On the evening of December 13, 2000, May Ocean made a fateful
decision to stop for bread, eggs and milk at Prospect Foods, a small
grocery store near her home in Whites Lake, 25 kilometres south of
Halifax. At about 6:30pm, the then-43-year-old Ocean, driving her
brand-new Volkswagen Golf, pulled out of the store’s parking lot for a
left turn to head south on Prospect Bay Road. She was partway across
the road when she saw a set of headlights rounding a curve and
barrelling toward her at 90 to 100 kilometres-per-hour in a
70-kilometre zone. Ocean stepped on the gas to get across the road into
what she thought was the safety of the southbound lane, but it didn’t
matter.
“I looked and the lights were coming straight at me on my side of
the road,” Ocean says. “I knew that impact was inevitable. I couldn’t
avoid it at that point. I thought: I’m dead, game over, goodbye cruel
world.”
Ocean laughs. But she knows there’s really nothing funny at all
about the hell she has endured since the collision—failing health,
fears for her own and her grown children’s safety, looming financial
ruin and an expensive and bruising legal battle with her insurance
company, Economical Mutual, one of Canada’s largest. Ocean is suing
Economical for $700,000, partly because of what she sees as the
company’s bad faith in handling her case. As her lawsuit drags on and
on, she is nearing the end of her tether.
“Slowly, I’m being beaten down. I’m losing money. I am losing
energy,” Ocean says. “If I sat there and looked at the horror of what
I’ve been facing all the time, I’d go insane.”
Justice delayed
The story of May Ocean’s collision and its epic nine-year aftermath
is embedded in tens of thousands of pages of court documents—volume
after volume containing pre-trial court transcripts, medical records,
accident reports, sworn affidavits, judicial rulings and even May
Ocean’s controversial writings about evolution and language. These
mountains of paper are striking evidence that the wheels of justice in
cases like this can grind so slowly, they hardly move at all. Lawyers
and judges may thrive in this system, but for accident victims, justice
delayed is justice denied.
Ocean’s case has become a marathon endurance test partly because the
insurance company has fought her at every turn, denying responsibility
for her injuries and losses; seeking to have her case dismissed when
she missed deadlines for filing extensive financial records and even
challenging her sanity.
At the heart of May Ocean’s case lies one crucial fact: The
22-year-old who smashed in the driver’s side of her car, sending her
vehicle and his hurtling into a ditch, carried no insurance. Ocean
walked away from her wrecked car thanks to side airbags and reinforced
steel doors. The young man ended up in hospital with serious
injuries.
But here’s that crucial fact again: Drivers involved in an accident
with someone who has no insurance must turn to their own companies to
cover injuries and damages, and that’s why Ocean was forced to depend
on Economical Mutual.
“Never in my wildest moments would I have thought I would have a
problem with my insurance company,” she says. “I was preyed on as a
victim of an accident by the very people who are supposed to protect
you.”
Ocean acknowledges that the insurance company did replace her car
and pay for physiotherapy and psychotherapy treatments. It was required
to do so because the other driver had no insurance. Yet Ocean is
furious that Economical is still blaming her for the accident and
denying she suffered any injuries or losses because of it.
The issue of Ocean’s injuries and losses is a crucial one. At first,
Ocean herself believed that aside from minor aches and pains and
recurrent nightmares, she was OK. But five months after the crash, she
was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Her PTSD is at the
centre of her lawsuit. Ocean feels it has devastated her life. She says
she still suffers from depression, nightmares and insomnia. Physically,
she says, an injury to her right thumb, hand and wrist that she
originally thought was only a sprain, turned out to be ligament damage
affecting her whole arm. Ocean is an award-winning designer who moulds
and casts pewter products. But now, she can work for only short
periods. That’s partly why, she says, her business, Ocean Art Pewter,
has all but collapsed, going from almost a million dollars in annual
sales and 20 employees to the edge of bankruptcy and one part-time
worker.
Ocean says the heightened awareness or hyper-vigilance that is
characteristic of PTSD led her to make two major scientific discoveries
about where language came from and how modern human beings evolved from
perfectly conjoined twins. But when she submitted her writings
outlining her theories to the courts as proof that she suffers from
PTSD, her insurance company used them as evidence that she suffers from
a mental disorder.
Ocean claims negligence
The insurance company’s questioning of her sanity is only one in a
long list of examples that Ocean cites to show why she believes
Economical behaved negligently in handling her case right from the
start. She is suing the company for $700,000 in damages, a written
acknowledgment she suffers from PTSD and a formal apology. None of her
claims have yet been proven in court, but Ocean says she’s determined
to expose the workings of the insurance system.
