[Reality]

Alan, you attempt to cloud a very simple issue and make excuses for the inexcusable.

For five years Gibson told his doctors he could not work and some 37 medical certificates were issued saying he could not work on the basis of what he stated.

Gibson then went out and worked. Neighbours photographed him working and numerous other people complained to ACC.

Gibson was investigated. Gibson saw the evidence and pleaded guilty to 5 representative charges, being that almost all 37 offences were the same.

Any person capable of running their own business knows that "work" includes lifting and carrying heavy rocks and doing outside work with tools. If it was rehabilitation then it was not authorised by his doctors. It may well be that all his manual labour caused or aggravated his back to the point of needing surgery, whereas he may not have needed that if he had obeyed his doctors certification that he was unfit to work.

Gibson knew that his actions were fraudulent and got away with it for 5 years.

He will be sentenced next month. In addition to a hefty fine I hope he gets a stiff community sentence so he can be put to work fixing walking tracks round Kaikoura now that his back is fixed and capable of work.

[Alan Thomas]

Reality I'm not trying to cloud the issues but quite the contrary time trying to clarify itin them face of such willful propaganda instigated by the greed of the ACC. ICS and going fishing is not grounds for the ACC to cancel this man's claim or in any way alter the administration of his rehabilitation as the rehabilitation is under the direct supervision of the doctor.the purpose of the medical certificates is to make sure the ACC pay for that rehabilitation . As Mr. Gibson was waiting for surgery, so long as he was careful when moving rocks or going fishing, it is very unlikely that the nature of the surgical repair was to substantially alter or effect the ACC liability with the results that the extra information of these events is none of the AC sees business.as for the neighbors they are simply being busybodies.

The only remaining issue is whether or not Mr. Gibson could sustain in moving rocks and going fishing to such a degree that he could apply that activity to some form of work whereby earnnings could be achieved. That possibility has already been excluded on the medical certificates and the fact that he did move a few rocks and do a little fishing did not change the information on the medical certificates that provided information that he could not sustain work activities for the purposes of earning. The moving of the rocks and fishing would not activities that course the needed surgery as he already needed the surgery and even if he did not engage in those activities that would not have change the needed surgery. This means that the information the neighbors provided did not need to go on the medical staff accounts as it does not contribute towards the administration of the file and the information certainly had no bearing on any notion of fraudulent behavior.

I think what you are insinuating is that the ACC should have known of this minor rock moving and fishing activity so as the ACC could havehad an excuse to go on their own private investigator fishing expedition. this is what the ACC receive administration to be , informationso as to have excuses for sneaky investigations and now the noses out of joint.

Once the extenuating circumstances are presented to the court at sentencing which describe the nature of the information the ACC are referring toand how that information mail may not related to the administration of the file the sentencing will be carried out an appropriate fashion. In for example there is no possibility of any change in the administration based on the alleged information in a can be no sentencing whatsoever and no doubt the ACC will then be charged themselves for criminal nuisance and perjury together with Mr. Gibson's lawyer being struck off for recommending a plea of guilty.

on the other hand the ACC is able to establish relevant information whereby a process of administration is possible and a calculation is made of the purposes of determining a liability to the extent that Mr. Gibson has received an overpayment of some sort that will then become a decision that the ACC should have made some time ago so as to enable Mr. Gibson to appeal in the civil court.obviously if Mr. Gibson appeals that a CC decision under the ACC acting and winsthen he will be able to appeal the criminal prosecution faces that he could not have been guilty. This would also cause his lawyer to be disbanded in the ACC to be prosecuted for bringing about a false criminal prosecution.

[Huggy]

Alan I wouldnt bother with Reality.

From what i have been told he was one of the scabs from kaikoura so of course he will believe he is right and knows best.

[Alan Thomas]

Huggy those of us, such as you and I, have a duty to clarify the ACC law and how it relates to the facts. While you and I have stood now ground on what we know to be right have also experienced the pressure that the ACC and their storm troopers have exerted to make us buckle to their will. this site needs more people with a strong knowledge base and the strength of character to encourage others to stop the ACC stealing away ourthe entitlements with threats of misuse of the and incarceration.

When the Jews were being led to the gas chambers it only took four guardsto supervise thousands as there were always willing and the yet misguided Jews with sticks and dogs to do the work that people like a reality are doing. ACC certainly know how to use the people like reality.

