ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

...

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2418
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:31 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:18 AM

Polygraphs are Suedo science and cannot be relied upon.... at all. And that is fact. Hence why they cannot be used as sole evidence in any trials. They are not reliable at all.
1

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:19 AM

The most unreliable form of lie detecting is a person who has the arrogance to think they are capable of determining whether or not someone is lying. As can be seen in this classical example a judge relies upon his intuition to determine whether or not someone is lying. Even when faced with proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence he then proceeds to place that evidence against what he terms "sensible inferences" in other words his powers to detect lying.





[68]

From nearly 29 years experience as a District Court Judge in many jurisdictions, I am conscious that it is often difficult to know whether to believe a witness or to what extent to believe a witness.


...


... and evidence needs to be related to sensible inferences. In terms of my approach and experience, I did not find the appellant a convincing witness.




This raises the question as to whether or not objective facts established by the medical profession are to be relied upon or the intuition of the judge.


Should we tolerate a human being who considers himself superior to the medical profession and their evidence despite having no medical training?





0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:26 AM

Has anyone seen the movie "Men who stare at goats" which delved into the whole hocus-pocus arena of the CIA, lie detectors, remote viewing and all that type of mumbo-jumbo nonsense.

The very interesting thing about lie detecting is that it will not take up the integrity of information that the person being examined truly believes what they are saying. In other words someone may truly believe that they saw a murder take place and that the person they have identified is the murderer. They can take a lie detector test which will provide evidence that they are not lying. Of course in such a certain sense the person would merely be suffering from false memory syndrome.

In a similar way the ACC may put a person through a vocational rehabilitation assessments and persuade them to believe that they are now qualified, experienced and skilled to be an earner in the occupation that has been described. They go for a job interview which involves a lie detector test and provided that the ACC has convinced them that they can do the job then they will passed a lie detector test. However when the person starts work and discovered that they don't have the relevant qualification, have never had any experience in the job and therefore have not become skilled in the job then despite the lie detector test the person most certainly will be prosecuted for fraud. Their defence, well ignorance is no excuse to committing crimes. Then we have to look at the documents both the ACC have produced and a lie detector company has produced. Were a false documents produced to procure a pecuniary advantage?
1

#5 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:01 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 February 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

The most unreliable form of lie detecting is a person who has the arrogance to think they are capable of determining whether or not someone is lying. As can be seen in this classical example a judge relies upon his intuition to determine whether or not someone is lying. Even when faced with proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence he then proceeds to place that evidence against what he terms "sensible inferences" in other words his powers to detect lying.





[68]

From nearly 29 years experience as a District Court Judge in many jurisdictions, I am conscious that it is often difficult to know whether to believe a witness or to what extent to believe a witness.


...


... and evidence needs to be related to sensible inferences. In terms of my approach and experience, I did not find the appellant a convincing witness.




This raises the question as to whether or not objective facts established by the medical profession are to be relied upon or the intuition of the judge.


Should we tolerate a human being who considers himself superior to the medical profession and their evidence despite having no medical training?






I read the same per Judge Morris's words to you alan in his findings / sentencing documentation n in your fraud trial
From my dealings with you over a considerable period of tim o a number of issues I do not find you a compelling witness of your testimony to me as opposed to what i see available on documents of yours and the courts.
and YOU HAVE YET to convince me of anything re the Takapuna Bomb Plot activities you were also nailed on.
Moriss did not need to use medical evidence
YOU were tried on the Intent to defraud the acc via use of documents able to used to gain/obtain a pecuniary gain.
You signed them
You used them
The non medical Evidence clearly showed you were misleading the ACC
THEY NEVER NEDED ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE that issue of INTENT Thomas
You raised that medical issues as defense AND YOU FAILED
You have teated The ACC ,myself and others i definitely know of in the same arrogant manner you did within the courts at your fraud trial and you do have a position of you are right and evry one ls is just a common idiot
Your views on the law alan just dont fit with the Judges and you mix and match varying issues into one out here to try and make yourself the aggrieved one snf try nd decide what members can see to use to think you are not doing as you were charged with
gfo fight ya medical crap with acc
its nout to do with Intent to defraud Alan
if ya wernt so underhanded back then and as you still are now,and not mislead acc and found yourself charged with Intent to defraud-then maybe you could have used the medical stuff but its irrelevant to the pretty compelling against you evidence of a shown intent that he judge used against you.
YOU CHEATED ACC and were caught out-end of de story there.
when will you ever wake up to the reality of life
0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:19 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 28 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

