ACCforum: ACC claimant told to find proof of income from 1981 - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACC claimant told to find proof of income from 1981 Radiation bid likely peanuts after payout to WINZ

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 16 August 2016 - 10:37 PM

Quote

Radiation poisoning sufferer told to find proof of income from 1981

NICHOLAS MCBRIDE

Last updated 18:57, August 16 2016


Unflinching bureaucracy is denying a former manufacturing worker his much-needed compensation for more than 30 years of radiation-induced suffering.

Bryon O'Regan​ received radiation treatment in 1979 – but the procedure designed to save him instead severely hampered his quality of life.

O'Regan has a court ruling on his side and ACC accepts he would be entitled to recompense, but his bid keeps hitting a brick wall.

That's because O'Regan must prove he was working at the "date of injury".

However, Inland Revenue income tax records only go back a decade and the Palmerston North firm he said he was working for at the time has long ceased to exist.

So, O'Regan, who now lives in Auckland, is on a quest. He needs to find a former colleague from Ace Bags so they can give ACC an affidavit to prove he was on its payroll.

The saga began in 1979, when O'Regan received radiation at Palmerston North Hospital for a teratoma on his right testicle.

Since 1981, O'Regan has suffered from episodes of nausea and diarrhoea.

"It was so bloody embarrassing because I got diarrhoea – it is debilitating – I'd be ducking out to the toilet every half hour. It just got that embarrassing," O'Regan told Stuff.

In a court case O'Regan won against ACC in 2015, the judge's findings stated his condition initially improved, until 1981, when he was admitted to hospital with abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

The ruling, however, does not force ACC to pay out.

Over the next few years, O'Regan was sometimes fit and well. But in 1997 he was again admitted to hospital after a six-month-long bout of diarrhoea.

The judgment says there was "no dispute" O'Regan's life had been "significantly altered" by the treatment he received in 1979.

But when O'Regan tried to get compensation for his daily anguish, ACC told him to get proof he was working.

Its spokeswoman Stephanie Melville said O'Regan lodged a request for weekly compensation in 2008 – the year he became aware his injury was because of radiation.

"To pay weekly compensation ACC needs to confirm earner status at the date of injury."

O'Regan said he was asked to find someone who could verify his claim.

That proved easier said than done; O'Regan said three managers he worked under had died, as well as the company accountant.

While he searches, he still has to live in agony.

"The last three months have just been all bad," he said.

In addition to the damage to his bowel, O'Regan had osteoradionarcrosis in his lower back.

"Basically, the bones are disintegrating," O'Regan's son Paul said.

​"He's not even 70 and he can hardly walk – it's not a very good quality of life."

Paul O'Regan said his father was asking for compensation to help live more comfortably.

"It's more so that it is not a daily struggle – no-one is trying to get rich here."

His father received the pension, but it was not enough to cover his $700-a-month medication.

"ACC are unwilling to concede. We don't really understand why," Paul O'Regan said.



Melville said O'Regan had recently provided two letters from family members saying he was working at the date of injury.

This would be considered by the weekly compensation panel to determine if it met the threshold for proof of earnings, she said.

After that, ACC would issue a new decision regarding the compensation.

Melville said it was not appropriate to comment on a court finding but ACC respected the 2015 decision.​



- Stuff

http://www.stuff.co....ncome-from-1981




NB This issue of verifying income is also significant to Social Security Reciprocal Agreements. For example, a woman who may have worked as a teenager ...who then marries ...and is then widowed ...and becomes entitled to superannuation .... is still expected to secure any overseas pensions entitlements!
Yup even if it only amounts to 30 cents per week in todays money.... which was related to their taxes paid over fifty years ago ...it will be deducted from their super by WINZ etc

More info on Section 70 deductions can be found here and here.




Another example would be if a long term kiwi ACC claimant is overseas for any period of time ... and is simultaneously entitled to any additional income assistance under reciprocal agreements to assist with cost of living... verifying their income & taxes paid as first a worker [both fulltime and partime records] ...plus taxes paid as an ACC claimant or WINZ beneficiary is required for individual years ie they are correlated to the taxation systems overseas etc

To this day I still do not know why the NZ Inland Revenue Department do not keep complete tax and benefit records of all kiwi and NZ workers for at least 60 years safely for such a very small population!!
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 August 2016 - 01:35 AM

This case is unbelievably easy.
ie
s60 of the 1982 Act requires ACC to calculate on projected earns of the balance of life corrier path had there not been an injury.
Therefore historical earnings are totally irrelevant.
duh!!!!
0

#3 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 17 August 2016 - 01:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 17 August 2016 - 01:35 AM, said:

This case is unbelievably easy.
ie
s60 of the 1982 Act requires ACC to calculate on projected earns of the balance of life corrier path had there not been an injury.
Therefore historical earnings are totally irrelevant.
duh!!!!



hhhmmmmm ...do you know of any person obtaining a Section 60 pension in the last ten years or more Alan?

