ACCforum: Alan Thomas case NZACC 332 (19 December 2014) - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Alan Thomas case NZACC 332 (19 December 2014) 118 Appeals dismissed & *unless orders*

#101 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:25 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 January 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

You have no court documents to post that support your claims except in your internal A Thomas world.


My case is based on the medical reporting
not a judges medical guess work
1

#102 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:35 PM

I have reported you again
0

#103 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:37 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 January 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

Simple question to Mr Thomas . Why was none of this presented at any of your court cases?.
It would appear most just exist inside Mr Thomas brain .
Produce some documents to backup any of your claims used in the courts?.


Gregg

Excuse my interruption.

My POV is that Alan Thomas never had half the burble he points to here as evidence at the time of his criminal trial. and lets not forget that not many of us were around him at the time so knew/know little of it.

Thomas is doing exactly the same thing now with the TBP. He is trying to create evidence of conspirators etc even though there is none as there was no conspiracy as far as I know. He said he had no evidence to bring forward then either, so he creates a situation that will give him the evidence he craves. It has worked no better in the TBP than it did after his trial and conviction for fraud has done for him. Absolutely nothing.

Instead of using the time he has available after he has been charged to get evidence of his innocence, he waits until after he has 'done his time' and then dams everyone else and makes the newbies feel sorry for him.

No he is being stalked by the likes of anonymousey and myself which from my point of view couldn't be further from the truth. I simply want my name/s taken off this forum and never be allowed to be said on here again. It can be done as it has been done with c hr issy. Her name comes out in xxxxxx as does admins.

This is all my lawyer asked for but admin cannot be bothered making it a priority in his life, where as in lauda finem and in her I have been defamed by being called a tax fraud acc fraud, threatened by both lauda finem and accforum. And my house piccie and address [printed both up here and in there.

I am here until this is done, so if mr Thomas thinks he is being stalked by me maybe all other members do as well, as I have made no secret of why I am still here.

Mind you I do not mind helping the occasional newbie that wants a helping hand along the way.

Mini
0

#104 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:42 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 January 2015 - 05:08 PM, said:

Do you really think I am being offered help???
You jest
If she was she would be asking questions re the exhibits etc


Thomas

How can she see the exhibits, no one else has, even when you have been asked.

Mini
0

#105 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:45 PM

View PostMINI, on 24 January 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Thomas

How can she see the exhibits, no one else has, even when you have been asked.

Mini

I agree with mini shocking but true
0

#106 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:49 PM

Mini are you attacking me so as to get a result from someone else?
0

#107 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:51 PM

View PostMINI, on 24 January 2015 - 05:42 PM, said:

Thomas

How can she see the exhibits, no one else has, even when you have been asked.

Mini


Did she ask for any info from the doctor to see if ACC were right or wrong? No she did not.
0

#108 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 January 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

Mini are you attacking me so as to get a result from someone else?

mini like most on ACCForum.org need to see something you claim to be a true court document. At present nothing.
0

#109 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:52 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 January 2015 - 05:45 PM, said:

I agree with mini shocking but true


yes I am shocked.

How can 2 people be so dumb?
0

#110 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:57 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

TY for the little chuckle moment Mini

ATM I am just concentrating on exactly quoting the various exhibits described by the Judges

For example, the Dr Willoughby Report, Dr Powell correspondence, ACC455 forms completed by GP, alleged anonymous physio & others etc

Obviously I cannot quote from the medical report written by 2012 surgeon Mr Boland as this has/was NOT been provided to the Judges yet AFAIK.


What did the judge rely on when judging the medicals to be wrong?
0

#111 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2015 - 05:59 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 January 2015 - 05:52 PM, said:

yes I am shocked.

How can 2 people be so dumb?

Maybe they can also see through the fluff you keep posting .
No wonder your legals cant win a court case . they just need a constant story firstly.
0

#112 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:14 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

Dr Willoughby Report [Check your BOD Exhibits Ref #10 that you annexed.]

I am uncertain if you gave Dr Willoughby a copy of your 2012 surgeon Bolands report.


Another set of Judicial Findings I have noted relate to the examination of additional exhibits such as documents from Dr Richard Powell who quoted your General Practitioner ACC544 Medical Certificate.

Clinical Material &or professional opinions from both of these Medical Specialists have been covered in your Court Hearings Alan.

Selective memory loss .
0

#113 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:19 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 06:13 PM, said:

Dr Willoughby Report [Check your BOD Exhibits Ref #10 that you annexed.]

I am uncertain if you gave Dr Willoughby a copy of your 2012 surgeon Bolands report.


Another set of Judicial Findings I have noted relate to the examination of additional exhibits such as documents from Dr Richard Powell who quoted your General Practitioner ACC544 Medical Certificate.

Clinical Material &or professional opinions from both of these Medical Specialists have been covered in your Court Hearings Alan.


