ACCforum: Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges Mike "Milky" Gibson

#101 User is offline   neddy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 17-September 03

Posted 18 December 2009 - 09:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 18 2009, 10:44 PM, said:

Neddy why do you suggest people have a right to brake the law?

I'm not sugessting that, nor am I going to get into further debate with you as you could have least had the courtesy to not to try to anser a question posed to another.
0

#102 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 19 December 2009 - 08:46 AM

Thomo knows you dont mean that Neddy, (break the law), he is just trying to stir in another thread before Xmas. And twist what you are saying to suit his own slant on the conversation.

He will probably use these comments as unfair attacks on him in his upcoming Court case in the New Year.

Well I certainly would be the first to be there to let the Judge know that these forum posts can be changed to anything anyone likes by cutting and posting and show how it is done.

It is nearly Xmas Thomo, try and get in the spirit of things!! There is more that just you, you, you, out there.

We can do little for Mr Gibson now as he has pleaded guilty. He didnt have too. He wanted too!! NO doubt to get a lighter sentence for something he knew he did wrong. If he wanted your help because you made a stuff up of your own day in Court, no doubt he would have asked for it!!

You will have another turn next year to prove how you will handle your own case. Please show us all then what you are capable of!
0

#103 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:07 AM

If section 60 in the 1982 act had not been done away with in the 1992 act. Mike Gibson, With two serious disabilities would be well over the threshold for permanent disability compensation and exempt from producing medical certificates.( Having a capacity for work of 85%or less) Therefore there would have been no charges laid.
The point I am trying to get across is ACC, with this case, is now using our medical certificates as a form of entrapment.
The whole affair to me is bullshit. Just like my medical certificate is bullshit. There is no way I could keep up 3 hours a day, everyday but as I say there are days when I do. So the hours are on the med cert to cover me for this very sort of thing.
Now ACC is using this, saying I have a capacity for work, to deny me 6 months certificates. The reviewer and ACC ignoring the fact that a capacity for work in terms of the act is an abilty to work 35 hours per week. So you can't win. Protect yourself by being honest and ACC will use it deny rights elsewhere.
0

#104 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 20 December 2009 - 10:29 AM

Jocko

I am unsure how long you spend preening youself and cooking etc each day, but I certainly spend more than three hours a day, to allow me to live 'independently'.

Food shopping once a week takes all of three hours, there and back, loading unloading putting away etc etc. Little bits and bobs on other days as well.

Showering and abultions, make up etc takes 1& 1/2 hours. Dishes and cooking another 1 & 1/2 so if you are on your own, looking after yourself certainly takes a lot of time.

The more crippled you are the longer it will take. This is just obvious. If you then have the energy and stamina to go into workplace and do something that is going to keep your boss happy, at the level and speed that you can do it, well good on you, but I am pretty sure I could prove to a Judge, that, a) I cannot work to the level and speed that a boss would want to pay me for, and B) there are not enough hours in the day to allow me to rest in between doing the actions required.

I have actually got a worksheet or two or more that show how govt depts measure the work of their staff and how I dont meet that standard. If you cant met the Business Quality Standard, even as far as speed goes, they can push you out the door or demote you. Now if it is OK for govt depts to expect this of their employers it certainly must be OK for private business, after all they do not get propped up if they dont deliver.

Therefore, I do not feel it would be terribly difficult to prove innocence, if issue tackled in an itellegent manner. Mind you I dont lift anything heavier than a shopping bag as a rule, and then I have to recoup when I have finished doing it.

Now Judge Beattie should be aware of this tragic outcome of a injury, since he has been in the same position, if only for a while. Mind you he probably doesnt have to met national quality standards of anyone.

Merry xmas

Mini
0

#105 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 December 2009 - 12:02 PM

Mini you would do well to put aside your own opinion in faour of the opinion of one who has gone through this circumstance himself. What you stated is simply ill conceived and wrong.
0

#106 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 21 December 2009 - 11:22 AM

Thomo

Who do you think has the better angle on a eventual outcome of making a decision.

a) A person who has done it for years as a job? OR

B) A person who is under the extreme pressure of awaiting the next move of the Investigators?

