ACCforum: WHAT TO DO IN THIS CASE? - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

WHAT TO DO IN THIS CASE?

#1 User is offline   Battleaxe 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8096
  • Joined: 30-August 06

Posted 12 May 2016 - 07:41 PM

Had a review 'hearing' on the papers. Sent the reviewer my submissions on the morning of 2 June 2015 using NZ Couriers signature required service. Have the receipt etc showing the parcel number etc. on record. The reviewer's decision - cover page - states "concluded 2 June 2015". Her decision was dated 27 June 2015. I have evidence - received today - from NZ Couriers confirming the parcel of my submissions was only signed for by Fairway on 3 June 2015. So this means that the reviewer concluded the hearing BEFORE even receiving my submissions. The decision was to dismiss my application on the basis of no jurisdiction --- separate (prior) post refers.

What resource is open to me under the law here? Any advice would be much appreciated.

Note that I tape recorded a teleconference before making my submissions in which the reviewer made it clear that she had already pre-determined my application insofar as no jurisdiction is concerned. She also made certain troubling statements. She didn't know I was taping her and the ACC representative. The ACC had advised me months prior to this that it had determined there is no jurisdiction, and Fairway advised me in writing also long before the teleconference that it was the reviewers opinion that there was no jurisdiction. ACC tried to arrange a teleconference, again months before I finally requested one, and told me I did not have to participate. It is a breach of natural justice to hold any sort of hearing without all parties 'present'.

On what grounds would I seek the decision - now under appeal - to be "thrown out". And can I plead that I have lost faith and confidence in Fairway's reviewers (this experience coming on top of numerous other demonstrations of lack of respect for my rights, the law, etc.), and ask for another review organisation to hear my application. I know this was allowed in another case so might put that info in my appeal submissions.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 12 May 2016 - 08:58 PM

Battleaxe

You raised a number of issues of which there seems to be a deliberate effort by the ACC to misrepresent the legislation.

You referred to Fairway reviewers. There is no such creature.
reviewers are independent of all parties and certainly do not have any connection of any sort with Fairway. Fairway simply provide the facilities, shuffle the papers and no doubt provide the reviewer a cup of tea and perhaps a hot desk to work from.

Neither the ACC nor the reviewer may predetermine anything.

A review hearing is a tribunal coming under the section of the judiciary, given that there is an appeal process through the court systems. The review process is a creature invented to address ACC disputes and therefore nothing else can take its place.

Now to the core issue:

When you apply for a review hearing the legislation requires that ACC said a review hearing date.
Did you have a review hearing date and time set?
Did the reviewer conduct the review hearing 2 June 2015 in accordance with that time and date? You have not stated the time.
Did your submissions arrive in the appropriate location prior to the review hearing date and time set?
In the event that the hearing took place on the papers hearing still had to take place on the date and time set.

If no time or date has been set and three months has passed then the decision is automated in your favour.
If the date set was the afternoon of 2 June 2015 for example and you have proven your submissions arrived prior to that time and date set, yet your submissions had not been receipted until the following day then there is no possibility that you are actually heard which means you are deprived of a hearing entirely and if another hearing cannot be set within three months again the decision is found in your favour as the ACC had not taken the necessary steps to set a date and to make and to make a hearing available to you on that date.

The ACC have created a lot of confusion about who has responsibility for these matters whereby they attempt to play the blame game such as blaming fair way or blaming the reviewer when it is the ACC who are required to carry the can by administering these matters. The current legislation has provided a penalty against the ACC if they fail in any way or form to administer these matters whereby you have your hearing where you are actually heard with them the required time criteria with an automated decision in your favour as the punishment for their failure.

What to do about it:

If you have a Legislated criteria breach whereby a decision has been automated in your favour neither the ACC nor yourself can appeal. Therefore the issue becomes one of enforcement of the beam's decision in your favour.
As a deemed decision in your favour is as if a reviewer has made the decision then a reviewer is not permitted to make any comment or have any involvement in any way or form as they can no longer be considered the reviewer.

With regards to the issue of jurisdiction that issue can only be raised by the ACC at the time and place of the review hearing. The ACC are not permitted by law to raise the issue of jurisdiction until it is their turn to speak which they may wish to assert that the reviewer does not have jurisdiction as their mechanism of defence in response to your appeal. The issue of jurisdiction is not a matter that can be addressed or decided upon as an alternative to a review hearing.

