AIDS | District Attorney asked to join foray against PACE Clinic

Today, the following letter was hand-delivered to the Office of the District Attorney for the County of Santa Clara, which asks the aforementioned office to intervene in the unlawful refusal of essential treatment and care for my life-threatening and terminal illness:


This letter isn't the first to solicit third-party assistance with this matter; just last week, a similar request was made to my district supervisor's office, who is actively investigating it, and evaluating options.
at

CHARITY | Second campaign to save would-be homeless launched

My first attempt to be a charitable demoniac failed miserably, and I believe the reason is that people in San Jose are too stupid to know how to help themselves in a dire situation. Losing your housing is the beginning of the end of everything that matters: your job, your health, your finances, your social standing, your friendships and family, your assets, your retirement, your prospects, and more. My charity, if you will, was to make sure this never happened to anyone it didn't need to, which happens to constitute about everyone who is facing homelessness. But, I must first digress by explaining what makes me call evictees in San Jose stupid—first, in general; then, more specifically. At the end, I'll come back to the charity stuff.

I think stupid could describe most citizens here to begin with, whether facing eviction or not. I can't find anyone in this town who did not spread their legs for Satan the minute he and his minions waltzed in, having received as they did ever so gladly and openly the deadly and debilitating weaponry given to each of them in lieu of their original arms and hands—weapons that they used (and would continue to use, if not for the power blockade) prodigiously and habitually to systematically take human lives, even while being consumed by those very same weapons themselves at the hands of their demon provisioners. That's stupid, right? So, to me, that fact, when coupled with the additional fact that not one potential evictee among them took me up on my free offer to help them keep their homes longer or avoid losing them altogether, tells me that stupid reigns supreme here. In sum, if stupid is as stupid does, then—damn—San Jose is stupid.

Nonetheless, I don't believe in homelessness. Housing is a human right, and failing to provide at least some form of it is an abomination to God. Everybody has a right to a roof over their heads—no exceptions, not even for the really, really stupid. If they didn't, God would have no intention of burning your soul in Hell for an eternity for failing to help those who are homeless [see Matthew 25:44] when you had the capacity to actually help.
NOTE | Dispensing pocket change won't cut it if you have the requisite legal expertise to effectively litigate an unlawful detainer case. Loving God with all your might means using your God-given graces and blessings to their fullest extent.
Hence, a revised tri-fold brochure, which I believe better explains that legal defenses are available to those who haven't really considered just how harsh sidewalks can be during winter's usual 20° to 40° temperatures in San Jose, or what it's like to be considered an infiltrator for having attempted safe sleep in any of the city's mob-entrenched shelters [see AUDIO | Homeless shelter staff fag-bashes via loudspeaker].
NOTE | In December 2008, freezing temperatures killed 138 homeless people in one night in San Jose alone; there were more than enough open shelter beds available. They were killed; no one is so stupid as to refuse to come in from the deadly cold—not even a citizen of San Jose.
It's intended not only to explain to the person facing eviction that there's a way to keep their home no matter what—a fact that the county-funded legal self-help service admits, but doesn't act on—but, is also intended to introduce my help in preparing the legal paperwork necessary to leverage that fact:


When I wrote the first brochure, I leaned a little too much on my vastly known reputation as a get-it-done guy, which may come across in conversation or through my past record of experience and success [see Stay of Eviction; see also Unlawful Detainer Legal Documents Samples], but only to people who take the time to talk to me and review that record:

By contrast, this second brochure provides a lot more detail about the service and legal options. Instead of just saying what I can do, it includes excerpts from tenant-rights legal handbooks that show what can actually be done.

I would still consider my sales approach deficient, though, in the absence of a face-to-face conversation with a prospective beneficiary. The brochure alone falls far short of the confidence-building necessary to encourage a complete stranger to obtain help from a complete stranger. Moreover, the manner of delivery has the potential to be a major handicap, in that it consists of handing these brochures personally to people standing in line with a bunch of other complete strangers to obtain a county service they don't yet know isn't going to provide them substantial help.

In sum, to anyone whose pride or doubt would hinder them from exploring and/or taking advantage of each and every opportunity to keep their homes, I would say, "Suck it up, because you're screwed if you don't."
at

AIDS | Former PACE Clinic doctor bars me from Stanford Positive Care Clinic

As if they had a right and were in-the-right. A stupefying maneuver today by Dr. Edward Brooks, former physician at PACE Clinic, now working at Stanford Positive Care Clinic, told his receptionist that my only other option for essential treatment and care for my terminal illness was cut off, and that no explanation was forthcoming. In sum, I would not be accepted as a patient there, either:

I immediately called my attorney, Denise Miller, who, apparently, took the day off to try on her Halloween costume, and left a message; a follow-up e-mail was also sent:
Stanford Positive Care Clinic had never indicated before that there was a problem with attending their clinic for treatment until today, and that without proffering a reason
This precludes treatment of any kind for me for a condition that has seriously worsened since the time PACE Clinic inexplicably shuttered its doors to me, after having agreed in a court of law to allow me to obtain services there.