Someone who has been through it is certainly not the best person to ask for rational input. I myself having been pushed into a corner am very aware of that. My irrational thought possess cost me a lot of money. Yes, me, never mind blaming others, I made the decisions. It is of course understandable that the reasoning for the irrational thought must be taken into consideration and proper. But that is a different issue. Of course the person not involved emotionally can make the better decisions. Thats why you have a lawyer. I don't, but another person, giving the outcome of my actions, (at that time) to me straight, would have saved me so much financial and mental harm.

I wouldnt be here now.

Oh well on we trudge!!! A new year shortly.
0

#107 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 December 2009 - 01:33 PM

Mini thank you for justifying the reason why your opinion should be put aside.

All circumstances involving both the ACC civil matters and criminal prosecution of the asleep neither a civil barrister nor criminal barrister on their own is suited for assistance in the decision-making of these problems currently faced by Mr. Gibson. The best barristers of both types of law [criminal and civil ] would never try to give advice based on their own understanding as the issues are more complex than what they can advise based on their own specialty.

My advice is based on the wisdom of hindsight together with the advice of both types of legal specialists and the opportunity of cross examining the ACC fraud investigation unit staff under oath. No other person in new Zealand has had the benefit of such an opportunity.
0

#108 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 21 December 2009 - 04:00 PM

View Postfairgo, on Dec 18 2009, 04:55 PM, said:

Interesting....I would have thought that any comment by anyone (including ACC) should have been left until after sentencing. Surely while it is still before the courts it is sub judice??


100% agree with you there fairgo.

Contempt of Court is a very disrespectful to the Judical process & we understand is an imprisonable serious offense.

Maybe someone from ACC's Experienced Legal Team & that of those in the ACC Fraud Investigation Unit failed to learn that when the obtained their Law Degrees & Legal knowledge?

Here's the update from friday.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express...at-faces-prison

Note the article states some of the charges were withdrawn, it has been known in the past for charges to be "dismissed" in other cases before the Courts.

There is a difference between charges been "withdrawn" & those that are "dismissed" i.e. Quashed.
0

#109 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 December 2009 - 04:18 PM

hukildaspida You have completely missed the point of charges being withdrawn. That means that he is no longer prosecuted and as such cannot be prosecuted. Neither can the judge even look at or consider that there ever was any charges and as such there is nothing to be quashed.

It should also be noted that in exchange for withdrawing the criminal charges relating to fraud there is now only the "summary proceedings charges" under the ACC Act, which has a maximum of $5,000 fine or three months imprisonment. He is now waiting for a probation report to no doubt to consider the possibility of a community based sentence which will of course need to have regard for the fact that he cannot carry out any work. If he is given a prison sentence or a fine because he does not have the physical capacity to do a community based work sentence then there would be a prejudice issue to address against invalids in reference to all invalids being accepted by the court as second class citizens.

No doubt the probation officer doing the probation report will take into account the fact that an Mr. Gibson has been observed carrying out a few isolated work task activities against his doctor's orders when failing to tell the ACC that he did not follow the doctor's orders the plan is to the ACC allegation that he is not injured.. It will be interesting to see if the ACC make a claim to the judge that he was not entitled to his ACC innings compensation because see failed to follow the doctors instructions. Should the ACC make such a claim to the court undoubtedly he will also join otheers of us who are going to prosecute the ACC for misdirecting the court.
0

#110 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 21 December 2009 - 04:35 PM

Spida

Thanks for the up-date at least he will have Xmas with family.

Thomo

Your quizzing ACC Investigators is no different than me quizzing IRD and WINZ high up personal on the stand. It is utter rot to say you are the only one who has done this, that or anything else. All you should be doing is trying to get to the law that disallows them to do what they are doing. There is nothing very extrodinary about it. I managed to do that and the Judge made a decision in my favour on that point.

