September 21, 2011

Man or Mouse - squeak up Jansen

August 12th: I sent yet another request to ACC asking how Dr Peter Jansen  managed to locate me whilst under a Police Witness Protection Plan for a historic sexual abuse, just so he could try and sue me for $250,000 for defamation. 

I don't know, it just seemed ironic that ACC seemed to be struggling with my meager request for counselling, closing down my file without me knowing, and writing me off - so to speak - but can manage to maintain enough details about me to sue me cause I may (and as it turned out, rightfully) insulted an employee of theirs (Dr Peter Jansen) by calling him an "incompetent prick". 

Well today, we got the latest "sweep" of all those internal emails ACC people like to send to each other and one, in particular, caught my eye: 

From (Blanked out) to (blanked out) 22 June 2011:
"I am alerting you to the response as there is one email that may pose some risk to ACC ...[...].. there is an email to Peter of May 2010 which alerts him to Miss XXXXX (aka me) being a current client and at the very end of the email, below the disclaimer, is her blog address. She may wish to make something of this, as at first glance it appears to contradict ACC and Peter's position that he did not know 'K1w1jax' was an ACC client..."
Gee, ya think? This is what we have all thought and knew all along. Just for the record, when Peter Jansen pulled his case the day we we entered our defense, his media release was: 

"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..."

What a load of bull Jansen.... and my response? 

(Team Manager Government Services, ACC)

Firstly, you have my permission to show this email to whoever you wish.

I, in turn, will be forwarding the attachments onto my advocate team for advice. 

I am asking their assistance in this matter because I simply am NOT getting any facts or reassurance from ACC. Other Governmental departments have been cooperative in my requests - WINZ/IRD etc. The fact that I am not allowed to know "things" about "me" is unacceptable. Just whose breech of privacy does ACC think they are protecting again? I suspect it's their own staff members and, quite frankly, that is not what the Law is designed to do and I intend to pursue this matter further. 

For example, I totally agree that anyone else, other than the person who tried to sue me, ought to have their privacy protected. So, where are the emails, correspondence, access to my file that are directly related to Dr Jansen? I am not interested in an all out ACC witch hunt. I simply want to know how he found me whilst under a witness protection programme - one the Police are even fathomed to understand - and the only one common denominator is the email exchanges between myself and Jansen. Of course he won't admit this cause it will contradict his media release but it's a lie nonetheless - or is it? He's not saying. He's being a coward and hiding behind the shirt-tails of some "confidentiality" clause. Unacceptable. 

I understand that there was an excessive amount of access to my personal file this year - odd, considering my file has been closed (unbeknownst to me) an entire year beforehand but I do not accept that an IT clerk having access for example, is the promise of "sensitivity" ACC stand by when they formulate under the banner of the "Sensitive Claims Unit". There is clearly a breech and a measurable amount of gross negligence on my "so called" SCU file.    

I would like it noted that I have not received any contact from Selena whatsoever.

I would also like it noted that Dr Jansen cannot hide behind a "client confidentiality" clause in simply replying to how he accessed my personal information - a request that came from Lisa MXXXXX - because ACC were given my explicit consent for him to do so. This is merely a bureaucratic stalling technique which I have no time for. 

In closing, I would like to add that, yes, ACC  should be worried about the email I sent Jansen in May 2010 which clearly indicated who I was and not only that, but his reply. I do not accept the pitiful excuse that no one looks at the information at the bottom of an email and also that he was receiving so many a day and therefore, might not have joined the dots so to speak. Jansen was hunting me down from December - four months prior to being served with his defamation case. His own Lawyer confirmed this. 

In short: My blog infuriated him. My email (to him) stuck out for that sole purpose. He acknowledged it. He responded to it. He knew who I was and he responded to the information I (inadvertently gave him as an ACC employer) and sued me, and he used his ACC resources to do so. It does not get any simpler than that and now, ACC are using tax paid resources to cover this up.

Now, I would like ACC to think in real simple terms, as detailed above, and give me the answers I legally and rightfully deserve. If it's good enough to cover for Dr Peter Jansen, it's good enough to answer the questions brought by me about him. You can't have it both ways. 

In closing, I totally agree that Jansen should reply to me, after all, he sued me as private citizen yeah? Even his "blanked out" colleagues think he should - so, in short, why hasn't he? Why is getting them to do his dirty work?

So what now... "a thousand miles starts with a single footstep - and I'm not tired."

September 5, 2011

Flash haka, alright

Tonight someone sent me the link for a a flash haka

I was literally brought to tears - such is the "mana" of these men. I'd willingly follow them into the throws of some 'war', I'd stamp my feet, thrash my hips, and damn well make someone eyeball my poi poi if needed. 

Not that women need male leaders but it says something when a woman can be brought to tears over the sight of male unity. It is such an awesome sight and we need more if it. 

I just wish it took more than a ball and 15 men fighting possession over it.  

September 2, 2011

"Hands on Dad" gets off Sexual Abuse Conviction

So let me see if I have this straight: A man comes home pissed, flops into bed with his wife. His four-year-old child crawls into bed with them. He claims to be completely incoherent. So much so, he pulls her nappy down and sexually assaults her. Wife wakes up and rightly asks WTF he thinks he is doing. 

His response? "I thought it was you."

