Tuesday, September 22, 2015

AIDS | Santa Clara County lawyers skirt Dr. Crapo complaint

Getting nailed for wrongdoing as a county employee doesn't happen lightly in Santa Clara County. The Sheriff's Office will tell you that, and so will the San Jose Police Department. Any judge in the county will tell you that, too, as will any private civil or criminal defense lawyer, including Santa Clara County's own lawyers, namely, the Office of the County Counsel.

When you have a valid complaint against a county employee, no trick or tactic to enforce the distinction between said county employee and you, a non-county employee, is beneath them or any other such employee. No trick or tactic to evade responsibility or consequence goes unused; nothing is deemed too obvious or too wrong or too dangerous to employ.

Apparently, no slight is too small to make an issue, either. For example, in April 2013, when I called a county employee at the P.A.C.E. Clinic (VMC) to correct a scheduling error that resulted in a three-month delay in medical care (a mistake that they couldn't deny, tried as they did), I was arrested when I showed up for my appointment for allegedly threatening to kill that county employee--plus one other--over the phone. The employee I spoke to said I threatened to kill him during the phone call, and a second employee said I did the same thing after he transferred me to her after the alleged threat. According to the sheriff's deputy who arrested me, showing up to my appointment, even while sitting quietly in the lobby while waiting for the doctor to call me, was my fatal mistake. He said any perceived threat against a county employee results in an arrest. Those were his words.
NOTE | The case was dismissed; the judge called it "bullshit" in open court. Still, I spent a year in the county jail fighting the case, which carried a penalty of 36-years-to-life in prison. I wrote this the day of my arrest: Ten things I think God wants every demon fighter to remember; how apt.
And, just last night, a VMC doctor called in an SJPD officer after I balked at having to wait five days for blood test results prior to the issuance of prescription medication for diarrhea. I just disagreed with the unnecessary wait she wanted to impose; but, knowing just how difficult life is made for "people like me," the doctor hoped to underscore the aforementioned distinction between classes of people by pushing a button that she knew was there, and was sure would ignite an arrestable reaction after having been unreasonable with me, and then after having accused me of wrongdoing to police (that tends to piss people like me off a bit, and our reactions are not so much known, but expected, to be unpleasant—if not this time, next time, and there will be a next time, as there has already been five cop calls within the last six doctor visits). Her tactic failed, but her intentions to make any and all efforts to reinforce the message were successfully conveyed, aided in no small part by a continually lurking officer, who posted up in closets and hallways and stairwells nearby from the time he was called by the doctor, and until the time I left the building, listening in, waiting to pounce.

Most of the time, though, the underhanded tactics of county employees aren't as obvious, but are intended to say and do the same thing. Yesterday's incident related to the claim against Dr. Crapo illustrate such a tactic, which began with a phone call from my attorney, who said the county rejected my claim because the date of loss occurred prior to the six-month statute of limitations period imposed on all claims against the county:



Long story short, that was never stated by me in any of my claim paperwork [see Santa Clara County Claim Form Attachment]; in fact, quite to the contrary. After trying to hash it out with one of the attorneys, in-person, at the Office of the County Counsel, I ended up drafting a letter to my attorney, which he placed on his own letterhead and faxed to the adjustor, hoping to clarify the date of loss, and move the claim forward:
Please be advised that I represent James Alan Bush in legal claim against the County of Santa Clara, and, in particular, against county employee, Dr. Lawrence Crapo. The details of the claim were provided in the attachment to the county claim form submitted by my client on September 8th, 2015.
Today, I received a letter from your office, denying the claim based on an alleged failure to file it prior to the expiry of the six-month statute of limitations applicable to the date of loss. Although my client expressed on the form that the losses are ongoing, nothing on the form or in the attachment to it indicated that such losses occurred prior to March 8th, 2015.
On the contrary, Mr. Bush stated that the incident that forms the basis of the claim occurred after blood test results conducted in June 2015; moreover, the online videos and notes proffered as evidence by him, which show the alleged malfeasance on the part of Dr. Crapo, are clearly time-stamped.
Although my opinion is that Mr. Bush was in no way contradictory or vague or misleading as to the date of the loss, this letter serves to explicitly establish the date of loss as August 18th, 2015—the date the videos were made—and also requests that you reopen the claim and proceed with your evaluation based on its factual merits.
The conversation between me and the adjustor would have been a good one to record on video; it was dumber than the recorded conversation between me and Dr. Crapo, believe it or not. You would have heard the adjustor say, "So, you're saying to me, you made a typo on the form, and now you want to go back and correct your mistake?" That response, after having said that I never indicated the date of loss as anything other than occurring within the last two months, and after saying nothing more.

Nobody is that stupid—certainly not degreed doctors and lawyers—but that is the game that is played here with people demons don't like and by people that demons do.

Rerun