The whole problem with you is that you are so big headed you don't think they could find you guilty of anything, such a bad postition to be in, cause the higher you aspire to be, the further you can fall. I have always been aware that I could lose, not only because I am not as clever as they are, but also because I don't have the resources they have. Besides that I have spend years watching the way they work. Nothing can give you that experience. More that one head is essential at a time when decisions are being made. Someone has to 'test drive' it and be the 'devils advocate' before it is delivered in court. While I was at work, nothing ever got as far as court unless, there was a clear indication that I could win.

It is a bugger when no one understands what you are talking about. As you once said not many people take on IRD. That must make them so much more clever than ACC, cause you take them on. You see I don't find them very clever at all. They (the workers ) are after the same thing ACC are, that is to hold onto their money, so they have to prove they have done everything by the letter of the law and they couldnt prove this, as I convinced the Judge that the law they was using was, wrong and did not mean what they interpredited it to mean. He agreed.

That is all you have to do. If you know your arguement has legs, it will stand up to scrutiny. Obviously The guy who plead guilty is doing so because his lawyer thought his arguement didnt have very strong legs to help him stand up and he would have surely received jail. This way if his background is squeeky clean he may get home detention, and the amount is only $10,000 so that small amount will be taken into consideration I am sure. But he seriously wont ever get his w/c entitlement back again.

What happened with your case hearing at the end of this year, by the way. It was supposed to have been heard by Judge Barber now??
0

#111 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 21 December 2009 - 04:40 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on Dec 21 2009, 06:00 PM, said:

100% agree with you there fairgo.

Contempt of Court is a very disrespectful to the Judical process & we understand is an imprisonable serious offense.

Maybe someone from ACC's Experienced Legal Team & that of those in the ACC Fraud Investigation Unit failed to learn that when the obtained their Law Degrees & Leagal knowledge?

Here's the update from friday.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express...at-faces-prison

Note the article states some of the charges were withdrawn, it has been known in the past for charges to be "dismissed" in other cases before the Courts.

There is a difference between charges been "withdrawn" & those that are "dismissed" i.e. Quashed.


Charges that are withdrawn can be relaid if fresh or new evidence is found.

Charges that are Quashed are unable to be relaid.

There is a Very Big Difference.

Judge John Strettell has been involved in IPCA complaints & appears to be a proactive Judge which hopefully result in a judgement & report that will be benefical for all who have contact with ACC longterm.

http://www.ipca.govt...d.aspx?ID=28781

and in Mental health

http://www.lawyersed...ails/bmhi08.htm
0

#112 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:42 AM

I hope Rodney Hide, the Kaikoura narcs, Paul Henry, Propaganda one and all the rest of the dropkick, rednecked bastards that promoted this are satisfied. Bearing in mind the death of a Great man, Jonathan McCarthy, ocurred during this debacle. I hope they are overjoyed to find out this man might, a very tiny might, get 3 months out of which he would do 8 weeks with remission. Anyone who thinks this is a win for ACC or Justice needs their head examined. It is a prime example of a typical, useless waste of time and ACC finances and resources. The public must be informed of the full cost of bringing these pitifully weak charges to really rationalise there worth.
0

#113 User is offline   jocko 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 December 2009 - 08:43 AM

I hope the Judge sees them for what they are and sentences accordingly.
0

#114 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 January 2010 - 05:07 PM

Update from ACCs press release via mediacom.nzpa.co.nz

Note the misleading use of the word FRAUD in the header & in the information provided.

Our understanding is the charges were for misleading ACC not criminal charges under The Crimes Act.

http://www.mediacom....718_md13250.doc

issued by David Balham - phone 04 918 4291& Sue North

http://www.scoop.co....1001/S00047.htm

http://www.voxy.co.n...l/fraud/5/36060

Will it be appealled in light of the proportion of the sentence been on the heavy side in comparison to that of Pokie Fraud cases?
0

#115 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:05 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on Jan 22 2010, 07:07 PM, said:

Update from ACCs press release via mediacom.nzpa.co.nz

Note the misleading use of the word FRAUD in the header & in the information provided.

