Whether the Supreme Court should grant the judgment for the violation of SEC Heitman Capital No Action Letter in UBS MAC wrap-fee investment contract using exculpatory hedge clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : : . Question-1: Whether the Supreme Court should: | ; , grant the judgment for the violation of SEC Heitman Capital No Action Letter in UBS MAC wrap-fee , investment contract using exculpatory hedge clause. Interlocutory review on this “controlling question of law” will bring the class action to finality. (See p. 14) .. Question-2: Whether the Court must determine that . the falsified defense failed to acquire 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Jurisdiction and deprived the 9th Circuit of §1291 and §1292(a)(1) jurisdictions. This Court has established §1253 jurisdiction for these exceptions. The violation of the above SEC regulation was : never adjudicated. The district court raised the falsified evidence for appellate review. (App. B) 28 _ U.S.C, 1254 cannot resurrect the jurisdictions voided by the self-incriminated defense. (See p. 9) Question-3: Whether the Court shall review the ; statutory violations under 15 U.S.C. § 29. This Court . applied Expediting Act and Transfer Act for direct review. See Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. ; wo . 811, 322 (1928) The 1st Circuit denied its appellate jurisdiction based on the Act,! while the 3rd Circuit . overlooked the § 1292(a)(1) exception.? Here, the 9th Circuit granted summery affirmance without jurisdiction. Upon challenge, the Circuit disclaimed : its supervisory court jurisdiction. (See p. 12) 1 United States v. Cities Svc. Co.,410 F.2d 662, 1st Cir. (1969) 2 United States v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 320 F.2d 509 (1963) i Question-4: Whether the Court should mend the vulnerability in the judicial system, and harmonize with the SRO infrastructure (i.e., FINRA) under 15 ’ U.S.C. § 780 3 (Maloney Act) in the 21st Century to uphold the purpose of Federal Arbitration Act for reducing the court dockets. (See p. 18) . Question-5: Whether the clerk staff of this Court violated S. Ct. Rule 7 in practicing as an attorney to deny the docketing under Rule 18. Instead, the staff ; imposed Rule 10-16 for §1254. (App. D and E) The Court never applied the non-delegation doctrine in Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1, 22 (1825) to Rule 18 in light of Rule 7. The staff brought forth the jurisdictional conflict for review: §1254 lacks the jurisdictional predicate which the Circuit had disclaimed. While the district court raised the evidence tampering for appellate review (App. B), but had no jurisdiction to vacate the nonjurisdictional rulings (jurisdictional defects) of higher courts including this Court. (No. 13-74 and 17-157)