In the event that a reviewer as addressed the issue of jurisdiction without hearing from you and certainly without addressing the review hearing application itself so as to address the substantive issues then there was no review hearing occurring within the stipulated date or within the legislated time limitation. Sadly it would appear that the ACC are trying to drive these matters into a judicial review hearing in the High Court as the issue of jurisdiction is not a matter within section 134 of the act that can be heard. What they are doing is generating issues of mayhem and confusion as opposed to administering the act so as judicial processes are followed.
1

#3 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 13 May 2016 - 11:22 AM

[quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1463043534' post='212241']


The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you present your arguments as if the Review process is subject to procedures to the same degree as the Courts when the legislation under Section 140 ( e ) demands an informal process. This clearly indicates that the legislators wanted to avoid complex and convoluted procedures dominating the Review process. They would have done this to keep costs down, allow claimants representing themselves to not have to have a law degree and to prevent mindless procedural arguments dominating the appeal process. It is certain that a complex pedantic procedural regime would raise additional barriers to justice and contribute to an environment that would favor the Corporation. Additionally a Reviewer can decline to conduct a hearing based on a determination that the Reviewer does not have the jurisdiction to hear the matter in the first place. When a hearing is declined on jurisdiction matters then submissions relating to substance are completely irrelevant.




4

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 May 2016 - 05:57 PM

Lupine I think we're going to have to disagree on this point of what section 140 (e) means with regards to an informal process.I take the view that informal does not mean a departure from legislated criteria but rather simply means that the reviewer is required to be approachable and relaxed and conduct the hearings in a conversational and enquiring manner thus putting the injured claimant activities and assisting or accommodating their lack of legal knowledge and experience.

There is no possibilitythat the reviewer may determine that matter prior to the hearing such as determining a lack of jurisdiction. While the reviewer may on first sight imagine that they might not have jurisdiction, the right to be heard would provide the claimant the opportunity to put their case forward as to why The reviewer does have jurisdiction and only providing the ACC raise the issue that the reviewer does not have jurisdiction. Certainly under no circumstances can the reviewer determine the matter without a hearing and further may not put their own viewpoints into the mix as they are an adjudicator between opposing viewpoints, that of the claimant and the ACC. What they think is irrelevant to the adjudication process as the hearing is not about their viewpoint.

Lupine what section of the act do you feel that the reviewer has leave to consider whether or not they have jurisdiction? I see no basis for your argument.
2

#5 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 13 May 2016 - 08:36 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 May 2016 - 05:57 PM, said:

Lupine I think we're going to have to disagree on this point of what section 140 (e) means with regards to an informal process.I take the view that informal does not mean a departure from legislated criteria but rather simply means that the reviewer is required to be approachable and relaxed and conduct the hearings in a conversational and enquiring manner thus putting the injured claimant activities and assisting or accommodating their lack of legal knowledge and experience.

There is no possibilitythat the reviewer may determine that matter prior to the hearing such as determining a lack of jurisdiction. While the reviewer may on first sight imagine that they might not have jurisdiction, the right to be heard would provide the claimant the opportunity to put their case forward as to why The reviewer does have jurisdiction and only providing the ACC raise the issue that the reviewer does not have jurisdiction. Certainly under no circumstances can the reviewer determine the matter without a hearing and further may not put their own viewpoints into the mix as they are an adjudicator between opposing viewpoints, that of the claimant and the ACC. What they think is irrelevant to the adjudication process as the hearing is not about their viewpoint.

Lupine what section of the act do you feel that the reviewer has leave to consider whether or not they have jurisdiction? I see no basis for your argument.


The legislation provides for an appeal process under Section 134 of the Act. There are three avenues of appeal. A decision made by ACC that meets the definitions described in Section 6. A dispute over an IRP. A Complaint rejected by the OCI.

The onus is on the claimant (the appellant) to file for Review that meets one of the three jurisdictions. As a crude example: A claimant files a complaint that they have been denied ERC. The OCI declines to investigate due to no jurisdiction. The claimant files for Review. The reviewer immediately observes that the complaint is related to entitlements which is specifically excluded in the Code. The claimant is notified of the jurisdiction issue and fails to provide a proper application supported under the legislation. The reviewer can then refuse to hold a hearing on the basis that jurisdiction is not met. The reviewer does not need an affirmative legislative component in the Act. The claimant has failed to meet the requirements of the legislation. That failure equals no hearing.

The legislative criteria is that the Reviewer will meet the requirements of Section 140 in this case Section 140 ( e ). That is the legislative requirement.

(e) adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely, and practical manner.


The standards you are trying to apply to the Review process are the processes found in formal court settings operating under the adversarial system. 140 ( e ) requires an investigative and informal hearing which is the complete opposite scenario. There are some basic rules but there are no mechanisms in the legislation that punishes the Corporation with the exception of interest on delayed ERC. If the system ran the way you describe then the advocacy costs for claimants would increase significantly.
3

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 May 2016 - 09:54 AM

View PostLupine, on 13 May 2016 - 08:36 PM, said:

The legislation provides for an appeal process under Section 134 of the Act. There are three avenues of appeal. A decision made by ACC that meets the definitions described in Section 6. A dispute over an IRP. A Complaint rejected by the OCI.

