Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) contradicts the Investment Advisers Act (IAA) when fraud is inside an investment contract, and whether investors are entitled to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action despite FINRA's exclusion of class action and bifurcation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) contradicts . | Investment Advisers Act (IAA) when fraud is inside | an investment contract. All investors therefor are , entitled to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. However, _ Rule 23(b)(1 or 2) bars opt out of a mandatory class, while FINRA excludes class action and bars bifurcation. A faked “arbitration agreement” therein can displace courts and coerce individual investors into arbitration. The “bifurcated” outcome can never let a court to deliver “finality” for 28 U.S.C. §1291. | Courts must reject such a Rule 12(b)(6) defense under Rule 81(a)(6)(B). See 15 U.S.C. § 780, subsec. . . (o) — [SEC] Authority to restrict mandatory predispute arbitration. The Chevron deference doctrine under Chevron v. Natural Res. Defense Council, 467 US 837 : (1984) requires judicial deference to unambiguous agency authority. However, loopholes exist in Rule 52(a), 23(b) and 54(b) for a district judge using ; “findings of fact” to dispose of documentary evidence | that requires deference and appellate review, thus | block the authority of agencies under the Executive | Branch that courts do not have. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court must reconcile the conflict between Federal Arbitration Act and FINRA — the only self-regulatory organization (SRO) in the 21st Century who is authorized to arbitrate disputes on all securities laws under 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(26) of the Maloney Act of 1938? i oe BG 2. Whether the judge violated Rule 7 of Ashwander v. TVA, 297 US 288 (1936) and blocked the agency authorities, while never delivered the "finality” for 28 U.S.C. § 1291? The pleaded documents were untouched. (Cf. Doc. 17, Exhibit C F) Ultimately, the counsel for UBS Financial Services, Inc. (UBS) confessed to falsifying the signed contract including the faked mandatory “arbitration agreement”. (Cf. Doc. 100) 8. Whether the judge violated the First ; Amendment by carrying out retaliatory judicial usurpation of power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)? The . sanction suppressed the right of class members to court access. UBS counsel’s confession proved that the defense never acquired 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to sustain the long-running blockage by the judge.