ACCforum: Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Beneficiary faces ACC fraud charges Mike "Milky" Gibson

#61 User is offline   Maraqita 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 29-June 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 02 August 2009 - 02:01 AM

View PostMINI, on Aug 1 2009, 04:27 PM, said:

Hi there

Read post 62 & 63 then go over to Tomos life story and read sparrows post to me over there.

What hipocrisy!!!

Post 62 in here quotes: "Another thom in the making"
Post 63 tells Mehment : "Kindly stop dragging up old stuff" & "Delete you post and stop stirring"

Sparrows post over on Tomos post is like to drop the "spite'.............. like who the hell is this bird to tell me who to like.

My injuries (chemical poisoning, PTSS etc) began when I served in war torn countries. Chemical injures were exacerbated by years of work in the OR. I delivered babies into the world, performed tracheostomy and burholes procedures without lighting and in less than sterile circumstances, sometimes under fire. (I watched my own husband, soul-mate and colleague pass out of this world right before my eyes.) Either I did surgical procedures beyond my wildest imaginations (or experience), or people would've died. I am thus neither intimidated, or easily bullied by big talking cyber-Commandantes or finger-pointer mein fuhrers of no importance. Having survived all of the above and more atrocities, (such as most here would not so much as contemplate) I do not take orders from those not able to harm nor enhance mine or my moko's life.

ACC on the other hand, are a new battlefield about which rules I am yet still to learn. I will find methods just as you have. Therefore as per your example, I too will focus on what I may or may not employ in dealing directly with ACC.

And so as are you, I do not know, "who the hell is this bird to tell me who to like". Unless they can help me, I am not interested.

View PostWitchiepoo, on Jun 13 2008, 06:04 PM, said:

Did you know :

My fraud files have 43 printed pages of postings from the ACCForum website. And very unflattering comments about myself from our PI friends. Apparently I am vindictive and malicious.

Your all in there guys - MacMac, Watcha, Doppel, Easyrider, Hatikva, Maungataniwha, Paradigm Shift, Noddy, Juscallin1, Limoges, FreefallNZ, Happy1, Kiwiwine, Fairgo, Grumpy, MG, IDB, ANG:), Magnarcata, Y O U R - A L L - F A M O U S - G U Y S !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh yeah, there's another claimaint named in my investigation files that they were also stalking in Hibiscus Coast.

BLIMEY ...........

Hey Spacie, next time your in Auckland stop by for a coffee and have a read of the files, see what you think !

0

#62 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 11:36 AM

Dear, Dear Mehmet

Thank you for your support!!

If I can be any help to you in your climb to get your entitlements, please let me know.

I don't promise I can help you because I only have the experience I have gained while traversing my own road. But the light is at the end of the tunnel now so maybe just maybe I can assist you in some way.

Cheers
Mini
0

#63 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 11:57 AM

Oh there you are Thomo

You have risen again.

Oh mouth of Wonder, I kneel down in front of you..........blah blah blah!!

Not true, and do I really give a shit what you think of me my injuries or anything else which surrounds my flailing arms.

No not at all!!

Havent you just loved the glorous garbage spewing from your glorous forum at the moment.

Truely Mindbending!!!!

But they been leaving you alone for a long time. Even old Hardwired pretty quite.

Hey look at it this way, maybe, just maybe, your court case can take the fact that I don't like you into consideration eh???

And how you make smutty remarks concerning another particular lady and I (or are we one) thats right you thought I was the other one as well didnt you. Im sure the cops would love those smutty remarks and The posting that were made!!!

You have just witnessed how this forum can be used for devious and underhand means, again, and because it doesnt affect you you remain silent. The use of this forum is discusting. It is not to assist people, it is to rididcle them and bully your way around cyberspace.

Toodle-pip
-1

#64 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 03:10 PM

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF MR GIBSON WHO IS FACING FRAUD CHARGES. HE ALSO HAS HAD TO FACE THE DEATH OF HIS LAWYER AND IT ALL MUST BE VERY STRESSFUL FOR HIM .

Mini and others have got a long way from the subject of the thread just to be spiteful and nasty. This is not a good look and is not in the spirit of the Forum Rules. Out of respect tp MR Gibson, please remove your nastiness to elsewhere.
People are offended.
Where is Admin?
0

#65 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 05:49 PM

Oh sooooo sorry your majesty.

Did I step on the little webbed toes.

Isnt this just lovely Chrissy goes off and I come on!!

This wonderful wonderful site!!

