ACCforum: ACC Fraud Unit Audit - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACC Fraud Unit Audit Discussion and input please

#41 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 04 December 2013 - 03:47 PM

I fight my own battles..

and they do have to release the file...especially when someone LIKE ME (no its NOT ALL ABOUT YOU ALAN!!!) has revealed some very disturbing background bullshit!

you were accused of, and found guilty of fraud....not I!..



.In my case, Its the other way round, so like Huggy, they will release the file, even though they fighting not to.....

the lawlessness has got to stop....and i will continue fighting for MY RIGHTS
1

#42 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 December 2013 - 05:17 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 04 December 2013 - 03:47 PM, said:

I fight my own battles..

and they do have to release the file...especially when someone LIKE ME (no its NOT ALL ABOUT YOU ALAN!!!) has revealed some very disturbing background bullshit!

you were accused of, and found guilty of fraud....not I!..


.In my case, Its the other way round, so like Huggy, they will release the file, even though they fighting not to.....

the lawlessness has got to stop....and i will continue fighting for MY RIGHTS


Why do you think that ACC don't have to give me copy of their fraud files?

If they don't how could I defend myself?
0

#43 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:07 PM

Goodness me you do love to twist words Alan, and try to engage others...

I will say again, you are entitled to all files....


i suggest you use the templates in forms and letters...covers the lot!


and for the fraud squad...discovery files...that should work...try it
0

#44 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 04 December 2013 - 08:30 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 04 December 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

Goodness me you do love to twist words Alan, and try to engage others...

I will say again, you are entitled to all files....


i suggest you use the templates in forms and letters...covers the lot!


and for the fraud squad...discovery files...that should work...try it


I've done all that.

The judge even gave ACC till Sept 2006 to deliver but still no work information.
0

#45 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 05 December 2013 - 09:25 AM

then i suggest you do what i did....

persist

i sent the same email every week, to the same bunch of people, and cc'd it to all government ministers...

that worked...especially showing the "transparency" this government states it does...

and despite being told to stop sending the emails...i persisted...

1 year later,(after a yeah yeah yeah, ready in 10 days) I did daily emails, reminding them of time limits...the file was produced..

after very careful scrutiny, i can now identify exactly what is missing!!!!

its whats missing that tells the story of what they are hiding....

and i know the reasons why.....


best keep some things to oneself, so that i can can have a field day under the correct jurisdiction!
0

#46 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 27 January 2014 - 06:10 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 05 December 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

then i suggest you do what i did....

persist

i sent the same email every week, to the same bunch of people, and cc'd it to all government ministers...

that worked...especially showing the "transparency" this government states it does...

and despite being told to stop sending the emails...i persisted...

1 year later,(after a yeah yeah yeah, ready in 10 days) I did daily emails, reminding them of time limits...the file was produced..

after very careful scrutiny, i can now identify exactly what is missing!!!!

its whats missing that tells the story of what they are hiding....

and i know the reasons why.....


best keep some things to oneself, so that i can can have a field day under the correct jurisdiction!


I just want to say "good work" to all of you, for trying to "watch the watchers." I just wanted to say that practitioners get investigated too. I'm going through this now. Given that your medical treatment benefits are a major part of what ACC should grant you, I find it particularly disgusting that practitioners have to lose income, as well. What ACC pays is a joke- when they pay.

Nevertheless, my suggestion is that anything discovered should be confirmed through Official Information Act request. If you really want to fight, and have a chance at winning, you need evidence that can stand-up in court, otherwise it is "here-say" or the equivalent of gossip. This is why most Official Information Act requests are not fully answered, I reckon. However, the fact that they refused to answer, or half-heartedly answered, is still admissible in court, should your case attempt to be prosecuted. Here's a good one- try an Official Information Act request for each of the parties investigating you. When ACC refuses to admit that they even work for ACC, you are on to something, there. Then you hand their response to the Ombudsman for further handling. I do not think any real change will happen at ACC until more people stop complaining, and start doing OIA's and Ombudsman requests. Otherwise, it's just "he said, she said," and largely ignored. But if enough people start asking questions, OFFICIALLY, then you will start to see things move, because such requests are admissible when a judge looks at it. That's just my take, for what it's worth. They have the spotlight on you as an individual. You can put the spotlight on them, as individuals, via the Official Information Act. I highly recommend the FYI site for OIA requests, because it publishes the answers for all to see. If ACC refuses to answer, or half-answers, then it is on the internet forever. It is also useful to others. Whining on this Board will not have any weight, and is not admissible, in a court. The judge will ignore it. But that same whining, turned into an Official Information Act request, can actually hold significant weight, especially if they refuse to answer your question. The court can order them to answer the question. The ombudsman can, too, but they can pick and choose which questions they believe are more "in the public interest" to answer. There are some good court decisions out there by the ombudsman. Just do a google search of "ombudsman vs." or "ombudsman v." and narrow your search results to New Zealand.

