Category Archives: PROACTIVE

Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Dr. Usha Jain for Equality in Justice for Pro Se Self-Representation

July 28, 2023 DOCTORJAINPROSE

There are two sides to a lawsuit. If one is denied access to file using the same ‘system’ as the other side, that’s not “Equal Justice Under Law” as inscribed on the highest court of the land’s building. See Greene v. Frost Brown Todd, LLC, 856 F.3d 438 (6th Cir.2017) It’s unconstitutional. In Florida, state court efiling is mandatory for all parties. That is exactly how it should be in Federal Courts or the Constitution is merely a parchment with words with no meaning.

A person not represented by an attorney may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule; and may be required to file electronically only by court order, or by a local rule that includes reasonable exceptions.

The self–represented litigants do not have access to an electronic system of the federal District court but it is only allowed to the one represented by a counsel thereby they are provided with the tools for safety and is not subject to clerical errors, lost and delayed mails. This is not equal access and is against the spirit of “Equal Justice Under Law” and this unlawful exception is unconstitutional and is against our democracy. There is no national uniformity per Professor
Edward H. Cooper and can be checked by clicking on the following link:
https://lawsintexas.com/electronic-filing-by-pro-se-in-federal-district-courts-should-bemandatory-as-per-state-courts/

The risk of exposure and spread of the deadly virus is increased when people are required to visit the post office to mail the paper filings as they must stand in line with those who may be infected in order to calculate and purchase postage or they must touch unsanitized self-service machines that are touched by many others each hour. Hand delivery to the court also increases exposure to other members of the public unknown to them as well as employees.
The appellate Federal Court (11th Circuit) and state court both allow filing electronically for self-representing citizens. Because electronic filing has ZERO risks of spreading COVID-19, it should be granted as an exception to prevent the spread of the deadly disease by any judge in the Federal Court.

Judge Mendoza disregarded the exceptional criteria of the national emergency and denied electronic filing. Instead, Judge Mendoza advised to mail the documents which also has inherent risk of exposure.
The risk of exposure and spread of the deadly virus is increased when people are required to visit the post office to mail the paper filings as they must stand in line with those who may be infected in order to calculate and purchase postage or they must touch unsanitized self-service machines that are touched by many others each hour. Hand delivery to the court also increases exposure to other members of the public unknown to them as well as employees.

Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Denial of Electronic Filing by Judge Mendoza During Pandemic to Self Representing Asian Doctor and Engineer

January 4, 2022 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Federal court is the court where one can get the adjudication of fundamental rights bestowed upon the citizens through the Constitution. If the state court Judge violates your constitutional rights of equality due to national origin or your race, congress made legislation where you can move your case to the Federal court of your District.

What happens when the Federal Judge is violating your constitutional rights of equality because you are self-representing and are of ethnic origin with English is your second language.

Dr. Usha Jain an emergency and anti-aging specialist and her husband who is an engineer were denied electronic filing in the Federal court of Orlando by Judge Mendoza by stating that the self-representing people do not know how to file properly.

“Documents filed pro se are, in my experience, often not correctly titled and frequently exceed the page limitations imposed by the Local Rules of this Court.” This statement is made despite knowing that pro se Asians are educated and have been filing in the state court for three years and appeals court as well. This was denied in 2019 and again in 2020 despite the disability of Mr. Jain with chronic knee pain. Furthermore, it was denied during stay-home-order during the pandemic.

The same Federal court provides the electronic filing to a Caucasian pro se in the same year in May of 2019 even when there was no pandemic or disability shown.

Why there is a discrepancy in the application of the Local Rule and policies in the same Federal Court to two different class of people. Where is the enforcement of equal application of Local Rule.

Why there is a violation by Judge Mendoza’s court of ADA Guidelines and CDC guidelines against the pro se of Asian race.

There are several disadvantages to not getting the electronic filing. Some of those are:

In Federal Court in Orlando, electronic filing is only for attorneys and only option for
pro se is via Postal Mail or Hand Delivery for filing motions and receiving orders. This
inequality has inherent prejudice to Plaintiffs who are pro se and colored in this case.

1. Service of the Order is one week by mail. In electronic filing the filing comes to
your email address and would be seen right away vs waiting for the mail.

2. Mailing puts you in a spiral of the uncertainty of reaching by mail;

3. Mailing exposes risk for coronavirus as one has to stand in the line with general
public to get an estimate of postage for the weight of papers which varies every filing;

4. Delivering the mail to the courthouse also exposes to court personnel during coronavirus stay at home orders;

5. Plaintiffs have to leave in fear from exposure of coronavirus;

6. The case can be easily manipulated for deletion and omission of the documents by the docketing clerk thereby pro se never can get justice in the court. technical default for pro se citizens.