In answer to a question from Economical’s lawyer that she has filed
with the courts, Ocean states: “It is my claim that vehicle insurance
companies and certain other government organizations form a
conglomeration of joint activities that serve to uphold a corrupt
system.” In another court brief, Ocean writes about what she calls “the
monopoly/conglomerate system at work within the insurance system.”
On its website, Economical says, “We make one simple promise to all
our customers: we’ll be there when you need us most. When disaster
strikes, you can count on The Economical Insurance Group to take care
of the details so you can get on with your life.” But Ocean says
Economical was definitely not there for her. She says, for example,
that in spite of her repeated phone calls immediately after the
accident, Economical didn’t seem willing to investigate the crash.
Ocean feared she was being blamed for the accident, so she was anxious
to get a formal investigation to prove the other driver was at
fault.
“Why weren’t they looking into the accident?” she asks. “Why wasn’t
anybody doing anything about this guy who hit me on my side of the
road? Why did the police not look into this further?”
(An RCMP accident report that Ocean obtained through a court order
several years after the accident suggests police believed both drivers
were at fault. Yet the report reveals that the Mounties didn’t really
investigate. They didn’t even speak with the other driver until he
phoned them two months after the accident asking for information about
filing an insurance claim. The police then laid charges against him for
driving without insurance and operating an unregistered vehicle. Court
documents show the 22-year-old had been convicted of impaired driving
about a year and 10 months before the crash.)
Eventually, Ocean’s phone calls to her insurance company finally
seemed to pay off. Economical hired a forensic engineering firm to
investigate. In a report dated July 16, 2001, professional engineer
Stuart Smith concluded the other driver was entirely at fault,
travelling way over the speed limit, veering into Ocean’s lane and
failing to brake in time to avoid the collision.
In spite of the accident report exonerating her, Ocean’s troubles
were far from over. Economical refused to renew her insurance policy,
claiming it wasn’t willing to insure two women under 25 who worked as
drivers for Ocean’s pewter company. Ocean’s insurance broker warned her
that no other company would cover her unless Economical wrote a letter
clearing her of blame for the accident. Without that letter, the only
insurance Ocean could get was through a fund for high-risk drivers at
an unaffordable premium of $10,000 per year. She complained to the
Better Business Bureau, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the
Superintendent of Insurance and the provincial cabinet minister in
charge of insurance, but no one would help her. “It is obvious,” Ocean
wrote in a letter to the judge hearing her case, “these individuals and
organizations are there after all for that purpose—paid by our
hard-earned tax dollars, to be vigilant, to protect the little
guy—their average Joe/Jane public from illegal activity such as this
kind of blatant bullying and exploitation. So why did they not offer to
do something immediately on my/our behalf?” Ocean concluded she had
been “red-flagged” as a reckless driver by an insurance monopoly in
which big companies work together at the expense of victims.
Ocean threatens hunger strike
Several months later, in a desperate attempt to get her insurance
back, Ocean threatened to stage a hunger strike outside Economical’s
offices in Bedford. The tactic worked. Gordon Murray, Economical’s
branch manager, wrote her a letter in March 2002 apologizing for the
handling of her claim. He also sent a letter to Ocean’s broker stating
the company believed the other driver was at fault. That lifted the
“red flag” from her file and Ocean was able to get insurance from
another company. But she was far from happy. She felt Economical was
mishandling her case and still wasn’t willing to compensate her fully
for her injuries. She says she refused to accept a $25,000 settlement
offer from the company.
After her lawyer filed a lawsuit for damages against Economical in
December 2002, the company took a hard line against her. It filed a
formal defence blaming her for the crash and claiming that she suffered
no injuries, losses or damages because of it. It also maintained she
had no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident—a claim it
finally withdrew last year.
It all seemed incredible to Ocean. Why would the company deny she
suffered any injuries when it had agreed to pay for her to see a
physiotherapist and a psychologist? Why was she now being blamed for
the crash when Economical’s own accident report had cleared her and its
branch manager had written a letter saying the company believed the
other driver was at fault? Patricia Mitchell, Economical’s lawyer,
declined to answer these questions for The Coast, saying the public
court documents speak for themselves.
Meantime, Ocean says her fight with Economical worsened her PTSD and
the fears arising from it. In a 2006 letter to her lawyer, she wrote:
“I beg the court to regard all of the injustices doled out by
Economical as they bullied and threatened me over these last years
since the accident.” Gradually, she says, she began to fear for her own
safety and the safety of her adult children. Several things happened
that worsened her fears. Answering questions from Economical’s lawyer
during one hearing, Ocean testified, for example, that a driver swerved
into her lane on the highway and drove right at her, veering away only
at the last moment. A blond man in a trench coat approached her in a
Toronto library, handed her a magazine opened to a report about
mysterious damage done to one of the Queen’s cars and said, “This is an
interesting article. You need to read it,” then walked away.