In the meantime, I have to figure out how to pay my rent this month. While I've helped a lot of ACC claimants, ACC staff must be earning a lot of "KPI points" whilst not paying me for treating their injured clients.
0

#47 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:32 AM

Practitioner 123

My appeal process with the ACC has been the biggest in its history with the ACC first succeeding in an ACC fraud prosecution resulting in three years prison on the basis of their claim to have possession of information that I was working. They did not present a single work task activity describing at any material time that relied upon their authority as the decision maker that I had no entitlement while receiving entitlements to achieve the fraud prosecution. They delayed the civil appeal process via a request to the court registrar so as to secure a criminal conviction.

After 10 years I obtained a court order for the ACC to disclose the alleged individual work task activities at the material time during the appeal process to the original cancellation of my entire claim decision. The court directed the ACC to disclose the information no later than September 2006. The ACC made no disclosure of any work task activity of any sort at any material time. To help the ACC up the judge decided not to address the issue of the decision letter but rather reconfigure the ACC decision letter to express a viewpoint that I was no longer incapacitated based on the impressions the ACC informants had. They have seen me working in business plans which the ACC directed me to produce under threat of suspending my entitlements under section 73 (2) of the 1992 act. When they obtained information from the informants that I was complying with this demand they then cancelled my entire claim based on section 73 (1) of the 1992 act.

The criminal Court trial lasted over seven weeks with my opportunity of response being limited to 3 1/2 days with the judge denying me the opportunity to present my exhibits based on the ACC already using up too much time.
The same technique was used by the ACC in the civil hearing which took over four weeks court time spread over more than 10 years with the ACC generating delay after delay, presenting vast quantities of irrelevant data resulting in the judge deciding that he did not need to look at my submissions and exhibits because of the thoroughness of the ACC presentation. The ACC had three lawyers going up against myself as a disabled lone Lay litigant.

I'm writing this to you because I had made by a privacy act requests for the so-called work information and an official information act request in relation to how alleged work activities related to a cancellation of claim. Both requests were denied on the basis that the ACC was conducting a fraud investigation and therefore under those acts could withhold the information.

Recently in the High Court the ACC confessed to never having any information that I was working at all but now rely upon the decision they have obtained through the courts based on the authority of those courts. To make matters more difficult for me the ACC have secured costs which are beyond the capacity for someone in invalid benefit to pay thus temporising the matter forever.



A year ago I received an artificial wrist joint at a cost of $40,000 which the ACC were required to pay subsequent to 2 review hearings. The ACC have ignored or requests for assistance including home help immediately after the surgery. I have now restarted my pre-injury business as part of my recovery.
-2

#48 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 27 January 2014 - 11:36 AM

Practitioner 123

Having had a lot to do with the medical profession over the years, including my having a medical treatment, And of course receiving treatment for minor injuries that the ACC should be paying for I must on behalf of all of your patients express appreciation for heroes such as yourself who continue doing what you know to be right. Numerous medical professionals are either directly threatens or have inferred threats from the ACC for ACC fraud when they provide the treatment that they have learnt to provide by way of medical school as an alternative to what the ACC want which is treatment by way of statistical diagnosis otherwise known as "this medical practice". Myself I prefer to rely upon the "gold standard" taught in the medical school where the treatment provider makes is diagnosis by way of scientific protocols which invariably rely upon scientific measuring tools such as Xray, CT and MRI scans etc.

If you need to discuss matters directly regarding your experiences do not hesitate to use the personal message system.
0

#49 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:01 PM

View PostHuggy, on 04 December 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

I got every page of my 2000 pages fraud file minus a legally privileged letter that was later released when they cocked up and emailed it to me.


Did you do that with a privacy act request? I would like to do one, to obtain my file. I am a practitioner having to deal with these bozo's. A little side note- that according to the Martin Jenkins report, the fraud unit uses more than 8 times the resources to investigate practitioners, than claimants. I guess it's a "follow the money" type issue. Good fodder for 60 minutes, I reckon. Anyway, any help on what to ask for on Privacy Act request is appreciated.

It is obvious that ACCorporation has gone the "public shaming" route to divide and conquer, keep people in their shells. Imagine the shock and awe when you receive a phone call from someone claiming to be from ACC, asking about the treatment you have received, and if your treatment is any good. And you have only gone for treatment, not off-work pay? Now put yourself in the practitioner's shoes, discovering that your own patients are being called by ACC, asking about you. Do you think it might scare business away? Welcome to my world. This is one of the games they are allowed to play- to drain you of your resources, until you can no longer fight. They are doing it to practitioners, too. The additional problem is that ACCorporation attacks those practices that are particularly busy- calling them "outliers," as the excuse. It's as if they have given ACCorporation that scissors to cut tall poppies! Physiotherapist Malcolm Hood addressed parliament on this issue, and discussed "victim statements" and the "need for compensation" for the victims of ACC's fraud unit. Having been through it for a while now, I can now say I share your pain. All my problems started when I treated a protestor against ACC from Christchurch, and fixed his back- for free, eliminating the need for surgery in the first place. That is when the phone calls to my patients started. You might remember him, his name is Neville.

