Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) contradicts Investment Advisers Act (IAA) when fraud is inside an investment contract. All investors therefor are entitled to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action. However, Rule 23(b)(l or 2) bars opt out of a mandatory class, while FINRA excludes class action and bars bifurcation. A faked "arbitration agreement " therein can displace courts and coerce individual investors into arbitration. The "bifurcated " outcome can never let a court to deliver "finality " for 28 U.S.C. §1291. Courts must reject such a Rule 12(b)(6) defense under Rule 81(a)(6)(B). See 15 U.S.C. § 78o, subsec. (o) - [SEC] Authority to restrict mandatory pre-dispute arbitration.

The Chevron deference doctrine under Chevron v. Natural Res. Defense Council , 467 US 837 (1984) requires judicial deference to unambiguous agency authority. However , loopholes exist in Rule 52(a), 23(b) and 54(b) for a district judge using "findings of fact " to dispose of documentary evidence that requires deference and appellate review, thus block the authority of agencies under the Executive Branch that courts do not have. The questions presented are:

1. Whether this Court must reconcile the conflict between Federal Arbitration Act and FINRA - the only self-regulatory organization (SRO) in the 21st Century who is authorized to arbitrate disputes on all securities laws under 15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(26) of the Maloney Act of 1938?

2. Whether the judge violated Rule 7 of Ashwander v. TVA , 297 US 288 (1936) and blocked the agency authorities, while never delivered the "finality " for 28 U.S.C. § 1291?

3. Whether the judge violated the First Amendment by carrying out retaliatory judicial usurpation of power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)? The sanction suppressed the right of class members to court access. UBS counsel 's confession proved that the defense never acquired 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to sustain the long-running blockage by the judge.

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) contradicts the Investment Advisers Act (IAA) when fraud is inside an investment contract, and whether investors are entitled to a Rule 23(b)(2) class action despite FINRA's exclusion of class action and bifurcation