[Huggy]

Kaikoura man claims reputation damaged

By REBECCA TODD and NZPA -


A Kaikoura man says his reputation has been ruined by a drawn-out ACC fraud investigation which left him stressed and in pain.

Michael Gibson pleaded guilty late last year to six charges of making false statements to ACC.

Neighbours had, over several years, filmed him lifting rocks, launching his boat and trimming hedges.

He was then receiving compensation for a back injury which he and his doctors said prevented him from heavy lifting, twisting, bending or standing.

He was yesterday sentenced in the Kaikoura District Court to 200 hours community service.

"I'm relieved the nightmare is over," Gibson said after the sentencing.

Gibson's advocate, Warren Forster, said his client had admitted he had been wrong to sign medical certificates which did not declare the work he had been doing around home.

However, any implication that his client had defrauded ACC had been proven incorrect, Forster said.

All criminal charges against Gibson had been dropped, he did not have to pay back any money and was still receiving $390 a week in compensation.

Gibson had been a heavy labourer before injuring his back five years ago.

Although he was able to do some work, he was not able to do 35 hours a week in his previous occupation or in a job paying a similar wage, which was required for him to be removed from the compensation scheme.

Forster said his client had started converting his home into a bed and breakfast in 2003 in the hope it would allow him to become financially independent.

However, the negative publicity about his case meant that since he opened three years ago he had accommodated just six guests, half of whom were ACC private investigators.

"This investigation alone hasn't stopped him, but it's certainly put things on hold," Forster said.

Gibson needed to have guests on only two nights a week to be able to quit ACC.

He suffered from chronic pain which had been aggravated by the stress of the fraud investigation.

"He feels vindicated by the fact the judge said he was entitled to his money because he feels his reputation has been ruined by this whole process," Forster said.

"But it doesn't make it all go away."

[Huggy]

Well said Warren

Good Luck Michael I hope you can move on now.

ACC you bunch of pricks. You knew of things he had done as it was in his files you have on him but because Michael didnt put them on the ARC18 which as many people dont realise you have to do you spend prob hundreds of thousands of levy payers money to bring something to court that doesnt even justify a custodial sentence.

[jocko]

Well there you go. What a long drawn out load of drivel over nothing. The reason they brought these charges was because it would have meant trial by jury for fraud charges and a jury would have thrown it out. Now all of you sorry arsed bastards who were against Mike and who are on benefits better watch yourselves if you are saying you are unfit for work. From the moment ACC catches you cleaning your teeth in the morning you will be proving a capacity for work as a dental technician. When you make your breakfast the PIs will report you as having a capacity to work as a chef. after you have had your crap and wiped your arse you will prove a capacity for work as a heath care provider. If you fart they will accuse you of being capable of being a methane production worker.
This week I lodged a medical certificate that states I am fully unfit for work. My normal 15 hours are not on the ARC 18 as ACC/DRSL is using it as a legal tool to prevent me having a 6 month med cert.
Right now my mate whose spine is damaged is mowing my lawns. The poor pricks white with pain but he needs the dough for a second hand tyre. ACC are cutting him off next week again so its back on the invalids benefit,again, for him.
I'm finishing this and heading in to town to get a trailer then load up the gear and put a new roof on the bach this week end. ACC can get stuffed.By the end of the day my injuries will be screaming,So what?rah rah, blah blah blah, woop de fucking doo. Its my pain and I'll do what I like with it. I am not going to sit around all day with my finger up my arse to comply with a judgement in a case the courts should have seen for what it was and refused to hear.
Failed to fill in ACC form properly. No crime intended. No fraud committed. 200 hours community work.
I must be fucked in the head. I simply can not understand a Judge sentencing a man who is medically unfit for work to 200 hours community work? To me that is like whipping a horse that won't work. Isn't the sentence a little harsh? For a man who is fully fit 200 hours work is a fairly lengthy bout of work. Let alone a person who is badly injured.
But then again he is an ACC claimant so its different isn't it. The system has completed its ignorance to the plight of injured workers with a cruel, thoughtless sentence that can only infict further pain and worsen the mans situation.

