All the surveillance in the entire world cannot possibly discredit ANY injured victim who has suffered degenerative, chronic injuries as a result of an accident because it is not even not even remotely plausible to legitimately dispute their continued need for treatment as Insurers like TD routinely do. So much for "seeing is believing".
In my experience, the one and only intent behind surveillance is to discredit, it is never about exposing the truth. Given the fact that surveillance is consequently nothing more than slanted intelligence, it is not possible to suggest that it does not constitute a malignant process and that it should be illegal to target any accident victim in that manner.
Victims with chronic injuries rely upon trust and good faith to be able to get the treatment they require and the suggestion that they manipulate medical professionals to misrepresent their injuries is rather bizarre. After all, isn't that what slanted intelligence is all about?
What follows is the general, cookie-cutter views about surveillance, but like every relationship where trust is taken out of the equation, surveillance tactics degenerate into a no-holds barred war between accident victims who struggle to cope with their injuries and intrusive spies who think that SEEING IS BELIEVING is more reliable than medical evidence.
Make no mistake about it, despite what Michael Blinick says, surveillance is not a powerful tool in cases where plaintiffs are forced to cope with chronic pain. In fact, it is nothing more than an unwarranted intrusion and it ought to cease because Michael Blinick's SEEING IS BELIEVING views translate to pure fantasy without a conscientious effort to bridge the huge gap between theory and practice.
The only thing that TD's surveillance has proved is that none of it actionable (it is not being used to challenge my credibility) and it has therefore been absolutely nothing beyond a constant source of harassment.
Even though I was injured on June 30, 2003, I still require treatment, my TD Insurance, Meloche Monnex file is still unsettled and TD Insurance has the audacity to insist that the only surveillance conducted on my entire case was done in 2008: "There is nothing further otherwise it would have been disclosed in accordance with TD’s obligations."
Is anybody gullible to think that or is TD merely concealing their intrusive surveillance practices to evade the charge that they routinely violate our privacy rights?
Indeed, under the circumstances, and they are many, it is reasonable to think that the only reason TD disclosed a single surveillance report dated 2008 is because TD thought that I was playing cat and mouse with the private investigators who were following me and they did not want to get caught with respect to the evident fact they routinely skirt and subvert the disclosure requirements that the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure demand.
Even Michael Blinick acknowledges the obigation the Rules demand: "disclosure at minimum". However, his client's failure to live by that maxim is creating maximum liability and it is time for TD Insurance, Meloche Monnex to acknowledge the simple fact they have failed to discredit me. If I am wrong about that, it is the obligation of TD Insurance, Meloche Monnex, to disclose the surveillance reports which prove otherwise.
Deception never wins because because time always expands discovery, and in the end, those who deliberately conceal it discredit themselves.
If you are like me, who has never has never enjoyed the benefit of a relaxation massage because an hour is never enough to resolve all the therapy requirements (joint, muscle and tendon damage on the right side of my body cause crippling, compensatory muscle strain on the right) you will clearly understand the fact that medical professionals treat real injuries, not subjective allegations of pain.
Consequently, the claim that surveillance has the ability to affect the validity of a claim is extremely misguided because in my experience, surveillance is strictly a slanted tool that is inappropriately used in effort to discredit accident victims and that practice ought to be explicitly outlawed.
Next: This is the very, very best of stand up comedy