And who brought up the utter garbage. (This thread) Not me!! I couldnt give it the time of day to go trawling through old sheet and recurgitate it!! It is soooo boring!!

Dont you do any problem solving so you can bring some news and bits and bobs to those that need it!!

No, because the intent of this forum is not to assist and help, it is too control and hinder if have too!! Sometimes at all costs, like naming poeple eh???

There are selected special people who are meant to be doing all the 'helping' and bugger anyone who would like too, cause they will allow the receiver of the information to do it all for themselves. Oh boo hoo, no money passess hands from ACC to anyone other than the claimant, oh sooo sad!!

My aim here is to make anyone that is interested, aware of how they can do their own legal work so that they do not have to spend a dime on any (ANY) advocate sitting out there awaiting the crumbs from the ACC.

You are included from this statement David and thank you for your assistance in the past.

MIni
-1

#66 User is offline   awryly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 07-October 06

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:04 PM

Let's see.

Is the beneficiary in question guilty of a crime?

Is it the position of those here that no beneficiary can possibly be guilty of a crime?
0

#67 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:22 PM

awryly the beneficiary in question cannot possibly be in a position of committing a crime while he provides all relevant information and the ACC administer the act properly and determined that he is entitled. What is happening however is that the ACC are encouraging private investigators to get about the community seeking information that the ACC might use to recalculate the entitlement. The problem is that the private investigators they use tell members of the community that they are investigating fraud and that the person concerned is not entitled.

As was described in the Burnet case by Beattie J. even though Mr Burnett confessed that he had committed fraud by working and earning while at the same time receiving earnings compensation that while the ACC had not carried out the legislated procedure to determine the quantum of entitlement Mr Burnett was completely entitled to all of his earnings compensation. The entitlement to his earnings compensation is dependent upon his incapacity to earn from the work he was doing rather work. This means that Mr Burnett cannot possibly have been committing fraud.

Mr Burnett was a spray painter that could no longer work and earn as a spray painter. He did however drive trucks but he had never been given medical parents to drive trucks so there was no way that the ACC could say that he was rehabilitated by the fact that he did drive trucks. As he was brain injured from spray-painting and suffered from severe exhaustion etc it is highly likely that it is not safe for him to drive. There is of course the issue of the overpayment which should have been captivated by way of abatement of earnings, which the ACC should have addressed when first notified rather than embarking upon fraud prosecution and suchlike and not asking for the money back at any time.

awryly ACC claimants can certainly be guilty of committing fraud. However fraud has certain ingredients one of which is establishing the ownership of the entitlement. Unfortunately for the claimants they do not have the authority to establish the ownership. As the ACC are the only body that I can establish ownership it is over them to perform this calculation as soon as they have possession of relevant information. Frequently the ACC will concoct their own version of the facts rather than establishing the facts from source even preferring not to listen to the claimant's information and turning them away.

There is only a very small portion of those who post on this site that it had any experience as a claimant being accused of fraud by the ACC, myself being one of them. Unfortunately even those of us who have been accused had been improperly advised.
0

#68 User is offline   awryly 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 07-October 06

Posted 02 August 2009 - 07:27 PM

Hmmm..

So you are saying that ACC claimants have no idea how to establish " ownership" ( whatever that is?)

Why am I consumed by the idea that they should perhaps learn?
0

#69 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 August 2009 - 09:14 PM

awryly the ACC have very careful to prevent claimants knowing whether or not they have ownership of their entitlements or not. The hierarchy even go to the extent of employing extremely stupid people who they can guarantee will never learn how to determine whether or not the claimant has entitlements. They even go to great lengths to mislead medical professionals.

I too am concerned by the ideas that up insurance policy, the ACC, should be provided to us in the form of a contract.

Legislation requires the ACC to be the sole determinator of entitlement. This acts as a physical barrier for the claimant to learn or to calculate their entitlements. The extreme of the circumstance would be the Burnett case whereby he confessed guilt to ACC fraud and continued to think that he had committed fraud until Beattie J. corrected both Mr Burnett and the ACC on this matter. The ownership of the entitlement continued with Mr Burnett until the ACC obtained medical information to "determined" whether or not he continued to be incapacitated from working and therefore should not work and therefore continue to be entitled to earnings compensation rather than have this man work while he is incapacitated. Course ACC would be entitled to a discount of the earnings compensation with anything Mr Burnett did earn.
0

#70 User is offline   Maraqita 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25
  • Joined: 29-June 09
  • LocationWellington Central City

