Parliament &amp; Petition

3 Pages
←
1
2
3
→

You cannot start a new topic
You cannot reply to this topic

Parliament & Petition Parliament & Petition

#21 magnacarta

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 01 August 2005 - 07:24 AM

Thanks kiwiwine, An email communication is satisfactory and recognised. You could send a "hard copy" but I don't really see that as necessary.

I was also speaking with a lawyer last night and he is today distributing a copy of the letter to his local newspaper and to his lawyer colleagues.

#22 Paradigm Shift

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 01 August 2005 - 08:59 AM

DONE

#23 Fisher

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 22-August 04

Posted 01 August 2005 - 09:05 AM

Mine has joined the list also!

Well done all. :ph34r:

#24 dogma

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 12-January 04

Posted 01 August 2005 - 09:59 AM

[B]DONE ,PARTNERS AS WELL,

#25 Temporary1

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 30-March 05

Posted 01 August 2005 - 03:12 PM

GREETINGS,

Rumour has it that,
TV3 news... tonite..or 1 nite this week.

(60 minutes...)

#26 watcha

Member

Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 01 August 2005 - 10:54 PM

I've just been told that Acclaim Canterbury has also sent an email to GG on the issue along with a number of individual members

#27 RustyAdder

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 11-July 05

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:06 AM

Hi folks. I have just sent off an e-mail as suggested, my first action on this site. I have been reading posts for 3 months feeling somewhat daunted by the intellectual prowess shown here. I am the partner of another "stock unit", and I am ready and willing to take more action.

#28 rippedoff

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 0
Joined: 05-January 05

Posted 02 August 2005 - 08:31 AM

Hello again;
can someone PLEEEAAASSSSEEEEe email me or park in this file
a letter/note to Lizzys Rep so that I can pass on my visions of DISGUST at
the CORRUPTION in HELENGRAD trying to DEFRAUD INNOCENT VICTIMS
before a DEMOCRAPTIC? election! :angry:

#29 gaffa09

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 02 August 2005 - 09:01 AM

I have sent mine as well also enclosed is a letter both e-mailed and faxed

#30 magnacarta

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 02 August 2005 - 09:05 AM

Rippedoff, there is a template letter to send to the Governor-General further up this thread. You can simply copy and paste to your email.

With respect, I am going to be cruel to be kind.

In responding to the Governor-General, I implore you to be temperate with your comments and not to make derogatory remarks about anyone or get personal with your commentary.

Don't we wish to be friends with the Governor-General and not make an enemy with intemperate comments????

#31 magnacarta

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 03 August 2005 - 11:56 AM

It is to be noted that not one member of the mainstream media has published the story relating to the request to the Governor-General even though I am told they have had it since Monday.

It is precisely for this reason that the general public in New Zealand have no idea what their rights are. And why authorities get away with what they do.

The NZ Law Commision argues that "the Crown" is the guarantor of the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

So who is the Crown?????

We need only look at the Public Finance Act which defines it.

S.2 of that Act says

"Crown or Her Majesty:

(a) means Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand........"

The Governor-General is the direct representative of "the Crown" who is the guarantor of the rights in the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

What we have done by approaching the Governor-General is not a joke because no one can suppose that "the Crown" will never be guilty of the sins that are common to all of us.

Our procedure for securing our rights is generally efficient, but our procedure for preventing abuse of power by the legislative, the executive and the judiciary is not.

That is where the Governor-General as the Queen's representative (the Crown) is crucial as the guarantor of our rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

When will mainstream media ever learn that fundamental constitutional truth?????

#32 Guest_Iw2_*

Group: Guests

Posted 03 August 2005 - 04:11 PM

FYI, theres some interesting reading:

Quote

The Committee did find fault with the Accident Insurance (Review Costs and Appeals) Regulations 1999.60 The regulations were made pursuant to the Accident Insurance Act 1998 that introduced the market-model for the provision of accident compensation insurance services. Section 405(d) of the Act allowed regulations to be made that remunerated claimants for the costs of appealing a decision by an insurer regarding a claim. The Department of Labour openly acknowledged that remuneration levels were set at a relatively low level to discourage claimants from having legal representation in the review process. This, the Department argued, was because the review was intended to be an informal and non-litigious process. Yet the Committee concluded that the regulations breached Standing Order 382(2)(a). In the opinion of the Committee, a general object of the Act was to ensure equitable compensation for certain classes of personal injury. In addition, the Act reflected a clear legislative intention that all parties should have access to a fair and effective dispute resolution procedure. It was concluded that the regulations unjustifiably impeded the ability of an applicant to choose to be legally represented in this process by setting an inadequate rate of remuneration. If a claimant could not be legally represented in the review process then the objects and intentions of the Act were being defeated. As a consequence, the Committee found the regulations to have breached this ground.61

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Dv1Wb2q...27+Rights&hl=en

http://www.lawschool.vuw.ac.nz/vuw/fca/law...ndly_Digest.DOC

#33 magnacarta

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 03 August 2005 - 10:00 PM

You can see from the extract above how the Department of Labour tried to manipulate and distort the law but was eventually caught-out by the Regulations Review Committee.

The Department of Labour administers all the ACC legislation including this Act.

The costs payable under the Regulations were deliberately set low under the 1998 Act because the Department wanted to discourage claimants from having legal representation in the review process.

And yet s.145 of the 1998 Act states that a person is entitled to be present and heard at a hearing either personally or by a representative.

The same applies in s.142 of the IPRC Act 2001.

The Department based its manipulation of the law by way of a false assumption that that the review was an informal and non-litigious process.

This is an example of bad faith, abuse of power and wrong doing on the part of the Department of Labour.

In fact, because of this disclosure that the costs payable were deliberately set low to discourage claimants from having legal representation, whether those who could not afford representation at that time could have a claim against the Department of Labour because in practical terms they may not have had a fair review hearing.

#34 Guest_Percy_*

Group: Guests

Posted 03 August 2005 - 11:29 PM

So who can explain why ACC will use their TOP lawyers at $1,400 per hour then to fight Claimants at Review?
Bit one sided isn't it!!
They can have all the Legal Representation they like as they have a "pot of gold" to dip into??
Anything to shaft the Claimants, fair means or foul!!

#35 magnacarta

Advanced Member

Group: Members
Posts: 484
Joined: 22-October 04

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:35 AM

I have this morning received the following message from a Canadian judicial friend:

"With warmest regards. Firstly may I congratulate your people for presenting the issues surrounding the ill-treatment of your Parliamentary petition to Her Excellency the Governor-General. Essentially, it is a matter of accountability and respect for the will of the people. If elected officials will not listen, then New Zealand's experiment in representative government has failed........"

#36 layresearcher

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-June 05

Posted 05 August 2005 - 01:31 AM

#37 Guest_Iw2_*

Group: Guests

Posted 05 August 2005 - 10:39 AM

For reference, here is the information about the D.Powell petition:

http://www.accforum....hp?showtopic=38

and

Law Society Committee supports inquiry into ACC
http://www.accforum....p?showtopic=963

#38 layresearcher

Newbie

Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 06-June 05

Posted 05 August 2005 - 11:20 AM

Thanks for that IW2. There are about twenty of those mp's addresses outdated but I'll wait till next election before I update....whenever that might be.

#39 BLURB

accforum.nz

Group: Members
Posts: 5774
Joined: 22-July 06
LocationCambridge

Posted 23 October 2006 - 10:24 AM

What an excellent couple of pages these have been to read.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... This forum and all who contribute to it should be proud of themselves for standing up against the ACC!

Love you all!

BLURB