Atos medical assessment, something weird happend, advice needed

Just-A-Quick-Visit

A NOUCOR putting them on their full commercial liability sent to them demanding to see evidence their actions are exempt from UDHR 1948 will guarantee permission for recording to take place.

NOUCOR = Notice Of Understanding & Claim Of Rights (Easy made DIY Legal Document)

Just-A-Quick-Visit

dmg24 wrote: »

You really need to get out more ... or do you need to consult a solicitor before doing so?

What are you doing to help dmg24 ? Apart from taking the pi55 of course ? Its because of muppets like you this country is !!!!ed up. Burying your head in the sand does not make these problems stop, no matter how deeply you bury it !!!

Im doing my bit to ensure this kind of thing does not happen to me again, or to my fellow brothers and sisters who are about to be removed from sickness benefits ILLEGALLY.

Everyone NEEDS to know basic law, every contact you enter into is written in legalese and not english !!!

It is presumed in a court of law that you know what legalese is because you entered into the contract willingly.

ROMAN MAXIM IN LAW :

Let he who be fooled, be fooled.

ie "You cant blame us for your mistake, we put the information out there, is it our fault you did not look for it ?!

This maxim is how the snidey government get away with so much !!!!!! as often as it does.

YOU ARE THE POWERFUL ONES, NOT THEM. KNOW THIS OR BE FOOLED.

Ive seen article 12 of UDHR 1948 used to cancel parking tickets and speeding fines in a crack. Research what article 12 says for yourself.

TO BEAT THEM AT THEIR OWN GAME YOU HAVE TO FIRST LEARN THEIR RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. THIS RULES ARE ALL WRITTEN IN LEGALESE. ENGLISH BUT WITH A TWIST. SOME WORDS HAVE SYNONYMOUS MEANINGS. THE WORD UNDERSTAND DOES NOT MEAN COMPREHEND. IT MEANS TO STANDUNDER. TO ABIDE BY AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY WHATEVER WHOEVER HAS JUST SAID TO YOU.

POLICE ALWAYS ASK IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THEYVE JUST SAID......... ALWAYS SAY NO

STATUTORY LEGISLATION REQUIRES THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE ACTED AGAINST THEM. SAYING NO REMOVES YOUR CONSENT.

WHAT DOES THE WORD ACT MEAN ?

CLUE : THIS IS NOT A SYNONYMOUS WORD

IT MEANS TO PRETEND !!!!!!

YOU ARE A HUMAN. YOU ARE NOT A PERSON. PERSONS ARE LEGAL FICTIONS IN LEGAL LAND. SO IS EVERY OTHER COMMERCIAL ORGANIZATIONS. THEY ARE ALL PERSONS. YOU COUNCIL IS A PERSON. THE POLICE FORCE IS A PERSON. THE GOVERNMENT IS A PERSON. THE COURTS ARE A PERSON.

ADMITTING TO BE A PERSON IS ACKNOWLEDGING THEIR AUTHORITY OVER YOU THE HUMAN. I THOUGH SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED CENTURIES AGO !!!

WAKEY WAKEY RISE AND SHINE..... TIME TO GET CHEESED OFF.... YOU ARE PEOPLE NOT SHEEPLE... REMOVE THE WOOL FROM YOUR EYES OR WE ARE FINISHED

NO HUMANS IN THE LISBON TREATY..... JUST PERSONS !!!!!

happyinflorida

Reading some of the replies on here - I am very shocked at just how ignorant some of you lot are. Don't put nasty replies when you don't know what you are talking about.

The person who has put this post on here is suffering from depression and has put, several times, that memory is a problem for them - duh! Is that too hard for you lot? Stop critizising and being nasty and try and have some sympathy.

If you can't be nice, do us all a favour and bog off.

healy

Just-A-Quick-Visit wrote: »

From EXPERIENCE yes they are. They request your medical records but rather than use those they prefer joe public to incriminate themselves due to his-her lack of medical expertise instead.

I have documented proof that they DO NOT always interrogate you on the conditions that you say you have in your ib50 or what is on your medical records. This is evident from my documents that the medical officer ignored 1 Major condition. In the decision makers report the decision maker acknowledges this condition as being on the IB50 yet there is no mention of it in the doctors examination report.

I wonder why ?

