ACCforum: Statutory Declaration - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Statutory Declaration Are ACC acting illegally??????

#1 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:10 AM

It is known or should be known by everyone, that if you make a false statement in a statutory declaration that you can be prosecuted under the crimes act.

Ok here is a goody.

If the author of a statutory declaration (Jamie Clark from ACC) knows that the stat dec contains false facts and statements and they threaten to stop your entitlements if you do not complete the declaration would this person indeed be able to be prosecuted under the crimes act for forcing you to sign a declaration knowing that their is untrue facts in this document.

Remember folks i have the evidence from case manager and from medical certificates that some of the statements ACC make in the stat dec that arent questions but are statements that dont leave room for answers or corrections are indeed untruthful.

If they stop my entitlements because of this i will indeed pursue this issue and see if the person can be charged under the crimes act and if so i will not hesitate to do this.
0

#2 User is offline   gaffa09 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 02-November 03

Posted 06 January 2007 - 04:25 PM

False declaration.

Many of long term claiments if reading through their documents will find false statements signed and sent to another government Dept even to parliament.
I also have a letter of admission of false coding and a letter of admission that statements are wrong , reguarding my health problems which is a serious statement all on record.

Also on this site you will find documents that spell it out very clearly.

One is the posting on site , When is a broken neck not a broken neck i suggest you read .

We all will have to ban to gether
0

#3 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 04:25 PM

Now I'm not sure if you would consider this as black mail or not.

If its not black mail then would it be
105.Corruption and bribery of official—

(1)Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his official capacity.

(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [7 years] who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any official in respect of any act or omission by him in his official capacity.

Cf Criminal Code (1954), s 102 (Canada)
0

#4 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 08:23 PM

the Act in which they claim that you must sign there stat dec

Responsibilities of claimant

72.Responsibilities of claimant who receives entitlement—

(1)A claimant who receives any entitlement must, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation,—

(a)give the Corporation a certificate by a registered health professional or treatment provider that deals with the matters and contains the information that the Corporation requires:

(b)give the Corporation any other relevant information that the Corporation requires:

©authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records that are or may be relevant to the claim:

(d)undergo assessment by a registered health professional specified by the Corporation, at the Corporation's expense:

(e)undergo assessment, at the Corporation's expense:

(f)co-operate with the Corporation in the development and implementation of an individual rehabilitation plan:

(g)undergo assessment of present and likely capabilities for the purposes of rehabilitation, at the Corporation's expense:

(h)participate in rehabilitation.

(2)Every such claimant must give the Corporation a statement in writing about any matters relating to the claimant's entitlement, or continuing entitlement, to an entitlement that the Corporation specifies, and must do so whenever the Corporation requires such a statement.

(3)If the Corporation requires the claimant to do so, the claimant must make the statement referred to in subsection (2) as a statutory declaration or in a form supplied by the Corporation.
Cf 1998 No 114 s 115

Looks to me as either a stat or a form supplied by the corporation.

They are playing games.
0

#5 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 08:34 PM

Thats it Doppel and if you read this correctly it is not allowing for the corporation to be the authors of the statutory declaration.

must make the statement referred to in subsection (2) as a statutory declaration.................or

in a form supplied by the Corporation. A FORM IS NOT A STAT DEC SIMPLE
0

#6 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 06 January 2007 - 09:07 PM

As if the stat dec and the totally false accusation as in the search warrant of having completed a false stat dec using a document for pecuniary gain isnt bad enough see what you think of the below.

The Police Act 1958 states:

6 Non-sworn members of the Police

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or any other enactment,—
(a) No non-sworn member of the Police shall have or may exercise in relation to members of the public any of the powers, functions, or duties of a member of the Police under this Act or any other enactment or at common law; and
(b) No reference in this Act or any other enactment to any member of the Police shall be read as including a reference to a non-sworn member of the Police.

(2) Any non-sworn member of the Police may, on being authorised to do so by warrant under the hand of the Commissioner, exercise any particular power, function, or duty of a member of the Police under any [[enactment other than this Act]], except a power to arrest or search any person.

Remember folks Clark and Gibbons were searching without the police watching what they were doing on numerous occasions. I also have outside witnesses ready to stand in court and verify this fact.

Clark and Gibbons arent even non sworn members of the police and even if they did have this status of being a non sworn member they are still not entitled to search as if they are the police unless they have express written consent from the commissioner. If this consent was provided then by law it was supposed to be produced at the search. It is also supposed to be noted in the warrant if these 2 civilians had authority to act as a cop.