Also, I am surprised that everyone here uses this forum more, and Official Information Act requests/Ombudsman less, to air their complaints. These tools were given to us, the public, to assure transparency of the government that is supposed to work for us. Any answer they give, or fail to give, is admissible in any court. It can help you tremendously, because it basically throws a spanner into any investigation, because they must answer to administrative law requests, like Official Information Act requests. ACCorporation (remember, it's a corporation, therefore, a living person in law) is empowered by administrative law, something that few people understand well, even (or especially lawyers). The "remedy" is administrative, as well, so I think you guys should all be using the heck out of the Official Information Act, and demand answers when they fail to answer through the Ombudsman. It's pretty easy, and I have to give a thumbs-up to the FYI website, as well, because they make it super easy to ask questions, and they then become available to anybody looking for the same answers.

If they fail to answer, and you are in any way prosecuted, your questions become part of the case, as is their failure to answer your legitimate questions. It's a matter of public interest.

The Corporation has huge legal resources, and like a poker game, uses it like a cudgel on the heads of unsuspecting people, who have no experience in law, and may not know how they are walking into a trap. I am now not for oversight of the Corporation. I have concluded that it should be completely dismantled for the failed socialist progrma that it is, because governments are made of humans, and therefore subject to the same weakness of all humans. A persons health is too precious to be trusted to other humans who may not give a damn, where there is insufficent remedy, or where the only available remedy is the courts, where a different language is spoke. Worse, I feel for any injured person who has to deal with this bureaucratic/legal nightmare known as "the Corporation," unsuspecting that anything they say or do is being used and collected as evidence to be used later, or deal with a case worker that earns a bonus for how little they pay you. We practitioners have the same thing, except they are called "Area Managers," recently changed to "Supplier Managers." (bad name- are we dope dealers?)

I just wanted to make the point that the Official Information Act, and the Privacy Act are the available tools to get your remedy, and everybody should use them, if they have any question- and the answers ARE official- ie: stand as evidence in any trial. This includes a failure to answer. That can be raised in trial, because it stops their case until they answer. It derails their train, and is especially good for you if the answer they give would be potentially embarrassing, which would probably describe the reason why they find an excuse not to answer. This is the best way I can see to dismantle the Corporation, piece by piece, because while they know plenty about us, having all of our information- what exactly do we have from them beyond rumor, that can be established as fact? Official Information Act is the way. I am surprised at how few of you guys are using it.

Has anybody been able to reach Mike Dixon McIver? He's not answering texts or calls. Hope he's alright.
0

#50 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 31 January 2014 - 02:02 PM

Good Job on your case, Huggy. I hope more stand up to bullies, like you.
0

#51 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:17 AM

Alan, what you describe sounds like it might be an issue a violation of principle 4 of the Privacy Act- "fairness" in the collection of information about an individual. Worth a look at privacy.org. If what they collected on you is deemed unfair, it could overturn everything that was used against you, ala David Bain. Have a read of his lawyer's court submissions, and you might find it interesting.

On that note, it may also raise Human Rights abuses. However, you have not raised those in the proper venue- which would be the tribunal, and you can represent yourself. You could probably argue that their failure to release your file represents a violation of your human right to know, transparency, etc. All of this bureaucratic mess smells to me a lot like what Lenin called "useful idiots." They put the idiots on the front line for us to deal with, and it becomes like walking through tar. In the meantime, the levys and taxes continue to be collected, while the rights of a minority are absolutely slaughtered, as happened in Russia, during its socialist takeover.

A side note in my own research- over 70% of Human Rights Tribunal hearings surround PRIVACY issues. So this would probably be in the same area as your concern. Since your fraud case is "adjourned" as I understand it, then they have to release the file- ALL of it, because the case is considered "concluded." There is nothing "secret" to withhold, because the case was adjourned, and you were found guilty.

If you find something there, in your prosecution file, where they did you wrong, then you may have additional issues to raise, with Human Rights Tribunal, then/or ultimately with the High Court. Should parts of your file get "lost," in the process of obtaining it, then that too could be construed as a violation of natural law, your privacy, and a right to a fair trial/appeal, and itself used as the basis of an appeal of the criminal case, possibly. If you remain silent on the issue of a possible violation of your Human Rights in the Privacy Act, then the matter is considered "settled."

As "not their victim" says- it's about persistence. Huggy would probably agree, as well. His was probably a hugely embarrassing loss to that socialist paradise experiment known as ACC, I reckon. Socialism = communism, if you study it. They're brothers/sisters, and it never works, save for the super elite rich, who "own" the country in question. That is what this is really about- control. Gee, I wonder what the world would be like if governments got to choose all of our healthcare. A good movie to watch is called "Doctored."

There is an agenda here at play, directing all of we humans in a particular direction, steering us, like the invisible hand. Hitler and friends never died, they just transformed their fascist agenda, secretly. A Kiwi wrote "Hitler was a British Spy." That's a deep rabbit hole, and a bit off-topic 9maybe not). However, their modus operandi is about the same, when comparing all socialist programs- centralized power. This is not just about ACC, or the national government. It's much bigger than that. It's about an agenda to control everything, and it doesn't get any more personal than your choices as to what treatment you receive, or do not receive.

