No.

IN THE

Supreme Court of tje toiteb ^tateg

MARCUS ISAIAH WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
V.

WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVOR ENTERTAINMENT LLC (formerly tbc WILLIAM

MORRIS AGENCY), JEFF MEADE and SARAH WINIARSKI,
Respondents.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Mr. Marcus Isaiah Washington

Pro Se Petitioner
54 Boerum Street, Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, NY 11206
(646) 504-6497
humanri ghts. areamust@gmail. com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS & TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

LEGAL STANDARD REGARDING IN FORMA PAUPERIS ("IFP")

BRIEF EXPLANATION WHY MR. WASHINGTON'S IN FORMA PAUERPIS STATUS

SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN REVOKED BY P. KEVIN CASTEL AND THE SECOND
CIRCUIT
2
SUPREME COURT CLERKS' REFUSAL TO ACCEPT MR. WASHINGTON'S JULY 18,
2015 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY LOEB & LOEB LLP CONSTITUTES AN OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE AND VIOLATES MR. WASHINGTON'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW
6
NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT DEMONSRATING MR. WASHINGTON'S INDIGENT
STATUS

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

10

CONCLUSION

12

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Case Law:
Denton v. Hernandez. 504 U.S. 25 (1992)

Neitzke V. Williams. 490 U.S. 319 (1989)

1
Rowe Entertainment. Inc. v. William Moms Agency. Inc., No. 98 CV 8272, 2005 WL 22833
(S.D.N. Y. Jan. 5, 2005), aff d, 167 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir. 2005), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 887, 127
S.Ct. 283, 166 L.Ed.2d 152 (2006)
10

Constitutional Provisions:
5th Amendment of U.S. Constitution

8, 11

14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution

8. 11

Statutes:
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq

Deprivation of Rights, 42 U.S.C. 1983

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. 242

Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 et seq.,

Federal Arbitration Act of 1925, 9 U.S.C. 1 et seq

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U. S.C. 1985(3)

2,5

New York City Human Rights Law, New York Adimmstrative Code 8-101 et. seq

New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq

Obstruction of Justice, 18 U.S.C. 1503

6, 10

Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq

2
ii

Law Articles:
Leslie W. Abramson. The Judge's Ethical Duty to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and
Lawyers and its Effect on Judicial Independence. Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 25: Iss. 3, Article 4.
(1997)
9
Joseph J. Anclien. Broader Is Better: The Inherent Powers of Federal Courts. 64 NYU Annual
Survey of American Law 37, 47 (2008)
9
Thomas E. Baker. The Inherent Power To Impose Sanctions: How A Federal Judge Is Like A
800-Pound Gorilla, 14 Rev. Litig. 195 (1994)
9
Stephen Gillers. Lowering The Bar: How Lawyer Discipline In New York Fails To Protect The
Public. New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2014) ...9
Jules Lobel and Barbara Wolvovitz. The Enforcement of Civil Rights Statutes: The Reagan
Administration's Record. 9 Black L. J. 252 (1986)

Judith A. McMorrow. The (F)utility of Rules: Regulating Attorney Conduct In Federal Court
Practice. 58 SMU Law Review 3, 20 (2005)
9
Judith A. McMorrow. Rule 11 and Federalizing Lawyer Ethics. Brigham Young University Law
Review. (1991)
9
Daniel J. Meador, Inherent .Judicial Authority in the Conduct of Civil Litigation, 73 Tex. L. Rev.
1805, 1805 (1995)
9
Joe L. Selig. The Reagan Justice Department and Civd Rights: Wliat Went Wrong? 1985 U. III.
L. Rev. 785 (1985)
9
Analysis: Federal Law of Attorney Conduct. "Structure of Federal Rules Governing Attorney
Conduct." Moore's Federal Practice - Civil. (2015)
9

For the following reasons below, I - pro se petitioner Marcus Isaiah Washington - submit this
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 39 and ask that the
extraordinary relief requested in this motion, as well as my petition for a writ of certiorari, be
granted.
Legal Standard Regarding In Forma Pauperis ("IFP")
In Neitzke v. Williams. 490 U.S. 319 (1989), the Supreme Court of the United States of America
stated:
The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C.
1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal
courts... Toward this end, 1915(a) allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in
federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter alia, that he is
unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.
Id. at 324. To prevent such abusive or captious litigation, 1915(e)(2) authorizes federal courts to
"dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue;
or (B) the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which rehef
may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief"
(emphasis added)
In Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992), the Supreme Court stated:
[I]n order to respect the congressional goal of assuring equality of consideration for all
litigants, the initial assessment of the in forma pauperis plaintiffs factual allegations must be
weighted in the plaintiffs favor. A finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the
facts alleged rise to the level of the irrational or the wholly incredible, whether or not there are
judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them. An in fornia pauperis complaint may
not be dismissed, however, simply because the court finds the plaintiffs allegations unlikely.
Some improbable allegations might properly be disposed of on summary judgment, but to
dismiss them as frivolous without any factual development is to disregard the age old insight
that many allegations might be "strange, but true; for truth is always strange. Stranger than
ficfion." Lord Byron, Don Juan, canto XIV, stanza 101 (T. Steffan, E. Steffan 8c W. Pratt eds.
1977).
Id. at 25-26.
1

