Efrain Areizaga v. ADW Corporation

The following un-disputed facts in this case pre­ sents the grounds on which the petitioner frames his question to the court. On 7/8/16 & 7/11/16 the petitioner met with re­ spondent’s attorney JOHN HERRING and he stated to petitioner that this case will not end on the merits and that the respondent will only pay cost and nothing else. In mediation on 8/2/16, the respondent and their attorney JOHN HERRING made the following unlaw­ ful threats, thru a mediator, coercing the petitioner into signing a mediation agreement for cost only;(l) that petitioner had taken proprietary information from the respondent without consent and that they can sue petitioner’s employer Bartos Industries; (2) that the petitioner had also used proprietary infor­ mation from his employer Bartos Industries in his mo­ tion for summary judgment; (3) that petitioner can be black listed in the industry. (1) Did the United States court of appeals affirm a decision that exceeds their authority and lacks subject matter jurisdiction by suspending sec­ tion 31.03 of the Texas penal code, the Hobbs Act, the FLSA and grants the respondent and their attorneys immunity against prosecution by holding that un-lawful threats of retaliation, an in terrorem tactic as stated in Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2nd at (144), are pro­ tected by mediation confidentiality and