Appendix — Shen v. T. D. Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc.

Supreme Court brief2005

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

——————

)

Supreme Court, U

FILED

Oh 381 JUL 1 - 2004

No. OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court Of United States

De Shen Petitioner

VS.

T.D. Waterhouse Investor Service___ Respondent

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To

United States Court Of Appeals For The First Circuit

APPENDICES FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

De Shen.

11 Summer Ave

Malden, MA 02148

(781) 324-3285

June 20, 2004

INDEX TO APPENDICES

(1) Brief of Appellant (By Plaintiff, May 4, 2003) ---

Page 5

(2) Brief for Defendant — Appellee\Cross — Appellant

(July 28, 2003) --- Page 34

(3) Reply Brief of Plaintiff (Appellant\Cross — Appellee,

Aug. 25, 2003) --- Page 62

(4) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

Punishing the Frauds Of the Defendant and NASD (Sep 29,

2003) --- Page 104

(5) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

Request to arrange Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on this

court (Nov. 3, 2003) --- Page 109

(6) Memorandum of TD Waterhouse Investor Services,

Inc. in Opposition to De Shen’s Motion to Take the

Testimony of Kelly Davis of the NASD (Nov. 24, 2003) ---

Page 117

(7) Affidavit of Derek C. Anderson (Nov. 24, 2003) ---

Page 121

(8) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

Request Double Penalty To The Defendant For Its

Continually Telling Lie (Nov. 24, 2003) --- Page 123

(9) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

Requesting Further Double Penalty To The Defendant For It

Hire Lawyers to Lie in Affidavit (Dec. 1, 2003) --- Page 129

(10) Judgment of US Court of Appeals (Feb. 5, 2004) ---

Page 151

(11) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

Mistakes of Judgment of Feb. 5 2004 (Feb. 22, 2004) ---

Page 152

(12) Court Order of US Court of Appeals (April 6, 2004) -

-- Page 155

(13) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

2nd Request the judges to answer the Basic Questions in

Plaintiff's Feb. 22’s Motion (April 12, 2004) --- Page 157

(14) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

3rd Request the judges to answer the Basic Questions in

Plaintiff's Feb. 22’s Motion (April 26, 2004) --- Page 160

(15) Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION On

4th Request the judges to answer the Basic Questions in

Plaintiff's Feb. 22’s Motion (May 23, 2004) --- Page 165

(16) Court Order of US Court of Appeals (June 18, 2004) -

-- Page 171

APPENDICES 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 03-1415

Plaintiff and Appellant: )

De Shen )

)

) Trade Fraud on March 7, 2000.

VS. )

: ) Civil Action No. 00-11190-WGY

) Appeal Action No. 03-1415

)

Defendant and Respondent: )

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc)

May 4, 2003

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

On appeal from U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

; ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

APPEARANCES:

—————<——<—<——_—e—&—w—<@gw—ee—ee 00

De Shen

11 Summer Ave

Malden, MA 02148

Table of Contents

BRIEF OF APPELLANT. ....+0ccssssscsccsscscecscccsscccccscsscssecccceseees 5

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. .....cccccccccccccscscccccccccsccccccccccccccosese 8

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT............2cccccccceceeeesseececeeeeeees 8

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. .............0.cceccceececscceeereeeeeeeees 8

STATEMENT OF THE CAGE. ............c.cececcsceccceccscccceccceecsees 10

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. ..........c2cccescscecsccececcececeeceeecees 10

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............::csccececsecececsececeesecereesees 15

PERUIIITIGE vc ccncnntcccoturncstcssensccsstssssiccscccduviunteconseanessesnetonl 16

|. Conflict interest should be avoided................scseseeeeees 16

ll. Arbitration Management Fraud should be punished......18

(a) Fraud in organizing the Arbitration Panel ....................... 18

(b) Fraud on ‘Cooking’ Hearing Tape................-:::cceeeeeeees 20

ill. The Arbitration Award should be vacated. This case

should be handled in the court with Juries................0.0.0++0 24

(a) Justice judgment should base on fair examination of

facts. 24

(b) Justice judgment should base on the principle of “All

People are created CQual”. ...............c:cccceeeeeceeeeeeeeeteeeeeteeeeens 25

(d) Arbitration Result is NOT always correct................ 26

: IV. Mr. William Young should study new law and uphold

: CO NOW IAW. .ccccoccocccscscsvoccsccccoccccccesossossossoscossesssosososcscccoss 27

CONCLUSION OF THE BRIEF........:::sssesesesssssseseneseesenenenes 28

AAGONGUIN......cccccccccccccccccccsccccccccccccccccccccccccocsecsecsccscsscess 30

APPONiX..............cscecccscccsccvcccccccscccscscscscscssssscsccssscsasesaes 31

_———————

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Enron Corp ‘Corporate Fraud’ Case

Constitutional Provisions

Bill of Rights --- Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Statutes

Executive Order 13271 of July 9, 2002

15 U.S.C.A. §78a

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Bill of Right should be applied.

All people are created equal.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.A. §78a, Fairness is the Basic

principle of stock trading.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Did Mr. William Young err in knowing there were

some conflict interests, but still ordering this case to

be judged by arbitration? (See Addendum 02)

2. Did Mr. William Young err in knowing due to

conflict interests, there were Arbitration Management

Frauds during the arbitration, but not investigating

and punishing the Arbitration Management Fraud?

(See Addendum 03, 07, 08, 09)

. Did Mr. William Young err in knowing due to the

conflict interests, there were Arbitration Management

Frauds, and the Arbitrators did not. make fair

arbitration, but still confirming the Arbitration

Award? (See Addendum 07, 08)

. Did Mr. William Young err in against the common

sense, denying that the securities trading should be

fair, and ‘First come, first serve’ should be one of the

basic criteria for the trading fairness? (See Addendum

07)

. Did Mr. William Young err in knowing that the

judgment should be based on facts, but denying the

Plaintiff compel the Defendant to present case related

critical data to the Court? (See Addendum 04)

. Did Mr. William Young err in denying having a

hearing in Oct. 7, 2002’s Court ruling? Did Mr.

William Young err in denying providing reasoning

for his ruling in the Oct. 20, 2002’s Court ruling?

(See Addendum 05, 06)

. Did Mr. William Young err in denying the Plaintiff's

motion to ‘Request Ms. Kelly Davis To Testimony on

the Court’? (See Addendum 09)

. Did Mr. William Young err in denying the Plaintiff's

motion to ‘To Add NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc to

Defendant List of This Case’? (See Addendum 09)

10.

This case is so simple, so obvious, however, the

Arbitration made a wrong arbitration, Mr. William

Young confirmed this wrong arbitration result. Is

there any factors of ‘race discrimination against Asia

American’ influenced this case?

Should Mr. William Young study the new law passed

by Congress and Senate, signed by President, and

uphold those new laws? (See Addendum 07,

Appendix 33)

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In this case, the Plaintiff exposed the Defendant’s

trade fraud, the arbitration management fraud, the

arbitration panel’s unfair judgment, and the Mr.

William Young’s misjudgment.

The Plaintiff once said, “I am holding a great flag, a

flag of justice; a flag of fair; a flag of ‘All people are

created equal’” (See Appendix 12). The Plaintiff

hopes that our judges should uphold the same flag.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On March 7, 2000, a trade fraud was happened. The

Market Recap (See Appendix 01) of March 7, 2000

had clearly indicated that it is the Defendant’s

mistake. After many times phone calls between the

Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant did not

commit its mistake. Hence, a law suite was filed (See

Appendix 05) under the suggestion of the lawyer of

the week of the Framingham Court. The Defendant

requested to handle this case by arbitration. However,

in nee Ae

—se ™

the Plaintiff believe that the customers have the

freedom right to choose whether to solve this case by

arbitrstion or by court according to the Bill Of Right.

Judge Young held a conference with the Plaintiff and

the Defendant. The judge informed both sides that

this case should go through arbitration first. However,

if the Plaintiff feels that the result is not proper, or

there is any item cannot be arbitrated, the judge

would like to continue handling this case on the court.

When the Plaintiff preparing for the Arbitration

Claim, the Plaintiff found that there is one issue,

which will conduct the conflict interest if this case

handled by Arbitration. On Feb. 3, 2001, the Plaintiff

filed a motion, inform the Court that there is a conflict

interest issue if this case handled by arbitration (See

Appendix 03, 06). In this motion, the Plaintiff

requested this case should be handled by the District

Court according to the Bill Of Right. However, the

Court denied this motion (See Appendix 07). The

Plaintiff believes this ruling was incorrect. It is

violated the Constitution.

Although the Plaintiff worried about that there might

be some conflict interests issues by going through the

arbitration, the Plaintiff decided to follow the judge’s

order to seriously go through the arbitration first. The

Arbitration Statement of Claim was submitted on July

26, 2001 (See Appendix 08). The arbitration hearing

held on June 20, 2002.

As predicted, due to the conflict interest, the

arbitration management frauds were happened,

and the award of arbitration is extremely unfair (See

Appendix 09, 10, 14). It unfairly dismissed the

Plaintiff's claim in the entirety. Every item in the

Plaintiff's Statement of Claim was not be

arbitrated! There is no any conclusion from the

arbitrators on each item of the Plaintiff's

Statement of Claim. Of cause, there is no any

reasoning on how to get those conclusions!

Count (8) which is directly associated with NASD

was untouched; .

The Defendant’s failure to execute customer’s

order was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting customer

was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating SEC was not punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath was not

punished.

Due to the conflict interests, when organizing the

arbitration panel, the arbitration administrator forged

the arbitration panel. After the arbitration, the

arbitration administrator modified the hearing tape.

Considering that Mr. William Young promised that if

the arbitrators do not arbitrate some of the items in

the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff could come

back to the Court (See Appendix 04), the Plaintiff

submitted a motion to request to re-open this case in

the District Court on Aug. 17, 2002 (See Appendix

17, 18). In this motion and the cover letter, the

Plaintiff reported the unfair arbitration result,

including that many items are not arbitrated at all.

The Plaintiff also reported the Arbitration

Management Fraud to the Court. However, Mr.

William Young broken his promise, and denied this

motion (See Appendix 20).

Macias i te Di Ser Ra Acer eh Raeanactdl pte

Considering that Judgment should base on facts

instead of prejudice, the entire arbitration is baseless

since until now the Defendant has not submitted the

case related critical trading data yet. Hence, the

Plaintiff submitted a motion to “Compel The

Production Of Documents” on Aug. 29, 2002(See

Appendix 19). However, Mr. William Young ignored

that the fact that due to Conflict Interests, the

arbitration result is extremely unfair, and denied the

Plaintiff's motion (See Appendix 21).

Considering that the Court denied the Plaintiff's

motions might be all based on a wrong assumption

that the arbitration conducted a fair resolution. The

Plaintiff submitted the third motion (See Appendix

22) on Sep. 29, 2002 to request a hearing, so that the

~ Plaintiff can explain to the Court why the arbitration

result is extremely unfair. A good judge should listen

to the people. However, Mr. William Young even

denied this basic requirement on Oct. 7, 2002 (See

Appendix 23).

The Plaintiff was really surprised about Mr. William

Young’s ruling on Oct. 7, 2002. Hence, the Plaintiff

submitted a motion to “Requesting the reason of court

ruling on Oct. 7, 2002” (See Appendix 24).

Unfortunately, the Plaintiff even cannot get the

reasoning from the court. Mr. William Young was

even unable to provide any reasoning (i.e. according

to which law(s)) about his ruling (See Appendix 25).

The Plaintiff has to request the Transcript of the

conference of Nov. 14, 2000, on which, Mr. William

Young promised to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff can

come back to Court if the arbitration result is unfair or

some items in the Complaint are not arbitrated. On

Nov. 4, 2002, the Plaintiff received a copy of the

Transcript (See Appendix 04).

Since the arbitration administrator edited the

arbitration hearing tapes and denied to provide a true

copy of arbitration hearing tapes. The Plaintiff

submitted a motion to “Compel NASD to Provide

True Copy Of Hearing Tape Of Case 01-03697” on

Nov. 16, 2002 (See Appendix 26). The original

hearing tapes are four tapes. The edited tapes are

three tapes(See Appendix 16). However, Mr. William

Young even denied punishing the arbitration

administrator’s criminal actions. The Plaintiff's

motion was denied.

According to Mr. William Young’s word on the deny

letter, the Plaintiff submitted a motion to “Request

Vacation of the Arbitration Award on Case NASD

No. 01-03697” (See Appendix 27). Finally, Mr.

William Young agreed to have a hearing on this issue.

The Plaintiff saw a glimpse of hope that the justice

might be fulfilled on this case by the hearing. The

hearing was held on Feb 6, 2003.

Unfortunately, Mr. William Young did not make a

fair judgment on this hearing (See Appendix 28). (1)

Mr. William Young claimed this case is “a serious

one”. However, Mr. William Young did not handle

this case seriously. Mr. William Young did not

investigate the arbitration management fraud. Also,

he did not investigated on the trade fraud. Judgment

should be based on the fact, however, Mr. William

Young did not request the Defendant providing the

case related critical data. (2) Mr. William Young

viral

Por eS _ -

Sa RET ES Cee Tene RD

ignored the arbitration management fraud on forging

the arbitration panel list, claimed, “If you get a biased

arbitrator, they won.” (3) Mr. William Young ignored

the arbitration management fraud on ‘cooking’ the

hearing tape, and asked the silly question “Suppose

that is true, what does that show?”. “Falsifying

records” is against the Congress and Senate passed

new law and the President’s speech (See Appendix

33), Mr. Suzanne Green’s bad action has breached the

people’s trust and abused NASD’s power. This

criminal action should be punished. However, Mr.

William Young did not uphold Congress and Senate

passed new law, and did not punish Mr. Suzanne

Green’s criminal action. (4) Mr. William Young even

challenged the fairness of stock trading, deny that

“First come, first serve” should be one of the criteria

of fairness in stock trading. (5) Mr. William Young

ignored the arbitration management fraud, and claim

that “Arbitration is second-class justice”, so that no

matter the arbitration administrator made how serious

criminal action, the arbitration result has to be

confirmed. According to Mr. William Young’s logic,

the arbitration administrator is just like the Emperor

or Empress, who can do any criminal actions as

his/her will, and cannot be punished.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

According to the Bill of Right, due to the conflict

interests, this case should be handled by the District

Court from the beginning. Ordering this case to be

handled by NASD arbitration is one misjudgment.

The District Court should investigate the arbitration

management frauds and punish those arbitration

management frauds.

The unfair arbitration result should be vacated.

The Defendant’s failure to execute customer’s order

should be punished:

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting customer

should be punished;

The Defendant’s cheating SEC should be punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath should be

punished;

The Defendant failed to provide case related critical

information should be punished;

The Defendant’s invading the Plaintiff's privacy

should be punished;

The Defendant’s blocking customer’s on-line account

should be punished.

Mr. William Young should study and uphold the new

law. which passed by Congress and Senate, and

signed by the President.

ARGUMENT

Conflict interest should be avoided

When the Plaintiff preparing for the Arbitration

Claim. the Plaintiff found that there is one issue,

which will conduct the conflict interest if this case

handled by Arbitration.

i. nto ey

On Feb. 3, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a motion, inform

the Court that there is a conflict interest issue if this

case handled by arbitration.

“On the Nov 14’s conference, our Honorable Judge

Young suggests that the Plaintiff should go through

Arbitration first. If the problems cannot be solved or

the problems were not solved properly, then our

Honorable Judge will accept to handle this case with

justice in this court. The Plaintiff agreed to follow our

Honorable Judge’s suggestion. The Plaintiff rewrote a

Complaint for Arbitration (See Attached). However,

after rewriting the Complaint, the Plaintiff

discovered that there is a conflict interest if this

case goes through arbitration. Mr. Sullivan

informed me that I might bring arbitration before

either the NASD or NYSE. The count 8 in the new

Complaint document might be closely related to

NASD and NYSE. With my understanding, NASD or

NYSE cannot arbitrate itself since there is a conflict

interest. Hence, the Plaintiff would like to present this

point to our Honorable Judge. After considering

avoiding the conflict interest, the Plaintiff strongly

requests this case to be re-opened and to be handled

directly through this court.

I, hereby, pray to the Honorable Judge in this Court,

in order to avoid the conflict interest, this case should

be reopened and the investigation about the

Defendant’s illegal actions in this case should be

handled by this Honorable Court. I sincerely pray to

the Honorable Judge to provide justice judgments in

this court on this case according to the Bill Of Right.

be)

However, the court denied this motion (See

Appendix 07). The Plaintiff believes this ruling

————

was incorrect. It is violated the Constitution. In the

count 8 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff

pointed out that one NASD’s contract tries to

prevent Defendant’s customer presenting valid

data evidence to the honorable Judge in the court.

NASD cannot arbitrate itself. The conflict interest

should be avoided. With the conflict interest, the

arbitration will be not fair. Further, Freedom of

Speech is included in the Bill of Rights (the first

ten amendments of US Constitution). According to

the Bill of Rights, people should have the right to

choose whether they want to handle their case by

arbitration or by Court.

Il. Arbitration Management Fraud should be

punished.

(a) Fraud in organizing the Arbitration Panel

The deadline of submitting the Panel candidate list is

Dec. 24, 2001. The Plaintiff selected the Panel list

and submitted on Dec. 15, 2001. One day (after Dec.

24. 2001, and before Feb.1, 2002) (in the document I

sent to NASD, I mentioned Dec. 26, 2002, however, I

might miss remember the exact date) the Plaintiff

called Ms. Kelly Davis, asked her whether the

Defendant (Respondent) had submit their arbitrator

list on time. Ms. Kelly Davis informed me that

NASD had not received the Defendant

(Respondent)’s list yet. And she told me NASD

would process on the arbitration panel list anyway

without waiting for the Defendant (Respondent)’s list.

sink anti (olson Sinbad

% Cw. eich re _ ~ ~. od wiby '.

