Tag Archives: Dr. Jain

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.


Electronic Filing in the Court, Frivolous law suits & claim

Electronic Filing Denied to Pro Se During National Emergency by a Federal Judge

Electronic Filing is denied by District Judge to Dr. Usha Jain during a national emergency and the Stay at Home order from COVID-19 in 2020.

 District Judge ignored unforeseen and exceptional circumstances during the pandemic and stay-at-home order due to COVID-19 and refused to grant electronic access which would have provided no risk of exposure to coronavirus. Federal Judge advised the Jains to submit the documents via US mail which required the Jains to go inside the post office, stand in line with the general public to get the correct postage from postal employees according to the weight of the document, and touch multiple surfaces not sanitized after each visitor. Thus, the advice of mailing increased the health risk to the Jains who are high risk as they are over age 70 with many comorbid conditions such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and high blood pressure. The CDC guidelines clearly identified life-threatening health risks for visiting public places including the US Post Office. The CDC also identifies the following as high risk: older people with diabetes, heart disease, and lung disease and CDC recommended preventing exposure … “to stay at home for a period of time.”  Thus, mailing instead of electronic filing significantly increases the health risks to pro se citizens over those who have hired legal representation and are thus allowed to file electronically.  The denial of the electronic mode of filing with zero exposure is frankly undeniable

Moreover, Federal Judge disregarded ADA guidelines and made the petitioner Mr. Jain with chronic pain deliver the documents for filing to the courthouse. Mr. Jain had to have surgery on his knee on August 3, 2021.

Also, when Mr. Jain could not walk and climb the stairs of the courthouse, Dr. Usha Jain had to close her emergency center to deliver the documents.

All of the above shows that a federal Judge is an Article III Judge and should not disregard unforeseen and exceptional circumstances of the global pandemic against CDC guidelines and disability against ADA guidelines. 

Denial of electronic filing during a state of emergency is a violation of Human Rights articles three and Seven.

Article 3

Right to life

Everyone has the right to life and to live in freedom and safety.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 7

Right to equality before the law

The law is the same for everyone and should be applied in the same manner to all.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process.

Electronic Filing in the Court

Electronic Filing in a Federal Court and Equal Access to All by Dr. Jain

Dr. Jain is a dedicated and passionate physician who serves the community of Dr. Phillips for 37 years. Dr. Jain worked in the emergency room at Orlando Health. Dr. Jain is going beyond the scope of medicine to help citizen to get equal access to the Federal Courts.

In the spirit of equality under the law, Dr. Jain supports a change in rules that allows people who self-represent in court to have access to the electronic filing system.  Dr. Jain is working with Rules Committee to change the rules so no favors in federal courts.

The right to self-representation is guaranteed in the United States Constitution, but that right would be meaningless if people represented by a paid counsel are treated differently by the courts than those who self-represent. During the Covid-19 pandemic, many people feared for their lives and the lives of their families knowing that contracting the virus could be a death sentence. Many self-representing people had to put themselves, and their families, in harm’s way by filing a motion in person in a courthouse or at a post office. This reality is far from equal access to justice.

Before the pandemic, the reality was still far from equal justice. Self-representing people may have still faced barriers to filing a motion in person. They may not have had regular transportation to a courthouse or post office. They may have had to work during business hours without the ability to leave, even briefly, to file a motion. 

It is necessary to allow self-representing people access to the electronic filing system to promote equal access to justice under the law. Dr. Jain has been working to bring the notion of equal justice for all into reality. Dr. Mendoza in Federal Court denied granting electronic filing during the national emergency from COVID-19, especially during stay-at-home orders when people were working remotely. CDC considers the post office as a high-risk place and to mail a document with many papers requires one to go inside the post office, stand in the line with the general public and touch many surfaces which are high risk

Electronic Filing in the Court, PROACTIVE

Electronic Filing for Self-Representing Citizens Dr. Jain

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

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

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.

PROACTIVE

Proactive Dr. Jain Orlando Easter Celebration in Devotion

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.

 

PROACTIVE

Inhumane Acts of Attorney Chuck David Johnson of Leesburg

Dr. Usha Jain, who is medical director for the Emergi-Care Medical Center for 31 years. Dr. Jain worked in the emergency room of a trauma hospital in Orlando and is an expert in the emergency medicine.

Dr. Jain owns a hotel in Clermont and was given a citation for the sign which had a grandfathered in status but the code officer went after the owner anyway.  Owner have an alleged fear of another Govt. agency collaborating with the Code Enforcement.

Special Master Chuck Johnson gave the order, regardless of the motion presented for an extension because of health reasons.

Owner feel that Chuck David Johnson who is the Special Master for the Lake County is biased due to  Indian owner of a small business. Owners also feel that Special Master Chuck David Johnson may have some collaboration with attorney Rick Strong who has a personal vendetta against Dr. Jain. Special Master Chuck Johnson may have done this inhumane acts due to connection with Rick Strong. Chuck David Johnson an attorney of Leesburg ignored the motion of Dr. Jain for conflict of interest.

Dr. Jain decided to run for the Governor of State of Florida for that reason and signed up after the hearing on May 18, 2016 in Lake County with Chuck David Johnson.

 

Amanda Ober, PROACTIVE, Uncategorized

Amanda Ober Breaking News Jayma Ambe Hotel Inspection

Amanda Ober asks the guest to see if she likes it at the hotel and when melissa said she liked at the hotel then Amanda Ober decides to not interview her. Amanda Ober also asked the uncle of Melissa but he also said hte positive about the hotel but then Amanda Ober did not want to interview him. Melissa’s statement is the prime example of the malice motive of Amanda Ober against Dr. Jain

 

 

PROACTIVE

Unethical Actions of Amanda Ober Wesh 2 News Dr. Jain

Amanda Ober released the wrong news about Dr. Jain.  Dr. Usha Jain is proactive and keeps medicine as her priority. Dr. Jain is blessed with a noble profession and does not pay attention to negatives. Amanda Ober’s  wrong news about Dr. Jain does not make any sense. These are the questions raised from her news.

  1. Why Amanda went to Dr. Jain’s office and not at the Palace Hotel?
  2. Why Amanda parked illeglly on side walk in front of Dr. Jain’s office?
  3. Why Amanda Ober illegally recorded Dr. Jain?
  4. Why Amanda refused to give the name of the person who was with Amanda and recorded Dr. Jain?
  5. Why Amanda Ober wanted to take the interview of  Dr. Jain and not the owner of the Palace Hotel?
  6. Why Amanda did not find out who is the owner first before she came to Dr. Jain’s emergency Center
  7. Why Amanda insisted Dr. Jain to give theinformation about the Palace hotel when Dr. Jain was working at herwalk in emergency center?
  8. Why Amanda Ober wanted to take the interview at Dr. Jain’s office and not at the Palace Hotel?
  9. Why Amanda did not follow her ethical obligation of not distubing Dr. Jain who was working at the time of visit of Amanda Ober?
  10. Why Amanda was in such a dire need to give the news abut Dr. Jain?
  11. Do you think that there was any force behind this news or  Amanda is ignorent?

Unethical practices should stop.