ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

...

#1 User is offline   #y0 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 14
  • Joined: 18-February 06

Posted 05 October 2007 - 02:25 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   tonyj 

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

Posted 05 October 2007 - 03:40 PM

View Postboho refugee, on Oct 5 2007, 03:25 PM, said:

http://www.stuff.co....4227122a11.html

Quote

Twenty-eight days after his release, he will have to start paying back the $40,914 he owes, at a rate of $20 a week.

The rate will be reviewed after six months, but Judge Farish also ordered court collections staff to try to obtain the ACC compensation payment he receives as a lump sum every five years.

Lines' lawyer Tony Greig told the court his client received a payment of up to $13,000 each time.



Does this mean he is getting lump sum IA payments every five years , I am at a loss to see what other compensation payments could be that get reviewed every five years .. and be $13000.00 dollars .

tony
0

#3 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 05 October 2007 - 04:33 PM

This may explain it better


Jail for conman who preyed on vulnerable women

The six victims of fraudster Mark David Lines who preyed on vulnerable women may get back some of the money he conned out of them, when he finishes his jail term. He will have to serve at least 20 months of the three year three month sentence that Christchurch District Court Judge Jane Farish imposed today.

Twenty-eight days after his release, he will have to start paying back the $40,914 he owes, at a rate of $20 a week. The rate will be reviewed after six months, but Judge Farish also ordered court collections staff to try to obtain the ACC compensation payment he receives as a lump sum every five years. Lines' lawyer Tony Greig told the court his client received a payment of up to $13,000 each time.

Lines, 35, befriended five women and a man over a period of nearly three years, and obtained large amounts of money from them through loans which were never repaid. His promises were never kept, and he often backed them up with printed deposit receipts which were later dishonoured by the banks because there was no money in his account.

Mr Greig said Lines denied there were any sexual relationships with the women, though one of the women disputed that in her victim impact report to the court. Mr Greig also pointed out that the victims had got together on a website about Lines and had discussed the right way to write a victim impact report. They expressed the hope on the site that Lines would "go down hard". He said Lines recognised "he has left scars".

Judge Farish said she was not surprised by the women's reaction. Crown prosecutor Tim McKenzie described Lines as "an emotional predator with a cruel modus operandi". Judge Farish said there had been emotional harm as well as financial losses.

"The victims have expressed embarrassment, shock, feeling insecure. One has had to leave Christchurch because she doesn't feel safe or comfortable living here. "One nearly lost her business. One can't afford to buy a house for herself and her children. She lost the deposit because she gave it to you."

She said Lines had preyed on the women's insecurities and vulnerabilities. She was sceptical of a letter Lines had written to the court expressing remorse, since he had shown a high degree of manipulation towards the probation service which prepared his pre-sentence report, and the victims.

The victim impact reports spoke of intimidation and manipulation, both physical and psychological by Lines. She also noted that Lines had 109 previous convictions for dishonesty, and had managed to survive in the community by acting dishonestly. He had previously served a jail term. Lines was appearing for sentence after admitting seven charges of obtaining by deception, three of dishonestly using documents, failing to answer bail, breach of community work, and theft.

NZPA

This is posted as a timely warning concering Mr. Thomas, and his attempted involvement into the Burnett case (see Mr Thomas's postings on the issue)
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 05 October 2007 - 04:49 PM

Despite a criminal conviction the judiciary are unable to take away ACC funding for the necessities of life such as transport for independence, treatment costs and suchlike. Do we know what the ACC "payments" were for? Perhaps he had conned the ACC as well?

Spacecadet I am completely mystified as to how you think I had involve myself with the Burnett case. His case was a done deal well and truly before any of us had heard of it. Peter Sara who won in that case will no doubt continue supporting the point of law. These people have absolutely no need of my involvement, the notion is bizarre.
0

#5 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 05 October 2007 - 05:58 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Oct 5 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

Despite a criminal conviction the judiciary are unable to take away ACC funding for the necessities of life such as transport for independence, treatment costs and suchlike. Do we know what the ACC "payments" were for? Perhaps he had conned the ACC as well?

Spacecadet I am completely mystified as to how you think I had involve myself with the Burnett case. His case was a done deal well and truly before any of us had heard of it. Peter Sara who won in that case will no doubt continue supporting the point of law. These people have absolutely no need of my involvement, the notion is bizarre.


QUOTE Alan Thomas on the Burnett case

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. Warren 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.