Hopefully to keep your answers on topic for our readers ... I am referring to any comparable pensions being granted to ACC claimants with injuries either before OR after 1992 changes ie the numbers of ACC claimants currently in receipt of Section 60 pension!!

Another question would be how ACC would calculate such a monetary value ie not the Cost of Living Increases upon Earnings Related Compensation ... but the greater salary brackets in future times etc
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:09 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 17 August 2016 - 01:16 PM, said:

hhhmmmmm ...do you know of any person obtaining a Section 60 pension in the last ten years or more Alan?

Hopefully to keep your answers on topic for our readers ... I am referring to any comparable pensions being granted to ACC claimants with injuries either before OR after 1992 changes ie the numbers of ACC claimants currently in receipt of Section 60 pension!!

Another question would be how ACC would calculate such a monetary value ie not the Cost of Living Increases upon Earnings Related Compensation ... but the greater salary brackets in future times etc

It does not matter if anyone has yet benefited from the the law, the law is the law.
As it happens there is good case law on s60 and its predecessor.

you are off topic re comparable pensions as ACC is not a social ware pension system. All claints that remain incapacitated up to the present from claims pre 1992 law change are require to be processed under s60. ACC have not basis in law to do otherwise.

The cost of living is require to be over and above increasing earning asset through the projected skill and qualification life pathway. The ACC Act requires it so ACC must be obedient to their master
0

#5 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1464
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:16 PM

Under the 1972 Act he would not need to keep those figures as was there greater of the figure under section 69 Under the 1972

Under the 1982 Act it didn't matter about working atthe time of accident as compensation is taken at the time of becoming incapacitated. Section 53 (9)

(9) Where any period of an earner's incapacity for work does not commence on the date of the
accident, and the Corporation is of the opinion that relevant earnings ascertained in accordance with
the foregoing provisions of this section do not fairly and reasonably represent the earner's normal
average weekly earnings at the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, the
Corporation may, notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this section, determine an amount
which, in its opinion, would fairly and reasonably represent his normal average weekly earnings at
the time of the commencement of the period of incapacity for work, having regard to such
information as it may obtain regarding his earnings before the time of the commencement of the
period of incapacity for work and his earnings at the time of the commencement of that period, and
the period of his residence in New Zealand before the time of the period of incapacity for work and
his work history, and such other relevant factors as the Corporation thinks fit; and any amount so
determined shall be treated as if it was his relevant earnings for the purpose of assessing earnings
related compensation during the particular period of incapacity for work:

It should be that ACC should be looking to see if the person was not working in 1979, 1981 or any other time they choose. It should be ACC responcibility due to the time period in which ACC has paid for his Medical Miss treatment since 1979/ ACC should have gathered the information after being presented the information from the hospital.
0

#6 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10724
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 17 August 2016 - 04:22 PM

it means he has cover regardless of the weekly compensation


ACC will need to reimburse his medications.....


and that would free up his benefit money...
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 18 August 2016 - 02:44 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 17 August 2016 - 04:22 PM, said:

it means he has cover regardless of the weekly compensation


ACC will need to reimburse his medications.....


and that would free up his benefit money...


Please read the above post
0

#8 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10724
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 18 August 2016 - 10:31 AM

KISS
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 19 August 2016 - 06:46 PM

Quote

More hurdles to overcome in ACC battle for radiation compensation

NICHOLAS MCBRIDE
Last updated 17:46, August 19 2016



Bryon O'Regan faces more hurdles to get the ACC compensation.



A top human rights lawyer has labelled ACC "hard-hearted" in its rigid approach to a former manufacturing worker jumping through never-ending bureaucratic hoops to claim compensation for radiation poisoning.

Barrister Michael Bott has criticised the requirements placed on Bryon O'Regan to prove he was working more than 30 years ago when he suffered radiation poisoning while receiving treatment for a tumour.

Official records don't go back that far so O'Regan is hunting for someone to help him.

ACC says O'Regan would be entitled to compensation for the periods he's been unable to hold down a job because of the poisoning's nauseous effects, but he has to prove he was working – at Ace Bags in Palmerston North – in 1979.

READ MORE:
* Radiation poisoning sufferer told to find proof of income from 1981
* Co-workers come forward offering affidavits in compensation battle


This week there was a glimmer of hope when former colleagues emerged saying they remembered him, but that turned to despair when it was discovered they didn't work with him at the time of his poisoning, as ACC required.