Our understanding is the charges were for misleading ACC not criminal charges under The Crimes Act.

http://www.mediacom....718_md13250.doc

issued by David Balham - phone 04 918 4291& Sue North

http://www.scoop.co....1001/S00047.htm

http://www.voxy.co.n...l/fraud/5/36060

Will it be appealled in light of the proportion of the sentence been on the heavy side in comparison to that of Pokie Fraud cases?


David Balham

http://www.oldfriends.co.nz/MemberProfile....ember_id=325225

"Journo, Spin Doctor ..."says all, went to Paremata school 1969-79 then Mana College 1977-81

http://taxpolicy.ird...dex.php?view=80

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/...ses/corrections

http://www.soundarchives.co.nz

http://www.ird.govt.nz/aboutir/media-centr...2008-06-06.html

Is this the same David Balham?

If it is he looks a likely candidate for cardivascular issues which cost a considerable amount of Health Funding that would be better spent elsewhere.

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antartic/about/n...os-auction.aspx

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/antartic/about/n...tos-dinner.aspx

Interesting last sentence in the following article.

http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/local/ne...king-i/3906997/



David BALHAM is employed by us ACC Levypayers as a Senior Media/ PR Advisor.

http://www.acc.co.nz/contact-us-and-feedba...email/index.htm

We would hope Mr David Balham, currently employed on 'Contract to ACC', as a reasonably long standing Journalist would ensure facts are presented to fellow media in a Truthful & accurate manner as per his obligations as a member of the Press Association.
0

#116 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:15 PM

I said that the ACC woulld continue to press for fraud and his legal advice was wrong to plead guilty.

Making false statements to ACC was under the Sumary Proceedings Act and not fraud under the crimes act.


Clearly ACC and Sue North are wrong

FRAUD


Kaikoura man Mike Gibson was today sentenced to 200 hours community service, after pleading guilty last year to six charges of making false statements to ACC.

Gibson misrepresented his physical condition over a number of years in order to continue receiving weekly compensation from ACC. His activities, including heavy lifting, were filmed by his neighbours.

Sue North, Business Manager Operations, said ACC will continue to investigate and prosecute fraud.

``Any sort of fraud against ACC is theft against every New Zealand levy-payer, and such actions will not be tolerated.

We will continue to investigate all allegations.

ENDS

For further information please contact David Balham
04 918 4291


Failure to tell ACC of an activity that is only the doctor business is NOT fraud. ACC may ONLY be told that you can not do your job.
0

#117 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:50 PM

ACC Nightmare finally over


Michael Gibson is relieved that his nightmare is over following a hearing today in Kaikoura.

In January 2009, the case didn't go ahead as ACC organized for Michael to have a spinal operation and he was in hospital on the same day that he was summoned to appear in court. This was his third operation following a serious back injury.

Eight months later ACC withdrew more than 30 criminal fraud charges and replaced them with 6 minor charges against the ACC legislation of making a misleading statement, as the Crown accepted that Mr Gibson was actually entitled to what he had received.

These amended charges under s.308 of the the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are neither crimes nor fraud. They apply regardless of whether a person is entitled to the money or not.

Today, the Court criticized the media for their reporting on the case including reports that Mr Gibson has received money which he wasn't entitled, to before going on to find that there was no evidence that Mr Gibson wasn't entitled to what he received from ACC.

The Court heard that despite the information on the medical certificates being wrong, ACC had been informed of the correct information by Mr Gibson on several occasions and that their computer system actually recorded the correct information despite what was written on the medical certificates.

The fact that ACC had been made aware of the correct information by Mr Gibson, along with his entitlement to what he had received and his acknowledgment of what he had done wrong led to the Crown recommending a non-custodial sentence and the Court agreed.
Mr Gibson says "I am pleased that this is finally over. I would like to thank my family and friends for their support."

He is still in receipt of weekly compensation, but he hopes to change that. "Seven years ago, I explained to ACC the plans to develop a Bed and Breakfast, it was just starting to get going when all of this kicked off and now we are back to square one, but I am determined to become independent despite the setbacks."