Posted 03 August 2009 - 08:01 AM

Quote

Matt McCarten: The biggest bludgers are in our Parliament Doc
4:00AM Sunday Aug 02, 2009
By Matt McCarten

Sir Roger Douglas is defensive about his $44,000 in expenses. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today
Sir Roger Douglas is defensive about his $44,000 in expenses. Photo / Hawke's Bay Today

* Doc Ministers' expenses (PDF)

Best of political analysis

* John Armstrong: Minister's fleeting allowance unease
* Tapu Misa: Bennett breaking promises on solo mums

Related links:

* Books open on MPs' travel

Our MPs would have been embarrassed when details of their expenses were published on Friday, as the result of this newspaper's campaign for transparency.

I particularly enjoyed the defensiveness of Sir Roger Douglas when sprung about running up $44,000 of our hard-earned taxes on overseas holidays.

The best excuse he could come up with was that he was entitled to it as a previous trade-off for wage increases when he was first an MP.

What Sir Roger doesn't disclose is that MPs were once linked to the salary of a school deputy principal. They manipulated ways to inflate their salary package - rubber-stamped by the Remuneration Authority - to disguise their deception. And now an MP's package is triple what it was.

You'd think that Sir Roger's sense of entitlement to our taxes would have been satisfied once his cronies awarded him a knighthood. After all, other retirees are expected to be grateful for a gold watch when they toddle off.

Obviously different rules apply to Lord Roger of Manurewa.

<A HREF="http://ads.apn.co.nz/accipiter/adclick/CID=0000504d4b93064800000000/aamsz=300X250/acc_random=31646966833/pageid=33442144577/site=NZH/area=FEA.BESTOFPOLITICALANALYSIS.STY/keyword=matt mccarten biggest bludgers parliament nz government best political analysis spending mps embarrassed details expenses published friday result newspaper campaign transparency particularly enjoyed defensiveness sir roger douglas running hard"> <IMG SRC="http://apn-images.adbureau.net/apn/EDB0470_european_tactical_backup_270709.jpg" ALT="" width=300 height=250 BORDER="0"> </A>

Not only is he receiving the gold-plated pension as a former MP, he is also collecting the ordinary superannuation the rest of us get. But he does better than double-dip, because he is also receiving a full perk-laden list MP package of nearly $180,000 a year.

It's ironic, I think, that Sir Roger vigorously opposed MMP on the basis that list MPs would be hacks, collecting big salaries with no responsibilities. He is now a caricature of the welfare gluttony he once railed against.

It seems to me, any objective analysis would anoint Sir Roger the biggest bludger in Parliament.

His parliamentary pension, superannuation pension, list MP's salary, knighthood and free business-class trips to London to visit his grown children must make him the taxpayer-funded, piggy-in-the-trough extraordinaire.

I can't wait for perk-buster Rodney Hide to demand a full investigation of this great swindle. After all, Sir Roger didn't get his retirement job as an Act list MP on his own merits - he rode in on someone else's canary coat tails.

Some of the other MPs' expenses are dubious as well. They only get away with it because they make their own rules about their entitlements. For example, how is it that MPs can buy a house in Wellington and expect the taxpayer to pay the mortgage interest? MPs' allowances require no receipts and are paid as lump sum amounts - effectively a tax-dodge that no ordinary citizen would get away with.

And the mere fact an MP's spouse has unlimited travel to and from anywhere in New Zealand would not be tolerated by any other employer.

It is well-known that some of these spouses carry out private business using this entitlement. Add in the unlimited taxi chits, phone calls and gold-plated superannuation, and it adds up to a very healthy remuneration package they wouldn't receive in a comparable, private-sector job. Don't believe me? Then explain to me what a list MP actually does.

But Parliament has always been an elitist club where MPs set their own rules and their own realities. Until they disclose all the details of their remuneration package - including perks, staff and support - taxpayers will never get the transparency to which we are entitled.

We are their employer, and it is a cheek that our parliamentary employees believe they can set their own disclosure rules. But the old hands in Parliament are well-versed at hiding the way that they rort us.

Sir Roger's old nemesis, Jim Anderton, collects a bigger salary and a support budget of about $200,000 a year as a party leader, even though he's a parliamentary party of one and has told what's left of his party members to join the Labour Party. He's a Labour MP in every sense and, in my opinion, only remains a separate entity on paper so he can claim more of our tax money.

