ACCforum: Erc Despite Fraud Conviction (burnett) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Erc Despite Fraud Conviction (burnett) Working While Incapacitated

#41 User is offline   freefallnz 

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

Posted 28 September 2007 - 09:47 PM

And dont we all feel like that at times!

ACC is a corrupt monster that has little regard for the law.

ACC is a corrupt monster that preys upon injured.

ACC is a corrupt monster that bullies and cheats those unfortunate to need its services.

ACC is one of the biggest cons inflicted upon New Zealanders.

F..k ACC
0

#42 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 28 September 2007 - 09:58 PM

Barrie Peter Sara is as good as you get. He does care at what goes on and it nmust be very tough to do a job like he has to see the destruction ACC causes. A case like yours makes it worthwhile keeping at them.

This is a good case and good things could come out of this for you. Dont let ACC get on top of you they are a bunch of wankers. Next time im heading to Chch ill call in for a cuppa, be good to catch up with you.

You have the upper hand now so keep at it mate :)
0

#43 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 28 September 2007 - 10:24 PM

 Alan Thomas, on Sep 28 2007, 10:16 AM, said:



It appears that they want to rely upon third-party information originating from the members of the public that has not been open to the scrutiny of any form of expertise with the result that the onus is shifted upon the claimant .

.


third party information/evidence has been used in other courts for a long time to succesfully prove points.
0

#44 User is offline   BLURB 

  • accforum.nz
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5774
  • Joined: 22-July 06
  • LocationCambridge

Posted 29 September 2007 - 11:22 AM

re [17] = "... then It has been so without proper process ..."

I'm not sure I should involve myself in this debate as I haven't a clue, hence Warrens involvement in my issues, but would I be right in saying that ...

Had ACC followed correct procedure before or after the conviction (they would have had plenty of time to have done this between Mr Burnet being charged and the Court hearing date), by putting Mr Burnett through the required vocab and capacity assessment process, then making a decission, they would have done it right instead of doing it the way they did by relying on the conviction. Which in my way of looking at it is not due process.

Not sure if i wrote that right. Shouldn't they still be required to follow due process (vocab and medical) as how its laid out in acc act whatever before abating or stopping his money?

In my own stuff, AONs Leanne MacDonnell and Dr Robert Percival percieved to follow the process and got the desired outcome .... but what the reviewer Mike Dunne and Appeal Judge Caddenhead didn't want to know is how they interfered with that process to get me off!

Now their (ACCs) arguement is that its been to review and Appeal, stiff shit! Its historic. Live your life on a s/b (currently unfit due to back injury/pain = 10 hours a week).

What comes around goes around Leanne. Don't ever forget that!
0

#45 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 September 2007 - 12:00 PM

Blurb your understanding of the Beattie J decision is correct.

This means a large number of people have been wrongly advised, wrong cancellations and no doubt a large number of wrong convictions. This judgement will initiate a significant number of appeals.

Those advocates and lawyers that have turned claimants away based on the ACC policy and its intimidation so as to maintain high success a claim of rates now have egg on their face. It is only people like warrant and Peter Sara who have the heart to go the extra mile regardless of the level of work it takes that get to the heart of these matters.
0

#46 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 30 September 2007 - 11:42 AM

Barrie,
Having been a client of Peter's myself all I can say is he is a good man with a good heart. Listen to his advice, take on board his expertise and ensure you listen to his wise counsel.

Whilst there are many opinions on this board, that is mostly what they are....opinions.

You are in good hands, place your trust there.

Go well,
Denise
0

#47 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 30 September 2007 - 01:14 PM

 Alan Thomas, on Sep 29 2007, 01:00 PM, said:

Blurb your understanding of the Beattie J decision is correct.

This means a large number of people have been wrongly advised, wrong cancellations and no doubt a large number of wrong convictions. This judgement will initiate a significant number of appeals.

