Exhibit A

Augusts, 2015

The Honorable Jushce Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Supreme Court o f the United States
I First Sti-eet, N E
Washington, DC 20543
Re: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, L L C et al. Application IVo. 15A126
and Unacknowledged Motion to Disqualifj Loeb & Loeb L L P
Dear Justice Ginsburg;
How was your trip to South Korea discussing "huinan rights"' with the Koreans? I hope it went well. During
a time when many o f the gains made during the civil rights movement for American citizens o f African
descent have been eviscerated - thanks to decisions by majority o f the white [and one super black] Justices
on the bench' - and race relations between the blacks and whites are worsening by the day,^ I hope this
trip gave you time to really think about and reflect on this complex, social issue.
As you are aware, 1 have accused Repubhcan appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel and other officers o f
the court o f intenrionally engaging in misconduct that continues to deteriorate our judicial system's abihty
to impaitially administer justice without regard to one's race, including but not limited to: violating the
Judicial Code o f Conduct and Oadi o f Office, conspiring to depnve my constitutionaP and statutory rights
under die color o f law m violation o f 18 U.S.C. 241-242, the K u Klux Klan Act o f 1871 (42 U.S.C.
1983, 1985(3)) and committing other "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are worthy o f impeachment.
Since this landinark huinan rights, antitrust and employment discrimination case is one o f a kind both
substantively and procedurally, 1 submitted two, 40-page Motions to the Supreme Court on July 18, 2015,
seeking extraordmary rehef to conect an extreme "miscarriage o f justice" that has taken place in m y case
over the last five years. The firstmorion was titled "Morion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb L L P and Disqualify
Michael P. Zweig, Chnsrian Carbone, .Michael Bamett, Jessica Lee & Others" and the second was titled
"Motion to Proceed hi Forma Paupens & Application To Justice Sonia Sotomayor For Extension To Submit
Petition For Writ o f Certiorari". See Exhibit A.
On July 24, 2015, Zweig submitted a two-page letter addressed to you. He provided an extremely brief
procedural history o f the case, stating in part, that my claims were "frivolous" and that as a result o f my
well-documented history o f engaging in "bad-faith conduct," my "application should be denied because,

' Marcia Coyle. "Ginsburg On Rulings, Race," The National Law Journal. August 22, 2014.
hnp://www.nationallawioumal.conx-^id=f202667692557/Ginsbura-On-Rulings-Race?slretum=20150708122918.
("The high court was "once a leader in the world in rooting out racial discrimination,' the justice said in a wide-ranging
interview. 'What's amazing is how things have changed.'")
^ See e.g.. Scott Clement. " A Year After Ferguson, 6 out of 10 Say Changes Are Needed To Give Blacks and Whites
Equal Rights." The Washington Post. August 5, 2015.
http:/'/www.washingtonpost.com/news/therix/wp/2015/08/05/what-changed-since-ferguson-ameri cans-are-far-more-worried-about-black-rights/.
^ This is a violation of the S"*", T**" and 14* Amendments of the U S Constitution. I've never had an oral hearing or had
the opportunity to speak under oath in this entire case. As a pro se litigant, I am barred from arguing this case before
the Supreme Court. See e.g., Joe Patrice. "R.1,P. Pro Se Litigants Before The Supreme Court." .Above The Law, July
1, 2013, http://abovethelaw.com/2013/07/r-i-p-pro-se-litigants-before-the-supreme-court/.

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

August 8, 2015
Page 2
among other reasons, [I] fail[ed] to demonstrate an entitlement to die relief sought or establish why [I] need
additional time to fde [my] petition for a writ o f certiorari with this Court."
On August 1, 2015,1 received a letter dated July 29, 2015 from the Clerk o f tiie Court - Scott S. Hams -stating that my "application for an extension o f time within which to file a petition for a writ o f certiorari
in the above-entitled case has been presented to Justice Ginsburg, who on July 29, 2015, extended the time
to and including September 28, 2015."'' 1 also received the original and a copy o f my Motion to Disqualify
Loeb & Loeb L L P . For the following reasons below, I respectfully ask that yoxu^ decision regarding an
extension be stayed pendmg the acknowledgement and resolution o f my Morion to Disqualify Loeb &
Loeb L L P Due to "Fraud Upon the Court" by all Article I I I Justices in the Supreme Court.
A. A Petition For A Writ O f Certiorari Is Not T h e Only Pleading That C a n Be Submitted To The
Supreme Court To "Dispose O f The Entire Case" O r "Affect The Final Judgment To Be
Entered."
As discussed throughout my Motion to Disqualify, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Zweig, Caibone and other Loeb
attorneys that have been unjustly enriched from their fraudulent representation o f William Morris in this
present htigation and are guilty of violating numerous Rules under the New York Rules o f Professional
Conduct, as well as the New York Judiciary Law 487 and additional laws. In Rowe Entertainment, Inc.
V. William M o m s Agency, Inc.. No, 98 CV 8272, 2005 W L 22833 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2005), afPd, 167 F.
App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005), cert, demed, 549 U S . 887, 127 S.Ct. 283, 166 L.Ed.2d 152 (2006), Loeb & Loeb
LLP and others conspired with counsel for the class o f black concert promoters to conceal smoking gun
evidence from being produced during e-discovery. See Exhibit B. Thirteen years later, this evidence has
not seen the light o f day although in September o f 2013, Arbitrator David L. Gregory o f the American
Arbitration Association ( " A A A " ) admitted "Exhibit 31 "-^ into the evidence o f record ui my case buttresses.
This decisions proves that "Exhibit 3 1 " is an authentic document and Loeb & Loeb LLP aie collaterally
estopped from deferring to the fraudulently procured decisions o f fonner federal judge Robert P. Patterson
regarding this issue.
Afrer getting away with their highly unethical and criminal conduct in Rowe, Michael P. Zweig and Loeb
& Loeb LLP made the decision to "represenf' WiUiam Morris four years later in my case denying any and
all wrongdoing on William jMorris' behalf. During discoveiy, Loeb & Loeb LLP reflised to comply with
any o f my good-faith discoveiy requests and produced zero documents. They wouldn't even tell me the
date tiie htigation hold was placed. 39 months into the case and after Arbitrator Gregory was fraudulently
disqualified after issuing a final decision on the issue o f arbitrability and liability and indicated that [ would
receive the fiill gamut o f monetary damages during phase tvvo o f our bifurcated proceeding, I learned Loeb
& Loeb LLP and the .'American .Arbitration Association were literally sleeping in bed togethei-^ - a fact that

" The letter is written as if written by the Clerk of Court, but the letter is signed by Case Analyst Erik Fossum
' 1 included the full document that was filed as "E.xhibit 31" in my Motion to Disqualify. 1 only included the cover
page and first page that was submitted by the Willie Gan,- Law Firm. The full document be viewed at
www,meagainstiniquitv.wordpress,com
or
https://www.scnbd.coni^'doc/93697362./Rowe-Entertainment-Inc-vWilliam-Morns-Agencv-et-al-98-8272-Breakdown-of-Racial-Epithets-Including-Nigger-Used-By-Execs-at-WMAand-CAA.
I learned that Christian Carbone was married to an executive at the American Arbitration Association - Sasha
Angelique Carbone. Christian, Loeb cS: Loeb LLP and the A.AA failed to disclose this information to myself and/or
the Court. This creates a gross conflict of interest since the appointed "arbitrator" - Schnader LLP attorney and .AAA

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Gmsburg

Augusts, 2015
Page 3
cannot be disputed since Carbone has had ample opportunity to deny this, and he has decided to remain
silent.
Throughout this entire case, Castel and the Second Circuit have acted as counsel for Zweig, Carbone and
Loeb & Loeb LLP - hence the reason why all o f their decisions are erroneous as a matter o f law and public
policy. I've filed more than five separate "fraud upon the Court" motions in both the disfrict and appellate
court and Loeb & Loeb L L P have never had to r e p l y . 1 have also filed complaints widi the Departmental
Disciplinary Coraiuittee^ and wnth the Department o f Jusrice. No investigation has taken place into my
claiiBS. Despite WiUiam Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP's general denials and silence, the Court has entered
judgments in their favor which make no mention that 1 have raised claims o f "fraud upon the Court" and
making no mention o f Arbitiator Gregory's decisions regarding "Exhibit 3 1 . "
Ever smce the Second Circuit issued an Order on March I I , 2014, denying my November 21, 2014 Motion
to Restore In Fonna Paupens Status in T W O sentences and confirming the legally erroneous decisions o f
Republican appointed federal judge P. Kevin Castel, I began working on my Pedtion for a Writ o f Certiorari
to the Supreme Court. While writing the pedtion, I reahzed in early July that due complexity o f the case
and intenrional procedural errors that resuhed in one-sided decisions in favor o f Wilham Morris and Loeb
& Loeb LLP, I decided to write my Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis foUowuig the guidelines set forth
in the Fed. R. -A.pp, P. had to submit a separate Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb L L P since Loeb & Loeb
LLP should have absolutely no involvement in this case due to the fraud tiiat was perpetrated in Rowe. as
well as my case. Since all o f the lower courts refused to acknowledge or resolve my claims o f "fraud upon
the Court," "the motion" that was "filed together" with my Motion to Proceed In Fonna Pauperis was my
Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb L L P
It cannot be disputed that the "highest couil o f the land" has juiisdiction over this case. Rule 8.1 says
"[wjhenever a member o f the Bar o f this Coun has... engaged in conduct unbecoming a member o f the Bar
o f this Court, the Court w d l enter an order suspending that member from practice before this Court and
affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order should not be
entered."' Supreme Court Rule 39.2 states: " I f leave to proceed in forma pauperis is sought for the purpose
o f filing a document, the motion, and an affidavit or declaration i f requested, shall be filed together with
that document and shall comply in every respect with Rule 2 1 . " Rule 21.2(b) indicates that "any motion
the granting o f which would dispose o f the entire case or would affect the fmal judgment to be entered" can
also be filed with the Supreme Couii.

board of director Timothy K. Lewis - works closely with Mrs. Carbone as members of the AAA's "Diversity
Committee."
' Leonard Rowe submitted a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion on March 2, 2012. Federal judge Robert
P, Patterson never compelled William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP to submit a reply.
* Although 1 filed a joint complaint with Leonard Rowe before Arbitrator Gregory admitted "Exhibit 31" into the
evidence of record, 1 also filed an individual complaint against Christian Carbone after learning about his marriage to
Sasha Carbone on November 13, 2014. See Exhibit C. ~
' P. Kevin Castel sits as the head of the Grievance Committee for the Southern District of New York. Rule 8.3(a) of
the New York Rules of Professional Conduct states 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 shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered
to investigate or act upon such violation." (emphasis added)

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Augusts, 2015
Page 4
In Zweig's July 24, 2015 letter, he makes absolutely no mention o f the Motion to Disqualify that I submitted
- he only acknowledges my Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. In addition to July 29, 2015 letter I
received from the Supreme Court, I also received the original and a copy o f my Motion to Disquahfy.
Shordy thereafter, 1 checked the Supreme Couil's docket for this case, and discovered that there is no
mention o f two Motions that I submitted - it only indicates that 1 submitted an Application For A n Extension
o f Time.'" See Exhibit D. On August 3, 2015, I called and spoke with Case Analyst Eric Fossum on two
separate occasions to understand why my Motion was returned to me." His reasons were insufficient and f
informed hun that I would bnng this issue to the Court's attention since the Court's att:empt to whitewash
my Motion fi-om the record constitutes an obstiiiction o f justice and gross violation o f my constitutional
right to due process.
Had the Rules been properly followed, my \n forma pauperis status should have been restored because o f
ray well-documented indigent stams and due to the fact that none o f my legal arguments have been
"frivolous." Although I am thankfiil that you granted an extension, all o f the Justices on the Supreme Court
should have resolved my Motion to Disqualify pursuant to Rule 8 since a single Justice cannot decide the
Motion to Disqualify on their own and the "granting o f [Motion to Disqualify] would dispose o f the entire
case [and] would affect the fmal judgment to be entered."