The onus is on the claimant (the appellant) to file for Review that meets one of the three jurisdictions. As a crude example: A claimant files a complaint that they have been denied ERC. The OCI declines to investigate due to no jurisdiction. The claimant files for Review. The reviewer immediately observes that the complaint is related to entitlements which is specifically excluded in the Code. The claimant is notified of the jurisdiction issue and fails to provide a proper application supported under the legislation. The reviewer can then refuse to hold a hearing on the basis that jurisdiction is not met. The reviewer does not need an affirmative legislative component in the Act. The claimant has failed to meet the requirements of the legislation. That failure equals no hearing.

The legislative criteria is that the Reviewer will meet the requirements of Section 140 in this case Section 140 ( e ). That is the legislative requirement.

(e) adopt an investigative approach with a view to conducting the review in an informal, timely, and practical manner.

The standards you are trying to apply to the Review process are the processes found in formal court settings operating under the adversarial system. 140 ( e ) requires an investigative and informal hearing which is the complete opposite scenario. There are some basic rules but there are no mechanisms in the legislation that punishes the Corporation with the exception of interest on delayed ERC. If the system ran the way you describe then the advocacy costs for claimants would increase significantly.


Sadly you have fallen victim to ACC social engineering whereby you have capitulated with a contrivance that seeks to deny a claimant the right of appeal.

Section 140 (e) speaks of the conducting of a hearing and in no way implies that a hearing does not need to take place.
There is no section under legislation that allows ACC or a reviewer to deny a review hearing application proceeding on to a review hearing. Indeed the practices that you have described was outlawed under the current legislation whereby if the Review hearing application does not result in a date being set down in the matter actually heard that the decision that was being sought by the claimant will be automatically applied as if the reviewer has made the decision. The ACC may not appeal such a decision. this section of law was introduced as a direct consequence of the ACC corruption that you appear to be endorsing.

Any person seeking to undermine the legislation or those who capitulate/conspire whereby those entitled to legal processes are denied them actually commits a crime. You probably did not think you are a criminal with your advice but of course ignorance is no excuse under law for your behaviour.

As for those who conspire to delay judicial processes and even avoid judicial processes in the way you have described for the purposes of producing documentation that denies entitlements to earnings compensation commits fraud as well.

The whole ACC scheme was set up to avoid such Horrendous abuse that you appear to endorse. You appear to be Concerning yourself about the minor cost of judicial processes without regard to the huge cost of the individual who without such entitlements as earnings compensation will at a rate of 85% lose their marriage, will probably lose their home and will have a significantly degraded life to the extent that suicide becomes a real risk. Shame shame shame.
0

#7 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 May 2016 - 10:42 AM

The problem is Alan that Reviewers can, have and will decline to hear matters if the application for Review does not meet the legal standard outlined under the Act. Additionally a deemed decision can be declared invalid if the application did not meet the legal standards as the delay is considered to be caused by the applicant. Furthermore the 2001 legislation gives the Corporation the power to revoke deemed decisions. Now I spent an entire 10 minutes looking up some appeals and found several examples of the Courts upholding decisions from Reviewers where a hearing is declined on the basis of jurisdiction.

What I actually "endorse" is a system that prevents claimants who cannot win on the merits of their claims, dragging up spurious process arguments that have been consistently rejected by the Courts. It is not just a matter of money. There are hundreds of legitimate claims waiting to be heard in the appeal process. Claimants who consume limited resources to present reasoning the meanest intelligence would recognize as utter drivel are in fact a pox on the rest of us. In fact I would support a regime where vexatious unreasonable claims incur costs against them. Abuse of the appeal process is detrimental to the rest of us whether it is carried out by the Corporation or claimants.

Now here are several judgments which apply to the arguments you have raised here. Every single claimant lost and I note that the Courts recognize the right of Reviewers to decline to hear matters. Nothing like bringing a few Judges along to a legal fire fight. I have all these judgments supporting my arguments. I am afraid they all trump your legal musings.

I would suggest to any Members who consider your arguments to be valid to consider the rationales provided by the Courts.


http://www.nzlii.org...%20jurisdiction

http://www.nzlii.org...%20jurisdiction

http://www.nzlii.org...%20jurisdiction

http://www.nzlii.org...%20jurisdiction

http://www.nzlii.org...%20jurisdiction
5

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 May 2016 - 12:08 PM

When someone makes an application for a review hearing it is because they consider they have a case that needs to be answered..

Under law there is no possibility that a review hearing does not take place as has been suggested on this thread.that notion is TOTAL nonsense..

