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."