7. The case can be easily manipulated for technical default for pro se citizens.

8.. Plaintiffs do not know the docket no. of their filing because they do not receive
any electronic mails from the court of their filings. Plaintiffs cannot reference the dockets.
This causes the records to be compromised as it happened in Doc. 112 in which Doc. 109
was cited but in actuality, it was in Doc. 110. It is really difficult to file any motions without
knowing the docket no of their filing; Plaintiffs have to rely on the clerk to provide the docket no. of their filings and also if
it is properly for example filing of Docket no 61 was labeled as response for motion;

9.. Lagging of seven days and unnecessary motions have to be filed to find out about
the orders when no emailing is allowed and phone calls get labeled as harassment;

Plaintiffs do not know the docket no. of their filing because they do not receive
any electronic mails from the court of their filings. Plaintiffs cannot reference the dockets.
This causes the records to be compromised as it happened in Doc. 112 in which Doc. 109
was cited but in actuality, it was in Doc. 110. It is really difficult to file any motions without
knowing the docket no of their filing;

The original color and highlighted areas in exhibits to emphasize would not show.

The inequality of Federal Judge Mendoza is very obvious in the Federal Court of Orlando.

As observed by former Chief Judge Loren A. Smith, the Court is the institutional scale that weighs the government’s actions against the standard measure of the law and helps make concrete the spirit of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right “to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Electronic Filing for Self-Representing Citizens Dr. Jain

July 11, 2020 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Dr. Usha Jain is an expert in Emergency medicine, anti-aging and regenerative medicine and also pediatricts.

Dr. Usha Jain is very proud American citizen who migrated from India after getting married to her husband who had just finished the masters in Engineering from Youngstown Ohio University.

Dr. Usha Jain has defended many frivolous cases of her husband’s hotels in the past and truly believes that frivolous cases should be come to an end.

Dr. Jain and Mr. Jain had represented themselves in the Federal Court and were successful by their hard work.

The Federal Court allows self-representation but does not allow electronic filing through the computer. The attorney can file electronically but self-representing citizens are barred from electronic filing.

Dr. Jain is helping the self-representing citizens to be able to file electronically during COVID-19 Pandemic to prevent exposure to Coronavirus and to save the lives of the citizens.

Dr. Jain has submitted her reasons to Rulemaking committee to get electronic filing during Covid-19 pandemic.

The letter submitted is as below:

1
Dr. Usha Jain, Board certified in Emergency Medicine, Anti-aging, and Pediatrics
Date June 23, 2020
Rebecca A. Womelsdorf, Secretary
Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure
United States Judicial Conference
One Columbus Circle, NE
Washington, D.C. 20544
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Comment on Emergency Rulemaking and URGENT Efforts to prevent the spread of deadly COVID-19 and related deaths
Respected Ms. Womelsdorf:
As a concerned board-certified emergency medicine physician, I respectfully request that you, as a member of the rulemaking committee, facilitate an administrative change allowing self-representing people to file electronically in the Federal Court so that self-representing people have equal access to filing and receive the real-time orders of the court. This is especially relevant during the current tragic times of global pandemic and the spread of COVID-19. The risk of exposure and spread of the deadly virus is increased when people are required to visit the post office to mail the paper filings as they must stand in line with those who may be infected in order to calculate and purchase postage or they must touch unsanitized self-service machines that are touched by many others each hour. Hand delivery to the court also increases exposure to other members of the public unknown to them as well as employees.
The appellate Federal Court (11th Circuit) and state court both allow filing electronically for self-representing citizens. Because electronic filing has ZERO risks for spreading COVID-19
and thus could help prevent the spread of the deadly disease, I urge you to allow the Federal Court, by administrative order, to provide the electronic filing option to self-representing citizens.
There are GUIDELINES set forth by the CDC, FL Surgeon General, President Trump and Florida Governor DeSantis, and many other leaders and experts to prevent the spread of coronavirus. These guidelines have included closing government offices when possible and having many employees work remotely and electronically.
Electronic filing for self-representing citizens would also help those with medical conditions,
physical limitations, and handicapped status. It would “level the playing field” for those who choose not to hire an attorney.