Then, they severely punish anyone who questions the authority, to "make an example out of them" for others to see. It is not different than public execution, though "softer." Governments measure their effectiveness, sadly, by how well they punish people. This is not about "fairness," this is about eliminating the competition. While the reptiles who apparently represent us will claim this not to be the case, it is absolutely what's going on, because actions speak louder than words.
0

#52 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:06 PM

Practitioner 123 the issue with the ACC fraud unit is one of control. They perceive that they are in control of all things ACC. They consider themselves superior to the ordinary case manager. They boast that they are the highest profit centre of the ACC rendering the highest return on investment. The plum targets are businesses and business people as they perceive their to be more money and more opportunities to configure their outrageous nonsense allegations.

Supplier businesses such as the medical profession are primarily detected by anybody that is outside of the statistical bell curve. The ACC fraud unit even challenge medical science arguing that the "best medical practice" as being the primary mechanism to challenge "the gold standard" of medical science. Medical professionals that are at the extremes because of their competency generally sits at the end of the bell curve while a large number of medical professionals in fear of the ACC of a conservative treatment which has been clearly manipulated by the ACC threat which of course shift the entire bell curve leaving the medical professional that is the leader in this field and at the extreme end of the bell curve actually outside of the bell curve which will automatically generate fraud allegations. The statistical process of decision-making "best medical practice" is the tool for the criminal prosecution whereby scaredy-cat medical professionals that are compliant are being used as ACC informants. Frequently these informants are fellow practitioners who are jealous of those who lead in their profession. Sadly the competency of these medical professionals are challenged by taking statements from the person receiving treatment who has no medical qualifications whatsoever and is therefore not in a position to provide any kind of evidence.

I was at Malcolm Hoods home in the early days of his unfortunate experiences with the ACC and had first-hand descriptions of the difficulties he experienced and observed that others had experienced. We were able to see an unnatural number of common denominators that were being misinterpreted by unqualified persons within ACC. It seems that the focus will driving force of the ACC was on money to the exclusion of rehabilitation with tangible outcomes being irrelevant to the ACC.

Claimants that are business owners having injury preventing them from working are routinely challenged by the fraud unit with allegations that they continue to contribute management to the companies beyond what is declared. What they typically do is make an allegation enforce the business owner to disprove the allegation. They win criminal convictions by this technique rendering their mark guilty until proven innocent.

Unfortunately the privacy Commissioner and the ombudsman's offices are not adequately financed to enable them to perform the function. Theoretically everything looks possible but in reality the concept all but totally fails except in a very few which of course received publicity which creates a certain illusion. It is all too easy for the ACC to create an excuse that they know these offices will swallow with the result that the person who is most vulnerable because they are most in expressed in such matters receive no help whatsoever.

The ACC legislation was meant to have a stand-alone judicial procedure within so as to step away from the need for judicial review. Unfortunately the ACC itself has become expert in deflecting all manner of claims with the resources of a multi-billion-dollar corporation against a physically and financially impoverished claimant. The situation is now worse than prior to the ACC legislation. There is no possibility that an injured person can navigate such a labyrinth with the result that the ACC Corporation benefits from their losses and suffering.

It seems to me that the ACC contrived failure to administer itself is the primary insurance fraud exceeding while they allege to be fraud many times over. At their individual employees of the ACC are not immune from private criminal prosecution it would be wise to consider private criminal prosecutions each and every time there is sufficient evidence demonstrating acts of dishonesty. Obviously if it has got to the point where ACC staff are being awkward with delivering requested information whether it be private or public information that there is a dishonest intent worthy of investigating. We must remember that knowingly and dishonestly withholding information for the purposes of pecuniary advantage to the ACC amounts to ACC fraud. The individual committing this fraud does not need to be the financial benefactor of the fraud to be convicted.

Why set out to embarrass the ACC logo when the individual criminals within can be locked away safely in order that the system flourishes and actually contributes to rehabilitation. If the Corporation is instructing its front-line staff to commit acts of dishonesty then I am quite confident that those individual staff members will expose those who have caused them to be incarcerated. It would only take 1 or 2 to be incarcerated to generate a cascade effect resulting in a paradigm shift in the way in which the Corporation does business. I find it hard to believe that individual staff members would commit acts of dishonesty without any form of motivation anddespite the fact that motivation is not necessary to achieve conviction we would be able to determine the construct that the ACC has become in order that it be reconstructed back to its original intent.
0

#53 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:33 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 27 January 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Practitioner 123

My appeal process with the ACC has been the biggest in its history with the ACC first succeeding in an ACC fraud prosecution resulting in three years prison on the basis of their claim to have possession of information that I was working. They did not present a single work task activity describing at any material time that relied upon their authority as the decision maker that I had no entitlement while receiving entitlements to achieve the fraud prosecution. They delayed the civil appeal process via a request to the court registrar so as to secure a criminal conviction.