Those advocates and lawyers that have turned claimants away based on the ACC policy and its intimidation so as to maintain high success a claim of rates now have egg on their face. It is only people like warrant and Peter Sara who have the heart to go the extra mile regardless of the level of work it takes that get to the heart of these matters.


Bullshit - you only have a limited amount of time to lodge an appeal, and if you are out of time you dont have a show. However, I don't believe this would stop Mr Thomas, as his Appeal before Beattie earlier this month demonstrated. All it did was waste the Judges time, and re-inforce Mr Thomas's reputation as a looser.
0

#48 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 September 2007 - 01:30 PM

Spacecadet legal advice is that you cannot steal something that you own. In any case he was convicted for stealing his ERC but as the ACC had not actually gone through the proper procedure to cancel it he still owns it. At best he can only be prosecuted for failing to inform the ACC that he was working. If you read the Brown case you will understand what the legal experts have explained.
0

#49 User is offline   bmburnett 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-September 07

Posted 30 September 2007 - 04:58 PM

 fairgo, on Sep 30 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

Barrie,
Having been a client of Peter's myself all I can say is he is a good man with a good heart. Listen to his advice, take on board his expertise and ensure you listen to his wise counsel.

Whilst there are many opinions on this board, that is mostly what they are....opinions.

You are in good hands, place your trust there.

Go well,
Denise

thank you
0

#50 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 30 September 2007 - 07:38 PM

 Alan Thomas, on Sep 30 2007, 02:30 PM, said:

Spacecadet legal advice is that you cannot steal something that you own. In any case he was convicted for stealing his ERC but as the ACC had not actually gone through the proper procedure to cancel it he still owns it. At best he can only be prosecuted for failing to inform the ACC that he was working. If you read the Brown case you will understand what the legal experts have explained.


Bullshit. I never said anything of the sort. I was commenting on the absurdity of the comment of Mr Thomas comment about the Burnett judgement "This judgement will initiate a significant number of appeals". No it will not; as all appeals must be done within a strict time frame, and Mr Thomas is one of the foolhardy that ignore this. Mr Thomas has the wrong end of the stick about the legal system but he foolishly continues to offer advice.

I never give legal advice. However Mr Thomas's comments leaves me no alternative but to offer an "opinion" on the Burnett decision. The Burnett case will benefit Burnett and Burnett alone. The Thomas case differs from the Burnett case in one significant way. Burnett admitted to working and sought abatement of earnings. Very simple and straight forward so Judge Beattie issued the decision he did.

Thomas on the other hand has vehemently denied that he was working, and argues he was merely "the owner" of the companies he was associated with. His argument against "working" is centred around the semantics of a job description; and that's where his case has been bogged down for 10 years.

Fraud always has the element of deceit. In the Burnett case - no evidence of deceit. A spray painter on ACC doing occasional work as a driver, which both he and ACC admitt. Abate the ERC by the earnings declared by PAYE.

Thomas, on the other hand, "owned" several companies for which which, suprise suprise. there appears to be no accounts or formal records - just the usual Thomas barrage of excuses. Owning, and being an executive of, companies carries with it legal responsibilities. On one hand a company has the legal privilege of being an entity, and it's owners income is not liable to PAYE. On the other hand, a company has significant accounting responsibilities, especially to IRD. It appears Thomas did not carry these out. This raises the whole spectre of deceit. Thus Thomas can not expect abatement of earnings.

Thomas has no right to be passing comment or advice on this case, as his thinking and logic has been deemed by the Courts to be deceitful, and thus unacceptable to society. He is poisoning the minds of those who visit this site with his legal opinions, the same legal opinions which have lead to him being incarcerated to protect society.
0

#51 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2007 - 10:55 AM

Spacecadet your posting does not have a foundation in facts and you have proceeded to hypothesise as to what the facts might be then make your judgement.

