Whether the Appeals Court erred in denying the Writ of Mandamus petition to reverse the permanent injunction issued by non-recusing District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty, who has been criminally charged

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On July 11, 2018, by disregarding even the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s recent 2016 finding, the Appeals Court denied Petitioner’s Writ of Mandamus petition to reverse a permanent injunction issued by non-recusing District Court Judge Paul A. Crotty -against whom Criminal Complaints are already pending before U.S. Attorney/FBI and New York State Attorney General for obstruction of justice and other corrupt practices to induce payment of at least a $215,000 “BRIBE” in the guise of bogus attorney fees to his friend/ financial-interest and Petitioner’s own one-of. Attorney Louis Stober by Defendant Columbia University in exchange for betraying, masterminding an elaborate fraud scheme, and also engaging in other disbarrable attorney misconduct by demanding even totally baseless, unprecedented, and UNTHINKABLE $5,000/day fines against his own client (Plaintiff) to: () prevent a $200 Million Dollars (Coca Cola & TEXACO-Style) Class Action against Columbia; (2) indefinitely stay the already scheduled jury trial as ordered by New York State Supreme Court Justice Joan Kenney; and : (3) prevent completion of expressly agreed arbitration for immediate organization of an Anti-Discrimination Minority Employees Association even after the period (2003-2009) of that 265-years old prestigious University’s worst racial crisis. i Previously, on July 30, 2009, Columbia attorneys, in collusion with his own attorney Stober induced Petitioner — g 57-years old, highly respected executive with the spirit of Dr. Martin Luther King — to sign a 2-Page Arbitration Contract by using false pretexts and promises to complete an expressly agreed arbitration under exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, for immediate organization of the first Equal Opportunity Promoting “Minority Employees Association” at 265-yeears old Columbia. ; The FOUR questions presented are as follows: I. Did the Appeals Court Err or Violate Petitioner’s First Amendment Right to Petition the Courts by Failing to Issue a Writ of Mandamus for Reversing the Permanent Injunction Issued by Non-Recusing District J udge Paul A. Crotty — Who Has Also Been Criminally Charged with Obstruction of Justice and Aiding & Abetting Perjury and Fraud to Induce Payment of At least a $215,000 Bribe in Guise of Bogus Attorney Fees to His and Petitioner's Own Attorney Stober? Il. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce the Federal Arbitration Act and Chevron Doctrine by Not Compelling Expressly Agreed Arbitration Under Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbitrator, Martin F. Scheinman, for Organization of the EEOCAuthorized First Equal Opportunity Promoting “Minority u Employees Association” at the 265-Years old Columbia University? IH. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 2283 : (Anti-Injunction Act/ Younger Abstention) by Not Issuing a Declaratory Order Allowing Petitioner to Complete Already Scheduled But (Fraudulently) Stayed Jury Trial that was Ordered by New York State Supreme Court . Justice Joan Kenney in His 2003 Main Action Where Defendant Columbia President Lee Cc. Bollinger Would Have Been Compelled to Testify Regarding His Prestigious University’s Institutionalized Race Discrimination Practices? IV. Did the Appeals Court Err by Failing to Enforce 28 U.S.C. § 455 (Federal Judge Recusal Law) and Code of Judicial Conduct by Not Ordering the Recusal of District J udge Crotty -Who Had Openly Engaged in Various Corrupt Practices to Legitimize the Payment of At Least a $215,000 Bribe in the Guise of Bogus Attorney Fees to His and Petitioner's Own One-of-Six-Cases Attorney Stober by the Powerful Defendant Columbia University? ul