After 10 years I obtained a court order for the ACC to disclose the alleged individual work task activities at the material time during the appeal process to the original cancellation of my entire claim decision. The court directed the ACC to disclose the information no later than September 2006. The ACC made no disclosure of any work task activity of any sort at any material time. To help the ACC up the judge decided not to address the issue of the decision letter but rather reconfigure the ACC decision letter to express a viewpoint that I was no longer incapacitated based on the impressions the ACC informants had. They have seen me working in business plans which the ACC directed me to produce under threat of suspending my entitlements under section 73 (2) of the 1992 act. When they obtained information from the informants that I was complying with this demand they then cancelled my entire claim based on section 73 (1) of the 1992 act.

The criminal Court trial lasted over seven weeks with my opportunity of response being limited to 3 1/2 days with the judge denying me the opportunity to present my exhibits based on the ACC already using up too much time.
The same technique was used by the ACC in the civil hearing which took over four weeks court time spread over more than 10 years with the ACC generating delay after delay, presenting vast quantities of irrelevant data resulting in the judge deciding that he did not need to look at my submissions and exhibits because of the thoroughness of the ACC presentation. The ACC had three lawyers going up against myself as a disabled lone Lay litigant.

I'm writing this to you because I had made by a privacy act requests for the so-called work information and an official information act request in relation to how alleged work activities related to a cancellation of claim. Both requests were denied on the basis that the ACC was conducting a fraud investigation and therefore under those acts could withhold the information.

Recently in the High Court the ACC confessed to never having any information that I was working at all but now rely upon the decision they have obtained through the courts based on the authority of those courts. To make matters more difficult for me the ACC have secured costs which are beyond the capacity for someone in invalid benefit to pay thus temporising the matter forever.



A year ago I received an artificial wrist joint at a cost of $40,000 which the ACC were required to pay subsequent to 2 review hearings. The ACC have ignored or requests for assistance including home help immediately after the surgery. I have now restarted my pre-injury business as part of my recovery.


Try to answer these questions truthfully and straight Thomas:

1. Did ACC pay the $40,000 to you, or the public Heath serivce, or a private Doctor??

Now lets not forget that I just caught you lieing saying that you were paying a $15,000 off to ACC for the extra security they had to hire after they heard of the TBP when it was in actual fact only $5,000. So think there are ways of finding out who they paid and when!! And we dont appreciate lies.

Mini
0

#54 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 01:46 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 February 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

Try to answer these questions truthfully and straight Thomas:

1. Did ACC pay the $40,000 to you, or the public Heath serivce, or a private Doctor??

Now lets not forget that I just caught you lieing saying that you were paying a $15,000 off to ACC for the extra security they had to hire after they heard of the TBP when it was in actual fact only $5,000. So think there are ways of finding out who they paid and when!! And we dont appreciate lies.

Mini

the ACC took the position that because I owned some companies that I was working and therefore not entitled to ACC, including surgery.

The judiciary instructed the ACC to pay for the reconstructive surgery in order that I may return to my preinjury occupation.

The ACC decided to try again but this time prosecute for fraud which they did based on committing perjury to the criminal Court then relied upon the outcome of that criminal Court to defend the decision that they could cancel the claim.

The ACC have not pay for any surgery!


In order to prevent my submissions going to court to challenge the ACC decision the ACC made a please complaint which resulted in my computers being seized along with my submissions.as part of the allegations and accusations they claim to be frightened of me and spent over $15,000 in additional security of which the court ordered I pay $5000 over a period of several years. I am paying that at $100 per month. like you I would also like to know what the ACC actually spent. It would be good if you read what I write with the same precision that I write it so as you do not become confused. It seems to me that you might even be feigning confusion in order to generate more controversy.

what is the point that you are trying to make?
0

#55 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:19 PM

Practitioner 123

You may not be aware that part of the Privacy Act allows the ACC to withhold information such as the fraud investigation files on the basis that it is not in the public interest to disclose that information. This of course prevents the accused from setting the record straight thus preventing the ACC generating a fabricated accusation. In my case they have alleged that I was working without disclosing a single work task activity at any material time which prevented me from arguing that I was not working at review hearing. By the time it got to the criminal trial the ACC were able to rely upon the review hearing decision thus preventing the court from delving into whether or not my entitlement was valid. Once the entitlement was deemed to be invalid by the proper ACC and subsequent judicial authorities a fraud conviction was inevitable. The judge simply refused to entertain the merits of my ACC claim!

The human rights Commissioner discuss the matter with me in his office. Of course it is quite a rare situation where by anybody gets to have a one-to-one meeting with the Commissioner. This assertion was that he was not adequately resourced to address the overly complicated way in which the ACC had conducted business. To get in on I had to go through the usual labyrinth of idiots. My experiences with the privacy Commissioner were much the same.

By the time it got to the civil hearing 10 years later the judge directed the ACC to describe the alleged individual work task activities at the material times. The ACC just reassured the judge that the criminal Court was superior to the civil Court and that he had to rely upon the criminal court judgement. The result was that I was left of the position of demonstrating to the court what I have been doing from the time of the claim in 1989 until 1997 when the ACC cancelled the claim alleging to possess information that I was working. I gave the court a detailed account of who in my businesses did what to the exclusion of myself being a participant in the business and that even the directors duties were delegated. I further described what they had been doing with my time in relation to rehabilitation, also with exhibits. The judge paid no heed to the documented evidence preferring instead to rely upon the ACC who in turn relied upon their informants who merely provided the ACC with assumptions as to what I might have been doing. I don't know how assumptions trumps documented evidence. The judge merely said that he was able to put aside all of my evidence based on has many years of experience in the art of lie detecting with the result that he further concluded I must have likewise trekked all the medical profession who rely upon scientific measuring equipment.