BWR EES ce Saeed is F BOM SRO SSRUN DI He Cb SRR ETI OTA UR NOR IP

If Ms. Kelly Davis’ statement is true, then, all the

arbitrators should come from the Plaintiff selected

arbitrator list. However, when the Plaintiff received

the finalized arbitrator list of the Panel from Ms.

Suzanne Green, the Plaintiff found that only Mr.

Richard D. Jordan (4) was selected as the arbitrator of

the Panel.

The Plaintiff called Ms. Suzanne Green to clarify

what happened. Ms. Suzanne Green told me that

the Defendant submitted their arbitrator list on

Dec. 24, 2001.

Since the result of the arbitration is critically

depended by who is (are) arbitrator(s), the Plaintiff

had to file causal challenge to request Ms. Suzanne

Green to clarify the timing issue. However, one

month passed, Ms. Suzanne Green still unable to

clarify this issue.

On a letter that the Plaintiff sent to the President of

NASD, the Plaintiff wrote:

“After one month that I asked Ms. Suzanne Green

regarding to the Timing Issue on the Defendant’s

submission of its selected Arbitrator List for the

Panel, Ms. Suzanne Green is still unable to answer

my simple question. Hence, I formally propose the

investigation request on this issue to NASD

Dispute Resolution, Inc.

If Ms. Suzanne Green was cheating or lying on the

Arbitration Job, she should not be qualified as an

Arbitration Administrator on this case.”

On March 26, 2002, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the

associate Vice President of NASD, replied me a

letter. In her letter, Ms. Clancy provided a third

version of this timing: “Respondent’s ranking form

was sent to us by facsimile, and received in our office

on December 11, 2001, with an original copy arriving

on December 12, 2001.” People have to ask Ms.

Clancy, December 11, 2001 was far away from

December 24, 2001 deadline, overnight delivery is

quite enough, why the Defendant send another copy

by facsimile besides the overnight delivery? Is this

just like an Old Story, “when completed drawing a

heautiful picture of a snake. appending legs to that

snake’?

Until now, who was lying, who was cover up, is still a

riddle. The Plaintiff strongly believes that Ms. Kelly

Davis was telling the truth at that moment. Until now,

Ms. Kelly Davis has not lie yet. The Plaintiff request

Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on the court. \{ Ms.

Kelly Davis could tell the truth on the court. the

Plaintiff request the Court protect Ms. Kelly Davis.

avoid the revenges from NASD. If she does not tell

the truth on the court, then this issue will be covered

up. The Plaintiff wonders whether the Court is talent

enough to expose the truth.

(b) Fraud on ‘Cooking’ Hearing Tape

(Forgery is a Criminal Behavior)

The Plaintiff received the hearing tape of the

arbitration (NASD No. 01-03697) on Aug. 10, 2002.

When the Plaintiff listen to the tape, the Plaintiff

discovered that many content of the arbitration

hearing are not in the tape.

Pane tet pe ee

On the arbitration, the arbitrators openly bias in favor

j of the Defendant. For example, when the Plaintiff

asked the Defendant to provide detailed case related

trade information to the Arbitration Panel. (Without

those basic facts, the arbitration will be baseless.) The

Arbitrator Chair Richard D. Jordan openly protects

the Defendant. He said loudly, “It is trade secret!”

However, this statement is erased from the hearing

tape.

This is one fact that it proved the arbitration

resolution is extremely unfair.

Re ee cy fe ee

SE RAR oe RNY

(1) In the speech on explaining the new law passed

by Congress and Senate “Tough New Enforcement

Initiatives for Reform on Corporate Responsibility”,

President Bush said:

| “We've learned of some business leaders

obstructing justice, and misleading clients,

j falsifying records, business executives breaching

the trust and abusing power.”

Erase content from hearing tape is one type of

“falsifying records”. And this type of forgery hearing

tape is a criminal behavior. NASD arbitration

administrator Ms. Suzanne Green should be punished

on her bad behavior. Her bad behavior has breached

the people’s trust and abused NASD’s power.

(2) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“Self-regulation is important, but it's not enough.

Government cannot remove risk from investment -

- | know that -- or chance from the market. But

government can do more to promote transparency

and ensure that risks are honest. And government

can ensure that those who breach the trust of the

American people are punished.”

The arbitrators helped the Defendant to refuse

providing critical case related trade information and

to hide the true trade transaction data by claiming “It

is Trade Secret”. The arbitrators’ action and the

Defendant’s action are strictly against the law, which

passed by Congress and Senate. Congress, Senate and

President Bush ask to promote transparency. While

the arbitrators’ action and the Defendant’s action are

strictly going to the opposite direction. Their actions

breached the trust of the American people.

The Plaintiff believes that the court should act now to

promote the data transparency and ensure the unfair

and un-honest trade fraud is punished.

(3) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“Defrauding investors is a serious offense, and the

punishment must be as serious as the crime.”

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant’s denying

its mistake again, again and again should be seriously

punished. When this case re-opened in the court, the

minimum punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

However, if the punishment reached or exceeded

$1.000.000.00, the Plaintiff is planning to use at least

80% of the awarded money to establish a non-profit

fund, which will be used for the following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education Organizations to

utilize the most advance computer

technologies, e.g. Academy Enterprise

System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Lawyers and Security

Workers to support world peace and justice.

so that people from different countries with

different culture background can understand

each other. é

(d) Promote Boston’s new construction and

expansion. So that Boston will be one of the

largest and the most famous cities in the

world.

PER cs, Re rat RO So he STE DAC hee Pea

(4) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“If more scandals are hiding in corporate

America, we must find and expose them now, so

we can begin rebuilding the confidence of our

people and the momentum of our markets.”

ERD ERT HO Relat ater oll

ee eee lee es

ae vee

The Plaintiff believes that it is the time, on this court,

to expose the Defendant’s trade fraud and NASD’s

cooking the hearing tape. The Plaintiff respectively

requests the court:

(1) Order the NASD to provide the true copy of

the hearing tape of the arbitration (NASD

No. 01-03697) to the Plaintiff and to this

court;

(II) Order the Defendant to provide true

transaction data (include Order type, Order

Date, Order Price, and “whether that order is

placed by Market Maker or Broker”

appended to the Market Recap) to the

Plaintiff and to this court.

The Plaintiff believes that this court, as one part of the

US government, has the guts and power to make the

above orders.

IIl. The Arbitration Award should be vacated.

This case should be handled in the court with

Juries.

According to Judge Young’s statement on July 2,

2001, the Plaintiff seriously went through the

arbitration with the Defendant from July 26, 2001 to

July 20, 2002. As predict, due to the conflict interest,

NASD was unable to fairly make item-by-item

judgment on this case.

(a) Justice judgment should base on fair

examination of facts.

The Defendant rejected to provide the case related

critical information again and again. I wonder,

without that critical information, how the arbitrators

can make any right decision. The Defendant claims

that: Market orders receive execution priority (See

Respondent’s amended statement of answer, page 3,

line 7). However, the Defendant failed to prove that

all the sell orders of those 170 transactions are Market

orders. And as long as one sell order of those 170

transactions is NOT Market order, the Defendant’s

argument is automatically defeated. According to

statistics theory, it is almost impossible that all the

sell orders of those 170 transactions are Market

orders. \f the arbitrators understand statistics theory,

Peg eg CEN

Pe Nek eee

they can reach the conclusion immediately that the

Defendant is lying and the Defendant is responsible

for the failure to execute the Plaintiff's order. If the

arbitrators don’t understand the statistics theory, then

they should ask the Defendant to provide detailed

information about the order type of the sell orders of

those 170 transactions to get the right conclusion.

With unfair arbitration, the Defendant has not

provided the case related critical information until

today. The Plaintiff strongly requests the Court

compel the Defendant to provide the critical case

related document requested by the Plaintiff in the

Plaintiff's “First Request For Document and

Information to Defendant”.

(b) Justice judgment should base on the

principle of “All People are created

equal”.

However, the Defendant openly requested the

arbitration panel to dismiss this case by race

prejudice And the result is just as the Defendant’s

willing. the three arbitrators dismissed the Plaintiff's

claim in the entirety without any reasoning:

Count (8) which is directly associated with NASD

was untouched;

The Defendant’s failure to execute customer’s order

was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting customer was

not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating SEC was not punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath were not

punished;

The Defendant failed to provide case related critical

information was not punished;

The Defendant’s invading the Plaintiff's privacy was

not punished;

In general, the Defendant successfully escaped from

the justice judgment in the arbitration hearing due to

the conflict interest.

stock trading

“First come, first serve” shouid be one of the basic

rules for stock trading. The Plaintiff asked many

experts on stock trading (include some arbitrators and

lawyers) the following question:

“If there are 10 same limit orders to sell 5000 shares

stock XYZ at price $2.00, Person A placed order on

Feb. 23, 2000. while others placed the same order on

March 7, 2000. When Market bid price exceeded

$2.00, which order should be executed first?” All the

answer are same: “Person A’s order should be

executed first because that order placed first.”

Mr. William Young challenging this basic stock-

trading rule on the hearing of Feb 6, 2003 is incorrect.

(d) Arbitration Result is NOT always correct

Mr. William Young claimed, “Arbitration is second-

class justice” ( Feb 6, 2003, Motion Hearing

Transcript, Page 10, Line 25). According to this

assumption, Mr. William Young blindly confirmed

the Arbitration award. Now, I start to understand why

Ms. Suzanne Green dares to forge the Arbitration

Panel. Now, I start to understand why Ms. Suzanne

Green dares to “cook” the Hearing Tape. Now, I start

to understand why the Arbitrators dare to help the

IV.

Defendant to hide the unfair trading Data. It is

because they have the “Umbrella” of “Arbitration is

second-class justice”. With this “Umbrella”, No

matter how many criminal actions they did, no one

will punish them! However, people have to ask Mr.

William Young: If you do not work hard to

investigate each case, if you do not have talent to

distinguish who is good, who is bad, who did criminal

actions, if you do not uphold justice, do not punish

the criminal actions, why people need to you? People

need you is because Arbitration Result is NOT always

correct, especially there is conflict interests involved.

Unfair Arbitration result should be corrected by the

Court. If our Mr. William Young does not correct

those Arbitration Mistakes, then, our Mr. William

Young is neglecting his duties.

According to our Mr. William Young’s logic, then,

the civil court will be the “first justice”. Hence, our

Mr. William Young will be always right since he is

the chief Judge in this court. Hence, there will be no

need to have Appeal Court and Supreme Court.

Fortunately, US People do not trust our Mr. William

Young’s logic. Mr. William Young might make

mistakes. Mr. William Young’s mistakes should be

corrected by the Appeal Court and/or Supreme Court.

Anyone should obey the law. Ms. Suzanne Green's

Arbitration Management fraud should be punished.

TD Water House’s trade fraud should be punished.

Mr. William Young should study new law and

uphold the new law.

Congress and Senate worked very hard to pass the new

law on “Tough New Enforcement Initiatives for Reform

on Corporate Responsibility”. The president of USA

signed this new law and uses different opportunities to

explain the new law to the people. Should Mr. William

Young study hard about this new law? Should the

Supreme Court of the United States request Mr. William

Young to uphold this new law? If our judge Young does

not study the new law, ignore those criminal behaviors

which violating the new law passed by Congress and

Senate, does not punish those criminal behaviors, should

he think about whether he neglected his duty?

CONCLUSION OF THE BRIEF

(1) It is a mistake that Mr. William Young

ignored that there were conflict interests if this

case handled by NASD arbitration, and denied

the Plaintiff's Motions of request to handle

this case in the District Court. Conflict

interests should be avoided. This case should

be handled by the Federal District Court.

(II) It isa mistake that Mr. William Young

ignored that due to the conflict interests, the

NASD fraudulently managed this arbitration,

and confirmed the arbitration award. Mr.

William Young should study the new law

passed by the Congress and the Senate, signed

by the President. Mr. William Young should

be bound to uphold this rew law. The

Arbitration Management Fraud should be

punished. The Arbitration Award should be

vacated.

4 (ill)

(IV)

Pe ee eet ee

(V)

NASD’s Arbitration Management Fraud

should be punished. The minimum

punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

The Defendant (TD Water House Investor

Service, Inc)’s Trade fraud, followed by its

cheating customer, insult customer, cheating

SEC, lie under OATH, etc should be

punished. The minimum punishment should

be $1,000,000.00.

If the total punishment exceeded

$1.000,000.00, as Promised. the Plaintiff is

planning to use at least 80% of the awarded

money to establish a non-profit fund, which

will be used for the following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education

Organizations to utilize the most

advance computer technologies, e.g.

Academy Enterprise System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Security

Workers, Lawyers and Judges to

support world peace and justice.

this world so that people from different

countries with different culture

background can understand each other.

(d) Promote Boston’s new

construction and expansion. So that

Boston will be one of the largest and

the most famous cities in the world.

Addendum

Table of Content

01. Court Transcript of Status Conference Nov.

14, 2000 A04

02. Court Ruling on Feb. 3, 2001 Motion July 2,

2001 <A07

03. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Aug. 10, 2002 Motion Sep. 6,

2002 A20

04. Court Ruling on Aug. 29, 2002 Motion Sep.

24, 2002 A2]

05. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Sep. 29, 2002 Motion Oct. 7,

2002 A23

06. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Oct. 20, 2002 Motion Oct.

28, 2002 A25

07. Court Transcript on Motion Hearing Feb. 6,

2003 A28

08. Court Judgment of Feb. 27, 2003 Feb.

27, 2003 A30

09. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Feb. 17, 2003 Motion

and April 17, 2003 Motion April

23, 2003 A32

Appendix

Table of Content

01. Market/Trade Recap

March 7 & 8, 2000

02. Defendant's letter to SEC

May 3, 2000 »

03. Defendant's NASD contracts for

blocking Plaintiff's on-line account

July,2000

04. Court Transcript of Status Conference

Nov. 14, 2000

05. Plaintiff's Complaint No. 00-11190-WGY

(Submitted on June 4, 2000) Updated on

Nov. 22, 2000

06. Motion Plaintiff strongly request

to re-open this case

Feb. 3, 2001

07. Court Ruling on Feb. 3, 2001 Motion

July 2, 2001

08. Arbitration Statement of Claim

July 26, 2001

09. Arbitration Causal Challenge

March 10, 2002

10. Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy's Letter

March 26, 2002

11. Amendment of Arbitration Statement of Claim

March 28, 2002

12. Response To Defendant’s Motion

To Compel Its Referenced Matter

June 8, 2002

13. Opening Statement

June 20, 2002

14. Arbitration Award

July 18, 2002

15. Email related to edited Hearing Tapes

Aug. 10, 2002

16. Checks related to Hearing Tapes

17. Motion: Plaintiff strongly request

to re-open this case

Aug. 10, 2002

18. Plaintiff Motion's Cover Letter

Aug. 16, 2002

19. Plaintiff MOTION: To Compel

The Production Of Documents

Aug. 29, 2002

20. Court Ruling on Plaintiffs Aug. 10, 2002 Motion

Sep. 6, 2002

21. Court Ruling on Aug. 29, 2002 Motion

Sep. 24, 2002

22. Plaintiffs MOTION On Having A Hearing

Sep. 29, 2002

23. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Sep. 29, 2002 Motion

Oct. 7,2002 —

24. Plaintiff s MOTION On Requesting the reason of

court ruling on Oct. 7, 2002 .

Oct. 20, 2002

25. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Oct. 20, 2002 Motion

Oct. 28, 2002

26. Plaintiffs MOTION To Compel NASD to Provide

True Copy Of Hearing Tape Of Case 01-03697

Nov. 15, 2002

27. Plaintiff s MOTION To Request Vacation of the

Arbitration Award on Case NASD No. 01-03697

Dec. 8, 2002

28. Court Transcript on Motion Hearing

Feb. 6, 2003

29. Plaintiffs MOTION To Request Ms. Kelly Davis

To Testimony on the Court

Feb. 17, 2003

30. Court Judgment of Feb. 27, 2003

Feb. 27, 2003

31. Plaintiffs MOTION To Add NASD Dispute Resolution,

Inc

to Defendant List of This Case

April 20, 2003

32. Court Ruling on Plaintiff's Feb. 17, 2003 Motion

and April 17, 2003 Motion

April 23, 2003

33. President's Speech on Corporate Responsibility

July 9, 2002

34. Plaintiffs New Complaint Jan.

4, 2003

APPENDICES 2

Appeal Nos. 03-1415; 03-1478

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

DE SHEN

Plaintiff - Appellant\Cross - Appellee

T.D. WATERHOUSE INVESTOR SERVICES, INC.

Defendant - Appellee\Cross - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Massachusetts in Civil Action

00-11190WGY

BRIEF FOR DEFENDANT - APPELLEE\CROSS -

APPELLANT

Pete S. Michaels (9105)

Derek C. Anderson (89737)

Michaels, Murphy & LLP

One Liberty Square

Boston, MA 02109

(617) 350-7700

Attorneys for Defendant - Appellee\Cross - Appellant

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

T.D. Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc.

hereby states that its parent corporation is

T.D. Waterhouse Group, Inc. and that

there are no publicly held corporations that

own 10% or more of its stock.