Brief Explanation Why Mr. Washington's In Fornia Pauperis Status Should Have Never
Been Revoked by P. Kevin Castel and Second Circuit
On December 22, 2010,1 fded a detailed 80-page Complaint with the Southern District of New
York, alleging that my former employer William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC (formerly
known as the William Morris Agency) - the oldest and largest talent agency in Hollywood - was
intentionally engaging in a pattern and practice of discriminating against African Americans
spanning 112 years, maintaining employment practices, policies and procedures that created a
glaring disparate impact against qualified African Americans from being hired and/or promoted to
higher-status, higher-paying positions such as Agent and Agent Trainee, pre and-post hiring
individual disparate treatment, retaliation and aiding & abetting claims against HR personnel Jeff
Meade and Sarah Winiarski (now known as Sarah Van Hoven) in violation of Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981 ("Section 1981"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17 ("Title VII"), the New York State Human
Rights Law, New York Executive Law 290 et. seq. (the "NYSHRL") and the New York City

Human Rights Law, New York Administrative Code 8-101 et. seq. (the "NYCHRL").' After
submitting an Affidavit detailing my current financial situation. Chief Judge Loretta A. Preska
granted my in forma pauperis request on January 4, 2011.
Despite my objections to the enforceability of two mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration
agreements I signed as a condition of employment, federal district judge P. Kevin Castel ignored
my legal arguments, erroneous applied the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 and issued a "Stay
Order" compelling the case into arbitration on July 20, 2011. In or around the time Arbitrator
' I formally added claims of antitrust violations under the Shennan Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.
and Donnelly Act, General Business Law 340 et seq., as well as claims of conspiracy to interfere with
the human rights of African Americans in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1985(3)
when 1 submitted my Demand for Arbitration with the American Arbitration Association on June 15, 2012.

David L. Gregory was scheduled to issue his "omnibus final decision," I infi)rmed federal judge
P. Kevin Castel by letter on February 28, 2014 that 1 would be filing a motion which sought his
disqualification, and would be addressing the overall "pattern" of "fraud upon the Court" that
attorneys from Loeb & Loeb LLP were engagmg m on behalf of William Morris to ensure that
African American htigants challengmg William Morris' institutionally racist employment and
business practices would be deprived of their full constitutional and statutory rights under the color
of the law in violation of 18 U.S.C. 242. At first, Castel endorsed my letter and set a schedule in
which the parties were to submit their pleadings. On March 7, 2014, Loeb & Loeb LLP attorney
Christian Carbone submitted a letter to Castel stating that Arbitrator Gregory's Partial Final Award
was not a "final Award." On March 10, 2014, 2014, Castel issued an Order which basically told
me 1 could not submit the proposed Motion and that 1 had to continue arbitrating in "good faith."
On March 17, 2014 - 90 days after Arbitrator David L. Gregory issued his Partial Final
Award - I submitted a voluminous, 97-page Fraud Upon the Court Motion, which sought
extraordinary relief, including the disqualification of both federal judges assigned to the case
and/or the disqualification of attorneys Michael P. Zweig and Christian Carbone of Loeb & Loeb
LLP due to "fraud upon the Court" and "highly unethical and criminal activity." Two days later,
Loeb & Loeb LLP filed a Motion to hold me in Contempt. On March 27, 2014, Castel issued an
Order refusing to disqualify himself and stated that "[vjiewed as a totality, an objective,
disinterested observer fully infomied of the underlying facts would not entertain significant doubt
that justice would be done in this action absent recusal of the undersigned." On April 10, 2014,1
submitted a Motion for Reconsideration, which was nothing more than a condensed version of my
March 17, 2014 pleading.