Many would have been offended by this week's published MP expenses - but these are only the tip of the iceberg. This disclosure is a step in the right direction, but the sad truth is that we have a long way to go to discover the full extent of this thievery.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-politica...jectid=10588094
0

#71 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 03:58 PM

View PostReality, on Jan 12 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

You complicate things Alan
    Mr Gibson said he could not work because of a back injury

    The Doctor certified that he was unable to do heavy lifting, twisting, bending or standing because of his back - presumably that is what Mr Gibson told the doc. and signed the certificate.

    Mr Gibson lifted boulders, trimmed hedges, shovelled shingle, built fences and launched a boat. These activities are more than the normal light daily activities that we all do in order to exist.

    To any reasonable person this would indicate that Mr Gibson has a capacity to work. If Mr Gibson did not tell his doctor that he was able to lift boulders etc then that is fraudulent behaviour.

    Doctors certify fitness to work depending on the patient's job. Obviously an accountant could work with a much greater level of disaiblity than a labourer. Thus a labourer doing household activities would not be physically fit for work but an accountant would be.

    Rehabilitation is not the same as working. It should be done under supervision is a safe and structured manner and there should be the capacity to vary the workload depnding on reaction - which of course is not generally possible in the workplace. Presumably Mr Gibson failed all attempts at rehab, thus proving to all and sundry that he was incapable of working in a manual occupation.


Would you please be so kind Reality to point out where in any of the ACC Legislation where it states Rehab should be done under supervision?

It's rather obvious you have an axe to grind with Michael Gibson in this case & perhaps you should practise what you preach on this forum.

Until ACC start to educate & inform everyone of Injured persons Lawful entitlement to Return to work & that medical certificates specify fit for part-time, as & when able etc, there will always be Assumptions & presumptions & wasting of ACC Levypayers funds.
ACC should educate their own staff & Investigation unit of this in a formal manner.
0

#72 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 04:11 PM

Reality you left out the fact that he had major surgery in Hospital this year on the day he was supposed to attend a court hearing and rather ironically ACC have paid for this surgery because it was required.

Now if he had no injury on his back then no surgeon would go in and operate and of course the way ACC are declining surgery if there was no injury ACC certainly wouldnt have paid for the surgery.

Just because he lifted a rock doesnt mean he was doing it all day, it may have been only been one rock he lifted or possibly even 2, this doesnt mean a person can work 40 hours.

Just because you saw a few minutes of video doesnt display in one bit that it was being done all day long and everyday.

It was obvious it was recordings over different periods.
0

#73 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 04:55 PM

The central issue of entitlement the cause of injury is not whether or not contradictory work task activities are actually carried out in opposition to the medical certificates and that issues of could or should carry out worked ask activities.we all quite aware that we can carry out work task activities despite an injury spot not on a sustainable basis .

The medical certificate simply do not create enough space to provide sufficient detail for the purpose of the document . ACC use this fact when alleging fraud in cases such as Mr. Gibson.of course he should not lift heavy boulders in contradiction of this medical certificates but that does not mean the medical certificates is wrong . It means Mr. Gibson is being overly enthusiastic and his neighbors are unscrupulous busybodies With the ACC knowingly relying upon false information for their own pecuniary advantage in opposition to the medical certificates which are supported by medical specialists.

What is most painful is that how other invalids amongst us have attacked Mr. Gibson without having any idea about what he has pled guilty to. Has she simply pled guilty to the doctors failure to provide the information on the medical certificates because the doctor has previously said certain information is not relevant? or the been embarrassed to tell the doctor that he breached doctors instructions? as he was about to have surgery to enabled him to improve his capacity to lift rocks in a limited way that still does not mean that the ACC would reduce their liability either before or after the surgery and as such the ACC'scoalition to achieve a guilty submission to the prosecution may in fact an out to be a provision of the course of justice of which they themselves should be prosecuted for misleading court that crime has actually been committed.

I make these comments based on the most senior legal advice available in New Zealand in relation to my own experiences in similar circumstances.
0

#74 User is offline   Reality 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 0
  • Joined: 03-August 08

Posted 27 November 2009 - 05:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Nov 27 2009, 06:55 PM, said:

The central issue of entitlement the cause of injury is not whether or not contradictory work task activities are actually carried out in opposition to the medical certificates and that issues of could or should carry out worked ask activities.we all quite aware that we can carry out work task activities despite an injury spot not on a sustainable basis .

