ACCforum: Saga Of Petition - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Saga Of Petition Saga of Petition

#1 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 08:55 AM

URGENT - Below is my reply to Jim Anderton about the petition - and his initial response.

Dear Mr Anderton

Thank you kindly for your email reply below.

This matter is clearly a significant issue of public interest. The Court of
Appeal has held that there are limitations imposed on Parliament.

In order to expedite matters there is little alternative than to consider
lodging an application for judicial review in the High Court pursuant to
s.27 of of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) (alleged denial of natural
justice) and, as a question of law, whether or not s.3 of the BORA, which
binds the legislature, has been properly construed or interpreted and
applied to the facts.

There will also be a question of law as to whether or not the House and the
Government Administration Committee correctly understood and discharged its
powers conferred or imposed by law.

Declarations from the constitutionally independent High Court (and likely
the Supreme Court) will obviously have to be sought.

It is indeed very sad and disappointing that this cause of action must be
considered against our House of Representatives and against representative
democracy over essentially what are matters of access and fair play in the
overall interest of justice.

It is inconceivable in a free and democratic society that the form and
substance of a lawful and legitimate petition would not at least be
properly and fairly considered by a Committee of a House of Representatives.

Yours sincerely

____________________________________________________________________

Dear

Thank you for your email of 17 November regarding petition 2002/121.

I do not wish to get into a long correspondence with you on this issue but
the crucial fact is that my staff advise me that the petition did return to
Parliament, and that the House decided to take no further action. That
ends the matter from a procedural point of view because Parliament is
paramount under our constitutional arrangements, and what the House decides
to do takes precedence over any other enactment.

Reconsidering a petition is a very rare event - in fact I cannot recall a
single instance in the two decades that I have been in Parliament - and
there would have to be compelling new facts to justify it. No such facts
are apparent in this instance, and so I stand by my view that until there
are I cannot support any initiative to have petition 2002/121 reconsidered.

I should however re-iterate what I have said in previous correspondence.
There are ample opportunities for specific review in ACC cases all the way
up to the Ombudsman (who deals with some two hundred cases a year or
thereabouts) and that seems to me to provide sufficient safeguards against
the sorts of administrative incompetence or malfeasance the petiton claimed
were in evidence.

Yours sincerely

Jim Anderton
M P for Wigram and Leader of the Progressive Party
0

#2 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 10:48 AM

Subsequent to the above posts I have spoken by telephone with the Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (The officer I dealt with was very good)

I was informed that the House will accept another petition.

I was also informed that a petition to Parliament only requires one name and signature.

The officer is to provide full details to me.

Accordingly, I will submit another petition with my name and signature and state that it is to be read in conjunction with, and reference to, the un-dealt with Petition of Denise Allen Powell and 522 others lodged on 17 June 2004.

Rest assured, in the overall interests of justice;

we will have access to our House of Representatives:

we will have our day before what politicians regularly describe as the highest Court in the land: and

we will have petition(s) fairly and properly dealt with according to law.
0

#3 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 22 November 2005 - 11:21 AM

magnacarta

I have been trying to extract from the grey matter and my records and angle in regards to the petition .It goes back some years but things have not changed..It was to do with a blocked petition and how an indivdual MP was able to table it.
It had some twists but it was effective.

This might be an option you have already canned ??? perhaps not .

what do you think?

tony
0

#4 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 12:21 PM

My information is that the original MP who presented the petition in June 2004 - Sue Bradford - may approach the Business Committee of the House and ask that the original petition be placed on the order paper. I understand that that has not been done.

In the absence of that, another petiton will be lodged as referred to above.
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 22 November 2005 - 04:35 PM

Do they want thousands of the same.

Magnacarta good luck to you.

I won't hold my breath but just been thinking of changing an angle I've been working on.
0

#6 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 06:23 PM

Doppel, go for it - the more single name petitions the better
0

#7 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 07:09 PM

Has anyone else picked-up of the profound error in Jim Anderton's underlined statement:

"That ends the matter from a procedural point of view because Parliament is paramount under our constitutional arrangements, and what the House decides to do takes precedence over any other enactment."

Think about the underlined statement and the ramifications to a free and democratic society and the rule of law when this man has two decades of Parliamentary experience, and is the former Deputy Prime Minister and a current Minister.

As an educative exercise, do you believe Jim Anderton's statement is correct?????????

And if so why ?????

or why not???????