Remember Clark and Gibbons you are not police officers anymore......you perfed so you could get your huge remuneration package payout by the government. In other words you are broken down uselss no fucken hopers.

As if the stat dec and the totally false accusation as in the search warrant of having completed a false stat dec using a document for pecuniary gain isnt bad enough see what you think of the below.

The Police Act 1958 states:

6 Non-sworn members of the Police

(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or any other enactment,—
(a) No non-sworn member of the Police shall have or may exercise in relation to members of the public any of the powers, functions, or duties of a member of the Police under this Act or any other enactment or at common law; and
(b) No reference in this Act or any other enactment to any member of the Police shall be read as including a reference to a non-sworn member of the Police.

(2) Any non-sworn member of the Police may, on being authorised to do so by warrant under the hand of the Commissioner, exercise any particular power, function, or duty of a member of the Police under any [[enactment other than this Act]], except a power to arrest or search any person.

Remember folks Clark and Gibbons were searching without the police watching what they were doing on numerous occasions. I also have outside witnesses ready to stand in court and verify this fact.

Clark and Gibbons arent even non sworn members of the police and even if they did have this status of being a non sworn member they are still not entitled to search as if they are the police unless they have express written consent from the commissioner. If this consent was provided then by law it was supposed to be produced at the search. It is also supposed to be noted in the warrant if these 2 civilians had authority to act as a cop.

Remember Clark and Gibbons you are not police officers anymore......you perfed so you could get your huge remuneration package payout by the government.

The Book written by Tom Lewis and called Coverups and Copouts written by a former police officer exposes the corruptness within our police. In it he states about the PERF scheme. Back in 1998 it works out roughly $10,000 for every year a officer is in the force that he will be paid upon his exit under the PERF if he leaves before his retirement age.
0

#7 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 06 January 2007 - 11:07 PM

Huggy, I would refuse to sign a stat declaration that was filled out by someone else.
They cannot make you sign this false statement. What you can do is sign it and put


' under duress and the Contents of the declaration are not true" and then sign that.
As you say it is a legal doco and you must make sure your declaration is the true facts.- it is signed before a JP as well, so you have to declare to him that this is the truth.
Dont have a bar of their Stat Dec's. THEY ARE FISHING.
0

#8 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:05 PM

Well I like the replies to the above.

On reading the doc that the ACC bludgers have sent to be signed as a declearation I personally think that the ACC bludgers should sign a stat declaration saying that the facts in the requested form is correct and is the information held by the corporation.

The odds of getting this signed by the ACC bludger is nill.. we know from the information from the case manager that what the bludger is saying is false and misleading.

You think that we should ask for this to happen??????????????????????????
0

#9 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 98
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:04 PM

Quote

they cant make you sign the document they made out but they can make you give answers to there querys in the form of a stat dec in your own form of a reply via a stat dec.



It is reasonable under the act for them to ask you to clarify questions they ask, but they cannot provide you the questions and answers and demand you sign that. It is YOUR statutory Declaration......so you get to answer the questions.

IMHO

Gloria.
0

#10 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 06:39 PM

The first 2 paragraphs on their cover letter is worded so as to fool anyone.....if you read the actual act it is different to how they express it.

Statutory Declaration
Section 72 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 requires you to furnish to the Corporation, relevant information when reasonably required to do so and in the form of a statutory declaration if necessary.

The information we seek is included in the attached Statutory Declaration and the request is made pursuant to Section 72 (2) and (3) of the IPRC Act 2001.

Yet when you read the Act itself its

(2)Every such claimant must give the Corporation a statement in writing about any matters relating to the claimant's entitlement, or continuing entitlement, to an entitlement that the Corporation specifies, and must do so whenever the Corporation requires such a statement.

(3)If the Corporation requires the claimant to do so, the claimant must make the statement referred to in subsection (2) as a statutory declaration or in a form supplied by the Corporation.

