Dear Accident Compensation Corporation,

It is repeatedly written on a public message board regarding this case de Marco v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 99 (30 April 2015) [redacted for privacy reasons]

Was, is or has there even been any proof of corporate fraud in this case?
Was or has there been any evidence of fraud by a case manager in this case.
Has there been any evidence shown to support the public, allegations made that new NHI numbers and or new personal tax numbers made for this claimant.

Yours faithfully,
P A Hamill

Dear Government Services,
Thank You for your reply.

I see that I may have not asked a couple of questions clearly enough and they could be taken in the wrong context.
I see from reading the public message board on a certain web site about ACC issues that the appellant has again this very day made the following statements.

not their victim
Advanced Member
Add as Friend
PM this member

Group:

Members

Posts:

5557

Joined:

04-August 08

Posted Today, 03:49 PM

I DON'T NEED TO SPEND A CENT OF MY HARD WON TRUTHFUL ACCOUNT OF

ADMITTED MALFEASANCE

ADMITTED IDENTITY THEFT

ADMITTED FINANCIAL IMPROPRIETY.

AND 24 YEARS OF WORK EXPERIENCE, THAT I WAS REWARDED HANDSOMELY FOR...

So I would like to ask a couple of more specific questions re the original case de Marco v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 99 (30 April 2015).
1 Was there any fraud carried out by the ACC in this persons claim at anytime that resulted in the claimant being exited or having ERC payments suspended.

2. Was there an admittance of malfeasance by ACC other than the VIMA not being carried out correctly.

3. Was there ever an issue with ACC stealing or creating a new identity for this claimant by way of a new IRD number being put in the claimants file and or also payments being made by ACC to the new identity.

4.Has ACC ever made an admittance of financial impropriety other than the VIMA was not a carried out correctly and ERC payments stopped because of it.

5. By way of preliminary issue, Mr Beck and Mr McBride agreed that all annotations on documents made by Ms de Marco should be removed from the evidence as filed. Counsel agreed that documents in the bundle for hearing would be replaced with an agreed bundle – Volume 2
Was there more than just one annotation by Ms De Marco on the documents supplied to the court that lead to Volume 2 being compiled.

Yours sincerely,

P.A Hamill

Dear Government Services,
Thank you for your reply to my further questions.
Especially the clarification re accusations of fraud etc. by the corporation or lack there of.

Question 5
5 By way of preliminary issue, Mr Beck and Mr McBride agreed that all annotations on documents made by Ms de Marco should be removed from the evidence as filed. Counsel agreed that documents in the bundle for hearing would be replaced with an agreed bundle – Volume 2
Was there more than just one annotation by Ms De Marco on the documents supplied to the court that lead to Volume 2 being compiled.

I do not feel that this question falls under the response you have given. As this statement was extracted from the already public court decision.
It can be found here at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZACC/2015...
section of decision copied for clarity.

"[4] By way of preliminary issue, Mr Beck and Mr McBride agreed that all annotations on documents made by Ms de Marco should be removed from the evidence as filed. Counsel agreed that documents in the bundle for hearing would be replaced with an agreed bundle – Volume 2, which was received following the hearing on 22 December 2014. I have considered these documents in the appeal."

It is therefore already public knowledge that one bundle of documents where exchanged during the court process to make a decision on this case,

All we have asked is for clarification on the number of hand written annotations on the documents in the first bundle was it more than one.

We have not asked what those hand written annotations were and are therefore not breeching any privacy into the individual claim just clarification on the legal preceding's that is now public information.

We do have a further question relating to this case.
1 How many days was the case set down to be heard in court i.e. one, two three or number of hours set for ACC legal to appear in court and defend this case. And how long was the actual case in relation to court time did ACC defend this case.

Kind regards,

P.A Hamill

Dear Government Services,
Thank you

Yours sincerely,

P.A Hamill