Obviously the concept that we know as ACC whereby responsibility/liability has shifted to the masses from an individual is by definition a socialist scheme. When a person becomes injured and cannot, by way of legislation, address the individual responsible and are deprived of remedy by way of restricted compensation and medical care we have an arguable case that we belong to a group of people that would qualify as refugees under the United Nations Charter. As my situation has deteriorated further by the State orchestrating keep the surgery to repair in defiance of a judicial decision then totally withholding all medical treatment when that nonconsensual surgery took place and went wrong followed by a further injury causing a stroke when trying to find out what had gone wrong which in turn was followed by the ACC attempting to induce me to surrender my medical remedy entitlement to return to my previous occupation in favour of the ACC rehabilitating me into a new occupation (relabelling without actual rehabilitation) by suspending earnings compensation and still I complied by working in my rehabilitation plans issued by the, then using the adjacent legislation to cancel my claim is entirely on the basis that I was "working" (complying with the ultimatum to rehabilitate) leaving me in a no-win situation with the result that I was imprisoned as an issue of punishment for not complying or resisting their typically socialist bureaucratic thuggish behaviour that a communist country would be proud of.

The bottomline is the ACC achieved a criminal conviction based on the existence of secret information that has never been challenged in court.

In my situation was not an invisible hand that was upon me but rather the ACC used me as a mechanism of propaganda in order to socially engineer the mindset of the New Zealand population into thinking that the ACC is somehow in control of our destiny to the exclusion of my control over my destiny. I now have the reconstructive surgery and have returned to the preinjury occupation designing and building computer-controlled machinery. Had the ACC damage job I would have been out of work for six or nine months but instead was removed from the workforce for almost quarter of a century.

Over the years we have seen both labour and national governments messing about with the ACC legislation. We must not forget that the ACC legislation came into existence at a time when the National party was probably more socialist than Labour.

Like most self-employed persons I prize control of my own destiny. Shortly prior to my accident event I had key person insurance but was advised that the ACC made this insurance redundant. However we do see the national government trying to detach itself from entities that are not really about government such as communications, railways and suchlike, including the ACC which of them can only be likened to a white elephant because ACC make themselves as attractive as possible by first over collecting levies (premiums) while they can get away with that and then when it seems like they might get privatised lowering the levies to the point of being uneconomical for any privatisation to action take place. To add to this problem the ACC are exposed to a contingent liability that would probably send bankrupt in any event if it was to pay out as per legislation dictates.

I do feel that the ACC has made an example out of me by the fact that newspaper articles and suchlike have been shown to their fraud investigation clients in order to frighten amount of their claims. Generally speaking the principal activity of the fraud investigation unit is to issue their mark with an ultimatum whereby the ACC makes tremendous profit when the required to rendering of entitlements are achieved. Generally legal professionals advise their clients that it is not worth fighting a multibillion dollar corporation unless you are prepared to lose the family home etc etc. Husbands and wives usually part with the spouse not wanting to share in the risk with an invalid facing ACC problems to the extent that only 15% long-term injured enjoy a survivable marriage.

Typical with government agencies that align themselves with their historical counterparts claim denied liability by saying "I was under orders". It is for this reason that I strongly urge private criminal prosecutions of the individual employees of the ACC that commit crimes against us. This I believe would have a more powerful influence than any other single stratagem.
0

#56 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:21 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 01:46 PM, said:

the ACC took the position that because I owned some companies that I was working and therefore not entitled to ACC, including surgery.

The judiciary instructed the ACC to pay for the reconstructive surgery in order that I may return to my preinjury occupation.

The ACC decided to try again but this time prosecute for fraud which they did based on committing perjury to the criminal Court then relied upon the outcome of that criminal Court to defend the decision that they could cancel the claim.

The ACC have not pay for any surgery!


In order to prevent my submissions going to court to challenge the ACC decision the ACC made a please complaint which resulted in my computers being seized along with my submissions.as part of the allegations and accusations they claim to be frightened of me and spent over $15,000 in additional security of which the court ordered I pay $5000 over a period of several years. I am paying that at $100 per month. like you I would also like to know what the ACC actually spent. It would be good if you read what I write with the same precision that I write it so as you do not become confused. It seems to me that you might even be feigning confusion in order to generate more controversy.

what is the point that you are trying to make?


Exactly what you have just proven. You said today a post or too back that ACC had paid for the surgury.

Now you say they in this post that they did not pay for the surgery. Which was it??

I would like to know that ACC pays back the DHB when they do the $40,000 hand surgery needed. Is that so bad.

yesterday you said your repayment for ACC security was $15,000, now you are agreeing with me that is was only five thousand of that 15,000 that you had to pay.

