of determining an award of attorney's fees."
Also, under New York City Administrative Code, 8-502(f), it states that: "In any civil action commenced
pursuant to this section, the court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party costs and reasonable attorney's
fees. For the purposes of this subdivision, the term "prevailing" includes a plaintiff whose commencement of
litigation has acted as a catalvst to effect poUcy change on the part of the defendant. regardless of whether
that change has been implemented voluntarily. as a result of a settiement or as a result of a ludgment in such
plaintiff's favor." (emphasis added) The factors that guide a court in making an award of attorney fees under the
New York City Human Rights Law include, the degree of success, the time and labor required, the novelty and
difficulty of the questions, the skill required to perform the legal services properly, the preclusion of other legal
work resulting from the acceptance of this case, the customary fee, whether the fee is fixed or contingent, time
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys, the
''undesirability'' of the case, the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, and awards in
similar cases. McGrath v. Toys "R" Us. Inc., 3 N.Y.3d 421,429 th. 1,788 N.Y.S;2d 281,821 N.E.2d 519 (2004).
This is a unique case, so there aren't "similar cases" to compare it to. For many reasons, this was, and still
is, an "undesirable" case. Before filing the complaint pro se with the Southern District of New York, I had legal
representation (Jewish attorney) and met with additional attorneys and law firms after finding my counsel to be not
up to par. None of the attorneys or law firms that I spoke with in preparation for this case - majority all white - told
me that I did not have a case. However, as they learned more about the facts of the case, became aware of the
institution r was suing and the overall public interest arguments that were being raised, they were not willing to risk
their careers and reputations to help eradicate employment discrimination in our "post-racial" society and ensure that
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being upheld and strengthened.
Since no attorney or law frrm was willing to have the courage to challenge this "evil system," I was left
with no choice but to do it on my own. For the last three years, this case has consumed my life. I have dedicated
more than 80 hours a week to this case because there is a lot at stake - not only for myself, but for the African
American community and world at large. From the inception, I have always pursued this case in good faith and I
simply wanted a "neural" and "impartial" third party to determine whether or not I was a victim of pre and post
hiring discrimination by William Morris. Ifwhat I were saying weren't true, I would not have uncovered evidence
demonstrating its 115 year pattern and continuing practice of unlawful employment discrimination against African
Americans, as well as smoking gun evidence of the company's unvarnished racial animus. _
Although I am not an attorney, I honestly don't believe I would have received legal representation from a
third party in the way that I have fought this case on my behalf. I have not only proven as a matter of law that
William Morris has engaged in 115 year pattern and continuing practice of racial discrimination, but I have also
raised a unique argument grounded in law to additionally demonstrate why this company's pre-dispute, mandatory
arbitration agreements are unconscionable and should not be enforced in this landmark human rights case. At this
stage, I now consider my profession to be that of a human rights activist. Even you have described my efforts as
being comparable to that of Martin Luther King , Jr. and Thurgood Marshall, and those references serve as further
demonstration that 1 have always pursued this case in "good faith." My humanitarian efforts will not stop until
institutionalized racism and global white/"Jewish" supremacy are eradicated from the world.
"Allowing a citizen who hired an attorney to get fees but not [making the award to pro se litigants] creates
a windfall for the defendant who doesn't have to pay the fees ... just because he had the good fortune to commit his
-32
wrong" upon an unrepresented party.34 Judges and arbitrators should strive to treat represented and unrepresented
parties consistently. Because represented parties who successfully win employment discrimination lawsuits are
almost always granted attorney's fees, I should receive that same monetary award even though I'm a pro se litigant.
If I am victorious on any of my claims raised in this highly, complex case, my pro se status should not make
William Morris exempt from having to pay an amount equivalent to what I would have had to pay had I been
represented by a high profile, civil rights attorney. Tn determining this amount, courts should consider what an
attorney would have charged for the requisite work performed by the pro se litigant. This lodestar approach35 has
appeal both in its simplicity and in its acceptance in other areas of the law. 36 T think it's only fair that this amount
should be similar to what Loeb & Loeb LLP has received from William Morris to help the company continue its
unlawful discriminatory employment practices, policies and procedures for more than a decade. I am asking that
Loeb & Loeb LLP be compelled to should produce financial statements indicating what they have been paid by
William Morris for their legal "services," so I can determine a reasonable figure for attorney's fees. I am seeking
pro se attorneys' fees between $8 million.
SANCTIONS [for discovery abuses and contumacious conduct):