If the ACC does not set a date for a matter to be heard the decision defaults in the claimant's favour.. that is the law


For a decision on a review hearing to take place there first must be a hearing.. That is the law.


Nowhere in the legislation doesn't even remotely suggest that either the ACC or a reviewer may determine the matter without a review hearing..

Anybody seeking to undermine a judicial process as described above breaks the law at a criminal level. That is the law..

As correctly described above there are a variety of court decisions confirming that jurisdiction did not exist. Of course A decision concerning whether or not a reviewer has jurisdiction can only be raised by the ACC for a reviewer to issue a decision on the ACC's favour. Obviously these court decisions confirm what I have clearly stated ..

A district court ddealing with ACC matters is prevented from becoming involvedin circumstances whereby either the ACC or a reviewer has deprived the right of the hearing as without a hearing that can be no decision to be heard in the district court which is the reason why such matters have never been described in the district court which highlights the ACC and reviewers treachery in these matters

Frequently the ACC will mark on the review hearing application the "code Z"which is a request to the reviewer to determine whether or not the reviewer has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Before the reviewer opens the hearing they then set about with the claimant in the room trying to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction in the pretence that a review hearings taking place Which they then go on to issue a decision on whether or not they have jurisdiction. This is without the Review hearing on the substantive issues being raised of which the appellant may have wrongly presented of which the reviewer would have been required by law to take an inquisitorial approach to get to the heart of the issue at hand. What we are seeing is jiggery-pokery whereby the reviewer actively colludes with the ACC on this code Z secret message a similar sense of where the ACC should raise their concerns during the hearing and not before thus avoiding the substantive matters from ever being heard. Even if the reviewer goes on to open the review hearing but have already made their mind up about the jurisdictional issue they will then proceed with the review hearing with closed ears and eyes wide shut to the standard matter and without any form of enquiry as is legislated.

When confronting the issue that involves a reviewer depriving a claim of the right to be heard resulting in no review hearing the proper course of redress is through to the High Court by way of judicial review..
1

#9 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 May 2016 - 12:43 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 May 2016 - 12:08 PM, said:

When someone makes an application for a review hearing it is because they consider they have a case that needs to be answered..

Under law there is no possibility that a review hearing does not take place as has been suggested on this thread.that notion is TOTAL nonsense..

If the ACC does not set a date for a matter to be heard the decision defaults in the claimant's favour.. that is the law


For a decision on a review hearing to take place there first must be a hearing.. That is the law.


Nowhere in the legislation doesn't even remotely suggest that either the ACC or a reviewer may determine the matter without a review hearing..

Anybody seeking to undermine a judicial process as described above breaks the law at a criminal level. That is the law..

As correctly described above there are a variety of court decisions confirming that jurisdiction did not exist. Of course A decision concerning whether or not a reviewer has jurisdiction can only be raised by the ACC for a reviewer to issue a decision on the ACC's favour. Obviously these court decisions confirm what I have clearly stated ..

A district court ddealing with ACC matters is prevented from becoming involvedin circumstances whereby either the ACC or a reviewer has deprived the right of the hearing as without a hearing that can be no decision to be heard in the district court which is the reason why such matters have never been described in the district court which highlights the ACC and reviewers treachery in these matters

Frequently the ACC will mark on the review hearing application the "code Z"which is a request to the reviewer to determine whether or not the reviewer has jurisdiction to hear the matter. Before the reviewer opens the hearing they then set about with the claimant in the room trying to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction in the pretence that a review hearings taking place Which they then go on to issue a decision on whether or not they have jurisdiction. This is without the Review hearing on the substantive issues being raised of which the appellant may have wrongly presented of which the reviewer would have been required by law to take an inquisitorial approach to get to the heart of the issue at hand. What we are seeing is jiggery-pokery whereby the reviewer actively colludes with the ACC on this code Z secret message a similar sense of where the ACC should raise their concerns during the hearing and not before thus avoiding the substantive matters from ever being heard. Even if the reviewer goes on to open the review hearing but have already made their mind up about the jurisdictional issue they will then proceed with the review hearing with closed ears and eyes wide shut to the standard matter and without any form of enquiry as is legislated.

When confronting the issue that involves a reviewer depriving a claim of the right to be heard resulting in no review hearing the proper course of redress is through to the High Court by way of judicial review..


I'm sorry Alan but those judgments stand in direct conflict with your reasoning. I am confident that any reasonable member would conclude the same thing. The purpose of my response to your reasoning is to demonstrate to reasonable members what path to take to avoid derailing their claim. You have every right to hold a view that aspects of the legislation are unreasonable but your arguments are better addressed to Parliament, rather than encouraging other members to adopt flawed legal reasoning.