Supreme Court Rule 39.4 states: "When the documents required by paragraphs I and 2 of this Rule are presented
to the Clerk, accompanied by proof of service as required by Rue 29, thev will be placed on the docket without the
payment of a docket fee or any other fee."
" Daring the initial call, Fossum told me that I could not submit this type of Motion to the Court. I stated that due to
the unique circumstances of the case, this Motion should have been accepted by the Court, even if this type motion is
not typically filed. He then told me that I could resubmit it He also stated that the Motion to Disqualify could not be
submitted since I had not paid the filing fee. After 1 thought about what he stated, I called him back a few minutes
later. During the second call, I inquired about the whereabouts of the other 9 Motions to Disqualify that I submitted.
Fossum informed me that all of my Motions to Disqualify were discarded and stated that 1 only needed to submit three
copies of the Motion to Disqualify. The fact that Fossum told me I can resubmit the Motion to Disqualify means that
my Motion should have never been returned to me by the Court This alone raises doubts about the Court's
competence and ability to remain impartial.

The Honorable Jushce Ruth Bader Gttisburg

Augusts, 2015
Page 5
B. The Two Motions Submitted Are a Condensed Version O f All The Pleadings That I Have
Submitted to the E E O C , the American Arbitration Association,'^ P. Kevin Castel of the Southern
District of New Y o r k and the Second Circuit Over the Last Five Years. All O f The Lower Courts
Have Denied All O f My Claims As "Frivolous," Claimed That 1 Have Engaged In "Bad Faith"
And Refused To Issue Ethical Judicial Opinions - While Refusing to Uphold O u r Nation's
Antidiscrimination Laws O r Acknowledge My Claims O f "Fraud Upon the Court." I f I've Shown
"Good Cause" For An Extension, Then My Legal Arguments Are Not "Frivolous," My In Forma
Pauperis Status Should Not Have Been Revoked By Castel and the Second Circuit Should Have
Issued An Ethical Judicial Opinion Reversing The Erroneous Decisions of Castel and the
American Arbitration Association Due To "Fraud Upon the Court" and "Fraud Upon the Court
B y The Court." Since Loeb & Loeb L L P Continues To Deny All Wrongdoing And It's Not
"Mandatory" For William Morris To Reply To Petition F o r Writ of Certiorari, It Is Futile F o r
Me T o Submit A Petition For A Writ O f Certiorari.
Supreme Court Rule 13.5 states; "For good cause, a Jushce may extend the time to file a pehhon for a writ
o f certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days. An application to extend the time to file shall set out the
basis for junsdiction in this Court, identify the judgment sought to be reviewed, include a copy o f the
opinion and any order respecting rehearing, and set out specific reasons why an extension o f time is
justified A n application to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not
favored."(emphasis added) In Zweig's July 24, 2015 letter, he stated that I "failed to" show "good cause"
or "set out specific reasons why an extension o f time is justified," but your decision granting my application
proves otherwise and demonstrates that my legal arguments are not "frivolous," 1 am not engaging in "bad
faith" and my appeal did not "lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."'^
Tliroughout this case, P. Kevin Castel and vanous appellate judges in the Second Circuit have intentionally
flouted our nation's anridiscrimination laws. From the beginning, Castel ignored my claims o f systemic
disparate treahnent, disparate unpact and pre-hiring individual disparate treahnent and all finders o f fact
subsequently appointed to this case have done the same. Tliere is no discussion o f the Civil Rights Act o f
1964, New York Cit>' Human Rights Law and other statutes in dieir decisions. 'When I sought Castel's
disqualification, he refused and shortly after, he entered a one-sided "final decision" that upheld the
fraudulendy procured decision o f die unlawfully appointed "arbitrator" Timothy K, Lewis, upheld Lewis'
monetai-y awaid in the amount o f $47,6060.70 due to ray "bad faith" conduct, prejudiced my appeal by
stating that it would not be submitted in "good faith," revoked my in forma pauperis status and granted
William M o n i s and Loeb & Loeb LLP motion to issue a filing injunction against me.
In Zweig's one and one-half page reply to my July 18, 2015 Motions, he also stated:

Aside from the only lawfijlly appointed arbitrator David L. Gregors', who issued a Partial Final Award on December
17, 2013, concluding that 1 proved by a "preponderance of evidence" that "William Morris Endeavor Entertainment
LLC discriminated against [me] in violation of pertinent federal, state, and local law prohibiting
None of my legal arguments have changed. I f I've demonstrated "good cause" for an extension, it is clear that my
legal arguments have never been "frivolous" and I'm not engaging in "bad-faith" conduct for trying to uphold the
public policy goal the Civil Rights Act of 1964: eradicating racial discrimination in the workplace against African
Americans, Castel should not have revoked my in forma pauperis status and prejudiced my appeal by stating that it
would not be made in "good faith," Additionally, the Second Circuit should not have concluded that my appeal lacked
an arguable basis in law or in fact and they also should not have denied my appeal without providing an ethical judicial
opinion.

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Gmsburg

Augusts, 2015
Page 6

In his motion papers before this Court, Mr. Washington raises the same, previously rejected argimient
that he has raised in other fora; that a 'white/'Jewish'" conspiracy, o f which W M E , its competitors, its
counsel, and members o f the federal judiciary are purportedly members, exists to prevent him from
finding emplo>TOent in the entertainment mdustiy. See, e.g., Pet. Mot. at 15 ("[i]t cannot be disputed
that 'Jews' o f European descent are overrepresented in positions o f power in Hollywood"); id at 20
("no one group should have a monopoly over Hollywood and the maiketplace o f ideas - especially
those who falsely proclaim to be 'God's chosen people.'") Mr. Washington's argument is without
basis in law or in fact; serves only to harass and impugn the integrity of the lower courts.
Respondents, and their counsel; and underscores the frivolous nature of any petition that M r .
Washington would file with this C o u r t . ( e m p h a s i s added)
Zweig is fully awaie that I have accused Wilham Morris o f intentionally engaging m a pattern and
continuing practice o f excluding quaJified African Amencans and people o f color from Agent, Coordinator
and Agent Trainee positions spanning more than 110 years, maintaining "ostensibly neufral" employment
practices, policies and procedures that create a glaring disparate impact against qualified African Americans
from being hired and/or promoted to Agent and using race, color and/or perceived national origin as a
"motivatmg factor" in their refusal to hire and/or promote to Agent afrer submitting ray resume and cover
letter to the company after graduating with my Masters in Music Business and Entertainment Industiies
from the University o f Miami in .May o f 2008.
One o f the reasons why 1 was happy about addressing my application to Justice Sotomayor, is due to the
fact that she has always acknowledged the reality o f racism m our society. Although 1 ended up addressing
my application to the wrong Justice, I am still foitunate because you have spent your entire career also
being vocal about the realities o f global white supremacy (racism) throughout our multicultural society. In
Adarand Constructors. Inc. v. Pena. 515 U.S. 200, 273-274 (1995), you stated in your dissent:
"The persistence of racial inequality...and discrimination's lingering effects...are evident in our
workplaces, markets, and neighborhoods Job applicants with identical resumes, qualifications, and
interview styles still experience different receptions, depending on their race. White and AfricanAmerican consumers still encounter different deals. People o f color looking for housing still face
discriminatory treatment by landlords, real estate agents, and mortgage lenders. Minority
entrepreneurs sometimes fail to gain contracts though they are the low bidders, and they are
sometimes refused work even after winning contracts. Bias both conscious and unconscious,
reflecting traditional and unexamined habits of thought, keeps up barriers that must come down
if equal opportunity and nondiscrimination are ever genuinely to become this country's law and
practice."'^ (emphasis added)
1 was 10 years old when you wrote this dissent. 13 years later, I was hired into William Morris'
"competitive" Agent Trainee program, only to discover that 1 was the only African .American employed in
the Agent Trainee program and that Afiican Americans had zero percent chance o f being promoted to

Michael P. Zweig and Loeb & Loeb LLP have used this same deceptive tactic in Rowe
This quote was included on page 36, footnote 92 of my Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Augusts, 2015
Page?
Agent.'* No matter how hard 1 tried to excel, it was never good enough although I was considerably more
qualified than all o f my similarly situated white/"Jewish" counterparts. I was just as qualified as recently
promoted Agents and that fact cannot be disputed. Had William Morris made its music Agent position
available to the pubhc, 1 or another person o f color would have more than likely been hired as a music
Agent.
After nearly five years o f htigation, die historical, statistical, anecdotal, circuinstantial and other forms o f
evidence ! have presented estabhshmg Wilham M o m s ' pattern and continmng practice o f intentional
discriimnarion, disparate impact, pre-lunng individual disparate treatment, violations o f antitrust laws have
never been sufficiently refiited and tins evidence cannot be ignored by the finder o f fact merely because
this is not a class action." William M o m s and Loeb & Loeb L L P cannot name two Afiican American
Agent Trainees who were promoted to Agent in the New York office between 2000 and 2010, but they are
accusing me o f being "racist" and "anti-Semitic."
Since you also identify as a "Jew" o f European descent, I have to briefly respond to Zweig's
misrepresentations regarding God's allegedly "chosen people" being overrepresented"'* in decisionmaking
positions throughout Hollywood and other influential industiies throughout the United States since this is
a well-established fact diat can no longer be refuted.'" It cannot be disputed that William Morris was
'* When 1 began the William Morris Agency's "Agent Trainee program" in September of 2008, zero out of the 50
Agents were African American - although this company has exploited and made millions of dollars off of African
American entertainers since integrating their roster in the early 1900s. There were also zero Coordinators and .\gent
Trainees employed in the New York office. From 2000 to 2010, zero .African American .Agent Trainees were
promoted to Agent in the New York office. This statistical evidence is "statistically significant" and establishes an
inference of intentional racial discrimination on its own. See Barner v. City of Har\'ey. No, 95 C 3316, 1998 WL
664951, at '^50 (N,D, 111, Sept, 18, 1998) ("In cases, such as this one, the 'inexorable zero' speaks volumes and clearly
supports an inference of discrimination."); Ortiz-Del Valie v. National Basketball Ass'n. 42 F. Supp. 2d 33 (S.D.N.Y.
1999) (recognized that evidence of an inexorable zero can support a jury's finding of discrimination against a motion
for judgment as a matter of law). Victory v. Hewlett-Packard Company. 34 F. Supp. 2d 809 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (read
Teamsters as holding that an inexorable zero standing alone could support a disparate impact claim of sex
discrimination in promotions, asserting that "[t]he Supreme Court has repeated countenanced the use of statistical
evidence, and evidence of the absence of a single minority employee being hired, labeled the 'inexorable zero,' would
in and of itself support an inference of discrimination.")
' Although I have no desire to work tor this racist institution ever again, I am still entitled to declaratory, injunctive
and affirmative relief in additional to considerable monetary damages.
'^ "Jews" of European descent only account for less than 3 percent of the United States population
" See e.g., Neal Gabler. An Empire Of Their Ov.'n: How the Jews Invented Hollywood. 1989 (This book was the
winner of
Los Angeles Times Book Award for history); Gabler, "Jews, Blacks and Trouble in Hollywood," N'ew
York Times, (September 2, 1990) http://www,nytimes,comM990/09/02/movies/'film-view-iews-blacks-and-trouble-inhollvwood.html: John
W
Cones,
Esq
"What's
Really Going On In Hollywood!" (1997)
http://www,filmreform,ore/whats,html: Ray Moseiey, "British Article On Hollywood Jews Triggers Row," Chicago
Tribune December 1, 1994.
http:./yarticles.chicaeotribune.com/1994-12-01./news/9412010086_]_iewish-cabalsemitic-vanitv-fair, ("No one denies that William Cash's article about Hollywood Jews was rude. But was it antiSemitic? The Spectator, a conservative and irreverent British weekly that published an article by Cash in its Oct. 29
issue on the alleged domination of Hollj-wood by a "Jewish cabal," is still feeling the reverberations of the controversy
touched off on both sides of the Atlantic."); Dennis Romero, "How .Hollywood Keeps Minorities Out." LA Weekly.
February 25, 2015, http://www,laweekly.com/news/how-holly\.'ood-keeps-minoritie5-out-5402815; Benjamin
Hooks. "Report Says Blacks Are Underhired In Holl^'wood." Mew York Times. September 24, 1991.
http://www.nytimes.cony 1991/09.^24/arts/report-savs-blacks-are-underhired-in-hollv'wood.html. (The study, titled
"Out of Focus - Out of Sync," says that blacks are unable to make final decisions in the motion picture process and
that only a handful of blacks hold executive positions with film studios and television networks. Although blacks