I read the same per Judge Morris's words to you alan in his findings / sentencing documentation n in your fraud trial
From my dealings with you over a considerable period of tim o a number of issues I do not find you a compelling witness of your testimony to me as opposed to what i see available on documents of yours and the courts.
and YOU HAVE YET to convince me of anything re the Takapuna Bomb Plot activities you were also nailed on.
Moriss did not need to use medical evidence
YOU were tried on the Intent to defraud the acc via use of documents able to used to gain/obtain a pecuniary gain.
You signed them
You used them
The non medical Evidence clearly showed you were misleading the ACC
THEY NEVER NEDED ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE that issue of INTENT Thomas
You raised that medical issues as defense AND YOU FAILED
You have teated The ACC ,myself and others i definitely know of in the same arrogant manner you did within the courts at your fraud trial and you do have a position of you are right and evry one ls is just a common idiot
Your views on the law alan just dont fit with the Judges and you mix and match varying issues into one out here to try and make yourself the aggrieved one snf try nd decide what members can see to use to think you are not doing as you were charged with
gfo fight ya medical crap with acc
its nout to do with Intent to defraud Alan
if ya wernt so underhanded back then and as you still are now,and not mislead acc and found yourself charged with Intent to defraud-then maybe you could have used the medical stuff but its irrelevant to the pretty compelling against you evidence of a shown intent that he judge used against you.
YOU CHEATED ACC and were caught out-end of de story there.
when will you ever wake up to the reality of life


One really needs to ask: "Is telling a lie and twisting the truth the same thing". In Thomas cases???

His long posts is generally twisting the truth and if one wanted to waste their time going through each subject as has been shown on here by others, they have found that at some stage Alan Thomas has told his story differently or actually opposite previously.

This essentually is what the Judges see and make him an unrealiable witness or in other words a liar.

Mini
0

#7 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:46 AM

View PostMINI, on 28 February 2014 - 09:19 AM, said:

One really needs to ask: "Is telling a lie and twisting the truth the same thing". In Thomas cases???

His long posts is generally twisting the truth and if one wanted to waste their time going through each subject as has been shown on here by others, they have found that at some stage Alan Thomas has told his story differently or actually opposite previously.

This essentually is what the Judges see and make him an unrealiable witness or in other words a liar.

Mini


Yes one could ask the question as to whether Thomas would have disclosed the DESIGN ENGINEERING WORK Documentation that he proffered to an already existing client -and very clearly said he was able to carry out to completion WITH AN ABILITY to do design engineering AND for a MONETARY GAIN.
From the court records the judge Morris decided that answer must be a no as the ONLY reason that information came to light in the form that id did was because it was uplifted out of thomas;s records apon the search and seek warrants set in place to search thomas's files records etc.
So a mislead does equal a lie MINI i my opinion anf of course lets not forget the judge came to the same conclusion

##Thomas could not have disclosed that info voluntary as it then was in opposition to his defense plan of being medically unable to have an ability
He CUNNINGLY rathered to say- hey acc im looking but doing nothing to further the looking as im medically unfit to be a design engineer
AND that Thomas is whats its all about
You either could or ya couldnt
and ya DID

MANY plots abound around /within de Thomas planning design operations he undertakes MINI.
i MEAN TOOTLING AROUND FOR WEEK -SERENELY CALMLY Not a bother very nice seas like glass apparently as de boat never heaved around as Thomas the expert in all =Single handed seamanship skills re his hernia
and then he says
He was three miles out to sea in a raging storm and fell over board and heavily grounded the boat-How bigs that bloody keel Thomas to ground a 40 foot yacht
musta fallen over on its side
oh thats rtight
Miraculously tot sat upright on the next tide
BUT Alas thomas also ya on record as saying you gently bumped grounded on a sandy beach
The infamous nurse who was somehow waiting for you to ground de yacht-She in the annuls of ya acc accident report data
dont think so according to de judge ya gave not a lot and it was un verified undocumented at that,
MISLEADING = LIES I dint think Thomas can tell the difference anyway.
Dave
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:48 AM

David it appears that you are neither familiar with the ACC legislation or the decisions of the superior courts. In circumstances whereby a claimant has committed fraud by deliberately double dipping and working full-time in another occupation the ACC is not entitled to cancel the claim for earnings compensation. What the ACC is required to do is calculate abatement of earnings. If it wishes to prosecute a claimant on the basis of fraud it is in relation to those earnings.