On top of that, ACC now says anyone who offers an affidavit in support of O'Regan must themselves prove they worked at Ace Bags decades ago.

Bott said ACC's approach was "heard-hearted" and it was "setting up a scenario for an infinite progression of affidavits".

​"It's like an argument over whether God exists. They really are indulging in something that isn't practical

"If the state hasn't got records and you've been paying tax, that is the state's problem."

Bott said it was "bottom-of-the-barrel tactics".

The options left to O'Regan were expensive, such as applying for a writ or declaration in the High Court.

"He's probably got very little money and there are very few lawyers who are available to do that."

ACC spokeswoman Stephanie Melville said anyone who swore statements would also need proof they were working with O'Regan at that time.

This would then be considered by the weekly compensation panel, which decides such claims.

O'Regan would need further proof of exactly when he was off work.

"Once earner status at date of injury has been confirmed, Mr O'Regan would then just need to provide medical reports for times he was unable to work as a result of incapacity due to his covered injury, and could receive 80 per cent of his income, at time of injury, for that period," Melville said.

O'Regan said he was being made to jump over hurdles.

"Every time you think you are getting somewhere, they put another roadblock in front of you."

He questioned how someone else was supposed to have proof they worked at Ace Bags when he was having such difficulties.

"How can they do that? It's ridiculous. I can't even prove I was working there."

O'Regan was despondent at the thought of needing decades of records showing when he was too sick to work.

Melville said ACC was not trying to be unfair.

"This is not us being inflexible, we are required by law to obtain proof."

She said compensation was not judged on a case-by-case basis and ACC could not make an exception for O'Regan.

"It's not a matter of being unrealistic, it is a tough situation."

O'Regan said he had some leads on other possible former Ace Bags employees named Maureen Woods and June Bevan.

- Stuff
http://www.stuff.co....on-compensation







Quote

.... former colleagues emerged saying they remembered him, but that turned to despair when it was discovered they didn't work with him at the time of his poisoning


...ACC now says anyone who offers an affidavit in support of O'Regan must themselves prove they worked at Ace Bags decades ago


...further proof of exactly when he was off work.


..."Once earner status at date of injury has been confirmed, Mr O'Regan would then just need to provide medical reports for times he was unable to work as a result of incapacity due to his covered injury, and could receive 80 per cent of his income, at time of injury, for that period,"


..."This is not us being inflexible, we are required by law to obtain proof."

0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2016 - 11:49 PM

Once ACC accept the claim it is up to that ACC to find information that the claimant wasn't working at the time.

What's wrong with these advocates? This is just ACC 101 kiddies stuff.
0

#11 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10724
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 20 August 2016 - 01:45 PM

Regardless

If the claim has cover

Acc should pay his medication

It's that simple
0

#12 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 20 August 2016 - 06:47 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 20 August 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Regardless

If the claim has cover

Acc should pay his medication

It's that simple


Agreed NTV

I noted that hia court decision is mostly dealing with the date of injury issue versus date treatment sought so it appears he has had confirmed cover since 18 November 2010 ...and Judge A N MacLean has granted the first treatment date of 24/4/79 for his claim

So if there is an annual medication charge of over $8000 ...this alone would be nearly $50,000 which ACC should have imho already paid since 2010 directly to help this pensioner ie once the court ruling was issued etc I am not sure though if they will backdate medication reimbursements without receipt verifications from his GP and chemist on any costs between 1979 and 2010 over this other extra 30 years?
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:11 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 20 August 2016 - 01:45 PM, said:

Regardless

If the claim has cover

Acc should pay his medication

It's that simple


So then you agree that the ACC should have paid Johnny Manos medication.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6770
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 01:14 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 20 August 2016 - 06:47 PM, said:

Agreed NTV

I noted that hia court decision is mostly dealing with the date of injury issue versus date treatment sought so it appears he has had confirmed cover since 18 November 2010 ...and Judge A N MacLean has granted the first treatment date of 24/4/79 for his claim

So if there is an annual medication charge of over $8000 ...this alone would be nearly $50,000 which ACC should have imho already paid since 2010 directly to help this pensioner ie once the court ruling was issued etc I am not sure though if they will backdate medication reimbursements without receipt verifications from his GP and chemist on any costs between 1979 and 2010 over this other extra 30 years?