Dated: July 28, 2003

Pete S. Michaels

Attorney for Defendant - Appellee\

Cross - Appellant

Court of Appeals Bar Number 9105

MURPHY & MICHAELS, LLP

One Liberty Square

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

(617) 350-7700

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............ i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .........cccecescccecccccccesecseseees ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. ........cseccceeceeceeeeeseesees iv

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT. .......-ceeceeeeeeeeeesees 1

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BY

TD WATERHOUSE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL............ 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ........ssccceeceeceeeeceseeees 2

STATEMENT OF FACT. .......ccccscecccceeeccceeeescesccsess 3

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. .......ccsccceecceceeeesceceeees 5

ARGUMENT.........cccccccscccccccccccccsscccccccccccccsssossccoss 6

I. De Shen failed to file the Motion to Vacate

within

the time allowed by law..........-eeeeeseeeeees 6

Il. The District Court properly stayed

proceedings in federal

court, ordering arbitration under the rules

of the National

Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”)

epaasmenbopessassseensssenadstuauseisanemesarn=nae 10

Ill. The District Court correctly denied De

Shen’s Motion to

Vacate on the Merits..........eeeeereeeeeeeeeee 12

Standard of Review................6+ 12

Section 10 of the FAA............... 13

TD Waterhouse did not obtain the

arbitration

award by corruption, fraud, or undue means...14

The arbitrators displayed no evident

partiality

or corruption 15

The arbitrators did not refuse to hear

evidence

pertinent and material to the controversy 17

IN ai uirelcnide ncclawstuniciamnnimien 19 q

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 4

Cases

Arecibo Community Health Care, Inc. v. Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico

270 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2001)

AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communication Workers of

America,

475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S. Ct. 1415 (1986)

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America,

350 U.S. 198, 204, 100 L.Ed. 199, 76 S.Ct. 273 (1956)

Bonar v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.,

$35 F.2d 1378, 1383 ai" Cir. 1988)

Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd,

470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S. Ct. 1238 (1985)

Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc.,

679 F.2d 1293 (9" Cir. 1982)

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Manuel Kaplan, et ux. and

MK Investments, Inc.,

514 U.S. 938, 947-948, 115 S. Ct. 1920 (1995)

Florasynth, Inc. v. Pickolz,

750 F.2d 171, 173 q2"" Cir. 1984)

Foster v. Turley,

808 F. 2d 38, 41 (10 Cir. 1986)

Franco v. Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.,

719 F.Supp. 63, 64 (D. Puerto Rico, 1989)

Kiewit/Atkinson/Kenny v. International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, Local 103, AFL-CIO,

76 F. Supp.2d 77, 79 (D. Mass. 1999)

LaFarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A. v. Kaiser Cement &

Gypsum Corp.,

791 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9" Cir. 1986)

McClelland v. Azrilyan,

31 F.Supp. 2d 707, 709-712, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21803

(W. D. Mo. 1998)

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int’l

Union,

600 F.2d 322, 326 (1" Cir. 1979)

Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury

Construction Corp.,

460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S. Ct. 927 (1983)

Peoples Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,

991 F.2d 141, 146 (4" Cir. 1993)

Piccolo v. Dain, Kalman & Quail, Inc.,

641 F.2d 598, 600 (8" Cir., Neb. 1981)

Sanders-Midwest, Inc. v. Midwest Pipe Fabricators, Inc.,

857 F.2d 1235, 1237 (3 Cir., Mo., 1988)

Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon,

482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S. Ct. 2332 (1987)

Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries, Inc.

783 F.2d 743, 749-750 (8" Cir. 1986)

Taylor v. Nelson,

788 F. 2d 220, 225 (4 Cir. 1986)

The Newspaper Guild of Salem v. Ottaway Newspapers,

Inc.,

79 F. 3d 1273, 1279 (1" Cir. 1996)

Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer,

29 F.3d 727, 730-31 (1 Cir. 1994)

Witt v. Reinholdt & Gardner,

587 F. 2d 383, 384 (8" Cir. Mo., 1978)

Wonderland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Westwood Group

Inc.,

274 F.3d 34, 35 (Ist Cir. 2001) 12, 13

Statutes

Se Sn UE UD. cnisstenehaddvakudaahentedhikiaibeudimannad 1

Pe ia aan nntisiniiihinincneeienalbacs tials lt 1

ee IE tig tasinsnandncsaniniindntsbamnninniubieteiaicass 1

ee Si tthenetbnecanhictininusablidtienseaimatn 1

F EEE Disthathsinbbkinnnninnésianiindnssinneiasenniennad 6

PMNs Ee Mneitehndiinerihiamabcdanedbishundiadiaadile 10, 11

RATE Wiindahiiend saennbdinnnthdsnitatineniiidensananinia’s 1

Fae HE Micninghankecdnnnahinmbnninesniasiesans 12, 13, 16

PG TE UE athadlanniniiiasanteha benhtesinntaetenel 6, 7, 8,9

7 ean I Tindbncanneswinncnninemsidenekabuatuantaiandiees 11

F ire TP Wikanbickonksntbunhadbenbiniaiathinien cetannianias 11

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

A. The District Court had subject matter

jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,

15 U.S.C. § 78aa and 9 U.S.C. § 9. De Shen brought

claims under the federal securities laws. See, 15 U.S.C. §

78a et seq. TD Waterhouse sought confirmation of the

arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act and

De Shen sought to vacate the arbitration award under the

Federal Arbitration Act.

B. The First Circuit Court of Appeals has

jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

A judgment that disposed of all claims with respect to all

parties was signed on February 27, 2003 and docketed

that day. A notice of appeal was filed on March 24, 2003.

A notice of cross-appeal was filed on April 3, 2003.

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW BY TD

WATERHOUSE

IN ITS CROSS APPEAL

1. Did the District Court err in holding that

De Shen’s Motion to Re-open the case constituted a

Motion to Vacate the arbitration award and therefore

that De Shen had filed the Motion to Vacate within the

three (3) month period required by the Federal

Arbitration Act.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff - Appellant\Cross - Appellee De Shen

(hereinafter “De Shen” or “Appellant”) filed a complaint

for “trade fraud” against Defendant - Appellee\Cross -

Appellant TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc.

(hereinafter “TD Waterhouse” or “Appellee”) in federal

oe eS ee ee ee ee

court on June 4, 2000. TD Waterhouse moved the

District Court to compel arbitration and stay litigation on

July 12, 2000. The District Court ordered that this case

be arbitrated, and stayed the federal court litigation on

July 17, 2000.

De Shen filed a Statement of Claim in arbitration

on August 23, 2001. See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 8.

TD Waterhouse filed its Statement of Answer on

November 7, 2001. See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 1. De

Shen filed an Amended Statement of Claim in arbitration

on March 28, 2002. See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 11.

TD Waterhouse filed an Amended Statement of Answer

on June 19, 2002. See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 2. De

Shen’s claims against TD Waterhouse were considered at

arbitration before the National Association of Securities

Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) on June 20 and 21, 2002. A panel

of three arbitrators dismissed De Shen’s claims in their

entirety in an Award dated July 18, 2002. See,

Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 14.

De Shen wrote the District Court on August 16, 2002,

requesting that the case be re-opened and submitted a

Motion to Re-open the case. See, Appellant’s Appendix,

Tabs 17, 18. The District Court treated that motion as a

Motion for Reconsideration and denied it on September

6, 2002. See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 20. De Shen then

filed a Motion to Request Vacation of the Arbitration

Award (referred to throughout this Appellee’s Brief as

“Motion to Vacate”) with the District Court on December

16, 2002. See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 25. TD

Waterhouse objected to the Motion to Vacate and filed its

own Motion to Confirm the Arbitration Award

(hereinafter “Motion to Confirm”) on December 30, 2002.

See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 3. The District Court

denied De Shen’s Motion to Vacate and allowed TD

Waterhouse’s Motion to Confirm on February 27, 2003.

The cross appeals now before this Court followed.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Once this case proceeded to arbitration under the

rules of the NASD, the parties selected arbitrators

pursuant to NASD Dispute Resolution (“NASD DR”)

Rule 10308. See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 4. TD

Waterhouse submitted its ranking of potential arbitrators

within the time allowed by NASD DR rules. /d.

Pursuant to NASD DR rules, De Shen filed a Request for

Production of Documents to TD Waterhouse with the

NASD on November 25, 2001. See, Appellee’s Appendix,

Tab 5. De Shen did not serve the Request for Production

of Documents to TD Waterhouse until March 4, 2002.

See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 6. TD Waterhouse

responded to De Shen’s Request for Production of

Documents on April 3, 2002. See Appellee’s Appendix,

Tab 7.

On April 14, 2002, De Shen filed a Motion to Amend his

Statement of Claim in Arbitration. See, Appellee’s

Appendix, Tab 8. TD Waterhouse objected to the Motion

to Amend on April 26, 2002, and argued that the

proposed new claims did nothing more than attack

counsel and raise discovery issues. See, Appellee’s

Appendix, Tab 9. The arbitration panel allowed De

Shen’s Motion to amend over TD Waterhouse’s

objections. See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 10. The

Amended Statement of Claim included a claim that TD

Waterhouse failed to produce documents that De Shen

believed were relevant (and to which TD Waterhouse had

timely filed objections). See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab

11. The arbitration panel also ordered that the

arbitration proceed despite the fact that De Shen had not

produced any documents to TD Waterhouse in discovery

See, Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 11.

At the arbitration, the Panel heard all of the evidence

presented by both parties. The arbitrators also

considered and ruled on evidentiary issues raised by the

parties. Subsequent to the arbitration, De Shen obtained

copies of the hearing tapes, which recorded the

arbitration proceedings. (The NASD preserves the

hearing record on those cassette tapes). De Shen

complained to the NASD that he did not receive all of the

tapes (De Shen received three (3) tapes and claims that

four (4) existed) and that some of the contents of the

hearing were missing from the tapes. See, Appellee’s

Appendix, Tab 12. The NASD notified De Shen on August

14, 2002 that “there were a total of three (3) tapes used to

record the hearing on the merits” and that the NASD had

provided De Shen with an “exact” copy of the tapes. Jd.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The District Court erred as a matter of law when

it ruled that De Shen’s Motion to Re-open the case

constituted a Motion to Vacate (“Motion”) which, in

effect, tolled the three (3) month deadline for De Shen to

file and serve the Motion on TD Waterhouse under

Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. De Shen’s

failure to file his Motion and notify TD Waterhouse of the

Motion within the three-month period provided for in the

Federal Arbitration Act precluded the District Court’s

consideration of the Motion.

De Shen contests the validity of the arbitration award on

many fronts and seeks to have the award vacated under

Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Many of the

issues raised by De Shen are untimely. Further, De Shen

fails to meet his burden with respect to those issues that

are timely. Under Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration

Act, De Shen fails to show that TD Waterhouse obtained

the arbitration award through fraud or corruption; that

there was evident partiality or corruption in the

arbitrators; or, that the arbitrators refused to hear

evidence pertinent and material to the controversy. This

Court should affirm the decision of the District Court

denying De Shen’s Motion to vacate and allewing TD

Waterhouse’s Motion to Confirm.

ARGUMENT

De Shen failed to file the Motion to Vacate

within the time allowed by law.

This Court reviews questions of law de novo.

See, Arecibo Community Health Care, Inc. v. Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, 270 F.3d 17, 22 (1st Cir. 2001). Section 12

of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seg. (“FAA”)

states:

Notice of a motion to vacate, modify,

or correct an award must be served

upon the adverse party or his attorney

within three months after the award is

filed or delivered...

9 U.S.C. § 12 (emphasis added). The NASD Award

dismissing De Shen’s claims in their entirety was filed and

delivered on July 18, 2002. See, Appellant's Appendix, Tab

14. De Shen filed the Motion to Vacate on December 16,

2002 (see, Appellant's Appendi-, Tab 25), nearly five-months

after the NASD filed and delivered the Award and well past

the three-month deadline imposed by the Federal Arbitration

Act.

The federal cases are uniform in holding that a party’s

failure to file a motion to vacate within the time prescribed

by the FAA precludes a district court from considering the

motion. See, Witt v. Reinholdt & Gardner, 587 F. 2d 383,

384 (gs Cir. Mo., 1978) (failure to give notice of motion to

vacate, modify, or correct award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 12

will justify dismissal of action); see also, Piccolo v. Dain,

Kalman & Quail, Inc., 641 F.2d 598, 600 (8" Cir., Neb.

1981) (party to arbitration award who fails to comply with

statutory precondition of timely service of notice forfeits

right to judicial review of award; thus, District Court

properly determined that customers’ failure to serve their

complaint on broker or its attorney within three months of

arbitration award in favor of broker deprived it of power to

review award); Sanders-Midwest, Inc. v. Midwest Pipe

Fabricators, Inc., 857 F.2d 1235, 1237 (8" Cir., Mo., 1988)

(District Court was barred from considering application to

vacate arbitration award because party applying to vacate

award failed to give notice of its objections to award within

three months after award was filed; furthermore, no

exceptions to time for service of notice appear in Federal Act,

and rule applies to claims challenging partiality of arbitrator).

In this Circuit, the District Court for the District of Puerto

Rico has held that an action seeking to overturn an arbitration

award in favor of a securities brokerage would be dismissed

for untimeliness, even though the plaintiff filed the action

within three months of notification of the arbitration award,

because the plaintiff failed to serve notice of the action on the

brokerage firm within the three month period under the FAA.

See, Franco v. Prudential Bache Securities, Inc., 719 F.Supp.

63, 64 (D. Puerto Rico, 1989). Franco is distinguishable

from the present case as De Shen failed to file his Motion to

Vacate within the three-month period.

De Shen may not toll the three-month limitations

period of Section 12 of the FAA through his filing of the

Motion to “Re-open” the case on August 17, 2002. De Shen

argued, and the District Court agreed, that that motion

constitutes a motion to vacate. The District Court held that

the Motion to Vacate should relate back to the filing date of

the August 17, 2002 Motion to “Re-open”. See, Appellant's

Appendix, Tab 25, p. 6.

The District Court, however, had denied the August

17. 2002 Motion to “Re-open” by Order dated September 6,

4002. In the District Court’s Order, the Court stated that it

was treating Plaintiff's Motion to “Re-open” as a motion for

reconsideration of the Arbitration Award. See, Appellant's

Appendix, Tab 20. Plaintiff never appealed the District

Court's September 6, 2002 Order. The District Court cited

no authority supporting its conclusion that De Shen’s filing

of the motion to re-open should toll the three-month deadline

of Section 12 of the FAA. The overwhelming weight of

authority compels just the opposite result.

The three-month deadline found in Section 12 of the FAA

acts as a statute of limitations. See, Foster v. Turley, 808 F.

Id 38. 41 (10" Cir. 1986). In a case mirroring the facts

before this Court, the Western District of Missouri denied as

untimely a Motion to Vacate an arbitration award, where it

was served on the adverse party more than 4 months after the

parties received notice of the arbitration panel's decision, and

time was not tolled by a separate request to reopen the

arbitration, nor did the motion relate back to a motion for an

order staying confirmation of the arbitration award, filed

within the 3-month period. See, McClelland v. Azrilyan, 31

F.Supp. 2d 707, 709-712 (W. D. Mo. 1998). The McClelland

court noted that the Federal Arbitration Act does not provide

for any statutory exceptions to the three-month service

requirement. /d. at 710. McClelland is in accord with other

courts that have considered this issue. See, Taylor v. Nelson,

788 F. 2d 220, 225 (4"" Cir. 1986) (the existence of a tolling

exception is questionable for it is not implicit in the language

of the statute and cannot be described as a common law

exception).

The District Court’s decision tolling the three-month

limitations period of Section 12 of the FAA should be

reversed as a matter of law. De Shen’s failure to file his :

Motion to Vacate and notify TD Waterhouse of the Motion “te

within the three-month period provided for in the Federal :

Arbitration Act precluded the District Court’s consideration d

of the Motion.

If. The District Court properly stayed

proceedings in federal court, ordering a

arbitration under the rules of the National a

Association of Securities Dealers (“NASD”). Bi:

This Court reviews the District Court’s Order staying e.

federal court litigation and compelling arbitration as it would

any other decision finding an agreement between the parties;

the Court should accept findings of fact that are not “clearly

erroneous” and decide questions of law de novo. See, First

Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Manuel Kaplan, et ux. and MK

Investments, Inc., 514 U.S. 938, 947-948, 115 S. Ct. 1920

(1995).

It is well settled that under Section 2 of the FAA, a

written agreement to arbitrate contained in any “contract

evidencing a transaction involving commerce. ..shall be

valid, irrevocable and enforceable.” The Supreme Court has

explained “[t]he effect of the section is to create a body of

federal substantive law of arbitrability, applicable to any

arbitration agreement within the coverage of the |FAA].”

See, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury

Construction Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24, 103 S. Ct. 927 (1983).

A party’s agreement to arbitrate is a matter of contract

law. See, AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communication

Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 649, 106 S. Ct. 1415

2 ee

(1986): The Newspaper Guild of Salem v. Ottaway

Newspapers, Inc.,

79 F. 3d 1273, 1279 (1" Cir. 1996). The FAA provides that,

as soon as a court is Satisfied as to the existence of an

arbitrable dispute, it “shall” do two things: (1) compel the

parties to arbitrate that dispute in accordance with the

applicable provisions of their agreement; and (2) stay further

litigation as to arbitrable claims. See, 9 U.S.C. §§ 3, 4. “By

its terms, the [FAA] leaves no place for the exercise of

discretion...but instead mandates that...courts shall direct the

parties to proceed to arbitration on issues as to which an

arbitration agreement has been signed. See, Dean Witter

Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.S. 213, 218, 105 S. Ct. 1238

(1985). In considering these factors, courts are guided by the

principal that there is a “strong,” “widely recognized” federal

policy in favor of arbitration. See, Shearson/American

Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226, 107 S. Ct.

2332 (1987); Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky

Reefer, 29 F.3d 727, 730-31 (1* Cir. 1994) (and the cases

cited therein).

De Shen was bound by his TD Waterhouse new account

application, which required him to arbitrate this dispute. See,

Appellee 's Appendix, Tab 13. The new account application

constitutes a contract “evidencing a transaction involving

commerce,” as defined under the FAA. See, 9 U.S.C. § 2.

The District Court properly stayed proceedings in federal

court, ordering the parties to arbitration.

De Shen argues that the Bill of Rights affords him the right to

choose whether this case proceeds in court or in arbitration.

De Shen offers no authority, other than his reference to the

right to “freedom of speech,” to support this assertion. De

Shen’s assertion fails as a matter of law.

Ill. The District Court correctly denied De Shen’s

Motion to Vacate on the merits.