Stepping in when a Lawyer quits
Ocean’s case was still winding its long, tortuous way through the
civil court process in 2006, when a crisis suddenly erupted. Economical
sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that Ocean had missed
deadlines for providing it with years of detailed financial information
about her failing pewter company. Ocean was struggling to pull the
figures together when she made a discovery that shocked her. She found
out that when her lawyer first launched her lawsuit back in 2002, he
had not claimed damages for the company’s negligence and bad faith in
handling her case. For her, that was the whole point of the lawsuit.
She says when she refused to sign papers allowing the case to proceed
without the negligence claim, her lawyer quit. Ocean phoned and faxed a
number of other law firms but no one would agree to represent her.
Ocean has been waging her lawsuit on her own for the last three
years, consulting legal texts at Dalhousie’s law library, pleading her
case during an endless string of pre-trial hearings, filing extensive
court documents and subpoenaing and questioning witnesses. When the
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia finally set a trial date in September
2008, nearly eight years after the accident, Ocean believed she might
finally get her day in court. Her case seemed to be going well in spite
of her lack of legal training. Economical had not been able to get her
case dismissed and Deborah Smith, the Supreme Court judge handling the
pre-trial hearings, appeared to have leaned over backwards to help her.
But in the days leading up to the trial, Ocean suffered a huge setback,
one that would delay her case for at least another full year, require
her to undergo the humiliation of a court-ordered psychiatric
examination and force her into a costly appeal.
Ocean “delusional”
Economical Mutual Insurance had been questioning May Ocean’s sanity
since January 2005, when she was ordered to undergo a two-hour
psychiatric examination paid for by her insurance company. Halifax
psychiatrist Edwin Rosenberg diagnosed Ocean with “delusional disorder,
persecutory type.” He wrote that the disorder was rooted in her anger
at Economical and her belief that the company was involved in a
wide-ranging conspiracy against her. When Ocean cross-examined
Rosenberg during a pre-trial hearing, he testified he charges $300 an
hour for his services and handles between 10 and 20 cases a year for
insurance companies. In 2005, he billed Economical $3,600 for his work
on her case.
In 2006, Economical’s lawyer asked Rosenberg to assess the writings
Ocean had filed as evidence she was suffering from the heightened
awareness or hyper-vigilance characteristic of Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder. The psychiatrist responded that her writings about conjoined
twins and the root language of mankind confirmed his original diagnosis
adding that they conveyed “self-importance and grandiosity.” In 2008,
after Economical asked him for a further assessment, Rosenberg swore an
affidavit in which he concluded there had been “a serious and dramatic
escalation” of her original delusional disorder. His affidavit states
Ocean suffers from “a blurring of fantasy and reality” that “would
necessarily interfere with her ability to represent herself in
court.”
Ocean says the writings Rosenberg referred to arose from her
attempts to alleviate the devastating effects of her PTSD. To cope with
her depression, sleeplessness and the stress of fighting her insurance
company, she began telling herself fictional stories and later, writing
them down. Gradually, she says, the stories led her to make what she
believes are two major scientific discoveries, the first about a
parallel, inner world—the world of our perfectly conjoined twin.
Ocean developed the hypothesis that modern human beings evolved from
Siamese twins so completely joined that they appeared to be one.
Over time, one twin retreated into an invisible realm, a world as
vibrant and complex as our own. Ocean says we have mistakenly called
this invisible realm our unconscious mind. But it’s really a separate
world of twins who send us messages, which explains such things as
telepathy, extra sensory perception and the penetrating insights of
genius.
Ocean postulates that the year 2000 was a significant turning point
as the second or twin millennium was about to begin. It was then that
the inner twin world began to give our outer one more obvious clues to
its hidden existence using what she calls “synchronistic events,” or
meaningful coincidences. Ocean says the collapse of New York’s Twin
Towers on 9/11 is one of the most spectacular, but others are all
around us. She points for example, to a Herald article about a
two-toned lobster—one side green, the other brilliant orange. And a
news story about two Sea King helicopters whose engines caught fire on
the very same day, leaving flight safety investigators baffled.
“This is the way it is with us,” Ocean has written. “Our inner twin
world has been trying to reach us—to teach and guide us in their
‘clearer’ way, but we have been ignorant and oblivious.”
Root language of mankind
Ocean made a second discovery as she wrote fiction to relieve her
PTSD. She believes it was inspired by her own inner twin. Ocean says
our prehistoric ancestors built an advanced civilization that may have
lasted up to 40,000 years on the permafrost of northern Eurasia.
