[Alan Thomas]

I would like to propose that Part 5 of the Act is meant to be sole means of legal redress the to secure our claim and enforce our entitlements. I suggest that the following list the core elements that can be processed through Part 5 of the Act starting with the review hearings. I am perfectly well aware that the ACC argue that reviewers do not have jurisdiction in certain circumstances which appears to be 75% of the time.

1. Cover

2. Medical Rehabilitation

3. Social Rehabilitation

4. Vocational Rehabilitation

5. Compensation

6. Case Management

7. Judicial Entitlement (Part 5 of the Act)

8. Other



I would like to propose that this thread be devoted to the quantification the necessary ingredients to come under Part 5 of the Act.

In responding to this thread I would suggest the opening line should be one of the 8. points raised followed by the title issue and description followed by another title titled rationale, for the sake of clarity.

For example I would propose that
6. Case Management
& 7. Judicial Entitlement (Part 5 of the Act)
are entitlements no different to the entitlement of compensation. A reviewer would no doubt argue otherwise.

One of the strategies of avoidance is that the ACC failed to make a decision and claimed that you cannot review a failure decision. Over the years legislation has been modified to make the strategy more difficult. My observation is that ACC are speedily eliminating the meaning of the legislation so as to reduce its liabilities while at the same time increasing the difficulty threshold of judicial remedy.

[Spacecadet]

Ha ha
What a looney!
The ACC Act according to Mullah Thomas.
Clearly Thomas has missed the point; that the current Act is quite clear about what issues, and only these issues, can be taken to review. But then I suppose it explains why Thomas has so many of his reviews thrown out?
Oh well - let him continue in his fantasy land making up his own laws.
I don't think he needs any input or encouragement from forum members to debate these phantom issues.

[Alan Thomas]

What can and cannot be addressed under Part 5 of the act? (review hearings and appeals)

How do we address the unresolved issues that cannot be addressed under Part 5 of the act?

[Spacecadet]

Alan Thomas, on Sep 1 2008, 02:01 PM, said:

What can and cannot be addressed under Part 5 of the act? (review hearings and appeals)
How do we address the unresolved issues that cannot be addressed under Part 5 of the act?

Bring back hanging ?

[MINI]

Thomo you turd

You are trying to gather information for your own case!! And look at how you go about it. You threaten us all with death and expulsion off the site, then ask for our help.

The number of positive informative replies will be the amount of interest anyone has in helping you on this forum.

I have been screaming about section 114 online for yonks now and that is a real, not imagined, erosion of our rights through ACC's legal system, yet you had not one word to say about it.

You will get zip doodly more than that off me.

Bye Bully boy

[Alan Thomas]

Section 114 regarding ACC paying interest on late payment of ERC would no doubt come under a claim for entitlements to compensation. I've seen ACC argue that this is merely an administrative matter and the delay of process is not reviewable then they continued to delay the processing indefinitely.

It would seem to me that compensation must be looked at globally including the additional cost of delay.

If the ACC were to claim that interest was an administrative matter and deny access to a review hearing by claiming the reviewer did not have jurisdiction in what would be the remedy. Is a judicial remedy one about entitlements to access the full measure of all of our entitlements? I have commented on this matter extensively in numerous other postings over the years and have a case waiting before the district court of which the reviewer claimed he had no jurisdiction and which is also a deemed decision.

[doppelganger]

I have something that might be of interest.

The Court hearing should not be of the reviewers decision but a hearing of the Corporations decisions and review application.

This was the process under the 1972 Acts and 1982 Acts.

[Alan Thomas]

Doppelganger what is the actual change in the way the judicial procedure should function in accordance with the changes in legislation between 1997 and the current legislation? Is it a shift in actual legislation or simply the ACC influence?

[Spacecadet]

Being delusional is systematic of Thomas's personality disorder.
He is demonstrating this by thinking he is going to rewrite section 5 of the Act?
Come on! We are not that gullible.

[Alan Thomas]

Do incapacitated people have disability access to the judicial system? I don't mean just wheelchair access I mean so as to have regard for all manner of disabilities. Some people have a brain damage while others have a writing disability for example.

