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

#91 User is offline   fairgo 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 02:55 PM

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??
0

#92 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 03:08 PM

View PostReality, 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?
0

#93 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 03:11 PM

View PostReality, 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?
0

#94 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 December 2009 - 04:25 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??


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.
0

#95 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 04:48 PM

View Posthukildaspida, 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

0

#96 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 December 2009 - 05:08 PM

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.
0

#97 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 05:48 PM

View Posthukildaspida, 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.
0

#98 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 December 2009 - 05:54 PM

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.
0

#99 User is offline   neddy 

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

Posted 18 December 2009 - 06:50 PM

View PostAlan 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 ?
0

#100 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 December 2009 - 08:44 PM

Neddy why do you suggest people have a right to brake the law?
0

#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: 10602
  • 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: 10602
  • 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: 10602
  • 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

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 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