Remember, knowledge is power, but ignorance punishes.
0

#8 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

Posted 22 November 2005 - 07:18 PM

Quote

That ends the matter from a procedural point of view because Parliament is paramount under our constitutional arrangements, and what the House decides to do takes precedence over any other enactment."


As I read this, it appears that the house, and that in effect means the party in power, CAN ABOLISH ANY AND ALL LAWS OR ENACTMENTS AND/OR IGNORE ANY AND ALL LAW OR ENACTMENTS AT THEIR WHIM. IN EFFECT, THIS IS A DICTATORSHIP IN WHICH NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHTS AS THE PARTY IN POWER CAN CHANGE OR REMOVE ANY ACT OR LAW WITHOUT RECOURSE TO NATURAL JUSTICE.

Please, Magnacarta, correct me if I'm wrong - but I fear that I am NOT.

God help all of us. This is how Nazi Germany started. This is the precursor to becoming like the worst of the Soviet dictatorships.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it ....
0

#9 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 22 November 2005 - 08:00 PM

Hatikva you are on to it - No, even the Parliament cannot do that, but Mr Anderton obviously believes that they can.

Parliament can enact, amend or repeal legislation but it cannot suspend the laws at its own whim.

If it could do so without any constraints at all Parliament could effectively say tomorrow - all blue-eyed babies have to be killed, all red-heads have to be scalped and all homes are seized.

S.3 (a) of the NZ Bill of Rightrs Act 1990 binds the legislature to acts done. Mr Anderton appears to believe that that law enacted by Parliament means nothing and can be suspended.

And that type of thinking coming from a very senior politician and Minister appears to me to be very dangerous indeed. It is not governing it is ruling - and there is a very big difference for a free and democratic society.

Mr Anderton also says that he does not wish to get into long correspondence. Perhaps that's fair in his eyes.

Well, from my experience, dictators usually don't.
0

#10 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:38 AM

For those of you wishing to now present a petition in their own name about an inquiry into ACC claims management, here are the words of the original petition and an overview synopsis provided to a claimant.

Note the differences between claims management and case management.

____________________________________________________________________

"Petition 2002/121 of Denise Allen Powell and 522 others was presented to
the House on 17 June 2004.

The petition requested:


"Due to the widespread dissatisfaction among ACC claimants with the claims
management practices of ACC and its subsidiary companies, the House of
Representatives convene a Select Committee Inquiry to inquire into such
claims management practices."


The petition was referred to the Government Administration Committee (GAC)
who resolved to refer it back to the House for re-referral to the Transport
and Industrial Relations Committee (TIRC) because it considered that that
Committee was the more appropriate Committee. The GAC relied on Standing
Order 188 when it considered that matters to do with the ACC are outside
its subject area.

There is ambiguity, because in a letter to me from the Clerk of the House,
which is also referred to later, he wrote: "There is no right or wrong
committee to which a petition is referred. Every Committee has jurisdiction
to deal with a petition which is referred to it."


However, the TIRC informed the GAC that it had recently considered a report
on ACC case management prepared by the Auditor-General and as a result it
had nothing to say regarding the petition and it did not wish to have the
petition transferred to it.

Nevertheless, the conclusion of the GAC was: "That the petition be referred
back to the House and that the House re-refer the petition to the TIRC."

That never happened. There are some serious flaws here.

Firstly, by virtue of s.3 (a) of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) the
Parliament is bound by the provisions of the BORA. (See s.27 of BORA - Natural Justice - essentially fair play and a right to be fairly and properly heard before decisions are issued by a body which can adversely effect rights, interests and obligations.)

We now know, by virtue of an email reply from the then Attorney-General
dated 15 July 2003, that she did not give s.7 notification to the House of
possible inconsistencies when the IPR Bill, as it was then, was proceeding
through the reading stages. (There are numerous inconsistencies identified
between the IPRC Act 2001 and the BORA). In my view, Parliament enacted
this Act blindly and now imposes a blind-eye knowledge.

In the case The Queen v Poumako the Court of Appeal had much to say at
paragraph's 96 and 97 about the proper constitutional enactment of
legislation - manner and form. As has the High Court.

Secondly, the TIRC committee relied on a limited investigation and report
(a whitewash) from the Auditor-General about case management when the
petitioners were requesting Parliament to convene an inquiry into claims
management practices
of the ACC and its subsidiaries.

