Whether the dismissal of petitioner's EEOC retaliation claims without allowing for agreed arbitration violates the Federal Arbitration Act or civil rights laws

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Even before Petitioner could file his Appeal Brief and list his questions for review, on May 17, 2018, an Motion Panel of the Second Circuit -in the context of denying his meritorious motion to disqualify the Respondent’s recently retained, criminally-charged, and alreadybeing-sued attorney Gregg Mashberg for aiding and abetting the recently discovered Elaborate Perjury/ Fraud/(At Least $320,000) Bribery/Extortion Scheme masterminded by Petitioner's own attorney Louis D. Stober -revoked the Petitioner’s “Right to Appeal” sua sponte and summarily dismissed the Petitioner’s already . pending all four related appeals without any briefing or oral arguments whatsoever and by improperly ; disregarding all appellate procedures. The THREE questions presented are as follows: ; (1) Whether, after this U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138, S. Ct. 42 (2017), the district judge’s dismissal of Petitioner's 2017 EEOC authorized continuing illegal retaliation claims without allowing for expressly agreed arbitration for establishment of the first Anti-Discrimination “Minority Employees Association” at the 265years old Ivy League university, even though Petitioner did not initiate any $200 MILLION DOLLARS Class Action in compliance with the 2009 Arbitration Contract, is a violation of the Federal Arbitration Act and or violation of Title VII of the Civil Right Act and or the 1 Chevron Doctrine? (2) Whether, after this U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in BE&K Construction Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 536 U.S. 516 (2002), the Second Circuit violated First Amendment Rights of the Petitioner and thousands of other similarly situated victims of illegal employment : discrimination at the 265-years old Columbia University to petition the courts for redress of grievances by revoking sua sponte Petitioner’s right to litigate and or appeal the: (A) Breach of Arbitration Contract; (B) EEOC authorized continuing illegal in ; hiring claims; and or (C) Injunction obstructing completion of already scheduled jury trial in the New York State Supreme Court in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (Anti-Injunction Act/Younger Abstention)? , (3) Whether the Second Circuit’s simultaneous dismissal of both the Petitioner’s four appeals and also his already pending writ of mandamus petition without ordering the recusal of the and openly biased district court judge Paul A. Crotty, who had openly condoned attorney fraud and at least a $215,000 “bribe or quid pro quo” payment in the guise of bogus attorney fees to his “extrajudicial financial interest” and Petitioner’s own one-of-six-cases/ : client-betraying attorney Louis D. Stober, a violation of 28 USC § 455 (Federal Judge Recusal Law)? tt .