People like us no matter how painful or dangerous a situation we will stand up for what is right to the best of our abilities in tears and suffering and even to the point of incarceration rather than compromise will be a person with a stick and a Dog misleading the others to harm.

[Southernman]

Alan Thomas is a slimy bag of puss, who will not be satisfied until every member of this forum is as big a looser as he is!

[Sparrow]

Southernman, we have far more serious slime bags on here causing mayhem and lies. It is them you should be addressing to Admin.
We all know Thomo and where he stands but he has not threatened anyone has he
???

[Reality]

A novel theory indeed.

Gibson pleaded guilty. That means he admits to fraud.

[Alan Thomas]

Reality Mr. Gibson has not plead guilty to fraud. Fraud is under the Crimes Act which necessitated 4 different ingredients, none of which are relevant to Mr. Gibson. This is the reason why the charge has been changed to one under the Summary Proceedings Act described in the ACC Actwhich address either the addition or lack of information they should have been in the medical certificates. ACC have not described the nature of this information and as such it is difficult to imagine why Mr. Gibson would plead guilty how the court might go about sentencing him.

[keentohelp]

Poor Sparrow, been threatened have you?

Could you perhaps quote the threats and name the miscreants who have been so bold as to do so in the face of your own ‘threatening’ behaviour?

[hukildaspida]

Reality, on Nov 27 2009, 07:16 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.

Christchurch Press article originated from the Press release written by ACC's Media person Laurie Edwards on 24 November 2009.

May we assume Laurie Edwards was provided information by one of his publically funded by Levypayers staff from ACC's Investigation Unit e.g An ACC Investigator or Private Investigator, whom was directly involved in the Legal proceedings in this case.

Here is the original Mediacom.nzpa. co.nz document,

http://mediacom.nzpa...544_md13122.doc

which resulted in the media publishing the articles they did.

http://www.scoop.co....0911/S00748.htm

Draw your own conclusions.

[fairgo]

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??

[hukildaspida]

Reality, on Nov 28 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

Alan, you attempt to cloud a very simple issue and make excuses for the inexcusable.

For five years Gibson told his doctors he could not work and some 37 medical certificates were issued saying he could not work on the basis of what he stated.

Gibson then went out and worked. Neighbours photographed him working and numerous other people complained to ACC.

Gibson was investigated. Gibson saw the evidence and pleaded guilty to 5 representative charges, being that almost all 37 offences were the same.

Any person capable of running their own business knows that "work" includes lifting and carrying heavy rocks and doing outside work with tools. If it was rehabilitation then it was not authorised by his doctors. It may well be that all his manual labour caused or aggravated his back to the point of needing surgery, whereas he may not have needed that if he had obeyed his doctors certification that he was unfit to work.

Gibson knew that his actions were fraudulent and got away with it for 5 years.

He will be sentenced next month. In addition to a hefty fine I hope he gets a stiff community sentence so he can be put to work fixing walking tracks round Kaikoura now that his back is fixed and capable of work.

Any updates Reality?

You appear to have inside knowledge on Michael Gibson's case & he was due to appear back in Court today from what is mentioned online.

Or have you been too busy yourself attending Court that you haven't been online to reliably inform us with your Expert knowledge of what constitutes Fraud?

[hukildaspida]

Reality, on Nov 28 2009, 10:56 PM, said:

A novel theory indeed.

Gibson pleaded guilty. That means he admits to fraud.

Reality, what is your interpretation of Fraud?

[Alan Thomas]

fairgo, 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??

Probably nobody on the site understands the horror of what Mr. Gibson, I and others have gone through. It is also evident that very fewlegal professionals and other so-called advocates understand the points of law that surrounds ACC fraud convictions and sentencing.

Tthat the that the he point of having this site is to collect actual information from qualified professionals together with our experience is so as we share this information with others in order that we all might benefit.sadly some people out there he goes to override this fundamental principle. If we do not follow this basic principle then we will not make progress in helping one another.

The legal criteria, facts and circumstances that surround the ACC accusing claims of fraud so as to stop the ACC liability to that individual , without there being a legal principle that the ACC rely upon is perhaps one of the most important issues that can be discussed on this entire site.