After Schnader LLP attorney and AAA board of director Timothy K. Lewis dismissed my
case with "prejudice and on the merits" on June 25, 2014, the Appellees sought to confirm Lewis'
fraudulently procured "Final Award" on July 3, 2014. On July 12, 2014,1 submitted a letter to
Castel stating that the arguments raised in my March 17, 2014 and April 10, 2014 Motions
"diametrically oppose[d] and void[ed] any 'legal' argument put forth by WME Entertainment and
Loeb & Loeb LLP" and that their motions should be denied. Castel then pretended to break down
the arguments raised in my March 17, 2014 Fraud Upon the Court and April 10, 2014 Motion for
Reconsideration into four parts. He stated:
"In opposition to the defendants' motion to confirm the award, Washington provides four
arguments as to why the arbitral award should be set aside. First, Washington argues that
Arbitrator Gregory was improperly removed and, consequently, all of Arbitrator Lewis' orders,
including vacating Arbitrator Gregory's partial award, are void. Second, Washington asserts
that Arbitrator Gregory and Arbitrator Lewis's decisions to enforce the arbitration agreement
were in manifest disregard of the law. Third, Washington argues that the failure to disclose
the alleged relationship between opposing counsel and an AAA employee biased the
arbitral proceeding in the defendants' favor. Finally, he asserts that the opposing counsel has
been engaging in a pattern of bad faith litigation warranting their removal and sanctions."
[PKC Final Order, 14,] In one way or another, he "omitted pertinent facts and misapplied the law"
in order to deny all of these arguments, and then for extra protection, he granted William Morris
and Loeb & Loeb's July 10, 2014 Motion for a Filing Injunction, revoked my in forma pauperis
status although my economic circumstances have only worsened since filing my Complaint with
the Southern District of New York in December of 2010 and prejudiced my appeal by stating that
it would not be made in "good faith."
On October 3, 2014,1 filed a 54-page Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion.
My final pleading was submitted to "realign the record in the direcfion of truth" and written in a
way as if I were submitting an appeal directly to the appellate court due to the fact that it was
highly unlikely that Castel would in his last Order, acknowledge his wrongdoing since it would
4

ultimately support that he has intentionally deprived me of my constitutional and statutory rights
in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 42 U.S.C. 1985(3). My primary goal was to demonstrate
that if I did have to appeal Castel's various Orders, my appeal would be made in extreme "good
faith."2

If my motion seeking to reverse this "manifest injustice" was not granted, I asked Castel
in the alternative, to restore my IFP status so that I could submit my appeal in considerable "good
faith" to the appellate court. I included an updated, notarized Affidavit detailing my indigent status
as an exhibit to my Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Fraud Upon the Court Motion. On October 22, 2014, P.
Kevin Castel issued a two page Order, denying the entire Motion as being "without merit" and
refused to restore my in forma pauperis status based on a statement made in the footnote of my
Motion.Based on Castel's improvident response and repeated refusal to acknowledge or resolve
my claims of "fraud upon the Court" against Loeb & Loeb LLP, it is clear that it was impracticable
for me to move first in the district court and expect Castel four years later, to acknowledge his
errors and impartially uphold the law and U.S. Constitution.'*
Since I was unable to afford the $505 filing fee to submit my Notice of Appearance, I
submitted an Expedited Motion to Restore In Forma Pauperis Status, Suspend Filing Injunction
^ Local Rule 24.1 requires that this Motion "identifies the relevant facts and makes a showing of hkely
merit as to each issue the appellant intends to present on appeal."
^ I stated: "I can fill in the blanks [contained in my October 3, 2014 Motion] in my appeal to the Second
Circuit or 'under oath' before a juiy trial m a sepaiate action when 1 sue P. Kevin Castel for intentionally
depriving me of my rights under the color of law."
Pursuant Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C), a party must "ordinarily move first in the district court" for "an order
suspending... an injunction while an appeal is pending.'"* Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2), a "motion for
the relief mentioned in Rule 8(a)(1) may be made to the court of appeals or to one of its judges." "The
motion must (i) show that moving first in the distiict court would be impracticable; or (ii) state that, a

motion having been made the district court denied the motion or failed to afford the relief requested
and state any reasons given by the district court for its action." Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(2)(A) (emphasis

added). The motion must also include: "(i) the reasons for granting the relief requested and the facts relied
on; (ii) originals or copies of affidavits or other sworn statements supporting facts subject to dispute; and
(iii) relevant parts of the record." Fed. R. App. 8(a)(2).