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Augusts, 2015
Page 8
founded by a Gentian "Jewish" immigrant in 1898 and that die company had an explicit pohcy of not hiring
blacks to positions of Agent and Agent Trainee for its first 63 years of business. Although die company no
longer exphcidy bars qualified people of color fi-om meaningful positions of employment, they have uses
"ostensibly neutral" employment practices, policies and procedures (e.g. strong reliance on word of mouth
and referrals to hire Agents and Agent Trainees, strong reliance on subjective decisionmaking in racially
segregated workplace, etc.) that achieve the same result, hence the modem-day "inexorable zero" and/or a
gross underrepresentation of blacks and people of color still exists throughout all of the William Morris'
offices located throughout the U.S. and the world. Since all of the other talent agencies have followed in
William Morris' footsteps, al! of the agencies have similar racial makeups.^''
In the beginning of this case, Zweig initially argued that ah of my claims were "widiout merit, legally and
factually." Five years later, his arguments haven't changed, but it doesn't change the fact diat Wilham
Moms IS "hmit[ing], segregate[ing], [and] classify[mg] [dieir] employees or appUcants for employment in
any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any 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)(2), and maintaining employment practices, policies and procedures that
prevent equal employment opportunities for Afiican Americans and create a glaring disparate knpact
against qualified people of color, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i), simply due to the amount of God given
skin melanin our bodies are naturally able to produce. The lower courts erred by refiising to uphold our
nation's antidiscrimination statutes and failing to acknowledge the unrefiited historical and statistical
evidence^" detailing William Morris' histor>' of intentionally excluding qualified Afiican Americans fi"om
meaningful positions of employment, such as Agent and Agent Trainee.^^ I f the pubhc pohcy goal of our
nation's antidiscrimination laws is to eradicate racism, then even a blind man can see diat an impartial jury
should have decided the merits of Rowe and Washington and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
purchase 25 percent of domestic movie tickets, black-owned businesses are frequently excluded from the
entertainment industry, the report said "), Ron Walters "Hollywood's Racism Factory." FimilCall. March 28, 2006.
http://www.fmalcall.com''anman/publish/Terspectives l/Hollvwoodsracism factor\ 2515.shtml ("The bottom
line is that since the positioning of racial images is about money, Hollywood thinks it must play to the racial
stereotypes, making it the most powerful purveyor of global racism that exists It educates and reinforces the
demeaning racial role that is in the heads of both Americans and foreigners, through the economic power, to
commercialize these images through the distribution network of movies and advertising outlets. We should put more
of a spotlight on the producers and financiers of these movies who keep alive the negative images of Black people
before the world."); Jennifer Armstrong and Margeaux Watson. "Diversity in Entertainment: Why Is TV So White?"
Enlerlainment Weekly. June 13, 2008 hnp://www ew.coni/ew/article/0,.20206185.00.html; Who Controls America?
"Who Controls Hollywood?" https://thezog.wordpresscom/who-controls-hollvwood/: Joel Stein. "Is Hollywood Run
by Jews? You Bet "
Times December 19, 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/19/opinion/oe-steinl9. ("But
1 don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government, [just care
that we get to keep mnning them").
At the time the William Morris Agency merged with Ariel Emanuel's Endeavor Talent Agency in April of 2009,
Endeavor employed zero African .American Agetns When William Morris Endeavor Entertainment merged
^' See e g , Andrew Kreshner. "Statistics Fall Short of Showing Intent, Circuit Says." Law.com August 3, 2015.
hnp://www.law.com/sites/article5/'2015/08/01/statistics-fall-short-of-showing-intent-circuit-savs/. ("Southern District
Judge Jed Rakoff sitting by designation, said the case presented a maner of first impression for the circuit "in the
context of a putative class action alleging employment discrimination under [42 U.S.C] 1981 and/or the Equal
Protection Clause " As some of the circuit's employment discrimination cases 'have hinted, in certain
circumstances, statistics alone may be sufficient," Rakoff said. But to make the showing on statistics alone, he said,
the figures "must not only not only be statistically significant in the mathematical sense, but they must also be of a
level that makes other plausible non-discriminatory explanations ver,' unlikely.'")
Historical and statistical evidence can be used to establish pretext under the McDonnell Douglas tripartite formua.

The Honorable Jusrice Ruth Bader Gmsburg

August 8, 2015
Page 9
other antidiscriminahon statutes throughout oui- narion must be sfrengthened to eradicate insriturionahzed,
structural, systemic and odier pervasive fonns of racism and discnmmarion throughout all areas of our
society.
As discussed m my Morions, the conservarive judicial agenda has been well documented.^-' Five out of the
nine Jushces on the Supreme Court have been appointed by Republican Presidents and over the decades,
many of their decisions reflect a hosrility toward civil rights cases involving litigants of African descent
and a disconnect from reality - hence the reason many of the gains made during the civil rights movement
during the 1950s and 1960s have been eviscerated 60 years later as blatant forms of white racism worsen.
Like Castel and the appellate judges in the Second Circuit, these formahst, ideologically conservative
Justices render decisions that ignore die realities of racism and/or support the notion that whites are the true
victims of racial discrimination in our "post-racial" society. See e.g., Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658
(2009). Since my case has the abihty to reverse these decisions and strengthen our nation's
antidiscrimination statutes, it's not in tlie interests of the white judicial elite to take such a case when they
are busy chipping away at the substantive strength of laws that were created primarily to protect the hueman rights of,American citizens of African descent who have been robbed of their history, cultiue, heritage
and identity.
Is it possible to show "good cause" for an extension if a litigant is raising legally frivolous arguments? If
my legal arguments have never changed and I have showTi "good cause," then it is clear that my legal
arguments are not "frivolous or malicious." I f they were, you would have denied my apphcation for an
extension since extensions are rarely granted and less than 1 percent of petitions for a writ of certiorari are
accepted by the Supreme Couit each yeai'. For this reason alone, the appellate court should have transferred
my appeal to another circuit as requested or issued an ethical judicial opinion^^ after resolving the issues
diat P. Kevin Castel ignored, including my claims of "fraud upon the Court."
I submitted a Notarized Affidavit proving that 1 am living below the poverty level. I have been unemployed
for five years and for the last three years, I have been living off of $400.00/month thanks to my parents,
who are now no longer finically able to support me. It cost me more than $200.00 to pay for the costs of
submitting my motions to the Supreme Court. If you've concluded that I've shown "good cause" for an
extension, then it would make absolutely no sense for me to spend the next 60 days writing a petition that
is later denied by a conservative majonty that 1 have accused of playing a pivotal role in maintaining global
white supremacy (racism) throughout our society and the world. Albert Einstein would call that "uisanity."
Since no new arguments are being raised and you know that 1 don't have the money to mail ten copies of a
petition and possible bnef there is no point in submitting the pleadings if the Supreme Court is going to
treat my claims institutionalized racism in Hollywood and "fraud upon the Court" against Loeb & Loeb
L L P as "frivolous."
Ironically, while writing this letter, I came across an article published by the National Law Journal on
August 4, 2015 mentioning your recent nip to South Korea and how you "met with Chief Justice Yang
23
Supreme Court Rule 39 8 states: " I f satisfied that a petition for a writ of certiorari... or petition for an extraordinary
wrh is frivolous or malicious, the Court may deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis"
^' Unfortunately, two out of the three judges who dismissed my appeal as "frivolous"- district court judge Laura Swain
Taylor and Canadian bom appellate judge Raymond J Lohier, Jr - are of African descent. The other judge was Chief
Judge They should both be impeached as well

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

August 8, 2015
Page 10
Seung-tae this week 'to discuss the promorion o f human rights and minority rights protecrion.'"-^* During
your five-day visit, the article also stated diat you were expected to "deliver remarks on huinan rights
and.., meet with other top jurists m Korea." I find it ven,' hypocritical o f you to engage m such discussions
as a representative o f this country after ignoring the compelling arguments raised m my Morion to Proceed
In Fonna Pauperis, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that various officers o f the Court have engaged in
an egregious and diabolical conspiracy to depnve me o f my constitutional and statutory nghts under the
color o f law m an effort to maintain global wltite supremacy (racism) throughout America and the world.
This is a sign from die universe that aldiough you are Oying to be mce, you are not being fuhy impartial.
Smce you are one o f the four "liberal" Justices, i f you diought my claims were "frivolous" and made m
extieme "bad-faith" as stated by die Second Circuit, P. Kevui Castel o f the Soudieni Distnct o f New York
and Timothy K, Lewis^' o f the American Arbitiation Association, then that would make six Justices who
more likely than not deny my petition as being "fiivolous," and thus, my Motions should have been denied
since the Supreme Court is not obligated to issue an ethical judicial opinion.
Due to Loeb & Loeb LLP's "pattern" o f engaging in "fraud upon die Court," extreme disciplinary and
monetary sanctions should be imposed against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Loeb & Loeb L L P
and all attorneys who have been unjustiy enriched from their highly unethical and criminal acts, including
to default judgment and an amount no less than $1 billion. TJie monetary sanctions against William Morris
Endeavor Entertainment should be more.^^ I f the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge and resolve the
claims raised in this Motion, Castel's filing injunction should be vitiated and I should be allowed to pursue
mdependent claims o f "fraud upon the Court," violations o f New York Judiciar>' Law 487, conspiracy to
interfere with the human rights o f people o f African descent, obshnction o f justice, mahcious abuse o f
process and other causes o f action against Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone, Loeb & Loeb L L P - ' and
others that have conspired to deprive me o f my constitutional, statutory and mahenabie rights under the
color o f law. I f not, I will have no choice dian follow die advice o f Malcohn X, and bring this case before
all international institutions and nibunals such as the United Nations^'* to resolve these historical and on-

