BIBLE | Handling demon peoples' attacks against churches, members

So, you claim not to be a demon person, but a church-going Christian, who simply doesn't want to be involved in the fight against demons and their people, having for some reason the strange notion that demons and their people are actually giving you that option (or, that I am, for that matter).

I can't say I blame you for not wanting to face entities and people armed with some of the weapons shown in various pics posted to this blog; but, the truth is, God sends cowards and those who bury their heads in the sands back home to mommy, allowing them nowhere near any of the special tasks He reserves for people of valor and courage [Judges 7:3; Judges 7:5-7]. Real life is for the world-aware and socially responsible grown-up (i.e., one who acknowledges danger, and thereafter obeys their herd instinct), and you had better accept that and act on it.

Even still, if you can't be persuaded to stand up for Jesus (our champion for the cause against demonic evil), perhaps you can fight demons and their people on safer battlegrounds—that is to say, within your very own church (or even online) where doctrinal debates are often ignited by demon people in order to complicate and hinder the salvation of the righteous, and to discourage those who would seek Christ from doing so.

Such a thing was known to happen in the very first days of the church over 2,000 years ago:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

— Ephesians 4:14 KJV

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

— 1 Corinthians 1:10

That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

— 1 Corinthians 12:25

This post provides an example of that very thing, which always looks innocent enough, but, I assure you, is nothing less than evil at work. Unlike any of the advice for handling real, physical combat (pardon the pun) with demons and their people, as provided in other posts, the approach shown below exemplifies and inherits the patience and persistence and loving approach one must apply when using the knowledge given by Christ in His Word to correct any error, and to definitively put an end to any debate on issues that demon people would use to sow discord among would-be brethren:

Demon People Attack Churches From Within by James Alan Bush

There are a couple of key things you should note about my approach here:

1. I don't proffer any opinion, just scripture;
2. I don't allow focus to shift from the primary issue at all;
3. I don't repeat myself;
4. I don't mince words;
5. I call a spade a spade; and,
6. In spite of slights and insults, I do not return them, but even take time to answer valid questions and concerns from those hurling such with relevant scripture, where applicable.

These are key when representing Christ in any issue, and are never small tasks; rather, they are more important than resolving the issue itself.

NOTE | Sideshow participators are often mistaken for random persons joining a conversation midway to express an opinion, but who are actually distracting from the more serious issue of doctrinal disagreement. Insodoing, they hope to lead the person correcting the error (i.e., me) into a honey trap made out of an agreement with one of his lesser points (i.e., that the original poster should not have been ejected from a Christian group), diversifying my focus thereby, and maybe even making the person I'm disagreeing with feel cornered (and that I'm trying to corner him by making friends with other participants). The guideline here, then, is to ignore anyone who is ignoring the conversation where it stands when they first join it—which I do.

The result for a proper regard of the above six guidelines is a far more favorable one than what you might expect from other approaches (e.g., your natural reaction):

Christ expects you to make friends out of would-be enemies, and shows you how to do it correctly; when you apply His advice, you get the results He promises

Again, I can understand someone not wanting to get as mangled as I have by demonic-weapons fire; but, you have to at least be able and willing to do as shown above if you intend to avoid being counted among the demons and their people on that Day.

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

— 2 Timothy 2:23-26

AIDS | District Supervisor verifies VMC doctors improper denial of care

In AIDS | District supervisor to act against VMC-PACE obstinacy, I announced that my district supervisor, Cindy Chavez, intended to make efforts to get to the bottom of VMC's and PACE's refusal to treat my terminal condition; since that time, I am both proud and grateful to announce that her office (and, in particular, assistant Paul Murphy) did exactly that, and the following letter extends that effort by demanding that the manager identified as the point-of-contact for this particular issue, as it pertains to the clinic that employs Dr. Anitha Kambham (and others), explain that refusal:

Letter to Jenny Howard (VMC) by James Alan Bush

Here is one of the videos that could be proferred as evidence to Jenny Howard, the recipient of the letter, of my primary care physician's obstinance and refusal to treat any of my conditions:


Here's another that suggests and shows the same as the above:

The letter will be both hand-delivered and mailed today, and a copy will be sent to my attorney.

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.