Before I even uncovered the pyramid of evidence establishing that "Exhibit 31" was in fact an authentic
document, I have been seeking sanctions against the William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and
Christian Carbone for their overall "bad faith" conduct throughout this litigation. I have additionally sought
sanctions against the Respondents and their counsel for their contumacious behavior and discovery abuses over the
last ten months of this arbitration. If judgment is made in my favor, I additionally ask that monetary sanctions be
imposed against the above named individuals and companies, as well as that you make the recommendation for the
Southern District of New York to impose disciplinary sanctions against Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and
Christian Carbone for their unethical and criminal conduct - including but not limited to, violating numerous rules
under the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, obstructing justice, committing perjury and violating additional
statutes.
When T became aware of who opposing counsel were in this case, Thad no idea of the crimes Michael P.
Zweig, Loeb & Loeb LLP and other co-conspirators engaged in on behalf of William Morris and the other
defendants in Rowe. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP, however, cannot say the same. Pursuant to the 2009 Arbitration
Agreement, this arbitration proceeding is being guided by the Rules of Civil Procedure for New York state.
However, this case originally began in the federal court and is only here today because of the fraud engaged in by
the Respondents' counsel and Judge Castel's ability to abide by the Judicial Code of Conduct. Now that "Exhibit
31" has been admitted into the evidence of the record, there can be no question that fraud occurred in BmY!t after I
presented a pyramid of evidence to the arbitrator demonstrating that this document is authentic, and was attempted
to be concealed from the class of black concert promoters by their attorneys and counsel for the Booking Agency
Defendants in late 2002. By default, due to Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP's presence in this litigation, fraud is also
occurring in Washington. Thus, I will be looking to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 to make my arguments as to why
monetary and disciplinary sanctions should imposed against William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig
and Christian Carbone.
From day one, I have always pursued this case in "good faith." The adverse decisions that were made
against me by Judge Castel and the Second Circuit have always been erroneous as a matter of law, but now, they
34Jeremy D. Spector's article Awarding AttorneY.'s Fees to Pro ~e Litigants Under Rule 11. p. 2330. (citing Karen
Shulman. Comment, To Fee, or Not to Fee: The Dilemma of the Pro Se Attorney In Collecting Attorney's Fees, 16
W. St. u. L. Rev. 303, 310 (1988)).
35 The "lodestar" is commonly defined as the "number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by [the] prevailing
hourly rate in [the] community for similar work." Black's Law Dictionary 941 (6th ed. 1990).
36 The Supreme Court, for example, adopted the lodestar approach for 1988 cases in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
33
should also be voided due to the fraudulent actions and perjurious statements made by Zweig on behalf of William
Morris to prevent this landmark human rights and antitrust case from being decided by an impartial jury in New
York City. I raised a very unique defense to the enforceability of William Morris' unconscionable arbitration
agreements based on the company century-plus history of engaging in. unlawful employment discrimination against
African Americans. However, Judge Castel was able to rely on the "Delegation Provision" to shift responsibility of
making a decision on my arguments to the arbitrator. This should have never happened because the Respondents
never challenged the historical, statistical and other forms of evidence demonstrating a pattern and practice of
discrimination that pre-dated my employment - things that' was "oblivious" to when' signed the agreement before
knowing I would be the only African American ernployed throughout a111evels of the Agent Trainee program. He
instead, relied on their general and broad denials, which included:
Rule 11 pt'8i6es StlI'ietieas far litigetiaft OOllse; it is Rat 8 fee shi:fi:ing stetlJte. See Busmess Guides, IRe. ,'.
Cht'oftlfttie Cemm\tftieatieRs 'ERlers., me., 498 U.S. S33, SS3 (1991) (eitiBg Caater & Gell '1. HartmftHl Capp., 496
U.S. 384, 393, 499 (1999; Deering 'I. URiaH Cetlfity Ba. efChesea Freehelders, 857 F.2d 191, 194 (36 CiI.. 1988)
f'[T]he Rale's primer}' p1:illlese is Ret 'whelesale fee salamg 'l:ll:tt [rather] eaffeetiea af litigatiea aease.... tttastiBg
Gaiarsa v. Ethyl Capp., 835 F.2s 479, 483 (3e Cir. 1987) (afteratiea m erigiflal).The Sl:lpreme Geart's insisteftee
that the rule femllm a meemmtsm far pre'/eatmg litigatiaa abase. See Basmess GeiEies, Ine. 'I. Chremetie
Gemmaftiaat1afls Bftters., Ifle., 498 U.S. In3 (1991); ef. 1ft Fe Kaftstler (Reeessfl Defeftse Gemm. 'I. Britt), 914 r.2d
505, 522 (4th Cir. 1990). DeterFeflse mast lt1ltIerlie 8:By Rete 11 deeisiae Meaase "the ~l:I:FJ3ase afRale 11 S8:Betiells
is ta eeter" abtiswe ~fIlEItiaes 8:Be lfwaleas argemeats. See Fed. R. Ci.... P. 11 aevisory eaftJRlfttee's oote ~ara. 13;
see elsa Fred A. Smith Lumeer Ca. 'I. sdidia, 845 F.2d 750,752 (7th Cir. 1988). MeFe&"t'er, the ee'lisery eemmittee
has f'reYieasly ootetl that ":fJfIBi_eat eh 'lielatiaR ... is pm afthe eeurt's respaBSieility far see\H'ing the syfiem's
eiIeeti'Y'e aperatiaH." See, e.g., Ie re KmtStler (Rabesea DefeBSe Calftfft: .... Britt), 914 F.2e 50S, 322 (4th Cir. 1999)
(Bating t:hftt ~\lBisbmeat mHl eeFBpeall8:tieB are 'IIllid gaels, 'I:II:tt that eellrts sheal6 faeas aft deterreaee); MeMahaB 'I.
SheafsaBIAmerie8:B BK.'pfesll, me., 89(; F.2d 17,21 (2e Cir. 1990) (same); Da8ik; Iae. 'I. He:ttmarx: Cepp., 873 F.2Ei
890, 895 (D.C. Cir. (989) ("Rate 11 saaetieBS ... are ... plHliti'je IlBEl Eieterreftt in JJl:lf:Pese (theagh they are else
eampeflSlltery 1ft effeet)."), meElified sue flem. Caster & Gell ..,. HilFtmafJ( C&rp., 49(; U.S. 384 (1990);
Westmerehlfld 'I. CBS, me., 770 F.2d 1168, 1180 (D.c. Cir. 1985) (eammefttiftg that Rele 11'11 lwe gtlels are
J*lRishmeat IlBEl Eteterreooe (eitmg '}/illiam W Sehw8:fi'Jer, Sanetieas UeEter the New FeseFal RaJe 11 .A Claser
Leek, 104 FRO. 181,291 (1985))); _
I(eaeteatliRg that the rale "is aimed at deteniBg 8:Be, if
aeeessary, Iftlflishiag impreper eeatlaet Father thM merely eempensatmg the pfe'.'ailiRg party"); Id. at 291 (''The rate
reileets a dual purpese: eampeesatiRg the aEfeH6ed party fap the eKpeases eBUSee sy ft 't'ielatiea as well aspeftllliiliBg
the effeader ta aehiwe ... deterrenee."). Akheagft sesaftimate te the tleterreaee geal, a third, eeF8peo!latary
ebjeeti'le inheres in the rule as well.24 Pffividiflg fer a I18:ftetiea seal! as attamey's fees 'ft<flase Ilfft6Wlt earrelates ta
the 9penses iflel:tffeEi sy the effeaaetl party appe8:fS ta saggest a paNey mere akm ts eampeBsatisa thaB
EieterFeftae.2S The eemmittee Rete makes elear, h&\\'eVer, that a Rule II SIlftafiaN, thsugh patefttially ealealatea eft
tAe basis ef the Ifta';aftt's fll8fIetary "*~eft6itares, sti1lflas deteffeftee as its primary ebjeeti'/e.26T1ms "a dismet eeurt
ftlft)' take int:a aeeetlfit eampellSatiefl sf ather parties 8:Btl ptlflishmeet sf the affeaeer, bat seterreflee reRltlms the
taaeBstafle afilie Rele 11 iHqairy."
Because trial judges are entrusted with much discretion in effectuating the underlying policy of the FRCP,
see Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 762 F.2d 243,252 (2d Cir. 1985); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 advisory
committee's note P 12 (declining to restrict a district court's choice of sanctions). "the Civil Rules place virtually no
limits on judicial creativity." Anderson v. Beatrice Foods Co., 900 F.2d 388, 394 (1st Cir. 1990); see also Donaldson
v. Clark, 819 F.2d 1551, 1557 (lIth Cir. 1987) (en banc) (afftrming that trial judges have discretion to select the
type of sanction to be imposed). Thus the advisory committee encourages district courts engaging in the sanctioning
calculus to consider many different factors relating to the offending paper. This "judicial creativity" allows judges to
assess an award substantial enough to force the offending party "to answer for [ber] act." Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v.
Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1079 (7th Cir. 1987) (analogizing a Rule 11 sanction to a sanction for contempt). An
offending party usually cannot be made to "answer for [her] act" without paying a substantial sum.
-34
Judges and arbitrators should strive to treat represented and unrepresented parties consistently. Sanctions
should be imposed for offensive conduct, regardless of who the offended party might be. Because represented
parties whose opponents violate Rule 11 are almost always granted sanctions, pro se litigants should receive that
same award. Given that a pro se litigant himself can be sanctioned under Rule II, equity demands that a pro se
party's adversary abide by - and suffer the same consequences of- the rule as well. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 _
(adopting the principle that the rule applies to "attorneys and pro se litigants"). "[D]enying
the unrepresented litigant any award, or compensating him solely for his costs, would reduce the incentive pro se
parties have to bring Rule II actions - and thus would reduce enforcement of the rule itself. Once a litigant is aware
that her pro se adversary is untikely to institute a Rule 11 proceeding, that litigant may become more lax in
monitoring and curbing her own potentially violative behavior."3? A court may impose a sanction in excess of the
movant's attorney's fees if the court believes that such a sanction is necessary to deter :further violative conduct. See
Fox v. Acadia State Bank, 937 F.2d 1566, 1571 (11th Cir. 1991). Only if a court imposes a substantial monetary
sanction - only if it "hits them where it hurts" - will parties be dissuaded from violating the rule's prescriptions. A
sanction imposing the mere costs incurred by a pro se litigant-for example, filing and copying costs-would be
insignificant and thus would not deter future abusive conduct. "With deterrence as the overriding theme, the actual
amount of fees incurred becomes less important than the size ofsanction required to send an effective message both
to the offender and to the bar in general."lR
From the inception of this arbitration, I have sought disciplinary and monetary sanctions against William
Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone. Regardless ofwbat the AAA or Arbitrator
Gregory has stated to me regarding their inability to discipline attorneys for unethical conduct, it is an undeniable
fact that no matter the foItUll, any licensed attorney in the state ofNew York must comply with the New York Rules
of Professional Conduct. The Rules state plainly that any lawyer ''who knows that another lawyer has committed a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shaU report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to
investigate or act upon such violation." Rule 8.3(a). [Claimant Rep. Summary Judgment, 13-17.] Although you
claim you cannot take any action with regards to claims that the Respondents' counsel have engaged in unethical
conduct, it clearly states in the Rules of Professional Conduct that attorneys must act ethically at all times, even in
arbitration. This bas clearly not happened. No attorney or law firm should be allowed off the hook for doing wbat
Zweig, Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP have done throughout this nearly three year litigation. They are currently
being paid millions of dollars to represent William Monis in this proceeding, although Zweig should technically be
disbarred for conspiring to conceal "smoking gun" evidence ten years ago in a similar racial discrimination and
antitrust case. I have asked that if judgment is made in my favor on any of my claims, that you recommend to the
Southern District ofNew York for disciplinary sanctions be imposed against the Respondent's counsel and Loeb &
LoebLLP.
Tn addition to Rule II, federal judges have an "inherent power" to sanction. A lawyer who "so mUltiplies
the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously" is subject to sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927. This
phrase covers a broad range of dilatory litigation tactics, from the filing of duplicative complaints and baseless
motions, to serving needless discovery, to persisting in a meritless argument or position, to making frivolous
appeals-basically any conduct that prolongs the case and causes additional expense and delay. Section 1927
sanctions are only available against lawyers, not litigants, and the high ''unreasonably and vexatiously" standard, in
some circuits, requires a showing ofbad faith. Inherent power sanctions are the quintessential gap filler of sanctions
law. In the leading modern decision,
the Supreme Court made clear
that the existence of a sanctioning scheme in statutes and rules does not displace the court's inherent power to
impose sanctions for bad faith conduct. Whereas rules-based sanctions ''reach only certain individuals or conduct,
the inherent power extends to a full range oflitigation abuses" and, "at the very least ... must continue to exist to
fill in the interstices." Id.at 46.
17
Pro Se AttomeysFees. p. 2315.
18
p. 2314.
-35
Both the punitive damages and sanctions should be high because these companies have unjustly become
enriched as a result oftheir overall conspiracy to interfere with the human rights ofAfrican Americans and people of
color. It is clear that based on the amount of evidence I presented in both my complaint and my opposition to the
Respondent's Motion to Compel Arbitration, that the judge should not have enforced their arbitration agreement,
especially since they never refuted the evidence demonstrating the company's historical pattern and practice of
intentionally discriminating against African Americans. To this day, the Respondents have refused to address the
evidence of systemic disparate treatment against African Americans and people of color, which incorporates my
claims ofdisparate impact and buttresses my claims ofpre and post-hiring individual disparate treatment. Due to the
fact that the Respondents have never met their heightened burden of production and persuasion, their frivolous
arguments have always been legally insufficient as a matter of law. In calculating an amount that will deter Loeb &
Loeb LLP and its attorneys from engaging in similar conduct, Loeb 8r. Loeb LLP should produce its financial
statements and tax returns to determine the company's net worth. This will allow the arbitrator to determine a
reasonable figure that will achieve the public policy goals of the rule. The offending party is not entitled to a "free"
violation of Rule 11 or similar state rules. Opposing counsel did not abide by the strictures of Rule 11. These
attorneys should have examined the merits of their pleadings more closely before filing them.
"Each party bears the burden of conducting itself according to the rules, regardless of whether its adversary
has legal representation. Indeed, there should be no need to require a pro se party to hire an attorney just to keep a
represented party honest. There is thus no reason to require an attorney-client relationship before punishing a party
who violates the rule and awarding attorney's fees to the pro se movant."39 "If anything, this duty [to abide by the
requirements of Rule 11] was heightened by the fact that plaintiff was proceeding pro se, and thus without the
advantage of having an attorney" who could better recognize the shortcomings of the opposition's arguments and the
nature of its tactics. See Rynkiewicz v. Jeanes Hosp., Civ. A. No. 86-5209, 1987 WI.. 7842, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11,
1987). III Jcn.:I1lY I). SpCCh)r'S article .11I'(lIdill,~ . Iuo,., I(' 1, " /.','t',. I" P, II S(' l.ifi,l!,oI11r, ellll<.,. NII/" 11'11~, 11<: pru\'idc:-. a
nlllllher rcaSllllS ill Slllll)l,rl ni'\\'hy l'I'd It' litlgallts slHluld reTe'I"" al!l)tlle'Y':-; k,'.\ ,I, a .,;IIll'tion <I\\,:lI'lkd Illlhl:il t:lVDl'
.'I,'!' 1~)'n"ie\Vin: v, .I';:lm:, I los!' .. ('i\.;\ N,L :$,-:\211'),1'):\7 Wi. 7:-;-12 (1..1>. I',L I'vJar. II. I'JX~') (:lwanllllg kc~ 1J1
light ot'Rulc II's i:!,wL,): ChL:I1l.iclkill I'. YL'lilll$\" ')32 F.:!d I:~..f t~d Cir. 11)<)11 (awarding :lltullIe)", li.:e~ ttl :1/'1'0 S{
!ili"am 1I1l(il:r Fcc"'!';! I Rulc or i\ )pellale I'rocCllurL' :1x). (llllil Tilk VII. a lili,C:,1II1 \Iil,) i~ "llCCI..'S;. in )fO\inc:
di..;cril11inalioll is \.'Iltitkd In Jlllnnlcy's kt'.,. Granting a pro se litigant reasonable attorney's fees constitutes an
excessive award only if one erroneously measures what is "reasonable" by actual costs and fees incurred and not by
the other systemic costs that the underlying policy of the rule seeks to reduce.''''1 The arbitrator should ascertain the
amount necessary to deter Zweig, Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP's offensive litigation conduct. Since this is the
second time Loeb & Loeb LLP has engaged in this type ofabusive litigation tactics, a large sanction is necessary to
As far as monetary sanctions are

