Kalim A. R. Muhammad v. AT&T, Inc., et al.

QUESTION D Does it violate the Federal Arbitrat­ ion Act or otherwise undermine “equal footing" and contract immunities when State Courts construe the Congressional policy to incorporate or accommodate inherent inequality to parties by allowing for the dispensing with arbitrability and contract construction- so that it further allows for arbitrary state created discretionary rules that affords the ‘bundling’ of each and every claim and counterclaim that arises out of court process itselfto also be part and parcel of the -“all” the claims* presumably fit for the arbitrational forum? QUESTION % The litigation challenges jurisdict­ ion by conditions precedent and Supreme Court precedents of Marburv v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) to Steel City Steel Co, v. Citizens for a Better Env% 523 U.S. 83 (1998); and on to invoking a similar anomaly of Article III jurisdiction, as alerted in Osborn v. Haley, 549 U.S. 225 (2007). In light of this Court’s holding in Elliot v. Piersol. 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828) and other Supreme Court jurisdictional precedents: Does the fact that the record plausibly holds that there is unproven grounds of all elements of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction; and the court ordering arbitration nevertheless- thereby sets the arbitrator up for civil charges in a separate cause of action for imposition and plausibly being a “trespasser”- if his jurisdiction is not proved upon the record with sufficiency to standards and due process? QUESTION 3: The litigation charges the Alabama