Clearly, two entirely distinguishable matters.

Claims management relates to the overall governance and operation of the
scheme, the policies of the ACC, the ACC Boards' non-compliance with the
Minister's Letters of Expectation and the processes and procedures adopted
by the subsidiary companies (DRSL), and a lack of cost effectiveness in
claims management - whereas case management relates to individuals.

Therefore, a proper reading of the request for an inquiry into ACC shows
that the intent of the petition was misconstrued or misapplied by the TIRC
when it elected not to take further action on the petition.

On 17 June 2005 the Clerk of the House, when answering my protests about
process and procedure and a denial of natural justice by the TIRC, wrote:

"While the petition is no longer before the House, the Petitioner can, if
she wishes, present another petition to the new Parliament to be elected at
the forthcoming general election."

In my view, there has been an end-run around the law and a denial of
natural justice by the TIRC to those people who were simply seeking to
protect their rights, obligations and interests according to law. I
reiterate, that Parliament itself is bound to the provisions of the BORA by
s.3 (a).

The defaults have implications for the Rule of Law and a failure of
representative democracy.

You will be aware that over time many claimants have also asked the Minister to intervene both in individual cases and about conducting an inquiry
but without success.

The above is a brief synopsis of the issues. The former Chief District Court Judge
Peter Trapski also recently said publicly that an inquiry into ACC is long overdue.

The original petition also has the support of the NZ Law Society."
0

#11 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:59 AM

magnacarta, on Nov 22 2005, 08:09 PM, said:

Has anyone else picked-up of the profound error in Jim Anderton's underlined statement:

"That ends the matter from a procedural point of view because Parliament is paramount under our constitutional arrangements, and what the House decides to do takes precedence over any other enactment."

Think about the underlined statement and the ramifications to a free and democratic society and the rule of law when this man has two decades of Parliamentary experience, and is the former Deputy Prime Minister and a current Minister.

As an educative exercise, do you believe Jim Anderton's statement is correct?????????

And if so why ?????

or why not???????

Remember, knowledge is power, but ignorance punishes.


I went and asked for a written legal oipinion on this ..

I do bludge so I not always successful..
this time I was,

the reply from a very skilled constitutional lawyer was as follows.
quote.
BULLSHIT ..
unquote

I think he , I got my monies worth.

tony
0

#12 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 23 November 2005 - 08:30 AM

Tonyj, with respect, I just wonder whether you have any credibility.

The post of mine which you refer to above was posted to the forum at 8.09 pm last night (22 November)

Your post above stating that you have received a written legal opinion from a very skilled constitutional lawyer was posted at 8.59 am today (23 November)

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that a "very skilled constitutional lawyer" researched and seriously looked at the issues overnight and was able to provide a written legal opinion before 9 o'clock this morning.

And quite frankly, it is inconceivable that a lawyer, any lawyer, would use language like "Bullshit" in a written legal opinion for which he/she could be held to account by the NZ law Society.

If your intent is to try and divide this forum then you haven't succeeded but I do note in your post that you admit "I do bludge"

I'm sure ACC will take note.
0

#13 User is offline   Easyrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 23 November 2005 - 09:35 AM

Hi Tonyj I would be verey interested in reading the whole Legal Oipinion, will you please post it, and it would also be good to have accecess to a good Lawyer myself for a oipinion on several cases our group is having problems with. So can you please post his letter head details as well.
0

#14 User is offline   watcha 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: 15-November 03

Posted 23 November 2005 - 09:45 AM

Tonyj, we know where the bullshit is coming from, it was only a matter of time before you revealed your allegencies. Thankyou for clearing up our concerns.
0

#15 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 23 November 2005 - 06:12 PM

magnacarta, on Nov 23 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

Tonyj, with respect, I just wonder whether you have any credibility.

The post of mine which you refer to above was posted to the forum at 8.09 pm last night (22 November)

Your post above stating that you have received a written legal opinion from a very skilled constitutional lawyer was posted at 8.59 am today (23 November)

Are you seriously expecting us to believe that a "very skilled constitutional lawyer" researched and seriously looked at the issues overnight and was able to provide a written legal opinion before 9 o'clock this morning.

And quite frankly, it is inconceivable that a lawyer, any lawyer, would use language like "Bullshit" in a written legal opinion for which he/she could be held to account by the NZ law Society.