“These ancestors designed and built a system of enclosed geodome
homes (large enough for small clans) which they buried in a thick bed
of insulating peat,” Ocean writes. She adds they composted reindeer
meat in each home’s central tower to generate heat and methane gas—a
set-up modelled on the body’s digestive system. They collected the gas
in expandable seal skin bags and later burned it as fuel when they
herded, hunted and trekked north. “This move [north] would cause a
variety of other changes,” Ocean writes, “for instance, their long
history of using sign language would give way to vocal language as the
preferred mode of communication (saving vulnerable fingers from
frostbite).”
Ocean believes modern languages are derived from this first spoken
language as our ancient ancestors imitated the sounds gas makes when it
is collected and burned. The letter “p”, for example, is made by
pursing the lips and forcing out air, giving rise to modern words like
“puff” or “spent,” while the letter “s” imitates the “hiss” of burning
gas. Ocean says the words we use also reflect this ancient language. As
one of scores of examples, she says that the English word “vent,” as in
venting gas, is related to “venison,” the deer meat composted to
produce the methane. And the French use “ventre” to mean stomach, a key
digestive organ.Ocean believes her discoveries could be as significant
as Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, but she knows they resulted
from horrible experiences—the trauma of the accident and the stress,
fear and panic she has suffered during her endless legal battle with
Economical Insurance.
“My writings are a source of great hope and joy for me,” she says.
“Almost as though they were a child, but a child born of rape
nonetheless.”
Ocean trips over words
Court transcripts show that as the September 2008 trial date
approached, Supreme Court judge Deborah Smith was becoming increasingly
uneasy about Ocean’s mental state and her ability to represent herself
in court. The issue came to a head in the summer of 2008 when Ocean
sought to amend the original claim her lawyer had filed to add one for
what she saw as the company’s negligence in handling her case.
Economical argued it was too late for that. Ocean countered she had
found a law that said time limits could be extended if someone making a
claim had been “incapable” of making it sooner. She said she’d been
sick, under stress, suffering the effects of PTSD, struggling to keep
her business afloat, all the while battling her insurance company.
Trying to be helpful, Justice Smith pointed out that the word
“incapable” is used in Ontario law, but the term here is “incompetent.”
That’s when Ocean made a crucial mistake. Failing to realize that the
legal meaning of “incompetent” referred to her mental state, she told
the judge that she was feeling so overwhelmed and physically ill that
she did not feel mentally competent “at this point in time,” but added
she fully intended to proceed with the trial in September.
The judge eventually ordered Ocean to get a written opinion about
her mental state from her family doctor. Ocean submitted a
single-sentence, handwritten note scribbled on a prescription pad by
family doctor Saroj Premsagar. It certified that May Ocean “is
competent to represent herself in court.”
The insurance company, armed with Dr. Rosenberg’s affidavit and
pre-trial testimony, told the judge only a few days before the trial
that the doctor’s note wasn’t good enough. It asked her to take a
highly unusual step: Order Ocean to undergo another psychiatric
examination before any trial could begin.
“I have an obligation as a trial judge to help to insure that the
parties to this action receive a fair trial,” Justice Smith ruled. “The
evidence that has been presented satisfies me that it is appropriate to
order a psychiatric examination of Ms. Ocean.”
Ocean appeals
Ocean was now near the end of her tether. She’d been forced to sell
land to keep her legal battle going. Now, she was back to square one.
She decided to begin the complicated process of appealing the judge’s
order. “Even with the horrors that surround me, I am a survivor,” she
wrote in the overview of her case she filed with the NS Court of
Appeal. “I will persevere though it is not easy.”
Once again, Ocean compiled several thick volumes of documents to
support her appeal. “The first thing I want is to know that my children
will be safe,” she wrote in her summary, adding, “I want my life back.”
She also said she wanted a lawyer and an RCMP or CIA investigation into
the insurance system. “This kind of corrupt power cannot last,” she
wrote, “it’s as simple as that.”
Due to the slowness of the appeal process, Ocean was forced to
undergo the psychiatric examination in early 2009. Her case was heard
by the Court of Appeal in May. On July 17, the three judges ruled that
their Supreme Court colleague had been wrong to order a psychiatric
assessment at the request of Ocean’s insurance company. Ocean had won
an important victory. The psychiatric report could not be used as
evidence that she is unable to represent herself in court. But Ocean
says her appeal was a disaster financially. The Appeal Court ordered
Economical to pay $4,000 to cover her costs, but she estimates the
appeal actually cost her $10,000.
The Appeal Court judges noted that Ocean had conducted her case in
an articulate and coherent manner, and praised her “effective” cross
examination of Dr. Rosenberg. But the judges also predicted her case
might not run smoothly. “She files volumes of material, much of it
unhelpful and unnecessary, and is seemingly unable to narrow the
issues,” they warned. “As is the case with many self-represented
litigants, she will likely have a great deal of difficulty putting her
case forward in an effective or efficient way.”