Once the ACC accepts cover it accepts liability for the treatment of the injury of which is in turn must make back payment of all costs to the time of the injury. I know it has been customary and even popular to believe that the ACC may excuse itself from such liabilities but we do know that the ACC culture of delay extends to the notion that if it delays making decisions and will be making a profit by those delays. It is a pity that we have capitulators as amongst us.
0

#15 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 10:49 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 August 2016 - 01:11 AM, said:

So then you agree that the ACC should have paid Johnny Manos medication.


NO ALAN



FYI in all of the reports that I have read written concerning this killer Alan - there is NO mention that he was on any medication for any ACC injury :angry:



Thus if you are now insinuating that ACC should pay for the drugs of all psychiatric patients and prisoners then I can only suggest that you trot off with your verbal incontinence to blag in your own websites ... with your personal network of prisoners .... and yup then all of youse could reconsider the benefits of modern injectable medicines ...&or always giving your full cooperation with treatment providers!




So to take the disturbing example of your killer with his extensive history of violence before he murdered an innocent ... my POV is that it was very likely that the P.H.O. would have paid for his medication many times!!

I am not 1000% certain but the timeline indicates to me that Manu was being managed with his medications long before any minor ACC claim sustained in prison or self-inflicted years later Alan...



FYI here is the Parole Board opinion recently reported June 20 2016

"In its decision the board noted he suffered from a chronic psychotic illness and had a history of personality disturbance, substance abuse and serious violent offending.

His illness was largely controlled by medication, but he continued to experience background hallucinations."



& selection of various quoted statements include,

it appears Manu was "diagnosed a schizophrenic at 17" and like yourself it seems "had a problem with authority" & "The xxxx boarding house was unaware that Manu had a history of violence, that he had stabbed people, that he had a psychotic illness and abused Kemadrin." & "Manu's risk did not relate to his psychiatric symptoms." ie bad not mad etc



BTW I have noted that some of the reporting on Manu noted that he was compliant with his medication regime for many many years Alan ... so the psychiatrists decided that "Manu's continuing violence was not a result of his mental illness" ....






Therefore Alan... I am not sure who Johnny Many might have met in your neighbourhood office just prior to committing murder .... or .... what might have happened let alone why it is that made YOU believe that Manu was ever entitled to have his medication funded by ACC?? :wacko:

If anything Alan, in the 188 page report, I observed this comment was made,

"In June, after a letter from ACC saying he no longer qualified for his independence allowance, he threatened a bank worker. Over the next few days he visited ACC offices in both South and West Auckland, asking for money..




Now if you Alan Thomas are suggesting that substance abusers like yourself should be automatically getting money or drugs whenever youse demand ...then again imho this dangerous scenario is likely to be managed by the NZ Police, the PHOs or psychiatric services and WINZ perhaps?


ALso just in case if you Alan Thomas are suggesting that psychiatric patients like yourself or others such as schizophrenics should be automatically getting money or drugs whenever you or they demand ... then again imho this disturbing and unrealistic scenario is likely to be managed by your GPs, the PHOs or psychiatric services and WINZ perhaps?


Now perhaps if I have done my mathematic correctly here, and this innocent worker was killed over a measly sum of approx $25 per week [ ie think I saw somewhere the IA was $300 quarterly] ... and perhaps just in case this killer believed he had some costs for independence within the community unrelated to his misinterpretations of ACC assistance available ... then you should remember that WINZ also have a benefit available for those with appropriate medical certification and evidence Alan :wacko:




Lastly, I am deeply concerned that you are once again still promoting this type of very dangerous nonsense to violent criminals either online ... or even in the times since Johnny Manu killed right up until TODAY within your neighbourhood Alan ....


Therefore I am not sure who you might have influenced already but inciting violence with brainwashing is another clear reason why you must NEVER ever be in any position to interfere or encourage innocents or the vulnerable head injured into believing any of your errors, lies and deceptions concerning any ACC issues imho Alan ... or of course any criminal associates still within your network who you have previously influenced to believe that they are entitled to have their medication funded by ACC etc etc



ps this is also another possible indicator why many peeps like myself you should continue to be trespassed from all ACC and WINZ offices imho Alan
:wacko:
0

#16 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 11:19 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 August 2016 - 01:14 AM, said:

Once the ACC accepts cover it accepts liability for the treatment of the injury of which is in turn must make back payment of all costs to the time of the injury...



hmmmm while I agree to some of the principle... I do consider that there is yet another significant technical issue involved here imho ...ie double dipping risks and of course the difficulty of keeping official evidence of direct costs Alan ...

It may be that the PHO and WINZ have already paid for many costs associated with this claim Alan ... so I would consider the stressors of proving the receipts in order to have ACC reimburse another agency would likely not be very appealing to many pensioners imho ...