The medical certificate simply do not create enough space to provide sufficient detail for the purpose of the document . ACC use this fact when alleging fraud in cases such as Mr. Gibson.of course he should not lift heavy boulders in contradiction of this medical certificates but that does not mean the medical certificates is wrong . It means Mr. Gibson is being overly enthusiastic and his neighbors are unscrupulous busybodies With the ACC knowingly relying upon false information for their own pecuniary advantage in opposition to the medical certificates which are supported by medical specialists.

What is most painful is that how other invalids amongst us have attacked Mr. Gibson without having any idea about what he has pled guilty to. Has she simply pled guilty to the doctors failure to provide the information on the medical certificates because the doctor has previously said certain information is not relevant? or the been embarrassed to tell the doctor that he breached doctors instructions? as he was about to have surgery to enabled him to improve his capacity to lift rocks in a limited way that still does not mean that the ACC would reduce their liability either before or after the surgery and as such the ACC'scoalition to achieve a guilty submission to the prosecution may in fact an out to be a provision of the course of justice of which they themselves should be prosecuted for misleading court that crime has actually been committed.

I make these comments based on the most senior legal advice available in New Zealand in relation to my own experiences in similar circumstances.


Gibson was making false statements for 5 years that he could not work.

ACC received numerous complaints about Gibson from members of the public (Christchurch Press article).

Gibson is intelligent, ran his own business and knew exactly what he was doing.

He pleaded guilty because he knew he was guilty.
0

#75 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 05:24 PM

Reality Mr. Gibson stated that he could not return to his previous occupation and not that he could not work as you have so wrong fully and shamefully accused him.

various friends friendly and who did not like Mr. Gibson sought to discredit him to the ACC based on a complete ignorance of both fact and law. There is absolutely nothing wrong with Mr. Gibson going fishing or moving rocks even though such activities might have been ill conceived and against his medical certificates. very worst outcome from these actions would be that he had generated undisclosed innings or had hurt himself intentionally with the result that the ACC liability might be altered . If the circumstances not the case a CC have made a false allegation that he has committed a crime and his legal adviser has not been aware of incompetence advice. Mr. Gibson however could sue his lawyer for wrong advice in this matter whereby he would be compensated for the loss of his good name which is particularly unfortunate given that the media have misconstrued the nature of fraud some with what he is actually pleaded guilty to.

Mr Gibson has confirmed that he does not understand his lawyer's advice as to why he needs to plead guilty as he still considers that the medical certificates do not alter the way in which the ACC is required to administer his claim. To advise the claimant to plead guilty to the court without the claimant knowing why he is guilty is a criminal offense, as it is misleading the court. It goes without saying that the legal counsel would be struck of for the strong advice as well.
0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 06:40 PM

You seem to be confused between the crimes act [fraud] the ACC act under the summary proceedings act and civil law. It would also seem that the ACC and the media have relied upon the incompetence of the legal counsel and the misperceptions of the members of the public as well, yourself included.

I understand that Mr. Forster deals with civil law and is not qualified to deal with criminal law but has been available for assistance. In a similar way Mr. Sara would not recommend a criminal barrister to address criminal matters without the advice of a civil barristers such as himself as the issues are too complex for a criminal barrister to go it alone. Is therefore not surprising that Mr. Gibson is out of his depth understanding the finer points of law in regards to his plea.

To clarify matters Mr. Gibson has accepted the withdrawal of the accusations of fraud on the condition that he accepts an accusation of failing to provide the ACC with the appropriate information on as medical certificates. the same a CC staff members who relied upon the members of the public misperception as to the meaning of the act and the relation of the observations they made. central to these observations is whether or not they would have affected the ACC administration of Mr. Gibson's file. lifting rocks and going fishing does not affect Mr. Gibson's entitlements held on is can they affect the ACC administration of the file? If you can answer that question you will have answered the question as to whether or not the ACC at being dishonest with both Mr. Gibson and the courts of new Zealand together with the competency of Mr. Gibson's current legal counsel?
0

#77 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 06:51 PM

View PostReality, on Nov 27 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Gibson was making false statements for 5 years that he could not work.

ACC received numerous complaints about Gibson from members of the public (Christchurch Press article).

Gibson is intelligent, ran his own business and knew exactly what he was doing.

He pleaded guilty because he knew he was guilty.





Ummmmmmm Reality he plead guilty to misleading ACC on 6 medical certificates, please explain how 6 med certs x 3 months for each med cert (if indeed they all were 3 month certs) equates to 5 years.