} Standard of Review

A federal court is empowered to vacate an arbitrator's award

only on grounds specified in 9 U.S.C. § 10, and courts are

precluded from considering factual or legal issues which are

by voluntary agreement made subject of arbitration; judicial

intrusion is restricted to extraordinary situations indicating

abuse of an arbitrator's power or the exercise of power

beyond the jurisdiction of an arbitrator. See, Mobil Oil Corp.

v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, 600 F.2d

322. 326 (1" Cir. 1979). This Court’s review of the district

court’s ruling on an arbitration award is de novo. See,

Wonderland Greyhound Park, Inc. v. Westwood Group Inc.,

274 F.3d 34, 35 (1st Cir. 2001). Judicial review of the

arbitrator’s decision is extremely narrow and exceedingly

deferential. Jd. An arbitrator’s award must be enforced if it

is in any way plausible, even if the Court thinks the arbitrator

committed serious error. /d. An arbitrator’s factual findings

are generally not open to judicial challenge. /d. at 36-37.

B. Section 10 of the FAA

Section 10 of the FAA provides that a court may vacate an

arbitration award in the following circumstances:

(20611) where the award was procured by

corruption, fraud, or undue means;

(20612) where there was evident partiality or

corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;

(20613) where the arbitrators were guilty of

misconduct in refusing to postpone the

hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in

refusing to hear evidence pertinent and

material to the controversy; or of any other

EEE —————

Be ep REO PL am SS

PS BE SIMO AD Walt tee

we RI BSG iy

misbehavior by which the rights of any party

have been prejudiced: or

(20614) where the arbitrators exceed their

powers, or so imperfectly exercised them that

a mutual, final, and definite award upon the

Subject matter submitted was not made.

9 U.S.C. § 10. De Shen’s appeal, arguably, implicates the

first three circumstances.

a TD Waterhouse did not obtain the

arbitration award by corruption, fraud, or

undue means.

De Shen argues that the District Court should have

vacated the arbitration award because of “arbitration

management fraud.” De Shen’s brief complains of two (2)

such “arbitration management frauds”: (1) fraud in

organizing the arbitration panel, and (2) fraud in “cooking

hearing tape.”

De Shen must establish fraud by clear and convincing

evidence and must show that the fraud materially related to

an issue in arbitration. See. LaFarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A.

Kaiser Cement & Gypsum Corp., 791 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9"

Cir. 1986) (citing Dogherra v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 679 F.2d

1293 (9"" Cir. 1982) cert den., 459 U.S. 990, 74 L.Ed.2d 386,

103 S.Ct. 346 (1982)); see also Bonar v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 835 F.2d 1378, 1383 (1 1" Cir. 1988) (citing

Dogherra, supra).

Under these standards, De Shen cannot show that TD

Waterhouse obtained the arbitration award by corruption or

fraud. De Shen has not offered clear and convincing

evidence that the arbitration award was obtained by fraud.

The record clearly supports the fact that the arbitration panel

was selected under the rules of the NASD DR. See,

Appellee ’s Appendix, Tab 4. The record also clearly supports

the fact that De Shen was provided with an “exact” copy of

the hearing tapes. See, Appellee ’s Appendix, Tab 12. De

Shen only offers unsubstantiated assertions to the contrary.

Additionally, De Shen cannot maintain that either of these

alleged “frauds” materially related to an issue in arbitration.

See, LaFarge Conseils Et Etudes, S.A., 791 F.2d at 1339.

Both of the alleged “frauds” complained of by De Shen are

procedural in nature and do not relate to any of the issues

raised by De Shen in his Statement of Claim or Amended

Statement of Claim. De Shen has not and cannot argue that

TD Waterhouse acted fraudulently in regards to any issue

raised by him at the arbitration.

De Shen does not meet his burden of proof and has not

shown by clear and convincing evidence that TD Waterhouse

obtained the arbitration award by fraud or corruption.

D. The arbitrators displayed no evident partiality or

corruption.

De Shen argues that the arbitration panel was not fit to hear

this case in arbitration because Count 8 of De Shen’s

Amended Statement of Claim implicated a potential conflict

of interest for the NASD. See, Appellant’s Brief, p. 9. Count

8 of De shen’s Amended Statement of Claim raises questions

about T.D. Watehouse’s objections to De Shen’s discovery

requests. See Appellant's Appendix, Tab 11. The arbitration

panel specifically considered this Count in its decision. See

Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 14.

The FAA authorizes a court to vacate an arbitration award

where there was evident partiality or corruption in the

arbitrator. See, Kiewit/Atkinson/Kenny vy. International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local | 03, AFL-CIO, 76

F. Supp.2d 77, 79 (D. Mass. 1999) (citing 9 U.S.C. §

10(a)(2)). Evident partiality, however, means more than just

an appearance of bias. /d. (citing Florasynth, Inc. vy. Pickolz,

750 F.2d 171, 173 (2™ Cir. 1984)). The burden is on the

moving party to provide evidence of bias sufficient for a

reasonable person to conclude that an arbitrator was partial to

the other party to the arbitration. Jd. (citing Peoples Sec. Life

Ins. Co. v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 991 F.2d 141, 146 (4

Cir. 1993)).

De Shen offers no evidence that the arbitration panel was

partial to TD Waterhouse. De Shen argues that the NASD

was conflicted because Count 8 of the Amended Statement of

Claim somehow implicates the NASD. The NASD was

never a party to these proceedings. Furthermore, De Shen’s

allegations are merely assertions and find no support in the

record. De Shen incorrectly concludes that the NASD is

conflicted because of the arbitration panel’s evidentiary

ruling. No reasonable person could conclude that the

arbitration panel was partial to TD

Waterhouse from the record before this Court. De Shen fails

to meet his burden to show that there was evident partiality or

corruption in the arbitrators.

E. The arbitrators did not refuse to hear

evidence pertinent and material to the

controversy.

De Shen argues that the arbitration panel

impermissibly denied his request for “case related critical

data”. See, Appellant's Brief, p. 4. De Shen refers to his

request for “all the documents and information about the

orders related to all the 137 transactions on PTUS (the stock

at issue in the Statement of Claim and the Amended

Statement of Claim), which were executed between 10:23:39

to 12:04:28 of March 7, 2000.” See, Appellee 's Appendix,

Tab 5. TD Waterhouse objected to that request. See,

Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 7. De Shen also complains that the

arbitration panel did not rule on “every item in the Plaintiff's

Statement of Claim” and did not offer any reasoning for the

Panel’s conclusions. See, Appellant's Brief, p. 6.

At the arbitration, TD Waterhouse offered testimony

regarding the transactions referred to by De Shen in his

discovery requests and the substance of De Shen’s Statement

of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim generally. The

arbitrators also addressed all evidentiary issues raised by the

parties.

Arbitrators are not bound by rules of evidence and may draw

on their personal knowledge in rendering an award. See,

Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America, 350 U.S. 198, 204

100 L.Ed. 199, 76 S.Ct. 273 (1956). Arbitrators need not

disclose facts or reasons behind an arbitration award. Jd

An arbitrator's conclusions on procedural matters may be

vacated only where an award demonstrates a manifest

disregard of law or where the award is irrational: judicial

review is limited by the rule of deference where procedural

questions are intertwined with the merits of a dispute and

court review would result in serious delay and duplication of

effort. See, e.g., Stroh Container Co. v. Delphi Industries,

Inc., 783 F.2d 743, 749-750 (8" Cir. 1986) cert den., 476

U.S. 1141, 106 S.Ct. 2249 (1986).

De Shen has offered no proof that the arbitration panel

refused to hear evidence pertinent and material to the

controversy. In fact, the truth is that the Panel did all it could

to ensure that De Shen had a full opportunity to present his

case. For example, the Panel allowed the arbitration to go

forward despite the fact that De Shen had produced no

documents whatsoever to TD Waterhouse. See, Appellee ’s

Appendix, Tab 11. The Panel allowed De Shen to amend his

Statement of Claim to include potentially defamatory claims

assailing the veracity of counsel and raising procedural

issues, which should have properly been the subject of a

Motion to Compel. See, Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 11 and

Appellee ’s Appendix, Tab 9. In addition, the Panel allowed

De Shen to present evidence on all of the issues raised in his

Statement of Claim and Amended Statement of Claim. The

Panel heard all of testimony offered by the parties, which

specifically included testimony regarding “137 transactions

’

on PTUS, which were executed between 10:23:39 to

12:04:28 of March 7, 2000”.

The Panel did rule on evidentiary issues. The Panel’s

decisions on those issues should be afforded the greatest

deference by this Court. The Panel also ruled on all issues

raised by De Shen in his Statement of Claim and Amended

Statement of Claim. The Panel was entitled to render a

decision without providing the parties with its reasoning. De

Shen fails to meet his burden to show that the Panel refused

to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE. for all of the foregoing reasons, TD

Waterhouse respectfully requests that the judgment of the

District Court denying De Shen's Motion to vacate and

allowing TD Waterhouse’s Motion to Confirm should be

affirmed.

Dated: July 28, 2003

Pete S. Michaels

Attorney for Defendant

- Appellee\

Cross - Appellant

Court of Appeals Bar

Number 9105

MURPHY & MICHAELS, LLP

One Liberty Square

Boston, Massachusetts 021 09

(617) 350-7700

APPENDICES 3

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIRST CIRCUIT

No. 03-1415, No. 03-1478

Plaintiff and Appellant: )

De Shen )

)

) Trade Fraud on

) March 7, 2000.

VS. )

) Civil Action No.

) 00-11190-WGY

)

‘Defendant and Appellee: ) Appeal Nos.

) 03-1415, 03-1478

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc)

Aug. 25, 2003

REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF

(Appellant\C ross-Appellee)

On appeal from U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts

APPEARANCES:

/ De Shen

11 Summer Ave

Malden, MA 02148

Table of Contents

REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF .......+2++0e+eeesese0eeee0e9 62

TABLE OF AUTHORITIEG. ............::ccceseseeeeeeneeeteneeens 66

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT........----ceceeeeeeeseees 66

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUEG............::::cceeeeereeeeeeeees 66

STATEMENT OF THE CASE...........::c:sseeeeesneeeeeeeeeens 69

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS...........cccecceeseeeeneeeeresens 69

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT...........::::ceseeeeeeereeetseeeens 74

ARGUMENT.........:::::cccssscesesseeeesseesennessssseeensnaessnnesnsnens 76

l. The Defendant mistakenly explained the

IDW.....0ccccccccccssscscccccscsssssssccssccccsesssesssscncessessescccccsoccooocses 76

il. The Defendant lie on submission ranking

form issue; The Defendant involved the fraud on

selecting arbitration panel..............ssseseeeeereesereeneee 81

ill. | The Defendant is failed to deny the

arbitration hearing tape fraud...............:--seeeeeerreee 83

IV. Conflict interest should be avoided; The

Court should uphold the Constitution; Derek

Anderson openly denies the Constitution should be

DUMISHE.............cccsceseeenessesesesenenencsssssrensnsnensnansanansenenee 85

V. Arbitration Management Fraud should be

DUMISHEG............--ececeecesesseeerenenesenesenecsnsesesnsnenensnsnnsnsets 89

(a) Fraud in organizing the Arbitration Panel...... 89

(b) Fraud on ‘Cooking’ Hearing Tape........---.--- 91

Vi. The Arbitration Award should be vacated.

This case should be handled in the court with

DO ii aiasicrittanputeciactisbilisucssinicsiclshaabaisninbigietpiliintesiend 95

(A) Section 10 of Federal Arbitration Act............ 95

(B) This case matched three criteria for vacating

a 00s ak oa etek sss dep aeacacmy 96

CONCLUSION OF THE REPLY BRIEP.................... 102

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Enron Corp ‘Corporate Fraud’ Case

Constitutional Provisions

Bill of Rights --- Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

Statutes

Executive Order 13271 of July 9, 2002

Federal Arbitration Act

15 U.S.C.A. §78a

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Bill of Right should be applied.

All people are created equal.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.A. §78a, Fairness is the Basic

principle of stock trading.

According to FAA Section 10, the Arbitration

award should be vacated. This case should be

reopened on the Court with Juries.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Did Mr. William Young err in knowing there were

some conflict interests, but still ordering this case to

be judged by arbitration? (See Addendum 02)

- Did Mr. William Young err in knowing due to

conflict interests, there were Arbitration Management

Frauds during the arbitration, but not investigating

and punishing the Arbitration Management Fraud?

(See Addendum 03, 07, 08, 09)

- Did Mr. William Young err in knowing due to the

conflict interests, there were Arbitration Management

Frauds, and the Arbitrators did not make fair

arbitration, but still confirming the Arbitration

Award? (See Addendum 07, 08)

- Did Mr. William Young err in against the common

sense, against 15 U.S.C.A. §78a, denying that the

securities trading should be fair, and ‘First come, first

serve’ should be one of the basic criteria for the

trading fairness? (See Addendum 07)

- Did Mr. William Young err in knowing that the _

judgment should be based on facts, but denying the

Plaintiff compel the Defendant to present case related

critical data to the Court? (See Addendum 04)

- Did Mr. William Young err in denying having a

hearing in Oct. 7, 2002’s Court ruling? Did Mr.

William Young err in denying providing reasoning

for his ruling in the Oct. 20, 2002’s Court ruling?

(See Addendum 05, 06)

- Did Mr. William Young err in denying the Plaintiff s

motion to ‘Request Ms. Kelly Davis To Testimony on

the Court’? (See Addendum 09)

;

mane 4 Ry we ws - te SS

a ee we wi See Oe os

10.

ii.

12.

13.

14.

IS.

Did Mr. William Young err in denying the Plaintiff's

motion to ‘To Add NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc to

Defendant List of This Case’? (See Addendum 09)

This case is so simple, so obvious, however, the

Arbitration made a wrong arbitration conclusion, Mr.

William Young confirmed this wrong arbitration

result. Is there any factors of ‘race discrimination

against Asia American’ influenced this case?

Should Mr. William Young uphold the US

Constitution? Should the lawyer of the Defendant,

who denying the US Constitution, be punished?

Should Mr. William Young study the new law passed

by Congress and Senate, signed by President, and

uphold those new laws? (See Addendum 07,

Appendix 33)

Should NASD Arbitration Administer Ms. Green

who conducted two Arbitration Management Frauds

be punished?

Should the Defendant and its lawyer’s lying under the

Oath be punished?

Should the Defendant preventing its customers to

present case related Market Data to judges and Courts

be punished?

Should the Defendant’s trade fraud be punished?

Should the Defendant cheating and insulting customer

be punished?

16. Should the Defendant cheating SEC be punished?

17.

18.

Should the Defendant failed to provide case related

critical information be punished?

Should the Defendant’s hiring lawyer to invade the

Plaintiff's privacy be punished?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In this case, the Plaintiff exposed the Defendant’s

trade fraud, the arbitration management fraud, the

arbitration panel’s unfair judgment, and the Mr.

William Young’s misjudgment.

The Plaintiff once said, “I am holding a great flag, a

flag of justice; a flag of fair; a flag of ‘All people are

created equal’” (See Appendix 12). The Plaintiff

hopes that our judges should uphold the same flag.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

On March 7, 2000, a trade fraud happened. The

Market Recap (See Appendix 01) of March 7, 2000

had clearly indicated that it is the Defendant’s

mistake. After many times phone calls between the

Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant did not

commit its mistake. Hence, a law suite was filed (See

Appendix 05) under the suggestion of the lawyer of

the week of the F ramingham Court. The Defendant

requested to handle this case by arbitration. However,

the Plaintiff believe that the customers have the

freedom right to choose whether to solve this case by

arbitration or by court according to the Bill Of Right.

Judge Young held a conference with the Plaintiff and

the Defendant. The judge informed both sides that

this case should go through arbitration first. However,

if the Plaintiff feels that the result is now proper, or

there is any item cannot be arbitrated. the judge

would like to continue handling this case on the court.

When the Plaintiff preparing for the Arbitration

Claim. the Plaintiff found that there is one issue,

which will conduct the conflict interest if this case

handled by Arbitration. On Feb. 3, 2001, the Plaintiff

filed a motion. inform the Court that there is a conflict

interest issue if this case handled by NASD

arbitration (See Appendix 03, 06). In this motion, the

Plaintiff requested this case should be handled by the

District Court according to the Bill Of Right.

However, the Court denied this motion (See

Appendix 07). The Plaintiff believes this ruling was

incorrect. It is violated the Constitution.

Although the Plaintiff worried about that there might

be some conflict interests issues by going through the

arbitration, the Plaintiff decided to follow the judge's

order to seriously go through the arbitration first. The

Arbitration Statement of Claim was submitted on July

26, 2001 (See Appendix 08). The arbitration hearing

held on June 20, 2002.

As predicted, due to the conflict interest, the

arbitration management frauds happened, and the

award of arbitration is extremely unfair (See

Appendix 09, 10, 14). It unfairly dismissed the

Plaintiff's claim in the entirety. Every item in the

Plaintiff's Statement of Claim was not be

arbitrated! There is no any conclusion from the

arbitrators on each item of the Plaintiffs

Statement of Claim. Of cause, there is no any

reasoning on how to get those conclusions!

Count (8) which is directly associated with NASD

was untouched;

The Defendant's failure to execute customer’s

order was not punished:

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting customer

was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating SEC was not punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath was not

punished.

Due to the conflict interests. when organizing the

arbitration panel, the arbitration administrator forged

the arbitration panel. After the arbitration, the

arbitration administrator modified the hearing tape.

Considering that Mr. William Young promised that if

the arbitrators do not arbitrate some of the items in

the Plaintiffs Complaint, the Plaintiff could come

back to the Court (See Appendix 04), the Plaintiff

submitted a motion to request to re-open this case in

the District Court on Aug. 17, 2002 (See Appendix

17, 18). In this motion and the cover letter, the

Plaintiff reported the unfair arbitration result,

including that many items are not arbitrated at all.

The Plaintiff also reported the Arbitration

Management Frauds to the Court. However, Mr.

William Young broken his promise, and denied this

motion (See Appendix 04, 07. and 20).