I note that those judgments directly respond to Reviewer jurisdiction arguments. It is obvious that a Reviewer cannot refuse to hear a claim without having reasonable grounds to do so and that is the question that is determined by the Courts in the event of an appeal on the Reviewer's decision. To my mind the matter is very clear and my position is supported by the provided judgments. As long as Members have the ability to make their own minds up based on the evidence I have provided in counter to your reasoning then I am satisfied.
5

#10 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 May 2016 - 01:07 PM

Hello Anonymousey,

Thank your thoughts and insights on this matter. :-)


I have not seen the changes you are referring to but it is evident that the system will inevitably adjust to deal with the small percentage of claimants who chew up the majority of resources that could have been used for those raising legitimate matters. As far as issues like postal delivery is concerned in practice email is the most efficient way of dealing with pre hearing process such as filing submissions. Like any legal process the claimant gains significant advantage and protection by engaging an advocate. The Courts would not support sanctions against a claimant who represented themselves just because they filed an appeal that failed to meet legal requirements. To be deemed vexatious there must be a pattern of behavior such as accusing Reviewers or Judges of corruption or filing multiple appeals without basis.

My personal experience has shown me that Fairway Reviewers will hear a matter even in the face of jurisdiction issues if the appeal is considered to be filed in good faith. The Reviewer may then go on to decline jurisdiction but will do everything in their power to make sure the claimant is informed as to why. However if a claimant is acting vexatiously then that claimant can expect to receive the minimal response the law requires. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of claimants have nothing to fear from legislation that is in place to deal with vexatious litigants.
3

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 May 2016 - 01:34 PM

Lupine you have made a fundamental mistake.

Those judgements over in relation to review hearings that actually did take place followed by a review hearing decision.

The issue on discussion is the ACC making a decision that the reviewer does not have jurisdiction with the ACC asking the reviewer to determine whether or not they have jurisdiction resulting in no review hearing taking place. you will find that in cases where the person's right to a review hearing has been cancelled by the reviewer without a review hearing ever taking place is what is and discussion on this thread. In such circumstances if the matter has never been to a review hearing then it cannot go to a district court. in other words all of those judgements support what I say.

You fail to realise that the practice you have been describing had been going on for decades and had been abruptly stopped with the new section of legislation being introduced requiring all review hearing applications to be heard after this matter was brought to the attention of Parliament. As such you are out of touch with the progression of legislation.

You also out of touch with the recent representations to United Nations whereby there was additional complaint about the same modus operandi occurring whereby claimants were not getting proper access to judicial remedy which it does seem you are trying to endorse on behalf of the ACC and reviewers.

The plain fact of the matter is all claimants have a right to appeal anything they please regardless as to the merits.you may very well accuse some claims are being stupid regarding their presentation however the very nature of the ACC legislation was to assist those who are physically and mentally impoverished while also being far too impoverished, frequently because of the lack of incapacity, to employ good legal counsel by the reviewer acting differently to your normal court in as much as they are to adopt An inquisitorial approach in an informal Manner.

You then go on to confuse the matter all the more by adopting the ACC propaganda with the assertion that the way have some form of involvement in the judicial process when by law they have absolutely none as the access the claimant has is to judicial remedy is through the ACCwho are the ones required to administer the judicial process by commissioning reviewers themselves with the reviewers having total independence of ACC. It is not possible for the reviewer to have independence when the ACC communicates with the review prior to the review hearing concerning an opinion about jurisdiction which is expressed with the symbol "Z" which is an effect having the force of an instruction from employer to employee, ACC/reviewer.

In matters where the reviewer has determined that he has no jurisdiction prior to the review hearing taking place and the reviewer making a decision based on that symbol "Z" that he has no jurisdiction and hearing not taken place or only to hear whether they have jurisdiction and exclusion of the substantive issue raised by the claimant we have a corruption of the judicial process of such magnitude that it would reach an international level of interest Expressing condemnation of the practice.

Your considerations concerning expediency and resources is not worthy of discussion as it only compounds the level of corrupt thinking demonstrating an impurity of the internationally accepted judicial standard. obviously as you are endorsing the practice you are demonstrating your own lack of connection to judicial purity which can only disqualify you from representing anybody as you demonstrate your willingness to capitulate to wrongdoing and even speaking in favour of evil practices that are currently denying hearings.