[doppelganger]

now he has 200 hours of community work but the bill that ACC will have will be the loss of income that could have been produced if he follow the Act

Quote

319 Exemplary damages
(1) Nothing in this Act, and no rule of law, prevents any person from bringing proceedings in any court in New Zealand for exemplary damages for conduct by the defendant that has resulted in—
(a) personal injury covered by this Act; or
( personal injury covered by the former Acts.
(2) The court may make an award of exemplary damages for conduct of the kind described in subsection (1) even though—
(a) the defendant has been charged with, and acquitted or convicted of, an offence involving the conduct concerned in the claim for exemplary damages; or
( the defendant has been charged with such an offence, and has been discharged without conviction under section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 or convicted and discharged under section 108 of that Act; or
© the defendant has been charged with such an offence and, at the time at which the court is making its decision on the claim for exemplary damages, the charge has not been dealt with; or
(d) the defendant has not, at the time at which the court is making its decision on the claim for exemplary damages, been charged with such an offence; or
(e) the limitation period for bringing a charge for such an offence has expired.
(3) In determining whether to award exemplary damages and, if they are to be awarded, the amount of them, the court may have regard to—
(a) whether a penalty has been imposed on the defendant for an offence involving the conduct concerned in the claim for exemplary damages; and
( if so, the nature of the penalty.
Compare: 1998 No 114 s 396
Subsection (2)( was amended, as from 30 June 2002, by section 186 Sentencing Act 2002 (2002 No 9), by substituting the words "section 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 or convicted and discharged under section 108" for the words "section 19 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 or convicted and discharged under section 20". See sections 148 to 160 of that Act for the transitional and savings provisions. See clause 2 Sentencing Act Commencement Order 2002 (SR
2002/176).

They have charged him and then discharged him. This is what happens when the ACC try to get documents to remove entitlements. that is the medical certificate that is applying to section section 102 but does not apply of whether or not you can carry out other work.

Go Mike all the way.

[Huggy]

I think a OIA needs to be put to ACC to see how many ACC staff man hours went into this, how much money was paid to Pi's, How much paid to the crown to get a total costs that levy payers have had to forfeit for a case that showed their was no money had been ripped off from ACC but rather a simple matter of not putting some information on a ARC18 which many people could be caught in the same trap because they simply dont knopw what has to be put in there.

[jocko]

Its a load of crap Huggy. Aren't we entitled to a life? If you put up with the pain and you race a wheel chair or get in to disabled sports you are a hero. If you do a bit of hard work you are a fraud?

[doppelganger]

I agree with you huggy.

Jocko you are right but look at all that are in wheel chairs that are not helped to be as independent as possible just because they do not want to do sport and compete over seas.

[Huggy]

Jocko I agree with you fully and as I have been through this fraud shit I know how hard it is especially when you are innocent.

I believe an OIA needs to be done though so the public of NZ can see what ACC squanders its money on just like the 35 million in assessors costs that ACC has squandered by sending us through a repetaed process.

[MINI]

Huggy, on Jan 23 2010, 09:47 AM, said:

Well said Warren

Good Luck Michael I hope you can move on now.

ACC you bunch of pricks. You knew of things he had done as it was in his files you have on him but because Michael didnt put them on the ARC18 which as many people dont realise you have to do you spend prob hundreds of thousands of levy payers money to bring something to court that doesnt even justify a custodial sentence.

Huggy

I said it to you when you won your case against the PI's and there was so much publicity about it: They are going to start going softly softly now and PI's will probably never again if seldom be used. They have found they can use their own people with less damaging effect. '700 off w/c within 6 mths." Who needs the PI's.

This fellows 'stepback' outcome is the outcome of your own win. Hopefully he gets his business off the ground and off ACC. After all reading the newspaper article that has been his aim all along.