Considering that Judgment should base on facts

instead of prejudice, the entire arbitration is baseless

since until now the Defendant has not submitted the

case related critical trading data yet. Hence, the

’

USE OT ie ge §

eh $ mn ha ee

Sh fig UE BS oh oS)

Se try EP,

oeptees 2 tages tei tae

wes

oes,

Sed eae

Profee yet

Seah ep aes 2 ye

Plaintiff submitted a motion to “Compel The

Production Of Documents” on Aug. 29, 2002(See

Appendix 19). However, Mr. William Young ignored

that the fact that due to Conflict Interests, the

arbitration result is extremely unfair, and denied the

Plaintiff s motion (See Appendix 21).

Considering that the Court denied the Plaintiff's

motions might be all based on a wrong assumption

that the arbitration conducted a fair resolution. The

Plaintiff submitted the third motion (See Appendix

22) on Sep. 29, 2002 to request a hearing, so that the

Plaintiff can explain to the Court why the arbitration

result is extremely unfair. A good judge should listen

to the people. However, Mr. William Young even

denied this basic requirement on Oct. 7, 2002 (See

Appendix 23).

The Plaintiff was really surprised about Mr. William

Young’s ruling on Oct. 7, 2002. Hence, the Plaintiff

submitted a motion to “Requesting the reason of court

ruling on Oct. 7, 2002” (See Appendix 24).

Unfortunately, the Plaintiff even cannot get the

reasoning from the court. Mr. William Young was

even unable to provide any reasoning (i.e. according

to which law(s)) about his ruling (See Appendix 25).

The Plaintiff has to request the Transcript of the

conference of Nov. 14, 2000, on which, Mr. William

Young promised to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff can

come back to Court if the arbitration result is unfair or

some items in the Complaint are not arbitrated. On

Nov. 4, 2002, the Plaintiff received a copy of the

Transcript (See Appendix 04).

Since the arbitration administrator edited the

arbitration hearing tapes and denied to provide a true

copy of arbitration hearing tapes. The Plaintiff

submitted a motion to “Compel NASD to Provide

True Copy Of Hearing Tape Of Case 01-03697” on

Nov. 16, 2002 (See Appendix 26). The original

hearing tapes are four tapes according to Ms. Green.

The edited tapes are three tapes (See Appendix 16).

However, Mr. William Young even denied punishing

the arbitration administrator’ s criminal actions. The

Plaintiff's motion was denied.

According to Mr. William Young’s word on the deny

letter, the Plaintiff submitted a motion to “Request

Vacation of the Arbitration Award on Case NASD

No. 01-03697” (See Appendix 27). Finally, Mr.

William Young agreed to have a hearing on this issue.

The Plaintiff saw a glimpse of hope that the justice

might be fulfilled on this case by the hearing. The

hearing was held on Feb 6, 2003.

Unfortunately, Mr. William Young did not make a

fair judgment on this hearing (See Appendix 28). (1)

Mr. William Young claimed this case is “a serious

one”. However, Mr. William Young did not handle

this case seriously. Mr. William Young did not

investigate the arbitration management frauds. Also,

he did not investigate on the trade fraud. Judgment

should be based on the fact: however, Mr. William

Young did not request the Defendant providing the

case related critical data. (2) Mr. William Young

ignored the arbitration management fraud on forging

the arbitration panel list, claimed, “If you get a biased

arbitrator, they won.” (3) Mr. William Young ignored

the arbitration management fraud on ‘cooking’ the

hearing tape, and asked the silly question “Suppose

that is true, what does that show?”. “Falsifying

records” is against the Congress and Senate passed

new law and the Presiident’s speech (See Appendix

33). Mr. Suzanne Green’s bad action has breached the

people's trust and abused NASD’s power. This

criminal action should be punished. However, Mr.

William Young did mot uphold Congress and Senate

passed new law, and did not punish Mr. Suzanne

Green’s criminal action. (4) Mr. William Young even

against the law of 15 U.S.C.A. §78a, challenged the

fairness of stock trading, deny that “First come, first

serve” should be one of the criteria of fairness in

stock trading. (5) Mr. William Young ignored the

arbitration management fraud, and claim that

“Arbitration is second-class justice”, so that no matter

the arbitration administrator made how serious

criminal action, the arbitration result has to be

confirmed. According to Mr. William Young’s logic,

the arbitration administrator is just like the Emperor

or Empress, who can do any criminal actions as

his/her will, and cannot be punished.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

According to the Bill of Right, due to the conflict

interests. this case should be handled by the District

Court from the beginning. Ordering this case to be

handled by NASD arbitration is one misjudgment.

The District Court should investigate the arbitration

management frauds and punish those arbitration

management frauds.

Started from Aug. 17, 2002, the Plaintiff submitted

six motions in order to vacate the unfair arbitration

award, and re-open this case in the Court, the

Defendant unreasonably claim that “the Plaintiff did

not submit motion to vacate the arbitration award

within the time allowed by law” is mistakenly

explained Federal Arbitration Act.

The unfair arbitration result should be vacated.

The Defendant’s failure to execute customer’s order

should be punished:

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting customer

should be punished:

The Defendant’s cheating SEC should be punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath should be

punished;

The Defendant failed to provide case related critical

information should be punished;

The Defendant’s invading the Plaintiff's privacy

should be punished;

The Defendant’s blocking customer’s on-line account

should be punished.

Mr. William Young should study and uphold the new

law, which passed by Congress and Senate, and

signed by the President.

Mr. William Young should not against the common

sense, should not against 15 U.S.C.A. §78a, should

not deny that the securities trading should be fair, and

‘First come, first serve’ should be one of the basic

criteria for the trading fairness.

F aD

ARGUMENT

The Defendant mistakenly explained the law

In the Defendant’s Brief, it argues (See Defendant’s

Brief, page 6):

“De Shen failed to file the Motion to Vacate within

the time allowed by law”. The Defendant quoted one

statement from Section 12 of the Federal Arbitration

Act as following:

“Notice of a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an

award must be served upon the adverse party or his

attorney within three months after the award is filed

or delivered ...”

Then the Defendant claims, “De Shen filed the

Motion to Vacate on December 16, 2002 (see,

Appellant’s Appendix, Tab 25); nearly five-months

after the NASD filed and delivered the Award and

well past the three-month deadline imposed by the

Federal Arbitration Act.”

Actually, the Plaintiff submitted the first motion and a

cover letter to vacate, modify, or correct the

arbitration award and re-open this case on the District

Court on Aug. 16, 2002, within ONE month after the

award is delivered (See Appendix 17, 18)! And the

Plaintiff continually submitted SIX motions in order

to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award and

re-open this case on the District Court(See Appendix

17, 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 27). The Plaintiff has to ask the

Defendant, does “a motion submitted within ONE

month after the award is delivered” belong to

“timely” or “untimely”? When the Defendant says,

“Many of the issues raised by De Shen are untimely”

(See Plaintiff's Brief, line 15 — 17, page 5), did the

Defendant really read the Plaintiff's first motion and

its cover letter? Actually, most issues were raised in

the Plaintiff's first motion to vacate the Arbitration

Award (See Appendix 17, 18).

Yes, this first motion and its cover letter to vacate,

modify, or correct the arbitration award is with the

title of “Motion: Plaintiff strongly request to re-open

this case”. The plaintiff believes “re-open” means

vacate the unfair arbitration award, and re-handle this

case on the District Court. Maybe the Defendant

requests the Plaintiff to put a word “vacate” in the

title of the motion. However, FAA does not define the

detail on how to write a motion’s title. FAA does not

define that a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an

award should have a title which includes a word

“vacate”. To understand a motion, you should read

the substantial content of the motion. The Defendant

once again tries to play the word game on this serious

issue. It tries to mistakenly explain the FAA rule from

“a motion to vacate, modify, or correct an award” to

“a motion with a title includes a word ‘vacate’,

‘modify’, or ‘correct’ an award”. But, the above two

rules are not identical. The Plaintiff wonders whether

the lawyer of the Defendant are qualified as lawyers.

This type of mistakenly explaining FAA rule should

not be tolerant! This type of mistakenly explaining

FAA rule should not come from a qualified lawyer.

On this issue, Mr. William Young’s judgment is

correct. Mr. William Young’s reasoning is “the only

reason to reopen a case after arbitration is either to

confirm or vacate the award.”

The Plaintiff would like to quote the Plaintiff's cover

letter of Aug 16, 2002 as following: (See Appendix

18 for full text.)

According to the Honorable Judge Young's statement

on July 2, 2001, the plaintiff seriously went through

the arbitration with the defendant from July 26, 2001

to July 20, 2002. As predict, due to the conflict

interest, NASD was unable to fairly make item-by-

item judgment on this case.

Justice judgment should base on fair examination of

facts.

However, the defendant rejected to provide the case

related critical information again and again. I

wonder, without that critical information, how the

arbitrators can make any right decision. The plaintiff

strongly requests the honorable judge to compel the

defendant to provide the critical case related

document requested by the plaintiff in the Plaintiff's

“First Request For Document and Information to

Defendant”.

Justice judgment should base on the principle of

“All People are created equal ".

However, the defendant openly requested the

arbitration panel to dismiss this case by race

prejudice. And the result is just as the defendant's

willing, the three arbitrators dismissed the Plaintiff's

claim in the entirety without any reasoning:

Count (8) which is directly associated with NASD was

untouched;

The defendant's failure to execule customer 's order

was not punished;

The defendant's cheating and insulting customer was

not punished:

The defendant's cheating SEC was not punished;

The defendant and its lawyer's lying under the oath

were not punished;

The defendant failed to provide case related critical

information was not punished:

The defendant's hiring lawyer to invade the Plaintiff's

privacy was not punished:

In general, the defendant successfully escaped from

the justice judgment in the arbitration hearing due to

the conflict interest.

During the selecting arbitrators procedure, the

administrator of NASD Arbitration, Ms. Green lied

and unfairly composed a Panel, which is in favor of

the defendant.

After hearing, after many times of the plaintiff

requesting on the hearing tapes, the administrator of

NASD Arbitration, Ms. Green finally deliver to the

plaintiff two copies of the hearing tapes, in which,

there are many contents are missed. Some panel

member's speech, which obviously bias in favor of the

defendant, are erased from the tapes. Ms. Green

might think that, by this way, she could help the

defendant win the game. However, her IQ is too low!

Her actions just like an old story — “A person put a

slogan ‘There is no 300 once Silver here’ above the

place where he hided 300 once Silver”. Without the

Judgment in the court, Ms. Green’s action has already

proved that this arbitration was unfairly processed by

the arbitration panel. Until now, Ms. Green is still

unwitting to provide the “Exact” copy of the original

hearing tape. A copy of tapes edited by the NASD will

be present to this court. The plaintiff strongly requests

the honorable judge to compel the NASD to provide

exact copies of the original hearing tape to the

Plaintiff and the court.

On July 2, 2001, our Honorable Judge Young replied

to the Plaintiff's motion: “ To reopen, this case must

first proceed through arbitration. ©

The plaintiff hereby, present a motion, “Motion ---

Plaintiff strongly request to re-open this case” to this

court. The plaintiff pray to the Honorable Judge in

this Court, in order to punish the defendant's series of

wrong doing, this case should be reopened and the

investigation about the defendant's illegal actions in

this case should be handled by this Honorable Court.

I sincerely pray to the Honorable Judge to provide

justice judgments in this court on this case according

to the Bill Of Right.

File attached with this letter

No. 20020816 —1 Motion, Plaintiff strongly

request to re-open this case :

No. 20020816-—2 Amendment of Arbitration

Statement of Claim

No. 20020816 — 3 Opening Statement

No. 20020816 — 4 Response to Defendant's

Motion to Compel Its Referenced Matter

No. 20020816-—5 Respondent's Amended

Statement of Answer

No. 20020816 — 6 First Request For Document

and Information to Defendant

No. 20020816 — 7 Respondent's Response to the

Claimant's First Request for

Production of Documents and

Information

No. 20020816 — 8 Respondent's Motion to

Compel the production of Documents

No. 20020816 — 9 Respondent's First Request for

Document and Information to Claimant

No. 20020816-—10 Evidence of Defendant

Preventing Customer to Present Data to

Honorable Judge in the Court

No. 20020816-—11 Arbitration Causal Challenge

No. 20020816-—12 NASD Associate VP's Cover

Up Letter

No. 20020816 -— 13 NASD Ms. Green S Award

Information Letter

No. 20020816-14 NASD Award Document

No. 20020816-—15 Emails Regarding to the

Hearing Tape

If anyone read the Plaintiff's motion and the above

cover letter of Aug. 16, 2002, he/she should

immediately get the conclusion that this motion is for

vacating the unfair arbitration award and request to

reopen this case on the District Court. The Defendant

mistakenly explained ‘the Federal Arbitration Act’.

The Defendant should be punished for its mistakenly

explanation of ‘the Federal Arbitration Act’.

The Defendant lie on submission ranking form

issue; The Defendant involved the fraud on

selecting arbitration panel

On page 3 of the Defendant’s Brief, the Defendant

wrote: “TD Waterhouse submitted its ranking of

potential arbitrators within the time allowed by

NASD DR rules.” The Defendant lied again on this

issue.

The deadline of submitting the Panel candidate list is

Dec. 24, 2001. The Plaintiff selected the Panel list

and submitted on Dec. 15, 2001.

After the Dec. 24, 2001 deadline, the Plaintiff called

Ms. Kelly Davis, asked her whether the Defendant

(Respondent) had submit their arbitrator list on time.

Ms. Kelly Davis informed me that NASD had not

received the Defendant (Respondent)’s list yet.

And she told me NASD would process on the

arbitration panel list anyway without waiting for the

Defendant (Respondent)’s list.

The Plaintiff strongly request Ms. Kelly Davis to

testimony on the court. Until today (Aug 25, 2003),

Ms. Kelly Davis has not lied on this issue yet.

On this issue, the NASD Arbitration Administrator

Ms. Suzanne Green lied.

On this issue, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the associate

Vice President of NASD, lied.

On this issue, Mr. Derek Anderson, the lawyer for the

Defendant lied.

Those liars lied during the Arbitration period. Some

of those liars lied on the District Court. Their evil

actions constituted the fraud mentioned on page 10-1!

of the Plaintiff's “Brief of Appellant”.

If the Honorable Judges in this US Court of Appeals

are talent enough, this fraud should not be very

Ill.

difficult to be verified. The Plaintiff request the

Defendant commit its evil action on telling lies on this

submission ranking form issue before the verification

by the judges in this US Court of Appeal. If the

Defendant does not commit its evil action on telling

lies until the judges figured out the truth, then the

penalty should be much higher then Defendant

commits its evil actions earlier.

The Defendant is failed to deny the arbitration

hearing tape fraud

The Defendant wrote on page 4-5 of its Brief: “De

Shen complained to the NASD that he did not

received all of the tapes (De Shen received three (3)

tapes and claims that four (4) existed).”

The above statement is not true. The truth is: Ms.

Suzanne Green informed the Plaintiff that there are

four hearing-tapes (after July 18, 2002). After the

Plaintiff complained that some content on the

arbitration hearing are missed on the copied and

edited hearing tapes; And the copied and edited tapes

are only three tapes, which is different with what Ms.

Suzanne Green said before that there are total four

hearing tapes; Only after then, Ms. Suzanne Green

started to change her words and Start to claim that

there are only three hearing tapes. The details are as

following:

After many times requesting for the arbitration

hearing tapes, the Plaintiff received Ms. Suzanne

Green’s message from the telephone answer machine.

Ms. Suzanne Green informed the Plaintiff: “There are

total four hearing tapes. $15.00 for each tape. If you

need two copies of the hearing tapes, you need to pay

$120.00 before the tapes can be shipped to you.” The

Plaintiff sent a Fleet Bank Money Order of $120.00 to

NASD on July 27, 2002, quickly after received and

confirmed Ms. Suzanne Green’s telephone message

(See Appendix 16).

If there are only three hearing tapes for this arbitration

case, then:

(1) Why after more than 30 days of the arbitration

hearing, Ms. Suzanne Green informed the

Plaintiff that there are four hearing tapes?

(2) Why Ms. Suzanne Green informed the Plaintiff

that the payment is $120.00?

(3) Why Ms. Suzanne Green did not correct her

‘mistake’ after she received the Plaintiff's

$120.00 payment before the Plaintiff complaint

this issue on Aug 10, 2002 (Within more than 50

days of the Arbitration hearing)?

(4) Has the $30.00 refund check from NASD on Aug.

12, 2002 (See Appendix 17) proved that there is

inconsistency information provided by Ms.

Suzanne Green?

(5) Did Ms. Suzanne Green lie on “four tapes”

version? Or did Ms. Suzanne Green lie on “three

tapes” version?

On both the Feb. 6, 2003’s district court hearing, and

the Plaintiff's Brief, the Plaintiff mentioned that on

the Arbitration hearing of June 20, 2002, ‘The

Arbitrator Chair Richard D. Jordan openly protects

the Defendant. He said loudly, “It is trade secret!”

The Defendant neither denied this fact on the Feb. 6,

2003’s district court hearing. Nor denied this fact in

IV,

Se ee eee

the Defendant’s Brief. However, this Statement is

erased from the hearing tape.

Ms. Suzanne Green directed and involved the two

arbitration management frauds. Her evi] actions has

breached people’s trust and abused NASD’s power.

The Plaintiff strongly request Ms. Suzanne Green

and three arbitrators testimony on this Court. The

Plaintiff would like to verify that whether those

three arbitrators are liars or not.

Conflict interest should be avoided; The Court

Should uphold the Constitution; Derek

Anderson openly denies the Constitution

Should be punished.

In the Defendant’s second argument, (page 10-12 of

the Defendant’s Brief), the Defendant is trying to

prove that “De Shen was bound by his TD

Waterhouse new account application, which required

him to arbitrate his dispute”.

Yes. In most cases, the dispute between Parties should

be arbitrated if there is an agreement according to Mr.

pages, and list many cases. However, it proved

nothing. Actually, the Plaintiff agreed with Mr.