The courts conclude that working and all manner of dishonesty does not entitle the ACC to assume that the claimant is no longer injured so as to determine that they no longer have an ACC compensation liability to pay the claimant.

What the ACC is required to do is obtain medical information and make their decisions based on medical information not their own commonsense, assumption or even proven dishonesty.


In my own case after the criminal conviction based on the allegation ACC made that I was working the ACC have now confessed that they had no information I was working. The ACC of course have this information when they exercised a large number of search warrants and found no information describing any work task activity at any material time and above all no earnings which is the reason why the ACC did not attempt to calculate an abatement of earnings because they knew I was not working and therefore could not have been earning.


From my observations David the ACC has carried out a character assassination programme of which you and others have fallen victim to. This of course is very easy to achieve with people who have week minds and I easily persuaded by assumptions and you don't have the ability to examine legislation or interpret objective facts. Such people routinely get caught up in speculation, assumption from which they think they have established subject of fact simply because they all agreed to the same thing.

The bottomline is that a rationally thinking person does not put aside the scientifically based on objective findings of fact produced by superior medical authorities. This should have been absolutely obvious to you when I was provided with an artificial wrist as that simply cannot be argued against as it was not possible for me to work in my previous medical condition.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:48 AM

David

What part of my previous posting did you not understand about my absolute entitlements to prepare contracts prior to surgery so that when surgery has been completed I would have worked to go to. How it is can you in your wildest dreams imagine that there could be something wrong with that?

In any event what I had offered only utilise my residual capacity for which it I did carry out prior to surgery or after surgery and surgery was not successful then that is simply a matter of abatement of earnings.

I think you are forgetting what the ACC and the court were more concerned with whereas I formed a new business relationship immediately prior to apply for ACC while I was still injured. ACC likewise claimant that they had no knowledge and had not been informed until from a copy of my own file I presented the letter sent to the ACC confirming that arrangement and the fact that I would receive $50 per week for attending meetings until such time I have recovered from my injuries. Of course the ACC blamed me because they forgot to read my file.

Do not forget that I went on to register a significant number of companies to preserve intellectual property until recovered from my injuries and could proceed with those ideas without delay.

Perhaps you and the ACC would manage your affairs by waiting for the surgery and in waiting to recover before even beginning to embark upon any planning to return to the workforce. Perhaps after recovering from all of your injuries you would stay on social welfare an unemployment benefit.


In any event none of this information was entitled to be in the ACCs possession as I did not even engage in any activity of any sort, I just wanted to. If you ask ACC if you are required to tell them about your dreams and desires I can guarantee you that they will say no.

How is it is that people like you said about prosecuting people records they have a dream? I seem to remember this process repeating itself recently with you directly involved in some way.


David are you claiming to possess miraculous light detecting technology in a supernatural form? Are you some kind of super being to be able to detect lies without information, unless of course you are counting your speculations as being information from which you then process through your Labyrinth brain of disorganised circuitry until you give birth to a large watermelon. Tell me are you crowning yet?
0

#10 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:26 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 February 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

David

What part of my previous posting did you not understand about my absolute entitlements to prepare contracts prior to surgery so that when surgery has been completed I would have worked to go to. How it is can you in your wildest dreams imagine that there could be something wrong with that?

In any event what I had offered only utilise my residual capacity for which it I did carry out prior to surgery or after surgery and surgery was not successful then that is simply a matter of abatement of earnings.

I think you are forgetting what the ACC and the court were more concerned with whereas I formed a new business relationship immediately prior to apply for ACC while I was still injured. ACC likewise claimant that they had no knowledge and had not been informed until from a copy of my own file I presented the letter sent to the ACC confirming that arrangement and the fact that I would receive $50 per week for attending meetings until such time I have recovered from my injuries. Of course the ACC blamed me because they forgot to read my file.

Do not forget that I went on to register a significant number of companies to preserve intellectual property until recovered from my injuries and could proceed with those ideas without delay.

Perhaps you and the ACC would manage your affairs by waiting for the surgery and in waiting to recover before even beginning to embark upon any planning to return to the workforce. Perhaps after recovering from all of your injuries you would stay on social welfare an unemployment benefit.


In any event none of this information was entitled to be in the ACCs possession as I did not even engage in any activity of any sort, I just wanted to. If you ask ACC if you are required to tell them about your dreams and desires I can guarantee you that they will say no.

How is it is that people like you said about prosecuting people records they have a dream? I seem to remember this process repeating itself recently with you directly involved in some way.