Michael Gibson others in the same position stand to benefit from those who have gone before him and particularly those who have been successful in superior courts. Michael Gibson's case seems to have been blunted somewhere along the line as Mr. Gibson still tells me that he does not consider himself guilty of fraud and cannot imagine what information he has withheld from the ACC.

As in the case of Michael Gibson's Court Case, when I was convicted of ACC fraud 10 December 1999 the ACC made sure they did a nationwide news release before sentencing. the judge must have read this news release as he relied upon some of the information in that news release even though it did not form part of the trial. the sentencing did not occur until 1 March 2000. The ACC news release alleged $1.3 million was earned by myself self so the judge ordered the maximum sentence. that the ACC never said that I was not entitled to my earnings compensation during the time I was receiving it. At this stage the ACC never described to the court the criteria for determining overpayment for purposes of alleging fraud in either my case or any of the other cases I know of.

The issue at stake was exactly the same as in this thread in as much as the ACC had achieved in getting a fraud prosecution based on and unknown quantity of work as the criteria without medical opinion as to whether or not the work was either relevant to the previous occupation or any other occupation or even safe. the media release it is entitled disregard all the other case law and I wonder as to whether this constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice by trying to confuse the judge, which that has certainly occurred more often than we would like to believe, particularly in my case and other cases whereby superior courts have confirmed the point of law being promoted by the ACC to be wrong .

The issue is the capacity to earn in the previous occupation while having regard for medical capacity in order to calculate the alleged to have a payment and that the ACC is claiming from the court as being fraud. If the ACC is telling the country that the calculation is based on what the neighbors think of claimants is doing then the ACC appears to be committing an act of sedition.

The sentencing hearing must rely upon the degree of offending. In cases of ACC fraud the degree of offending is calculated by way of the it stands of overpayment which is the same calculation as the indictment of earnings, unless the ACC during the trial had alleged that the claimant was not entitled to the ACC at all, which they have not done.

ACC will avoid telling the court about the degree of alleged overpayment so they can achieve the maximum possible prison sentence based on the judges imagination driven by the news media then wait until he gets out of prison before taking him to court again in order to claim the overpayment just like they did in the Bernett case and others.

What the ACC appears to be attempting to do is influencing the court into the public arena hoping that the judge will pander to the public feelings. This is the actual history of the ACC conduct. questioned the ACC the fraud prosecutions staff on this matter during my own appealed to the review hearing decision recently and therefore have excellent transcript as to the degree of the ACC staff criminalist ending in this matter.

[hukildaspida]

hukildaspida, on Dec 18 2009, 05:08 PM, said:

Any updates Reality?

You appear to have inside knowledge on Michael Gibson's case & he was due to appear back in Court today from what is mentioned online.

Or have you been too busy yourself attending Court that you haven't been online to reliably inform us with your Expert knowledge of what constitutes Fraud?

Back on topic please which is Michael Gibson's Court Case with ACC.

Mr Alan Thomas you have a thread of your own for your Personal Story, thank you

[Alan Thomas]

hukildaspida I had added a bit to my above post that you have criticized in order that you comprehend the relationship that those of us have to these types of cases. This is in order that people like you can understand the facts and law as they relate to the circumstances. Try not to allow yourself to be dominated by personalities in order that you may learn how the law works so as you may stand firmly on the right side of the law and not be bullied by ACC tactics, including those who try to curry favor with the ACC by cutting deals.

Once you have read what I have written you will appreciate that very few are as qualified as myself to speak on the subject.

[neddy]

hukildaspida, on Dec 18 2009, 05:11 PM, said:

Reality, what is your interpretation of Fraud?

Hulkildaspida
Your questioin is intriguing and begs an answer.

It also poses another more pressing question IMHO.

I wonder just what Mr Gibson actually belives he is guilty of, despite what some may try to get us to believe.

Is it what some posters would claim, are they privy to this mans' thought or is it just conjecture on their part.

I am ambivilent as to why he chose to plead guilty, thats' his right under law, and we should not and cannot IMHOquestion his decision.

[Alan Thomas]

Neddy

Nobody has the right to plead guilty when they are not guilty!

If you want to now what he is thinking, talk to him.

[neddy]

Alan Thomas, on Dec 18 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Neddy

Nobody has the right to plead guilty when they are not guilty!

If you want to now what he is thinking, talk to him.

Could you please let Hulkidaspida respond without preempting or jumping in please ?

[Alan Thomas]

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