William Young’s order to g0 to Arbitration first on

the Nov. 14, 2000’s District Court Conference (See

Appendix 04).

The critica] issue is: NASD cannot arbitrate itself!

Conflict interest should be avoided!

After Nov. 14, 2000’s District Court Conference,

when the Plaintiff preparing for the Arbitration

Claim, the Plaintiff found that there is one issue,

which will conduct the conflict interest if this case

handled by NASD Arbitration (See count 8 of

Appendix 05, Appendix 06, and Appendix 07).

Just a few weeks after the Plaintiff submitted the

“Market Recap” data to the District Court, the

Defendant suddenly requested its customers to sign

three new agreements (See Appendix 03). In each of

the agreement, there is at least one place request

customer do not submit Market Data to any other

person or entity (See page 2 count 5, page 4 count 2,

and page 7 line 12-14 of Appendix 03). Of cause, the

“any other person and entity” includes the judges and

the Courts. The Defendant’s purpose of these three

agreements is to prevent its customers submitting

critical case related data to the court. In the cover

letter of these three new agreements, the Defendant

wrote: “..., and National Association Securities

Dealers (NASD) require that you accept their

respective subscriber agreements before we can

grant you continued access to webBroker, ...” (See

Line 3-7, Page 1 of Appendix 03). These three

agreements are the Defendant’s elaborately

planned tricks. If you signed these three

agreements, then you cannot submit “Market

Recap” data to the Court. If you against these

three agreements, then the Defendant will take

advantage of this conflict interest issue in the

NASD arbitration hearing.

On Feb. 3, 2001, the Plaintiff filed a motion, inform

the Court that there is a conflict interest issue if this

case handled by NASD arbitration (See count 7, 8, 9,

Page 3 of Appendix 06).

“On the Nov 14’s conference, our Honorable J udge

Young suggests that the Plaintiff should go through

Arbitration first. If the problems cannot be solved or

the problems were not solved properly, then our

Honorable Judge will accept to handle this case with

justice in this court. The Plaintiff agreed to follow our

Honorable Judge’s suggestion. The Plaintiff rewrote a

Complaint for Arbitration (See Attached). However,

after rewriting the Complaint, the Plaintiff

discovered that there is a conflict interest if this

case goes through arbitration. Mr. Sullivan

informed me that I might bring arbitration before

either the NASD or NYSE. The count 8 in the new

Complaint document might be closely related to

NASD and NYSE. With my understanding, NASD or

NYSE cannot arbitrate itself since there is a conflict

interest. Hence, the Plaintiff would like to present this

point to our Honorable Judge. After considering

avoiding the conflict interest, the Plaintiff strongly

requests this case to be re-opened and to be handled

directly through this court.

I, hereby, pray to the Honorable J udge in this Court,

in order to avoid the conflict interest, this case should

be reopened and the investigation about the

Defendant’s illegal actions in this case should be

handled by this Honorable Court. I sincerely pray to

the Honorable Judge to provide justice judgments in

this court on this case according to the Bill Of Right.

However, the Court denied this motion (See

Appendix 07). The Plaintiff believes this ruling

was incorrect. It is violated the Constitution. In the

count 8 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the Plaintiff

pointed out that one NASD’s contract tries to

prevent Defendant’s customer presenting valid

data evidence to the honorable Judge in the court.

NASD cannot arbitrate itself. The conflict interest

should be avoided. With the conflict interest, the

arbitration will be not fair. Further, Freedom of

Speech is included in the Bill of Rights (the first

ten amendments of US Constitution). According to

the Bill of Rights, people should have the right to

choose whether they want to handle their case by

arbitration or by Court.

Due to the Conflict Interest issue, NASD cannot

arbitrate itself. The Plaintiff does believe that the

Plaintiff has the right to chose solve this issue by the

Court with juries. The Bill of Right grants and

guarantees the Plaintiff's right. The Bill of Right is

the most important authority. The Constitution is the

most important authority. The Defendant denied the

authority of the Bill of Right when the Defendant

claims “De Shen offers no authority” (See the last line

in Page 11 of the Defendant’s Brief). The Defendant

denied that the US Constitution is most

fundamental and important law when the

Defendant claims “De Shen’s assertion fails as a

matter of law.” (See second line in Page 12 of the

Defendant’s Brief)

The Plaintiff believes that this Court should

uphold the US Constitution. Anyone who tries to

deny the Constitution should be seriously

punished. As a lawyer, Mr. Derek Anderson

openly denies the Constitution. The Plaintiff

wonders whether Mr. Derek Anderson is qualified

as a lawyer?

Arbitration Management Fraud should be

punished.

(a) Fraud in organizing the Arbitration Panel

The deadline of submitting the Panel candidate list is

Dec. 24, 2001. The Plaintiff selected the Panel list

and submitted on Dec. 15, 2001. One day (after Dec.

24, 2001, and before Feb.1, 2002) (In the document I

sent to NASD, I mentioned Dec. 26, 2002, however, I

might miss remember the exact date) the Plaintiff

called Ms. Kelly Davis, asked her whether the

Defendant (Respondent) had submit their arbitrator

list on time. Ms. Kelly Davis informed me that

NASD had not received the Defendant

(Respondent)’s list yet. And she told me NASD

would process on the arbitration panel list anyway

without waiting for the Defendant (Respondent)’s list.

If Ms. Kelly Davis’ statement is true, then, all the

arbitrators should come from the Plaintiff selected

arbitrator list. However, when the Plaintiff received

the finalized arbitrator list of the Panel from Ms.

Suzanne Green, the Plaintiff found that only Mr.

Richard D. Jordan (4) was selected as the arbitrator of

the Panel.

The Plaintiff called Ms. Suzanne Green to clarify

what happened. Ms. Suzanne Green told the

Plaintiff that the Defendant submitted their

arbitrator list on Dec. 24, 2001.

Since the result of the arbitration is critically

depended by who is (are) arbitrator(s), the Plaintiff

had to file causal challenge to request Ms. Suzanne

Green to clarify the timing issue. However, one

month passed, Ms. Suzanne Green still unable to

clarify this issue.

On a letter that the Plaintiff sent to the President of

NASD. the Plaintiff wrote:

“After one month that I asked Ms. Suzanne Green

regarding to the Timing Issue on the Defendant’s

submission of its selected Arbitrator List for the

Panel, Ms. Suzanne Green is still unable to answer

my simple question. Hence, I formally propose the

investigation request on this issue to NASD

Dispute Resolution, Inc.

If Ms. Suzanne Green was cheating or lying on the

Arbitration Job, she should not be qualified as an

Arbitration Administrator on this case.”

On March 26, 2002, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the

associate Vice President of NASD, replied me a letter

(See Appendix 10). In her letter, Ms. Clancy

provided a third version of this timing:

“Respondent’s ranking form was sent to us by

facsimile, and received in our office on December Il,

2001, with an original copy arriving on December 12,

2001.” People have to ask Ms. Clancy, December II,

2001 was far away from December 24, 2001

deadline, overnight delivery is quite enough, why the

Defendant send another copy by facsimile besides the

overnight delivery? Is this just like an Old Story,

“when completed drawing a beautiful picture ofa

snake, appending legs to that snake”?

Until now, who was lying, who was cover up, is still a

riddle. The Plaintiff strongly believes that Ms. Kelly

Davis was telling the truth at that moment. Until now,

Ms. Kelly Davis has not lie yet. The Plaintiff request

Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on the court. If Ms.

Kelly Davis could tell the truth on the court. the

Plaintiff request the Court protect Ms. Kelly Davis,

avoid the revenges from NASD. If she does not tell

the truth on the court, then this issue will be covered

up. The Plaintiff wonders whether the Court is talent

enough to expose the truth.

(b) Fraud on ‘Cooking’ Hearing Tape

(Forgery is a Criminal Behavior)

The Plaintiff received the hearing tape of the

arbitration (NASD No. 01-03697) on Aug. 10, 2002.

When the Plaintiff listen to the tape, the Plaintiff

discovered that many content of the arbitration

hearing are not in the tape. -~

On the arbitration, the arbitrators openly bias in favor

of the Defendant. For example, when the Plaintiff

asked the Defendant to provide detailed case related

trade information to the Arbitration Panel. (Without

those basic facts, the arbitration will be baseless.) The

Arbitrator Chair Richard D. Jordan openly protects

9] Bae?

the Defendant. He said loudly, “It is trade secret!”

However, this statement is erased from the hearing

tape.

This is one fact that it proved the arbitration

resolution is extremely unfair.

(1) In the speech on explaining the new law passed

by Congress and Senate “Tough New Enforcement

Initiatives for Reform on Corporate Responsibility”,

President Bush said:

“We've learned of some business leaders

obstructing justice, and misleading clients,

falsifying records, business executives breaching

the trust and abusing power.”

Erase content from hearing tape is one type of

“falsifying records”. And this type of forgery hearing

tape is a criminal behavior. NASD arbitration

administrator Ms. Suzanne Green should be punished

on her bad behavior. Her bad behavior has breached

the people’s trust and abused NASD’s power.

(2) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“Self-regulation is important, but it's not enough.

Government cannot remove risk from investment -

- I know that -- or chance from the market. But

government can do more to promote transparency

and ensure that risks are honest. And government

can ensure that those who breach the trust of the

American people are punished.”

The arbitrators helped the Defendant to refuse

providing critical case related trade information and

to hide the true trade transaction data by claiming “It

is Trade Secret”. The arbitrators’ action and the

Defendant’s action are strictly against the law, which

passed by Congress and Senate. Congress, Senate and

President Bush ask to promote transparency. While

the arbitrators’ action and the Defendant’s action are

strictly going to the opposite direction. Their actions

breached the trust of the American people.

The Plaintiff believes that the court should act now to

promote the data transparency and ensure the unfair

and un-honest trade fraud is punished.

(3) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“Defrauding investors is a serious offense, and the

punishment must be as serious as the crime.”

The Plaintiff believes that the Defendant’s denying

its mistake again, again and again should be seriously

punished. When this case re-opened in the court, the

minimum punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

However, if the punishment reached or exceeded

$1,000,000.00, the Plaintiff is planning to use at least

80% of the awarded money to establish a non-profit

fund, which will be used for the following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education Organizations to

utilize the most advance computer

technologies, e.g. Academy Enterprise

System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Lawyers and Security

Workers to support world peace and justice.

so that people from different countries with

different culture background can understand

each other.

(d) Promote Boston’s new construction and

expansion. So that Boston will be one of the

largest and the most famous cities in the

world.

(4) On the same speech, President Bush said:

“If more scandals are hiding in corporate

America, we must find and expose them now, so

we can begin rebuilding the confidence of our

people and the momentum of our markets.”

The Plaintiff believes that it is the time, on this court,

to expose the Defendant’s trade fraud and NASD’s

frauds on “cooking the hearing tape” and “forging the

arbitration panel”.

The Plaintiff respectively requests the court:

(1) Order the NASD to provide the true copy of the

hearing tape of the arbitration (NASD No. 01-

03697) to the Plaintiff and to this court

(1) Order the Arbitrators and Ms. Green testimony

in this Court

(III) Order the Defendant to provide true transaction

data (include Order type, Order Date, Order

Price, and “whether that order is placed by

Market Maker or Broker” appended to the

Market Recap) to the Plaintiff and to this court.

(IV) Help arranging Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on

the court.

The Plaintiff believes that this court, as one part of the

US government, has the guts and power to make the

above orders.

VI.

The Arbitration Award should be vacated.

This case should be handled in the court with

Juries.

(A) Section 10 of Federal Arbitration Act

Sec. 10. - Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing

(a)

In any of the following cases the United

States court in and for the district wherein the

award was made may make an order vacating

the award upon the application of any party to

the arbitration -

(1)

Where the award was procured by

corruption, fraud, or undue means.

(2)

Where there was evident partiality or

corruption in the arbitrators, or either of

them. |

(3)

Where the arbitrators were guilty of

misconduct in refusing to postpone the

hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or

in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and

material to the controversy; or of any

other misbehavior by. which the rights of

any party have been prejudiced.

(4)

Where the arbitrators exceeded their

powers, or so imperfectly executed them

that a mutual, final, and definite award

upon the subject matter submitted was not

made.

(5)

Where an award is vacated and the

time within which the agreement required

the award to be made has not expired the

court may, in its discretion, direct a

rehearing by the arbitrators.

(B) This case matched three criteria for vacating

the award

a. The unfair arbitration award is

conducted and procured by these two

frauds.

During the Arbitration from July 26, 2001 to

July 20, 2002, as predict, due to the conflict

interest, there are two arbitration management

frauds occurred. The Defendant involved the

first fraud. And the Defendant is unable to

deny the second fraud. The unfair arbitration

96 ;

award is conducted and procured by these two

frauds.

b. The arbitrators are obviously partial to

the Defendant.

One evident partiality in Arbitrator is as

following:

When the Plaintiff Analyze on Failure to

Execute Stock Order issue, the Defendant

repeatedly claimed: “This is speculation”. One

arbitrator (who sit near the Plaintiff side)

chime in with the Defendant, he said: “We all

know that!”

The Defendant cannot deny this is one evident

partiality!

The most evident partiality to the

Defendant is the Arbitration Result. The

Defendant made so many mistakes; The

Market Recap precisely indicated that it is

Defendant’s mistake; The Defendant failed to

provide the critical data to prove its own

argument “Market orders receive execution

priority”; all those facts should conduct an

award, which should seriously punish the

Defendant. However, the Arbitration Panel

unfairly dismissed the Plaintiff's claim in the

entirety.

c. Justice judgment should base on fair

examination of facts.

The Market Recap (See Appendix 01) has

clearly proved that it is the Defendant’s

mistake on “Failure to execute” in this case.

The Defendant claimed in its “Respondents

Statement of Answer”: “Market order receive

execution priority” (Page 5 in Appellee’s

Appendix, Also see Respondent’s amended

statement of answer, page 37 of the

Appellee’s Appendix, line 7). It is the

Defendant’s burden to prove its point. In order

to prove its point, the Defendant should prove

that all the sell orders of those 170

transactions are Market orders. Hence the

Defendant should provide true transaction data

(include Order type, Order Date, Order Price,

and “whether that order is placed by Market

Maker or Broker” appended to the Market

Recap). However, the Defendant rejected to

provide this case related critical information

again and again. I wonder, without that critical

information, how the arbitrators can make any

right decision. Under the Umbrella of the

evident partiality arbitrators, until now, the

Defendant failed to prove that all the sell

orders of those 170 transactions are Market

orders. And as long as one sell order of those

170 transactions is NOT Market order, the

Defendant’s argument is automatically

defeated. According to statistics theory, it is

almost impossible that all the sell orders of

those 170 transactions are Market orders. If

the arbitrators understand statistics theory,

they can reach the conclusion immediately

that the Defendant is lying and the Defendant

is responsible for the failure to execute the

Plaintiff's order. If the arbitrators don’t

understand the statistics theory, then they

should ask the Defendant to provide detailed

information about the order type of the sell

orders of those 170 transactions to get the

right conclusion. Under the Umbrella of the

evident partiality arbitrators, the Defendant

has not provided the case related critical

information (evidence pertinent and material

to the controversy) until today. The Plaintiff

strongly requests the Court compel the

Defendant to provide the critical case related

document requested by the Plaintiff in the

Plaintiff's “First Request For Document and

Information to Defendant”.

d. Justice judgment should base on the

principle of “All People are created

equal”.

However, the Defendant openly requested the

arbitration panel to dismiss this case by race

prejudice. And the result is just as the

Defendant’s willing. The three arbitrators

dismissed the Plaintiff's claim in the entirety

without any reasoning:

Count (8) which is directly associated with

NASD was untouched;

The Defendant’s failure to execute customer’s

order was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating and insulting

customer was not punished;

The Defendant’s cheating SEC was not

punished;

The Defendant’s lying under the oath were not

punished;

The Defendant failed to provide case related

critical information was not punished;

The Defendant’s invading the Plaintiff's

privacy was not punished;

In general, the Defendant successfully escaped

from the justice judgment in the arbitration

hearing due to the conflict interest.

e. Fairness should be the basic principle

for stock trading

“First come, first serve” should be one of the

basic rules for stock trading. The Plaintiff

asked many experts on stock trading (include

some arbitrators and lawyers) the following

question:

“If there are 10 same limit orders to sell 5000

shares stock XYZ at price $2.00, Person A

placed order on Feb. 23, 2000, while others

placed the same order on March 7, 2000.

When Market bid price exceeded $2.00, which

order should be executed first?” All the

answer are same: “Person A’s order should

be executed first because that order placed

first.”

Mr. William Young challenging this basic

stock-trading rule on the hearing of Feb 6,

2003 is incorrect.

f. Arbitration Result is NOT always

correct

Mr. William Young claimed, “Arbitration is

second-class justice” ( Feb 6, 2003, Motion

Hearing Transcript, Page 10, Line 25).

According to this assumption, Mr. William

Young blindly confirmed the Arbitration

award. Now, I start to understand why Ms.

Suzanne Green dares to forge the Arbitration

Panel. Now, I start to understand why Ms.

Suzanne Green dares to “cook” the Hearing

Tape. Now, I start to understand why the

Arbitrators dare to help the Defendant to hide

the unfair trading Data. It is because they have

the “Umbrella” of “Arbitration is second-class

justice”. With this “Umbrella”, No matter how

many criminal actions they did, no one will

punish them! However, people have to ask

Mr. William Young: If you do not work hard

to investigate each case, if you do not have

talent to distinguish who is good, who is bad,

who did criminal actions, if you do not uphold

justice, do not punish the criminal actions,

why people need you? People need you is

because Arbitration Result is NOT always

correct, especially there is conflict interests

involved. Unfair Arbitration result should be

corrected by the Court. If our Mr. William -

Young does not correct those Arbitration

Mistakes, then, our Mr. William Young is

neglecting his duties.

