ACCforum: Statutory Declarations - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Statutory Declarations Tricks the Fraud Unit and PIs use

#1 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 13 May 2007 - 12:16 PM

From reading the posts from those who had had dealings with the Fraud Unit and PIs, It is apparent it is usual for them to use the old "sign the statutory declaration" trick. Huggy, Al9lifes and Spacecadet are but a few who have recently reported having had this ruse thrust upon them, followed with the usual threat of revokation of cover under section 117 if the form is not signed.

Such action is illegal !

However, usually the poor ACC beneficiary is so stressed at the interview of being accused of "fraud" that I believe many of these documents, which are little more than false confessions obtained by force and coertion, are signed by the poor scared ACC claimant.

Firstly: You do not have to sign such a document, and my advice is NEVER sign such a document.

Secondly: A statutory declaration is something that should be "written by you in you own language"
It is some you elect to do - it is not something that you can be forced to sign on threat of suspension of entitlements.

Thirdly: ACC have the right to "reasonably request relevant information" in order to ascertain your continuing eligibility to entitlements. Note "reasonably request relevant information"

My advice for those who are confronted with this situation:

( a ) Politely refuse to sign the document, saying you need to think about it, consult your lawyer. etc, then leave the interview immediately.

( b ) Have nothing further to do with the PI. PI's have none of the rights of ACC under the Act.

( c ) Write to ACC giving to them directly, the information that you think is relevant. This letter can be in the form of statutory declaration if you so wish.

Enclosed is an draft of statutory declaration you may wish to use as a starter, taken from one such actual document.

Statutory Declaration of Spacecadet

I, Spacecadet, ACC beneficiary claimant from Hell, solemnly and sincerely declare that:-

1. I am unable to sign and swear the statutory declaration prepared in my name, presented to me by Paragon Risk on the 1st April 2007 for the following reasons:

( a ) The document was not written by me, in my own language, as I believe I am entitled.

( b ) The document contains statements that I believe are false, in that:- (quote)

( c) The document attributes statements to me that I have never made.

2. I do not agree to answer any questions put to me by Paragon Risk, but to fulfil my obligations under the Injury Prevention and Rehabilitation Act 2001 (the Act) I will supply the following relevant information, that I believe is being sought, directly to ACC

3. (List relevant facts I relation to your claim that you believe are being sort by ACC.)

4. etc

5. etc

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Oaths and Declarations Act 1957.

Spacecadet

Declared at

This day of 2007

(this has to be signed by a JP, solicitor or Court registrar)

NOTE: A statutory declaration states what you believe is correct. The relevant facts, as you believe them may latter turn out to be wrong - that is not the issue. The issue is that this is what you believe is true at this particular time.

Footnote:
As with religion - because you may believe something does not necessarily mean it may be true
0

#2 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 13 May 2007 - 03:21 PM

Nice one.

Just my thought that I became and still become annoyed at the use of the word " beneficiary".
Perhaps I should processs this emotion and the meaning of the word in the given context.

Labels ?!! Claimant !!
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 May 2007 - 04:26 PM

The ACC is entitled to ask for relevant information whenever it pleases. This does not mean a statutory declaration. Whenever they start getting insistent about a statutory declaration it is usually because they have either commissioned Private Investigators or are about to and would like to have the statutory declaration as the main plank for a criminal prosecution.

ACC building to various documents what are effectively declarations which included medical certificates. I'm not quite sure why we are signing medical certificates. After all a medical certificate is the doctor's clinical conclusion and no doubt conclusion or statement. Invariably the ACC rely upon the medical certificate in their ACC fraud prosecutions. Fraud requires the production of a document. This is somewhat difficult if the document is produced by the doctor.

I think what should happen is that the ACC ask the claimant for information in a direct and meaningful way. For example they could say Alan Thomas we have received information that you are working. I would then say what type of work and when. They would then tell me what they thought I was doing and I would be able to explain to them what I was really doing. We could then both sign a document describing what I was doing that would be on my file so as to remove any doubt for the future. In addition we could rely upon the decisions of previous review hearings about exactly the same subject matter.

If there was any doubt I would invite them to come and have a look. The whole process would take moments rather than consuming more than $1 million of ACC levies on ACC's biggest private investigation and trial of seven weeks.

They asked me to sign a statutory declaration early 1996 before they would provide me with an IRP. They suspended my entitlements until I signed the statement. In the statement I confirmed some additional comments to the effect that I was not working or earning from work. This seemed to have the opposite effect as it obviously got them worked up into a frenzy.



The ACC INFORME programe instructing ACC staff speaks for its self.

Facts about requesting information
Agencies information can be requested from
Section 164 "Disclosure of information to Corporation" allows ACC to request information from the following organisations:
* Inland Revenue Department.
* Department of Labour (includes NZ Employment Services).
* Department of Corrections.
* Department of Social Welfare (includes Income Support Services).
* Customs Department.
* Ministry of Health.
* Purchasers.
* Crown Health Enterprises.

0

#4 User is offline   MG 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05-February 04

Posted 13 May 2007 - 07:37 PM

Mr Thomas - your advice in your last post is, again, incorrect and misleading. I refer you to s72(3) of the IPRCA which provides that, if ACC requests, a claimant must make a written statement by way of statutory declaration or in a form supplied by ACC.
I am concerned that, if people rely on your advice, it will be to their detriment. Please do not try to provide advice on criminal law matters as you are not competent to do so.
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 May 2007 - 08:00 PM

Tonyj whether or not somebody makes a statutory declaration it is still a matter of choice. We are not "made" to do anything. Of course the Corporation could suspend our entitlements while we argue about whether or not information in the statutory declaration is correct in itself and what the ACC intended that information to relate in terms of the act. Invariably these statutory declarations are Trojan horses which permit the ACC to initiate a fraud investigation. Therefore it is wise that they are treated with suspicion and care.

