ACCforum: Reviews v Hearings - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Reviews v Hearings Take Notice

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 07 January 2020 - 09:00 AM

It is the Parliament who is constitutionally sovereign and makes the law to which we are all governed.

The ACC (and the Fairway Resolution Ltd reviewer’s) practice can be described as a constitutional coup.

The current system could almost be characterised as a self-perpetuating oligarchy and changes need to be made.

Indeed, who should make the law by which we are all governed?

Should it be made by electable, accountable politicians, answerable to their constituents and vulnerable to summary dismissal at elections, or by unelected ACC employees and reviewers?

There is a substantive issue arising of failing to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in legislation in ss 140, 141 and 142.

Section 141 prescribes:- “In the course of conducting a review a hearing must be held unless…..” This indicates a separate and sequential process to be followed; i.e. an investigative and informal review and then a formal hearing with representatives (if necessary).

It is logical that an investigative, informal review might resolve issues at the review level thereby creating no necessity for a formal (and costly and stressful) hearing to be held.

It is s142 that allows parties to be represented at the hearing indicating and it is only then that a formal hearing with representatives applies.

There has been no investigative informal review conducted as prescribed in s140.

I would have thought that ACC-instructed counsel, Mr McBride, would have advised ACC of that in compliance with his fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand.
4

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10743
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 08 January 2020 - 10:58 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 07 January 2020 - 09:00 AM, said:

It is the Parliament who is constitutionally sovereign and makes the law to which we are all governed.

The ACC (and the Fairway Resolution Ltd reviewer’s) practice can be described as a constitutional coup.

The current system could almost be characterised as a self-perpetuating oligarchy and changes need to be made.

Indeed, who should make the law by which we are all governed?

Should it be made by electable, accountable politicians, answerable to their constituents and vulnerable to summary dismissal at elections, or by unelected ACC employees and reviewers?

There is a substantive issue arising of failing to give effect to the will of Parliament as expressed in legislation in ss 140, 141 and 142.

Section 141 prescribes:- “In the course of conducting a review a hearing must be held unless…..” This indicates a separate and sequential process to be followed; i.e. an investigative and informal review and then a formal hearing with representatives (if necessary).

It is logical that an investigative, informal review might resolve issues at the review level thereby creating no necessity for a formal (and costly and stressful) hearing to be held.

It is s142 that allows parties to be represented at the hearing indicating and it is only then that a formal hearing with representatives applies.

There has been no investigative informal review conducted as prescribed in s140.

I would have thought that ACC-instructed counsel, Mr McBride, would have advised ACC of that in compliance with his fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand.


From what I have observed ACC have a master servant relationship with their legal counsel. In other words despite the legal counsel advising ACC of the relevance legislated criteria the ACC legal services unit will instruct their counsel to proceed in accordance with the ACC's own viewpoint or wishes concerning the interpretation of legislation.

The advantage that the ACC corporation has is that it can pick and choose which battles to fight in order that it may promote their own viewpoint of the law or direction they want the law to be developed by sheer weight of numbers thus we see the gradualism over many decades to the extent that the original intention of the legislation has been diminished to the financial favour of the ACC. Generally speaking the majority of claimants are physically, emotionally and financially unable to bring about sufficient challenge to the ACC through the appellate courts last progressing so-called case law and the ACC favour. I don't think the legislators would have anticipated this departure of legislation. However politicians and in particular the manager of Parliament having the ACC portfolio have from time to time reconfigured the ACC legislation in order to get the ACC back on the original track. Nonetheless we see episodes where the ACC has been directly disobedient to the legislation by even refusing to generate regulations when the legislation has made such direction such as the need for a properly configured assessment procedure to determine when the claimant is no longer incapacitated or has a capacity to work on a new occupation, as just one example.

Currently we have a most terrible situation whereby between the ACC and their contracted and profit-making limited liability company have quite clearly departed from being an independent judicial resource to one whereby the ACC pick and choose which battles they fight through to simply refusing to provide a review hearing when a review hearing has been requested and then going on to ignore further review hearings for delay of process stemming from the failure to set a review hearing date and time in accordance with the enforcement procedures involving then decisions on a claimant's favour. We have even seen that reviewers appointed by fairway, instead of ACC, are deciding that such a review hearing would not have succeeded in any way and refusing to address the delay of process to have a review hearing with the direct intention to subvert the ACC legislated automation process to create a decision of the claimant's favour in the circumstances. This again is only one example of many such departures from legislation.
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10743
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 08 January 2020 - 11:02 AM

What is the basis ACC has claimed in law for a shift from the ACC appointing reviewers through to fairway appointing reviewers and making them their own employees who are subject to not only the fairway contract with ACC but also under the influence of fairways management and direction concerning which previous court decisions are to be relied upon for the reviewers to make their decisions along with other various direction such as limiting review hearings to a certain time limit, having review hearings by telephone instead of enabling a claimant to be present at the hearing and many other such departures from legislated criteria for review hearings?