According to our Mr. William Young’s logic,

then, the civil court will be the “first justice”.

Hence, our Mr. William Young will be always

right since he is the chief Judge in this court.

Hence, there will be no need to have Appeal

Court and Supreme Court. Fortunately, US

People do not trust our Mr. William Young’s

101

logic. Mr. William Young might make

mistakes. Mr. William Young’s mistakes

should be corrected by the Appeal Court

and/or Supreme Court. Anyone should obey

the law. Ms. Suzanne Green’s Arbitration

Management frauds should be punished. TD

Water House’s trade fraud should be

punished.

CONCLUSION OF THE REPLY BRIEF

(I) Due to conflict interest, two frauds happened.

The Defendant involved one fraud. The

Defendant is unable to deny another fraud.

Those two frauds conducted the unfair

arbitration award. According to Section 10 of

the Federal Arbitration Act, this unfair

arbitration award should be vacated. This case

should be reopened on the Court with Juries.

(II) | NASD’s Arbitration Management Frauds

should be punished. The minimum

punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

(III) |The Defendant (TD Water House Investor

Service, Inc)’s Trade fraud, followed by its

cheating customer, insult customer, cheating

SEC, lie under OATH, etc should be

punished. The minimum punishment should

be $1,000,000.00.

102

(IV) Ifthe total punishment exceeded

$1,000,000.00, as Promised, the Plaintiff is

planning to use at least 80% of the awarded

money to establish a non-profit fund, which

will be used for the following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education

Organizations to utilize the most

advance computer technologies, e.g.

Academy Enterprise System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Security

Workers, Lawyers and Judges to

support world peace and justice.

this world so that people from different

countries with different culture

background can understand each other.

(d) Promote Boston’s new

construction and expansion. So that

Boston will be one of the largest and

the most famous cities in the world.

103

APPENDICES 4

US COURT OF APPEALS

THE FIRST CIRCUIT

PLAINTIFF - Appellant/Cross - Appellee: )

De Shen ) Appeals Nos. 03-1415, 03-1478

) ;

) Trade Fraud on March 7, 2000.

VS. )

) Civil Action No. 00-11190-WGY

)

DEFENDANT - Appellee/Cross - Appellant: )

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc )

Sep 29, 2003

Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION

On Punishing the Frauds

Of the Defendant and NASD

(I) NASD’s fraud on cooking hearing tapes is proved

As predict, the Defendant was unable to file the Reply

Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Yes. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief (of Appellant/Cross-

Appellee) is VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFICULT for the

Defendant to reply. If the Defendant submits its Reply

104

Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant, then, it either

automatically commits the NASD Arbitration

Administrator’s fraud on cooking the arbitration hearing

tape, or it has to make more lies.

In the Plaintiff's Reply Brief (of Appellant/Cross-

Appellee), (VI) (B) (2), the Plaintiff wrote:

(2) The arbitrators are obviously partial to

the Defendant.

One evident partiality in Arbitrator is as

following:

When the Plaintiff Analyze on Failure to

Execute Stock Order issue, the Defendant

repeatedly claimed: “This is speculation”.

One arbitrator (who sit near the Plaintiff side)

chime in with the Defendant, he said: “We all

know that!”

The Defendant cannot deny this is one evident

partiality!

The arbitrator (who sit near the Plaintiff side) only spoke

a few times. And when he said, “We all know that!” after

the Defendant repeatedly claimed: “This is speculation”,

the arbitrator’s voice was very loud. So, no one should

forget what he said.

If the Defendant claims that what the arbitrator’s

statement “We all know that!” is not partial to the

Defendant, then the Defendant is automatically

committing that the arbitrator (who sit near the Plaintiff

105

side) did indeed say, “We all know that!” on the

arbitration hearing of June 20, 2002. However, this

statement was erased from the arbitration hearing tapes,

which were delivered to the Plaintiff.

If the Defendant claims that the arbitrator (who sit near

the Plaintiff side) did not say that statement on the

arbitration hearing of June 20, 2002, then the Defendant

is making more lies.

According to the logic analysis, “NOT DENY” implies

“COMMIT”.

(1) The Defendant did not submit its Reply Brief of

Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

(2) Hence, the Defendant did not deny the fact of “the

arbitrator (who sit near the Plaintiff side) did indeed

say, “We all know that!” on the arbitration hearing of

June 20, 2002’.

(3) However, this statement was erased from the

arbitration hearing tapes, which were delivered to the

Plaintiff.

(4) Hence, NASD arbitration administrator’s fraud on

cooking hearing tapes is proved!

(Il) The Frauds of the Defendant and NASD should be

punished

The fact of ‘the Defendant was unable to submit its Reply

Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant’ also proved that the

Defendant is unable to deny the facts written in the Plaintiff

(Appellant/Cross-Appellee)’s Reply Brief:

(1) The Defendant mistakenly explained the law;

(2) The Defendant lie on submission ranking form issue;

The Defendant involved the fraud on selecting arbitration

panel;

106

(3) The Defendant is failed to deny the arbitration hearing

tape fraud; :

(4) Conflict interest should be avoided; The Court should

uphold the Constitution;

(5) Arbitration Management Fraud should be punished;

Hence, the Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) respectively

requests the US Court of Appears to make the following

actions:

(I) The unfair Arbitration Award should be vacated.

(II) | NASD’s Arbitration Management Frauds should

be punished. The minimum punishment should be

$1,000,000.00.

(III) |The Defendant (TD Water House Investor

Service, Inc)’s Trade fraud, followed by its

cheating customer, insult customer, cheating SEC

lie under OATH, etc should be punished. The

minimum punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

(IV) Ifthe total punishment exceeded $1,000,000.00,

as Promised, the Plaintiff is planning to use at

least 80% of the awarded money to establish a

non-profit fund, which will be used for the

following purpose:

’

(a) Promote High Education Organizations to

utilize the most advance computer

technologies, e.g. Academy Enterprise

System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Security Workers,

Lawyers and Judges to support world

peace and justice.

so that people from different countries

with different culture background can

understand each other.

(d) Promote Boston’s new construction and

expansion. So that Boston will be one of

the largest and the most famous cities in

the world.

108

APPENDICES 5

US COURT OF APPEALS

THE #IRST CIRCUIT

PLAINTIFF - Appellant/Cross - Appellee: _)

De Shen ) Appeals Nos. 03-1415, 03-1478

)

) Trade Fraud on March 7, 2000.

VS. )

) Civil Action No. 00-11190-WGY

)

DEFENDANT - Appellee/Cross - Appellant: )

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc )

Nov. 3, 2003

Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION

On Request to arrange Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on

this court

(I) The fraud on selecting arbitration panel is proved

In the Plaintiff's Reply Brief (of Appellant/Cross-

Appellee) (II), the Plaintiff wrote:

109

Il. The Defendant lie on submission ranking form

issue; The Defendant involved the fraud on

selecting arbitration panel

On page 3 of the Defendant’s Brief, the Defendant

wrote: “TD Waterhouse submitted its ranking of

potential arbitrators within the time allowed by

NASD DR rules.” The Defendant lied again on this

issue. |

The deadline of submitting the Panel candidate list is

Dec. 24, 2001. The Plaintiff selected the Panel list

and submitted on Dec. 15, 2001.

After the Dec. 24, 2001 deadline, the Plaintiff called

Ms. Kelly Davis, asked her whether the Defendant

(Respondent) had submit their arbitrator list on time.

Ms. Kelly Davis informed me that NASD had not

received the Defendant (Respondent)’s list yet. And

she told me NASD would process on the arbitration _

panel list anyway without waiting for the Defendant

(Respondent)’s list.

The Plaintiff strongly request Ms. Kelly Davis to

testimony on the court. Until today (Aug 25, 2003),

Ms. Kelly Davis has not lied on this issue yet.

On this issue, the NASD Arbitration Administrator

Ms. Suzanne Green lied.

On this issue, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the associate

Vice President of NASD, lied.

On this issue, Mr. Derek Anderson, the lawyer for

Mr. Derek Anderson lied.

Those liars lied during the Arbitration period.

Some of those liars lied on the District Court.

Their evil actions constituted the fraud mentioned

110

on page 10-11 of the Plaintiffs “Brief of

Appellant”,

If the Honorable Judges in this US Court of

Appeals are talent enough, this fraud should not

be very difficult to be verified. The Plaintiff

request the Defendant commit its evil action on

telling lies on this submission ranking form issue

before the verification by the judges in this US

Court of Appeal. If the Defendant does not commit

its evil action on telling lies until the judges figured

out the truth, then the penalty should be much

higher then Defendant commits its evil actions

earlier.

The Defendant did not submit the Reply Brief to

deny that Ms. Suzanne Green, Ms. Elizabeth R.

Clancy and the Defendant had all lied on this issue.

The Defendant did not den 'y that the Defendant

directly involved the fraud on selecting arbitration

panel.

Not deny implies commit. The Defendant and NASD’s

. fraud on selecting arbitration panel is proved.

The Plaintiff start to in vestigate the ranking form

submitting issue on Feb. 1 8, 2002. On Feb 24, 2002,

the Plaintiff submitted the Arbitration Causal

Challenge by email. In the same email, the Plaintiff

asked Ms. Green the following simple questions:

111]

oreo

! was heard that the defendant did not delivered their list of

arbitrators even by Dec 26, 2001. Hence, I would like to ask

the following

questions for fully understand how this panel list was

decided:

(i) By what type of the mail that the defendant delivered

their list of arbitrators?

~ (a) Certified Mail;

(b) Fed. Express.

(ii) What is the Postmark date on the defendant's mail for

delivering their list of Arbitrators? Can I get a copy of the

Envelop of the defendant's mail with the Postmark date?

(iii) By which date that your office received the

defendant's mail regarding to the list of Arbitrators.

(iv) How the panel list was finally decided in detail?

On Feb. 28, 2002, the Plaintiff re-sent the above simple

questions to

Ms. Suzanne Green.

On March 1, 2002, Ms. Suzanne Green was still un-able

to answer the above simple questions, but she wrote in her

reply email:

“it is the policy of this office to allow the opposing party to

responds to such motion.”

Hence, on March 1, 2002 (Same cee after received Ms.

Suzanne Green’s email), the Plaintiff forwarded those

simple questions to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant was also unable to reply those

simple questions.

Since both the Defendant and Ms. Suzanne Green can

not answer the Plaintiff’s simple questions, the Plaintiff

112

had to send this issue to NASD President Linda D.

Fienberg. ’

On April 2002, the Plaintiff received one letter, dated as

March 26, 2002 (See Appendix 10 of Plaintiff’s Brief

Appendix of Appellant, also see Appendix 4 of Appellee’s

Appendix, the Appellee’s copy machine is better), from Ms.

Elizabeth R. Clancy. In this letter, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy,

the associate Vice President of NASD, openly lied. Ms.

Elizabeth R. Clancy claimed that Respondent’s (the

Defendant) ranking form was sent to NASD by facsimile

and received by NASD on Dec. 11, 2001, with original copy

arriving on Dec. 12, 2001.

As analyzed by the Plaintiff (See page 20 of the Plaintiff’s

Reply Brief of Appellant):

People have to ask Ms. Clancy, December 11, 2001

was far away from December 24, 2001 deadline,

overnight delivery is quite enough, why the Defendant

send another copy by facsimile besides the overnight

delivery? Is this just like an Old Story, “when

completed drawing a beautiful picture of a snake,

appending legs to that snake”?

On April 2002, after received Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy’s

letter, the Plaintiff received the Defendant’s letter, which is

dated as March 27, 2002. In this letter, the Defendant start

to claim that it submitted the ranking form on Dec. 11,

2001.

Both Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy and the Defendant included

one forged document of the Defendant’s ranking form,

which is dated as Dec. 11, 2001.

113

—Currently, there are three versions of the Defendant’s

submission of Arbitration ranking form.

(1) Ms. Kelly Davis: The Defendant did not submit its

Arbitration ranking form before the Dec. 24, 2001 deadline;

(2) Ms. Suzanne Green: The Defendant submitted its

Arbitration ranking form on the Dec. 24, 2001.

(3) Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy: Respondent’s (the Defendant)

ranking form was sent to NASD by facsimile and received

by NASD on Dec. 11, 2001, with original copy arriving on

Dec. 12, 2001.

As Plaintiff stated before: The Defendant did not submit the

Reply Brief to deny that Ms. Suzanne Green, Ms. Elizabeth

R. Clancy and the Defendant had all lied on this issue. The

Defendant did not deny that the Defendant directly involved

the fraud on selecting arbitration panel.

Not deny implies commit. The Defendant and NASD '’s fraud

on selecting arbitration panel is proved.

In the case this Court is still unable to determine that

whether this fraud is verified or not, the Plaintiff strongly

request this Court to arrange Ms. Kelly Davis to testimony on

this court. Ms. Kelly Davis was the person handling this issue

at that time. According to several conversations with Ms.

Kelly Davis before, the Plaintiff believe that Ms. Kelly Davis

will speak out the truth under the Court’s protection. Until

today (Nov. 3rd, 2003), Ms. Kelly Davis did not lie to the

Plaintiff directly.

(ll) The Frauds of the Defendant and NASD should be

punished

In the speech on explaining the new law passed by

Congress and Senate “Tough New Enforcement Initiatives

114

for Reform on Corporate Responsibility” (See Page 2 of

Appendix 33 of the Brief Appendix of Appellant), President

Bush said:

“We've learned of some business leaders obstructing

justice, and misleading clients, falsifying records, business

executives breaching the trust and abusing power.”

On the same speech, (See Page 3 of Appendix 33 of the Brief

Appendix of Appellant), President Bush said:

“Defrauding investors is a serious offense, and the

punishment must be as serious as the crime.”

On the Plaintiff's Sep 29, 2003’s Motion, the Plaintiff proved

the NASD’s fraud on cooking (editing) hearing tapes. Until

today, (Nov. 3, 2003), the Defendant has not denied this

fraud. Hence, it further confirmed that “the NASD’s fraud on

cooking (editing) hearing tapes” is really happened.

On this motion, the Plaintiff proved the Defendant and the

NASD’s fraud on Arbitration Panel Selection Issue.

The penalty to one organization should be very serious, if the

organization knowing the law but violating the law.

The Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) respectively

requests the US Court of Appears to make the following

actions:

(1) The unfair Arbitration Award should be vacated.

(II) | NASD’s Arbitration Management Frauds should

be punished. The minimum punishment should be

$1,000,000.00.

(III) |The Defendant (TD Water House Investor

Service, Inc)’s Trade fraud, followed by its

cheating customer, insult customer, cheating SEC,

115

(IV)

lie under OATH, etc should be punished. The

minimum punishment should be $1,000,000.00.

If the total punishment exceeded $1,000,000.00,

as Promised, the Plaintiff is planning to use at

least 80% of the awarded money to establish a

non-profit fund, which will be used for the

following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education Organizations to

utilize the most advance computer

technologies, e.g. Academy Enterprise

System, etc.

(b) Promote Reporters, Security Workers,

Lawyers and Judges to support world peace

and justice.

that people from different countries with

different culture background can

understand each other.

(d) Promote Boston’s new construction and

expansion. So that Boston will be one of

the largest and the most famous cities in

the world.

116

APPENDICES 6

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAES

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Nos. 03-1415; 03-1478

DE SHEN,

Plaintiff, Appellant\Cross-Appellee,

T.D. WATERHOUSE INVESTOR SERVICE, INC.

Defendant, Appellee\Cross-Appellant.

No. 03-1478

MEMORANDUM OF TD WATERHOUSE INVESTOR

SERVICES, INC IN OPPOSITION TO DE SHEN’S

MOTION TO TAKE THE TESTIMONY OF KELLY

DAVIS OF THE NASD

TD Waterhouse Investor Services, Inc (“Appellee”)

submits this memorandum in opposition (“Memorandum”) to

De Shen’s (“Appellant”) motion requesting that this Court

take the testimony of Kelly Davis of the NASD. In addition

to this Memorandum, Appellee submits herewith the affidavit

of Derek C. Anderson, Esq.

I. Background

Appellant requests that the court take the testimony of

Ms. Kelly Davis, an employee of the National

Association of Securities Dealers, Inc (“NASD”). On

117

appeal, Appellant argues that the Order of the District

Court denying Appellant’s Motion to vacate the

arbitration award should be reversed. Appellant argues,

among other things, that the underlying arbitration award

should be vacated under Section 10 of the Federal

Arbitration Act (“FAA”). As grounds for his argument,

Appellant alleges that Appellee failed to submit its

ranking of potential arbitrators within the time allowed by

the arbitration rules of the NASD. Appellant contends

that Appellee’s failure in this regard constitutes “fraud in

organizing the arbitration panel”.' Appellant now

requests that this Court take the testimony of Kelly Davis

of the NASD to substantiate his allegations.

Il. Argument

This Court should deny Appellant’s Motion for the

reasons that such testimony is not allowed by the federal

rules of appellate procedure and that the record on appeal

has already been established. Rule 10 of the federal rules

of appellate procedure limit the record to “the original

papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the

transcript of proceedings, and a certified copy of the

docket entries delivered by the district clerk”. U.S.C.A.

Fed. Rules App. Proc. R. 10. Attempts to supplement the

record should be disregarded by the Court since the

' Appellee pointed out in its Brief that this alleged “fraud” does not

materially relate to an issue in arbitration as is required, and therefore

cannot be grounds to vacate an arbitration award under Section 10 of the

FAA. See e.g. LaFarge Conseils Et Etudies, S.A. v Kaiser Cement&

Gypsum Corp. 791 F.2d 1334, 1339 (9" Cir. 1986) (citing Dogherra v.

SafewayStores, Inc., 679 F.2d 1293 (9" Cir. 1982) cert den. 459 U.S. 990.