With regard to the purity of the review hearing the reviewer must first hear the claimant in regards to the substantive matters regardless as to how competently they have expressed themselves. The reviewer is not there to defend the status quo but rather enquire into the bone of contention so as to get to the bottom of matters. This is in the same way a lawyer may interview the claimant/client so as to know what the case is about. The ACC would then need to respond to their position in regards to the substantive matter. It is only after the substantive issues have been clearly established whereby the merits of the issues between the claimant and the ACC can be clearly interpreted by the reviewer that the reviewer may then entertain the ACCs position concerning whether or not the reviewer has jurisdiction on the substantive issues making up the body of the review hearing application and submission. Any deviation of this process is of course deviant in law and therefore corrupt. Endorsing such corruption demonstrates the evil and infectious nature of such corruption.
2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 May 2016 - 01:42 PM

Lupin I would caution you against promoting yourself as an advocate on this site as it will result in a continuous and increasing level of censure which will have the effect of the termination of your membership. Touting for business in yourself promoting way,particularly by way of false representation of the law, cannot be tolerated on the site.

The ACC legislation, particularly the portion concerning judicial remedies, was set up so as to simplify the whole process enabling a claimant to represent themselves. The legislators did not intend a need for third-party representation. You should be promoting the nature of the reviewers duty to make enquiry into the nature of the claim being submitted before them rather than promoting reviewers pre-empting the nature of the argument which avoids hearing altogether which would have submitted submissions,together with all the supporting documentation and suchlike that would take place in the context of a hearing well beyond the meaning of the letter "Z" instructed by the ACC. Added to that there is no circumstance whereby it would be appropriate for a reviewer to inspect either party submissions prior to the review hearing date and prior to opening the review hearing as such a practice could only result in a reviewer reaching a preconceived conclusion.

You then go on to speak about vexation whereby you appear to be endorsing a notion that a reviewer may determine vexation prior to a hearing. This again further demonstrates your lack of connection to judicial purity.even murderers and rapists are entitled to be heard in court regarding any matter with the exact same access to the courts as any other citizen.
2

#13 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 14 May 2016 - 03:46 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 14 May 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:



Reported for being a drama queen
0

#14 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 May 2016 - 05:58 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 May 2016 - 01:42 PM, said:

Lupin I would caution you against promoting yourself as an advocate on this site as it will result in a continuous and increasing level of censure which will have the effect of the termination of your membership. Touting for business in yourself promoting way,particularly by way of false representation of the law, cannot be tolerated on the site.

The ACC legislation, particularly the portion concerning judicial remedies, was set up so as to simplify the whole process enabling a claimant to represent themselves. The legislators did not intend a need for third-party representation. You should be promoting the nature of the reviewers duty to make enquiry into the nature of the claim being submitted before them rather than promoting reviewers pre-empting the nature of the argument which avoids hearing altogether which would have submitted submissions,together with all the supporting documentation and suchlike that would take place in the context of a hearing well beyond the meaning of the letter "Z" instructed by the ACC. Added to that there is no circumstance whereby it would be appropriate for a reviewer to inspect either party submissions prior to the review hearing date and prior to opening the review hearing as such a practice could only result in a reviewer reaching a preconceived conclusion.

You then go on to speak about vexation whereby you appear to be endorsing a notion that a reviewer may determine vexation prior to a hearing. This again further demonstrates your lack of connection to judicial purity.even murderers and rapists are entitled to be heard in court regarding any matter with the exact same access to the courts as any other citizen.


Resorting to threats now are you? I understand you have some previous form in that kind of thing. I have never advertised on this site, it is a well known fact that I am an advocate. In fact i'm pretty much the last advocate to take the time to try and help people out here because you have driven all the other ones away. So I can only assume that my crime is to point out the flaws in what I have diplomatically referred to as your "reasoning." It is up to others to decide which argument has merit.

If I am banned then it can be only because you are the one in control of this forum. Anyone here who matters will know why you did it and will draw their own conclusions. I don't need this site. So if you want to ban a major contributor because you have your nose out of joint then you go right ahead.
1

#15 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 14 May 2016 - 06:10 PM

View PostLupine, on 14 May 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

Resorting to threats now are you? I understand you have some previous form in that kind of thing. I have never advertised on this site, it is a well known fact that I am an advocate. In fact i'm pretty much the last advocate to take the time to try and help people out here because you have driven all the other ones away. So I can only assume that my crime is to point out the flaws in what I have diplomatically referred to as your "reasoning." It is up to others to decide which argument has merit.

If I am banned then it can be only because you are the one in control of this forum. Anyone here who matters will know why you did it and will draw their own conclusions. I don't need this site. So if you want to ban a major contributor because you have your nose out of joint then you go right ahead.


I personally don't think Alan was threatening you Lupine,

It is a long established and well known rule that no advocacy self promotions is allowed on the boards and to warn you he is safeguarding memberships.

We had trouble with rogue advocates in the past and they are a good reason why accforum doesn't allow them to contact on the face of the site.

You are NOT the only advocate that is left here either. Far from it actually.
1

#16 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 May 2016 - 06:32 PM

[quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1463190161' post='212257']
Lupin I would caution you against promoting yourself as an advocate on this site as it will result in a continuous and increasing level of censure which will have the effect of the termination of your membership. Touting for business in yourself promoting way,particularly by way of false representation of the law, cannot be tolerated on the site.