David are you claiming to possess miraculous light detecting technology in a supernatural form?
You give me the batteries to light up Alan
Are you some kind of super being to be able to detect lies without information,
yOU ALSO GIVE ME THAT ALMOST DAILY alan
unless of course you are counting your speculations as being information from which you then process through your Labyrinth brain of disorganised circuitry until you give birth to a large watermelon. Tell me are you crowning yet?
Im sure the only one that will have cause to ''Mirth'' -be Counseled and wear the queens Crown Posted Image is the ACC when and if they can manage to see whats been in front of them all the time
Then we have you being sufficiently reamed enough to give birth ,so best you save up and buy some more KY

You continue to astound me Alan
you have written about EXACTLY NOTHING a to what yu were charged with and that was
INTENT TO DEFRAUD via the use of a document that enabled a PECUNIARY GAIN
You were found to be the LOSER in that equation of yes or no.
You also forget quite conveniently that IF tech hector events are analyzed properly and thus it is ''eyespy'd'' looked at
YOU WILL HAVE NO VALID CLAIM to ''ANY'' erc

im not sure about now -due to my dealings under a Large major contact to a government entity -and its dumb ass underlings to escape the mess they had made of teh specifications and subsequent approval of payment vouchers-a move was made, by them ,some legal beagle may know the current situation-but IN DAYS GONE BY [1985 cira] THE prevailing current mInister of office of whatever could over ride and alter decisions made by the ministers office of whatever underlings.
point to ponder if it still applies thomas.
dave
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:07 PM

David you claimed that I lied and you point to the ACC accusation which resulted in an ACC fraud prosecution to support your theory.

As you are relying upon ACC fraud To support your assertion that I have lied do you think you are able to identify the actual particular. In other words what was the actual lie.

The fraud prosecution can but that the on the basis of falsifying medical certificates.
The medical certificatedescribed a limited capacity to work in my pre-injury occupation two hours per day so long as it was fragmented throughout the day and did not use my damaged hand.

So what mistake of fact did the doctor make when writing the medical certificate when he advised me of those precautions to keep me safe?
the fact that you may not have realised is that I did not tell the doctor what was wrong with me. He relied upon the specialists who relied upon high-tech imaging equipment such as CT and MRI scans together with actually cutting the open for a closer look. All of the medical profession including the ACC assessors have agreed that my hand and wrist is badly disorganised with no support between the hand in the arm. Remember this is not my description but the experts.

So this leaves only the alleged capacity to work in my preinjury occupation yet ACC did not know what those work tasks were.

As I received a strain injury while on-the-job at my preinjury occupation it is fair to say that the work from time to time was heavy in order to result in a strain injury.
Now that I have had surgerythe capacity to use my right hand has gone from 0 KG to 4 KG.

So now we are left with the ACC viewpoint that their informants assumption that I was working demonstrate a safety to carry out the activities of my preinjury occupation without need to refer themselves to the objective findings and reporting of the medical profession.


So David can you help me out here and explain to me what lie I have supposed to have said???
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 02:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 February 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

David it appears that you are neither familiar with the ACC legislation or the decisions of the superior courts. In circumstances whereby a claimant has committed fraud by deliberately double dipping and working full-time in another occupation the ACC is not entitled to cancel the claim for earnings compensation. What the ACC is required to do is calculate abatement of earnings. If it wishes to prosecute a claimant on the basis of fraud it is in relation to those earnings.

The courts conclude that working and all manner of dishonesty does not entitle the ACC to assume that the claimant is no longer injured so as to determine that they no longer have an ACC compensation liability to pay the claimant.

What the ACC is required to do is obtain medical information and make their decisions based on medical information not their own commonsense, assumption or even proven dishonesty.


In my own case after the criminal conviction based on the allegation ACC made that I was working the ACC have now confessed that they had no information I was working. The ACC of course have this information when they exercised a large number of search warrants and found no information describing any work task activity at any material time and above all no earnings which is the reason why the ACC did not attempt to calculate an abatement of earnings because they knew I was not working and therefore could not have been earning.


From my observations David the ACC has carried out a character assassination programme of which you and others have fallen victim to. This of course is very easy to achieve with people who have week minds and I easily persuaded by assumptions and you don't have the ability to examine legislation or interpret objective facts. Such people routinely get caught up in speculation, assumption from which they think they have established subject of fact simply because they all agreed to the same thing.

The bottomline is that a rationally thinking person does not put aside the scientifically based on objective findings of fact produced by superior medical authorities. This should have been absolutely obvious to you when I was provided with an artificial wrist as that simply cannot be argued against as it was not possible for me to work in my previous medical condition.