Also, if your take any medical evidence with your to your medical get the doctor to acknowledge receipt of such evidence or you have no proof you have handed this in.

If these doctors are being honest they why would they refuse permission to be recorded or why would Atos decline such an offer. If any false alegations are made against these doctors for an inept examination, you would think these doctors would like a way to prove they were entirely honourable would you not ?

Atos have 9 count of this type of fraud issued against them in america. These lawsuits were brought about by thousands of people. Atos lost all 9 suits.

TAKE LEGAL ADVICE. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

Article 5 of the Bill of Human Rights Act 1948 says :



These are INALIENABLE human rights, if these ae denied it is a crime against humanity, effectively a war crime. An audio recording request cannot be denied and must be allowed.

If their doctors do not permit themselves to be recorded the onus is still with Atos to find one that will or medical cannot go ahead.

Please provide proof this information is incorrect.

Tribunals are independent and the majority have a fair hearing. If they do not they can take matters further.

I am not going to get into a discussion on the rest of your post, I have already said what would happen.

Just-A-Quick-Visit

healy wrote: »

Tribunals are independent and the majority have a fair hearing. If they do not they can take matters further.

I am not going to get into a discussion on the rest of your post, I have already said what would happen.

Why is it Atos admit the overturn 66% of decisions at tribunals ?

Is their medical process that floored ?

btw, i have found audio pro to record my medical @ £18 / hr. If the refuse or say doctors refuse they are getting NOUCOR'd.

Debate my understanding of the law. Dont run away !!!

Just-A-Quick-Visit

happyinflorida wrote: »

Reading some of the replies on here - I am very shocked at just how ignorant some of you lot are. Don't put nasty replies when you don't know what you are talking about.

The person who has put this post on here is suffering from depression and has put, several times, that memory is a problem for them - duh! Is that too hard for you lot? Stop critizising and being nasty and try and have some sympathy.

If you can't be nice, do us all a favour and bog off.

If my posts have caused offense i do apologize wholeheartidly. This was not my intention.

Im just passing on my knowledge and understanding of the law. The very laws in which Atos operate.

I hope the content of my posts are seen by everyone and not just people worried about their benefits.

I am in this process myself with Atos and DWP atm. I am waiting for my medical. It is scheduled for middle April.

Once again sorry for and undue stress i have caused.

Just-A-Quick-Visit

I intend to carry out my words. I will also keep this thread updated with what happens including scans of letters and copies of my NOUCOR.

I have nothing to hide and nothing to gain. I just want this putting right to stop people like me from being intentionally mis-informed, mis-treated and mis-led by Atos(sers) and DWP.

I dont think i can say fairer than that.

healy

Just-A-Quick-Visit wrote: »

Why is it Atos admit the overturn 66% of decisions at tribunals ?

Is their medical process that floored ?

btw, i have found audio pro to record my medical @ £18 / hr. If the refuse or say doctors refuse they are getting NOUCOR'd.

Debate my understanding of the law. Dont run away !!!

If you check you the stats you will find that your figures are incorrect especially the ESA figures as there is not a 66% success rate at tribunals.

This forum is not for debate.

Just-A-Quick-Visit

healy wrote: »

This forum is not for debate.

Oxymoron of the year 2010

fo·rum [fawr-uhm, fohr-uhm] Show IPA
–noun,pluralfo·rums, fo·ra [fawr-uh, fohr-uh] Show IPA.
1.
the marketplace or public square of an ancient Roman city, the center of judicial and business affairs and a place of assembly for the people.
2.
a court or tribunal: the forum of public opinion.
3.
an assembly, meeting place, television program, etc., for the discussion of questions of public interest.
4.
the Forum, the forum in the ancient city of Rome.

dictionary-reference-com/browse/forum

de·bate [dih-beyt] Show IPA noun, verb,-bat·ed, -bat·ing.
–noun
1.
a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2.
a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3.
deliberation; consideration.
4.
Archaic. strife; contention.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6.
to participate in a formal debate.
7.
to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8.
Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.
–verb (used with object)
9.
to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10.
to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11.
to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12.
to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13.
Archaic. to contend for or over.

LMFAO

Just-A-Quick-Visit

Please, I challenge anyone to find any legislation that repeals article 7 of the UDHR 1948

With all due respect, If you cant put up, then please.......