[Bill Birch]

Alan Thomas, on Sep 2 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

Do incapacitated people have disability access to the judicial system? I don't mean just wheelchair access I mean so as to have regard for all manner of disabilities. Some people have a brain damage while others have a writing disability for example.....

..... while others are just "out there"

[doppelganger]

Alan Thomas, on Sep 2 2008, 11:43 AM, said:

Doppelganger what is the actual change in the way the judicial procedure should function in accordance with the changes in legislation between 1997 and the current legislation? Is it a shift in actual legislation or simply the ACC influence?

Do the research first asking for the submissions at the change of the Acts.

[Gloria Mitchell]

doppelganger, on Sep 1 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

I have something that might be of interest.

The Court hearing should not be of the reviewers decision but a hearing of the Corporations decisions and review application.

This was the process under the 1972 Acts and 1982 Acts.

Can you tell us where you got that info from Doppel? If that has changed....do you know where?

cheers Gloria

[Spacecadet]

Alan Thomas, on Sep 2 2008, 05:19 PM, said:

Do incapacitated people have disability access to the judicial system? I don't mean just wheelchair access I mean so as to have regard for all manner of disabilities. Some people have a brain damage while others have a writing disability for example.

IN you case Thomas NO !
In Germany 50 years ago you would have been euthanased as a burden (read "Bludger" in NZ speak) on society.
If you were a dog you would get taken behind the woodshed and dispatched with a bullet in the head.
You have already been deemed a dangerous person by WINZ, ACC and the NZ Police.
Unfortunately you continue to press your luck and get away with it with ACC because, as yet, no one has been deemed as a "vexatious litigant" under the IPR&C Act. You are making a good case to be the first.
You have already been incarcerate 4 times; the most recent being in April this year.
Go away before we get tempted to apply a section 8.

[Alan Thomas]

In Nazi Germany invalids were systematically executed from the mid-30s onwards and in increasing numbers first in the hospitals but then on a more wholesale level in the death camps. A change in legislation took away judicial power from the invalid as it was considered they had no rights

I have raised the issue as to whether or not Part 5 of the ACC act (judicial remedy) is our right just like the right to medical treatment and compensation or do we need to seek judicial remedies outside of the act when the ACC and the reviewer determine that they do not have jurisdiction?

As a result of inaccessibility to the judicial system I would go so far as to say that we do not have disability access to the legal system to the extent that the legal system provides disability access in an equitable way. How would we go about describing Part 5 as a reviewable entitlement in itself and in its own right?

[MINI]

Do we have to seek judicial rememdies outside the system??

Well of course we do dipstick, we have to go cap in hand and if we dont get our rights that way, we have to take civil action because the ACC law does not allow us to use their law as others can.

But you dont have a clue what I am talking about do you?? Your reply to section 114 that I mentioned, shows that clearly.

[Alan Thomas]

Mini a judicial remedy cannot be sorted outside of the system. Judicial procedures are at the pinnacle or endpoint of the system. We do not go cap in hand to we knew we would petty bureaucrat but rather we use the full force of the law without compromise and once more we seek legal redress against the petty bureaucrat at a personal level so as to be a lesson to other petty bureaucrats who have wrongfully sought to have their power enhanced by people coming to them In hand.

The ACC act was clearly developed to be a stand-alone code was judicial remedies against all matters under the act, yet the ACC itself argues that it is not. If the ACC is correct then the door is open to other judicial remedys. In this regard the ACC has inadvertently been gradually opening the door to alternative judicial remedies. The judiciary are very nervous about opening the door to matters not dealt with by Part 5 of the act leaving many issues in apparent no man's land.

For example ACC has sought to take advantage of interpretation of S114 to the extent that it benefits from its own mistakes. The High Court has made it very clear to the ACC that this opens the door for the balance of the liability to be claimed outside of Part 5 of the ACC act to make up the difference. I'm mystified as to why you do not take this advice, take the ACC to court get your money and get on with life rather than arguing with the system.

[Spacecadet]

I think Thomas has really lost the plot and is raving on incoherently.

Time for this thread to be ditched I think.