If your intent is to try and divide this forum then you haven't succeeded but I do note in your post that you admit "I do bludge"

I'm sure ACC will take note.

I have been wondering if i could be bothered actually replying to the three recent postings.

I am because a few people who know me on this group have contacted me wanting to address them .Its safer if I do.. trust me.


magnaacarter ,
you could have PM me and I would have been more than pleased to give you the full details..

I refrain from getting too specific on this site for obviouse reasons.
But it does not matter now.


I may not work in the rather lineal , ignorant way , others do but trust me I do the job.

It is a shame i can no longer trust the integrity and support of this group , thats fine, I will continue ..It was possible i just might have been able to achieve results faster with support as well been able to offer something back., I get enough shit from ignorant civil servants , I do not need it from so called friends.


Have a read of this first.. it was written by the TV3 reporter Mike Turner .,

I had my accident two months after this was written , I broke my back in two places and an MTBI.
Lucky , with spinal recovery, full mobility but reconstructive opps and pain , and part paralisis at times.. memory and word proceesing a problem.
BUT my IQ and high level cognitve is well above average. I sure still have problems but Fantasy , lies and corrupt practice is not omoung them.
I have since 1994 been instrumnetal in a number of support group formations including the retention and rebuilding of the TBI suuport group at Aucjkland hospital. I got ACC funding for that .. I have spent considerbale time since 1994 involved in many confrontations with the ACC as well as advocacy work .
In that time I have made some valuable contacts within the sytem and as well many enemies. I have seen it all trust me ( oop's you don't, I forgot)

read this then read further>>>

quote!!!!!
• The Essential Newsletter for Property Investors. Vol 1 - No 10- September 1994



Landlord reveals role in housing reforms


A FORMER Auckland landlord has revealed he used fair means and foul to influence the National Government to introduce rent assistance for private sector tenants.
Tony Lowe developed contacts in various government agencies. planted the idea of a rent voucher system and, in his words, used “devious means” to make sure it took hold. The end result: the accommodation supplement introduced by the Government last year.
Various people were aware of Lowe’s pursuit of a new housing benefit, but till now the full extent of his involvement hasn’t been revealed.
When we caught up with him in Royal Oak , where he now sells Real Estate, Lowe wasn’t keen to leap into print about his behind the-scenes work. But nor was he about to deny it.
The co-owner of 220 rental properties in Auckland , Tony Lowe had strong personal reasons to change the system by the late 1980’s . His livelihood was being jeopardised by the succession of his tenants leaving for subsidised state houses , who’s numbers were being expanded by the labour Government at the rate of 750 a year in South Auckland alone..
In the end, the housing refor~came too late for Lowe, who lost all his properties in 1989. His predicament was shared by about 15 other Auckland landlords with 100 or more properties who suffered from 20 per cent vacancy rates and dropping rents.
Lowe and his partner were coping till the DFC went into statutory management and called an its loans. Auckland was in a property slump and they could not refinance. When the crunch came. Lowe’s said to have emptied a case full of keys on to the desk of a hapless DFC employee and told him to start managing the properties.
The big Remuera house, the fast cars, the boat. . . they’re all long gone. Lowe accepts the loss better than most. But there’s more to this man than meets the eye. Now in his mid-40s, balding and with a bushy grey beard, he’s always been a bit of a philosopher.
Lowe’s political links were with the Labour Party and he did a lot of background work on the residential tenancies legislation passed in 1986 when Phil Goff was Housing Minister. The inequities of the housing system were striking - and Lowe kept pursuing his goal after he had any chance to benefit from it.
Lowe recalls he had tenants really struggling to pay $150 a week when people down the road in a state house were paying as little as $35. He told some tenants they deserved a state house - and contrived to get one by evicting them thus earning them 10 valuable points under the Housing Corporation’s points system.
He says the points system was corruptible (he knows of a corporation staffers who •‘sold” points to tenants) and forced people into squalor to qualify for a state house. Some lived in caravans so they would qualify. And as the waiting lists grew, the criteria tightened and people had to do more extreme things - like throwing in their job - to get a state house.
Problems in the Auckland rental market had come to a head in 1987 when increasing numbers of tenants couldn’t find reasonable accommodation (Lowe attributes this largely to Rob Muldoon’s 1982 tax “clawback”. which deterred private sector investment). Rents shot up and panic set in. Labour responded with a big building and buying programme that drove private landlords out of business.
In 1989 Lowe estimated the cost to the taxpayer of each extra corporation unit at $1 3.000. since rents didn’t even cover basic overheads. In South Auckland alone Lowe put the ongoing cost of the state takeover of private business at nearly $20 million a year.
He knew of Glen Innes andMount Roskill streets dominated by state houses where 80 per cent of the occupants were single people living in three-bedroom homes.
“The tragedy is two-fold,’ Lowe wrote at the time. “Firstly, a rental assistance programme could house the same number of families at a fraction of the cost . This would bridge the affordability gap for families in real need who cannot afford to pay full private rents
“Secondly, encouragement of a healthy active private rental market will ensure that future population growth will be adequately housed and will also avoid the increasing gap between those who are poor enough to qualify for very cheap subsidised housing and those who don’t quite qualify therefore have to pay full
private rentals. There is a poverty trap building here, just as with the unemployment benefit, where many people working are actually worse off than when on welfare.”
Lowe got to know staff in the corporation (where some recognised the idiocy of the policies ) and Treasury. He broached the idea of a rent voucher system with Jim Gerrard, National’s housing spokesman before the I99O election, and then took it up with new Housing Minister Jim Luxton.
One of Lowe’s ploys was to send a series of short faxes to Luxton. “They would have been laughed at. I was entertainment. He would possibly have treated me as a fool, which was exactly as I wanted to be treated.” But all the time Lowe says he was subconsciously reinforcing the message.
He admits he used subterfuge too. He got friends in the United States to change codes on their faxes and send information on the voucher system purporting to come from an authority. Within New Zealand. using the same method, he’s rumoured to have sent faxes from one government agency to another.
While pleased with the equity of the reforms. Lowe is critical of he complexity of the accommodation supplement. “I think it should be more readily available to tenants and should be based on household income and expenditure. If there’s $300 coming into a household, and the rents $150, the tenant should be left with $200 of disposable income so She supplement would be $50.” Rent ceilings would have to be fixed for supplement eligibility so the state wasn’t paying for luxury accommodation.
Lowe says politicians are paranoid about so-called landlord capture, not appreciating how the market dictates rents.
He says the Auckland market will struggle to cope with increased demand for rental accommodation because owner-occupiers have taken over so many rental properties.“We’ve lost so many landlords, and they haven’t been replaced. When the pressure goes on, that will be a disaster.”While people are still buying investment property in Auckland. Lowe says they aren’t as committed as the landlords of the I 960s and 70s. With house prices rising, the new investors are more likely to sell up, take the capital gain and do something else with their money.
As for Tony Lowe, he says there’s no way he would get back into residential property in a big way. The risk of political change is top great, he say’s.