I do not agree with your previous suggestion that the ACC should be able to have access whatever information they like because history shows that they cannot be trusted with information when they are being selective in what information that collecting and relying upon.

In my case the declaration was misused in a criminal prosecution. In other words the ACC misrepresented what was stated on that document inferring that it mean something entirely different. My declaration in fact meant exactly what I meant it to mean but they created a hypothesis to an opposite meaning that did not have any information to support that hypothesis to the extent that the hypothesis became a balance of probability. The conviction was on the base of an overwhelming balance of probability against my statutorily declaration to the opposite effect.

The result of the statutory declaration against the ACC's hypothesis meant that the onus was then placed on myself to disprove the ACC's hypothesis. How on earth could I disprove the ACC's hypothesis that I was working if there is no information to show that whether I was working or not. How I prove that I wasn't working so as to support my declaration?

The ACC have got away with it at this stage and it has taken 10 years so far of continual effort to redress the problem. It is far better therefore to take my advice and seek clarification from the ACC as to what information they need, why they need it and any alternative accept for a statutory declaration.

Do not ever sign a statutory declaration unless you have proved beyond reasonable doubt of information to support the statutory declaration. Anybody asked to sign a statutory declaration by the ACC without first having the rocksolid information to support the sad to declaration most certainly should not sign it. They should base their decision are not to sign it on the R v Thomas case which is currently the lead case law on the subject.

Tony you clearly have no experience with the way in which the ACC has is using S72 (2, 3) and its predecessors. Even reviewers are claiming they have no jurisdiction regarding this matter claiming it to be an administrative procedure. There is no way in the world the behaviour of the ACC would survive a judicial review on this matter yet part five of the act has not been providing claimants with the degree of jurisdictional protection against the ACC constructing a sequence of events that leads to a fraud prosecution in circumstances when there is no loss of entitlements at stake. In other words they have been a large number of successful fraud prosecutions even though the entitlements remain completely intact which is of course a legal impossibility. In my own case there is a conviction on the basis that I did not have entitlements yet there has never been an assessment of any type to say that I am no longer incapacitated and therefore no longer entitled to my claim. A PI alleging by way of unsubstantiated assumption that I am working does not override my statutory declaration but it did. ACC are now relying upon a fraud prosecution to support the contention that I am no longer entitled.

Tony we are dealing with the Corporation that is seeking to use a statutory declaration as a shortcut alternative to various other assessment procedures. There are very very few situations where the ACC actually need to use a statutory declaration. A statutory declaration should only ever be used in circumstances where information is inaccessible such as lost documents etc. S72 (1) and other means information collection and verification are the reasonable ways by which the ACC should conduct the processing of the claim. S72 (3) is being routinely used to bully claimants. Such bullying of invalids is an absolute disgrace and obvious abuse of the proper intention and purpose of the legislation. Tony in your heart of hearts I think you know this so why don't you apply your mind to developing a reasonable remedy to this problem we are all facing.

If anybody wants to understand the law on this matter to a greater degree please do not hesitate in asking questions on this thread as I am New Zealand's most experienced person concerning the ramifications of ACC statutory declarations.
0

#6 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 13 May 2007 - 09:46 PM

Alan,

I do confess not to have the experience levels of Stat Decs that progress to the levels of complexity that you have .

One simple question did you follow rule one I have.. Don't sign anything .. without a competent support supervising ???

Especially if one has any form of TBI and its got to the stage of a stat decs ..

This might explain my lack of experience...

tony
0

#7 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 14 May 2007 - 06:16 AM

Unfortunately another post blogged by Alan Thomas
0

#8 User is offline   RustyAdder 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 11-July 05

Posted 31 May 2007 - 10:56 AM

View PostSpacecadet, on May 14 2007, 06:16 AM, said:

Unfortunately another post blogged by Alan Thomas

That comment thoroughly reflects my feeling also. I have been an infrequent visitor to this site since Mr Thomas began his longwinded essays. I used to enjoy reading all postings on many topics but now scroll past. I think a more precise comments from this person would often suffice.
0

#9 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:30 AM

Impairment takes many forms.

Intolerance takes many forms.

Respect and rejoice.

We are all different.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:48 AM

Rusty Adder please forgive me and the others on this site that are either brain-damaged, medicated or both. I trust you will take Al9liess (opps Al0lifes voice software) suggestions to heart. We are all in this together.

Each and every time the ACC PI told them that he has "got the goods on me" I was asked to sign a statutory declaration for the express purpose of "catching me out" with a statutory declaration opposite to their PI information. On the last occasion they thought they "had the goods on me", together with an opposing statutory declaration when cancelling my claim August 1997. They then immediately realised they were wrong again and asked for another interview with the PI October 1997 and this time the PI was writing down the answers to the questions before I started speaking and expected me to sign it as another statutory declaration. After 10 years I am still waiting for the information opposing the statue declaration so I can have my appeal in the district court.
0

#11 User is offline   Al9lifes 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 16-October 05

Posted 31 May 2007 - 11:57 AM

Freudian slip grandad?

I trust you will take Al9lies suggestions

I am not overly concerned about being called anything apart from late for dinner or some kind of file sign.

I do object to the Crown stating the crimes I have committed are "attempts to mislead".

The ACC is the one being misleading !! Like TOTALLY missleading and fraudulently taking our tax.
0

#12 User is offline   freefallnz 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 29-June 04

Posted 01 June 2007 - 02:48 AM

don't you mean compulsory accident insurance levies?

Youre coverered + Yeah right
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