The question is
What medical information did the judge rely on to disagree with what the medical reports stated?
0

#114 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 24 January 2015 - 06:54 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 24 January 2015 - 06:19 PM, said:

The question is
What medical information did the judge rely on to disagree with what the medical reports stated?

Where are the questions from your legal team during your many court times when if ACC was wrong about
these points could have been raised. They were not which proves this is an after thought.
You can't change Court Documents wording.
0

#115 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:50 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 January 2015 - 06:14 PM, said:

Selective memory loss .


You are quite wrong.
ACC did not bring any contrary medical evidence into the court room
the only medical evidence presented describe incapacity.
With regards to the neurologist information coming in what was provided was confirmation that the North Shore Hospital was continuing on with the treatment processes which underpins the existing medical evidence. There is no possibility that the ongoing medical tests in any way detract from the existing medical evidence of a brain injury causing incapacity. Even a matter of days ago I was rushed to hospital by ambulance because of this injury for simply ignoring the doctors advice and working too hard on my submissions to the reviewers hearings that were likewise asking me to work beyond my capacity. My doctor has been directed by the hospital to make further appointments with other professionals and so any thoughts that the judge might have had that all these medical professionals are wrong is utter nonsense.

Please explain to me how the judge can decide that all of the medical profession are wrong when he has not been provided with a single medical report contradicting the existing medical opinions.

Three review hearings had directed the ACC to organise medical assessments to further describe the degree of incapacity within 20 days yet years go by and they have done nothing. Then along comes the district court judge and without the hearing into these issues regarding the delay of process makes a common see has made surely must encourage the ACC to continue with the process of delay. Something is wrong
1

#116 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 07:53 PM

I understand that there has been some confusion by the originator of the site as to the correct spelling of fairway.
I agree that fairway can't spell fairway. However if they want to have a ridiculous name along with an even more ridiculous logo that I to argue, I am only be poor sap that has paid for their very existence through taxes and ACC levies.

Fairway like to spell Fairway their way, FairWay
proof of this fact has been asked of me and I have received the kind assistance of a kind stranger
http://www.fairwayresolution.com/
check it out
1

#117 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 09:07 PM

Both reported
1

#118 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 10:38 PM

View Postgreg, on 24 January 2015 - 09:09 PM, said:

Left ball or Right ball , you seem to playing with them again.

Reported
1

#119 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10602
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 24 January 2015 - 10:58 PM


anonymousey

The nature of my disability in regards to my right to be heard is connected to the brain injury.

Therefore what on earth are you going on about making references to the unrelated wrist injury?

Who imagined pain had anything to do with my capacity be heard in the court room?

Has someone carried out a medical assessment without my knowledge, Or someone just confused and doesn't understand on medical report from another?

How on earth are you claiming surprise as to whether or not medical professionals have carried out various tests or not when no such information has ever been presented to the court as that part of the information is not the courts business but only the medical professionals final conclusion. Since when have you or the judges gone to competition with the medical profession as opposed to just accepting the integrity of what they have said based on their expertise. How arrogant!!!
0

#120 User is offline   Rosey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1808
  • Joined: 25-December 09
  • LocationHamilton

Posted 24 January 2015 - 11:29 PM

Face it Alan Thomas, you've been found out.

View Postanonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 11:09 PM, said:

PLEASE STOP YOUR CONTINUED ABUSE of this thread Alan.

If you have a problem with ANY other members who are posting within my thread - Please use the CORRECT THREAD as directed by admin.

FYI I wish to hold meaningful dialogue with other members or even publically gently moderate my own thread without YOUR interference and perversions of thread content now.

Therefore this is my Notified Request that you immediately STOP abusing this thread to have it deleted fraudulently. You are the main offender with all *Rule Breaches* and your taunting that you are mocking the *Report Post* features & scripts Alan is especially despicable IMHO

FYI - I now find your offensive outrageous censorship trolling contemptuous behaviours in THIS thread to be inexcusable

Remember you also can NOT or never will mindread or dictate my issues or purpose for dialogue in this thread o&r with other members Alan.

If you have a probable with online discussion in this thread then I suggest you immediately STOP any and all POSTING and also DO NOT OPEN my thread for any reading.

If I could BLOCK you from posting in this thread I would now as this is page TEN and still you are trolling, abusing and hijacking my preferred discussions Alan. therefore I personally am hopeful that the new platform our adminowner will implement soon - will indeed allow reasonable moderation and independence to be promoted once again.




ps Following your persistent blagging and disregarding of my requests to stop trolling with offtopic material - I have now updated posts 179 & 180

pps whether or not this thread is eventually unapproved by robots because of your mission OR I myself delete material uploaded - this will not STOP me{ or any interested person in the world] from going to the librbary using the internet to find NZ caselaw Alan

0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • « First
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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