ATM the focus of the story being reported in MSM appears to be related to employment records and wages from decades ago... so it may be that this pensioner or his advocate has also been considering ERC entitlements for any weeks off work within the relevant years involved ... and again Alan... some of this money may need to be repaid to other providers from those times eg my concern would be large stress days/nights and additional expenses being incurred for little financial gain :unsure:

So I fully agree with what NTV is saying in that ACC should be covering his current medication costs as this is a very simple immediate improvement to quality of life .... but with your gobbing again ... unfotunately imho it still does not appear to be grounded in reality yet :wacko:
0

#17 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10724
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 August 2016 - 11:23 AM

OMG

was Thomas this persons advocate?

And what has any of this got to with me?

I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

AND BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROFESSIONAL IN MY DEALINGS OF TRUTH WITH ACC...

I AM NOT TRESPASSED FROM ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY
0

#18 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 11:59 AM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

OMG

was Thomas this persons advocate?

And what has any of this got to with me?

I DO NOT ADVOCATE VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

AND BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROFESSIONAL IN MY DEALINGS OF TRUTH WITH ACC...

I AM NOT TRESPASSED FROM ANY GOVERNMENT AGENCY



Unfortunately NTV ...I understand that many of the posts Alan first wrote concerning his knowledge of this killers circumstances were deleted when some other former members called him out :angry:

I do recall that there were some concerns that they both might have met in prison ...but I am not 100% sure ...but it is blindingly obvious to me ... that after many years of a working funded drug regime ... someone at some time likely got into his head and told him that ACC should pay for his medication .... hence yup my comments today with Alan and his toxic baiting :angry:

I do know that aside from deleting material disclosing a potential relationship before the murder ... Alan also rewrote various stories relating to this killer by trying to focus attention upon his letters or meetings ... or warnings to an ACC officer concerning some impending attacks which he linked back to Manu etc TBH, I have lost count of the numbers of times he has condoned and justified this murder of an innocent ...note this is not this POV as he uses another offensive term and rationalisations that she deserved killing though ie one I have seen was often execution or else he blamed her for being wrongly educated etc :angry:

FYI I also have seen Alan write that he was significantly involved in the horrific aftermath too NTV ...even going as far as telephoning the grieving widower and of course staff counsellors and other numerous professionals and ACC officers ... as well as claiming that he was privy to confidential information deliberately disclosed to him by professionals involved with this horrific murder etc



Alan Thomas said:

post='43557'

The Gerard McGreevy has instructed all staff that they are not permitted to talk to me. You can easily get around this by telephoning them using a two cents per minute phonecard which prevents them from tracing the call. The next step is to use computerised voice changing software. This reconfigure is the wavelength of your voice to defeat their voice recognition software. This way you can acquire the information you need. Get hold of various doctors numbers and other claimant details such as name, claim number, birth date etc from those prepared to let you have these details for your personal use. Be sure to keep calling ACC from time to time from your own phone using your own voice so as to give them that very necessary false sense of security.



I think I have already highlighted the court judgement where it is officially recorded that Alan was impersonating a vulnerable head injured claimant ...but remember NTV ...he utilises various criminal strategies in oder to either corrupt or extort or harm innocents &or of course clear evidence on this forum too with times where he has incited others to do his bidding :angry:

So the fact that Thomas is still exploiting this murder TODAY ....whilst he is allegedly recuperating from some highcost surgery .... and is of course already a selfproclaimed weapon and bombmaker ...plus already has convictions for violence is an extremely dangerous situation imho




ps
edited to add the concern that I am not sure that a criminal like Thomas would worry about informed consent issues when he is impersonating others!! I have highlighted in red the methodology he likely exploits still if he is still promoting newbies to contact him via private message as he must have their ACC claim details etc

This post has been edited by anonymousey: 21 August 2016 - 12:37 PM

1

#19 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10724
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 August 2016 - 12:23 PM

Thanks for this very valuable information

Stunned by the depths of criminal depravity

Much like sacrificing Blurb as the tanker driver....

Oh hell....wish I was never part of this place...
0

#20 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2093
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 21 August 2016 - 12:43 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2016 - 12:23 PM, said:

Thanks for this very valuable information

Stunned by the depths of criminal depravity

Much like sacrificing Blurb as the tanker driver....

Oh hell....wish I was never part of this place...


Think you are probably one of many many vulnerable ACC claimants who all joined this forum in good faith over the years NTV ...only to then discover this criminal nightmare and dark world sadly ...

In the past I have compared my shock to being something similar to other kiwis uncovering convicted paedophiles running parent support websites ...and imho NTV ... there is ample evidence in here already of deliberate grooming and inciting and undertaking multiple crimes by a few forum members!!
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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