Whether the denial of dispute resolution and arbitration by Defendants constitutes a breach of contract, violation of due process, and infringement of constitutional rights

On June 16, 2022, Petitioner requested dispute resolution under LTD / Amway Agreement Sections 20 and 11.4, seeking mediation to address ongoing fraudulent activities, retaliatory conduct, and violations of the Amway Rules of Conduct by Defendants which includes the importance of National Security issues involving multiple types of election interference and business breaches in the rules of conduct. Despite following proper procedures, the request was summarily denied without explanation. Subsequent events escalated to wrongful termination, while defamation, threats, and physical harm, culminating in a public arrest under false pretenses, later dismissed as unlawful. Additionally, the enforcement of arbitration agreements, alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, and procedural unfairness raise constitutional concerns about due process and the right to a public trial regarding the issues raised. With the material facts documented and supported by evidence, Petitioner presents these issues for review: I. Did the Defendants ’ denial of Petitioner ’s request for dispute resolution and mediation, contrary to contractual provisions, constitute a breach of contract and procedural fairness under LTD and Amway rules? II. Did Defendants abuse their positional authority to suppress National Security complaints, while concealing fraudulent activities, and engage in retaliatory conduct, violating principles of good faith and fair dealing inherent in contractual relationships? III. Was Petitioner ’s resignation under duress, caused by the Defendants ’ retaliatory actions and refusal to follow procedural rules, invalid, and does it warrant judicial review of the wrongful termination? ii IV. Did Defendants ’ actions, including defamation, public accusations, and interference with Petitioner ’s business, constitute tortious interference and reputational harm under applicable state and federal laws? V. Did the unlaw ful use of law enforcement by Defendants, resulting in excessive force, wrongful arrest, and detention, violate Petitioner ’s constitutional rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments? VI. Did the lower courts err in failing to address systemic patterns of abuse, procedural misconduct, and constitutional violations, thereby undermining the enforcement of contractual rights and due process protections? VII. Does the enforcement of an arbitration agreement, allegedly procured and executed under circumstances involving breaches of fiduciary duty, defamation, and duress, violate principles of procedural and substantive unconscionability as recognized in Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. Partnership v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (2017)? VIII. Does compelling arbitration of claims arising from independent tortious conduct, outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, infringe on the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, as outlined in Volt Information Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 489 U.S. 468 (1989)? The enforceability of the arbitration agreement is questioned on several grounds, including whether it is unenforceable due to procedural and substantive unconscionability, particularly in light of the Defendants ’ multiple breaches of contract and tortious actions. Additionally, there is a concern about whether the District Court erred in enforcing the arbitration agreement despite the existence of defamation and intentional tortious claims that arguably fall outside the scope of the contract. iii Furthermore, the enforcement of the arbitration agreement raises constitutional issues, specifically whether it violates the Petitioner ’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Defendants ’ actions, which include defamation and coercion, are also scrutinized to determine if they are sufficient to necessitate a public trial to protect the Petitioner ’s constitutional rights and the public interest. Lastly, under the federal misprision of felony statute, 18 U.S.C. § 4, there is a