If I was the Kid's lawyer, I'd want to ask him these questions: 

  1. Does your wife frequently wear nappies to bed? 
  2. If you were incoherent enough to not know it was your child, then how do you explain being coherent enough to know it was a nappy in the first place?
  3. How tall is your wife? In other words, she's not a midget right, not someone who may have shrunk a tad in the hours after your 2009 Christmas party?

If I was the NZ public - oh hang on, I am - I'd want to ask the Judge Cunningham this:

  1. Since when is "being funny" a reasonable defense to child sex abuse? 
  2. Why let this child abuser go free just because he is a "talented New Zealander. He makes people laugh. Laughter is an incredible medicine and we need lots of it." Wrong! What we need Judge is a ZERO TOLERANCE towards child abuse of any kind.
  3. What experience does she have of the long term effects of child abuse especially as she justifies her 'no conviction' status on the basis that "the consequences of a conviction would outweigh the gravity of the offence." 
  4. Don't you think you demonstrate your complete naivety about the effects of child sex abuse by being swayed by the police interview whereby the child wants to "see and be with her father again"? What did you expect the four year-old to say? String him up?
  5. Why did you not take into consideration the police and Crown recommendation which was "while we were not asking for a prison sentence, a discharge without conviction was not in the ballpark and, in fact "it entirely undercuts the deterrent aspect. There is effectively no sentence."

To the mother of the child, I'd like to say this:

  1. Good on you for reporting him despite what your heart may have been telling you to do. That takes balls and I respect you for that.
  2. Slightly tacky to say the offender was "...loving and hands on." It's kind of what got him in trouble in the first place.  
Rightly so, a growing group of Organisations condemn the Judge's decision including Barnados, The Sensible Sentencing Trust (, Auckland Sexual Abuse Help, ECPAT Child Alert, and NARK.

Links to the story:

ACC Saga -In Pursuit of Truth

Someone once told me that you can eat an elephant one mouthful at a time. I'm using this analogy for the likes of ACC. It's an analogy folks, not an accusation - we all know how sensitive those ACC people are but last I heard, analogies weren't illegal or defamatory or ...the list goes on.

So while my requests for information pertaining to me specifically from ACC have resulted in my file being sent (albeit to my workplace and into the hands of my boss), nothing much has resulted in my further requests for details. For example:

  1. How is it that my file was closed on September 9, 2010 and yet on the morning that the News broke of Dr Peter Jansen suing me, there was a flurry of ACC people prizing open the contents of my historical sexual abuse file.  
  2. On the day the News broke on April 14th 2011 and up to May 20th 2011, there have been 55 separate accesses to my "confidential file." Some as nonchalant as a "Applications Support Analyst from the Business Technology Group" and an "Audit Manager from the Information Technology Department."  
  3. The News reported Jansen's legal action after Carmel Sepuloni demanded answers from Hon Tony Ryall (at 3pm) on behalf of ACC Court case brought up in Parliament and yet some "secretary" from the Corporate Office in ACC, accessed my file at 13:40, along with a "Government services senior adviser" at 14:37 - wonder who that could be.
  4. I know of one particular "senior adviser" who would have had a vested interest in perusing my file. The same one who went onto to claim he had no idea I was a ACC client of his despite an email being sent to him from another ACC adviser stating: Are you aware she is an ACC sexual abuse claimant. Silly fools forgot to omit that from my file copy.
  5. Another question would be why the Relapse Panel said on April 7th, 2010, that I should continue with my current counselor and yet I received a letter two days later from ACC saying the most appropriate form of treatment at this time was 10 sessions with a Clinical Psychologist and that ACC would refer me - which, as we all know, just didn't happen. What is the purpose of a Relapse Panel if ACC don't even take into account their recommendations? And what of all those emails from not only me but my current counselor asking whether we could, in fact, continue with our sessions? And who, pray tell, vetoed that decision? Anyone want a bet as to who is was?
Yes, so there are more questions now that I have been prying into my own "confidential file" and the latest is an email from Denise Cosgrove:

Thanks for your request received 12 August 2011.  You’ve asked for the reasons for access to your ACC file during specific times by way of a detailed timeline, an updated printout of those who have accessed your file since your last request, and a complete electronic sweep of personal information which references yourself up to July 2011. 
You’ve also asked for an explanation as to why ACC adopted a specific course of action in respect of your claim file in April 2010.  I’ve arranged for Selena XXXXXXX to address this aspect of your request and to provide an updated copy of your claim file.  
You can expect to hear from Selena shortly.In respect to your other requests, I have arranged for Gabby Boag, ACC’s Privacy Officer to respond to this.  Gabby will respond to you directly by 12 September 2011.  Please call Gabby on XXXXXXXXX if you would like to talk about this part of your request.

Kind regards, Denise

That elephant must be positively thin by now.

September 18th, 2011: I have emailed Denise AGAIN asking her when is going to "do" any of the suggestions above. I have STILL NOT RECEIVED A REPLY nor an answer to my subsequent emails. Is this woman really capable? What is her "word" worth - as meaningless as those apologies I'd say - how hard can it be to simply reply to an email or to keep promises made to clients? Moreover, if it's as hard as it seems to be for poor old Denise, then maybe it's time someone else, more efficient, takes her place - and yes, that is in my HONEST OPINION, based on my personal experience and the facts, as published on this blog - so no, there is no defamation case here Denise.