No. 24-5666

Lidia M. Orrego v. Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano LLP, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2024-09-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights court-of-appeals due-process equal-protection judicial-bias miscarriage-of-justice
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Second Circuit recognizes constitutional due process and equal protection rights before their deprivation, and whether judicial bias violates these fundamental constitutional protections

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

questions presented are: Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in the interest of justice, recognizes the mitigating effects of upholding the Constitutional Rights to Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law before the Constitutional Rights are deprived. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is complicit in abetting and aiding gross violations of due process in the United States Eastern District of New York Court with orders that are repugnant to the Constitution. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit analyzes and recognizes the impact of judicial explicit bias in its decision-making to prevent a _ gross violation of Due Process and avoid a Miscarriage of Justice in the District Court. Whether the U.S. Eastern District of New York Court abuses its power with explicit bias in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and this Court to benefit the Respondents who committed fraud, facilitated the fabrication of false documents, among others. i

Docket Entries

2025-03-13
Case considered closed.
2025-02-24
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
2025-01-22
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-13
Application (24A660) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until February 14, 2025.
2024-12-14
Application (24A660) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of November 25, 2024, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
2024-12-14
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
2024-11-25
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 16, 2024, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2024-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2024.
2024-10-09
Waiver of right of respondents Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Staton & Romano, LLP and Pasternack Tilker Weitz & Luxenberg, LLP to respond filed.
2024-08-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 30, 2024)

Attorneys

Lidia M. Orrego
Lidia M. Orrego — Petitioner
Lidia M. Orrego — Petitioner
Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Staton & Romano, LLP and Pasternack Tilker Weitz & Luxenberg, LLP
Jason M. BiegelRivkin Radler LLP, Respondent
Jason M. BiegelRivkin Radler LLP, Respondent