Thursday, November 12, 2015

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 48:22Isaiah 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]:

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.