Legal advice I have been provided with from those who are in possession of the facts is that when there is new evidence an application for an appeal in a criminal case is open to the accused. In this case the facts are that Mr Barnett entitlement to ERC continues until ACC make a "determination" which has depended upon independent qualified information rather than the Corporation making assumptions based on whatever information is at hand. This issue of law has been clarified to the point is that the ACC were never able to prosecute for fraud because Mr Barnett continued to own his entitlements. You cannot steal what you still own.

These principles describing this case law are applicable to everybody that has suffered the same fate, including myself. This category can all appeal the criminal conviction in the reliance of the Beattie decision. Even though this legal advice as being given to me by the qualified experts all those who think it might apply to them should take Spacecadet's advice and seek their own legal counsel.

The ACC are aware that the moment they calculate an overpayment, as in either Burnett or my own, the ACC open themselves up to criminal prosecution for producing a false document. The ACC are completely aware that they cannot cancel the claim or ERC based on the assumptions of members of the public documented by the private investigators. In both cases the ACC succeeded in achieving a fraud conviction but did not want to disclose how much. This is their modus operandi to avoid discovery of a false allegation.

In the Burnett case he was working full-time earning almost double his preinjury income paying PAYE while on the other hand I was a simple director carrying out fudiciary duty without any earnings which meant there was no PAYE. The companies I owned that were active were managed. I have never denied minor participation and a case manager said I do not need to worry about that type of thing because I was neither earning nor could those activities make up an occupation. The lack of possibility of work or earnings is confirmed by the chartered accountants documentation and company records which the ACC seized by search warrant and have not yet returned as such information would undermine the ACC hypothesis that I was working and ruin the fraud prosecution. The ACC forensic accountant and principal witness disagrees with the ACC in as much as they cannot conclude what they did conclude.

In the Burnett case he pled guilty while I was convicted based on what the judge said was "overwhelming balance of probability" that the ACC had reached their decision to cancel the claim properly.

In the Burnett case he kept secret the fact that he was driving and generating earnings. In my case the ACC were told what little information it was because there was not much information. The information that they are relying upon, such as allegations that I was interviewing clients, was actually interviewing potential partners for the business plan is preparing in connection with the IRP of which there was an ultimatum to do these things or have my ERC suspended until compliance.

The Burnett case establishes that in the most extreme cases of working and earning while at the same time receiving ERC in itself does not provide the ACC with any mechanism to stop ERC. They must make a determination before making a decision and they must carry out abatement of earnings calculations before doing anything else such as prosecute for fraud. The Burnett case overwhelmingly supports my case.


The ACC position agrees with Spacecadet's viewpoint, inasmuch as if ACC can achieve a criminal conviction of fraud they are under no obligation to carry out any assessment, determination or calculation.

Spacecadet states Thomas, on the other hand, "owned" several companies for which which, suprise suprise. there appears to be no accounts or formal records - just the usual Thomas barrage of excuses.... ...This raises the whole spectre of deceit. Thus Thomas can not expect abatement of earnings.

ACC have the chartered accountants formal records and company database of all activities seized by search warrant and not returned to be used in my defence so who is deceiving who???

As ACC claim that my case is the biggest case of this type on record that falls within the realms of possibilities that others might be interested in my experience and the legal advice given to me and perhaps assess for themselves what is ACC propaganda and what is not.

Spacecadet the origins of the difficulties I have had with the ACC are well documented demonstrating that from the day I lodged my claim the ACC have been hostile towards me no matter how friendly and helpful I have been.

I think the spectre of deceit is that the ACC are attempting to use fraud as a mechanism of entitlement calculation from which all future reaassessment and entitlements is irrecoverable. The Beattie J decision appears to unravel this dastardly scheme.

He is poisoning the minds of those who visit this site with his legal opinions, the same legal opinions which have lead to him being incarcerated to protect society.

"...incarcerated to protect society". I think you might have hit the nail on the head because of the Internet site I started 1998 which amalgamated with another into this one. Mr McGreevy did telephone me to tell me he was going to shut me down.

