Is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed to substitute its decision(s) and overrule the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §81-16 at §2 in the instant case in opposition to the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States holdings?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed to substitute its decision(s) and overrule the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §81-16 at §2 in the instant case in opposition to the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States holdings? 2. Are the U. S. Supreme Court stare decisis decisions applied equally as the law of the land to protect against judicial discrimination and bias in the application of the law towards petitioner, a . pro se party filing against respondents an individual and a corporation party represented by an attorney in the United States? 3. Why is the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed to circumvent the holding of Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 395 (1967) previously decided and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States to favor respondents Brett Roberts and Credit Acceptance Corporation, et al.? 4. Do the decisions of the Honorable Zahid N. Quraishi, U.S.D.J, a democratically appointed justice, who disregards the laws of the State of New Jersey; violates the rights of Pro Se self-represented litigants; and disregards both the holdings made by stare decisis by the Supreme Court of the United States as well as the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §2 to help corporate entities make the entirety of the judicial system appear to intentionally select to whom the law will unequally be applicable based on the status of the individual(s)? 5. Will the lower courts’ decisions made by the justices in the instant case at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and at the United States District Court for the Third District justices rulings against and the decision to affirm the ruling be a gateway for other cases to usurp the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States when it has already tried, heard the appeals and upheld its decisional law that an arbitrator does not have jurisdiction over ‘unconscionable’ claims against the whole arbitration clause agreement which must be referred to the court? q | | : I