and Remove All Prejudice Pending "Good-Faith" Appeal on November 21, 2014 with the Second
Circuit, seeking in part, to have my in forma pauperis status restored^ and/or to have my appeal
transferred to another circuit.
On March 11, 2015, Second Circuit appellate judges Dennis Jacobs and Raymond J.
Lohier, Jr. and Southern District of New York district judge Laura Taylor Swain denied my appeal
in two sentences. They refused to restore my in forma pauperis status and concluded that my appeal
"lack[ed] an arguable basis in either law or in fact."''
Since my financial circumstances have only worsened over the last five years and none of
ray legal arguments raised throughout my case and appeal have been "frivolous [or] malicious,"
P. Kevin Castel should have never revoked my IFP status and the Second Circuit should not have
enforced Castel's decision. For these reasons alone, the decisions of the lower courts are clearly
erroneous and should be vitiated by the Supreme Court due to "fraud upon the Court by the Court."
Supreme Court's Refusal To Accept Mr. Washington's July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify
Loeb & Loeb LLP Constitutes An Obstruction of Justice and Violates Mr. Washington's
Constitutional Rights To Due Process and Equal Protection Under the Law.
Although I spent the first sixty days drafting a petifion for a writ of certiorari, I submitted two
Motions on July 18, 2015 with the Supreme Court seeking extraordinary relief to correct the
miscarriage of justice that has taken place throughout this nearly five year litigation. The first
^ Fed. R. App. P. Rule 24(a)(1) directs that "a party to a district-court action who desires to appeal in fomia
pauperis must file a motion in the district court" and states that the party must "attach an affidavit that: (A)
shows in the detail prescribed by Fonn 4 of the Appendix of Fonns the party's inability to pay or to give
security for fees and costs; (B) claims an entitlement to redress; and (C) states the issues the party intends
to present on appeal." In Rule 24(a)(5), it states that "[t]he motion must include a copy of the affidavit filed
in the district court and the district court's statement of reasons for its action." Pursuant to Local Rule 24.1
of the Second Circuit: "A motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis...must include (1) the affidavit
prescribed by FRAP 24(a)(1), and (2) a statement that identifies the relevant facts and makes a showing of
likely merit as to each issue the appellant intends to present on appeal."
^ On March 25, 2015,1 filed a Motion for Reconsideration and on June 11, 2015,1 filed a Motion to Recall
& Stay the Mandate. Both were denied by the Second Circuit without the issuance of an ethical judicial
opinion.

pleading was a 40 page Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP Due To "Fraud Upon the Court"
pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 8^ and 21^ and the second pleading was a 40 page Motion to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis & Application For Extension To Submit Petition For Writ of Certiorari
pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13(5) and 39/* Since a granting of Motion to Disqualify Loeb &
Loeb LLP by the Supreme Court would "dispose of the entire case [and] would affect the final
judgment to be entered" pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 21(2)(b), I asked for an extension to
submit the petition as a way to cover all bases since there was a strong likelihood that the Supreme
Court would show deference to Castel and the Second Circuit's erroneous decisions, provide Loeb
& Loeb LLP with the presumption that they were being honest and ethical and deny my claims
without providing an ethical judicial opinion.
^ Supreme Court Rule 8.1 states:
Whenever a member of the Bar of this Court has... engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of
the Bar of this Court, the Court will enter an order suspending that member from practice before
this Court affording the member an opportunity to show cause, within 40 days, why a disbarment order
should not be entered. Upon response, or if no response is tunely filed, the Court will enter an
appropriate order, (emphasis added)
and Supreme Court Rule 8.2 states:

After reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why disciplinary action should not be
taken, and after a hearing if material facts are in dispute, the Court may take any appropriate
disciplinary action against any attorney who is admitted to practice before it for conduct
unbecoming a member of the Bar or for failure to comply with these Rules or any Rule or order
of the Court, (emphasis added)
Supreme Court Rule 21.1 states that "[e]ver>' 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." (emphasis added) Rule
21.2(b) states that a "motion to dismiss as moot... and any motion the granting of which would dispose
of the entire case or would affect the final judgment to be entered shall be prepared as requiied by Rule
3 3.1... except that a movant proceeding in fornia pauperis under Rule 3 9... shall file the number of copies
required for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2." (emphasis added).
' Since die Clerk of Court refused to accept my pleadings or hst them on the docket, ray plan was to include
these pleadings as Appendices to my petition. However, Supreme Court Rule 15(2) states that "[n]o separate
brief in support of a petirion for a writ of certiorari may be filed, and the Clerk will not file any petition for
a writ of certiorari to which any supporting brief is annexed or appended." I have uploaded all pleadings
filed in this case, so they can be read here: https://www.scribd.com/Mr%20Alkebu-lan or
www.meagainstiniquity.wordpress.com.
7