I guess everybody can judge for themselves whether Beattie Sara, Beattie J and numerous other legal advisers are correct or that the ACC can continue doing what they have been doing.
0

#52 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 01 October 2007 - 11:50 AM

 Alan Thomas, on Oct 1 2007, 11:55 AM, said:

Spacecadet your posting does not have a foundation in facts and you have proceeded to hypothesise as to what the facts might be then make your judgement.


In my posting I make no judgements. I use the judgements issued by the Courts and expressed an opinion.

Mr Thomas, by your reply you are clearly a charleton and a fraudster, who obviously did not serve long enough of your sentence to reflect on your wrongdoings. The Courts view you as a vexatious litigant and you are treated by them in the appropriate manner.

You blog up every posting on this forum with your lies and deceit, in an attempt to hijack the forum for you own ends. I make this posting for the purposes of protected those who you are attempting to manipulate for your own ends.
0

#53 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 October 2007 - 12:14 PM

Spacecadet sucking up to the ACC Fraud Unit, by your postings about me, will not stop them prosecuting you. claiming that the ACC fraud unit got it right and Beattie J. decision does not have a global application only increase the potential for the successfully prosecuting you.

The clarification is that ACC are required to follow the legislation rather than relying upon the rantings of members of the public who see fragments of information that led them to assume things. What you are posting demonstrates my point in a very classical way. If you make wrong statements and other people start copying those wrong statements before you know you have a lynch mob. I think your postings have expertly (inadvertently or not) clarified human nature in this regard.
0

#54 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 01 October 2007 - 02:40 PM

From Alan Thomas

Quote

before you shoot me to pieces consider the possibility that I am involved with this case and have had considerable discussions with all parties. Naturally enough I frame of what I have stated is within the context of ACC suspecting my involvement but remaining uncertain. I had said just enough for them to increase their suspicions. **** is not involve the yet but is likely to be. By the way Peter Sara is looking at a couple of my appeals Which has necessitated considerable discussion about these matters.


Alan - this is an example of the bullshit you put about, trying to make out you are the "kingpin" of this case when in fact you initially caused the problem on this issue with the Courts and you are now interfering in someone else's case.

This is very dangerous stuff.

I suggest you remove this thread, stop offering legal advice on the forum and in future keep your nose out of other peoples business.
0

#55 User is offline   bmburnett 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 24-September 07

Posted 05 October 2007 - 06:25 PM

HI
I HAVE RUNG PETER SARA AND TOLD HIM TO DO WHAT HE THINKS BEST IN MY CASE, IF THIS ALL FALLS OVER THEN SO BE IT I WILL GET ON WITH MY LIFE AND PUT THIS IN MY PAST.
I DO HOPE THAT IT ALL GOES WELL BUT I CANNOT LET THIS EAT AWAY AT ME OR ONE DAY I WILL WAKE UP AND JUST BE A BITTER OLD MAN THAT NO ONE LIKES.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE INJUSTICES IN THE WORLD SOME WILL GET RESOLVED SOME NOT BUT SOMETIMES I THINK IT IS GOOD TO JUST STOP AND SMELL THE ROSES
0

#56 User is offline   fairgo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 290
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 05 October 2007 - 07:50 PM

Very very wise Barrie :) Do not let this consume you.....by all means fight it with the aid of a very capable lawyer and let him take the lead.

Every day above ground is a good one......make sure you take the time to enjoy it!

Go well,
Fairgo
0

#57 User is offline   BIDD 

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

Posted 08 October 2007 - 01:53 PM

:ph34r: Hi barrie,, hang on in there mate,don't let those NAZI, case mongrels get you down,,I have been through their meat grinder, and if it was not for the opinions expressed on our forum i would have proberly caused some case mongrels a reason to fear going to work, all of my past feelings well up inside on reading yours and others plights, it took 5yrs of fighting to resolve most of my issues, and i nearly vomit at the door of ACC steps every time i have to visit them,, stay hard mate, WHO DARES WINS,,,,, cheers Bidd :ph34r:
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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