AIDS | County Counsel evades claim yet again

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.

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:

County Counsel - First Rejection Letter by James Alan Bush

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:

Santa Clara County Claim Form Attachment by James Alan Bush

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:

Second Rejection Letter from County Counsel by James Alan Bush

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

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.

CHARITY | Alternative means of reaching evictees explored

Because posting tag flyers and approaching the would-be homeless face-to-face [see CHARITY | Tag flyer to substitute face-to-face solicitation; see also CHARITY | Second campaign to save would-be homeless launched] hasn't yet proved effective at reaching those to whom I would like to provide a charitable service (i.e., legal services for helping evictees keep their homes), I'm considering helping landlords for free, now.

NOTE | The Legal Self-Help Center also assists landlords in lawfully evicting tenants. Both evictees and landlords stand in line together at the courthouse, side-by-side, waiting for the free service provided there on any given day.

Okay, just kidding. Rather, I'm soliciting other charitable organizations that provide eviction-related legal services to low-income residents of Santa Clara County for referrals. My first such solicitation, of all places, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley:

My e-mail solicitation for referrals from the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley

There's been no response yet (like, "Thanks for your inquiry; we'll review your request and get back to you."); but, I don't really expect one. This town really isn't about charity. Anyone who actually provides a charity (i.e., no-cost, no-reimbursement service to those in need) is suspect to them, as San Jose did not become the richest city in America by giving anything away to anybody for free without taking something from somebody else. Most likely, it'll be ignored, and any further attempts at contact will be considered harassment.

Incomplete and untimely service
Although not specifically mentioned in the e-mail, the service provided by the Law Foundation is not only non-comprehensive, but also untimely, in that an "eviction clinic" is hosted one day a week only (on Fridays, no less). That could preclude (or greatly hinder) meeting the five-day deadline for filing a response to an unlawful detainer complaint.

I doubt even a draft answer to a complaint is provided at these clinics, so a follow-up appointment would have to be scheduled. I don't see how their service is beneficial to anyone, but perhaps it is.

AIDS | Letter reiterates demand for explanation for Stanford-Brooks refusal to treat

To those close to God, No rest for the wicked means to never let evil rest [Isaiah 48:22; Isaiah 57:21]. It's a call to action—not just a statement of fact or a warning.

Hence, my flat-out refusal to accept the evasive explanation provided by Stanford for Dr. Edward Brooks unexplained refusal to provide treatment at the Positive Care Clinic [see AIDS | Former PACE Clinic doctor bars me from Stanford Positive Care Clinic]:

Suzellen Jones (Stanford) - Letter by James Alan Bush

I wrote the letter because the attorney handling the PACE Clinic matter refused to address it, choosing instead to repeatedly focus our discussion about it on the behavior alleged in the letter from Stanford, which is a variant of the kind of behavior described yesterday in AIDS | Attorney passes puck to adversarial county counsel.

AIDS | Attorney passes puck to adversarial county counsel

Didn't I say this would happen, and didn't I say don't let it happen in the e-mail to my attorney shown in AIDS | Crapo-case attorney fizzles, PACE-case attorney wonders aimlessly [see also AIDS | PACE-case attorney clarifies objectives, direction]:

I said that nobody would do a bit of work, and that any timetables and their deliverables would fall into a third-party's hands who maintains an adverse stance in the issue, leaving me at the (ahem) mercy of my adversary, and at their leisure, no less.

My expectations, which I have ever so clearly stated on numerous occasions, have remained unchanged, and are reiterated in the last e-mail, above.

Your responsibilities in this case
If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, you have to realize that the onus is still on you to prosecute your case. If you have to reiterate your requirements and needs—even if it's to somebody who should know already—on a daily basis, do so! Persistence, in this case, is absolutely justified, and anything less than that makes everything that happens (or doesn't happen) totally your fault.

CHARITY | Tag flyer to substitute face-to-face solicitation

Instead of soliciting charity recipients face-to-face, who stand outside a San Jose courthouse, waiting for the county's legal self-help service that only offers assistance with one form of defense against eviction suits, I'll be posting this tag flyer just outside, hoping it'll be more effective at reaching out to people who need help staying indoors during this already harsh winter weather:

Eviction Legal Self-Help Tag Flyer by James Alan Bush

Read about my initial failed attempts to provide free legal services to the would-be homeless in CHARITY | Second campaign to save the would-be homeless launched.

Charity initiative serves dual purpose
While I'm back on the subject of charity, I'd like to point out something I glossed over in the other posts, which has to do with my charity initiative's complementary role in demon-fighting.

I can't stop fighting demons just to be a nice guy; that would turn nice guy into stupid guy. The problem persists, and I see no one standing behind me ready to pick up wherever I might leave off.

To that end: my new charity initiative might look like a nice gesture—and, it is; but, it's also a test run of an upcoming tactical maneuver against the demonic agenda, which will be designed to supplant county services that purport to help county citizens fight injustice perpetrated by other county agencies and services (VMC, Superior Court, County Counsel, etc.), but instead surreptitiously preclude any sort of justice at all by failing to aggressively (timely, and in full) all avenues of recourse for the victim.

NOTE | Overall anti-demonic strategy at work: go on the attack to minimize being under attack.

Specific examples of this at work abound, but, one can easily infer the veracity of my claim using two key facts: all legal self-help services feed from the same county coffers as do the county agencies that perpetrate wrong on county citizens, and not one testimonial or case study has been produced by any such service that proves their effectiveness at obtaining a favorable resolution for any of its clients.