^* Tony Mauro. "Ginsburg, Other Justices Head Overseas During Summer Recess." National Law Journal. August 4,
2015. http://www,law,com/sites/articles/20]5/08/04/ginsburg-other-iustices-head-overseas-during-summer-recess/',
Lewis is a former federal judge and current attorney at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP,
htrp://www,schnader,com/professionals/x.prProfessionalDetailsSchnader.aspx?xpST=ProfessionalDetail&profession
al=142. He is also a board of director for the AAA, board member of The Constitution Projectand After Lewis was
appointed, I discovered this blog detailing his firm's close relationship with Israel, http://schnaderpittisrael com/. The
blog has not been updated since March 10, 2014, which is after I confronted them.
See e.g.. Josh Rottenberg. "Wall Street investors to Hollywood Talent .Agencies: 'Show Us The Money.'" L . A.
Times. July 10, 2015. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotow'n/la-et-ct-talent-agencies-privateequity-20150710-story.html. "In 2012, Silver Lake, best known for its investments in tech firms including Skype and
Alibaba, acquired a 31% stake in WME for $200 million, then followed that up last year with a $500-million
investment that increased its stake to 51%. With Silver Lake's backing, in 2013 WME acquired New York-based
sports and media group IMG Worldwide Inc., a S2.4-biilion deal that vaulted the agency over CAA in scale." See
also, William D. Cohan. "The Inside Story of An Emanuel's Big, Risky WME-IMG Merger." Vanity Fair. February
11, 2015. http://wwvv-vanityfair.eom/news/2015/02./wme-img-merger-ari-emanuel.
I have also contacted the Chairman and Chairman Emeritus of Loeb & Loeb LLP on more than one occasion Michael Beck and John T. Frankenheimer - about the fraud engaged in by Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone and
others from their firm on William Morris' behalf Both have ignored my correspondence.
The United Nations has declared 2015-2024 to be "The Decade For People of African Descent." Global white
supremacy (racism) must finally be eradicated. hHp://wwvv.un.orB'en/events/africandescentdecade/. On August 28,
2014, the United Nations Committee on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(CERD) "slammed the United States for persistent racial and ethnic discrimination. The watchdog said Washington

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

August 8,2015
Page 11
going crimes that are being committed against hue-man beings o f African descent since race is a legal and
social construct and white racial superionty is nothing but a myth.^'
CONCLUSION
As you are aware: Substanrive justice cannot be achieved without (1.)
independent & impartial judiciary
and (2.) procedural due process. The two Motions diat were submitted to the Court on July 18, 2015
demonstrate that i f 1 had to submit a petition for certiorari, it would be "certworthy" and diat all decisions
rendered in favor o f Wilham M o m s and Loeb & Loeb LLP throughout this proceeding should be vitiated
due to "fraud upon the Couif' and "fi-aud upon the Court by the Court." for that reason alone, the appellate
court should have transferred my appeal to another circuit as requested or issued an ethical judicial opinion
after resolving the issues that P. Kevin Castel ignored, including my claims o f "fraud upon the Court."
Under the Supreme Court's "mherent powers," the Court has the junsdiction to do whatever is necessary
to correct this extreme "miscarriage o f justice." Since William Morris and Loeb & Loeb L L P have denied
all wrongdoing over the last five years and are not obligated to submit reply to my petition for a writ o f
certiorari, it's futile for me to say anything further and there is no need for me to submit a petition for a writ
of certiorari since the granting o f my Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb L L P and Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis would "dispose of the entire case [and] would affect the final judgment to be entered." Rule
21.2(b). Pursuant to Rule 8, 1 ask that the Supreme Court suspend Michael P. Zweig, Christian Carbone
and Loeb & Loeb LLP and give them until August 24. 2015 to submit a formal reply before disqualifying
Loeb & Loeb L L P and disbamng each attorney that has been unjustly enriched from this case.
I f the Supreme Court refuses to acknowledge and impartially resolve my Motion to Disquahfy, I ask that
the two Motions and this letter be converted mto ray petition for a writ o f certiorari or a petition for a writ

has failed to meet hs treaty obligations under the convention, one of only three core human rights accords that the
U.S. has ratified The 18-person panel of experts based its findings on review of official submissions from the U.S.,
reports from numerous civil society organizations and testimonies by U S officials and advocacy groups over several
days of hearings earlier in August." Lauren Carasik. Aljazeera. "United Nations Watchdog Blasts US For Persistent
Racism."
September
8,
2014.
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/united-nationsracismracialandethnicdiscriminationintheus html
"Before this case, I knew nothing about institutional racism, global white supremacy (racism) or knew anything about
the history of my African ancestors pre-slavery in the Americas - even though f excelled in school and have a
Bachelors in Psychology & Media Management and Masaters in Music Business and Entertainment Industries from
the University of Miami. 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); OMichael J. Klarman, Unfinished Business: Racial Equity in American History
(2007); Ira Katznelson, When Affirmative Action Was White (2005); J.A. Rogers, Nature Knows No Color-Line
(1952); Rogers, Sex & Race Vol. 1 (1952); Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro (1933); Malcolm X,
The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1964). Currently reading John G. Jackson's Introduction to African Civilization,
1970; Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient .America. 1976, T. Owens
Moore, Ph.D., The Science ofMelanin: Dispelling the Myths. 1995; R. A. Schwaller deLubicz. Sacred Science. 1961,
John G. Jackson, Introduction to African Civilizations. 1970.

The Honorable Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

August 8, 2015
Page 12
o f extraordinary relief pursuant to Rule20.3 to prevent harmful delay, and drat tlie petition be denied to
prevent fiirther harmful delay.-^"^
Respectfully submitted,

Marcus Isaiah Washington,

Pro Se Petitioner
cc:

Michael P, Zweig (via U.S. postal and e-maU)

Christian Carbone (via e-mail)
Michael D . Beck, Chainnan & Paitner o f Loeb & Loeb LLP (via e-mail)
John T. Frankenheimer, Chairman Emeritus o f Loeb & Loeb LLP (via e-mail)
In addition to resubimtting two copies o f the Motion to Disquahfy Loeb & Loeb L L P that was
returned to me, 1 have also filed an ongmal and ten (10) copies o f this letter. In addition to Justice
Ginsburg, each Justice on the Supreme Court o f the United States should be given a copy o f this
letter.

In addition to an original and ten copies of this letter, I have also enclosed the original and copy of the Motion to
Disqualify that Scott S. Harris and Erik Fossum returned to me in the Supreme Court's attempt to obstruct justice and
violate my constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.

Exhibit A

No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of tbe ?Hniteb States;

OCTOBER T E R M , 2015

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,

Petitioner,
V.
W I L L I A M M O R R I S E N D E A V O R E N T E R T A I N M E N T L L C (formeriy the W I L L I A M
M O R R I S A G E N C Y ) , J E F F M E A D E and S A R A H W I N I A R S K l ,
Respondents.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I - pro se litigant Marcus Isaiah Washington - certify pursuant to Rule 29 of this Court,
that on July 19, 2015, 1 served the ^vithin M O T I O N T O D I S B A R M I C H A E L P. Z W E I G ,
CHRISTIAN CARBONE, MICHAEL BARNETT & OTHERS AND IMPOSE E X T R E M E
DISCIPLINARY AND MONETARY SANCTIONS AGAINST LOEB & L O E B L L P FOR
E N G A G I N G IN AN I N T E N T I O N A L " P A T T E R N " O F " F R A U D UPON T H E C O U R T " A N D
B A D F A I T H L I T I G A T I O N and M O T I O N F O R L E A V E T O P R O C E E D IN F O R M A P A U P E R I S
&. A P P L I C A T I O N T O J U S T I C E S O N I A S O T O M A Y O R F O R A N E X T E N S I O N O F T I M E T O
F I L E A P E T I T I O N F O R A W R I T O F C E R T I O R A R I on counsel for respondent - Michael P.
Zweig of Loeb & Loeb L L P , 345 Park Avenue, 18"^ Floor, New York, New York, 10154 - through
the United States Postal Service by first-class mail.

Mr. Washington Isaiah Washington

Pro Se Litigant, Non-Attorney
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6 M
Brooklyn, New York 11206
(646) 504-6497
muxnanrights.areamust(^gmail.com

Exhibit B

WiJJje E. Gary, Esquire

William C . Campbell, Esquire
Maria P. Sperando, Esquire
GARY, WILLIAMS, PARENTI, FINNEY,
LEWIS, WATSON & SPERANDO
221 E . Osceola Street
Stuan, F L 34994
Tel; (772)283-8260
Fax: (772)221-2177
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Rowe Entertainment,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F NEW Y O R K

R O W E E N T E R T A I N M E N T , I N C . et al.,

NO. 9 8 - C V - 8 2 7 2 ( R P P )

Plaintiffs,

vs.

T H E W I L U A M MORRIS A G E N C Y , INC.
ET AL.,
Defendants

EXHIBITS TO
P L A I N T I F F S ' MEMORANDUM O F L A W
IN OPPOSITION T O B O O K I N G A G E N C Y D E F E N D A N T S '
M O T I O N F O R SUMMARY J U D G M E N T

VOLUME II

DGOLDFARB
DGROVER
DGROVER
DGROVER
DGROVER
DRA81EH
DTENZER
DTENZER
DTENZER
DTENZER
DTENZER
DWATTS

DWATTS
DWATTS
DWATTS

DWATTS
DWATTS
B3ERSON
EGFRSON
EGERSON
EGERSON

EGERSON
EGERSON
ELEVY

RFW
FSALINAS

FSALINAS

FSAUNAS
FWHITEHEAD

FAMHITEHEAD
FWHITEHEAD

GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GGURROLA
GMEREOrm
GMEREDrm
GMEREDFTH
GMEREDITFJ
GPUUS
GPUUS

OROTH

GROTH
GROTH
GWATERS
GWATERS
HELPDESKTEMP
HELPDESKTEMP
HELPDESKTEMP
IPINCUS
IPINCUS
IPINCUS

Spade
cctored
monkey
spade
spook
monkey
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
spade
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
spade
spook
cotonsd
monkey
negro
nigger
spook
uncle torn
colored
spade
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
negro
nigger
colored
monkey
negro
spook
colored
spade
cotored
monkey
spade
colored
monkey
cok)red
monkey
spade
colorsd
monkey
negro

Exhibit C

S U P R E M E COURT, A P P E L L A T E D I V I S I O N
FIRST JUDICLVL DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
61 BROADWAY, 2" F L O O R
N E W YORK, NEW YORK 10006
(212) 4 0 1 - 0 8 0 0

Jorge Oopico
Chief Counsel
D A T E : November 13, 2014
Complainant(s):
Washington

M r . ( ^ ^ s . ( ) Mrs.( )

Last
Address:

Marcus

1
Initial

First

54 Boerura S l w l

Apt. No.

aty
Telephone:

Home: (

646

) 504-6497

New Yoik

11206

State

Zip Code

Business: ^

Attorney Complained of:

Mr.C5^M8.( ) Mrs.( )

Carbone

Last
Address:

Telephone:

christian
First

D,

Initial

345 Park Avenue

Home; (_

Apt. No._

New York

New York

10154

City

State

Zip Code

__L_

Business: (

212

) 407-4852

Complaints to other agencies:

Have you filed a complaint concerning this matter with another Bar AssociatioD, District Attorney's Office or any
other agency:
If so, name of agency:

No,

Action taken by agency:

Court action agaipst attorney complained of:

Have you brought a civi] or criminal action against this attorney? No
If so, name of court: N/A,

1.
a.

3.

Index No.

Please send AN O R I G I N A L AND ONE COPY of your complaint with enclosures. Please do not send original
documents in your enclosures because we will not return them,
Y o u may copy the enclosed form as many times as you wish, or you may find it online. Our website is:
www.nycourts.gov. Go to the search bar and enter "disciplinary committee." Click on the link which says,
"Departmental Disciplinary Committee."
Y o u may also state your allegations in a letter. We request separate complaint forms/letters for each
attorney in question.

PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY OR T \ T E IN ENGLISH

Start from the beginning and be sure to tell us why you went to the attorney, when you had contact with the
attorney, what happened each time you contacted the attorney, and what it was that the attorney did wrong. Please
attach copies of all papers that you received from the attorney, if any, including a copy of ANY RETAINER
AGREEMENT that you may have signed. DO NOT FORGET TO SEND AN ORIGINAL AND ONE COPY OF THIS
COMPLAINT.
See Exhibit A. Pursuant to Hie New York Rules of PiotessionaJ conducl. Loeb & Loeb LLP altorney Christian Carbone has violated various Rules,
mcludjng.but not limited to RulesL 1(c)(2). 1 2(d) and jf). 3.1(a) and (b), 3.3(b) and (f). 3.5(a). 41. as well as 5.2 (d)(r). (d)(2)(!) and (d)(2)(ii)
In violation of Rule 8.3, Christian Carbone and oti\cr attorneys at Loeb & l ^ b LW (eg. Michael P Zweig aiid Michael Banictl) have
(a) vioiatetdl or attempl[ed| to violate ihe Rules of Prpfe&sipnai Conducl. knowiiigly assLSijedj or induce[ed| another to do so. or d{id| so
thi-Qugh the acts of another; (b) "en^aj^eledl m illegal conduct that adversely reflects on ihe la\>.'yer's honesty, Imstworthine^ or fitne^ as a
lawyer'; (c) "engageldj in conduct involving dJshonest>'. fraud, deceit or misrepresentation'; (d) 'engageidj in conducl thai is prejudicial to the
administration of justice"; (ej "impl|iedl an ability to (1) "influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body or
public official; or (2) lo achieve results using means that violate these Rules or other law.'
Pursuant to Rule S.3(a). Chrislian Carbone has conunilled numerous violaiioTis under the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises
a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty hiistwoilliine^ or fitness as a lawyer * .Mthougii 1 am not an attorney. I am a citizen of ttic
it ii in the public's interest that such infonnation be disclosed "lo a tribun:ii or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such
VLolationlsl"
Did Christian Carbone have an ethical obligalion to disclose to the opposing paity or tire federal court, al any hme during the htigation,
that he was married to an executive that was employed b>' the .\jnerican Arbitration As-sociation when he sought to have ihe federal judge
compel my case under the jurisdiction of the AAA? if you were arbitrating a case, would you want Uiis information to be disclosed to you,
especially if il is later discovered thai die arbitrator and aHomey's wife worked closely logelhcr? if not. would Carbone's actions be considered
unethical if he were African American? If the Departmental Discipluiary Coramitlcc denies my complaint without compelling Carbone to
respond or disclose information about his relationship to AAA executive Sasha Angelique Carbone, then I ask that the DDC issue an
expedited decision, explaining why Carbone and \jx.b & Loeb LLTs actions arc in compliance with ttie New York Rules of Professional
Conduct and ejqslxiin why an attorney does not have an elhical obligation to disclose information re. nianta! status (o employees of an
allegedly "neutral" tribunal

UNSIGNED COMPLAINTS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED.

Exhibit D

8/7/2015

Search - Supreme Court of the United States

^ COURT
U N I T E D

STATES

visiting the C o u r t j T o u r i n g the Building | E x h i b i t i o n s

Search:

* All D o c u m e n t s

^JDocket

Search l

Enter S e a r c h Text:;

Home I Search

A<jv9nced Search
Help

Results

No. 15A126
Title:

Marcus Isaiah Washington, Applicant

V.
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, L L C , et al.

DocketecJ:

July 29, 2015

Lower Ct:

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

C a s e Nos.:

Date
Jul 20 2015

(14-4328)

~--Proceedings

and Orders

Application (15A126) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July
29, 2015 to September 27, 2015, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

Jul 24 2015

Response to application from respondent William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, L L C ,

et al. filed.

Jul 29 2015

Application (15A126) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until
September 28, 2015.

file;///C:/Users/!Vlarcus/Documents/WASHINGTON%20v.%20WMe/UNlTED%20STATES%20SUPREWE%20COURT/Supreftie%20C^^

Exhibit B

S U P R E M E C O U R T OF T H E UNITED S T A T E S
OFFICE OF THE C L E R K
WASHINGTON, D C 20543-0001
August 17, 2015

Marcus Washington
54 Boerum Street
Apt 6 M
Brooklyn, N Y 11206
R E : Marcus Washington v. WiUiam Morris Endeavor Entertainment L L C . et al.
Dear Mr. Washington:
I am in receipt of your Motion to Disbar Michael P. Zweig, et al.. The practice of this
Court is to rely on the state investigative authorities with respect to alleged attorney
misconduct. Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court will take action
when a member of the Bar of this Court has been disbarred or suspended from practice
or when a finding that the member has engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the
Bar has been made. Y o u might consider contacting the state bar of the state in which the
individual is licensed to see what their complaint procedure is.

Sincerely,
Scott

Enclosures

Harris

Exhibit C

Marcus Luther X
From:
Sent:

To:

Subject:

Marcus Luther X <humanrights.areamust@gmaiLcom>

Monday, August 24, 2015 2:24 PM
'Cynthia Rapp'; jatkins@supremecourt.gov
FW: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et ai. | Cynthia Rapp and
Other Officers Of the Court Are Obstructing Justice

Cynthra,
I am foUowing up with you regarding my .August 19, 2015 email in which 1 asked you to return my the original and 10 copies of the
.Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that 1 submitted to the Supreme Court on .luly IS, 2015 since diere is no indication that thi=;
pleading was submitted to the Supreme Court. I do not appreciate you ignoring my e-mail when I have contirmation that the e-mail
was read. And given thai T submitted a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on July 18, 20 i 5,1 do not appreciate you wasting my
money given that I have demonstrated to the Court via a notarized Affidavit that I am living below the poverty level and do not have
the funds to umiecessarily ship large amounts of documents to anyone.
Al-so, f would encourage you to read Analysis; Federal Law of Attorney Coriduct. "Structure of Federal Rules Governing .Attoriiey
Conduct in Supreme CourL" Moore's Federal Practice - Civil. 2015 [littps;;yiingaiione.ssentia]s.lexisnexi,i.conT;\vebcd.'app?aciion=Docum&ntDisplaY&crawlid=l&doctvpe="cii
804+Moore%27s+Federa1+PractJcc+-+C3vi1+804.svn&srctv-pe=smi&srcid=2929
This
text tintlicr supports that the actions of the various clerks of the court, including yourself, constitute an obstruction of justice when you
prevented my .luly 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP from being resolved by the Justices on the Supreme Court.
Marcus Washisigton

CONFrDENTIAt.rrY N O T I C E : This e-mail li aiismi.'ision. and any documents, files orprevioiis e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidentiai information thai is legally
privileged. I f you arc not the ititcndcd recipient, or a person ic.sponsibic for delivering it to tJie inrcrided recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, discio.sure, copying,
difsiribution or use of any of the uiformalion contained in or attached to thi.s transmission is STKICT1.V PROBTB [TED. I f yon have received this transmi.ssii>n in error, please
imnjediately notity ihe sender. Please destroy the ongmai transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

Marcus Luther X [mailto:humanrights.areamust@gmail.com]

Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:52 A M
To: jatkins@supremecourt.gov
Subject: FW: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. | Cynthia Rapp and Other Officers Of the
Court Are Obstructing Justice
From:

Sent:

From: Marcus Luther X [nMlLt^i^lSinMuii^^

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 7:44 PM
To: 'Cynthia .Rapp' <13ia2i>fiiSUre^^
Subject: FW: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. j Cynthia Rapp and Other Officers Of the Court Are
ObsUaicring Justice
Cynthia:
Please return the original and all ten copies of my Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis that I submitted on July 18, 2015 by the end
of the busines,s day so I can file it with my petition for a writ of ceniorari.
Please notify me via e-mail after the Court mails these documents back to me.
Marcus Washington

C O N T I D E K T I A L I T Y N O T f C t : Tiiis c-niail Iransmission, and any documents, tiles or previous c-inail inessages attached to i t m a y contain coniidential infonnation that is legally
privileged. .If you arc ttot tJie intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering i i t o the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that atty review, disclosure, copyiitg,
distribution or use o f any o f the itifortnation contained in or attached to this ti'airsinis.sion is S T R I C T L Y .PROHIBITED, t f you have received this transtnission in error, plcai4c
immediately notify die sender. Please destroy die original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

From: Marcus Luther X [maii!o:hujanrtghts.areamust(5:igiiiaii.com]

Sent: WecinestJay, August 19, 2015 4;55 PM
To: iolmroberts@supre-TTiecourt.!JQv; jsotomayor@,supremecourt.gov; jbreyeria;supremecourt.gov; salito@sqpremecourt.gov;
jkagan@supreniecourt.gov: 1ihonias@supremecourt.gov: jkcnnedyt^styremecourt.gov; rguisburg@snpremecourt.gov
Cc: 'Cynthia Rapp' <CRapp(Ssupremecomt.gov>; "Michael Zweig' <inzweig@loeb.cQm>; mbeck@loeb.com;
jt'rankenheimer@loe-b.com; 'Christian Carbone' <ccarhone@loeb.com>; efossum@supremecourt.gov
Subject: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment ct al. | Cynthia Rapp and Other Officers Of the Court Are
Obstructing Justice
To the Various Justices of the Supreme Court:
As stated below, 1 submitted two pleadings to the Supreme Court on July 18, 2015: i . Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP and 2.
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Application for An Extension of Time. My Motion to Disquality Loeb & Loeb LLP was
returned to me by the Clerk of Court and on August 8, 201 5, 1 resubmitted the Motion to Disqualify that was reUirned to me and
submitted a letter addressed to Justice Ginsburg regarding my Motion to Disqualify and her decision granting me an extension of time
to tile the petition for a writ of ceniorari after a showing of "good cause."
The reason 1 requested an extension, is due to the fact that the Departmental Disciplinary Committee ("DDC") refused to conduct an
investigation into the two complaints submitted regarding the highly unethical and criminal conduct engaged in by Loeb & Loeb LLP
and its attorneys and tlie lower couiTs refusal to acknowledge and take my claims of "fraud upon the Couit" seriously, while
simultaneously concluding that all of my claims are "fiivolous," that 1 am engaging in "bad faith" and issuing a protective order
against me that prevents me fiom taking legal action against Loeb & Loeb LLP and other officers of the court. As a result of these
grave procedural errors, I was left with no choice than to file a Motion to Disquality with the Supreme Court before submitting a writ
for a petition of certiorari.
As detailed in my pleadings, I have been unemployed for the last five years and in tire last couple months, my parents have no longer
been able to support me financially, t have spent more than S250.00 on printing and submitting these pleadings to the Supreme Court
and they must be acknowledged and resolved pursuant to Rules 8 and 21. Additionally, this Motion should be accepted under the
"inherent powers" of the Supreme Court Due to the fraud that Loeb & Loeb LLP and Michael P. Zweig engaged in in Rowe
Entertainment v. William Monis Endeavor Entertainment ct al.. this law firm should not be involved in this case and since the lower
courts have refused to explicitly resolve this issue, the Supreme Court must acknowledge and resolve my Motion to Disqualify since
the Court's "inherent powers" are governed by the "control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve
the orderiy and expeditious disposition of cases." See Chambers v. NASCO, 111 S. Ct. 2123, 21 32 (1991) {quoting Link v. Wabash
R.R.. 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962)).
As of today, the only document listed on the docket for my case is the Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, although this
application was submitted as part of my 40 page Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Since I don't have the money to re-mail my
Modon to Disqualify for a third time, all pleadings submitted to the Supreme Court can be read here:
https://www.scribd.coin/Mr%20Alkcbu-lan.
The actions of Cynthia Rapp, Erik Fossum, Scott S. Harris and others who have prevented these pleadings from being received and
decided by the various Justices on the Supreme Court constitute an obstruction of justice. Cynthia nor any non-Justice has die
authority to decide whether or not an attorney is engaging in "conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar" and since the state and lower
courts refused to acknowledge my complaints, this decision must be resolved by the Supreme Court. Even if the pleadings could not
be submitted, the docket should still reflect that I submitted these pleadings. .As a result of Rapp, Fossum, Hanis and others grave
procedural errors, I am left with no choice than to ask that each individual be relieved of their duties since they are unable to
impartially perform their duties.
I f the Justices refuse to acknowledge my Motion to Disqualify pursuant to Rule 8 and 2 I , I w l l be left with no choice than to take
legal action against the various officers of the Court who have conspired to interfere and deprive me of my constitutional and statutoiy
rights under since there is no possible way the Supreme Court will take my petition for a writ of certiorari seriously given that the
2

arguments raised in my Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Motion to Disqualify are the same argiuncnts that have been raised
in the lower courts.
Best,
Marcus I. Washington
212-365-8287

CONTIDENTLALJTY N O T I C t : : Th.ts e-mail transmission, and any tlocuine&ts, iiles or previous e-mail messages altaeiied to it may coirtain eonlidcnliai information that is legally
privileged. U'yaa arc not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to tile intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use o f any o f d.te inibtmation contained in or attached to iiiis transimssion is S T R I C I X Y PROHTBTTED. I f you have received ibis n-.ansmission in etror, please
immediately notifS' the sender. Please destroy the original transniission and its aitaclunents without reading or saving in any niiumei. 'I'hank you.

