Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit erred in affirming the judgment of the U.S. District Court

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Since the following is entirely true and accurate, how may it be credibly claimed that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit didn’t substantially err when it issued its decision on 7/12/18 in which it affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court Judge Lorna Schofield in regards to my lower federal court lawsuit against the Respondents? a. New York State Judge Lisa Sokoloff caused an intervening and substantial change in controlling law to occur through decisions she issued on 11/28/16 and 6/9/17 in my state court lawsuit against NTT Data, Inc. (“NTT”). She did so by providing guidance in those decisions in which she stated that in the event that I sought to be granted equitable relief in regards to the decision that New York State Judge Jennifer Schecter issued on 4/11/14 in that case that compelled me to engage in arbitration with NTT, I would need to pursue such relief from a court that has the power to grant equitable relief. b. Prior to Judge Sokoloff having issued those decisions in that case on those dates, I hadn’t been granted any such concession that would enable me to possibly be granted equitable relief in regards to Judge Schecter’s 4/11/14 decision. c. While I presented oral arguments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on 5/22/18, I apprised the 3 judges who listened to my arguments of this substantial change in controlling law that fundamentally changed the dynamics of my pursuit of equitable relief in regards to Judge Schecter’s 4/11/14 decision by causing the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine to cease to apply and bar federal court intervention in regards to that matter. d. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) includes pertinent findings that confirm that the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine does not bar federal courts from reviewing independent claims with respect to parallel state court litigation that I clearly apprised Judge Schofield about in a reply affidavit dated 9/25/15 that I filed in my lower federal court lawsuit against the respondents. 2. How has it been possible for me to engage in arbitration with NTT, since I have never had : the ability to pay for the costs of that arbitration, I was denied a hardship fee waiver by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), and I will not drop any legal claim against NTT in order for it to consider paying the entire costs of arbitration? 3. Given the exceptions to the Younger Abstention Doctrine and 9 U.S.C. §2, why didn’t Judge Lorna Schofield act in accordance with the “Savings Clause” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) by granting me declaratory and equitable relief pursuant to her authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction in regards to the independent claim as to i whether it was financially impossible for me to engage in arbitration with NTT that wasn’t barred by the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine in response to my having apprised her of the fact that Judge Schecter compelled me to engage in arbitration with NTT only after she demonstrated bad faith toward me in my state court lawsuit against NTT that hindsight confirms caused me substantial harm by having never attempted to satisfy a binding legal prerequisite that required her to first determine whether it was financially impossible for me to engage in arbitration with NTT prior to compelling me to do so? 4. Since a) 1 previously worked at Credit Suisse in Japan during 2 separate periods prior to 2012 that enabled me to learn what its tendencies were insofar as how it managed personnel it classified as contractors as a result of my having personally experienced how . it managed personnel it claimed were contractors as if they were its permanent employees and caused them to have been misclassified as contractors as a result and b) concluded my employment with Credit Suisse prior to 2012 in a distinctively acrimonious way with respect to managers at Credit Suisse in Japan primarily because such managers caused me to have been misclas