1. Whether the agreement/contract presented before the court evidences an "arbitration
clause " (See...Doc. 75... Exhibits/Evidence Set - C- U.S. District Court Case No.:
2:17-cv-02170-BHH)?

2. Whether the lower court and the appeals court erred by overriding the
agreement/contract by claiming "there is no valid arbitration clause " and by ignoring the
delegation clause incorporated under the "Arbitration Clause " (See...Section III of the
agreement/contract filed on the record in district court Doc. 75, Exhibits/Evidence
Set - C) simply by stating "there is no applicable arbitration clause " to deny the
petitioner, the aggrieved party his right to compel arbitration and seek redress of
grievance?

3. Whether the lower court and appeals court erred by completely and willfully ignoring
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) as written, 9 U.S.C. § 2 which permits an agreement
in writing to be valid and enforceable when it involves commerce in fact and has a
provision delegating an arbitrator to settle by arbitration any controversy thereafter
arising out of such agreement/contract in writing, to submit to arbitration an existing
controversy arising out of such a contract, transaction, or refusal as the
agreement/contract clearly evidences (See...Section III of the agreement/contract
filed on the record in district court Doc. 75, Exhibits/Evidence Set - C)? Also
whether congress has already passed a private law which they decided evidenced by
their findings in section 2 of private bill No.: S -112/private law 114-31 (December 3,
2016) that agreements such as the one presented by the petitioner (See...Doc. 75...
Petitioners Motion to compel Arbitration, page 2 -3 and Exhibits/Evidence Set - C-
U.S. District Court Case No.: 2:17-cv-02170-BHH) is valid, binding on the parties,
contained an alternative dispute resolution clause that provided for arbitration as the
exclusive remedy for relief to the Parties, and the parties consented to arbitration?

4. Whether the lower court erred by denying Petitioner, Nelson L. Bruce his right to
redress of grievance by denying his motion to compel arbitration by failing to apply the
law as written, the FAA and recently confirmed by this U.S. Supreme court, a higher
court, in their recent decision which states, a court has no business weighing in on the
merits of the grievance ' by denying a party their right to redress of grievance, right to
arbitration when the petitioner has dully exercised his right to redress of grievance, right
to arbitration when the agreement is to submit all grievances to arbitration as the
exclusive remedy, any and all disputes, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating in any way to this Agreement or with regard to its formation, interpretation or
breach, and any issues of substantive or procedural arbitrability (See... Doc. 75...
Exhibits/Evidence Set - C- U.S. District Court Case No.: 2:17-cv-02170-BHH)?

5. Whether the lower courts can override the U.S. Supreme court 's unanimous decisions,
which determined in

Whether the agreement/contract evidences an arbitration clause