From: Marcus Luther X [maiitoihumaimghts.areamustfSgmaiLcoiTij

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:24 A M
To: Johnroberts(a.;supremecomt.gov; isotomayor@supremecourt.gQv: jb:reve-r@supremecouj-t.gov; salito@sqpremecourt.gov;
jkaganfaisupremecourt.gov; jiligmaSiS^sip^^^
ikennedv@.supremecourt.gov; rginsburg@supremecourt.gov;
seniyiKljemi^^^^
Subject: FW: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. [15A126]
From: Marcus Luther X finaiMoJiumanrights.areamustCgigmat1.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 5:07 PM
To: cirapp@,supremecourt.gov: 'Michael Zweig' <m2weig@]oeb.com>; 'Christian Carbone' <ccarbonc@Ioeb.com>;
mbeck@locb.com; ifrankenhcimer@locb.com: 'Timothy Cummins' <tcurTimins@,locb.com>; jbiec@loeb.com
Subject: Re: Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. [15A126]
Madam,
Did you return my Motion to Disqualify for the second time? t have thoroughly read the Rules, so if what you are saying is true, why
isn't the information provided in your response Usted anywhere in the Rules?
Rule 21.1 states that "every motion to the Court shall clearly state its purpose and the facts on which it is based and may present legal
argument in support thereof" This Rule has nothing to do with petitions for a writ of certiorari and under diis Rule, diere is absolutely
no indication of what types of Motions can and cannot be filed, thus, it can be assumed that the various types of Modons typically
filed in the lower couils can also be filed with the Supreme Court. Pursuant to Rule 21.2(a), my Motion to Disquahfy should have
been accepted since "the granting of [this motion] would dkspose of die entire case [and] would affect the final judgment to be
entered."
Although this type of pleading is not typically filed with die Supreme Court, dial doesn't mean it cannot be submitted. This is a unique
case procediually and substantively and since the lower cotuts have conspired to deprive me of my constitutional and statutoiy rights
under the color of law and refused to acknowledge or resolve ray claims of "fraud upon the Court," while mimicking the false
statements of Loeb & Loeb LLP and eiToneously concluding that I have raised "frivolous" arguments and engaged in considerable
"bad faith," the Supreme Court can use its "inherent powers" to resolve this Motion since I am being prejudiced by false statements
that were first initiated by Loeb & Loeb LLP when it cannot be disputed that Loeb & Loeb LLP should have zero involvement in this
case due to the considerable fraud that they engaged in in Rowe. as well as my case. Since the Southern District of New York and
Second Circuit make no mention of these claims and concluded that all of my arguments were "fiivolous," the Supreme Court must
resolve this Motion - even if the "state" did not issue a "written notification" seeking Loeb & Loeb LLP's disqualification. [My last
complaint filed with the DDC against Clirisrian Carbone was ignored although this attorney failed to disclose that he was married to
an executive for the AAA - the "neutral" forum that allowed a fraudulently appouited arbitrator that worked with Christian's wife to
ultimately dismiss my case with prejudice after objecting to his jurisdiction.] Also, if the lower courts would have acknowledged a
party's claims of "fraud upon die Court" or Motion to Disqualify after upholding the law, there would be no need to fde a Rule 8
Motion since they would already be disqualified...
Lastly, after my Motion to Disqualify was returned, I spoke with Erik Fossmn via phone and he told me that I could resubmit the
pleading after 1 told him that I was going to address this issue with Justice Ginsburg. Since you yourself are not a Justice, I ask that my
August 8, 2015 letter and the Motion to .Disqualify be submitted to the Justices that have an "inlierent power" to decide this matter.
They, not you, should resolve this matter.
3

Again, I would like to know when my docket will be updated and correctly reflect the actual pleadings that were submitted on July 18,
2015 and August 8, 2015?
Best,
Marcus Washington

C O N l - I D l i j r . n A t J T Y NOTIC!?: This e-mail M-aiismission, and any documents, tiles or previous e-mail messages aitaeheti to it may contain confidential intbrmation that is legally
privileged. I f you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible tor deiiveritig it to die intended recipient, yott are hereby notilied that any review, discicvsure. ccspying,
distribuiitm or use o f any of the information contained in or attaclied to diis u-ansmissioo is S T R I C T L Y P R ( f f l l B I T D . i f you have received this trarismis.sion in error, please
iniraediacely notify the sender. Pleirse destroy tiie original tr:tnSinission and its attachments wittiout reading or saving io any manner Tliank you.

Cynthia Rapp [mailto:CRapp(5)supremecourt.gov]

Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:37 PM
To: 'Marcus Luther X' <hur'nanrights,arearnustpgrriail.com>
Subject: RE; Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. [15A126]
From:

Sent:

Sir,
Your motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb and or to disbar them was given to me within the last few days and was returned
to you as this Court does not entertain motions to disbar attorneys based on individual requests, we act only upon
written notification from a state that an attorney has been disciplined.

Cynthia

Rapp
Deputy Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States

202 479 3031

F r o m : Marcus Luther X [mailtothumanrights.areamusttgqmaJi.cQm]

S e n t : Tuesday, August 18, 2015 3:10 PM
To: Cynthia Rapp; 'Michael Zweig'; 'Christian Carbone'; jfrankenheimerig)!oeb.com; mbeck@loeb.com; 'Timothy Cummins'
S u b j e c t : Washington v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment et al. [15A126]
Hello Cynthia:
I just got off the phone with "Case Analysf Erik Fossum and after speaking widi him & other staff for more than a week in an attempt
to "locate" my August 8, 2015 submission, he has now infomied me that you are the person who is responsible for updating the docket
for the above referenced case.
As of today, the docket sheet for diis case is still incomplete and does not reflect the submissions diat I submitted to the Supreme
Court. On July 18, 2015,1 submitted two 40 page Motions: 1. Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP and 2. Motion to Proceed In
Fonna Pauperis & Application for An Extension of Time. The problem is, my docket only shows that I submitted an Apphcation for
An Extension of Time and that is not n'ue.
Due to the "fraud upon the Court" engaged in by Loeb & Loeb LLP in .Rowe Entertainnieni v. William Morris Agencv et al.. Loeb &
Loeb LLP should have absolutely zero involvement in this case and all decisions of William Morris should be vitiated. For nearly five
years, Loeb & Loeb LLP has denied any and all wrongdoing on behalf of their client, while making numerous misrepresentations and
deceptive statements to the Court in this case to obtain favorable verdicts. The district and the appellate court have refused to
4

acknowledge my claims of "fraud upon the Court" despite the pyramid of unrefuted evidence that has been submitted. After the
Supreme Court received my Motion to Disqualify, Loeb & Loeb LLP should have been suspended and given 40 days to respond to my
Motion to Disqualify before being disqualified/disbaired pursuant to Rule 8. The deadline for their response is August 24, 2015, but as
of today, the Supreme Court and/or Justice Ginsburg has not acknowledged this Motion or confirmed the deadline in which Loeb &
Loeb LLP is to respond. The entire purpose for requesting the extension, was so diat my Modon to Disqualify would be resolved since
the federal judge P. Kevin Castel and the Second Circuit refused to do so.
On July 29, 201 5, Justice Ginsburg concluded that I demonstrated "good cause" for an extension to submit my petition for a writ of
cerdorari, but made no mention of my Motion to Disqualify. As discussed in my August 8, 2015 letter, Justice Ginsburg's decision
clearly demonstrates that my appeal did not "lack an arguable basis either in law or in fact" and supports that my claims have never
been "frivolous" since none of my legal arguments have changed. I f that were Une, she would have never granted dre extension since
less than 1 percent of petitions filed each year are submitted and extensions are rarely granted.
Since the collecUve actions of the Supreme Court's staff could be considered an obstiTiction of justice, I would like to know when my
docket will be updated and correctly reflect the actual pleadkigs that were submitted on July 18, 2015 and August 8, 2015? I also
would like to know when the Justices are going to resolve my Motion to Disqualify, because if not, diere is absolutely no need for me
to submit a petition for a writ of certiorari.
I can be reached at 646-504-6497 or via e-mail.
Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Best,
Marcus Washington

Exhibit D

Page 9

LexisNexis

FOCUS - 5 of 7 DOCUMENTS
Moore's Federal Practice - Civil
Copyright 2015, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., a member of the LexisNexis Group.
Volume 30 Analysis: Federal Law of Attorney Conduct (Chs. 800-899)
Chapter 804 Stractiue of Federal Rules Governing Attorney Conduct in Supreme Com! *
30-804 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 804.04
804.04 Supreme Court, on Rare Occasions, Directly Disbars Attorneys Using "Conduct Unbecoming"
Standard of Rule 8

The Supreme Court has never directly construed the "conduct unbecoming" language oi. Supreme Court Rule 8, but the
"conduct unbecoming" language of Rule 8 is very similar to the language used in Fed. R. App. P. 46. Rule 46(b) states:
Rule 46(b), (c). Attorneys.

(b) Suspension or Disbarment.

(1) Standard. A member of the coui t's bar is subject to suspension or disbarment by the court i f die member:

(A) has been suspended or disbarred from practice in any other court; or

(B) is guilty of conduct uribecoining a member of die court's bar.

(2) Procedui-e. The member must be given an oppoifunity to show good cause, within the time prescribed by the
court, why the member should not be suspended or disbarred.

(3) Order. The court must enter an appropriate order after the member responds and a hearing is held, if requested, or

Page 10
30-804 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 804.04

after the time prescribed for a response expires, if no response is made.

(c) Discipline. A court of appeals may disciphne an attorney who practices before it for conduct unbecoming a
member of the bar or for failure to comply with any court rule. First, however, the court must afford the attomey
reasonable notice, an opportunity to show cause to Uie conUary, and, if requested, a heaiing.

