The Santa Clara County Counsel must've smelled blood in the water when my attorney suddenly and inexplicably (but not necessarily unexpectedly) withdrew his representation in the VMC-Crapo case after a month of doing nothing, and following the first rejection of my claim against the lying doctor for—get this—claiming my injuries were ongoing, and not occurring once and on a specific date.
In the rejection letter, the county counsel inserted a fictitious date into my claim (i.e., March 8th, 2015), a date specified in no way, shape or form in my claim in order to manufacture the illusion that the claimant (i.e., me) missed the six-month expiry for filing claims with the county:
Astoundingly, they then suggest that my only option is to seek court action to request permission to file a late claim. In sum, they made up a date to make me look late, and then wanted me to validate that lie by seeking a court's permission to file it anyway (that is to say, admit that I was late by filing paperwork only filed by people who are actually late).
I know I've said it on this blog, and I know I've spent at least an hour with each attorney explaining to them that the county counsel is corrupt (as shown in the manner presented in this post), and that aggressive, proactive handling of any matter in which they are involved is the only approach that will result in successful prosecution of my claims; but, they didn't listen, with the only remaining attorney actually passing free license to move my second claim forward at the counsel's leisure [see AIDS | Attorney passes puck to adversarial county counsel].
I thought maybe the first attorney got it when he announced during his resignation diatribe that I should resubmit my claim to the counsel, using a specific date as the date of loss (i.e., August 18th, 2015). He claimed that he spoke with the attorney handling my claim, and that this was her recommendation. So, I did so, but the result as of yesterday was this letter from the counsel:
After receiving this letter, I contacted the former attorney in this case via text, and asked him to provide me with a signed declaration, recounting the arrangements made with the assistant county counsel handling the claim:
At first, the attorney attempted to use the first rejection letter to say, in so many words, "This is all I know." Not having that at all, I reiterated my need for a recounting of his conversation with the counsel, in which he claims they suggested that I resubmit the claim with a specific date of loss, and after which he advised that I do (which I, in fact, did).
Today, I'm supposed to wait for a call from him about this; but, chances are, I'll sooner find him hiding in a spider hole in Iraq before I'd ever hear from him by phone.
NOTE | In other words, the county counsel would have you believe that you can only be injured once in Santa Clara County; to them, there's no such thing as being injured every day a doctor refuses to treat an illnesses that excaberates daily without treatment [see AIDS | Dr. Crapo lies, gets caught in same].After having received their letter of rejection, I personally confronted their attorneys at their office, insisting that a more sensible, better effort be made. The result was an even more nonsensical answer:
In the rejection letter, the county counsel inserted a fictitious date into my claim (i.e., March 8th, 2015), a date specified in no way, shape or form in my claim in order to manufacture the illusion that the claimant (i.e., me) missed the six-month expiry for filing claims with the county:
Astoundingly, they then suggest that my only option is to seek court action to request permission to file a late claim. In sum, they made up a date to make me look late, and then wanted me to validate that lie by seeking a court's permission to file it anyway (that is to say, admit that I was late by filing paperwork only filed by people who are actually late).
I know I've said it on this blog, and I know I've spent at least an hour with each attorney explaining to them that the county counsel is corrupt (as shown in the manner presented in this post), and that aggressive, proactive handling of any matter in which they are involved is the only approach that will result in successful prosecution of my claims; but, they didn't listen, with the only remaining attorney actually passing free license to move my second claim forward at the counsel's leisure [see AIDS | Attorney passes puck to adversarial county counsel].
I thought maybe the first attorney got it when he announced during his resignation diatribe that I should resubmit my claim to the counsel, using a specific date as the date of loss (i.e., August 18th, 2015). He claimed that he spoke with the attorney handling my claim, and that this was her recommendation. So, I did so, but the result as of yesterday was this letter from the counsel:
After receiving this letter, I contacted the former attorney in this case via text, and asked him to provide me with a signed declaration, recounting the arrangements made with the assistant county counsel handling the claim:
 |
 |
| I asked my former attorney to provide a sworn statement, recounting the arrangments made with the county counsel regarding the spurious rejection of my initial claim against Dr. Crapo | |
Today, I'm supposed to wait for a call from him about this; but, chances are, I'll sooner find him hiding in a spider hole in Iraq before I'd ever hear from him by phone.