Thomas re the Stewart trial was won on a technicality alone. And it has only just come out in the last year or so.

I consider yours has no relevence at all. And if it did you will not win it here on the forum. You would have best to take to to trial as soon as Stewart was decided.

You lose because you do nothing and do not fix what is wrong as soon as possible. ie when it comes to your attention.

As I said to Netcoachnz about his blessard points system. It has a discrepancy that discrepancy requires that people do not have multi registration so that the discrepancy can be corrected. until he does that one simple action, his explanations are all hog-wash, because the discrepancy is a fact.

You are in the same position. You have been found quitlty for fraud by both criminal and civil courts. To put them right you have to find the discrepancy, and it may be different in both. But the major discrepancy I see is that both Judges found you untrustworthy. And that being a fact. You must before anything else, get them to trust you.

How are you going to do that when so many people have little faith in you on here and in your accforum system now??

So dont belittle people like David Butler or myself or anyone else just to make you feel better or gather more points. Because it is known to all what you do. You waste time here, when you should be fighting for your rights, if you can, but I truely believe that you understand now that you cant and you are beginning to see that with a new wrist it is possible that you may be able to make some money without having to resort to knicking it off govt depts.

So go do and quite harassing people on here.

Mini
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 03:58 PM

Mini are you going to say that the Ronald Donaldson, Hayes and Burnett decisions were also one on technicalities?All of which were accused of working, prosecuted for fraud and deprive their entitlements when although they were working they were perfectly allowed to work with the only issue being one of abatement of earnings and in the above case the only issue of double dipping was Burnett who was awarded back pay of orders earnings compensation together with interest despite working full-time and earning while receiving ERC. ACC were required to calculate abatement of earnings.

My case is different in as much as I didn't work!

Or are you going to face the reality that the ACC is cancelling claims willy-nilly based on their instinct and so-called commonsense despite having no commonsense whatsoever which only requires them to comply and submit themselves to the legislation.
0

#14 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:31 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 February 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

David you claimed that I lied and you point to the ACC accusation which resulted in an ACC fraud prosecution to support your theory.

As you are relying upon ACC fraud To support your assertion that I have lied do you think you are able to identify the actual particular. In other words what was the actual lie.

The fraud prosecution can but that the on the basis of falsifying medical certificates.
The medical certificatedescribed a limited capacity to work in my pre-injury occupation two hours per day so long as it was fragmented throughout the day and did not use my damaged hand.

So what mistake of fact did the doctor make when writing the medical certificate when he advised me of those precautions to keep me safe?
the fact that you may not have realised is that I did not tell the doctor what was wrong with me. He relied upon the specialists who relied upon high-tech imaging equipment such as CT and MRI scans together with actually cutting the open for a closer look. All of the medical profession including the ACC assessors have agreed that my hand and wrist is badly disorganised with no support between the hand in the arm. Remember this is not my description but the experts.

So this leaves only the alleged capacity to work in my preinjury occupation yet ACC did not know what those work tasks were.

As I received a strain injury while on-the-job at my preinjury occupation it is fair to say that the work from time to time was heavy in order to result in a strain injury.
Now that I have had surgerythe capacity to use my right hand has gone from 0 KG to 4 KG.

So now we are left with the ACC viewpoint that their informants assumption that I was working demonstrate a safety to carry out the activities of my preinjury occupation without need to refer themselves to the objective findings and reporting of the medical profession.


So David can you help me out here and explain to me what lie I have supposed to have said???


Sorry Alan
BOLLOCKS TO YOUR THEORIES

If you cant understand what you did and the result of the jUDGES DECISION =You deceived mislead failed in your duties then in afraid you be here for another 25 years bullshitting the members-to have them submit to your bollocks
Quite astounded that you state you never told your doctor what was wrong with you
what sort of prat was he or she to sign a form without knowing what was wrong with you[Personally themselves as a doctor would normally do.
They fill out the from as to what you say and want in it and The forms contents IS THEN YOUR RESPONSIBILITY ,
THO id a thought the doc would have twisted ya wriest a few times to see if in fact it was busted
The final ultimate ONUS is on the claimant to ensure that all relevant info is included advised of to the ACC on your so called med carts
The bloody forms tell you that Thomas-its a legal document mate.
YOU FAILED TO DO THAT Thomas as ya FAILED TO INFORM THE acc directly about ya playtimes while ya couldnt be an engineer when you really WERE and when ya did tell them it was only because you were forced to OR you lost your weekly cash cow from acc and even then ya bullshitted them to the hilt


dave

Dave
0

#15 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 04:53 PM

View PostMINI, on 28 February 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

Thomas re the Stewart trial was won on a technicality alone. And it has only just come out in the last year or so.

