Whether the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require meaningful judicial review and procedural safeguards when constitutional due process rights are potentially violated in lower court proceedings

No question identified. : To the Honorable Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit: I, Jacquelyn Annette Miller, cordially request a 60-day extension of time to file my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The requested extension would extend the filing deadline from January 14, 2026, to March 15, 2026. The underlying order from the Ninth Circuit Court was entered on October 16, 2025 is attached, and I am seeking to invoke the Court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). As presenting oneself who has faced significant challenges in securing legal representation, I require additional time to meticulously prepare a comprehensive petition. Prior to initiating legal proceedings, I submitted a detailed affidavit to my employer, which included notices of default, estoppel, liability, violation of estoppel and substantive concerns. These initial good-faith efforts to address the issues through internal channels were uncontested, ultimately necessitating further lawful action to protect my constitutional rights. The extension is critically necessary to address potential violations of constitutional due process that emerged during the lower court proceedings. I have identified significant procedural anomalies that suggest a fundamental breakdown in the judicial review process, including potential deprivation of procedural safeguards guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and confusion of the rules of court. These concerns extend beyond mere technical errors, touching on the core constitutional protections of fair judicial review. -2 Procedural anomalies were evident throughout the proceedings, including notable discrepancies in e-filing/paper filing causing denial of petition for rehearing, unsigned documentation, and appellate review that appeared to lack substantive examination. Of particular significance was the involvement of a peremptorily challenged district court judge from an adjacent jurisdiction, whose findings seemed to uncritically align with a magistrate who without consent to preside over the case struck supportive documents, including new evidence of termination, without motions and making determinations without conducting an independent and thorough review. The complexities of articulating these substantive constitutional claims demand careful research, precise legal reasoning, and a thorough examination of the judicial proceedings. The requested extension will enable a comprehensive analysis of how the procedural anomalies undermined the fundamental principles of due process. I am committed to presenting a well-researched petition that not only adheres to the Court's rigorous standards but also brings critical constitutional concerns to light. 7 By: Jacquelyn Annette Miller All froedoms and liberties retaineWhceordling to Yoh’s Law All Rights reserved, without prejudice On this first day of the first month of the year 2026 A.D. Witness: Our Creator; Jeremiah 23:24 and Proverbs 15:3