concerned, I am seeking no less than S15 million from William Morris, Loeb & Loeb
LLP, Zweig and Carbone.
prevent future offensive conduct. Sanctions are always case specific.
ADDITIONAL DAMAGES:
Against William Morris, Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and Loeb & Loeb LLP for
defamation, libel and slander: Tn two out of your three Interim Decisions, you state that I am possibly engaging
in defamation, libel and/or slander. In your third Interim Decision, you now state that before you entered this case in
August of 2012, I had "already crossed over the line from constitutionally protected First Amendment speech into
39
P. 2327.
40
95 Mich. L. Rev. 2308. June 1997.
41 p. 2321-2322. (These "other systemic costs" include "the waste ofjudicial resources in hearing frivolous motions,
delay or even loss of the pro se litigant's legitimate claims, and decreased professionalism in the bar.")
-36
unprotected torts of defamation, libel. and slander." [pg. 5.] Neither you, nor the Respondents, have never identified
what I have said that was not true. I, on the other hand, have painstakingly demonstrated on numerous occasions
throughout the last three years, that the Respondents' counsel's statements about me - either as an employee of
William Morris and as a pro se litigant - are false.
Based on his sinister and criminal actions in ~ Michael P. Zweig knew all along that my claims were
not "wholly without merit, legally or factually," yet, he still continued to advance frivolous and legally insufficient
defenses because he knew that the all-white judges and arbitrators would not remain Impartial in a landmark human
rights case of this magnitude. Ultimately, due to his perjurious statements, various judges and the arbitrator have
continued to ignore the pyramid ofevidence I've presented and this case has been harmfully delayed.
Additionally, I have been called "anti-Semitic" on numerous occasions and this could not be any further
from the truth. Not once have the Respondents been able to specifically refute my claims. Before filing this case, I
only had a "gut instinct" that I was being discriminated against because of my race, color and/or perceived national
origin and if what I was saying weren't true, I would not have been able to write ''voluminous'' motions with
supporting case law, law literature, sociological jurisprudence and current events to support my claims. So for you to
even suggest that before deciding the merits of my case means that you are in sabotage mode. I will not live the rest
of my life with this label attached to my name because it could not be any farther from the truth. What specifically
have Tsaid that is not true or cannot be supported from the evidence on the record? As stated previously, Thave love
for all ofGod's people. I don't live with hate in my heart and my parents never raised me to believe that due to the
color of my skin or my religious beliefs, that that makes me superior or better than others. Based on the unlawful
actions of the Respondents that have spanned over a century, as well as their legal counsel, the same cannot be said.
Due to the control "Jews" of European descent have over the world and atrocities that happened to them during the
Holocaust, to be labeled "anti-Semitic" is one ofthe worst things a perSOll can be called. Speaking the truth does not
make one "anti-Semitic." I have not only presented a pyramid of evidence and case Jaw establishing that pre and
post-hiring, I was discriminated against because of my race, color and/or perceived national origin, but that William
Morris has engaged in a pattern and continuing practice of discrimination against qualified African Americans and
other people of color due because racism is embedded into the core of the company. Tf these things were not true,
why would my various motions fur summary judgment or motions authenticating "Exhibit 31" be so ''voluminous''?
You cannot dismiss my claims that William Monis has violated not only the antitrust laws, but the Ku Klux Klan
Act, and then state I'm being defamatory, libelous and/or slanderous. When an individual exposes institutional
racism and a conspiracy to maintain this race-based monopoly throughout Hollywood, that doesn't make the
whistleblower racist or "anti-Semitic."
I didn't seek this to happen to me. I am truly a victim. I tried to play by their rules and give this company
(as wen as the court) the benefit of the doubt that 1 was not being set up to fail because of my race, color and/or
national origin. However, their employment decisions never felt right to me intuitively. "Anyone that knows me,
knows that there is not a racist or "anti-Semitic" bone ill my body. T love all of God's people and based on the
knowledge I've received through my readings of African (world) history42 and the evidence that has been revealed
to me in this case, it's clear that the only group with such extreme hate in their hearts are those who overrepresented
in the workplace due to racial discrimination. Haile Selassie once said, "Any who may wjsh to profit himself alone
from the knowledge given him, rather than serve others through the knowledge be has gained from learning is
betraying knowledge and rendering it worthless." As a consequence of being a victim of William Morris'
discriminatory and anticompetitive practices, I am merely the messenger that has the courage to come forward and
See e.g.; Cheikh Anta Diop, The African Origin Of Civilization: Myth or Realty (1957); Yosef A.A. ben
Jochannan, African Origins of the Major 'Western Religions' (1970); Tom Burrell, Brainwashed: Challenging the
Myths of Black Inferiority (2010); Jack Gratus, The Great White Lie: Slavery, Emancipation and Changing Racial
Attitudes (1973); Michael J. Klarman, Unfinished Business: Racial Equity in American History (2007); Ira
Katznelson, When Aftlrmative Action Was White (2005); J.A. Rogers, Nature Knows No Color-Line (1952);
~ Sex & Race Vol. 1 (1952); Dr. Frances Cress-Welsing, The Isis (ySSTS) Papers: The Keys to the Colors
_
Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro (1933); Malcolm X, The Autobiography of Malcolm
42
X (1964).
-37
describe in detail the unlawful. unethical and immoral things that are happening within Hollywood, particularly
against those of African descent. Truth and honesty, nor increased accuracy or specification can justify a charge of
"anti-Semitism." Although everyone is too afraid to address the elephant in the room, I am no longer going to allow
Whites and the group that has been able to provoke world sympathy for what has happened to them during the 12
year Holocaust to continue its genocide against persons of African descent. All involved in these odious crimes
against humanity must finally be held accountable for their actions and atone for their sins. 43 " [Claimant Rep.
Summary Judgment, 86.] I came to this case with "clean hands." I have not engaged in deceit and did not pursue this
litigation with any improper motives. T just wanted to have a third party determine whether T was discriminated
against since I had a gut instinct I was being discriminated against and William Morris told me they would "never"
discriminate against someone because of their race, color and/or national origin before I found evidence
demonstrating the company's 110 year pattern and continuing practice of race-based discrimination. I knew I was
going to be black1isted from this industry so I wanted to prove a point, but I also wanted to help those qualified
people of color who came after me have a better chance at having a chance to be hired and/or promoted to Agent.
And if you are going to allow me to depose Zweig and Emanuel based on their Fifth Amendment rights,
how can you possibly say that I'm engaging in defamation, libel and slander when William Morris nor their counsel
have refuted the pyramid of evidence demonstrating the company's liS year history of engaging in race-based
employment discrimination against qualified AITican Americans and other people of color.
Fraud. Because they falsely have made the world believe they are "God's chosen people," this superiority
complex has only fueled their desires to maintain racism throughout the world. I am seeking
no less than $50
million.
CONCLUSION
For the following reasons above, T ask that the Arbitrator grant my request by compelling the Respondents to
produce the various documents listed throughout this reply so that I or an economic expert of my choice can
calculate the full extent of my damages. Given that the Respondents have never met their heightened burden of
production and persuasion to defeat my prima facie case of employment discrimination and institutionalized racism,
the Respondents and their counsel cannot be awarded damages, fees and costs for suffering the consequences of
violating federal. state and city antitrust and antidiscrimination laws in the United States of America. By awarding
the Respondents damages for violating the civil and human rights of African Americans would thus make you
complicit in their diabolical crimes against humanity. I pray that you uphold the law and award me full relief so that
I can finally be made "whole" and so that William Morris can finally be held accountable for their unlawful actions.
Documenting Costs of Slavery, Segregation and Contemporary Racism. p.64. (" ... the United States government
has been very active in its efforts to force the German government to make reparations to the victims of Nazi
atrocities. As Richard Delgado has noted, 'The United States required that Germany make reparations to Israel and
the victims of the Holocaust, even though the Nazi government had been disbanded and most of its leaders executed
or imprisoned.' For twelve years the Nazis inflicted extreme repression and cruelties, and millions of deaths, on the
Jews in Germany and other Nazi-controlled territories. Later German governments have paid more than $60 billion
in reparations to individual victims of the Holocaust, as well as to the nation of Israel on behalf of those victims,
even though that nation did not exist at the time of the atrocities.")
43
-38
Dated: NewYork,NewYork
January I, 2014
By. ______________________________
Marcus 1. Washington
Pro Se Claimant

Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
-39
-40
Gmail Washington
v. William Morris1399972,
Endeavor Ent.1Page136
Damages
25, 12/15/2014,
of 152
1211512014
Alkebulan X <humanrights.areamust@gmall.com>
Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Ent.1 Damages

1 message
To: mzweig@loeb.com, ccarbone@loeb.com, mbeck@loeb.com
Tue, Dec 24,2013 at 8:58 AM
Hi Michael,
Ijust wanted to fOlWard over to you the rough draft of my submission for damages that I was working on pursuant to Arbitrator
Gregory's third Interim Decision. This will be updated to reflect Arbitrator Gregory's partial final award.
Best,
Marcus
delivering It to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of
the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICrLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission
In error, please immediately notify the sender. Please destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or
Fees, Damages and Costs 23.docx
- 186K
https:/lmail.google.comlmaillulOJ?ul=2&ik=Qage2eOdee&view=pt&q=damages%20zweig&qs=true&search=query&th=14324e62411cOf11&siml=14324e62411cO...
111
I.
'
Exhibit M
\,
1211312014
Transcript BETs Exclusive Interview With President Obama I News I BET
-----
>.
~ll-ta~;l':li
;'~
if-2,~
I , I.
VIDEO
PHOTOS
I" I ~ I ' ,
B* REAL
H.I.S. BET
THINK YOU HAVE
GOSPEL SUPERSTAR?
~ ...
#BLX
NELLYVILLE
106 & PARK
Health
Lifestyle
BET EXPERIENCE
SOUL TRAIN
Q. Search
News
Shows Celebs Masic

Fashion & Deauty
t N 1"1: R NOW
WHAT IT TAKES TO BE THE NEXT
Video News
BIlTN-.
special: BIlT
News Preaen1s:A
Convertatlcm
Polities
National
Global
Hewa:TN_
Sbm:rod: 1 Conk!
Hear HIm
StmQllllng to_
Sporis
Wllat'tAt SIaIce:
'WbatCulWeIlo
to HelpBlld
Ilomliltlc_
Witb-.
Previous Police: 3 Conscious After Shooting Outside School
National
This Day in Black History: Dec. 13, 1967 Ned ;.
Transcript: BET's Exclusive Interview

With President Obama
Jeff Johnson talks to POTUS about race, racism and. how America has far to go.
By BETStaff
PosIe<I; 121121201407:15 PM EST
FiI&d Under Prnsident Obama, National Naws, Barack Olla"",
Liko 26 people Ike this. Be the first of your friende.
It's Looking a Lot Like

Christmas at the White House
Dbamas have decked the
halls at 1600 Pennsylvania
Avenue. 12/11/2014
Mr. President, thank you for joining us.
THE PRESIDENT: Great to see you, Jeff.
AS the country knows, we are In a great deal of turmoil. When you think aboul the names of Mike
Brown, of Temir Rice, of Eric Gardner. and even now of this young man In Phoenix, the country Is
concemed about can we trust police, are we safe with police. My first question for you is, in the midst of
this and ail that's going on -- you didn't start this. This problem didnt begin under your watch. This is
incredibly persistent and pervaSive. But how much of it does your edminlstration feel you're responsible for
making an impact on?
#BETJusticeForU8: Twitter
Calls Out Law Enforcement
During Live Town Hall
--
~e.- ..
llme for a changQ
Viewers sound off during

liVe 6ETTown Hall special.
12/10/2014
Sports Buzz: Kobe Bryant Rips

Soft Like Charming Lakers
Plus, Carmelo won't drop
no-trade clause With
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I lhink an enormous amount. Not Just because, as PreSident, you're always
Knlcks.12/12;2014
responsible for what happens in this country and you've gol to be part of the solution, not part of the
problem, hut beceuse of my particular experiences that I bring 10 this office.
I had a group of young people come before we met, a wider group of civil rights leaders and law
Celebrity Hook Ups and Break

Ups of 2014.
enforcement. Most of them were somewhere betwaen 18 and 25. A couple of them were from Ferguson.
And when they described Iheir own personal experiences of having been stopped for no reason, or having
htlp:llwww.betcom/neNsinationalI20141121121lranscript-bat-e-exclusiVe-intervifffl-with-president-obama.himI
116

1211312014
Transcript: BET's Exclusive Interview With President Obama I News I BET
generated suspicion because they were in a community that supposedly they didn't belong, my mind went
back to what It wes like for me when I was 17, 18, 20. And as I told them, not only do I hear the pain and
Sudden splits, dlrtv

divorces and new couples
frustration of being subjected to that kind of constant suspicion, but part of the reason I got into politics was
to figure out !low can I bridge some of those gaps and understanding so that the larger country understands
of the
this is not just a black problem or a brown problem, this is an American problem.
year, 17/ Ill2n'4
Jay Zand. Beyonce: A Year in

Review
So we take this very seriously. Eric Holder obviously takes It seriously. He's got a Similar set of stories
and experiences he can share. And In some weys, we've made progress over the last six years on a wide
2014 has been a huge

year for music's first
range of criminal justice issues, making sure that we looked at how ara drug laws being enforced; making
sure that we're shifting how at least federal prosecutors think about the charges they bring against low-level
couple. 1;1/l0nOI4
drug offenders. And we've had some success.
Out and. About: Rihanna Rocks

the Diamond. Ball
I mean. that's part of the reason why we've seen, last year, for the first time In 40 years, the incarceration
rate in federal prisons actually went down 10 percent at the same time that crime wes still going down by 10
percent. And that showed we can have good policing and good law enforcement and be fair and be smart.
:','1
-
But the fact is that what we've seen now on videotape - because it used to be folks would say, well, maybe
blacks are exaggerating, maybe some of these situations aren't what they describe. But we've now seen on
television, for everybody to see. It gives us an opportunity I think to finally have the kind of conversation
that's been a long time coming.
And with thet conversation, I think JFK said that those who stand in the way of peaceful revolution
make for violent revolution inevitably. He wasn't talking about tha statas, but it's ralavant now. And so how
Q
necessary are the protests that we're seeing all over the country? Peaceful protests. There's young
protestors, angry, frustrated protestors. How necessary are they to the process of moving the bait, the
"
policy bali. the legislative ball?
then they're counterproductive. But-
..
Amber Rose, Oej Loaf and

more. 12112/1014
1.11 WaYl1e: I Want 011 Cash Money
408 people recommend this.
Tyler Pe"Y, Gellto Bekele Welcome Baby Boy

The Bun: Nicki Minai Takes on Kim
Disrespectful Fans and More
II
But we can admit that the vast majority of these-
~.~l
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q
'*
Plus, 50 Cent, Kim K..
Iii(. Kardaahlan and Iileyonce on SNI., TI Checks
THE PRESIDENT: I think as long as they're peaceful, I think they're necessary. When they tum violent,
...
II
II
'
U
.~
- ara nonviolent.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. And that's why I had them In the Oval Office, some of these folks who've
been orgenizing these protests. Because the old adage, power concedes nothing without a fight - I think
that's true. But what's also true is that a country's conscience sometimes has to be triggered by some
inconvenience, because I think a lot of people who saw the Eric Gamer video are troubled, even if they
haven1 had that same experience themselves. Even if thay're not African American or Latino.
I think there are a lot of good, well-meaning people - I think there are probably a lot of police officers who
might have looked at that and said, that is a tragedy what happened, and we've got to figure out how to bring
an end to these kinds of tragedies. But then attention spans move on. There's the next thing. There's
some intemational crisis. There's something that happens here, and change doesn't really occur.
Wlz Khallfa Bloc:.klng Releaee