You see 6 med certs can only equate to a max of 18 months, now that raises another question, how can 18 months of ERC equate to over 100k, when ACC have said 100k over 5 years which is 20k a year, so therefore 18 months would prob be around 30k if you wanted to be pedantic about the issue. So you see when you look at what ACC has spat out with their propaganda and look at it closely something isnt right so im more inclined to believe ACC have again spat out a load off bullshit to the public of NZ.

WINZ beneficiaries who have defrauded WINZ of 50k and more get made to repay reperation at whatever they can afford and 100 hours community service so what makes ACC think all people who mislead them which could very well be unintentionally should be locked up.
0

#78 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 27 November 2009 - 07:48 PM

Mr. Gibson accepts that the six charges are representative of the whole time at issue.the issues in question remained consistent throughout that time in as much as information has been emitted from the medical certificates. Mr. Gibson accepts that the ACC require the additional information that he did not provide for administration purposes however the ACC had not disclosed what these administration purposes are which is particularly evident as the ACC have not diminished the entitlements.in order for a fraud prosecution to precede successfully it must be a diminishment of pecuniary advantage to least one party.this makes the ACC prosecution of fraud and possibility.

As in the Burnett case a criminal prosecution of fraud cannot proceed unless the ACC has the means to make calculations rather than the assumptions of members of the public or even evidence from inland revenue that worked ask activities did take place. the threshold of information for fraud must come from the ACC ability to administer the file. The ACC in this case are alleged that information was withheld to prevent calculations but once clarifying the position of information needs they seem to have lost their way as they do in these cases.

To put it simply lifting rocks or going fishing does not affect Mr. Gibson's entitlements and therefore has nothing whatsoever to do with the administration of the file.

That the section of the act that ACC relied upon for the prosecution does not depend upon Mr. Gibson gaining an unlawful entitlement but merely that the ACC claim to need the information for the administration of the file regardless as to the reason they claim to need the information.Mr. Gibson would need to prove in court that the ACC did not need this information to calculate any entitlements or process of rehabilitation.as the doctor was supervising the medical rehabilitation by way of arranging for surgery to improve the situation it is doubtful that the ACC position could be believable brother merely a knee jerk reaction to public perceptions that the ACC have generated as a result of their own propaganda funded by the levee payer.

With that legal knowledge and we locked into place Mr. Gibson simply is not entitled to make a guilty plea in exchange for the ACC not bring about criminal prosecutions for fraud, as to do so would be to make a mockery of our judicial system. four Mr. Gibson two states that the ACC did not have a proper connection between the alleged missing information and the proper administration of his file he would first need to go through civil proceedings against the ACC of which the ACC have not actually made a decision to enable such a judicial process to occur as the ACC are well aware that the criminal courts to not deal with civil matters and as such have denied Mr. Gibson's rights to due process.

This is the reason why we do not have a formal basis for plea bargaining in New Zealand as in law Mr. Gibson is not entitled to "fold" based on financial convenience best to do so is perjury.
0

#79 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1740
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 28 November 2009 - 10:47 AM

You should remember that MrStewart was discharged of fraud when it was established that he was entitled to receive the compensation dispite the private Investigator had collected large amount of information from Assessors, Private investigators and ex freinds showing Mr stewart carrying out physical activities.

You all need to read section 308, 309, and 310 and then weight to see what the judge has said.

Remember that section 102 , 103, 105, discribes if you are incapacited for employment but does not mean that the injured is incapacited for all employment.
0

#80 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 28 November 2009 - 03:29 PM

What I'm saying is that friends and neighbors are mentioned an anomaly between what they saw and what they perceive the ACC act to be. ACC acted on this information as if it was relevant and prosecuted for fraud before they discovered the position was ill conceived with the facts being irrelevant to the legislation. The ACC would have preferred that Mr. Gibson provide the irrelevant to information to the ACC so as to prevent the ACC from embarrassing themselveses.the only information that could be entered into the file was that Mr. Gibson was lifting rocks and going fishing which are activities that are contrary to the medical certificate . At the highest level the ACC could have elected to arrange for an independent superior medical assessor.as Mr. Gibson was waiting for back surgery this became a moot issue.

This case is simply a case of the ACC demonstrating to the world their and competence. however the ACC have preceded in much the same way in accordance with their doctrine of belief much the same way as they did with the Burnett case. this situation is typical in corporations that have become a behemoth. They simply cannot stop the momentum of their own propaganda neither can they distinguish the difference between reality and their propaganda.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • 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