Nearly nine years after her accident, May Ocean is once again back
at square one. At her request, new trial dates have been set beginning
in September 2010. She says that will give her time to raise the money
she needs to continue her battle. Ocean knows she’s fighting a big
company with deep pockets and skilled lawyers. More than a year ago,
Justice Smith pointed out that if she fails to win her lawsuit, she
could be ordered to pay Economical’s court costs. “Tens and 10s of
thousands of dollars can be awarded against you in costs, if you are
unsuccessful,” the judge warned.
Ocean herself is philosophical. “I had no idea what a hornet’s nest
I was stepping into,” she says. “I want very much to believe that
fairness is out there somewhere.”
Related Stories
Judge issues ruling on controversial insurance case
Celebrating Oceans Week and the women making waves
This article appears in Nov 12-18, 2009.
>In spite of the accident report exonerating her, Ocean’s troubles were far from over. Economical refused to renew her insurance policy, claiming it wasn’t willing to insure two women under 25 who worked as drivers for Ocean’s pewter company. Ocean’s insurance broker warned her that no other company would cover her unless Economical wrote a letter clearing her of blame for the accident. Without that letter, the only insurance Ocean could get was through a fund for high-risk drivers at an unaffordable premium of $10,000 per year < I heard similar stories in the 90s about threatening to withhold insurance and assuring no other insurance company would cover individual who questioned company’s decision. Is this still happening?
Sounds like Ocean sustained injuries to her adrenal glands which were not functionally diagnosed by her doctors. The doctors are really stupid when it comes to adrenal function. They wouldn’t know how to help her if they tried. I have had adrenal tumors for nine years, and the visits, procedures and drugs the medical scammers push at me are completely irrelevant to health and healing. It’s time we through the allopathic medical scammers out of the hospital entirely and bring in wholistic healers and people who care about other people, not just experimental subjects and objects for “treatments” and “tests.”
Throw the bums out!
thank you for giving Mary Ocean a voice – I totally believe that she is being bullied.
Hopefully a justice minded lawyer will offer assistance – because I believe she can represent
herself, she just needs a road map as to how to do it. I was involved in a process that took 5 years to resolve – but eventually I won – IT CAN BE DONE _ HANG IN THERE MARY
I needed to read this twice to understand this convoluted story.
You know, I heard somewhere that if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all. I find axiom this very appropriate in this circumstance. Ms. Ocean, good luck, despite all of your efforts to make it an uphill battle for yourself.
And this is why children, it’s law to have liability insurance in Nova Scotia.
Admire your courage May. People should come out to share more stories and organize support!
Jia Tsu
Thanks for the kind words of support.
There are certain things that we can be sure of when it comes to bullies whether big or small — that they look to victimize those weaker than themselves, that they are often able to gain a following- people who willingly participate (join in on the abuse) and/or people who they can count on to turn a blind eye (Hiltler’s regime is a perfect example)
Apart from that big bullies and little bullies differ in one major respect: the bigger they are the harder they fall.
If anyone would like more information on this case, I have downloaded much on my facebook group Help me fight a Big Bully!!
http://www.facebook.com/twomayocean?ref=pr…
I’ve never been a fan of big corporations taking it out on the little guy but the lady in the article sounds like a bit of a nutjob (a very nice, harmless ,and mistreated nutjob, but a nutjob nonetheless). I do hope she gets the help she needs but I don’t think she’s the sort of person that other people with insurance company problems really want held up as an example of corporate greed and avarice.
I know that I sound like a complete bastard and a total asshole, but I am wondering why this is the cover story of The Coast this week. A column perhaps but an article spanning several pages? Surely there are more interesting, more important things to report. We’ve all heard the story of insurance companies putting it to helpless people many times before, and with less crazy. Let’s have something with a tad bit more substance next week please.
Go get ’em, May…. the quality of your character will persevere and you will gain in integrity regardless of the outcome of the courts. It is much the same here in the states, seldom do the unjust have to atone for their misdeeds… but once in a while, someone with the right qualities and persistence proves a point… Pennsylvania hopes it is you!
I realize that I don’t fit in any of the usual models of individuals that’s for sure. It’s strange that few of us label Christians as ‘crazy’ for believing the Bible to be a litteral account (ie: Jesus being half man/god and his mother Mary a virgin), because we know, in the general sense that they not, that they are simply human, people living and exploring their world. and the possibilities.
I fully accept the fact that a good many people will consider me crazy for the hypothesis that I have developed. But one thing that I want to establish is that my hypothesis does not fit in the realm of ‘religion’. It is a scientific endeavor.
That we “homo sapien sapiens” could possibly be a product of highly evolved perfectly conjoined twins should not come as a great surprise.