A good outcome for a sticky situation. However, the necessity of an understanding Judge was very important. Who was the Judge by the way???

Cheers
Mini

[MINI]

Huggy, on Jan 23 2010, 12:54 PM, said:

Jocko I agree with you fully and as I have been through this fraud shit I know how hard it is especially when you are innocent.

I believe an OIA needs to be done though so the public of NZ can see what ACC squanders its money on just like the 35 million in assessors costs that ACC has squandered by sending us through a repetaed process.

You are not wrong Huggy. Here is an excellent chance to show the media and the public where the ACC money has been spent.

Lets turn it around on them and show that a serious waste of money goes on from the inside. this Keys fella knows how to contain costs, he is using ACC's own little pocket of people to do the same job that the high priced ex-cops did, by barging into peoples house scaring the shit out of them.

Bet you, ACC never does that again. (Well, not unless it is called for anyway). They can frighten people away simple by their 'Tough Love' stance.

By backing off and making a deal with this claimant, they have shown they shouldnt have been using the ex-cops and the very harsh stance in the first place. Shows they didnt and dont give a shit if they are right or wrong, they will plummet the injuried and weak at the first option. Why, because they are the easiest to break, and they will go away without a whimper. Well some of them will. It will be interesting to see where the 700 in the past 6 months have gone too and how many have put in for Review??

How can we find out???

They not be showing themselves here anyway. Advocates have hardly got any for w/c taken off them.

Yes that is a way we could tell, how many coming to advocates having been chucked off, for whatever reason.

Good Luck all

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

While some have had a taste of an accusation of fraud as far as I know I'm the only one on the site who has actually gone by "through" the fraud process.

My observations of the people on the site is that invariably anybody the ACC gives a taste of an accusation of fraud backs down or surrenders their entitlements either entirely or in some way while others are course to tremble in fear, legal counsel included. Those who have trembled in fear and backed down are not in a position to provide good advice as they do not know the modus operandi of the ACC or the sequences of events that follow the bad advice that has been given.

The remedy to the ACC intimidation process is knowledge which is the reason why this site was set up.

Unfortunately 1997 - 2001 I was provided with the same type of bad advice that I sometimes see on this forum. as my reputation was of a very high standing I anticipate that when I win both my civil and criminal appeals that the quantum of the claim in regards to my valuable reputation will be very high.

[MINI]

Thomo

I for one know that you have only been through what you have brought about yourself.

Wait for the outcomes from your Court cases and then get on with life it is too short to push the proverbial uphill forever.

You knock any of us who get a proper outcome as being subservient. You are not doing any one recently taken off ACC any favours by doing anything other than giving them the information they need to fight at the beginning of the legislation through to the end to obtain their rights back again. That way, even though they may be subservient, at least they will have a chance to get their entitilements back quickly with the least amount of hassle.

Now go sit in your corner again.

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

Mini It is those who are entering into negotiated settlements with the ACC that the spoiling it for the rest of us. You just don't realize how much damage you are doing. being law abiding means relying on the law or rather than stepping outside of the law and negotiating a settlement. You are only encouraging a very powerful adversary to progressively reduce all our entitlements slowly and progressively over the years by your ill conceived actions in each encounter the like of you have with the ACC .

I think the ACC refer to this process as slowly slowly catch the monkey

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on Jan 23 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

Mini It is those who are entering into negotiated settlements with the ACC that the spoiling it for the rest of us. You just don't realize how much damage you are doing. being law abiding means relying on the law or rather than stepping outside of the law and negotiating a settlement. You are only encouraging a very powerful adversary to progressively reduce all our entitlements slowly and progressively over the years by your ill conceived actions in each encounter the like of you have with the ACC .

I think the ACC refer to this process as slowly slowly catch the monkey

Thomo

You are wrong and I am right.

I never negotiated with anyone to get my rights. I used the law and my manners consistantly so that the ACC in the end had to give me my entitlements.

My way works, so as I say if you want to make it hard for people just getting thrown off, they could try your way, but the outcome will mean they are fighting for a very long time.