I humbly request that you evaluate and use logical reasoning for equal opportunity to prose litigants. This would increase judicial efficiency, lessen hardship due to medical disability and now to protect the safety of lives of prose litigants, especially those over 70 with comorbid conditions and high risk of mortality.
Gratefully yours,
Dr. Usha Jain
Compelling Reasons for the Changes in our Democracy
Inherent Prejudice to Prose Litigants due to Risk of Safety of Lives, Hardship due to Medical Disability, Real-Time Lag in receiving the Orders, and Unequal Opportunity to Access the Court.
In Federal Court in Orlando, electronic filing is only for attorneys and the only option for prose is via postal mail or hand delivery for filing motions and receiving orders. This inequality has inherent prejudice to citizens who are representing themselves in the court (pro se).
Following are the compelling concerns:
A. Risk of the safety of lives from exposure from COVID-19
Not allowing prose litigants to file electronically conflicts with the GUIDELINES set forth by the CDC, FL Surgeon General, President Trump, and Governor DeSantis to prevent the spread of coronavirus as well reckless disregard to lives of the citizens from exposure to
COVID-19.
1. Mailing exposes risk for coronavirus as one has to stand in the line with the general public to get an estimate of postage for the weight of papers which varies with every filing;
2. Plaintiffs have to leave in fear from exposure of coronavirus;
3. Delivery to the courthouse has a similar higher risk
The above risks are higher if a prose litigant is in a high-risk group due to their age and medical conditions like diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney, and heart condition.
B. Prejudice due to Medically disable prose litigants and Undue Hardship:
1. This prejudice toward medically disabled litigants is against the guidelines to accommodate disabled citizens, as the disabled person still has to drive and walk either to the post office or courthouse. In our democracy, citizens should be aided in their path for justice and accommodations should be made for those with physical and/or health issues so that they may obtain the same justice as those without such issues.
2. If the accommodation of electronic filing can be granted at the discretion of the judge, it seems reasonable that this is an appropriate accommodation for those with a medical disability.
C. Prejudice and risk of Technical Default due to not Receiving the Orders Timely Prose litigants are subject to the risk of lost mail, clerical error, misdeliveries, etc. Prose litigants receive the order in the mail which may take several days and may not come in the mail. Once again, this is not equal access. Prose litigants are penalized for not having access to
electronic delivery of the court order. Those represented by counsel are given this electronic access and are NOT subject to that risk.
D. Unequal Justice and Violation of First Amendment Rights
The prose citizens should be allowed equal access to electronic filing. Granting access only to attorneys is unwise since it is attorneys who are least in need of such service; rather, the pro se litigants who might have mobility or cost issues would need such access the most. This is a
violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens.
Also, for the service of the Order, in electronic filing, the document automatically comes to your email address and would be seen right away vs waiting for the mail for several days risking the physical loss of the mail as it changes hands frequently. Attorneys get more time to file; they are permitted to file by midnight vs prose citizens who have to reach to the court by 4 pm to avoid default. Mail also has uncertainty and the extra
burden of cost (legal carriers or mailing by certified mail).
Because lawyers and courts are so intertwined, there seems to be a bias that legal professionals are needed for access to the court. This is neither democracy nor our law but maybe a bias. The prose citizens should be allowed equal access to the court system by electronic filing.
The prose citizens should be given equal access to the current electronic filing procedures afforded to others, and this is especially critical during a time of national pandemic and threat of exposure to deadly COVID-19 virus. The infrastructure for electronic filing exists, the prose citizens who own technology required to utilize the system in place for electronic filing should be able to use the court system currently being used by counsel for the benefit of other citizens as well as by some other citizens approved by a judge. Finally, lack of equal access opens the door for manipulation of technical default for prose citizens. If some judges have predetermined opinion regarding prose litigants, they can refuse electronic access to prose and the case can be easily be manipulated for technical default for
prose citizens. Other judges grant access to prose litigants, further deteriorating equal access for some. Some have been denied equal access even after showing undue medical hardship and among COVID-19 risks during a stay-at-home order.
The following are the statements by other people in favor of electronic filing:
From: Buck Maker
To: Rules Committee Secretary
Subject: emergency rules
Date: Monday, May 11, 2020, 8:17:35 AM
Rather than use the pandemic to make access to courts more restricted than it is now, you might make it more open by allowing all plaintiffs to file electronically, without the favor of lawyers, or fear of the pro se, especially, who are routinely, treated like “trash” in the notorious words of
your former Justice Posner.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
____________________________________________________________________________
From: David Michaels
To: Rules Committee Secretary
Subject: Proposed Rule Amendment
Date: Thursday, May 07, 2020, 12:32:55 PM
Dear US Courts:
Please pass a rule that requires all district courts to allow any party to a proceeding to electronically file documents in their proceeding, even if they are self-represented parties acting pro se. The WDNY has a local rule that requires prose litigants to file documents either in person or by mail. This creates a disadvantage for a party when there are time constraints or tight filing deadlines. Thank you,
David Michaels, J.D
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Lemuel Bray
To: Rules Committee Secretary
Subject: Prose CM/ECF privileges
Date: Thursday, May 07, 2020, 12:21:15 PM
Recommend Prose litigants be granted CM/ECF privileges if they meet rules and decorum in filing in a trial period. No frivolous filing accepted and frivolous and impropriety filings a reason for withdrawal of the privilege on the order of a clerk.
Lemuel C Bray
_____________________________________________________________________________
From: Andrew Straw
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2020 12:38 PM
To: Rules Committee Secretary
Subject: COVID-19 and US Courts Rule Changes
I am interested principally in prose litigants and disabled court participants.
All court filings should be electronic (email or CM/ECF) for all prose filers.
All prose litigants should automatically be enrolled in “one free look.”

Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Coronavirus and Federal Judge Mendoza’s Denial of Electronic Filing

March 28, 2020 DOCTORJAINPROSE

During the Pandemic of coronavirus, Federal Judge Mendoza denied electronic filing to a pro se (self representing) citizens who are 70 and 75 years old with high risk of mortality. At the time of global pandemic by coronavirus and national emergency where people are dying, Judge Mendoza refused to grant access to the electroninc case filing which has zero exposure to corona virus. This denial is directly in conflict with the guidelines set forth by CDC, President Trump and Governor DeSantis in their effort to save lives. The plea of the doctor for electronic filing was blantatly denied without any concern for risking lives of Asian citizen who servves the community for their medical needs. You can see this directly by looking at the Court case 6:19-cv-01635.

The self-representing people are not allowed to file the claim electronically in federal court in Orlando, and the only way the court filings can be done is by hand delivery to the courthouse or going to the post office to drop in the mailbox. There is an increase of exposure to coronavirus when the self-representing citizens have to stand in the line to calculate the postage stamps required for their filing which will vary according to the pages and weight of the documents. There is a high risk because of the exposure to the general public and post office employees. Moreover, the myriad of surfaces are not cleaned after each visitor. Due to this administrative policy, self-representing people are put at a disadvantage in many ways to risk their lives to get justice, and ultimately they can lose a case.

The self representing citizen has to go to drop the papers with white coat, mask and gloves to avoid unnecessary exposure. You can see this directly by looking at the Court case 6:19-cv-01635.

global pandemic, coronavirus, national emergency, Judge Mendoza, electroninc filing, CDC, President Trump,Governor DeSantis,plea of Dr. Jain, electronic filing, blantatly denied without any concern for risking lives of Asian citizens, serves community, ECF system of court, federal judge, self-representing, high risk mortality. death from coronavirus

Corruption, Frivolous Defense, Frivolous law suits & claim, PROACTIVE

Reversal of Ruling due to Improper Notice of Evidentiary Hearing

Aside July 4, 2018 DOCTORJAINPROSE

The notice of evidentiary hearing should specifically mention the evidentiary hearing. If the hearing is only for the regular hearing and evidentiary hearing gets done, then that hearing should be invalid as one party only prepared for the regular hearing.

It is unjust to hold the evidentiary hearing when the notice of the hearing states only the regular hearing.

Unilateral presentation of the evidence by one party will prejudice the party seriously.

The case where the ruling has to be reversed because of the unjust presentation of the evidence by one party.

Dr. Jain’s case no 2016-CA-7260-O against Michael Furbush and Tom Wert.

The ruling of the hearing on June 5, 2017, with Judge Higbee.

Corruption, Frivolous Defense, PROACTIVE

Evidentiary Hearing by Tom Wert and Michael Furbush

April 7, 2018 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Tom Wert is defending a claim for common law fraud for the attorneys. During the proceeding of the regular hearing, along with Michael Furbush started doing testimonies and presenting evidences. How unfair to do this when all the rules for evidentiary Hearing states that the the notice of the hearing should specify that the hearing should be evidentiary to have proper due process. Dr. Jain brought the claim of fraud against the attorney simply because Dr. Jain lost precious time of her practice in defending the claim which could not be valid without the document. Document was missing so the attorneys made up the document and labeled certified to make the Jains believe to that.

Tom Wert is trying to defend his claim and one of his tactic along with Michael Furbush is to present the evidences even when it was unlawful.

Dr. Usha Jain has to work hard and spent much energy against the judgment which was given with unlawful heairng held in 2017. Dr. Jain’s hard work resulted in REVERSAL OF JUDGMENT.