Legislative Histoiy

[Adopted Dec. 4, 1967, effecdve .luly 1, 1968; amended Mar. 10, 1986, effecnve July 1, 1986; Apr. 24, 1998,
effective Dec. 1, 1998.]
The Supreme Court reviewed Appellate Rule 46 in In re Snyder and upheld the constitutionality of the Fed. R. App. P.
46 "conduct unbecoming" standard, finding that it was not too vague when read ui light of "case law, applicable court
rules, and 'the lore of the profession' as embodied in the codes of professional conduct" {see generally 803.03
-803.06) nl
There are very few discipline cases that have actually been initiated solely for conduct before the Supreme Court itself,
rather than for conduct relating to lower courts. Two cases from the mid-l930's may have been initiated solely in the
Supreme Court. These petitions resulted in disbarment for "conduct unbecoming a member of the bar," but it is not clear
to which "bar" the Coiut is referring. The necessary information to discover the acuons for which these attorneys were
disbaned remain buried in the National Archives, and is almost impossible to find because these cases were not given
docket numbers or United States Reporter cites. n2 It is possible diat there are more cases in which the Court used the
"conduct unbecoming" staiidai'd at the Supreme Couit level, but, before 1972, diese cases were not assigned docket
numbers unless there was a constitutional issue involved. The records only contain brief Court memos ordering
attorneys "to show cause." The facts of each case ate skeletally outlined, if they are mentioned at all. The Supreme
Court show cause and disbarment orders can be found at the back of the United States Reports in the "Miscellaneous
Orders" section. Prior to 1 972, some orders are available, but the records are not comprehensive or complete. The files
on most disbannent proceedings, including the responses to the show cause orders and any other materials tiled, have
been transferred to the National Archives. n3
In at least three cases, the Supreme Court acted solely because of conduct before the Supreme Court itself In In re
Gilbert, an attorney refused to return fees, despite a Supreme Court order requiring him to do so. He was suspended for
six months solely from the bar of the Supreme Court, and ordered to pay costs. n4 Chief Justice Taft, writing for the
Court, observed, "[M]ere restimtion [of the fees] is not enough, considering respondent's departure from duty. We must
give our actions a punitive quality to mark the high obligation of die members of the bai; to respect decisions of the
Court." n5 Another attomey was disbarred by the Supreme Court for failing to respond to five letters sent by the Court
clerk regarding deposits for payments costs in a prior case. n6 In a third case, the Supreme Couit disciplined an attorney
when he failed to respond to communications from the Court clerk regarding a penduig case. n7 It should be
emphasized that these veiy few cases of attorneys disbarred by the Supreme Court direcdy under the "conduct
unbecoming" standard all involved behavior that would be considered unprofessional by practically every attorney, such
as ignoring court orders or official inquiries. nS
Legal Topics:
For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics:
Legal EthicsProfessional ConductGeneral OverviewLegal EthicsSanctionsGeneral Ovei'viewLegal
EthicsSanctionsDisbamientsLegal EthicsSanctionsDiscipUnary ProceedingsGeueral OverviewLegal

Page 11
30-804 Moore's Federal Practice - Civil 804.04

EthicsSanctionsSuspensions
FOOTNOTES:
(nl)Footnote I . Court upheld constitutionality iFed. R. App. P. 46's "conduct unbecoming" standard.
Snyder, 472 U.S. 634, 643-645, 105 S. Ct. 2874, 86 L . Ed 2d 504 (1985) .

In re

(n2)Footnotc 2. Mid-I930's cases initiated by Court, resulting in disbarment for "conduct unbecoming a
member of the bar." See In re HaU, 56 S Ct. 303. 80 L . Ed. 1413 (1935) ; In re Baker. 297 U.S 691. 56 S Ct. 384.
80 L . Ed. 985 (1935) ; .?ee a/,so K. Tucker, Disbarment and the Supreme Court of the United States, 37 Fed. B.J. 37,
45-6 (1978).
(n3)Footnote 3. See Robert L. Stern, Eugene Gressnian, Supreme Court Practice 748 (7th ed., Bureau of National
Affairs 1999).
(n4)Footnote 4. Attorney suspended for six months from bar of Supreme Court for refusing to return tees
despite Court's order requiring him to do so. In re Gilbert, 276 U.S. 294, 295-299, 48 S. Ct. 309, 72 L . Ed. 580 ;
276 U.S 294, 48 S. Ct. 309, 72 L . Ed. 580 (1928) .
(n5)Footnote 5. 276 U.S. at 298 ; for context, see
101, 105-106, 42 S Ct. 438, 66 L . Ed 844 (1922) .

Newton v. Consolidated Gas Company of New York, 259 U.S.

(n6)Footnote 6. .Attorney disbarred for faihng to respond to five letters sent by Court clerk regarding
deposits for payments costs in prior case. See In re Kagey, 58 S. Ct. 742, 82 L . Ed. 1559 (1938) .
(n7)Footnote 7. Attorney disciplined when he failed to respond to communications regarding pending case.
In re Davis, 289 U.S. 704, 53 S Ct. 658, 77 L . Ed. 1461 (1933) .
(n8)Footnote 8. K. Tucker, Disbarment and the Supreme Court of the United States, 37 Fed. B.J. 37. 43-44
(1978).
* We are particularly grateful to Shelagh C. Newton, '00 Boston College Law School and Jessica Ting-Shaun Lu, '12
Boston College Law School for their invaluable assistance with this chapter.

Exhibit E

9/9/2015

Alton Maddox at Hearing on Lawyer Accountability Calls Secret Lawyer Discipline a Violation of the 14th Amendment | Welcome to Our Time Press

O U R T I M E PRESS
I H E UxAh FAFEK w n i i jnt. GIOBAX. VDSW

Alton Maddox at Hearing on Lawyer Accountability Calls Secret Lawyer

Discipline a Violation of the 14th Amendment
Mary Alice Miller

August 13, 2015 13;00

http;//ourtimepress.com/?p= 16886

Related Articles
FREEDOM PARTY
IGNITES MOVEMENT

02.Jul

Local bicycle shops

embrace city's rent-abike program 0

ilMay

. A GEM GLOWS IN
BROOKLYN: RUBY
DEE HONORED e 0
30.Jun

Attorney Alton Maddox, seen here second from

ie:.j in August 1997 in Poughkeepsie, NY, has
always been on the frontiines for his people. This
past Tuesday he testified at a public hearing on
statewide judicial management where he spoke
on apartheid justice. "I am not here as an
individual grievant, I am speaking for the Black
community."
By Mary Alice Miller
Alton Maddox testified at the New York City public hearing of the Commission on
Statewide Attomey Discipline held at the New York County Lawyers Association. "I
am not here as an individual grievant," said Maddox. '1 am speaking for the Black
community." The hearing was the third held by the commission tasked with engaging
in a comprehensive review of the state's disciplinary system. Two other hearings took
place in Albany and Buffalo. The commission sought primary consideration of
whether New York's departmental system leads to regional disparities in the
implementation of discipline, whether a statewide system is more desirable when
disciplinary charges or finding should be revealed to the public and how to achieve
closure more quickly for the benefit of clients and lawyers. Those who testified at the
NYC hearing gave the commission much more than it asked for. Maddox called the
United African Movement a "consumer watchdog" with a rich history of involvement in
the criminal justice system. 'The consumer class of New York is disproportionately
persons of African ancestry. That also includes Black lawyers as well," said Maddox.
Calling "judicial gerrymandering" a problem, Maddox noted that people are being

http;//ourti m epress .com/?p= 16886

214

9/9/2015

Alton Maddox at Hearing on Lawyer Accountability Calls Secret Lawyer Discipline a Violation of the 14th Amendment | Welcome to Our Time Press

http://ourti m epr ess.com/?p= 16886

treated differently in the various departments. "The departments I am concerned

about are the First and Second," said Maddox. First Department has only two
counties: Manhattan and the Bronx. The Second Department has 11 counties
including all the other New York City counties and the sun'ounding suburbs. "Most
Blacks in New York live within the confines of New York City or its suburbs. We are
packed like sardines in a way that they can uniformly deliver injustice. Sean Bell was
killed in the Second Department. John White was convicted in the Second
Department. Eric Gamer was choked to death in the Second Department," said
Maddox, adding, 'This department has been gerrymandered so as to pack all Blacks
into the judicial district so that they can be discriminated against wholesale. This is
the policy in the Second Department. There is a pattem here. This is the reason why
so many people have come here complaining. They may not understand the
tenriinology that is applicable, but this situation is a historical problem." Maddox
reminded the commission members and attendees that the New York State Judicial
Commission on Minorities in 1991 said that New Yori< was infested with racism.
"Blacks must boycott New York courts now," said Maddox. "It makes no sense for
another Black defendant to go into a racist courtroom and expect justice. That makes
no sense at all." On the matter of secrecy, "I am the only lawyer in the history of New
York who demanded and obtained a full public hearing on disciplining law/yers," said
Maddox. When pressed by a member of the commission Maddox said, "I believe any
secrecy involving the discipline of lawyers is in violation of the 14th Amendment if
lavi/yers are treated differently than the average common thief. I find no reason why
there should be any secrecy, or veil of secrecy, around lawyers when it doesn't
happen anywhere else". Alluding to the 25-year suspension of his law license Maddox
said, "When these bogus charges were brought against me I said I am not going to do
anything. You can take this license". He added, "The only thing I will demand is that
the public should know. That is how you educate the public. I don't have anything to
hide on any issue. I am going to be treated like any other person. I don't want to have
the privilege of being a lawyer elevating me above common people. I will continue to
fight the injustices that are putting millions of Blacks and Latinos behind bars'.
Acknowledging the testimony of others Maddox said, "So many things that we have
talked about in the Black community seem to transcend the Black community. There
are people throughout this state who are adversely affected despite their background
or their color or class. Judicial gerrymandering and apartheid justice doesn't only
relate to Black people. It obviously relates to everybody". Others who testified gave
graphic examples. One attomey painted some lawyer discipline cases as an issue of
alcohoi/drug addictions or mental/psychological problems, and asked for
confidentiality in those instances. Another characterized escrow theft as a somewhat
regional issue. Pace University Law Professor Bennett Gershman called for a
statewide commission to investigate and discipline prosecutors, noting that during the
past year there were 14 exonerations from the Brooklyn D.A.'s Office. "Prosecutors
contributed to the convictions," said Gershman. "None were ever disciplined."
Metropolitan College Professor Caprice Alves testified about direct knowledge of
three different attorneys who had multiple disciplinary complaints lodged against them
and engaged in criminal activity even after the complaints. The disciplinary
committee found no substantiation of any of the complaints and provided no
explanation of the findings of no wrongdoing. Yet, the FBI found probable cause to
arrest the attorneys for the same behaviors lodged in the complaints. Each attorney
is now serving time in federal prison. Alves said, "Confidentiality laws don't allow
consumers to know that certain lawyers are capable of certain behaviors". Retired
314

9/9/2015

Alton Maddox at Hearing on Lawyer Accountability Calls Secret Lawyer Discipline a Violation of the 14th Amendment | Welcome to Our Time Press

attorney Janice Lintz spoke of a litany of homfic abuses and corruption among
matrimonial lawyers and judges, including her husband and his cohorts. Legal
consumer Ellen Oxman called New York "the most corrupt court system in the United
States". Oxman said it really doesn't matter how many rules are in place; "If the mles
are not followed, it won't solve the problem." Oxman noted that there is no oversight
of the attorney disciplinary committee. Director of the Center for Judicial
Accountability Elena Sassower said, "There has never been an independent audit of
complaints against lawyers". Making her point, Sassower said that in 1989 the NYS
Comptroller tried to audit the Commission on Judicial Conduct and its lawyer
disciplinary complaints and outcomes but the commission refused to cooperate with
the comptroller. "The ultimate goal has to be legislation. When they were talking about
prosecutors abusing their powers, the only way you can put that in check is to put
prosecutors in jail. In order to put people in jail you have to have legislation to do that.
Prosecutors and others need to know you can go to jail for this," said Maddox. "This
was a major victory just to force a public hearing. As a result of that public hearing,
there is now a public record. From this public record leads to public policy. And public
policy leads to legislation."
2014 Copyright Our Time
Designed by C.Cleveland

http://ourti m epres s. com /?p= 16886

Press.

All Rights reserved.

Exhibit F

L o c a l Civil R u l e 1.5.
(a)

Discipline of Attorneys

Committee o n Grievances.