[quote]
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Mr Thomas
Again you embark apon your continuing ,publications , promoting that you are the messiah of all ACC and accforum.org via your BULLYING tactics against other members
THIS IS NOT YOUR WEB SITE to bully within nor to tell others what to do or not to do.
AND i POINT OUT TO YOU HERE Mr Thomas - THAT THERE ARE NO RULES within the rules apon joining accforum.org to agree to ,AS YOU STATE that deny anyone membership for the reasons you publish as within your above posting .
I fully support the membership of Lupine and they have every right to publish as they do.



If i am wrong and you do have ownership shares of the site and thus have the right to decide who is a member and whom is not then please advise us all forthwith -And also a public notification from the known Admin/Owner of this site as to your ownership rights of accforum.org your ,explaining all the rights /ability you have conferred apon you to state For thus on behalf of the real owners of accforum.org such as you do, in the manner you do that gives you the right to bully others with NON EXISTENCE RULES-otherwise go away and stop the bully boy tactics which you seem to enjoy so much especially against the female gender of our membership..


As an aside that if you consider Lupine to be removed due to how you explain it all then you also have to remove yourself as a member for that exact same reasons as your many publications thru out the years show you to to be /doing what you accuse others of doing.
We are all advocates in one way or another in the end result Thomas and your rhetoric is something thats way out of order here as it would thus mean that according to you and your publicly stated somehow gained ownership of this site and the authority to have removed memberships would simply mean there would be no members left at all.

I Suggest with that attitude you have and still do display in here ,that you go away to your own blog web site where you can off spout all you like and leave us to decide ourselves who is correct and whom is not without being bullied into submission by you .



David.Posted Image
0

#17 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 14 May 2016 - 07:02 PM

View PostREX, on 14 May 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I personally don't think Alan was threatening you Lupine,

It is a long established and well known rule that no advocacy self promotions is allowed on the boards and to warn you he is safeguarding memberships.

We had trouble with rogue advocates in the past and they are a good reason why accforum doesn't allow them to contact on the face of the site.

You are NOT the only advocate that is left here either. Far from it actually.


Rex
There is /ARE NO rule as to advocates being in/or not in here -NEVER HAS BEEN ANY Rules as such.
That issue re advocates as to what Thomas states is self promotion has been Thomas's VERY OWN crusade of an issue and promoted by him for many years without him having the benefit of any rules or ownwership authority of this site -to back his bullying tactics with.
AS for advocates in here
What is the site for =NO advocates to give advice to be considered?
May as well close it down then if thats the case in my opinion ,rather than have to select form a myriad of lay persons bollocks most of which has never been legally any good anyway.
Who is to say who is one to seek advice from and whom is not as to the issue re actual advocates being in here as to the same situation as to ones who appear to be general members but are in fact giving advice the same as any advocate do
How can anyone separate from two members doing the same

Id prefer to know as Lupine does -that they do operate as they do- than take advice from some lay persons ineptness of the laws.

Rouge advocates
Mr Thomas and his merry band of crooks that originally set this place up DID and allowed Rouges to freely operate /rip members off from within in here without any impediment at all .


To that , I find Lupines methods refreshing and honest ,and a much needed happening in here ,being far from what Mr Thomas has continually Bullied his way to all,for it to be to be in here-Selectively Secretly Underhandedly condoning the ROUGE element , as it has been for many many years.

If all Thomas can do to show any skills at all re acc matters and use non existent rules to bully and THREATEN with- then perhaps he should look at his own membership not being needed in here.
Mind you that Bully /Threats tactics Thomas attempted/s to employ directly at ACC ,never worked with acc themselves for Thomas either ,so I guess he cant see the tress for the wood as the ACC Courts ,and within other subsequent Seriously bad ass Court appearances have told him officially.

DavidPosted Image
1

#18 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1473
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 14 May 2016 - 07:30 PM

View PostREX, on 14 May 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

I personally don't think Alan was threatening you Lupine,

It is a long established and well known rule that no advocacy self promotions is allowed on the boards and to warn you he is safeguarding memberships.

We had trouble with rogue advocates in the past and they are a good reason why accforum doesn't allow them to contact on the face of the site.

You are NOT the only advocate that is left here either. Far from it actually.


Naturally you are entitled to your opinion Rex.

To clarify my comments on advocates, I have observed very capable advocates who have been subjected to trolling on this site because they promoted a position that stood in opposition to certain members who believe their key to success is to direct others into conducting their claims in an unhelpful manner. That is detrimental to claimants who follow their spurious reasoning. Those advocates have rightfully concluded that they are wasting their time and so limit their involvement. Instead of getting good advice from good advocates we are left instead with the spurious reasoning that dominates this site.

I do not promote my business on this site and I have no need to do so. I have not really felt it necessary to involve myself in arguments such as this but I concluded that the utter drivel being published about the Review process needed to be challenged. I have done so by providing my own rationale and supporting judgments for Members to make up their own minds to act upon as they see fit.

When making that decision I invite Members to consider what I would personally gain by advising claimants to follow due process and focus on getting the required evidence and an advocate (note I am not saying me) if they are struggling with the legal logistics? My intention is simply to inform. On the other hand who gains personally when people are encouraged to adopt an adversarial stance with the very people they need to convince they are right? Claimants with a grievance, looking to cause as much trouble as possible to serve their own ends?

Again I will leave Members to draw their own conclusions.

PS: I note that I am one of the few people who does not treat Alan Thomas with contempt. I provided a view that was counter to his and worded it in a polite and constructive fashion. In short I treated him with a respect that is rarely given to him. In return Alan has made personal comments and is clearly attempting to coerce me, which I observe is the view of other members. Just for the record.
2

#19 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2647
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 14 May 2016 - 07:46 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 14 May 2016 - 06:40 PM, said:

Who Rex?




None of your business.

I have many names of members who ARE advocates but they don't choose to be seen as a contributor anymore, The contact through their email remains but not something you're privy too.

If they thought your intentions for the site were genuine they perhaps may have been in contact with you.

Just look at the way you discredit the site and whomever administrates it...

why do you need to place a signature like you have if you gave a shet about the best for this site and who visits..:wacko:/>

Yeah you like it when there's only Alan to pick on don't you anonymousey. Posted Image

>> Dave,, Advocates have been sanctioned and banned long in the past for continual self promotions and that remains,

There isn't siding or leeway.


Quote

Rouge advocates
Mr Thomas and his merry band of crooks that originally set this place up DID and allowed Rouges to freely operate /rip members off from within in here without any impediment at all .

Not from my understanding of Alans hope for the site waaaaay back (before my membership states) -_-/> when I first joined and was given great advice in PM

That very same hope remains as far as I can see.


View PostLupine, on 14 May 2016 - 07:30 PM, said:

Naturally you are entitled to your opinion Rex.

To clarify my comments on advocates, I have observed very capable advocates who have been subjected to trolling on this site because they promoted a position that stood in opposition to certain members who believe their key to success is to direct others into conducting their claims in an unhelpful manner. That is detrimental to claimants who follow their spurious reasoning. Those advocates have rightfully concluded that they are wasting their time and so limit their involvement. Instead of getting good advice from good advocates we are left instead with the spurious reasoning that dominates this site.

I do not promote my business on this site and I have no need to do so. I have not really felt it necessary to involve myself in arguments such as this but I concluded that the utter drivel being published about the Review process needed to be challenged. I have done so by providing my own rationale and supporting judgments for Members to make up their own minds to act upon as they see fit.

When making that decision I invite Members to consider what I would personally gain by advising claimants to follow due process and focus on getting the required evidence and an advocate (note I am not saying me) if they are struggling with the legal logistics? My intention is simply to inform. On the other hand who gains personally when people are encouraged to adopt an adversarial stance with the very people they need to convince they are right? Claimants with a grievance, looking to cause as much trouble as possible to serve their own ends?

Again I will leave Members to draw their own conclusions.

PS: I note that I am one of the few people who does not treat Alan Thomas with contempt. I provided a view that was counter to his and worded it in a polite and constructive fashion. In short I treated him with a respect that is rarely given to him. In return Alan has made personal comments and is clearly attempting to coerce me, which I observe is the view of other members. Just for the record.


Keep up the good work Lupine but what you may perceive as trolling in a freedom of speech site does/may differ.

Some get caught up in what they see posted by the numbers of sheep...
0

#20 User is offline   Kewl 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 02-August 15

Posted 14 May 2016 - 08:01 PM

Whether one likes "Alan" or not.

They should read, understand , comprehend and put into practice the Dale Carnegie book, How to Win Friends and influence people.

in short, " Alan" may make a decision (hey is that reviewable / able to be litigated?)to spend their life defending and litigating acc issues, that is their decision, what may hold them back could be viewed as a personality trait.
When one understands the term, to be right or be rich one may see why " Alan" hasnt yet made some decisions to change their path. that is their choice and decision.

Like many other long term claimants what then gets missed is the flavour of a greater life because the toxic arena of the no-sue no fault insurance industry is called...........ACC. and guess what, look over > 15 years and more, the same doctor names, the same via/vima names, the similar injury lodging / acceptance / no medical treatment/ no relief..................what happens///////? look at bigger picture
1

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users