I consider yours has no relevence at all. And if it did you will not win it here on the forum. You would have best to take to to trial as soon as Stewart was decided.

You lose because you do nothing and do not fix what is wrong as soon as possible. ie when it comes to your attention.

As I said to Netcoachnz about his blessard points system. It has a discrepancy that discrepancy requires that people do not have multi registration so that the discrepancy can be corrected. until he does that one simple action, his explanations are all hog-wash, because the discrepancy is a fact.

You are in the same position. You have been found quitlty for fraud by both criminal and civil courts. To put them right you have to find the discrepancy, and it may be different in both. But the major discrepancy I see is that both Judges found you untrustworthy. And that being a fact. You must before anything else, get them to trust you.

How are you going to do that when so many people have little faith in you on here and in your accforum system now??

So dont belittle people like David Butler or myself or anyone else just to make you feel better or gather more points. Because it is known to all what you do. You waste time here, when you should be fighting for your rights, if you can, but I truely believe that you understand now that you cant and you are beginning to see that with a new wrist it is possible that you may be able to make some money without having to resort to knicking it off govt depts.

So go do and quite harassing people on here.

Mini


Does thomas use the stewart issue as a help to him somewhere MINI?
He wasnt involved in that win by any chance?

dave
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:46 PM

I went to the doctor and he filed a Med report without me needing to say any thing. He already knew the work I did because he had been my doctor for 17 years. He also knew all about the other businesses and help with rehab. All the experts were in agreement. I never said anything!

What info was misled by me David?
0

#17 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:13 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 28 February 2014 - 06:46 PM, said:

I went to the doctor and he filed a Med report without me needing to say any thing. He already knew the work I did because he had been my doctor for 17 years. He also knew all about the other businesses and help with rehab. All the experts were in agreement. I never said anything!

What info was misled by me David?




The JUDGE NEVER MISSED A THING AlanPosted Image

dave
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10612
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:23 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 28 February 2014 - 10:13 PM, said:

The JUDGE NEVER MISSED A THING AlanPosted Image

dave


What info was misled by me David?
0

#19 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 28 February 2014 - 10:27 PM

read you own documents alan as the judge did
its al there for ya if you havnt ever read it properly
nite nite
ya must be tried alan
head injury and all hat youve had a real busy week mate

how ya manage all that effort brain use and time in here plus al you work and legal stuff who knows
must be the design engineer in you keeping on and on
oh bugger
you cant be a design engineer now can yaPosted Image


dave
0

#20 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 28 February 2014 - 11:35 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 28 February 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

I read the same per Judge Morris's words to you alan in his findings / sentencing documentation n in your fraud trial
From my dealings with you over a considerable period of tim o a number of issues I do not find you a compelling witness of your testimony to me as opposed to what i see available on documents of yours and the courts.
and YOU HAVE YET to convince me of anything re the Takapuna Bomb Plot activities you were also nailed on.
Moriss did not need to use medical evidence
YOU were tried on the Intent to defraud the acc via use of documents able to used to gain/obtain a pecuniary gain.
You signed them
You used them
The non medical Evidence clearly showed you were misleading the ACC
THEY NEVER NEDED ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE that issue of INTENT Thomas
You raised that medical issues as defense AND YOU FAILED
You have teated The ACC ,myself and others i definitely know of in the same arrogant manner you did within the courts at your fraud trial and you do have a position of you are right and evry one ls is just a common idiot
Your views on the law alan just dont fit with the Judges and you mix and match varying issues into one out here to try and make yourself the aggrieved one snf try nd decide what members can see to use to think you are not doing as you were charged with
gfo fight ya medical crap with acc
its nout to do with Intent to defraud Alan
if ya wernt so underhanded back then and as you still are now,and not mislead acc and found yourself charged with Intent to defraud-then maybe you could have used the medical stuff but its irrelevant to the pretty compelling against you evidence of a shown intent that he judge used against you.
YOU CHEATED ACC and were caught out-end of de story there.
when will you ever wake up to the reality of life


Where in the posting of this was it mentioned 'It's all about AT' thread? Why did you suddenly jump in and make it all about past crap about AT for??? For what purpose other than to get your personal digs in...AGAIN... FFS.... all so dam repetitive, F'ng BORING.

It should be a BANNED subject on this Forum!!
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 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