On July 24, 2015, Zweig submitted a letter addressed to Justice Ginsburg echoing
statements made in the lower courts: my claims were "frivolous," that 1 had engaged in a welldocumented history of "bad-faith conduct," and that my "application should be denied because
among other reasons, [1] fail[ed] to demonstrate an entitlement to the relief sought or establish why
[I] need[ed] additional time to file [my] petition for a writ of certiorari with this Court" On August
1,2015,1 received a letter from Scott S. Harris - the Clerk of Court - dated July 29, 2015, stating
that Justice Ginsburg granted me an extension, allowing me until September 28, 2015 to submit a
petition for a writ of certiorari. In addition to the letter signed by Case Analyst Erik Fossum, the
original and a copy of the Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP were returned to me.
On August 8, 2015,1 resubmitted the two Motions to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP that
were returned to me and submitted a 12-page letter addressed to Justice Ginsburg, explaining why
the Clerk of Court's refusal to accept this Motion violated my constitutional right to due process
aiid equal protection under the law under the 5*^ and

Amendments of the U.S. Con_stitution,

On August 18, 2015 - seven days after I received confirmation that my package was delivered to
the Supreme Court - Fossum informed me that my package was located. The next day, my letter
and the Motion to Disqualify that 1 resubmitted were returned to me. In a letter dated August 17,
2015, Rapp stated:
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. You might consider contacting the state bar of the state in which the individual is
licensed to see what their complaint procedure is.
In an e-mail dated August 18, 2015, Rapp also stated that "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." (emphasis added)
8

On September 10, 2015,1 submitted an Application to Stay Extension Pending Resolution

of Motion to Disqualify, which thoroughly explaining the numerous reasons why the Justices had
the "inherent power" to resolve this Motion before submitting a petition for a writ of certiorari. 1
cited numerous sources to buttress my legal arguments.'^ In my September 10, 2015 Application
to Justice Ginsburg, 1 presented five arguments to demonstrate why Cynthia Rapp lied when she
proclaimed that the Supreme Court "only" "act[s] upon written nofification from a state that an
attorney has been disciplined." One of the reasons is that what she stated to me is mentioned
nowhere is Supreme Court Rule 8. Pursuant to Rule 8 and 21, this applicaUon should have been
accepted by the Clerk and my July 18, 2015 Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP should have
been resolved by the Justices on the Supreme Court since the Clerk cannot determine if an attorney
has engaged in "conduct unbecoming a member of the Bar" and the lower federal and state courts
refused to take my claims seriously. One day after it was received, the entire package was returned
to me.
Notarized Affidavit Demonstrating Mr. Washington's Indigent Status
Since the Supreme Court has refused to acknowledge my July 18, 2015 Motion to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis and Motion to Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP, I am resubmitting the notarized
The various law articles that 1 read to help me develop the legal arguments raised in September 10, 2015
Application included; Analysis: Federal Law of Attomey Conduct. "Structure of Federal Rules Goveming
Attorney Conduct." Moore's Federal Practice - Civil. (2015); Stephen Gillers. Lowering The Bar: How
Lawyer Discipline In New York Fails To Protect The Public. New York University Joumal of Legislation
and PubUc Policy, Vol. 17, No. 2, (2014); Marisa WaiTen. "Do The Right Thing: Policing the Profession
and the Attomey's Duty to Report Misconduct." Amencan Bar AssociaUon. March 19-23, 2013; Thomas
E. Baker. The Inherent Power To Impose Sanctions: How A Federal Judge Is Like A 800-Pound Gorilla,
14 Rev. Litig. 195 (1994); McMorrow. The (F)utility of Rules: Regulating Attomey Conduct In Federal
Court Practice. 58 SMU Law Review 3, 20. 2005; Judith A. McMorrow. Rule 11 and Federalizing Lawyer
Ethics. Brigham Young University Law Review. (1991); Leshe W. Abramson. The Judge's Ethical Duty
to Report Misconduct by Other Judges and Lawyers and its Effect on Judicial Independence. Hofstra Law
Review: Vol. 25: Iss. 3, Aiticle 4. (1997); Daniel J. Meador, Inherent Judicial Authority in the Conduct of
Civil Litigation, 73 TEX. L. REV. 1805, 1805 (1995); Joseph J. Anclien. Broader Is Better: The Inherent
Powers of Federal Courts. 64 NYU Annual Survey of American Law 37, 47. 2008.