"ACC is meant to help rehabilitate people, but instead they have dragged me through the mud. Some people don't realize that this is all about my medical certificates being filled in the wrong way."

"It has been terrible for us and I hope we can get on with our lives and be free of ACC."

"What a waste of time and money, they just could have asked that the doctor fills them in differently."

ENDS

For Further information contact Warren Forster 021627213
0

#118 User is offline   Bill Birch 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 04-June 08

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:19 PM

View Postfairgo, on Jan 22 2010, 08:50 PM, said:

ACC Nightmare finally over

These amended charges under s.308 of the the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are neither crimes nor fraud.

ENDS

For Further information contact Warren Forster 021627213


No doubt Mr Gibson is pleased its over and he should be congratulated for pleading guilty and the Crown for reducing the charges, but I am unsure how accurate his press release is.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/...p;p=1#DLM328054

Construction of other Acts
(1) Every Act shall be read and construed as if any offence therein mentioned for which the offender may be prosecuted by indictment (however the offence may be therein described or referred to) were described or referred to as a crime; and all provisions of this Act relating to crimes generally shall apply to every such offence.
(2) Every commission, Proclamation, warrant, or other document relating to criminal procedure in which offences that are crimes as defined by this Act are described or referred to by any names whatever shall be read and construed as if those offences were therein described and referred to as crimes.
0

#119 User is offline   MadMac 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 179
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 22 January 2010 - 08:46 PM

:wub: Hi everyone ...



Can relate well to the events re medicial certs being filled out wrong ...

:P Saws it all ...

" ACC had been informed of the correct information by Mr Gibson on several occasions and that their computer system actually recorded the correct information ... "

:blink: Geeeeeeeez no wonder ACC are in the shit as it dosn't take a rocket scientist to work this out ... get the basic facts details correct at the beginning , if unsure throughly investigate the basic's details are correct , manage in a more proffesional manner and more healthy positive outcomes will be achieved in a timely cost effective for all parties concerned.

What a waiste of time and money. How much $$$$$$$ waisted ?

All the best Micheal in your endeavers to be independant and get on with your life creating your bed and breakfast and most of all enjoy the freedom away from the people who are meant to help rehabilitate people , but spend more time with some of us dragging us through the mud with absurd bullshit ... ACC.

Catch up sometime soon

;)
0

#120 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:11 PM

Fairgo the nightmare is not over because the ACC are now planning to prosecute for fraud. They are simply reconfiguring the information they have got and acquiring more while the same time this regarding the medical evidence that confirms he does not have the capacity to work in his pre injury occupation which forms the basis of the ACC liability. it must be remembered that the ACC routinely conned the criminal courts in this regard as two major of their liability to the extent that they succeed in getting convictions as if their liability no longer exists based on public opinion that they themselves had engineered.

Sue North, Business Manager Operations, said ACC will continue to investigate and prosecute fraud.

the ACC engineering of public opinion was so complete as to manipulate Mike's legal counsel and Mike himself into believing that he had done something wrong. to make matters clear doing work task activities beyond the scope of the medical certificate does not mean the medical certificate is wrong or that the doctor had been misled. Fairgo you should listen to Warren who dealt with the ACC civil matters so as you might be advising your members accordingly so as they learn how to protect themselves than the criminal council that did not know what they were talking about.

Bill birch are you crazy or just plain stupid and incompetent as an ACC advocate?

Mike is not guilty of fraud and should appeal the summary proceedings decision based on inappropriate legal advice. Quite clearly the ACC have falsified their own records and made inappropriate contact with the treatment provider in an attempt to manipulate medical certificates. regardless as to what was on the medical certificates or whether might neglected to fully describe the extent of his injuries or the way in which it ebed and flowed. the final decision maker of the medical certificates is the treatment provider and if the ACC wanted to challenge any information that contributed to to those medical certificates it is the medical certificates that the ACC must challenge by way of superior medical reporting and its own cost brother than claiming fraud as a mechanism to reduce their liability as that is fraud in itself.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users