Is anyone able to shed some light on this component of the departure of legislation as described by Magna Carta

0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 09 January 2020 - 11:00 AM

Just be aware that ACC are masters of illusion and propaganda.

You simply cannot believe all that ACC publishes or will keep its word and properly investigate matters with an ACC Minister who is nigh-on useless.

When you realise from the outset that it's all about them and money and not about you, as an injured claimant, then it can be easier to deal with.
2

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10743
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 January 2020 - 10:48 AM

View Postmagnacarta, on 09 January 2020 - 11:00 AM, said:

Just be aware that ACC are masters of illusion and propaganda.

You simply cannot believe all that ACC publishes or will keep its word and properly investigate matters with an ACC Minister who is nigh-on useless.

When you realise from the outset that it's all about them and money and not about you, as an injured claimant, then it can be easier to deal with.


Could you explain why you think it is easier to deal with the ACC only after the realisation that they are putting themselves ahead of the injured person? I'm sure you are not advising the readers to capitulate to the existing dishonesty so could you perhaps expand upon your statement please.
0

#6 User is offline   magnacarta 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 483
  • Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 10 January 2020 - 11:28 AM

Hi Alan,

Knowledge is power and ignorance punishes - as the old saying goes.

Once you read what ACC publishes - on their website- and then apply that to your case and see the untruths and dishonesty, you can then use that ACC information in your communications with ACC.

I've also become very concerned that New Zealand (the State Party) is failing to ensure that the Judges (and reviewers)operating in this jurisdiction are not violating a persons right to a fair and public hearing as guaranteed by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

That is international law which has the force of law in NZ by virtue of the Long Title of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The UN Human Rights Committee has jurisdiction to decide that and an individual communication has to be lodged.

The system is not corrupt - the system has been corrupted - but the review and appeal system needs a major overhaul which some are working on.

But never give up!!!!
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10743
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 January 2020 - 12:11 PM

Thanks for that Magna Carta.

However once acknowledging that the administrators of the act and those in the judiciary that we seek to enforce the act are not living up to the expectations that we still do have from the legislation the remains unchanged whether we know the magnitude of the problem or not. Simply increasing awareness of these failures does not in itself improve our circumstance. There needs to be a stratagem or mechanism that could be utilised otherwise the extra knowledge only causes us to wring our hands all the more. My concern is the knowledge that you have imparted to the average person will only cause them to give up all the more readily which I am sure was not your plan. So my question remains outstanding concerning what you think we should do with this "knowledge" of the ACC administrators and judiciary failings.

I trust that you are aware that I had no review hearing and that the ACC refused to make disclosure of what they called "information" to either criminal or civil court rendering it's an impossibility to have a hearing other than to state that the ACC and the court had failed to submit themselves to the legislator criteria for all decision-making. this of course was followed by the ACC imagining that I would not be happy in making yet another false allegation with the intention of shutting me down altogether

-1

#8 User is offline   Delighted2018 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 15-March 18

Posted 08 February 2020 - 04:54 AM

Well now, it has been a few years.Time to update the group consciousness.

At first the concepts of , et al, gas lighting, case manager psychological profiling tools ( whoops dunno how those got out eh )and many more such items that have failed to be mentoned for many years, Do you know why?

Have you noticed something? when every and all interpersonal fighting came about, the full effect of a growing society to tackle the claimed social contract was all but lost.

So, has anyone done any due diligence to find out whether the revealed " Performance+ pay + Hay+ " reveal and video has ever been updated? no.

Why do most of everyone know less now than before?

Lets proceed to something of importance.

If anyone does research on, say, another commonwealth partner like " Australia", or is it " AUSTRALIA" , you know, just like how the claimed Govt departments address the alleged " You', or " YOU":

Wayne Glew , google their research on Australia, or AUSTRALIA and a 1900 constitution. What is claimed to have happened or not, and there are Referendums. WHY???

How do Referendums and commonwealth titles and countries tie into constitutions?

So why is it no one yet has been able to uncover just why, as in this thread, and many more ^ a decade and more, it could plausible be perceived that a great failing of the social CONTRACT or Contract or is it....Social-Contract of ACC seemingly failing at one alleged authority figure. ?