end of quote ............................................

I was president of the new Zealand Property Investors Assciation , consulting to the Government on a number if issues. Read Law( never finished) and some of my best friends are top NZ lawyers .. My lady friend is a senior law partner. I have kids who do law.
I have a small support group of six other ACC claimants , two are lawyers .

But it was not from any of these sources i gained the opinion for instance. But could have rung anyone of them that evening but did not..

The reason I have been up front about why I will not taint this group by fronting publlically for it in any way is because of my involvment in a group that is currently working on law reform regarding the use of medical cannabis.

I am personally a medical cannabis user and front a strong lobby group that is currently working on a comprehensive legal approach.I would talk daily to constitutional lawyers or similar and it just so happens I was actually talking with one late that evening on the phone when i read the posting , thought its was an interesting direction so mentioned it and ask for his thoughts.

Just joking I said I wanted a formal written opinion.

Is I understood it his reply BULLSHIT was his way of telling me Adnderton was bullshiting..

My references to me being a bludger I had the clock running being paid for by others ( the legal adise is not free that I am consulting him on re the cannabis law reform)
Yes even in the evening ..
It was a joke .... I was asking for free adivse on an unrelated matter , he sent me one word ... "Bullshit" to the question does Anderton know what he's talking about .
I got what I paid for.... I paid nothing.......

If anyone wants to front for full and formal written opinions I am happy to point you in the right direction as to who to use,,, a simple one would be $2000.00 .

I see some pretty smart legal research going on by posters to this group , some good advise and some of the reference work produced and ideas put forward..

I have seen the lack of progress previouse legal action has produced , and so now leave that to others and focus on intelligence ( know they eniemy ) and negotiations.
With them not you that is.