By the way Barrie Has joined in the side because I gave him the site address so he could see what is being said about him and hopefully understands the need for discretion So as neither his nor my cases compromise each other's.

A schitzophrenic Mr Thomas perhaps?

Or just another example of the "untruthfull" postings of Mr Thomas blogging up this forum?

I rest my case!
0

#6 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 05 October 2007 - 07:16 PM

As usual, this thread has again been hi-jacked.There is nothing here about the Thomas handling of cases,; lets stick to the point! A fraudster getting ACC payments.
Alan Thomas, let these threads run on without interference from you about rabitting on about absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Am fed up of your conduct...
0

#7 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 05 October 2007 - 10:57 PM

View PostSparrow, on Oct 5 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

As usual, this thread has again been hi-jacked.There is nothing here about the Thomas handling of cases,; lets stick to the point! A fraudster getting ACC payments.
Alan Thomas, let these threads run on without interference from you about rabitting on about absolutely nothing to do with the thread. Am fed up of your conduct...



To be fair sparrow, by my reading I see that space cadet brought Alan into it.

Lay off I say folks and lets stick together united in keeping acc as honest as we can.

Gloria.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 06 October 2007 - 11:52 AM

My suggestion was that "Perhaps he had conned the ACC as well?"

In the alternative I also raised the point that if this fellow was actually entitled to ACC the court could not get access to his payments that funded his injuries even if I was a criminal. Clearly it would be morally wrong to take away healthcare from any citizen no matter what. The suggestion is ridiculous and legislation prohibits it.
0

#9 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 06 October 2007 - 01:04 PM

View Postboho refugee, on Oct 6 2007, 01:15 PM, said:

View PostAlan Thomas, on Oct 6 2007, 12:52 PM, said:

Clearly it would be morally wrong to take away healthcare from any citizen no matter what. The suggestion is ridiculous and legislation prohibits it.


Does any one have access to the current ACC Legislation which prohibits this form of court direction?

Just an early query from me before thinking about any judgements or alternative POVs about the conman. the accstaff, the crime, the conviction nor the morals of healthcare decisions nor compensation decisions etc


Firstly, the crap posted by Alan Thomas is just a babble of nice words from a fantisizer blogging up this thread.

However Boho, you hit on a very interesting legal point. ACC payments are inalienable - ie cannot be taken from you if you are bankrupt. I, dare I say, also think that the Court cannot make this order; However I have not rushed off to look for the relevant section of the Act because I do not know the facts, i.e. what Act these payments are made under. From reading the article - and I never trust journalists to get it right with regards all the facts. The method of ACC payments as reported seemed unusual?
0

#10 User is offline   Gloria Mitchell 

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

Posted 06 October 2007 - 01:11 PM

acc payments are inalienable...can only be taken by notarised request signed by claimant.

Acc can and do "hold them up" but they cannot pay them to another person without claimants consent to do so.


IF the journalist got it right....note....."try to."
Gloria.
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 06 October 2007 - 01:15 PM

In some cases there can be an attachment order but this would only apply to the ERC portion which does not appear to be relevant in this case.
Entitlements for the injury would remain inalienable even if he was an axe murderer. There are some complications however if someone was injured during the course of committing a crime. This does not mean that the drivers having accidents are not covered by ACC.

S123 Entitlements inalienable

(1) All entitlements are absolutely inalienable, whether by way of, or in accordance with, a sale, assignment, charge, execution, bankruptcy, or otherwise.
(2) This section does not affect—
(a) any right of the Corporation to recover any amounts under this Act or to make any deductions authorised by this Act from any entitlements that the Corporation is liable to provide; or
(B) an independence allowance that is assigned for a period of not more than 5 years to—
(i) an insurer; or
(ii) a company within the meaning of the Life Insurance Act 1908; or
(iii) the Corporation, if the Corporation is liable to provide the allowance and the Corporation agrees to the assignment; or
© sections 4 and 5 of the Maori Housing Act 1935; or
(d) sections 84F to 84M of the District Courts Act 1947; or
(e) sections 87(1)(B), 88(3)(a), 103, 104, 105, 106, 106A, and 106B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or
(f) section 27Y of the Social Security Act 1964 (as saved by section 256(1) of the Child Support Act 1991) or sections 71 and 86A of the Social Security Act 1964; or
(g) sections 105, 110, 118, and 121 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 (as saved by section 259(1) of the Child Support Act 1991); or
(h) the Child Support Act 1991; or
(i) Part II or section 46 of the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992; or
(j) section 157 of the Tax Administration Act 1994.
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