Affidavit that was included as an exhibit to the fonner pleading. See Exhibit A. These pleadings
should have been accepted by the Clerk of Court and resolved by the Justices on the Supreme
Court before requiring me to submit a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. In order to file
these documents to the Supreme Court, I have had to borrow money from family and friends. More
than $413.75 has been wasted and as of September 21, 2015,1 have spent an additional $239.36
on supplies to print and prepare these pleadmgs to the Court." In addition to the issuance of a
formal apology by the Clerk of the Court and its staff, I ask that each individual involved in
conspiring to obstruct justice and deprive me of my consfitutional rights be fired and that I be
reimbursed for the money it cost me to print and submit the pleadings they refused to accept., plus
punitive damages.
Prayers For Relief
From the beginning, this landmark employment discriminafion, antitrust and human rights case
has been intentionally tangled in a web of procedural errors that renders any decision from the
AAA, the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit void.
P. Kevin Castel has essentially acted as counsel for William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP,
rendering predetermined, one-sided decisions that ignored my legal arguments, omitted pertinent
facts and misapplied and/or flouted the prevailing law. Neither of P. Kevin Castel's last three
Orders discuss my claims of "fraud upon the Court" although he's saying that all of my arguments
are "without merit." There is no mention of Rowe Entertaimnent, Inc. v. WilUam Morris Agency.
Inc., No. 98 CV 8272, 2005 WL 22833 (S.D.N. Y. Jan. 5, 2005), aff d, 167 F. App'x 227 (2d Cir.
2005), cert, denied, 549 U.S. 887, 127 S.Ct. 283, 166 L.Ed.2d 152 (2006) or Arbitrator Gregory's

" It will cost me anodier $75-100 for me to mail these pleadings to opposing counsel and the Supreme
Court.

10

decision to admit spoliated, smoking gun evidence known as "Exhibit 31" into the evidence of
record m my case. Castel's Orders also never discuss Loeb & Loeb's numerous violations under
the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and New York Judiciary Law 487. Furthermore, it
is a violation of due process for Castel to ignore the fraud Loeb & Loeb LLP engaged in prior to
and during this case and then issue a filing injunction against me while never once asking Loeb &
Loeb LLP to respond to the pyramid of evidence establishing my claims. fJe is the personificafion
of a racist, corrupt and dishonorable judge, which is supported by the fact that he turned a blind
eye to Loeb & Loeb LLP's pattern of highly unethical and criminal activity while serving as the
head of the Grievance Committee for the Southern District of New York - an organization that
allegedly handles complaints of attomey misconduct.
On seven different occasions, I attempted to address these issues with the Second Circuit
and each time, my appeals were denied in less than five sentences. Even after it could not be
denied that the Second Circuit had jurisdiction to reverse the errors of Castel, panel judges Dennis
Jacobs, Raymond Lohier Jr and Laura Taylor Swain [the last two being of African descent], denied
my appeal by concluding that it "lack[ed] an arguable basis in either law or in fact." Throughout
this entire case, my legal arguments have been consistent, so it makes absolutely no sense for me
to file an appeal that lacked an arguable basis in law or in fact - after the only lawfully appointed
arbitrator concluded that William Morris discriminated against me because of my race. And if I
were raising frivolous arguments, why would Michael Zweig - an attorney with more than 35
years' experience - need to enlist more than five attorneys and three paralegals to "represent"
William Morris against a pro se litigant, non-attorney?
I have never been allowed to have an oral hearing and over the last five years, I have
dedicated more than 22,440 hours to this case and spent more than $3,190.00 to litigate this case
11

while living below the poverty level. Loeb & Loeb LLP and its attorneys have been unjustly
enriched from this fraud, and 1 additionally ask that monetary sanctions in an amount no less than
$2 billion be imposed against William Morris, Loeb & Loeb LLP, Zweig, Carbone, Michael
Bamett and Jessica Lee.
Conclusion
Throughout the entirety of this litigation, various Article 111 federal judges have hidden their
corruption under their black robes by undermining the law and taking advantage of a system that
is supposed to ensure justice for all, without regards to a person's race, class or pro se litigant
status. Due to the extreme measures Loeb & Loeb LLP and the lower courts have taken to deprive
me of my constitutional, statutory and inalienable rights under the color of law, I am seeking
extraordinary relief from this Court to correct this extreme "miscarriage of justice."
I respectfully pray that the Supreme Court grants the following relief, including but not
limited to: restoring my in forma pauperis status, granting my "certworthy" petition for a writ of
certiorari, using the Court's "implied and inherent powers" to resolve my July 18, 2015 Motion to
Disqualify Loeb & Loeb LLP and vitiate all decisions in favor of William Morris and Loeb &
Loeb LLP as a result of this law firm's egregious and highly unethical and criminal conduct, as
well as imposing extreme disciplinary and monetary sanctions against William Morris, Loeb &
Loeb LLP and each Loeb & Loeb LLP attomey that has been unjustly emiched due to engaging in
a "pattem" of "fraud upon the Court" on William Morris' behalf

12

Respectfully submitted.