Tape
0' Allegod Sal(
Beyonce Becomes Most Grammy-Nomlna\ed
Woman In History
71,820 people recommend this.
II
BET News Presente: A Conversation With
President Obama
7,236 people recommend this.
U
III
Jill Scc>U Defends Bill Cosby In the Midst of

Rape Allegations
Famcee Comeback
Tina Thompson recommends this.
. . Who la Stephanie MOleley?
~ 14 people recommend this.
And the value of peaceful protests, activism, organizing is it reminds the society this is not yet done. And
part of what I said when we convened a meeting on Monday here at the White House was not only that I
was announcing a task force that has to report in 90 days with specific, concrete steps around training,
around how we are equipping pollee, how we're holding police officers more accountable, not only were we
going to put more funding into some of the training and technology that can prevent these things from
happening, but I'm going to stay on this. And not only am I going to stay on it; by virtue of this staying in
the news because of some of thesa protests, hopefully the entire society says let's finally try to make some
real progress on this.
Q
And progress means different things to different people. So there are those that want body cameras.
There are those who want civilian review boards. And much of this is not a federal mandate.
THE PRESIDENT: Most of it is not federal, but the federal government can have an influence. We fund a
lot of Jurisdictions all across the country. And if we can identify best practices, then for us to be able to
say, you need to adopt these besl practices, and If you don't, then perhaps some of the funding that's
available around some things thaI law enforcement cares about become less available. We're going to
provide more 10 folks who are doing the right thing and we're going to be investigating folks who are not
doing the right thing. I think that becomes an important part of the leverage that we can exert.
Q
And does that happen through federal legislation,
Of
does that happen through utilizing the DOJ as a
we saw Eric Holder in Cleveland yesterday, and the decision, the supervision agreement I think was a good
one that said to the city of Claveland, here's what you'lie been doing wrong, systemically. and now we're
going to hold you accountable. Is that going to become the rule,
Of
does there ultimately hailS to be federal
http://www.bet.com/news/nationalI20141121121transcript-bet-s-exclusive-intervieN-with-president-obama.htmI
216
I '

I
1211312014
Transcript BET's Exclusive Interview With President Obama News BET
policy?
THE PRESIDENT: Let's look at what the task force generates. I mean, I have confidence - we've got a
police Chief, we've got a criminologist, we've got civil rights leaders, we've got activists as part of this task
force process. Let's see the specifics that they generate.
But I will tell you that the Department of Justice already has authority. So In the Eric Gamer case, Eric
Holder, I think properly, said we're going to Initiate a civil rights inVestigation. The Cleveland case you just
mentioned. We already have the ability to take a look.
Now, the standards at the federal level are higher, and there are so many local municipalities, local police
departments that doing it at the locallevei, doing it at the state level is going to ba a lot more effective,
beceuse to bring federal cases, it's a high bar. It's got to be not just something that happened wlhere there's
some questions; there's got to be a sense that mayba justice has not been served by the existing process
at the state and local levels.
But I think that everybody should feel confident that this Justice Department is taking this very seriously,
has taken it very seriously. What I'd like to do, though, is to change what happens on the ground, because
that's going to be more lasting. And I'll just give you a couple examples.
When I was in the state legislature In Illinois, we had problems with racial profiling when it came to traffic
stops, and we had problems repeatadly with confessions in crimes that later on there were suggestions
maybe they had been coerced. So two of the things I'm most proud of was passing a law requiring
videotaping of interrogations so that - my argument was this protected the police as well as the accused
because there's not going to be any question. If they confessed, it's all there on tape. If they didn't, then
the suggestion that they did is not going to make sense either.
On racial profiling, it was a simple matter of just keeping data. You have to record Who it is that you're
stopping. The minute somebody knows they're being watched, somebody is looking over their shoulder,
then they're a lillie more intentional abOU1 is this a legitimate stop? Is this a stop that I'm making because
somebody is really breaking the law, or because I just don't like the looks of the person wlho's driving
through this neighborhood?
And what we saw was not only a reduction in the disparity on traffic stops, but my argument, again, to
the police department was, this will make you a more effectiVe police force, because instaad of wasting your
time with folks wlho shouldn't be stopped you can focus on the folks wlho should be stopped.
And one of the things thet I want us to make sure wa understand is that, communities of color need good
lawenforcement. I mean, there's a lot of crime, and one of the things that we talked about on Monday here
was you've got young people who end up getting caught between police that they don't trust and folks on the
streets Vlho are trying to rough them up. And they should have confidence that the police are on their side.
And if they have that confidence then the police are going to have an easier time doing their job, and they're
more likely to come home safe.
And wlhen they don't have that confidence - and we're seeing that with young people all over the
country.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q
There ere a lot of people that In many cases don't thInk that you've been aggressive enough in talking
about the numbers of African American men that are overwhelmingly shot versus wlhite. Are there ever
times wlhen the responsibilities and obligations of President get in the way of how you want to respond as a
human?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, sometimes people's concems are not based on fact, because If you look at
after wlhat happened with Michael Brown, If you looked at what happened after Trayvon, if you looked at the
decision after Eric Gamer, I'm being pretty explicit about my concem, and being pretty explicit about the fact
that this is a systemic problem, that black folks and Latinos and others are not just making this up. I
describe it in very personal terms.
I think what sometimes people are frustreted by is me not simply saying, this is wlhat the outcome
should have been. And that I cannot do, institutionally. It is my Justice Department that is investigating
these cases. And part of the rule of law is that I'm not putting my fingers, my thumb on the scate of
justice. And it could compromise investigations if It appeared that I was trying to steer to a particular
outcome.
So I'm sure that there's some folks wlho just want me to say, in such-and-such a case, this Is wlhat I think
should have happened, and if I had been on a grand jury this is wlhat I would have said, and so forth and so
on. I'll leave it to people to speculate on wlhatl'm saying to myself or Michelle when were alone at night.
http://www.bat.com/news/nationalI20141121121transcript-bet-s-exciusive-interview-willl-president-obama.htm I
316

1211312014
But what I can say is that this country is at its best when everybody is being treated fairly. We have a
history and a legacy of people not being treated fairly in all kinds of walks of life. It is particularly important
for people to feel like they're being treated fairly by law enforcement and police, because the consequences
when they're not treated fairly can be deadly.
And I've said it before: The vast majority of law enforcement officers are doing a really tough job, and most
of them are doing it well and are trying to do the rtght thing. But a combination of bad training, In some
cases; a combination in some cases of departments that really are not trying to root out biases, or tolerate
sloppy police work; a combination In some cases of folks just not kno'oNing any better, and in a lot of cases,
subconscious fear of folks who look different - .811 of this contributes to a national problem that's going to
require a national solution.
And when I told the young people who I met with - and we're going to have more conversations like this
over the coming months - is this isn't going to be solved ovemlght. This is something that is deeply rooted
in our society; it's deepiy rooted In our history. But the two things that are going to allow us to solve It
number one is the understanding that we have made progress. And so it's important to recognize, as painful
as these incidents are, we can't equate what is happening now to what was happening 50 years ago. And if
you talk to your parents, grandparents, uncles, they'll tell you that things are beUer. Not good, in some
cases, but beUer. And the reason it's important for us to understand progress has been made is that then
gives us hope that we can make even more progress.
The second thing that I insist of these young people is we have to be persistent, because typically progress
is in steps, it's in increments. When you're dealing with something as deeply rooted as racism or bias in
any society, you've got to have vigilance, but you have to recognize that it's going to take some time, and
you just have to be steady so that you don' give up when we don' get all the way there.
I said to somebody, we're not going to make it perfect, but we can make it better. And better Is good,
because over time, you have enough better, 10 years, 20 years from now, our kids are safer, the community
is more confident about its place, the police officers are going to be in a position to do a better job.
I know you've got to leave, Mr. President, but my very last question. We talked about having 1S
year-old daughters. And at one point those daughters may have children. What's the vision that you have
not necessarily as President of the United States, but as Barack Obama, the man - for those children that's
different than what Mike Brown, Tamir Rice and others have had to face?
THE PRESIDENT: I want my children to be seen as the individuals that they are, and I want them to be
judged based on the content of their cheracter end their behavior and their telents and their gifts. I don'
want them to be objects of fear simply because of misguided attitudes.
Part of what I think is so heartbreaking and frustrating for a lot of folks when they watch this Is the
recognition that simply by virtue of color you've got less margin for error. And that's particularly true for
black boys. Young men, teenage boys - sometimes they're going to do stupid stuff. That's true whether
they're white, black, Hispanic. It doesnl matter. You did stupid stuff. I did stupid stuff. Most of the time
it's harmless. Sometimes It's careless. And then we grow end
we progress,
and we become, hopefully,
solid citizens and men who are contributing to our society. And so it's not simply that we went to meke sure
that the perfect young man is treated okay. We also want a boy who's a boy, or a young man who maybe Is
a liUle confused, maybe makes a mistake - we want them to be given the same benefit of the doubt as any
other man would, or any other boy would be given.
And that I think is going to be the test of whether or not our society and our law enforcement and our
schools are operating the way they should be. Because this doesn' just begin on the streets. We've been
working 'oNith the Department of Education on the fact that you've got black kindergartners being kicked out
of school at significantly higher rates. Now, there's only so much harm a four- or five-year-old can be
doing. By nature, they are disruptive. And if we're already making judgments at that early age in a school
system then what can we expect when those kids get older?
And they're on the street.
THE PRESIDENT: And they're on the street. And that's that attitude, the mindset that we've got to
change.
And as I said before, I think It is changing. The good news is, is that when you look at who these
protesters are, they're not ell black. You've got - when you talk to the white friends of your daughter or my
daughter, they've got a better attitude and a clearer mindset and a greater empathy for what's going on. And
I think each successive generation, as it gets more understanding, more familiarity, more comfort 'oNith
people of other races and other cultures, then some of this dissipates.
But we can't Just wait for that process to happen on its own. It also requires policy changes. It requires
training. It requires specific steps by police departments, sterting from the top, in order to change some of
http://www.bet.com/newslnationalI2014/121121transcript-bet-s-axeluslve-lntervlew-wlth-presldent-obama.htmI
416
'

