Urgent Care Walk-In Medical Clinic Orlando

Dr. Usha Jain is an expert in emergency medicine, anti-aging, and pediatrics. Dr. Jain is a medical director and serves the community for emergency medical needs for thirty-six years at Emergi-care Medical Center in Dr. Phillips area. Dr. Jain serves the community seven days a week and her primary goal is the practice of medicine forever.

Dr. Jain also stands on the ground to preserve the Constitution of this country because some of the Govt. official will abuse their power and would disregard the Constitution. At present Dr. Jain is helping in rulemaking for the self-representing citizens for equal rights in filing electronically in the Federal Court which is prejudicial especially during COVID-19.

Dr. Jain had fought many frivolous claims of her hotels where attorneys are after the money and settlement. It is not easy but has to be done to fight corruption. The following of some of the work of Dr. Jain:

1 had won two claims in the Federal Court for her husband’s hotel by herself:

2. Dr. Jain defended and won the case against Orange County against her permitted sign of her clinic;

3. Also, won the claim against attorney Rick Strong who abused his power as an attorney of the health department.

4. Also, won the case against yellow pages who wanted to charge for advertisement which were not done.

5. Dr. Jain also fought the homeowner’s case and won the case before it made through the court.

6. Dr. Jain’s standing for the Constitution will continue.

Dr. Jain advocates all the citizens standing their ground for preserving the Constitution. Dr. Jain has written a letter to the Rulemaking committee for the rights of self-representing citizens. Please see the letter sent by Dr. Jain to the Rulemaking Committee.

Letter to Rulemaking Committee
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: RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov

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 pro see 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 pro se 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 pro se 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 conditions.
   B. Prejudice due to Medically disable prose litigants and Undue Hardship:
4. 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.
   
5. 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. Pro se 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. Pro se 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 pro se citizens who own the 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 pro se 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 pro se 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.”