So ME the claimant must comply with their rewquest as outlines in subsection 2. I cant see anywhere in subsection 2 where the ACC can create the stat dec the way i read it.....it is me that must make the stat dec......if the Corp dont want me to create a stat dec then in must be in a form supplied by the corporation. Well when is a form able to be turned into a stat dec. Oh thats right when incompetant idiots from ACC create their own laws.
0

#11 User is offline   Accme 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 16-September 03

Posted 07 January 2007 - 07:05 PM

NOTE "and the request is reasonable." that is a decission and reviewable, it is a legal point and not for the likes of Richard Reese Branch Manager to make.
0

#12 Guest_Percy_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 07 January 2007 - 08:31 PM

Huggy, as I have said they are fishing. Gloria is right. You make out your own Stat Declaration and sign it. You cannot sign before a JP and say that this is correct if it is lies! They have no right to make their questions into a Stat Dec in my opinion That is for you to compose and sign as being true and correct!
Good luck and dont be fooled by this lot~
0

#13 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 07 January 2007 - 08:37 PM

View PostHuggy, on Jan 7 2007, 07:39 PM, said:


So ME the claimant must comply with their rewquest as outlines in subsection 2. I cant see anywhere in subsection 2 where the ACC can create the stat dec the way i read it.....it is me that must make the stat dec......if the Corp dont want me to create a stat dec then in must be in a form supplied by the corporation. Well when is a form able to be turned into a stat dec. Oh thats right when incompetant idiots from ACC create their own laws.



what about when the incompent idiots lie to complaintants, courts, police, and the general public.

View PostHuggy, on Jan 7 2007, 07:39 PM, said:


Section 72 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 requires you to furnish to the Corporation, relevant information when reasonably required to do so and in the form of a statutory declaration if necessary.

The information we seek is included in the attached Statutory Declaration and the request is made pursuant to Section 72 (2) and (3) of the IPRC Act 2001.


0

#14 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 07 January 2007 - 11:00 PM

GREETINGS,
Have a read of this.... ;)

sec. 240 Crimes act...

http://legislation.govt.nz/libraries/conte...a1961-043/s.240
0

#15 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 01:21 AM

Al9lifes I have a plan all will be revealed in due course.

Say no more nudge nudge wink wink :)
0

#16 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 05:31 PM

Ok lets keep it to one thread. I have brought this back up to the top.
0

#17 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 08 January 2007 - 08:04 PM

Percy and Cloria,

These two from the ACC have been fishing since June 2005. In December 2005 they were in the Dunedin Office for various reason and particular to get information to proceed with criminal prosecution. Now if my calculation is correct this means that from June to December 2005, a total of six months they had there lines in the water looking for bate. They found none

Twelve months have past and still nothing on the line in there fishing expedition. All that these two have come up with is lies and misleading information.

What is also known is that Jamie Clark hates been told that he is a compulsive liar and has requested to hand over the case to some one else. This is a chicken that is shitting in its own nest and wanting to get out of the nest.

Personally I think that they have caught a whale and can't cut the line. The fish is now in charge while the fisher is telling those big fishy stories.

Time period is now 19 the month. And the problem for these two fishers have just started.
0

#18 User is offline   Tomcat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2158
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 09 January 2007 - 10:48 AM

In addition to the above link to sec. 240...
these are interesting... ;) sec.105A thru to Sec. 117...

http://legislation.govt.nz/libraries/conte...1961-043/s.105a
0

#19 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:27 PM

There is no law in NZ that requires you to sign such a document - we are not a police state ----- yet?
Under S72 (and several other sections) ACC can requre you to "to provide relevant information" - "when reasonable requested" and also "to provide such information in the form of a statutory declaration"
Also note, your are required to supply relevant information, you are not required to comment, especially on any statement made by ACC, and my advice is not to, however vexacious.
Next, in the Oaths and Declarations Act I have found only a brief reference in one section to Statutory Declarations, refering to them being "made in you own words". Thus, until you sign the document as such, it is not a statutory declaration.

I have been confronted with this exact same situation from ACC. My response was to write a statutory declaration in my own words, starting with "I am unable to sign the document" given to me by ACC on ........ date because I believe it contains statements (1) which I believe are false (2) statements attributed to me which I have never made (3) incorrectly quote leglislation etc.
Also state, that you believe that under the Act, your are required to supply relevant information when reasonbly requested to do so.

The document they presented for you to sign is not reasonable - you are being conned into making a statutory declaration.
When I challenged ACC on this point, they backed down and did not invoke S117.
At the most, you should provide them with what you relevant information you think they need in the form of a statutory declaration written by you - and leave it at that.
As for the rest of the tricky questions - no comment ( you havent refused to supply relevant information and you are not required under the Act to comment)
0

#20 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 27 January 2007 - 09:11 AM

And yes, what ACC is doing here is not only illegal, it is criminal.

Smells like fish to me
0

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