Conclusion: Evidentiary hearing requires the notice of evidentiary hearing. Tom Wert was wrong in doing the testimonies etc.

Unlawful acts would not be tolerated in the Justice System of America. Citizens stand your ground.

This is a real story and not a legal advice in any way.

PROACTIVE

Proactive Dr. Jain Orlando Easter Celebration in Devotion

March 30, 2018 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Dr. Jain firmly believes in God. This year in 2018, Dr. Jain celebrated Vasant Navratri from March 18 to 26th and celebrating Easter for fourteen days. Dr. Jain’s Easter celebration is connected to the following story.

JJ is a couple who believed in God and the couple was working at their house. A thief knocked on the door and demanded $1000 dollars but couple refused to give the money because it was their money. The thief tried to fight with the couple but when he found out that the couple is really strong and he might get in trouble. The thief started running away but the couple started running back after him. Couple thought it was wrong for the thief to come and ask for the money. The couple continued to run but after a while the couple ended in the territory of the thief where all the people tried to gang up on the couple and tried to hurt them. Couple had firm belief in God and continue to fight and it was Easter time. Couple is still fighting in the name of God but the couple thinks that they will be saved because God would shower his blessings upon them. Hope that the couple will be blessed at the Easter time and successful in the mission against the wrongdoing of the thief.

The couple may need some extra prayers this Easter so please pray for the victory of truth and honesty in your prayers.

Part II : Police was there and the thief told the police that he was not the thief but on the contrary, the couple is the one who wanted to take his money.

Police was there, he tried to ask the couple questons as if the couple is the one who was a problem and his duty was over so another police came in.

Couple got very disappointed but did not give up the hope and continue to pray to God. The couple found something to prove their case and hoping that the 2nd police will believe the couple. 2nd police seemed like that he was part of the gang.

This Easter, the couple was rewarded by giving them evidence what was needed.

Now the next episode what police says about the evidence the couple produced in their defense

The result would be announced once it is found out.

Corruption, PROACTIVE

Violation of Due Process by Judge Layne Smith Tallahasse.

February 27, 2018 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Judge Layne Smith of Tallahassee small court violated the fundamental due process law and deprived Dr. Jain for the hearing and directly went for the judgment to give the attorney fees to Mr. Brewton. Attorney Mr. Brewton is well connected to Judge Layne Smith. Judge was elected and he took a day off from the court but order came on September 1, 2016 about the attorney fees for the hearing. Judge J. Layne Smith corruptly violated the constitutional right and law of fundamental due process of Dr. Jain.

J. Layne Smith just received the contribution from attorney Brewton of $ 2, 500.00 dollars for his campaign. The limit is only one thousand dollars per person but Brewton contributed another $1,000.00 dollars from his law firm and $500.00 dollars from his wife.

Previously, Judge Flurry was recused by Dr. Jain but when judge J. Layne Smith came on the duty after being elected went directly for unconstitutional and violation of due process.

He abused his power of being the court officer.

Judge Layne Smith of Tallahassee small court violated the fundamental due process law and deprived Dr. Jain for the hearing and directly went for the judgment to give the attorney fees to Mr. Brewton. Attorney Mr. Brewton is well connected to Judge Layne Smith. Judge was elected and he took a day off from the court but order came on September 1, 2016 about the attorney fees for the hearing. Judge J. Layne Smith corruptly violated the constitutional right and law of fundamental due process of Dr. Jain.

Frivolous law suits & claim, PROACTIVE

Proactive Dr. Usha Jain against Morgan and Morgan Orlando

May 18, 2017 DOCTORJAINPROSE

Suit filed by Ryan Morgan of Morgan and Morgan law firm which was for wage and hour.

The suit was a fee driven suit and did not have any basis. Many negligences and the most example was that he filed the suit on the company which did not even exist.

Attorney fee driven suits where attorney is so lazy that did not check the record before filing the suit. Attorney Ryan Morgan wasted time of the court by filing for the wrong party and later amended it.

Then he wasted further time of the court and tried to intimidate the self-representing litigant Dr. jain and Mr. Jain. Attorney Ryan Morgan thought he will collect the settlement from Dr. Jain and Mr. Jain. When it was known to him that Dr. Jain and Mr. Jain will take him to jury, then he decides to drop the case.

He could not afford to pay the cost of the deposition etc.

Attorney Ryan worked for free for eight months for his own bad karma to bring the suit against the Jains. He also lost money from his pocket in filing the suit

Attorney fee driven frivolos suits should not be tolerated in the Court of Law specially in United States of America..