If you could have done them any harm with your "I hate ACC stance", and using others to do your dirty work, you would have shown some creative outcome by now, but you can't can you, because you never beleive what others say anyway.

It has to be your way or no way!!!

Please yourself, but dont tell me I bring on you what you get..................you do it to yourself.

[Alan Thomas]

Mini The central theme to this thread is whether or Mikes reputation has been damaged when he pled guilty to the ACC prosecution that he had misinformed the ACC for a pecuniary advantage. many people on this forum agreed that he should plead guilty even though he was not guilty simply to settle the matter and allow him to get on with his life. I vigorously disagreed.

I do not hate the ACC or its logo. your suggestion of this is a ludicrous even maligns my reputation and no doubt causes the ACC to be worried. What do you mean duty work and creative outcome ?

As everybody knows my position has always been based on the purity of fact been applied to well understood points of law.

I still think that Mike should appeal his conviction and sentence based on an appropriate legal advice as lifting rocks or going fishing has nothing whatsoever to do with the ACC liability and therefore none of their business. the law does not permit the ACC to make any speculations from a few fragments of information supplied by friends and neighbors. this information is not inconsistent with the medical certificates and certainly would not have influenced the doctors decision regarding the need for surgery and such like the course of the structural damage to his back which is the reason why the ACC liability will continue to exist regardless of how many rocks are moved , even if a fulltime job was obtained moving rocks.

[magnacarta]

Here is another media version today of this same story above which Huggy posted.

The Judge say that it is important when dealing with ACC and taxpayers funds that people were fully honest.

The IPRC Act provides for a punitive penalty on the claimant - but does not provide a penalty for ACC when it is not "fully honest".

That law is inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination contained in the NZ Bill of Rights Act - In other words the law allows a claimant to be penalised if they are not "fully honest" with ACC but does not allow for ACC to be penalised when it is not "fully honest" with the claimant.

In my view that is a case for the Human Rights Review Tribunal seeking a declaration of inconsistency in an enactment (the IPRC Act)

Similarly, with the law in the IPRC Act where a claimant's appeal can be struck out if it is not prosecuted with due diligence but does not allow for ACC to be struck out if it does not prosecute its appeal with due diligence.

That is also inconsistent with the right to be free from discrimination in the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

Furthermore, that situation is not equality before the law.


ACC cheat escapes prison
By EMMA DANGERFIELD - The Marlborough Express Last


A Kaikoura man who was filmed doing manual labour while claiming Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) payments for a back injury has escaped a jail sentence.

Michael James Gibson, 53, appeared in the Kaikoura District Court on Friday and was sentenced to 200 hours of community service.

Gibson was the subject of a long-running ACC investigation in which video footage was obtained of him lifting boulders, cutting hedges and launching his boat.

Gibson had pleaded guilty to six charges of making statements he knew to be false to ACC when receiving or continuing to receive payments and entitlements. The charges each carried a maximum sentence of three months in prison, or an alternative fine of $5000.

Gibson's lawyer, Paul McMenamie, said Gibson continued to receive ACC payments and remained entitled to them.

"This is not a case where a person is not demonstrably entitled to a benefit," he said. "Because he remains entitled it is hard for ACC to quantify an amount, therefore the only inference the court can draw is that on the face of it, Mr Gibson has been entitled to the funds."

Due to the ongoing case he said Gibson's accommodation business had fallen down. He had suffered greatly in the community, with which he was having difficulty coping, had been "pilloried" by the media and borne the embarrassment of publicity in the national press and on television.

Judge Gary MacAskill said whatever the opinion of media and the public, the fact was he had made statements which were wrong and therefore broke the law.

Each of the six charges could carry a term of imprisonment, which indicated the seriousness of the offending. It would also be very difficult to determine if or when Gibson would have been able to return to work had he been honest.

"While you were entitled to ACC payments throughout, records suggest you were rather fitter than you might have suggested."

