No. 20-6493

Neelam Uppal v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2020-12-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: abuse-of-authority bias civil-procedure civil-rights constitutional-violations due-process foreclosure hobbs-act judicial-bias standing
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2021-02-19
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether a litigant is deprived of due process of law when a judge issues an
order to the filing clerk in a pending case that the clerk stamps and signs the
orders and not to allow any hearings on the application sffom the litigant and
issues Stamped orders or illegible signed order which even though denied by the
lower tribunal Judge are upheld by the second District Court of Appeals without
an opinion or give the litigant the ability to challenge the factual basis for such an
order.

2. Whether a judge who issues such an order is abuse of authority and biased.

3. Whether the Florida Appellate court exercised its function to work in the
interest of public and Justice or supported Conspiracy, corruption, Fraud and Civil
theft for the financial or other gains of the fellow attorneys, government, banks or
any wealthy individual, corporations or any other entities rather than upholding
the law in the interest of the public.

4. Whether the Florida courts violated the the Judicial Code and the following
federal laws and rules under the Hobbs Act.

A) Infringement of the 5* and 14 th Amendments of the Petitioner by denying her
a fair evidentiary hearing and taking her home and her equity for her retirement.

5. Whether the Florida courts violated the following federal laws and rules by:
Violating Moratorium by the U.S. President and the Florida Governor by doing
hearings for final judgment on pending Foreclosure cases during COVID-19
pandemic.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a litigant is deprived of due process of law

Docket Entries

2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2020-09-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 31, 2020)

Attorneys

Neelam Uppal
Neelam T. Uppal — Petitioner