1211312014
these mindsets. And we know what works. I mean, there are police departments that do a better job and
pollee departments that do a worse job.
So I guess the answer to your question is pretty simple: I want my grandsons to be treated like anybody
else's grandsons. If they're messing up, I think they should be corrected - they'll first be corrected by me
or their mother or their father. Bul I don't want them to be subjected to the kind of constant bias that makes
them feel as if this is not their home, and that they're not safe In their own neighborhoods, or that they
cannot trust the institutions that are put in place supposedly to serve and protect them. And I think that can
be achieved.
II's interesting, having conversations with a lot of white staffers and friendS of mine JUBt over the last
several days as these issues have come up, I think there is a clear understanding that there's a problem
here. I don't get a sense that this society Is simply ignoring this or suggesting this is not a problem. Ithink
people also recognize that pollee officers do have a tough Job, that, In some cases. it's a very dangerous
job, and they've got to sometimes make split-second decisions. But I think they also recognize that there
is, as I said before, less margin for error for African American or Latino youth. And they recognize that's a
problem.
And
we need to build on those better angels in our society and try to come up with praclical solutions.
Now
is not the time for Just rhetoric. Now is not the time for a 101 of conversations - which sometimes people
call for. Now Is a good time for us to figure out what training works, what equipment works, what
accountability measures work, what kind of review systems work, what kind of prosecution practices work in
order to slop this stulf.
And, in the meantime, we've also got to change hearts and minds. Dr. King once said, when he was
asking about anti-lynching legislation - somebody said, well, you can't change what's in the hearts and
minds of the white folks In the South, you can't legislate what's in their hearts. He said, well, you can't
legislate what's in their hearts but, I tell you what, if you can just stop them from lynching me, that's
progress. That's a preUy good thing. And over lime, hearts and minds catch up with laws. That's been the
history of progress in this country.
So I think the biggest message I want to give to all your viewers Is this is not only personal for me,
because of who I am and wilO Michelle is and who are family members are and what our experiences are,
but as President, I consider this to be one of the most important issues we face. Because America works
when everybody feels as if they are being treated fairly and that they've got a fair shot. And whenever we
are unified in trying to uphold our ideals, then this country can't be stopped. And when we are divided and
people feel as if those ideals are being betrayed, lhat holds us back in every aspect of life.
And I'm confident we're going to be able to make progress.

Q
WolI, I appreciate the time, Mr. President. Thank you so much.
THE PRESIDENT: Jeff, I appreciate It, man. Thank you.

(Photo:
BEn
Fl'om OUI' Pal'tners
Wendy Willia"",
Calla Out Janice
Dickinson Over Cosby
Charges
Nicki Minai Calla Out

199y Asaleaat BET
Awards
Famous RappenlWho
Were Born Rich
5 Rappera Who
Correctly Predicted
Their Own Deaths
Comments
http://www.bel.comlnews/nationalI20141121121transcript-bet-s-exc1usiv~intervjew-wilh-president-obama.html
516

1211312014
III
Add a
COI11IlIBnI ..
1_ Also post on Facebook
Posting as Marc Izaiah (Nol you?)
I CORlment I
Faccbook social plug!n
Shows
Celebs
Music
News
Blogs
BET Shows
BET Artists
Quick Links
BET Networks
106 & Park

Soul Train Awards
Nellyville
The Real
Real Husbands
Beyond!
Chris Brown
KanyeWest
LilWayne
Nicki Minaj
Rihanna
1VSchedule
Photos
Celebrities
Music Videos
Fashion & Beauty
Topics
RSS
BET Careers
Vertical Ad Network
Closed Captioning
Submission
Agreement
SEARCH
Search
GO
Affiliates
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Newsletters
Contact Us
Ad Choices
Centric1V
BET Mobile
Control Card
2014 BET Interactive, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Black Entertainment Television LLC. All rights reserved.
h!tp:/lwww.bet.com/news/nationalI2014/121121transcript-bet-s-exclusive-interview-with-president-obama.html
616
ibit N

1211112014
www.harp.orglbartholet.htm
judiciary.senate.goy/testimony.cfm?id=3485&witjd=7313
HEARING BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY:
"COURTING BIG BUSINESS:
'THE SUPREME COURT'S RECENT DECISIONS ON CORPORATE
MISCONDUCT AND LAWS REGULATING CORPORATIONS"
,....
_.-_._
July 23, 2008
Testimony of Elizabeth Bartholet
Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
---...."."._-.,--,_._,--,._--,-------..
...... _-,..
...----.--,_..._--,_._
-,--.-.----.~---"-
My name is Elizabeth Bartholet, and I am a professor of law at Harvard Law School. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify on important issues about the problematic impact recent
. decisions bythe 'U.-S. SupremeCourthave :hadofl' employees and consumers.

I will focus my comments on the Court's decisions related to mandatory pre-dispute
arbitration, an issue that I am familiar with both through my professional work in the
employment discrimination area, and through my experience serving as an Arbitrator for the
National Arhitration Forum as well as other arbitration providers.
I have taught Employment Discrimination at Harvard Law School for the past three decades,
and have worked as a civil rights and public interest lawyer in the employment discrimination
area for a number of years prior to joining the HLS Faculty. I have worked as an Arbitrator
'on a part~time basis for almo'st three decades, doing mostly labor arbitration, and working
through such arbitration providers as the American Arbitration Association (Labor and
Commercial panels), the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, JAMS (formerly
JAMS-Endispute), the Mediation Research & Education Project, and the National Arbitration
Forum.
Arbitration is often thought of as a means of dispute resolution that might work better for
regular people without significant means than the court system, because arbitration is
designed to be simpler, more expeditious, and less costly. However the Supreme Court
transformed the meaning of arbitration in our society when it upheld the legaliry- of
mandatory pre-dispute arbitration in the two key cases of Gilmer v. Interstate Johnson Lane
Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), and Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).
These cases constituted a stunning development for those familiar with the law in the area,
contrary to the general understanding of the rights of civil rights plaintiffs and of other
plaintiffs to access federal courts for the vindication of their legal. rights~ and contrary to the
general understanding of the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act. These cases meant that
in the employment context employers could condition job offers on prospective employees'
http://www.harp.orglbartholet.htm
118
I'

12111/2014
"agreements" that all disputes, including disputes involving alleged violations of federal civil
rights law, be resolved by arbitration. They meant that in the consumer context, banks could
condition credit card arrangements on consumers' similar agreements.
These decisions transformed the meaning of arbitration because they put the big corporate
players - the employers and the banks - in the position of forcing arbitration on the people
who simply want to get jobs and credit cards, and will not tum down the opportunity to get
these things simply because of what seems at the time the abstract and unlikely possibility
that they might later have an important dispute with the employer or bank. The big corporate
players were then also free to select arbitration providers who would provide them a
sympathetic forum, and to design an arbitration process that would serve their interests, since
the employees and consumers would again not be in any position to bargain or even to think
about these things at the point they were applying for jobs or credit cards.
All this is very different from the situation in post-dispute arbitration. At this stage,
employees or debtors with legal claims they could take to court are likely to agree to
arbitration only if they have reason to believe that it will serve their interests as well or'better
than going to court, and they are in a position to take a careful look. at the specific system of
arbitration and the specific arbitration provider that the corporate player is suggesting before
deciding whether to agree to arbitration.
There are two main problems with mandatory pre-dispute arbitration that will address. One
is the problem of bias in favor of the big corporate player and against the employee and
consumer that is inherent in this form of arbitration. I will describe my experience as an
arbitrator dealing with consumer credit card cases for the National Arbitration Forum to
illustrate the bias problem. The second problem I will address is the w~y in which pre-dispute
arbitration has undermined civil rights law in the employment area, changing what Congress
designed and the courts used to enforce as an important public law protecting large classes of
victims against systemic discriminatory practices and deterring employers from continuing
such practices, to a private law that can do little more than occasionally correct obvious
individual wrongs. This second problem exists independent of the first - even if the problem
of bias is solved, arbitration is unlikely ever to serve as an appropriate forum for vindicating
the important public law concepts central to our civil rights laws.
The Biased Forum Characteristic of Pre-Dispute Arbitration's Private Justice System
Arbitration is by definition a private justice system in the sense that the parties select and pay
for the arbitrators who resolve their disputes.
Arbitrators are of course supposed to be unbiased in their decision-making, but there is a risk
in this system that one side will be in a position to purchase the justice that they want,
because arbitrators and the organizations that serve as arbitration providers are under
financial pressure to satisfy the corporate repeat player by systematically ruling in its favor.
Arbitrators only get paid if they are selected to hear cases. Arbitration providers only make
money and survive in the business if they succeed in attracting companies to hire them to
http://www.harp.orglbartholet.htm
218

12/1112014
www.harp.orglbarthdet.htm
provide arbitration services.