Marcus Isaiah Washington

Pro Se Petitioner
54 Boerum St. Apt. 6M
Brooklyn, New York
(646) 504-6497
humanrights. areamust@gmail. com
September 21, 2015

Exhibit A

IN THE

Supreme Court o! tlje ^niteb ^tatcfii

Plaintiff
WMam MoiTts Endeavor Ent (formerly
Bw wnamMoirte Agency); JaffMMde
and Sartfi yyflnlanW
,

)
>
)

)\)

Nn

i''"-

Defendant

)
)
AFFTOAVIT ACCOMPANYING MOTION
FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AfBdavit in Support of Motion
Instructions
Complete all questions in this application and
I swear or affirm under penalty of perjury
that, because of my poverty, I cannot prepay then sign it. Do not leave any blanks: if the
the docket fees of my appeal or post a bond for answer to a question is "0," "none," or "not
them. I believe I am entitled to redress. I swear apphcable (N/A)," write that response. If you
or afiBrm under penalty of peijxuy under United need more space to answer a question or to
States laws that my answers on this form are explaio your answer, attach a separate sheet of
true and correct (28 U.S.C. 1746; 18 U.S.C. paper identified with your name, your case's
docket number, and the question number.
1621.)
Signed: ' ^ ' " - ^ ^ " ' ^ " S ^
My Issue* lo ihe SC<m:.S arc:

Date: Juty9.2ois

Dftjding wtieihcrfedgraijudge P. Ke\-iii Ciutel aiid vajvm* ajipeHae pidgpi <if tht

Cir. ire ffiintttl jutk-ial

immuiiiQ'it'fnuiKiipulr)' iif roiwfiiriiiji Ui xiofcile the L'Ji. CoiumKioi, Ihcir Oaths l'Office, At Jiidicial C<iAc i>f Ovidiirt, a> well Mihe hw tnprrveiil
ail impartial jur)' Inmi iWddiiif die meritj iil my claims aitd B)deprhT me <i) my cimaittaJonal.stannorj-aKl malieiiaNc ri^o iUkr the tnjor cii'bar in >-iniabfm
if IR U3.C.
aiHi 4)1 VS.C H lim
IMHS. Aa<liticl)>-, runk-h^rbiim . / f n n d iipui (he Cairf upuiua Wittiam Mutrit Scauiiad lueh H Uid> U P

1.

For both you and your spouse estimate the average amount of money received from each 2nd ct. cAdti)of the following sources during the past 12 months. Adjust any amount that was received
'*o'^
weekly, biweekly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually to show the monthly rate. Use
gross amounts, that is, amounts before any deductions for taxes or otherwise.

BOGUMILA T. ROSEBURG
NOTARY FUBLiC - STA "c O f NtVV YCKK
01RO5071459
NO. 01RO5071459
/i
QUALIFiEO IN OUESN.S COUNTY JH
COM MiSSION EXPIRpS JANUARY 13 20_l7

Income source

Average monthly
amount during the past
12 months
You
Spouse

Employment
Self-employment
Income from real property (such as
rental income)
Interest and dividends
Gifts
Alimony
Child support
Retirement (such as social security,
pensions, annuities, insurance)
Disability (such as social security,
insurance payments)
Unemployment payments
Public-assistance (such as welfare)
Other (specify):
Total monthly income:
2.

Amount expected next

month
You

Spouse

$N'M

$0.00

$100.00

$ N./A

$0.00

SN/A

$0.00

$ .N/A

$0.00

$N/A

$ 0.00

$ NM

$0.00

$ m

$ 0.00

S N/.A.

$0.00

$ ^VA

So.ix)

$ N/A

$ 0.00

S N/A

$0.00

$ NVA

$0.00

$ NVA

$0.(M)

$ N.'A

$ 0.(K)

$ N/A

So.uo

$ N/.A

$0.(KI

$N/A

$ N'/.A

$ .(X)

$ N/A

$ i.io.oo

$N/A

$ liS.OO

$ N/A

$ 0.00

$ N/A

$0.00

$N/A

$ oJO.OO

S 0.00

$ 12.5.00

$ 0,{H)

OAM

List your employment histoyy for the past two years, most recent employer first. (Gross
monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address

N/A

N/A

Dates of employment
.N/.A

Gross
monthly pay
$ 0.(K)

s
s

3.

List your spouse's employment history for the past two years, most recent employer first.
(Gross monthly pay is before taxes or other deductions.)

Employer

Address

Dates of employment

N7A

Gross
monthly pay

$o.m

N/A

s
4.

How much cash do you and your spouse have? $

Below, state any money you or your spouse have in bank accounts or in any other
financial institution.

Financial Institution

TjTje of Account

B'.utk u}'Amt-nat

Chfckliig

Amount you have

Amount your
spouse has
$ N/A

Ifyou are a prisoner seeking to appeal a judgment in a civil action or proceeding, you must
attach a statement certified by the appropriate institutional officer showing all receipts,
expenditures, and balances during the last six months in your institutional accounts. If you
have multiple accounts, perhaps because you have been in multiple institutions, attach one
certified statement of each account
5.