For those who hold to Darwin’s theory on the evolution of the species, it is not such a great leap to consider my hypothesis. For me to prove my point, let’s take a mental stroll through to the beginning of time when the only life form on earth was a single cell amoeba (which still exists). Now keep in mind that life forms are ‘hard wired’ to mutate. For a single cell, this would mean duplication… a twinning of itself. So now you have two single cell amoeba’s perfectly joined that also proved to have greater success in a new and challenging environment. This process led to a world full of multicelled organisms– such as humans. The twinning/mutation process is a tool of evolution. As creatures had become more complicated, nature would allow certain ‘twinned cells’ to be preserved via the process of “natural selection”. For instance two eyes, fins and gills proved to be useful, so much so that the attributes would eventually become a part of the genetics of a new species.
It is very plausible then, that two minds would be deemed by nature as highly beneficial to the survival of the species. In fact in general, we are aware of a certain mind ‘duality’ — what we call ‘our’ unconscious and the conscious mind. Many are even aware that the ‘unconscious’ mind is able to act independantly as demonstrated by the term “the collective unconsciousness”.
So, now I have ventured out to explore the possibility that our ‘unconscious’ is in fact independant from our conscious… a separate individual which has become perfectly conjoined (within us). It took me nine years to come to terms with insurmountable evidence that came my way. As Bruce mentioned in his article, “synchronistic events”. Synchronicity is what I consider to be a particular mode of communication… one of the ways that this inner self has chosen to finally reveal themselves to us. Ask yourself the question, how else would a separate person within our ‘unconscious’ minds, bring attention to themselves? Synchronicity would be one such way– setting out patterns that we would one day realize as a form of communication (albeit cryptic)!
Synchronicity is not a new phenomena. Carl Jung coined the word to describe what appears to be ‘meaningful coincidence’. I have taken this a step further.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to simply take me at my word. But what’s the harm in exploring especially now that an Appeal Court has established that you won’t be institutionalized for it. The first link below is for a blog called “Synchronicity” – hosted by two Pulwitzer prize winning authors- Rob and Trish MacGregor. I have posted many comments since May of 2009 along with others– the stories reveal amazing synchronictic events happening in the moment!
http://ofscarabs.blogspot.com/
This second blog entitled “Toumai” is my own and it too abounds with synchronicity not to mention scientific proof to support my hypothesis:
http://toumaiocean.blogspot.com/?zx=31cf03…
Ms. Ocean, you are entitled to what you believe. However, please save it for a scientific or philosophical paper that you have submitted to be published. Your beliefs have nothing to do with the matter at hand, and this is not a pulpit. Now that you’re actively in the conversation, I feel the need to address certain questions that arose while I was reading you story.
First, was your PTSD properly diagnosed? Have you actually gone to a psychologist/psychiatrist to have it properly examined? If you haven’t, then you are not lending anything to your argument. It seems to me, as a casual observer that is, that you indeed either have some sort of narcissism, or potentially some form of schizophrenia. Based on your writings and the story, some classic signs are exhibited as per the DSM definitions. This said, Mr. Rosenberg’s assessment is accurate. As someone who suffers from an actual psychiatric disorder (that being an anxiety disorder), I need to say that it took me a while before it was properly diagnosed and treated, and when it was indeed diagnosed, treatment was swift.
Finally, and most importantly, why did you drop your lawyer? “A man who represents himself has a fool for a client.” I believe this quote is attributed to Abe Lincoln. In this case, nothing is truer. I honestly doubt your original lawyer did all of the original case without your consult and your signature. If they did, you have a whole other legal issue at hand and a potential issue with the NS Barrister’s Society.
My apologies, I forgot to mention one thing: as an aside to you your philosophical matters, Duality is nothing new in terms of philosophical thinking. Most Asian religions and schools of thought have some sort of duality. This nothing new.
Thank you for clarifying. Good luck with your trial.
As much as May very much wants to comment on the particulars of her case, we at The Coast can not allow comments from her that are particular to her case which have not been vetted by our libel attorney.
We wish the very best to May, and encourage folks who are interested to visit her blog and Facebook page, which she linked to above, to pursue those matters further.
We’re happy to to host general discussion about her case and any discussion whatsoever about her scientific theories, etc.
Thanks for understanding, or at least respecting, our position.
My fault, Tim, my most humble apologies.