My own experience over the past two decades as an arbitrator has led me to conclude that in
many instances corporate players are in fact benefitting from a system of purchased justice in
both the employment and the consumer credit areas. My experience as an arbitrator for the .
National Arbitration Forum (NAF) is but one example, although it may be the most telling.
NAF has locked up a huge part of the nation's credit card business. Others have documented
how NAF sells its services as a corporate-friendly arbitration provider to banks and credit
card companies, assuring them that their interests will be well-served by choosing arbitration
over the court system as a way to resolve disputes with consumers, and by choosing NAF
rather than another arbitration provider.
I was solicited to join NAF's roster of arbitrators, although I had no prior consumer law
experience, and I signed an "Assignment Agreement" with them late in 2001. I was then
assigned starting in early 2003 to a succession of cases involving credit card company
attempts to collect alleged debts, all of which I was to decide simply on the papers without
any hearing unless one side asked for a hearing. In the period between early 2003 and
February 2004 I decided 19 cases, and in 18 of these I decided for the one particular credit
card company involved in each case.
These cases seemed to involve no real dispute as to whether the alleged debtors owed the
money claimed. (The 19th case I dismissed.) However I developed growing concern with the
fairness of the underlying credit card agreements mandating arbitration with the NAF, which
as I remember generally had provisions precluding class actions and providing attorney fees
only for the credit card companies, and I was also concerned that there were no lawyers
representing the consumers in a position to raise any such fairness issues, or otherwise protect
the consumers against wrongful claims.
I then was assigned a case in which for the first time the consumer, who happened himself to
be a lawyer, asked for a hearing, and filed a counterclaim against the credit card company
alleging that it had wrongly charged him with penalty charges and interest and also had
harmed his credit rating and accordingly caused him significant financial damage. After that
hearing I issued an opinion for the first time in any of my NAF cases ruling for the consumer
and against the credit card company on the merits on both the original credit card company
claim and his counter claim, and I ordered the credit card company to pay the consumer
$48,000 in damages.
After that March 2004 decision, I was allowed to decide only four more NAF cases, the four
cases I had been assigned in the same timeframe as the case in which I ruled against the credit
card company. In the two of these that involved that same credit card company, the lO-day
time period for a party to move to request removal of the arbitrator without having to
demonstrate any cause had passed; in the other two this credit card company was not
involved, and I am unsure as to the timing and also do not believe that any credit card
http://www.harp.orgibartholet.htm
3/8

1211112014
www.harp.org/barthdethtrn
company was involved. After these four cases, I was prevented from deciding the next 11
cases to which I was assigned, all of which involved the same credit card company. In seven
of these 11 cases I was notified by NAF that I had been removed as Arbitrator based on the
credit card company's objection and request for removal pursuant to the NAF Rule providing
for remova1 without cause, and in four the credit card company moved to dismiss in a way
that would leave it free to file the claim again, with another arbitrator presumably to be
assigned. At that point I terminated my Assignment Agreement with NAF and resigned from
the NAF roster of arbitrators.
In the first three of the cases in which I was removed by virtue of the credit card company's
request, I received copies of letters sent to the parties which stated that the reason I would not
be hearing the case was that "due to a scheduling conflict, the Arbitrator previously appointed
is not available to arbitrate the above case," This was of course not true. I called the NAF
case administrator immediately after receiving these notices to discuss what I described as a
problem in the fairness of the NAF process, saying that it seemed clear that I was being
removed simply because I had once ruled on the merits against a credit card company, after
having ruled for the company numerous times, and saying additionally that in sending out a
misleading statement about my being unavailable because of a schedule conflict when
actually I had been removed by the company, NAF was depriving any party that might want
to investigate or challenge the system for bias of vital information. The NAF case
administrator agreed that I was likely being removed simply because of my one ruling against
the credit card company. She said that the misleading letter about my being unavailable was a
form letter that was regularly sent out in all cases. I asked her to have a higher NAF authority
call me back to discuss their process. Later I received a call from someone at NAF who
described herself as legal counsel and in a supervisory capacity over the case administrators. I
raised the same issues with her, and she did not deny that the likely reason for my removal as
Arbitrator was because of the one case in which I ruled against the credit card company on
the merits, but argued that the NAF process was fair since each side had what in court would
be called a peremptory challenge. When I countered that in the NAF process it was only the
credit card companies which as repeat players were in a position to exercise their peremptory
challenges, and thus to stack the deck by ensuring that arbitrators would be favorable to their
interests, and that the NAF knew that this was going on and was facilitating this process, this
person had no satisfactory explanation as to how the process could nonetheless be understood
as fair.
I concluded from this experience that the NAF process was systematically biased in favor of
credit card companies and against debtors, since the process gave the companies a
peremptory chal1enge right which they could use to systematically remove any arbitrator who
ruled against a credit card company in a single case, since the companies were apparently
using it in this way, since the alleged debtors were not in a position to know what was going
on, and since NAF was fully aware of the practice and was either facilitating it or at a
minimum tolerating it rather than doing anything to address it. Accordingly I wrote the NAF
a letter dated February 8, 2005, terminating our Assignment Agreement, stating that "I have
http://www.harp.orglbartholethtrn
4/8

1211112014
www.harp.org/bartholelhlm
come to the decision to do this based on my concern about the ethics of the NAF system of
providingADR services, and its apparent systematic bias in favor of the finaneial services
industry. "
Sometime later I was subpoenaed to testify in a case involving an individual who had a
dispute with a corporation over the sale of a computer, and was concerned that he would not
'get'afairhearingin the NAFfomm which the sales agreement mandated for-any dispute
resolution. This party's lawyer had heard of my experience with NAF, and wanted me to
testify about it in a discovery deposition in order to help him prove that the NAF forum was
biased.
NAFwent to great lengths to try to preventme from testifying. NAFts Chief Operating
Officer and General Counsel sent me a letter just before the scheduled deposition stating that
NAF believed it would be "improper for the requested deposition to proceed," due to the
confidentiality obligations allegedly imposed on me by the Assignment Agreement I signed
when I fITst agreed to be an NAF arbitrator,1 even though I made it clear that I would not
testify about anything specific to parties or to case facts that could in any way identify
parties. NAF subsequently moved to quash the deposition subpoena. I felt forced to retain a
lawyer to protect me against NAF and to represent me in the court proceeding that the party
who needed my testimony to prove NAF bias had to bring to get a court order clarifying that
the confidentiality provisions in my Assignment Agreement did not prevent me from.
testifying in a general way about bias in the NAF system. NAF was represented by lawyers in
that court proceeding who argued that I should be prevented from testifying in order to
"protect the integrity" of the arbitral process, although they knew my testimony would in fact
challenge the integrity of their process. They argued that the Assignment Agreement I signed
with NAF should prevent me from testifying about any bias in their system, despite the fact
that I had long since terminated that Agreement and resigned as an NAF arbitrator, and
despite the fact that I would be testifying only to the kinds of general facts regarding bias
stated in my testimony here, and not to any specific party or case facts. The court ultimately
concluded that my Assignment Agreement did not preclude me from testifying and ordered
that I should testify regarding the general facts related to bias in the NAF system. My lawyer
billed $25,808 for the time he felt was necessary to protect me given NAF's claims.
I was relatively free from the financial pressures to go along with the NAF system compared
to most NAF arbitrators, since I have a full-time job serving on the Harvard Law School
Faculty, and my income from NAF arbitration during those years I was working as an NAF
arbitrator represented only a tiny fraction of my annual income (roughly I % in the two years
when I heard the largest number ofNAF cases). Many and perhaps most arbitrators depend
solely or very largely on their arbitration income which is based entirely on the cases that
they actually hear.
Accordingly there is a very real risk that the NAF pool of arbitrators is overwhelmingly
stacked against the consumer, with arbitrators either being removed as I was because they
have decided a case for the consumer, or arbitrators being pressured into always ruling for the
http://www.harp.orglbarthoJaI.hIm
518
I.

1211112014
repeat player companies out of fear of being removed from cases.

