Category Archives: Corruption

Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

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

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

Injustice by Denial of Electronic Filing to Self Representing Litigants

When the two parties are treated differently, it is NOT “equal justice under law“.Out of the two parties. one who is represented by the attorney file electronically and get instant docket numbers and get the real-time order while the self -representing litigants are not allowed to file electronically. They have to go in person to deliver the documents to the court or have to stand in the line in the post office to find out postage. They are also subjected to delays in the mail, lost mail, clerical errors.

Electronic Filing by Pro Se In Federal District Courts Should be Mandatory As Per State Courts

To:      Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure From: Edward Hartnett, Reporter

Date: September 26, 2020

Re:      Suggestion to Permit Electronic Filing by Pro Se Litigants (20-AP-C; 20-CV-J)

Dr. Usha Jain has submitted a suggestion that pro se litigants be allowed to file electronically, particularly in light of the coronavirus pandemic.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 25(a)(1) provides, in relevant part:

(B)  ELECTRONIC FILING AND SIGNING.

By a Represented Person—Generally Required; Exceptions. A person represented by an attorney must file electronically, unless nonelectronic filing is allowed by the court for good cause or is allowed or required by a local

By an Unrepresented Person—When Allowed or Required. 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.

Whether pro se litigants, then, may file electronically is left to local rules and court orders.

If the Committee thinks that it might be time for national uniformity regarding electronic filing by pro se litigants, I would suggest the creation of a subcommittee to explore this suggestion.

If, on the other hand, the Committee thinks that local variation remains appropriate, I would suggest removing this item from the Committee’s agenda.

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 an 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

Corruption, Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

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

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.”  

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

Reversal of Ruling due to Improper Notice of Evidentiary Hearing

Aside

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

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.

Corruption, PROACTIVE

Violation of Due Process by Judge Layne Smith Tallahasse.

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.