Here I am proving you a lier, who cannot help himself exaggerate the amounts of money and who had to pay it in the end. Everything you say is exaggerated!! And twisted to make it all about you.

Mini
0

#57 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10801
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 02:35 PM

Mark my words here. ACC is going to pay for the surgery because the judiciary has ordered that to happen. That decision is binding on all parties. It is fraudulent for the ACC to misrepresent the situation in any way or form. They are going to pay for the surgery even if the entity that did pay out does not ask for the money. All claimants in fact all levy payers should be interested in this situation. No one likes paying levies to insurance company only to find that those levies are not spent as prescribed by the legislation and the judiciary have issued a binding decision for the payment to occur.

More likely than not the ACC is concerned that the that pays for the reconstructive surgery to return to my preinjury occupation that will undermine both the criminal conviction and the decision to cancel my claim entirely as the notion that I need surgery directly challenges their statements to both civil and criminal courts with the result that individual staff members will certainly be prosecuted for perjury and producing false documents pecuniary advantage, regards as to whether or not they personally benefited.

Mini I trust that you will get behind me and provide me with the relevant support in ensuring that the ACC to make good on their liabilities ($40,000). Obviously if you are going to get behind me and provide support I do ask that you read what I say carefully. For example you seem to be challenging the all the time when the problem is your lack of ability to read or retain information and reliance upon your imagination. No one would wish to have a loose cannon in support of any cause.

Many you seem to have an agenda to establish me to be a liar by continuous allegations and accusations without any basis in fact. This is the modus operandi of the ACC which leads me to believe that you are perhaps trying to impress them in some way. Or this is because of your bureaucratic experiences as an employee with the IRD. far from the exaggerating any and, it is the ACC have exaggerated. They exaggerate allegations of work based on assumptions from their informants with the result that the ACC perceived earnings of $1.3 million and a so-called empire of companies when I simply followed the ACC funded business adviser to register a number of companies to secure my intellectual property in the form of shelf companies.this is the ACC twisting things to suit their own ends rather than me exaggerating things. Typically the ACC have run extensive court hearings where they occupy 90% or more of the court time to the court runs out of time thus preventing me from any kind of response. I have simply modestly said not guilty and offered the exhibits to demonstrate reality. a significant number of those defending themselves from ACC have expressed the same problem.

Mini I find your modus operandi runs parallel to the ACC thus making it very suspect in regards to the genuineness of your enquiry.
0

#58 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 09 February 2014 - 03:55 PM

Alan
Your wrist did NOT stop you owning and operating a number of companies nor doing work within them.
someone was running theses and someone was doing the book work and someone was doing the tax stuff-someone was doing the banking
WHO WAS THE PERSON/S who did all that if you didnt and were they owners shareholders or paid employees if it is the case someone else did this things
It rather like de Plot
I ask you questions
YOU MISLEAD WITH WPRDS WHICH AT TIME MAKES A LIE
and rather like de Good ship hector-the 40 foot yacht
im still fathoming the sailing of hector for a bloody long way singe handedly at that in raging storms-the storm caused grounding -which must have had the yacht lying on its side keel and all-the amazing un-grounding t and the boat was not damaged and you sailed it back again
anyone with half a brain would have turned round 1/3rd the way up de channel with the weather that was there-let alone an idiot that continued into a gale out to sea which =sea is cook strait area.
you do pose interesting quandaries at times in all your explanations via wordsmithing
Knowing exactly where yp say you clambered aboard de yacht makes it more of a poser that you sailed for a LONG time and a LONG way in stormy weather before ya even got to the sea -
mmmmm Dave,
0

#59 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 09 February 2014 - 04:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Mark my words here. ACC is going to pay for the surgery because the judiciary has ordered that to happen. That decision is binding on all parties. It is fraudulent for the ACC to misrepresent the situation in any way or form. They are going to pay for the surgery even if the entity that did pay out does not ask for the money. All claimants in fact all levy payers should be interested in this situation. No one likes paying levies to insurance company only to find that those levies are not spent as prescribed by the legislation and the judiciary have issued a binding decision for the payment to occur.

More likely than not the ACC is concerned that the that pays for the reconstructive surgery to return to my preinjury occupation that will undermine both the criminal conviction and the decision to cancel my claim entirely as the notion that I need surgery directly challenges their statements to both civil and criminal courts with the result that individual staff members will certainly be prosecuted for perjury and producing false documents pecuniary advantage, regards as to whether or not they personally benefited.

Mini I trust that you will get behind me and provide me with the relevant support in ensuring that the ACC to make good on their liabilities ($40,000). Obviously if you are going to get behind me and provide support I do ask that you read what I say carefully. For example you seem to be challenging the all the time when the problem is your lack of ability to read or retain information and reliance upon your imagination. No one would wish to have a loose cannon in support of any cause.