74 L.Ed. 2d 386, 103 S. Ct. 346(1982)); see also Bonar v. Dean Witter

Reynolds, Inc., 835 F. 2d 1378. 1383 (1 1" Cir. 1988) (citing

Dogherra,supra) (Appellee’s Brief. P.15)

118

Appellant had every opportunity in the district court to

present whatever evidence he thought was relevant to the

issues at hand. See e.g. Rosen v. Lawson-Hemphill, Inc,

549 F. 2d 205, 206 (1st Cir. 1986). The burden is on the

Appellant to provide the Court with all material evidence.

See e.g. Hayes v. Consolidated Service Corp., 517 F.2d

564, 566 (1* Cir. 1975). The declaration of a witness

which was never filed or submitted to the District Court

cannot be part to the record on appeal. See e.g. Kirshner

v. Uniden Corp. of America, 842 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9"

Cir. 1988).

Here, Appellant seeks to have the Court take the

testimony of a NASD employee. It is indisputable that

testimony was not before the District Court when it

rendered its Order denying Appellant’s Motion to vacate

the arbitration award. The testimony clearly is not part of

the record. Appellant’s Motion should be denied.”

* Aiter receiving Appellant’s Motion, counsel searched Appellee’s

facsimile transmitting its rankings of potential arbitrators. See Affidavit of

Derek C. Anderson, Esq. Appellee’s letter to the NASD transmitting its

rankings of arbitrators was dated December 11, 2001. Id. The letter was

delivered to the NASD via facsimile and overnight mail. /d. The facsimile

confirmation sheet indicates that the NASD received the letter.on

December 11, 2001, well before the December 24, 2001 deadline. /d.

This information corroborates Ms. Clancy’s (of the NASD) March 26,

2002 correspondence regarding the selection arbitrators, and completely

undermines Appellant’s theory of fraud in organizing the arbitration

panel”. See Appellee’s Appendix. Tab 4.

119

III. Conclusion

For all of the foregoing reasons, TD Waterhouse

respectfully requests that the Court deny Appellant’s

Motion.

TD WATERHOUSE INVESTOR

SERVICES, INC.

By its attorneys,

s/ Derek C. Anderson

Derek C. Anderson

Pete S. Michaels

MURPHY & MICHAELS, LLP

One Liberty Square

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

(617) 350-7700

Dated: November 24, 2003

120

APPENDICES 7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

Nos. 03-1415; 03-1478

DE SHEN,

Plaintiff, Appellant\Cross-Appellee,

T.D. WATERHOUSE INVESTOR SERVICE, INC.

Defendant, Appellee\Cross-Appellant.

No. 03-1478

_ AFFIDAVIT OF DEREK C. ANDERSON

I, Derek C. Anderson, do hereby depose and state the

following:

1. I, along with Pete S. Michaels, am the attorney of

record for Appellee TD Waterhouse Investor Service,

Inc. (T.D. Waterhouse).

2. After receiving Appellant’s Motion, I searched TD

Waterhouse’s file and retrieved the facsimile

transmitting TD Waterhouse’s rankings of potential

arbitrators. The cover letter to the NASD transmitting

TD Waterhouse’s rankings of arbitrators was dated

December 11, 2001. The letter was delivered to the

NASD via facsimile and overnight mail. The

facsimile confirmation sheet indicates that the NASD

121

received the letter on December 11, 2001, well before

the December 24, 2001 NASD deadline.

3. This information corroborates Ms. Clancy’s March

26, 2002 correspondence regarding the selection of

arbitrators. See Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 4.

4. This information is not part of the record before the

Court. Upon the request of the Court, we would be

glad to provide the Court with this correspondence.

Sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury this 21

day of November 2003.

s/_ Derek C. Anderson

Derek C. Anderson

122

APPENDICES 8 ’

US COURT OF APPEALS

THE FIRST CIRCUIT

PLAINTIFF - Appellant/Cross - Appellee: _)

De Shen ) Appeals Nos. 03-1415, 03-1478

)

) Trade Fraud on March 7, 2000.

VS. )

) Civil Action No. 00-11190-WGY

)

DEFENDANT - Appellee/Cross - Appellant: )

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc )

Nov. 24, 2003

Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION

On Request Double Penalty To The Defendant

For Its Continually Telling Lie

(1) The Defendant Continually Tells Lies

The Plaintiff received Mr. Derek C. Anderson’s reply letter

of Nov. 21, 2003. This letter is a response of the Plaintiff s

Nov. 3s Motion.

This letter proved that the Defendant continually tells LIE

until now.

Mr. Derek C. Anderson wrote:

123

I enclose the correspondence to the NASD enclosing TD

Waterhouse’s rankings of arbitrators. You will see that the

cover letter is dated December 11, 2001 and notes that the

rankings were delivered via facsimile and via overnight

delivery (Optima). I have also enclosed the confirmation

indicating that the facsimile was sent on December 11, 2001,

well before the December 24, 2001 deadline. This

information corroborates Ms. Clancy’s letter to you (See

Appellee’s Appendix, Tab 4).

From the Defendant’s attached files, you will see both the

cover letter and FAX COVER SHEET are addressed to Ms.

Kelly Davis, NASD Dispute Resolution, Inc.

If those documents were not forged, then, Ms. Kelly Davis

would have received the Defendant’s ARBITRATOR

RANKING FORM well before the deadline of Dec. 24,

2001.

However Ms. Kelly Davis informed the Plaintiff that the

Defendant did not submit its arbitrator ranking form before

the deadline of Dec. 24, 2001 at least two times.

Hence, the Defendant forged those documents and

continually lie is proved!

The Plaintiff and Ms. Kelly Davis had at least two

conversations which were focused on whether the

Defendant submitted its arbitrator ranking form on time.

After the deadline of Dec. 24, 2001, the Plaintiff called Ms.

Kelly Davis and asked her whether the Defendant had

submitted its arbitrator ranking form. Ms. Kelly Davis told

the Plaintiff that the Respondent had not submitted its

124

arbitrator ranking form yet. She informed the Plaintiff that

NASD would process the selection of arbitrator panel

without waiting for the Respondent’s arbitrator ranking form.

According to Arbitration Rule, if the Defendant

(Respondent) did not submit its arbitrator ranking form .

before the deadline, all the arbitrators in the panel should

be selected from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by

the Plaintiff (Claimant). However, when the Plaintiff

received the arbitrator panel list decided by NASD, the

Plaintiff discovered that only one arbitrator was selected

from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by the Plaintiff.

Hence, the Plaintiff called Ms. Kelly Davis again. The

Plaintiff asked Ms. Kelly Davis, “You told me that the

Defendant did not submit its arbitrator ranking form before

the deadline. Hence all the arbitrators in the arbitration

panel should be selected from the arbitrator ranking form

submitted by the Plaintiff. Why only one arbitrator which

ranked number 4 in the arbitrator ranking form submitted

by the Plaintiff was selected in the Panel.” Ms. Kelly Davis

replied to the Plaintiff that: “Yes. The Respondent did not

submit its arbitrator ranking form before the deadline of Dec.

24, 2001. You are right that all the arbitrators should be

selected from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by you.

However, in the case if some arbitrators, which you selected,

do not want to arbitrate this case, if there are not enough

arbitrators available from your ranking form, then, NASD

will select the rest arbitrator(s) for this panel”. She suggested

me contact with Ms. Suzanne Green. The Plaintiff called

Ms. Suzanne Green. Ms. Suzanne Green lied to the

Plaintiff. She said: “The Respondent submitted its

arbitrator ranking form on Dec. 24, 2001, the last day of the

deadline”. Ms. Suzanne Green told the Plaintiff that she

would ask Ms. Kelly Davis talk to me together. However,

Ms. Kelly Davis did not join Ms. Suzanne Green to lie to the

125

Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also called one arbitrator who was

selected in the Plaintiff’s arbitrator ranking form. He reply

to the Plaintiff that no one from NASD Dispute Resolution,

Inc contacted with him on this case.

According to above conversation with Ms. Kelly Davis, the

Defendant forged those documents and continually lie is

proved.

The Plaintiff strongly requests this Court to arrange Ms.

Kelly Davis to testimony on this court. Ms. Kelly Davis was

the person handling this issue at that time. According to the

above conversations with Ms. Kelly Davis, the Plaintiff

believes that Ms. Kelly Davis will speak out the truth under

the Court's protection. Until today (Nov. 24, 2003), Ms.

Kelly Davis did not lie to the Plaintiff directly.

(Il) The Defendant continually lie should be DOUBLE

PUNISHED

In the speech on explaining the new law passed by

Congress and Senate “Tough"New Enforcement Initiatives

for Reform on Corporate Responsibility” (See Page 2 of

Appendix 33 of the Brief Appendix of Appellant), President

Bush said:

“We've learned of some business leaders obstructing

justice, and misleading clients, falsifying records, business

executives breaching the trust and abusing power.”

On the same speech, (See Page 3 of Appendix 33 of the Brief

Appendix of Appellant), President Bush said:

“Defrauding investors is a serious offense, and the

punishment must be as serious as the crime.”

126

Considering the Defendant continually tells lies, the

Plaintiff request double penalty to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) respectively

requests the US Court of Appears to make the following

actions:

(1) The unfair Arbitration Award should be vacated.

(II) | NASD’s Arbitration Management Frauds should

be punished. The minimum punishment should be

$2,000,000.00.

(III) The Defendant (TD Water House Investor

Service, Inc)’s Trade fraud, followed by its

cheating customer, insult customer, cheating SEC,

lie under OATH, etc should be punished. The

minimum punishment should be $2,000,000.00.

(IV) Ifthe total punishment exceeded $1,000,000.00,

as Promised, the Plaintiff is planning to use at

least 80% of the awarded money to establish a

non-profit fund, which will be used for the

following purpose:

(a) Promote High Education Organizations to

utilize the most advance computer

technologies, e.g. Academy Enterprise

System, etc.

(b) | Promote Reporters, Security Workers,

Lawyers and Judges to support world

peace and justice.

so that people from different countries

with different culture background can

understand each other.

127

(d)

Promote Boston’s new construction and

expansion. So that Boston will be one of

the largest and the most famous cities in

the world.

128

APPENDICES 9

US COURT OF APPEALS

THE FIRST CIRCUIT

PLAINTIFF - Appellant/Cross - Appellee: _)

De Shen ) Appeals Nos. 03-1415, 03-1478

)

) Trade Fraud on March 7, 2000.

VS. )

) Civil Action No. 00-11190-WGY

)

DEFENDANT - Appellee/Cross - Appellant: )

TD Waterhouse Investor Service, Inc )

Dec. 1, 2003

Plaintiff (Appellant/Cross — Appellee)’s MOTION

On Requesting Further Double Penalty To The

Defendant

For It Hire Lawyers to Lie in Affidavit

(I) The Defendant Hire Lawyers to Lie in the Affidavit

The Plaintiff received the Defendant’s attorney Mr. Derek C.

Anderson’s Affidavit on Nov. 25, 2003. However, Mr.

Derek C. Anderson’s Affidavit is an obvious perjury.

Mr. Derek C. Anderson wrote in the Affidavit:

129

After receiving Appellant’s Motion. I searched TD

Waterhouse’s file and retrieved the facsimile transmitting TD

Waterhouse’s rankings of potential arbitrators. The cover

letter to the NASD transmitting TD Waterhouse’s rankings of

arbitrators was dated December 11. 2001. The letter was

delivered to the NASD via facsimile and overnight mail. The

facsimile confirmation sheet indicates that the NASD

received the letter on December 11, 2001. well before the

December 24. 2001 NASD deadline.

Mr. Derek C. Anderson’s Affidavit is an obvious perjury.

Lets use reductio ad absurdum approach to prove the above

Statement:

Both the Defendant’s cover letter and FAX COVER

SHEET related to arbitrator ranking form submission are

addressed to Ms. Kelly Davis, NASD Dispute Resolution,

Inc.

Lets make the following assumption, and call it

“Assumption X”:

Assumption X: Suppose those Defendant’s documents were

not forged, suppose Mr. Derek C. Anderson’s Affidavit is

not a perjury. Ms. Kelly Davis had received the Defendant's

arbitrator ranking form well before the deadline of Dec. 24,

2001.

However:

(A) After the deadline of Dec. 24, 2001, the Plaintiff called

Ms. Kelly Davis and asked her whether the Defendant had

submitted its arbitrator ranking form. Ms. Kelly Davis told

the Plaintiff that the Respondent had not submitted its

arbitrator ranking form yet. She informed the Plaintiff that

130

NASD would process the selection of arbitrator panel

without waiting for the Respondent’s arbitrator ranking form.

People have to ask the Defendant, WHY Ms. Kelly Davis

would like to inform the Plaintiff that the Defendant did not

submit its arbitrator ranking form before the deadline of

Dec. 24, 2001, if she received the Defendant’s

ARBITRATOR RANKING FORM well before the deadline

of Dec. 24, 2001?

(B) According to Arbitration Rule, if the Defendant

(Respondent) did not submit its arbitrator ranking form

before the deadline, all the arbitrators in the panel should

be selected from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by

the Plaintiff (Claimant). However, when the Plaintiff

received the arbitrator panel list decided by NASD, the

Plaintiff discovered that only one arbitrator was selected

from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by the Plaintiff.

Hence, the Plaintiff called Ms. Kelly Davis again. The

Plaintiff asked Ms. Kelly Davis, “You told me that the

Defendant did not submit its arbitrator ranking form before

the deadline. Hence all the arbitrators in the arbitration

panel should be selected from the arbitrator ranking form

submitted by the Plaintiff. Why only one arbitrator which

ranked number 4 in the arbitrator ranking form submitted

by the Plaintiff was selected in the Panel.” Ms. Kelly Davis

replied to the Plaintiff that: “Yes. The Respondent did not

submit its arbitrator ranking form before the deadline of Dec.

24, 2001. You are right that all the arbitrators should be

selected from the arbitrator ranking form submitted by you.

However, in the case if some arbitrators, which you selected,

do not want to arbitrate this case, if there are not enough

arbitrators available from your ranking form, then, NASD

will select the rest arbitrator(s) for this panel”.

131

People have to ask the Defendant, WHY Ms. Kelly Davis

would like to confirm to the Plaintiff that the Defendant did

not submit its arbitrator ranking form before the deadline

of Dec. 24, 2001? WHY Ms. Kelly Davis would like to

confirm to the Plaintiff that all the arbitrators in the

arbitration panel should be selected from the arbitrator

ranking form submitted by the Plaintiff unless there are not

enough arbitrators available from the arbitrator ranking

form submitted by the Plaintiff?

Suzanne Green lied to the Plaintiff, “The Respondent

submitted its arbitrator ranking form on Dec. 24, 2001, the

last day of the deadline”?

(D) The Plaintiff started to in vestigate the ranking form

submitting issue on Feb. 18, 2002. On F. €b 24, 2002, the

Plaintiff submitted the Arbitration Causal Challenge by

email. In the same email, the Plaintiff asked Ms. Green the

following simple questions:

! was heard that the defendant did not delivered their list of

arbitrators even by Dec 26, 2001. Hence, I would like to ask

the following

questions for fully understand how this panel list was

decided:

(i) By what type of the mail that the defendant delivered

their list of arbitrators?

(a) Certified Mail;

(b) Fed. Express.

132

(ii) What is the Postmark date on thé defendant's mail for

delivering their list of Arbitrators? Can I get a copy of the

Envelop of the defendant's mail with the Postmark date?

(iii) | By which date that your office received the

defendant's mail regarding to the list of Arbitrators.

(iv) How the panel list was finally decided in detail?

On Feb. 28, 2002, the Plaintiff re-sent the above simple

questions to

Ms. Suzanne Green.

On March 1, 2002, Ms. Suzanne Green was still un-able to

answer the above simple questions, but she wrote in her reply

email:

“it is the policy of this office to allow the opposing party to

responds to such motion.”

People have to ask the Defendant, if she received the

Defendant’s ARBITRATOR RANKING FORM well before

the deadline of Dec. 24, 2001, WHY Ms. Suzanne Green

was un-able to answer the above simple questions by Feb.

24, 2002(?), by Feb. 28, 2002(2), even by March 1, 2002?

(E) On March 1, 2002, the Plaintiff forwarded those simple

questions to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant was also unable to reply those

simple questions.

People have to ask the Defendant, if the Defendant’s

arbitrator ranking form was delivered to the NASD via

facsimile and overnight mail on Dec. 11, 2001, if Mr. Kelly

Davis received the Defendant’s arbitrator ranking form well

before the deadline of Dec. 24, 2001, WHY the Defendant

was unable to answer those simple questions before Ms.

133

Elizabeth R. Clancy made the cover-up solution on March

26, 2002?

(F) On March 26, 2002, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the

associate Vice President of NASD, openly lied in her letter.

Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy claimed that Respondent’s (the

Defendant) ranking form was sent to NASD by facsimile and

received by NASD on Dec. 11, 2001, with Original copy

arriving on Dec. 12, 2001.

People have to ask Ms. Clancy, December 11, 2001 was far

away from December 24, 2001 deadline, overnight delivery

is quite enough, WHY the Defendant send another copy by

facsimile besides the overnight delivery? Is this just like an

Old Story, “when completed drawing a beautiful picture of a

snake, appending legs to that snake”?

From the above six issues, the consequences conducted by

“Assumption X” are either self-contradiction or

implausibility. With the “Assumption X”, all the above

questions cannot be answered.

Hence, the “Assumption X” is patertly untenable.

Hence, the “Assumption X” is incorrect.

Hence, those Defendant’s documents related to

arbitrators ranking form submission were forged.

Hence, “Mr. Derek C. Anderson’s Affidavit is an obvious

perjury” is proved.

By using reductio ad absurdum approach, without Ms. Kelly

Davis’s testimony, the Plaintiff has already successfully

proved the Defendant’s and NASD’s frauds on the

arbitrators ranking form submission.

On this issue, the NASD Arbitration Administrator Ms.

Suzanne Green lied.

134

On this issue, Ms. Elizabeth R. Clancy, the associate Vice

President of NASD, lied.

On this issue, Mr. Derek Anderson, Mr. Pete S. Michaels,

the lawyers for the Defendant, lied and continually lyin

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.