AIDS | Crapo-case attorney fizzles, PACE-case attorney wonders aimlessly

Stanford doctor will overrule ban from Stanford Positive Care
As mentioned in AIDS | Former PACE Clinic doctor bars me from Stanford Positive Care Clinic, a former PACE Clinic (San Jose) physician, Dr. Edward Brooks, now working at Stanford's equivalent, Stanford Positive Care Clinic (Palo Alto), announced via his receptionist that I am also barred there. He declined to state a reason, but the implication made that all but unnecessary.

Today, at my first visit to Stanford Medical Group in nearly 10 years, my former—and now current—primary care physician, Dr. Paul Ford (i.e., man of gold), stated that he would work around whatever issue Dr. Brooks presented, and in short order:

Outside Dr. Ford's office at Stanford Medical Group (Hoover Pavilion)

Although the aforementioned clinic has yet to contact me regarding my first appointment, I did notice that Dr. Brooks was listed as a contact in the MyHealthOnline app developed by Stanford Medical. The app only lists doctors treating a specific patient as recipients of messages sent through it:

Only treating physicians are listed in the recipients list in the MyHealthOnline app for Stanford Medical

It stands to reason, then, that the issue was likely quashed; however, only a scheduled appointment will ultimately determine this.

Useless attorney bows out via illogical rationale
Joseph Nazarian, the attorney assigned to the all-important Dr. Crapo case [see AIDS | Dr. Crapo lies, gets caught in same], crapped out, which is absolutely no surprise:

Lack of communication...

...followed by nonsense excuse

Since "taking on the case" over two months ago, he has done nothing, not even so much as resubmitted my county claim—which merely meant filling out a form [see AIDS | Santa Clara County lawyers skirt Dr. Crapo complaint]—and was failing to respond to multiple requests for status updates on same. I ended up delivering the resubmitted claim myself, which consists of only one difference, specifically, line 5 now states the date of loss as 8/18/2015, whereas the first claim stated ongoing:

The resubmitted Dr. Crapo-related county claim form specifies the date of loss at 8/18/2015, whereas the first claim—which was rejected for an unspecified date of loss—stated that the loss is ongoing

After about two weeks of phone calls and texts, he stated that he can't work because of "family issues."

"We're-just-waiting-on" attorney deadlocks progress
Denise Miller, the attorney assigned to the PACE Clinic case [see PREVIEW | AIDS | Second lawyer retained in VMC debacle; see also AIDS | Second claim against VMC served on county], is "waiting on" the adverse party to move my case forward in a timely manner, specifically, she's waiting for the director of PACE to arrange a meeting with her to discuss my future, anticipated and demanded acceptance as a patient (it's not negotiable):

The problem is, this isn't the only step to take, and it's not an exhaustive one; the county claim and hospital grievance, already in progress, are priority right now—a fact this attorney cannot seem to understand or accept

NOTE | Highly suspect is that this attorney wants that meeting to be private, which would be insane for me to allow from my perspective as a future plaintiff in an action against the county. Again, these people feed from the same trough, and I can't allow her to jeopardize my future litigation potential by saying (or not saying) anything in a meeting in which I didn't monitor and/or participate.

Meanwhile, I continue to dance circles around her by discovering additional administrative remedies, and by acting on them to completion. For example, by and through my call to my district supervisor's office [see AIDS | District supervisor to act against VMC-PACE obstinacy], I was able to ascertain a single-point-of-contact at VMC, Jenny Howard, with whom I will discuss my former VMC primary care physician's refusal to treat my terminal illness, even upon learning that the PACE Clinic was refusing treatment:

A new revelation by the district supervisor's office points further to malpractice, a fact I expect to be ignored by my attorney for as long as she represents me in this case

NOTE | The latter points to the termination of at least two doctors, and grounds for a lawsuit.

Hopefully, she'll be useful in getting HealthTrust to simply take my intake information, so I can get this Ryan White certification she claims is necessary in order to represent me.

Just a side note: I'm not really as stupid as I must look, presenting all these problem people with the problems they present; I'm simply mapping the path for others, and attempting to show anyone who is facing or may face these same issues what to expect—and, hopefully, how to handle them correctly.

Attorney problems are not new
When it comes to demon-related legal issues, problems with attorneys—strange, unusual problems—abound. Take, for example, the Kaye-Scholar debacle, which tanked a multi-million dollar case against police officers with a history of unwarranted and unlawful physical violence against otherwise complicit suspects of accused of menial crimes for attacking me.

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:

District Attorney - Pace Clinic Letter by James Alan Bush

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.

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:

Eviction Legal Self-Help Brochure (Rev. 2) by James Alan Bush

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:

Stay of Eviction by James Alan Bush

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."

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:

Stanford Positive Care Clinic Letter by James Alan Bush

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.