The Chief Judge shall appoint a committee o f the Board

o f Judges k n o w n as the Committee on Grievances, which under the direction o f the Chief Judge
shall have charge o f all matters relating to the discipline o f attorneys.

Tlie Chief Judge shall

appoint a panel o f attorneys w h o are members o f the bar o f this Court to advise or assist the
Committee on Grievances.

A t the direction o f the Committee on Grievances or its chair, members

o f this panel o f attorneys may investigate complaints, may prepare and support statements o f
charges, or may sen^e as members o f hearing panels.
(b)

Grounds for Discipline or Other Relief

Discipline or other relief, o f the types set

forth in paragraph (c) below, may be imposed, by the Committee on Grievances, after notice and
opportunity to respond as set forth in paragraph (d) below, i f any o f die following gi'ounds is found
by clear and convincing evidence:
(1)

A n y member o f the bar o f this Court has been convicted o f a felony or

misdemeanor i n any federal court, or i n a court o f any state or territory,

(2)

Any member o f the bar o f this Court has been disciplined by any federal court

or by a court o f any state or territor}'.

(3)

A n y member o f the bar o f this Court has resigned from the bar o f any federal

court or o f a court o f any state or territor}' while an investigation into allegations o f

misconduct by the attorney was pending.
(4)

A n y member o f the bar o f this Court has an infirniit)^ which prevents

attorney from engaging in the practice o f law.

(5)

I n connection with activities i n this Court, any attorney is found to have

engaged i n conduct violative o f the N e w Y o r k State Rules o f Professional Conduct as

Page

- 6 -

the

adopted from time to dme by the Appellate Divisions o f the State o f N e w Y o r k .

In

interpreting the Code, i n the absence o f binding authority' from the United States Supreme
Court or the United States Court o f Appeals for the Second Circuit, this Court, i n the
interests o f comity and predictabilit}', will give due regard to decisions o f the N e w Y o r k
Court o f j\ppeals and odier N e w Y o r k State courts, absent significant federal interests.
(6)

A n y attorney not a member o f the bar o f this Court has appeared at the bar o f

this Court w i t h o u t permission to do so.

(c)

Types o f Discipline or Odier Relief.

(1)

I n the case o f an attorney admitted to the bar o f tliJs Court, discipline imposed

pursuant to paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), or (b)(5) above may consist o f a letter o f
reprimand or admonition, censure, suspension, or an order striking the name o f the attorney
from the roll o f attorneys admitted to the bar o f this Court.
(2)

I n die case o f an attorney not admitted to the bar o f diis Court, discipline

imposed pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) or (b)(6) above may consist o f a letter o f reprimand or
admonition, censure, or an order precluding the attorney from again appearing at die bar o f
this Court.
(3)

Relief required ptirstiant to paragraph (b)(4) above shall consist o f suspending

the attorney from practice before this Court.

(d)

Procedure.
(1)

I f it appears that diere exists a ground for discipline set f o r d i i n paragraph

(b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), notice thereof shall be sensed by the Committee o n Grievances upon
the attorney concerned by first class mail, directed to the address o f the attorney as shown
on the rolls o f this Court and to tiie last k n o w n address o f the attorney (if any) as shown in

Page

- 7 -

the complaint and any materials submitted therewith.

Servdce shall be deemed complete

upon maJJing i n accordance w i t h the pro\dsions o f this paragraph.

I n all cases in which any federal court or a court o f any state or territory has entered
an order disbarring or censuring an attorney or suspending the attorney from practice,
whether or not on consent, the notice shall be seiwed together w i d i an order by the Clerk o f
this Court, to become effective twenty-four days after the date o f serytice upon the attorney,
disbarring or censuring the attorney or suspending the attorney from practice i n this Court
upon tenns and conditions comparable to those set forth by the other court o f record.

In

all cases i n which an attorney has resigned from the bar o f any federal court or o f a court o f
any state or territory while an investigation into allegations o f misconduct by the attorney
was pending, even i f the attorney remains admitted to the bar o f any other court, the notice
shall be sensed together w i t h an order entered by the Clerk for this Court, to become
effective twent)--four days after the date o f seiA-ice u p o n the attorney, deeming the attorney
to have resigned from the bar o f this Court.

W i d i i n tu'ent}- days o f the date o f service o f

either order, the attorney may file a m o t i o n for modification or revocation o f die order.
A n y such m o t i o n shall set forth with specificity' the facts and principles relied upon by the
attorney as showing cause why a different disposition should be ordered by this Court.
The timely filing o f such a motion will stay the effectiveness o f the order until further order
by this Court.

I f good cause is shown to hold an evidentiary hearing, tiie Committee on

Grievances may direct such a hearing pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) below.

I f good cause is

not shown to hold an evidentiaiy hearing, die Committee o n Grievances may proceed to
impose discipline or to take such other action as justice and this rule may require.

I f an

evidentiary hearing is held, die Committee may direct such interim relief pending the hearing

Page

- 8 -

as justice may require.

I n all other cases, the notice shall be serx^ed together with an order by the Committee
on Grievances directing the attorney to show cause i n writing why disciphne should n o t be
imposed.

I f the attorney fails to respond i n writing to tbe order to show cause, or i f the

response fails to show good cause to hold an e\adentiar}' hearing, the Committee on
Grievances may proceed to impose discipline or to take such other action as justice and this
rule may require.

I f good cause is shown to hold an evidentiaiy hearing, the Committee o n

Grievances may direct such a heanng pursuant to paragraph (d)(4) below.

I f an e\adentiar)'

hearing is held, the Committee may direct such interim relief pending die hearing as justice
may require.
(2)

I n the case o f a ground for discipline set forth in paragraph (b)(2) or (b)(3)

above, discipline may be imposed unless die attorney concerned establishes by clear and
convincing evidence (i) that diere was such an infirmit}' o f p r o o f o f misconduct by the
attorney as to give rise to the clear conviction that this Court could not consistent w i t h its
duty accept as fmal the conclusion o f the odier court, or (ii) that the procedure resulting i n
the investigation o r discipline o f die attorney hy the other court was so lacking i n notice o r
opportunit)' to be beard as to constitute a deprivation o f due process, or (iii) that the
imposition o f discipline by this Court would result i n grave injustice.
(3)

Complaints i n writing alleging any ground for discipline or other relief set forth

i n paragraph (b) above shall be directed to the Chief Judge, w h o shall refer such complaints
to the Committee on Grievances.

The Committee o n Grievances, by its chair, may

designate an attorney, w h o may be selected from the panel o f attorneys established pursuant
to paragraph (a) above, to investigate the complaint, i f i t deems investigation necessary or
warranted, and to prepare a statement o f charges, i f the Committee deems diat necessar)' or
warranted.

Complaints, and any files based on them, shall be treated as confidential unless

Page

- 9 -

otherwise ordered by the Chief Judge for good cause shown.

(4)

A statement o f charges alleging a ground for discipline or other relief set forth

in paragraph (b)(4), (b)(5), or (b)(6) shall be serv^ed upon the attorney concerned by cerdded
mail, return receipt requested, directed to the address o f the attorney as shown on the rolls
o f this Court and to die last known address o f the attorney (if any) as shown in the
complaint and any materials submitted therewith, together w i t h an order by the Committee
on Grievances direcnng the attorney to show cause i n writing why discipline or other relief
should not be imposed.

U p o n the respondent attorne^f's answer to the charges the matter

w i l l be designated by the Committee o n Grievances for a p r o m p t evidentiar}? hearing before

a Magistrate Judge o f the Court or before a panel o f three attorneys, who may be selected
from the panel o f attorneys established pursuant to paragraph (a) above.

The Magistrate

Judge or panel o f attorneys conducting the hearing may grant such pre-hearing discover}' as
they determine to be necessary, shall hear winiesses called by the attorney supporting the
charges and by the respondent attorney, and may consider such odier evidence included i n
the record o f the hearing as they deem relevant and material.

The Magistrate Judge or

panel o f attorneys conducting the hearing shall report their findings and recommendations i n
writing to the Committee on Grievances and shall ser^'e them upon the respondent attorney
and the attorney supporting the charges.

After affording the respondent attorney and the

attorney supporting the charges an opportunit)? to respond i n writing to such report, or i f no

timely answer is made by the respondent attorney, or i f the Committee on Grievances
determines drat the answer raises no issue requinng a hearing, die Committee on Grievances
may proceed to impose discipline or to take such action as justice and this mle may require,
(e)

Reinstatement.

A n y attorney who has been suspended or precluded from appearing

Page

- 1 0 -

in tliJs Court or whose name has been strucls from the roll o f the members o f the bar o f this Court
may apply i n writing to the Chief Judge, for good cause shown, for the lifting o f the suspension or
preclusion or for reinstatement to the rolls.
Committee on Grrevances.

The Chief Judge shall refer such application to the

The Committee on Grievances may refer the application to a

Magistrate Judge or hearing panel o f attorneys (who may be the same Magistrate Judge or panel o f
attorneys who previously heard the matter) for findings and recommendations, or may act upon the
application w i t h o u t making such a referral.

Absent extraordinaiy circumstances, no such

application w i l l be
granted unless the attorney seeking reinstatement meets die requirements for admission set forth in
Local Civil Rule 1.3(a).
(f)

Renredies for Misconduct.

Tire remedies provided by this rule are in addition to the

remedies available to individual District Judges and Magistrate Judges under applicable law w i t h
respect to lawy^ers appearing before them.

Individual DisUict Judges and Magistrate Judges may

also refer any matter to the Chief Judge for referral to the Committee o n Grievances to consider the
imposition o f discipline or odier relief pursuant to diis rule.
(g)

Notice to Other Courts.

W h e n an attorney is k n o w n to be admitted to practice i n the

court o f any state or territor)', or in any odier federal court, and has been convicted o f any crime or
disbarred, precluded from appearing, suspended or censured i n this court, the Clerk shall send to
such other court or courts a certified or electronic copy o f the judgment o f conviction or order o f
disbarment, preclusion, suspension or censure, a certified or electronic copy o f the Court's opinion,
i f any, and a statement o f the attorney's last known office and residence address.
(h)

D u t y o f Attorney to Report Discipline.

(1)

I n aU cases m which any federal, state or territorial court, agency or tribunal has

Page

- 1 1 -

entered an order disbarring or censuring an attorney admitted to the bar o f this Court, or
suspending the attorney from practice, whether or n o t o n consent, the attorney shall deliver
a copy o f said order to the Clerk o f diis Court w i t h i n fourteen days after the entry o f the
order.
(2)

I n all cases in which any member o f die bar o f this Court has resigned from the

bar o f any federal, state or territorial court, agency or tribunal while an investigation i n t o
allegations o f misconduct against the attorney was pending, the attorney shall report such
resignation to the Clerk o f this Court wirhin fourteen days after the submission o f the
resignation.
(3)

I n all cases i n which this Court has entered an order disbarring or censuring an

attorney, or suspending the attorney from practice, whether or n o t on consent, the attorney
shall deliver a copy o f said order w i t h i n fourteen days after the entry o f the order to the clerk
o f each federal, state or territorial court, agency and tribunal i n which such attorney has been
admitted to practice.
(4)

A n y failure o f an attorney to comply w i d i die requirements o f tiiis Local Civil

Rule 1.5(h) shall constitute a basis for discipline o f said attorney pursuant to Local Civil Rule
1.5(c).

COMMITTEE

NOTE

Because Local Civil Rule 1.5 has been the subject o f a recent review by the Courts, die
Committee has n o t proposed any substantive changes dierein. A n amendment is recommended to
Local Civil Rule 1.5(g) to recognize the fact that today the Clerks o f the Courts often give notice o f
disciplinary actions to other courts by electronic means.

Page

- 1 2 -