I don’t see insurance company negligence here. I really don’t. Fact: the insurance company replaced the car and paid for physiotherapy and psychotherapy. Fact: only 6 months after the accident a professional engineer hired by her insurance company writes a report exonerating her of blame, making a mockery of her allegation that the insurance company was reluctant to do so. Fact: a new element gets introduced, having to do with insurance of company drivers under the age of 25, and I’m not convinced (based on how she’s mishandled everything since Day One) that she adequately separated the situations or was thinking clearly. Fact: she nevertheless gets her letter (which I’m not convinced she actually ever needed – I’ve met at least one incompetent broker in my time), but oh no, that’s not good enough – she has to file a lawsuit. $25K (on top of a replacement car and physio) just isn’t enough. Then she’s baffled that the insurance company didn’t good-naturedly fold and give her a big lump sum cash award. Fact: she fires her lawyer (from the sounds of it for being a good lawyer), and starts acting as her own lawyer, all of which is stupid.
Maybe I’m missing something that isn’t in the article. And believe me, I’m no fan of insurance companies. But it strikes me that May Ocean has been her own worst enemy here.
That’s twice now that I have been denied a voice to speak about a matter that concerns me directly and to clarify the issues. Is that why the media for 9 years has refused to cover my story despite my many approaches… you’re afraid of lawsuits? Sure says alot about our system doesn’t it?!
The media is often referred to as the fourth power or branch and just to clarify here’s an excerpt from wiki:
The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media’s responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy.
Think about this. My last deleted comment did nothing more than to clarify the issues in a few short paragraphs. In the interest of our democracy where the media is considered the fourth power, would the Coast be willing to have their lawyer ‘vet’ my last comment and post it?
Man, you play with fire, you get burnt, Coast.
You play with fire, you get burnt, Coast?! What is that all about Matthew? Is that a threat, is that a fact… where are you coming from here?
I think it’s time for an attitude change– we need to learn how to fight fire with fire or kiss our democracy goodbye! If we have bullies and corruption it’s because of that laisse faire attitude. What is the point of having freedom of speach if you have no voice?!
After nine years of serious down and out fighting for my rights and then trying to seek protection in every which way you can think, my case finally gets the ear of Bruce Wark when I sent to him along with other media sources the link to the Courts web site where the Appeal Judges Decision and Order could be read
http://decisions.courts.ns.ca/nsca/2009/20…
The Appeal Case was a precedent setting case. So why didn’t any other media pick up the story?! In the years previous, I had delivered numerous press releases. I had even hit the street in an attempt to be my own media, attending events like the Rolling Stones concert and Word on the Street in order to give out information re: my case and small pewter designs to express my dilemma (the first being a lips and tongue like the Stones Logo, except my design reveals a TONGUE TIED IN A KNOT!). I was so outraged by the Chronicle Heralds incessant printing of dog stories (even on the front page… sheesh!) while my story goes unmentioned, that I even showed up on their door step dressed as a dog just to prove a point (of course it was haloween too… check out the pics on my facebook group). By the way, I love dogs too… but C’MON!
So how many other ‘real’ stories exist out there but have never found a voice? How informed are we the public, when the Press are too afraid to give the full story… if any story?
In answer to Realist in Dartmouth. There is no point in my saying anything to rebut Realist in Dartmouth’s comment because it will probably only get deleated anyway.
But maybe the Coast will allow me to make this point. Note how people can say whatever they want about me (misrepresenting my case and twisting my words even) and the Coast is obviously not worried about being sued for allowing this on their site. Is it because they are confident that ‘I’ have no power, no money and no energy left to do anything or is it because they are confident that this is not in my character. As you can see, when it comes to details of my case, I remain a target while not being allowed the space to defend. Is this democracy?!
I assure you, I value democracy and the freedom for every individual to speak.
Good article. I would have preferred to just read about the accident/insurance story, the other info, while giving some background into the plaintiff’s mental state/beliefs, doesn’t really expand on the story of individual vs big corp.
What I have opted to do to avoid making comments that only get deleted is to make responses that pertain directly to my case, at my own site (link below). I made sure to copy the second deleated comment before posting (a response to Dr. Fever’s earlier comment). I believe that this response to Dr. Fever can serve to answer many questions that people have including Cranky’s (ha, where do people come up with the psuedonom’s :-)?
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=5083…
“You play with fire, you get burnt, Coast?! What is that all about Matthew? Is that a threat, is that a fact… where are you coming from here?”
You know, I was going to play nice and humour you like all the rest, but you want it, you got it.
I said the above, because The Coast has quickly, and to their dismay, learned how far over the edge you are. You’re posting statements crossing into libel, against specific individuals, and The Coast, realizing their exposure, has got their delete button working overtime.
Your writings about language and twins are gibberish with no basis in rational thought. It all reads like one of those photocopied sheets that you find taped to a telephone pole.
Get yourself some help.
Ms. Ocean, you were this week’s cover story and the subject of a multi page article. You have hardly been “denied a voice”. As the old saying goes, freedom of speech doesn’t give one the right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. The help you require is not of a legal variety. Good luck.
