June 24, 2011

Peter Jansen - Caught Telling Porkies

Sorry it's been a while but I've been trolling through my ACC file - you know, the one that Denise Cosgrove insisted would only be sent to a private box number if I collected and signed for it? Yeah that one - the same one that turned up at my workplace so poorly addressed that the manager opened it to see what on earth it was. 

So yeah, that was shock, horror, gasp moment number one. The second was looking at the list (4 pages long) of just who accessed my file in the last year - an alarming amount of people both inside and outside of ACC and all after my file had been closed - unbeknownst to me. Gee, I really hope that sensitive claims people aren't inadvertently providing just some free child porn literature service here cause a lot of people seem to be "getting off" on reading the graphic details for their own personal use in my view.

Interestingly, an email I openly admitted sending to ACC and which I posted here on my blog ('A letter to the World' May 19th, 2010) was removed from my file. It's a desperate sounding email. A last ditched attempt to get someone in that organisation to just tell me what the hell was going on. Apparently the contents are too sensitive for even me and I was the one who wrote it! ACC call that "Litigation Privilege" whatever on earth that means.   

However, a day later, May 20 2010, an ACC Project Administrator (name blacked out) sent the following email to Dr Peter Jansen:
"Hi Peter - I have just shown this email to [name blanked out] and he just wanted to check you are aware that this is currently a client of [name blacked out]"
Correct me if I'm wrong (which I know I aren't) but didn't Peter Jansen say he "never knew I was an ACC SCU Claimant" and would, therefore, have never attempted to sue me for $250,000? Yep, I've just checked with all the news reports, radio stations, Dr Nick Smith's statements and gee, even Jansen's own press statement the day he dropped his pathetic  legal action against me... 
"As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog." 
So how do we explain this little porkie pie then Jansen?

There are some very serious questions here about the standard of confidentiality within ACC and moreover, accountability for when someone, like Jansen, uses client information for their own personal gain and then goes on to lie about it to not only me but NZ as a whole and to all those other sensitive claimants out there. 

My pole last month asking whether Jansen should get fired says it all - people are rightfully concerned about having a blatant liar in control of their counselling, their ability to 'get well,' or in most cases, being at the mercy of someone like Jansen who can stop your counselling altogether, and if you don't like it and question him - he'll just sue your pants off. Time to leave Jansen. 


  1. I sense a missive to the wonderful Carmel.

  2. What did I tell you - some familiarities here Jax.


  3. OMG - you mean he's also suffering CIL as well (Completely Incompetent Liar). The poor bastard.

  4. 4 PAGES!!! All of us sensitive claimants should be outraged. As for the work/mail thing, I would expect NOTHING LESS from such an incompetant bunch of pricks.

    Fuck this blog is exhausting....hard to pick which issue to run with. Sorry, I'm not actually complaining just expressing.

    As for the email, yea obviously he knew from the start. It just took some time to prove it.

  5. So let me get this straight.... this media statement by Peter Jansen is a lie? No suprises!!


    ACC has informed me that the investigation I requested has concluded that I never accessed any personal information held by the Corporation regarding “k1w1jax”.

    As k1w1jax was a pseudonym, I did not and could not know that she was an ACC claimant for a mental injury at the time she was making defamatory comments about me on her blog.

    Now that the allegation of improper use of ACC information has been shown to be wrong, I have instructed my lawyer to withdraw the legal action against her.

    While I continue to regard the statements made on her blog as defamatory, and would obviously prefer that she withdrew them and apologised, as a clinician I appreciate that her recovery must take precedence at this time.


    Is this this same Peter Jansen who is now on The Health Quality & Safety Commission? A commission that works with clinicians and providers of health services to improve the quality and safety of health and disability services. PMSL... need I say more?


  6. Well, we know that statement isn't,

    "Hi Peter - I have just shown this email to [whoever] and he just wanted to check you are aware that this is currently a client of telecom" lol

    What I found funny was when you showed me that email sent to PJ by the ACC Project Administrator and the date being the date after your blog "Letter to the World" that ACC didn't send you.

    'Litigation Privilege' PMSL..... for them and Peter, not you! Wonder if they get away with that when the Privacy Commissioner and Ombudsman stick a microscope up Pete's butt. This is so shocking, I am suprised he still as a job.

  7. As I understand it "Litigation Privilege" is the communication between him and his lawyer or ACC lawyers.

    But for someone who was suing as a private citizen he shouldn't have been using ACC email for this anyway, so I don't see the problem here and therefore "litigation privilege" should not apply. And doesn't this again prove he knew you were a claimant?

  8. Sounds like you have grounds to sue someone Jax.

  9. PJ is doing really well out of the govt isn't he? WHY?

  10. Love the pic you picked for this blog! Says it all really :)


For troubleshooting, email: nzreporter@hotmail.com