In sentencing Gibson to 200 hours community work on each charge to run concurrently, Judge MacAskill said the crown's approach had been correct and it was important when dealing with ACC and taxpayers funds that people were fully honest.

Gibson said after the ruling he was pleased the nightmare was finally over.

"ACC is meant to rehabilitate people, but instead they have dragged me through the mud because the medical certificates from the doctor were filled in the wrong way. What a waste of time and money."

[Alan Thomas]

Has the ACC made an honest report to the court when claiming that the anomalies between the medical certificates and the work task activity observations of Mike had any potential whatsoever to affect the calculation of entitlements?

If the information that the ACC claim to rely upon could not alter the entitlements in accordance with legislators criteria, then the ACC has committed perjury in this case?

The first issue is whether or not the police will prosecute the ACC for false representation to the court should Mike or any New Zealand citizen make such a complaint to the police?

The second issue is whether or not Mike will seek damages against the ACCfor the way in which they have maligned his reputation?

What was the precise nature of the ACC allegation represented to the court? In other words what was the exact words of the alleged false statement in comparison with the alleged anomalies to that statement?

What criminal illegal advice did Michael receive regarding the criteria of the information necessary for his medical certificates to enable him to make an informed decision to plead guilty? Did the criminal lawyer seek the advice of a specialist ACC lawyer or advocate such as Warren prior to advising Mike ?



The ACC press release is written in gobbledygook Obviously for propaganda purposes.
It would also be very difficult to determine if or when Gibson would have been able to return to work had he been honest.

How is it possible for a claimant's on a steady to affect the outcome of a medical decision to carry out surgery or the purposes of enabling Mike to increase his capacity to carry out sustained work task activity? prior to his surgery his work task of the city was very limited and certainly not much more than what his neighbors had actually observed which did not reach the criteria for him to be declared for it to work. this creates the foundation point for the prosecution of the ACC for committing perjury and attempting to socially engineer the entire nation regarding the length and breadth of ACC liability at the cost of Mike.

[RegularlyDuped]

To be honest, when I saw this in the media I was convinced this guy was a fraud. I don't know the full story but I think that it should be recognized sometimes that people need to push the boundaries to recover. The ACC itself admit that rest is not good for a back injury.

When I first came out of hospital I started restoring an old car from a wheelchair. Some days I just undid the odd bolt, other times I did more and often I did nothing. I got friends to help me when I couldn't do things and I figured ways around obstacles to do the rest which helped me adjust to my disability. Thing is it gave me an interest.

Am I an ACC fraud? No! I couldn't have done those things nor can I do them as a career. At the time they helped both my mental and physical condition. Never actually did finish that car but it helped me more along my mental and physical road to recovery than I could ever have driven in it on the road if I had completed it.

[Bill Birch]

magnacarta, on Jan 25 2010, 04:05 PM, said:

Judge Gary MacAskill said whatever the opinion of media and the public, the fact was he had made statements which were wrong and therefore broke the law.

Each of the six charges could carry a term of imprisonment, which indicated the seriousness of the offending. It would also be very difficult to determine if or when Gibson would have been able to return to work had he been honest.

"While you were entitled to ACC payments throughout, records suggest you were rather fitter than you might have suggested."

In sentencing Gibson to 200 hours community work on each charge to run concurrently, Judge MacAskill said the crown's approach had been correct and it was important when dealing with ACC and taxpayers funds that people were fully honest.

I told you so.

[MINI]

Billy Birch

And you were not wrong. Singing the "I been done wrong song' is a little late now!! If he was so convinced of that he would never have plead guilty to the lesser charges.

Bet you ACC won't be inquiring of the sour faced neighbours of anyone in the future, they will simply be putting anyone on a hit list and swinging the hammer. They will probably have the same outcome anyway, at the end of the day.

Besides let him serve his sentence in peace. Do the crime, do the time and then get on with life. He is still getting his money, lucky lad.

720 out there have been kicked off for less, and are not getting their money.

Think about those poor ones!!

Mini