Could have they all known something we all did not?

Some good questions for inquiring minds: When did New Zealand become part of the " commonwealth", what are the RULES?
Whom set those RULES, what are the actual roles of the ...Governor General, the Queen, Common Law, the history and survival of the MAGNACARTA and others....How were they formed?

In common law, or even Admiralty LAW, what is the role of the Commonwealth heads and the Queen with respect to Laws? Why does Australia have a defined description of a Constitution and the clear rules of the Queen involved and so on, but, why not so in New Zealand? what is the BAR? How is this relevant?

What happened and when?

So, under ' ACC' whose formed veil was under that of a Managing Director. To Whom?

Thus you have for a long time have been conversing with a " Corporation" , Whose Corporation, or CORPORATION? When and WHY was the Managing Director changed to " Corporation" and why is this very significant?

Why do claimed agencies write to you in all upper case letters?

When was it that the " Social' and " contract", or SOCIAL-CONTRACT or Social Contract was subverted to be under the management of ' WINZ" or other " CROWN" Agency whereby any of you are regularly threatened with compliance or penalty when the ......whom owns the ' Central Banks, and banking in general it is known that the creation of money is done how, and by whom, how does this flow through markets? oh so your social contract is in-valid due to bankruptcy? oh they never told you about Fiat money printing, and a great deal of people end up in medico legal disputes to get simple cover and effective help. But money can be printed, a computer input... research it.

Very sore point you must teach your future generations of what has been done.

Just think, what links " Occupational" Medicine to Australia, and medicine in general whereby many point out the obvious flaws of conflicts of interest and much more of whom the " Corporation " favours and why.

So what is LAW / law ? Whom really Governs NZ? HOW?

Why is it that, say, whether it be over a decade ago in this forum people like you and " Flowers" spoke out about politicians and ACC , yet nothing good came about, the politicians moved on to the the United Nations umbrella and yet in the paper, the same generational damage from sawmill timber chemicals that devastated many , those effected in the paper are shown to be left out, no social contract
What does this tell you?
Bankruptcy? Contracts failed? HOW?

So some homework: research some of this and the styles of letters you " receive';
https://www.youtube....h?v=jCE61FIK-pA
" What is AUSTRALIA"

Then ask WHAT IS " New Zealand"?
Do you understand why the claimed no fault no sue social contract failed and why?


What is the relevance to the 200km zone around New Zealand?

So, in this thread, are you having a REVIEW, review,Review, Hearing, HEARING or hearing.
There is a significant difference.
UNDER WHAT LAW AND SYSTEM you were never meant to find out about - grammar makes a lot of meaning.


For avoidance of doubt, go back and re-read all chatter about the " Review" system and the reported interactions of it, DRSL and Fairway and others.

The simple fact is, a lot of people get paid to engage a system that is meant to be a " Social Contract", or is it SOCIAL CONTRACT or is it Social-Contract.......?

Yet all the " professionals" or managers / contracts to manage " dispute resolution" appears to fail miserably at just that. They should be fired for wasting our funds.

Then in circa 2003/2004 it was revealed that ACC pay the courts. So, what " system / SYSTEM" that appears to favour title changes that creates forms of employment that is under great dispute -weigh the effect where Trump kept their election promise to clean up a similar type of system but none of you seem to see any true reflection of anything similar.

So in over 30 years whom is really directing how your system operates well after is is discovered similar types of wasteful bureaucratic behaviour also is similarly mirrorred in other commonwealth countries and the USA personal injury without meaningful and comprehensive coverage of the social contract, afterall, it is known that still the " system" is still challenged with knowing the correct body parts and side of body after many years, many bureaucrats paid very well to mismanage this and more. why?

It is known there are systems of targeting Key performance targets, you, low hanging fruit and exits from the system without meaningful help and a lot of cost on paper to say they did well when not doing so at all.


Again, go search and research Wayne Glew, what they found, can this apply?

Apply proper grammatical rules THEY never taught you

So, whom controls New Zealand?

FYI - circa 1900 er there is a fascinating paper written about taxation, whom is to be targeted and why? What is the effect of large taxation? For what purpose?
simple, they said over a century ago...Control. over whom and why
So why is your legitimate injury such a control that pays so many to manage and yet fails to produce true effective results as per the social contract?

do any of you realise what Trump is doing? Reflect, why is it that he can reform the Veterans Affairs and tell of so many staff fired for under / not performing yet ACC is still yet a national shameful disgrace ?
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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