More later, once delays and excuses start coming forward from my advocates, and once I've prepared and filed what I consider to be a legal option for remedy—all by myself, of course.

UPDATE | Letter from Stanford cites abusive, aggressive phone call as reason for ban
People will say and try anything these days to get their way. It's astonishing how intensely the Bay Area fights its battles, even when they're evil and in-the-wrong. Hell has a future, after all, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's a certified letter I received today, November 9th, 2015, from Stanford, which spells out the "reason" for the ban from its Positive Care Clinic:


My attorney, who is handling this case [see AIDS | PACE-case attorney clarifies objectives, direction], was notified accordingly:
Please see the attached letter, which I just now received via certified mail.
I honestly have no idea what they are talking about; I'm not "aware" of anything. There was never any untoward conversation between me and a staff member, ever. I called for an appointment, never received a call back, so I called again. The receptionist was real pissy about the "accusation" that she was not doing her job, but I simply said I wasn't worried about any of that, and that I just wanted an appointment.
That's when she informed me that Dr. Brooks said I couldn't be a patient there, but that he wouldn't state the reason. I think they made this up after the fact to cover the PACE-Brooks connection.
Regardless, when you speak with them, try to get as many details as you can about the "abusive" and "aggressive" aspects of the phone conversation. I'm real sure this has to do with PACE—not anything I might have said over the phone.
at

PREVIEW | AIDS | District supervisor to act against VMC-PACE obstinacy

Although slow-going—and, so far, unproductive—I'm still encouraged by the fact that, unlike the past, I have people who at least purport to be on my side interested in things like the denial of essential medical treatment for my terminal condition.
Morning view from my room at Regional Medical Center (contrast to VMC = Demon Death Trap)
There's Joseph Nazarian, who is representing my cause against Dr. Crapo, as described in these posts:
As you'll see from these posts, the substantive and meaningful portions of my claim against Dr. Crapo were spearheaded and executed by me; whereas, Mr. Nazarian has yet to complete the simple task of resubmitting a claim with a more specific date to Santa Clara County lawyers to avoid another denial. Still, I'm confident that as the claim advances, he'll prove useful, even if only through the use of his letterhead in correspondence and name in court documents (serious people hire attorneys is the message I so longed to send scumbags like those in this county for quite some time).
Twilight as seen from my room at Regional Medical Center (contrast to VMC = Demon Death Trap)
Then, there's Denise Miller, who is representing me in the enforcement of a peaceable contact order issued by a court, authorizing me to patron the PACE Clinic; when issued, both parties (me and PACE) acknowledged that the clinic is my only option for treatment, and that, provided contact was peaceful and orderly, I would be allowed to pursue treatment:
Still, PACE is refusing to see me, and I'm not hopeful they'll change their minds anytime soon. The recent update to the first post shows that absolutely no affirmative action has been taken in a fairly cut-and-dry case; the post in its entirety demonstrates a disturbing lack of attention to detail, bordering on senile-like confusion (but, then again, PACE and the Law Foundation are paid from the same coffers, and none of this is unfamiliar to me at all; next, it'll be constant delays that are invariably someone else's fault besides the attorneys, and which last until some calamity occurs which draws me away from pushing things forward).

Like with the first, I've done all the legwork myself—all of it—even getting my insurance provider to grant options for medical treatment:
My room at Regional Medical Center (not VMC), where I hope to receive definitive treatment for a common intestinal infection that usually takes only four weeks to treat—not four months, as per VMC [see VMC = Demon Death Trap]
The third person to (possibly) get involved isn't an attorney, but was recommended by one, but is District Supervisor, Cindy Chavez. Initially, I scoffed at taking Holden Green's advice, but am glad now that whatever reservations I may have had were overridden by desperation. Although I have yet to see any results—or even speak with Ms. Chavez directly—I'm encouraged by how well staff at the District Supervisors' offices keep track of follow-up dates, and am floored by their willingness to take on every task within their power to do. Minus the phone calls, here's the correspondence between me and District I Supervisor Mike Wasserman's Policy Analyst, who epitomizes the ideal American work ethic and job responsibility:


This exchange of e-mails is encouraging on another note, as well; I haven't once had to initiate a follow-up, whereas, as of early this week, I'm still hounding the same attorney with the same issue, which is now nearly a month old:
You called? They called? The plan? It's almost Thursday...

at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)