Many you seem to have an agenda to establish me to be a liar by continuous allegations and accusations without any basis in fact. This is the modus operandi of the ACC which leads me to believe that you are perhaps trying to impress them in some way. Or this is because of your bureaucratic experiences as an employee with the IRD. far from the exaggerating any and, it is the ACC have exaggerated. They exaggerate allegations of work based on assumptions from their informants with the result that the ACC perceived earnings of $1.3 million and a so-called empire of companies when I simply followed the ACC funded business adviser to register a number of companies to secure my intellectual property in the form of shelf companies.this is the ACC twisting things to suit their own ends rather than me exaggerating things. Typically the ACC have run extensive court hearings where they occupy 90% or more of the court time to the court runs out of time thus preventing me from any kind of response. I have simply modestly said not guilty and offered the exhibits to demonstrate reality. a significant number of those defending themselves from ACC have expressed the same problem.

Mini I find your modus operandi runs parallel to the ACC thus making it very suspect in regards to the genuineness of your enquiry.


I think you may have a case on the basis of "authenticity" of evidence. Only the author of a piece of paper guarantees authenticity. If a piece of paper is not attached to a person, it can be thrown out, but only if you object to its admissibility. If you fail in this, it's your own fault, and can unwittingly allow garbage to fill your file. That is why you persist and persist, like Bruce did. Every time they fail to give you what you want? File a complaint against the person who failed to act. It costs you nothing, and it is in the public interest that you complain. I personally think ACC is so screwed up, it should be dismantled. Any person with a small view of history could see this would happen, giving monopoly power to any government.

Nevertheless, a lot of changes have come about in the rules of evidence, since your case was heard. Most important thing, based on what you've shared, to look for is "foundation," that speaks to "competent witness," i.e.: first-hand knowledge of the facts, sworn, "so help me God, under penalty of perjury." That must be attached to EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PAPER, ESPECIALLY IF IT BE A CRIMINAL CASE. Of course I am speaking to an affidavit. Without an affidavit attached to every piece of "evidence" against you, it lacks "foundation" and could result in a new trail, because possibly a mis-carriage of justice has occurred. Courts love that shit, if you raise the issue. Your lawyer should have raised it, but sadly many of them are incompetent.


Foundation is extremely important in law, because it eliminates gossip from being used as "evidence." It also goes to the heart of "being able to cross-examine the evidence, and the person attached to it." If you were never given this ability, then I would start writing your appeal. Also, from what I have seen in recent years, "here-say" being allowed as evidence has come upon changes, as well. It now appears to be only allowed in certain circumstances, like divorce, and even then it is under question. In other countries, it is thrown out of court the second an opposing lawyer raises the issue. That seems to have happened in NZ as well, but only recently. By the sound of things, you seem to state that you were framed based on questionable evidence, and were never allowed the opportunity to cross-examine the person attached to said evidence, which could be a mis-carriage of justice. It seems that incompetent evidence is an ongoing theme in this country. "Gossip" is another term for "here-say," which is NOT FACT. It's gossip- and should be treated as such. However, if you FAIL to object to it, or raise the controversy, it is considered a settled matter, and is included in any decision. That is why the Privacy act is so important, that every piece of info in your file is released, so you have the opportunity to correct it.

If your lawyer did not raise the issue on any of this, then you are silent, because he is your voice. If your lawyer is not doing his job, you can fire him at the trial, and cry out the admissibility objection on the court record, so it is preserved for appeal. If your lawyer failed to raise the issue (because he was incompetent?) then this could form the foundation for a re-trial on the basis of "miscarriage of justice," ala David Bain. Might be worth having a look at his court documents, for your own sake, because it seems you do not sleep well on any of this. A lot of Bains stuff is available online, and discussed by other lawyers. You might be able to pick some nuggets there, if you are serious about changing things in your own case, not just moaning about it. Like Bain's lawyer, I think attacking the evidence is where you might win.

An awful lot has changed since your case happened, regarding evidence rules. I am attaching a link, but there is much more. Might be worth a second look. I believe there has been plenty of miscarriage of justice in this country on the basis of poor evidence not objected to in terms of admissibility.

I realize that most people, including or especially business owners, don't realize how much law is used as a tool against them, especially when fighting a government agency, with a team of lawyers (pretending to act in the public interest, on your tax dollar), vs the "little guy," often impoverished already, trying to strike back, paying full price to his lawyer. It's the oldest trick in the book- first deprive the prisoner of food, then leave him to beg for mercy. Such actions are common to humans, sadly when put into positions of power or authority- See the Stanford Prison Experiment, or Stanley Milgram's work. Speaking of "modus operandi" ACC does the same thing by cutting off people's income. That's what I'm experiencing. Their eternal excuse? "We're investigating." It's all fascist double-talk.

"Fascism is Corporatism." ---Mussolini (mentor to Hitler). ACC is a corporation, right?

I believe some staff at ACC relish in their work, because they are sadists, could not get a job at Mcdonald's, or both. Lenin would call them "useful idiots."

http://www.jamesfarm..._in_civil_cases
0

#60 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 09 February 2014 - 04:19 PM

New Zealand is covered on this list- if there is ANY chance of a criminal ANYTHING, then ALL evidence must be treated with the utmost care, and ALL heresy objected to, forthwith, lest a miscarriage of justice occur http://en.wikipedia....say#New_Zealand
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 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