Matthew, you have not read my research so I cannot respect your comment, but isn’t it nice that you have the right to speak your mind.
I don’t want to sound unappreciative of what the Coast has done. Bruce Wark did a fine job. But you have to remember that 9 years had gone by and in that time I had repeatedly approached the media ( the Coast included) so yes, I am still a bit cynical in this regard… I’ll get over it.
I just think that it is a poor reflection of our system when an article is published concerning my case and I am unable to elaborate on the details in this forum . I think it’s just horrible that we have to tip toe around those with wealth and power while on the other hand the average citizen can be easily trashed.
Before people jump the gun on my hypothesis take a moment to remember that Darwin himself took 40 years to come out with his theory on the evolution of the species. Why? Because he was afraid of the ‘witch hunters’ out there who would not appreciate his thoughts being voiced.
The whole point about research is that you are treading new ground. So naturally, just as many theories are proven false as there are those proven to be true. If a theory in the end turns out to be false, does that mean the person is delusional and needs Psychiatric treatment, institutionalization and drugs to then make them ‘right’?
I have more than adequate proof for my theories and this will come out in the upcoming trial. For those who have open minds that can dare to venture a little down my road, google the “Henson conjoined twins” just for starters.
Yes, Ms. Ocean, all well and good. But to disemminate your theories and have them be taken seriously one must still have credibility within said discipline. I, as a Physicist, realize that I could not just start throwing around theories on, say Psychology, and hope for them to be taken seriously without some sort of background or published track record in the field. And I certainly would not claim everyone was against me because they didn’t take my theories seriously. One must have credibility. And please, do not compare yourself to Darwin….
But if you have a case (I don’t know as I do not know all the particulars), best of luck! But be careful of the libel…it will damage your case. The Coast is protecting their ass from getting sued…
I have walked in Ms. Ocean’s shoes. The insurance companies are structured to do whatever is necessary to deny a claim. Tests, evaluations and surveillance are their way, albeit invasive, of doing this. Evaluations are supposed to be impartial but when a particular practitioner wants to keep this lucrative door open then impartiality can become compromised. Malingerers add to the resolve to disprove valid claims.
People think that paying insurance premiums entitles them to appropriate compensation when they need to make an injury claim, but the reality is that you have to fight tooth and nail for years to receive what you deserve, a process that is daunting to a healthy person, becomes even more so to the injured, as Ms. Ocean has experienced. A good lawyer skilled in insurance litigation is an absolute necessity.
Absolutely, Oceanlady. They are a business and they’re primary goal is to maximize profits and minimize loses. Paying out to people is a loss, pure and simple.
AnarchX are you saying that a ‘university degree’ in the particular field is a prerequisite to posing a theory or to make/divulge a discovery?
I beg to differ. Take Darwin for instance. He had no formal education in the field that he became famous for, only a deep interest that he himself honed.
Darwin was petrified to reveal his long realized theory because he knew it would challenge public misconceptions (namely the Bible where the norm was to interpret the creation story of Adam and Eve as a literal event.) When he finally divulged his findings he would pay a dear price initially in the form of ridicule and disbelief because he had no formal education in the related fields and also he would suffer persecution from the Christian masses (as he knew he would).
I’m not just ‘throwing’ theories out there as you say. My discovery on the Root Language is backed by almost 9 years of well documented research in the field of Etymology and Anthropology. Bruce Wark’s article gave you just a tidbit of information in this regard but it should be enough for you to see that there is valid research happening– patterns are being analyzed and connections made. The same is true with my conjoined twin hypothesis.
As you can see, both of my theories do challenge preconcieved notions (much like Darwin’s). There is no doubt in my mind either, that I will be ridiculed and persecuted for my assertions. My Appeal Case PROVES that for one, your words second that motion. But hey! YOU as did the people in Darwin’s day, have the freedom to voice yourself.
On that note, I’m tempted to say that I find your words shockingly ignorant coming from an educated Physicist, but that would be stereotypical and ignorant too. Ooops!
But if you have a case (I don’t know as I do not know all the particulars), best of luck! But be careful of the libel…it will damage your case. The Coast is protecting their ass from getting sued…
AnarchX where are you coming from with those words? I think Bruce’s article was quite clear. He did mention all the details– that I have reason to believe that an illegal monopoly/conglomerate within the Insurance System exists and that I also believe that veiled threats have been issued toward my children and I. Do you really think that I am worried about being sued for libel?!
What I want primarily, is for all the information and facts surrounding my case to finally come out to the greater public. Winning my case would be a bonus but it is not the ultimate. What is really important is that first and foremost (from my perspective Coast) is that I am a mother protecting her young. Obviously, you are not able to stretch your mind to walk that mile in my shoes.