All this, together with my other experience as an arbitrator, and my reading of the literature,
is what has led me to conclude that the Supreme Court's approval of pre-dispute arbitration
has led to a private justice system in which banks and credit card companies are able to
purchase the results they want, at the expense of the debtors forced into the system.
The Diminution of Civil Rights Characteristic of Pre-Dispute Arbitration's Private Law

System
The Supreme Court's decisions upholding mandatory pre-dispute arbitration mean that
employees can be coerced into surrendering their rights to go to court to vindicate any of their
legairights, including the rights guaranteed under both federal and state civil rights law. The
Court justified its decisions by claiming that arbitration provided an equivalent forum in
which to vindicate their legal rights. But this has proven patently untrue for two different
kinds of reasons.
The first reason is the bias problem, which I discussed above in the context ofNAF and
consumer arbitration, and so will only briefly mention here since the essence of the problem
is the same. Employers, like credit card companies, are in a position to shop for arbitration
providers, to design the arbitration system they will use, and to force this system upon their
employees by making agreement to it a condition of employment. Employers are in the same
position as credit card companies to purchase the justice they want, by pressuring both
arbitration providers and arbitrators to produce results that favor employers over employees.
Arbitration providers and arbitrators are under the same financial pressure to produce the
desired results if they want to continue getting paid.
The second problem, which I will focus on here, is the problem of what I will call
privatization of the law. It would exist even if you were to solve the bias problem. The
federal law of employment discrimination, embodied in significant part in Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, was designed by Congress as public law. The federal courts o-f the
1960s, 1970s and early 1980s made it clear that they understood the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
important public law, designed to undo the effects of prior discrimination and to bring into
existence a new era characterized by equal opportunity. For example, the Supreme Court held
early in the history of interpreting the 1964 Civil Rights Act that plaintiffs who prevailed in
court on their civil rights claims should be awarded attorneys fees by the courts, paid for by
defendants, because civil rights plaintiffs should be understood to be acting as "private
attorneys general" in enforcing this very important public law, and attorneys fee awards
would encourage such law enforcement. Congress later enacted a law generalizing this
principle by guaranteeing prevailing plaintiffs attorney fee awards in all federal civil rights
cases. The federal courts in this early era were generous in granting class actions, in which a
small number of individual named plaintiffs were able to represent huge classes of hundreds
or thousands of employees, ensuring a day in court for many who by virtue of poverty or
http://www.harp.orlJlbarthoJet.htm
618

12111/2014
www.harp.orgJbarthalet.htm
ignorance of their rights or fear of retribution would never otherwise have been able to get
their legal rights vindicated.
The federal courts granted generous discovery rights which together with class actions gave
plaintiffs the opportunity to use statistics and other broad patterns of proof to get at subtle,
hidden, and other fonns of hard-to-prove discrimination which otherwise would go
unchallenged. The federal 'courts developed over the years theories of discrimination like
disparate impact which allowed for findings of discrimination in the absence of intent, and
forced employers to refonn or abandon a wide range of selection systems that had functioned
to exclude minority race employees. The federal courts published decisions on all these and
other matters in a fonn which was public and accessible, and this served to get the word out
to aU employers about the nature ofthe civil'rights law regime and the liability that they
risked if they operated in violation of the law, thus encouraging widespread refonn of
employment practices regardless of whether employers were actually sued in court.
The Supreme Court together with the lower federal courts have of course done much in the
later 1980s, the 1990s, and the first decade of this 21 st Century to weaken discrimination law
in all these respects, limiting class actions, limiting the use of statistical proof, and
undennining disparate impact doctrine. They have also weakened discrimination law in a
range of other ways, with the Ledbetter case recently under consideration by Congress
serving. as. but one-relatively minor example~ They, have essentially gutted the Americans with
Disabilities Act. And Congress has occasionally struck back, as for example when it revived
disparate impact doctrine and overruled numerous Supreme Court decisions with the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.
However nothing the Court has done in the employment area .is as potentially significant in
destroying our civil rights regime as the mandatory pre-dispute arbitration decisions. This is
because this fonn of arbitration simply removes a huge and growing group of cases from the
federal courts altogether, and puts them into a system that is not designed for any public law
purpose. Nothing that Congress does to "fix" Court decisions in the civil rights area, nothing
that future courts might do' to undo some' of the last few decades' decisions, will succeed in
re-creating civil rights law as important public law if civil rights cases are being decided in
arbitration and not in the courts. What Congress needs to do therefore if it wants to revive our
civil rights regime in any real way is to fIX the mandatory pre-dispute arbitration decisions.
This is because of the nature ofthe traditional arbitration system, a system that employers
will want to perpetuate through the arbitration rules they design and force on their employees
in pre-dispute arbitration "agreements."
Arbitration is not typically a system for vindicating important public law, but instead a
system for quickly and quietly resolving small disputes so that they are finally settled with
minimal expense. Arbitration has traditionally not involved class actions, and many pre
dispute arbitration agreements prohibit class actions. Arbitration has traditionally not
involved any extensive discovery, and many pre-dispute arbitration agreements prohibit any
http://www;l\arp;orglbar1hdethtm
718

1211112014
www.harp.orgJbartholet.htm
such discovery. Arbitrators will thus not likely have the statistical and other proof before
them that will allow for finding any fonn of subtle or hidden discrimination. Arbitrators are
not likely to know anything about sophisticated theories of discrimination like disparate
impact and systemic disparate treatment even if the proof could be made out.
Arbitrators either rule without issuing any opinion or issue opinions which are not published
in any generally accessible form. Decisions are designed to be [mal, with very limited appeal
to court - simply being egregiously wrong on the facts and the law is not a basis for appeal.
F or these many reasons, arbitration will not serve the public law function of defining and
developing the law, vindicating and protecting large classes of employees, and educating
employers about and deterring them from violating the law. It will at best, assuming that
there are no biased forum problems, enable some limited numbers of employees who have
identified and are able to prove obvious forms of relatively overt discrimination, because they
have access to smoking-gun types of evidence, to win individual damages relief for the
violation of their rights. Individual relief for people who recognize that their rights have been
violated and are aggressive enough to push for vindication does nothing to help all those who
are unaware that their rights have been violated, or unable because of poverty or fear to press
forward to demand relief. And these kinds of smoking-gun cases are not representative of the
nature of our modem discrimination problems, which consist instead of the kind of subtle,
hidden, systemic forms of discrimination that can only be proved in the more complex
process typical of the court system.
Conclusion
Congress needs to end mandatory pre-dispute arbitration. And it needs to act now. Creditors
in these economic times are growing increasingly desperate, and they deserve at a minimum a
fair forum for the resolution of their disputes with credit card companies and banks.
Employers are racing forward in increasing numbers to embrace pre-dispute arbitration,
recognizing the advantages it presents for them as compared to the court process, and they are
accordingly removing an ever-increasing percentage of all employment discrimination cases
from the judicial to the arbitral forum, changing in fundamental ways the nature of our civil
rights regime.
http://www.harp.org/bar1holethtm
818

Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Reply To Ex. Motion For Extraordinary Relief From The Second Circuit (December 17, 2014)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC Et Al. (14-4328-CV) - Appellant's Reply To Ex. Motion For Extraordinary Relief From The Second Circuit (December 17, 2014)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page1 of 152

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Motion for: Appellant's Reply to Ex. Motion to Restore In Forma Pauperls,

Seeking extraordinary relief mentioned in the Motion's title pursuant

to the court's inherent powers.

MOVlN~RTY: Marcus Isaiah Washington

OPPOSING PARTY: William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al.

MOVJNG ATTORNEY: Marcus Isaiah Washington (pro se)

Michael P. Zweig & Christian Carbone

[name of attorney, with firm, address, phone number and e-mail]

Loeb & Loeb LLP

345 Park Avenue., 18th Floor, New York, NY 10154

Court-Judge/Agency appealed from:

Southern District of New York I P. Kevin Castel

Please check appropriate boxes:

FOR EMERGENCY MOTIONS, MOTIONS FOR STAYS AND

and June 2012, I submitted four motions/petitions seeking to vacate the

D Yes ~o D>on't Know

the July 20,2011 Stay Order of P. Kevin Castel which ignored my

Is oral argument on motion requested?

Has argument date of appeal been set?

If yes, enter date: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Date: December 15,2014

Fonn T-1080 (rev. 12-13)

(requests for oral argument will not necessarily be granted)

~ Other [Attach proof of selvice]

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page2 of 152

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; formerly the WILLIAM MORRIS

AGENCY; JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINIARSKI,

Appeal from the US. District Court

for the Southern District of New York

No. 10 Civ. 9647 (PKC) (JCF)

APPLLANT'S REPLY TO EXPEDITED MOTION TO RESTORE IN FORMA PAUPERIS

REQUEST TO TRANSFER CASE TO ANOTHER CIRCUIT.

Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page3 of 152

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

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page4 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page5 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page6 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page7 of 152

any level of the Agent Trainee program in New

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page8 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page9 of 152

Prayers for Extraordinary Relief Under the Court's Inherent Powers

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page10 of 152

relief should be granted. 14 See Exhibit L.

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page11 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page12 of 152

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page13 of 152

Dated: New York, New York

54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page14 of 152

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Marcus Isaiah Washington v.

Docket Number: 14-432&-CV

LLC; Jeff Meade and Sarah Winiarski

Marcus Isaiah Washington

, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on

, I served a copy of AppeUanfs Reply to Ex, Motion to Restore In

o ~e8 &fa!!, :hiM.!

345 Park Avenue. 18th FI.

Certificate of Service Fonn

Case 14-4328, Document 25, 12/15/2014, 1399972, Page15 of 152