Good luck.

tony
0

#16 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 23 November 2005 - 06:38 PM

Also .

Before I spoke to lawyer , who had been trying to ring me for ages I had been on the phone to Tomcat ... why you may ask I WAS making arrangmnets to send up some money to kick off the seed capital to set up the secretariate .
And I had explained why and what to to Tomcat and as well asked him to gat the other two moderators to ring me and gave him my details .. We were on the phone for two hours ..I was also working on another funding program for the group.


It was only $100.00 , WAS is the opertaive word .. but of course watcha will front..and replace my effort ...

or is he all piss and wind.

tony
0

#17 User is offline   Hatikva 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 12-June 05
  • LocationWop Wops

  Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:20 PM

Hey guys - none of us are perfect, and it is easy to let emotions and personal grievances (real or perceived) to influence our decisions, and comments.

We've got a great group here - some of us have our own ways of doing things - lets see if we can work around differences and build on our strengths...

If ACC can use these divisions against us, then we will, as a group and even individually (for those that rely/count on our support) - we will surely fail.

Lets take the above posts "under advisement" - and move on with lessens learned.

As someone that is coming to terms with TBI, I know that the frustrations, ouchies and ARGHH!!!s occur far more frequently than before I was injured. I'm learning to deal with them, and not want to react .. and to deal with the insecurity that has come of the effects of the brain injury and not having the skills/smarts that I used to

... but it does hurt when I see others attacked, rightly or wrongly. That will never change .. I have a problem when I see others attacked or hurt - physically, emotionally or in print.

You're all trying to, and succeeding in, making a difference, in different ways. Until it is all over who is to say which is right or wrong? And when that time comes, will it matter? - Probably not as the achievement would far overshadow how we got there and simple things like who was right or wrong last month/year/decade as we've moved beyond that .

Still the eternal optimist. Still believe there is a solution out there to the ACC dilemma, and believe we're on the way to achieving it - I would really like to know that we have the support from all of you ...

I've seen how much all of you (and you know who you are) have contributed throughtout the past months/years - it is tremendous.

Take care ...
0

#18 User is offline   magnacarta 

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

Posted 23 November 2005 - 07:54 PM

Tonyj, I accept your explanation. But if you were joking in some areas please don't.

There are some very sensitive and hurting people on this forum to the point that I know of some families who have had suicides because of ACC. I hear about people who are so in pain they don't ever get a good nights sleep and I hear about and witness some who are so mentally distressed that they cannot help but break down and cry uncontrollably.

As far as watcha's contribution is concerned I know the circumstances personally.

Within his capabilities and at his own pace he makes a significant contribution and has done so for 4 years that I know of. He tries but regularly gets put down by ACC because of that. They attack, attack and attack again and again.

Yet his wallet is always open to the point where I know that thousands of dollars have been contributed by him to distressed claimants over the years who have nothing from ACC.

Just remember, there are many people on this forum (and off-forum) who receive no weekly compensation at all from ACC for years and must essentially beg to survive - I kid you not.

Having said that, let's move on.
0

#19 User is offline   tonyj 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 08-August 05

Posted 23 November 2005 - 08:59 PM

magnacarta, on Nov 23 2005, 08:54 PM, said:

Tonyj, I accept your explanation. But if you were joking in some areas please don't.

There are some very sensitive and hurting people on this forum to the point that I know of some families who have had suicides because of ACC. I hear about people who are so in pain they don't ever get a good nights sleep and I hear about and witness some who are so mentally distressed that they cannot help but break down and cry uncontrollably.

As far as watcha's contribution is concerned I know the circumstances personally.

Within his capabilities and at his own pace he makes a significant contribution and has done so for 4 years that I know of. He tries but regularly gets put down by ACC because of that. They attack, attack and attack again and again.

Yet his wallet is always open to the point where I know that thousands of dollars have been contributed by him to distressed claimants over the years who have nothing from ACC.

Just remember, there are many people on this forum (and off-forum) who receive no weekly compensation at all from ACC for years and must essentially beg to survive - I kid you not.

Having said that, let's move on.

no comment
tony
0

#20 User is offline   Chrissy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 45
  • Joined: 25-August 05

Posted 01 December 2005 - 09:53 PM

Oh shite that was heavy stuff, something I never thought to see on here...how sad...so have we all moved on from it and got over it :rolleyes: Because Hatvika is right we need to stick together as a group, would be nice if everyone made up!
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