Home

List the assets, and their values, which you own or your spouse owns. Do not list clothing
and ordinary household furnishings.

(Value) S N/A

Other real estate

(Value) $ NVA

Motor vehicle #1

(Value) $ N/A
Make and year: N/A
Model: N/A
Registration #: N/,A

Motor vehicle #2
(Value) $
Make and year: N/A
Model: NM
Registration #: N'A
6.

Other assets
(Value) S N/A

Other assets
(Value) $ N/A

Stale every person, business, or organization owing you or your spouse money, and the
amount owed.

Person owing you or your spouse Amount owed to you

money
Williajn Morris Fjidcavor r.ntcrtiiimnciil I.T-C
Uich & lr>cU LLP

7.

Amount owed to your

spouse

T B D llwrk iHy,fr.rtiipay, r>ini>cisaron- &

J) Ami piiiiitTW (l;un.iifrji. pnt .ic sUonicw tecs.) $ N/A
T H D (rcixjmpLiwc Tor avoidable dis<.o%'cr\
^ dtiai.'s aijcj inoncurj' iaiittiojis lor hiifhly
$ N/A
unethical and bad faiih conducU

i'/a/e the persons who rely on you or your spouse for support.

Name [or, if under 18, initials only]

Relationship

Age

N/A

N/A

N/A

8.

Estimate the average monthly expenses of you and your family. Show separately the
amounts paid by your spouse. Adjust any payments that are made weekly, biweekly,
quarterly, semiannually, or annually lo show the monthly rate.

You

S JD.OO
Rent or home-mortgage payment (including lot rented for
mobile home)
Are real estate taxes included?
Yes [7] No
Is property insurance included?
Q Yes 0 No
Utilities (electricity, heating fuel, water, sewer, and telephone) S ('<>
So.oo
Home maintenance (repairs and upkeep)
S -M).m
Food
So.oo
Clothing
Laundry and dry-cleaning
S l.l.(K)
S O.W)
Medical and dental expenses
S 70.00
Transportation (not including motor vehicle payments)
So.oo
Recreation, entertainment, newspapers, magazines, etc.
Insurance (not deducted fi-om wages or included in mortgage payments)
S 0-00
Homeowner's or renter's;
Life:
So-w
$0.00
Health:
$0.00
Motor vehicle:
$ 0.(K)
Other:
S 0.01)
Taxes (not deducted from wages or included in mortgage
payments) (specify):
Installment payments ^'^
S 0.00
Motor Vehicle:
S 000
Credit card (name):
Department store (name):
S o'w
Other:
S o-w

Your Spouse
$ .\/.A

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$

Alimony, maintenance, and support paid to others

Regular expenses for operation of business, profession, or
farm (attach detailed statement)
Other (specify):
Total monthly expenses:

9.

$ 0.00

$ :mm

$ N/A

Do you expect any major changes to your monthly income or expenses or in your assets or
liabilities during the next 12 months?

10.

$ 0.00

$
$

$ Dili)

Yes

No

If yes, describe on an attached sheet.

It the Supi'cinc Court reverses lyi VAcair^s the dceisiuns of P. Kevin CHMC!, the Second Circuit and the .American Arbitratiuu
.A.s.siK-iiitioii .-ni(i irnjio.'^^.s exTraordinan- inoneran,' and di';riplinan' .<uuirfi{iM,s against William Murris, ! .ueh & I/>eh IX ,r ;md it.s
allomeys Michael P. Zwei^, ChrijiUaji Cailmoe ajit! others a. puiiishmeni and deterrent i'or their 'pattern' ol enga^in^ in
"hjji;hly uiictiiicai ajid trunijiaJ conduct." 1 nottld c.vpcci major ciojiKcs Ui my income <uid asicti dlirii the next 12 moiilhi.

Have you spent - or will you be spending - any money for expenses or attomey fees in
connection with this lawsuit? Yes No
If yes, how much? $ 2,ioo.oo+

11.

Provide any other information that will help explain why you cannot pay the docket fees
for your appeal.
Kvcr .since Ijcinj^ctMi.scrucfivcly dischartjed I'ruin Will tarn \U)rri.s Kj)dca\'or Kntcrtajitment five years aj,;o. I have nut been able [u
lincl aiMirher Jul). Since my njiemjilinTneiit l>eiiefit-s ex]jired three year.^ agi), I have lieen !i\inj4 i>elim- riie imveity levei.

12.

Stale the city and state ofyour legal residence

BronkJyii, jNc-w ">'ork

Your daytime phone number:

fi4t>,i04-64.o7

Your age: '^^1 Your years of schooling: i

Last four digits ofyour social-security number: