ACCforum: Southern Cross v ACC - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Southern Cross v ACC

#1 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 10:39 AM

Interesting article.

Of course certain ACC staff members seek to decline no matter the facts and the ACC reformers are losing now that Nikki Kaye is no longer Minister.

The overwhelming evidence I have in my possession demonstrates that ACC is back to its old tricks and a lot of effort is being put in to "manage" anyone who may identify issues and hold ACC accountable.

The SCU is still doing well but God help everyone else.

I have a General Client who has been falsely accused of misleading the Corporation based on zero evidence and a total lack of regard for the overwhelming evidence that points to an ACC staff member making false accusations. So much for reform.

I also have very good evidence that the self employed in this country are not always being paid what they are entitled to. I cannot say more here at this point but it is fair to say that Cassandra is facing off ACC in what is going to be a merciless legal firefight that only one of us is going to walk away from.

In the meantime General Claimants are under serious threat and should assume that they will be mistreated.

http://www.stuff.co....oss-battles-acc
0

#2 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:38 AM

Lupine, I completely agree with you.

I also note that Southern Cross have a dedicated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for its clients with ACC.

This is discrimination on the part of ACC - a difference of treatment in comparable circumstances - because I am aware that a number of claimants have requested ADR (which is now a general ACC policy) - and they have still been refused.

Clearly, discrimination!!! - A call to the Human Rights Commission might be worthwhile
2

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2017 - 11:51 AM

View PostLupine, on 05 June 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

Interesting article.

Of course certain ACC staff members seek to decline no matter the facts and the ACC reformers are losing now that Nikki Kaye is no longer Minister.

The overwhelming evidence I have in my possession demonstrates that ACC is back to its old tricks and a lot of effort is being put in to "manage" anyone who may identify issues and hold ACC accountable.

The SCU is still doing well but God help everyone else.

I have a General Client who has been falsely accused of misleading the Corporation based on zero evidence and a total lack of regard for the overwhelming evidence that points to an ACC staff member making false accusations. So much for reform.

I also have very good evidence that the self employed in this country are not always being paid what they are entitled to. I cannot say more here at this point but it is fair to say that Cassandra is facing off ACC in what is going to be a merciless legal firefight that only one of us is going to walk away from.

In the meantime General Claimants are under serious threat and should assume that they will be mistreated.

http://www.stuff.co....oss-battles-acc


This is exactly what happened to me in 1991, which I defeated in 1992 of which repeated itself again in 1997 whereby the ACC made allegations of which it claimed to have corroborative evidence when in fact it had absolutely no information whatsoever and was prepared to go to both civil and criminal courts simply telling the courts lies with the courts listing to the ACC and then claimant to have no time left over to listen to any form of defence. I have been involved in the assistance of a large number of others "successfully" challenge the ACC. Getting an early without making any compromises whatsoever is most important As this is not a time for negotiation but rather a time for compliance with the criteria of the legislation. This is where various lawyers make fatal mistakes in such cases. Perhaps lawyers enjoy the profit of going to court.
1

#4 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:24 PM

What all members need to be especially aware of is the Corporation's willingness to make totally unsubstantiated accusations whenever the whim takes it.

Based on the standard of evidence ACC is relying on it is certain that none of us are safe. The Corporation attempts (and sometimes succeeds) in tainting the claimant in the eyes of the Reviewer. All in all what I am seeing with my own eyes sits in stark conflict with the Corporation's public relations statements. The Corporation is being very "cute".

As always I can state that the SCU is proving to be more committed to reform but the fact that Sensitive Claimants have a few inherent rights not available to General Claimants is the decider for the most part.

I do not have faith the Reformers can carry the day. I see hard times ahead if National gets in for a fourth term.
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:39 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 June 2017 - 11:51 AM, said:

This is exactly what happened to me in 1991, which I defeated in 1992 of which repeated itself again in 1997 whereby the ACC made allegations of which it claimed to have corroborative evidence when in fact it had absolutely no information whatsoever and was prepared to go to both civil and criminal courts simply telling the courts lies with the courts listing to the ACC and then claimant to have no time left over to listen to any form of defence. I have been involved in the assistance of a large number of others "successfully" challenge the ACC. Getting an early without making any compromises whatsoever is most important As this is not a time for negotiation but rather a time for compliance with the criteria of the legislation. This is where various lawyers make fatal mistakes in such cases. Perhaps lawyers enjoy the profit of going to court.


Thomas

I kinda get tired of telling you, you are incorrect as in 1997/98, I was having operations paid for by ACC via a system of my employer paying me 100% of my income for the time needed off work, which when returned to work, an account was presented to my employer from ACC for twenty per cent of my salsry paid for my time off work having and recuperating from my injuries. Two, same, one year apart. So the whole scheme was gone through each time.

In amoung the paperwork I had to sign For ACC was one that told me I would be receiving Weekly compensation for those weeks the employee was paying me 100% of my wage. This paperwork said that if I didn't adhere to the requests made to me by acc, I would lose my w/c. One of those requests was: That should I earn any monies in that time or change was made to my income, then I must let them know immediately.

Of course I didn't make any extra income as I wasn't able to work with arm in a sling and no cast to take the majority of bumps and out of range of motion one does as they are healing. So I never had a problem with acc during my operation years.

It would take me a while to find in your first criminal trial, where the judge commented on an exact letter which you wrote answering them questions. There was also evidence of a letter and payment to you/your company from a worker who worked along-aside you.

One of the questions in the letter/form from ACC was had you made any extra money in that time and you said no, and the judge pointed it out.

So you lied to ACC the evidence of the dates on the receipt of the money and the answer 'no' to ACC made you a liar.

You also did not inform them you were working.

So no one the ACC did have evidence of your lying and number they would have given you the same paperwork that I had as it was precisely the same period of time that I am speaking about.

So if anyone thinks I am lying about this subject hear it wouldn't take me long to prove what I say is true and why Alan Thomas would have no right to any slush fund set up for innocent people.

And if anyone thinks I am trying to make waves for the forum here. You are wrong I am simply telling the truth as I see it and would be obliged if the users of this forum took the same steps as I to stop Alan Thomas repeated telling his lies on here.

It gets tiring and newbies eyes are clouded by mistruths of a subject that takes up much of the forum and has done so for as long as I have been a member of this web site.

The Judge was right Alan Thomas was guilty of fraud, in his first trial.

Mini
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:43 PM

View PostLupine, on 05 June 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

What all members need to be especially aware of is the Corporation's willingness to make totally unsubstantiated accusations whenever the whim takes it.

Based on the standard of evidence ACC is relying on it is certain that none of us are safe. The Corporation attempts (and sometimes succeeds) in tainting the claimant in the eyes of the Reviewer. All in all what I am seeing with my own eyes sits in stark conflict with the Corporation's public relations statements. The Corporation is being very "cute".

As always I can state that the SCU is proving to be more committed to reform but the fact that Sensitive Claimants have a few inherent rights not available to General Claimants is the decider for the most part.

I do not have faith the Reformers can carry the day. I see hard times ahead if National gets in for a fourth term.


I'm glad to see that someone else has counted this most horrific situation involving very serious false allegation of which there is no substantial evidence yet the ACC rely upon their position as the hand and authority of the of the sovereignty of New Zealand in a situation where it is nothing other than a commercial organisation seeking to act on its own interest. When a reviewer is commissioned by the ACC rather than for example the courts and a paid their income from the court then it is easy to see why they are big into the ACC expectation of 70% outcomes in the ACC's favour. iin my own case as the ACC did not present any evidence of any sort for me to challenge it review hearing the reviewer adjourned to hear the ACC's position in private. So without a review hearing the reviewer never reconvene yet made a decision "nnot to disturb the ACC decision" which isn't even a decision permissible under the ACC legislation. Once the ACC had the reviewer's decision in its favour at then went about trying to find information on a claim to possess by search warrant and found none for no other reason that such information did not exist. Undeterred the ACC then pressed onto a private criminal prosecution and asked the district court to adjourn my right to appeal the reviewer cancelled which took over 10 years to have reinstated. The ACC still did not disclose any information but rather relied upon the criminal conviction that it received based on the ACCs assertion that they had the authority to determine whether or not someone's entitlement is valid and as the ACC asserted that my claim was not valid that made the way for the district court criminal judge to convict for fraud. So then by the time it got to the district court appeal on the review hearing matter the district court judge relied upon the criminal conviction. As you can see the ACC set about to create a circular argument based on the same principles as the "Emperor has no clothes" scenario where nobody was willing to challenge the wisdom of the ACC, including district court judges.

The lesson here is to get back to basics at the very beginning and don't allow anything to move forward until those basics have been satisfied. Forget about public relations and influence or any kind of persuasive talk with anybody. Rely totally and entirely upon the reality of an accident event resulting in an injury that has caused a disability and that the disability is properly quantified by the proper scientific authority. It is with this approach that you will overwhelm everything else regardless as to how they dress it up.

The National party has and always will want to dismantle the ACC and return the matter back over to private enterprise so will only ever be in some kind of maintenance mode until that objective is met. As for the Labour Party as always they favour more and more complex bureaucracy whereby more patches are placed on other patches. Patches are not acts of reform. The nature of the problem is fundamental to human nature and structural..
1

#7 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:50 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 05 June 2017 - 11:38 AM, said:

Lupine, I completely agree with you.

I also note that Southern Cross have a dedicated Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process for its clients with ACC.

This is discrimination on the part of ACC - a difference of treatment in comparable circumstances - because I am aware that a number of claimants have requested ADR (which is now a general ACC policy) - and they have still been refused.

Clearly, discrimination!!! - A call to the Human Rights Commission might be worthwhile


ADR is a matter that I touched on earlier this year when I felt that Fairway may not be committed to Sensitive Claim requirements. I had a meeting with the Fairway CEO and an ACC Senior Manager to express my concerns. I was introduced to the changes that Fairway is implementing thanks to the efforts of Acclaim Otago. I was very impressed with the both the new CEO and the new processes. As well as that Fairway agreed to put in a mechanism to deal with Sensitive Claim issues.

But again we face the issue of the struggling General Claimants. If I was to pursue ADR I would pursue it on behalf of a class of claimants such as Sensitive Claimants. However there are other classes of claimant. Brain Injured, Mental injury due to physical etc. If it could be argued that Fairway was not meeting the needs of a class of claimants then ADR would much more arguable.

This leads me to an idea I have had while writing this.

I have succeeded in changing policy at both Corporation and Fairway levels because I have based many arguments on the rights that come with the Sensitive Claimant class of claimant.

If Members here wanted to do something similar then simply choose an aspect of the system to address. Rights of the brain injured or older claimants or justice matters for those falsely accused etc. Rather than have a group of us flailing at all and sundry we could consider as individuals adopting and announcing the specific cause that Member relates to the most. Just a thought.

If you want to push ADR Magna Carta then my advice would be to tackle the issue in the pursuit of the rights of a class of claimants. You would need to demonstrate that Fairway cannot or will not meet the requirements of that class of claimant.
0

#8 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 12:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 June 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:



The lesson here is to get back to basics at the very beginning and don't allow anything to move forward until those basics have been satisfied. Forget about public relations and influence or any kind of persuasive talk with anybody. Rely totally and entirely upon the reality of an accident event resulting in an injury that has caused a disability and that the disability is properly quantified by the proper scientific authority. It is with this approach that you will overwhelm everything else regardless as to how they dress it up.



Very sound advice.
1

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2017 - 01:14 PM

View PostMINI, on 05 June 2017 - 12:39 PM, said:

Thomas

I kinda get tired of telling you, you are incorrect as in 1997/98, I was having operations paid for by ACC via a system of my employer paying me 100% of my income for the time needed off work, which when returned to work, an account was presented to my employer from ACC for twenty per cent of my salsry paid for my time off work having and recuperating from my injuries. Two, same, one year apart. So the whole scheme was gone through each time.

In amoung the paperwork I had to sign For ACC was one that told me I would be receiving Weekly compensation for those weeks the employee was paying me 100% of my wage. This paperwork said that if I didn't adhere to the requests made to me by acc, I would lose my w/c. One of those requests was: That should I earn any monies in that time or change was made to my income, then I must let them know immediately.

Of course I didn't make any extra income as I wasn't able to work with arm in a sling and no cast to take the majority of bumps and out of range of motion one does as they are healing. So I never had a problem with acc during my operation years.

It would take me a while to find in your first criminal trial, where the judge commented on an exact letter which you wrote answering them questions. There was also evidence of a letter and payment to you/your company from a worker who worked along-aside you.

One of the questions in the letter/form from ACC was had you made any extra money in that time and you said no, and the judge pointed it out.

So you lied to ACC the evidence of the dates on the receipt of the money and the answer 'no' to ACC made you a liar.

You also did not inform them you were working.

So no one the ACC did have evidence of your lying and number they would have given you the same paperwork that I had as it was precisely the same period of time that I am speaking about.

So if anyone thinks I am lying about this subject hear it wouldn't take me long to prove what I say is true and why Alan Thomas would have no right to any slush fund set up for innocent people.

And if anyone thinks I am trying to make waves for the forum here. You are wrong I am simply telling the truth as I see it and would be obliged if the users of this forum took the same steps as I to stop Alan Thomas repeated telling his lies on here.

It gets tiring and newbies eyes are clouded by mistruths of a subject that takes up much of the forum and has done so for as long as I have been a member of this web site.

The Judge was right Alan Thomas was guilty of fraud, in his first trial.

Mini


Mini you are making false statements about me. There has never been a letter of any sort describing the engaging in any kind of work task activity especially for any earnings. You might be referring to a letter dated the very early stages around the time I was waiting for my first surgery of which the ACC were required to fund. It is perfectly acceptable to be making arrangements with former and existing customers for work to be carried out at a time when I expect to be recovered from my surgery. I don't know of any other letter that you could be referring to.. In any event my medical certificates described a limited capacity of two hours per day and it would be quite acceptable for me to be promoting that availability for profit in accordance with section 18 of the legislation that even makes it a requirement for me to make use of my residual capacity in this fashion. In fact two fail to utilise my residual capacity would be a form fraud and as such the nature of the thoughts that you are having based on the thoughts that others seem to have expressed are wrong in law. However the fact of the matter is no work took place and more importantly no earnings capacity was achieved and no earnings were generated.

No workerWorked alongside me as I did not work. However I did go to China with my girlfriend who also was an employee of the company, after my former girlfriend who was a partner and manager of the company. My girlfriend was working on who normal company duties while I was working on my rehabilitation plans in accordance with the case manager's requirements. The word work is not a word described in legislation and as such it has no authority in the way that you are attempting to portray it. Legislation focuses its attention on a capacity to earn and actual earnings. Working on a vocational rehabilitation plan may appear to be work in the eyes of the ACC and even in your eyes but not in the eyes of the legislator as to follow that line of reasoning would be a contradiction within the legislation. Even so I still have two hours capacity per day of which it would be quite acceptable for me to be utilising. If it turned out that I was in the opinion of the ACC working outside of the parameters of my rehabilitation plan well that would be entirely irrelevant anyway as the only rrelevancy is whether or not I have a capacity to return to the preinjury occupation. As the ACC presented no information describing a single work task activity of any sort it is impossible for me to address the empty accusation

. It appears to me that the ACC is making accusations by way of appearances and assumptions rather than matters of substance. This might be persuasive to those who have either no knowledge of the legislation or are not obedient to the legislation.

The ACC seized all financial records from many different sources as a result of obtaining 12 or more search warrants. With all of the information that they gathered they did not find any earnings of any sort so how on earth are you are accusing me of not declaring earnings.. The ACC have never accuse me of not declaring earnings so why would you? Are you perhaps being influenced by the ACC and are extrapolating their argument even further than they dear. I notice that the ACC media release claimed $1.3 million income out of thin air. Are you falling victim to an ACC media release perhaps?

With regards to informing ACC of my working activities in order to promote my rehabilitation, ACC were fully informed. They received a significant number of letters,, reports and 4 business plans. The ACC even complained that have provided them with too much such information. What the ACC did do is ask various people whether or not they thought I was working. Of course there would have been people who have the opportunity to see me doing something but they did not know what I was doing even though I was working on ACC business plans and suchlike. After all what I was doing was absolutely none of their business. Do you think the ACC might have asked people who don't know in the hope that they would get information more to their liking rather than rely upon the expertise of the entire medical profession who were screaming blue murder that I was not receiving the ACC funding for the much needed surgery?

Mini what I cannot understand is how anybody with an astute mind could possibly succumb to ACC propaganda and manipulation. Why is it that some join that particular bandwagon? Is it because they are confused and think they are boarding the gravy train and don't want to upset the apple cart? (Sorry to mix metaphors but I could not resist)


Mini you are not telling the truth but rather simply repeating the lie is that the ACC have told. I remind you that the ACC have acknowledged in court via their legal counsel that they have never had any information describing a single work task activity in the material time. Further the ACC breached a court order to make such disclosure. So Mini why are you making such great efforts to perpetuate the ACC Lie? As the ACC's foundation to their cancellation of claim and fraud Conviction was achieved based on the claim of information and now that they have confessed that they never had such information it can only mean that there cancellation and conviction was achieved based on a lie. So mini why are you accusing me of lying when the ACC have confessed to the lie that they have told? Why would you give support to such monstrous behaviour that causes so much destruction and people's lives. Don't forget that I am not the only one but there are very significant numbers that are in their hundreds per year suffering from the same technique used by the ACC.


Why are you not being supportive of those who have fallen victim to such lies.. Remember I am not the only one and although others have come onto the site seeking help they have not got it from you. Perhaps they have been scared away by your attacks.
1

#10 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 05 June 2017 - 01:34 PM

Hi Lupine

Interesting observations about your earlier success above with ACC/Fairway about ADR. From your posting there is clearly a difference in treatment in comparable circumstances - i.e. between all injured people

However, ADR is an ACC responsibility under s 328A of the Act and its now general policy. It is not a Fairway imperative - i.e. no agreement for ADR from ACC = no ADR.

That is where the discrimination arises when that is compared to your earlier success regarding ADR.
2

#11 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 03:06 PM

Members attacking other Members regarding those Members claims is very unhelpful.

For years now this Forum has struggled to the point of becoming completely unfit for purpose. This Forum needs to be operational to protect the interests of all claimants and now it is functioning in a much more productive manner I believe we should all be focused on keeping it that way.

Alan Thomas has the right to proclaim his innocence and its up to each individual to make up their mind as to whether that is the case. Whatever the truth of his claim the general message is correct. ACC will accuse claimants of misleading it if it suits the Corporation to do so. I know that for a total fact.

New claimants who are desperate for support and direction should be the focus not the mindless ongoing arguments that no one but the protagonists gives a rats ass about.


0

#12 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 03:14 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 05 June 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Hi Lupine

Interesting observations about your earlier success above with ACC/Fairway about ADR. From your posting there is clearly a difference in treatment in comparable circumstances - i.e. between all injured people

However, ADR is an ACC responsibility under s 328A of the Act and its now general policy. It is not a Fairway imperative - i.e. no agreement for ADR from ACC = no ADR.

That is where the discrimination arises when that is compared to your earlier success regarding ADR.


Just to be clear I did not get an ADR in place it was an agreement on how process issues for Sensitive claimants could be addressed. ADR would have been my argument at a class level but I am actually satisfied with Fairway's changes won by Acclaim Otago. It does go a long way to heading off....issues if you know what to look for.

Looking at the Section you mention it appears that the Governer General can impose regulations on ACC regarding ADR and in the absence of regulations the Corporation and the claimant must agree. What is lacking is the mechanism to force ACC to agree. The two options are go the political route and get the GG to agree to impose regulations or approach ACC and get its agreement. The only way I can see to do that is to argue from a claimant class perspective.
0

#13 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 03:31 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 05 June 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

Hi Lupine

Interesting observations about your earlier success above with ACC/Fairway about ADR. From your posting there is clearly a difference in treatment in comparable circumstances - i.e. between all injured people

However, ADR is an ACC responsibility under s 328A of the Act and its now general policy. It is not a Fairway imperative - i.e. no agreement for ADR from ACC = no ADR.

That is where the discrimination arises when that is compared to your earlier success regarding ADR.


An important point I need to make. Sensitive Claimants are better protected in some ways because of the hard work and effort put in by people like Barbara Disley and the various activists who fought for those protections throughout the Purge window of 2009 - 2014. A lot of people including myself and other six percenters fought ACC every step of the way and many of us paid a significant price.

So the point I am raising is that other classes of claimants require a similar level of activism and advocacy. Therefore if people are wishing to look for a way to make a difference then consider choosing a class, identify the issues that apply to that class and get on with the activism. As I said its a thought.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:03 PM

View PostLupine, on 05 June 2017 - 03:31 PM, said:

An important point I need to make. Sensitive Claimants are better protected in some ways because of the hard work and effort put in by people like Barbara Disley and the various activists who fought for those protections throughout the Purge window of 2009 - 2014. A lot of people including myself and other six percenters fought ACC every step of the way and many of us paid a significant price.

So the point I am raising is that other classes of claimants require a similar level of activism and advocacy. Therefore if people are wishing to look for a way to make a difference then consider choosing a class, identify the issues that apply to that class and get on with the activism. As I said its a thought.


You use words such as activism, fighting paying a significant price and advocacy in the one breath and I am a little concerned about this mindset inasmuch as it gives an impression that someone needing help might need to go to an advocate that is an activist..

I do not see that type of thinking as part of what the legislators had in mind when framing the ACC legislation. I do not see this mindset within the judicial system either.

The problem that I am seeingiis that there is an ever-increasing development of an us versus them mentality with the us versus them going both ways.. I have noticed that the ACC have perceived need to be some kind of an activist even to the extent of planning to blow them up which is the extent of their thinking despite the absolute reality that I have only ever addressed matters through the judiciary.

However having said that I do acknowledge that such Adversarial behaviour does enjoy a degree of achievement. But whether such an approach end and does the ACC have the means to stand up against the worst that can be delivered against them whereby they can weather any storm. History shows that the ACC has endured pretty well any storm and continued on their merry way In the longer term doing as as they have always done.


However again having said that I am of the opinion that the approach we should be seeking is of a higher order, the moral high ground. I think we should be focusing our minds on the criteria of the legislation and means of enforcement. The reason I have provided support to the site is to increase the knowledge base and precision of the legal remedy As that is the only true way to address our problems.
1

#15 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:30 PM

Hi again Lupine,

I agree with you that the Forum Board is starting to get back to some form of normality and intentions - that's why I most recently came back.

Regarding a remedy re ADR the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRT) is also a very good and relatively informal place.

Some time ago I took a case (and won) regarding a section of the ACC Act being inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination. The HRT issued a declaration on that point and the Government had to then change that part of the Act (age discrimination and vocational rehab). Crown Law threw everything that they could against me but the HRT saw the illegality of their argument.

Tomorrow, I will once again start the process towards the HRT through the Human Rights Commission.
2

#16 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 05 June 2017 - 04:47 PM

View PostLupine, on 05 June 2017 - 03:06 PM, said:

Members attacking other Members regarding those Members claims is very unhelpful.

For years now this Forum has struggled to the point of becoming completely unfit for purpose. This Forum needs to be operational to protect the interests of all claimants and now it is functioning in a much more productive manner I believe we should all be focused on keeping it that way.

Alan Thomas has the right to proclaim his innocence and its up to each individual to make up their mind as to whether that is the case. Whatever the truth of his claim the general message is correct. ACC will accuse claimants of misleading it if it suits the Corporation to do so. I know that for a total fact.

New claimants who are desperate for support and direction should be the focus not the mindless ongoing arguments that no one but the protagonists gives a rats ass about.



I agree Lupine. This forum has helped me and many others over the years. It looks like admin may be wanting it back to where it was and hopefully will come down quick on people who use the forum for abuse and spam.

From what I gather, admin has said a few things broke down and these are being repaired along with a new report facility for rogue posts. Admin certainly has cleaned out a lot of the posts that were abuse and spam.

Onwards and Upwards I say.

Thanks Admin for your work on getting things back on track. I look forward to any updates on how the fixing is going.
0

#17 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 05 June 2017 - 05:47 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 05 June 2017 - 04:03 PM, said:

You use words such as activism, fighting paying a significant price and advocacy in the one breath and I am a little concerned about this mindset inasmuch as it gives an impression that someone needing help might need to go to an advocate that is an activist..

I do not see that type of thinking as part of what the legislators had in mind when framing the ACC legislation. I do not see this mindset within the judicial system either.

The problem that I am seeingiis that there is an ever-increasing development of an us versus them mentality with the us versus them going both ways.. I have noticed that the ACC have perceived need to be some kind of an activist even to the extent of planning to blow them up which is the extent of their thinking despite the absolute reality that I have only ever addressed matters through the judiciary.

However having said that I do acknowledge that such Adversarial behaviour does enjoy a degree of achievement. But whether such an approach end and does the ACC have the means to stand up against the worst that can be delivered against them whereby they can weather any storm. History shows that the ACC has endured pretty well any storm and continued on their merry way In the longer term doing as as they have always done.


However again having said that I am of the opinion that the approach we should be seeking is of a higher order, the moral high ground. I think we should be focusing our minds on the criteria of the legislation and means of enforcement. The reason I have provided support to the site is to increase the knowledge base and precision of the legal remedy As that is the only true way to address our problems.



I do not share the view that my description of past events would cause confusion. I do agree very much with your final paragraph.

What I would say is that there is not one way to deal with ACC, there is only the correct way and what is correct is purely dictated by circumstance. A claimant receiving extreme ACC process will have different requirements than other claimants.

To my mind activism is the political wing and advocacy the legal. There is a small handful of advocates who fight for claimants rights as well as advocate on claims. Pursuing a just outcome against a hostile Corporation is a fraught business.

What we need is a wide range of tools available to respond to the multiple issues we face. There is more than one way and we need to excel in all to compensate for the power imbalance.
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 June 2017 - 06:57 PM

View PostLupine, on 05 June 2017 - 05:47 PM, said:

I do not share the view that my description of past events would cause confusion. I do agree very much with your final paragraph.

What I would say is that there is not one way to deal with ACC, there is only the correct way and what is correct is purely dictated by circumstance. A claimant receiving extreme ACC process will have different requirements than other claimants.

To my mind activism is the political wing and advocacy the legal. There is a small handful of advocates who fight for claimants rights as well as advocate on claims. Pursuing a just outcome against a hostile Corporation is a fraught business.

What we need is a wide range of tools available to respond to the multiple issues we face. There is more than one way and we need to excel in all to compensate for the power imbalance.


I have always held that activism is wrong and counterproductive.
This is why Weal told ACC the opposite as he, Miller and others were trying to take over this site to use as their political instrument in the attempt to get ride of me.

I hold that understanding and using the law is the only way forward
1

#19 User is offline   Lupine 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1610
  • Joined: 28-June 08

Posted 06 June 2017 - 02:36 PM

View Postmagnacarta, on 05 June 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Hi again Lupine,

I agree with you that the Forum Board is starting to get back to some form of normality and intentions - that's why I most recently came back.

Regarding a remedy re ADR the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRT) is also a very good and relatively informal place.

Some time ago I took a case (and won) regarding a section of the ACC Act being inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination. The HRT issued a declaration on that point and the Government had to then change that part of the Act (age discrimination and vocational rehab). Crown Law threw everything that they could against me but the HRT saw the illegality of their argument.

Tomorrow, I will once again start the process towards the HRT through the Human Rights Commission.


I hope that you are successful and your commitment to the issue is commendable.
0

#20 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 484
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 06 June 2017 - 03:49 PM

Lupine thanks for your kind wishes - The formal investigation towards the HRT started this morning.
1

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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