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

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • 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*

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:22 PM

View PostMINI, on 20 January 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

Would you believe that I have read the whole of judge Barbers 85 pages!! Sorry cant remember if the same issue had been bought up In court then and am busy myself at the moment so no time to investigate if the issues have been heard before making them res judicata. If it was the case that they had been heard earlier I can see why the Judge would be in favour of costs against Thomas. What a huge job for anyone to do to have to sift through all this tripe, twice to find out if Thomas is actually trying to acquire a break that none of the rest of us would get through ACC. If this was so I would find it very offensive.

He does not appear to understand the rights of the courts. If he cant pay his fines they will retaliate. But one has to wonder when they will pull the plug and say enough is enough. I believe there is a section that allows the Judge to determine a person shall not have any right to ACC.

Cheers
Mini


What a load of rubbish you speak. There is no possibility that any court in the Western world is going to take away the right to be heard simply because the case is big and complex. After all it is the ACC had created an incredibly convoluted ridiculous argument, not me.

The bottomline is whether or not I can perform the individual work task activities that I relied upon to generate earnings before I was injured.

ACC acknowledged not having any of this information when they made their decision in 1997. Judge Barber then gave the ACC leave to go and find the information but the problem is the ACC collected information about what type of work I was doing while I was already entered on another claim and working on light duties selected compare that information with what members of the public imagined what I might be going within businesses I owned with their witnesses confessing in court that they never actually saw me doing anything and their own forensic accountant confirming that every last dollar was accounted for pain peoples earnings for the work they did whereby there was no work or money left over for me to be involved in anything. At the end of the day judge Barber made a decision that all the medical professionals must have been wrong despite the fact that ACC had no medical information whatsoever to support their argument with judge Barber relying upon his instinct that I somehow must have triple the medical profession.

Thank goodness the medical profession to rely upon judge Barber.
It is a great pity that judge Barber does not rely upon the medical profession.
0

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 January 2015 - 07:25 PM

View Postgreg, on 20 January 2015 - 07:14 PM, said:

Mini is correct about Mr Thomas refusal to accept what he believes to be true. Now If he had a valid claim under 82 act. he would most certainly
have 'Mental by Physical' .


How on earth do you reach the conclusion that someone under the 1982 act would have "Mental by physical". My case is broken bits and pieces in my elbows, wrist and hand that need to be reconstructed. How do you imagine that there is anything to do with mental in that?
0

#23 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:15 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 04:37 PM, said:

My original response in dark blue with the final retort in light blue



[color="#4169E1"]


Code of conduct issues cannot be heard in a dc appeal. they can only go to review stage and they only came into being in 2003, whereas most of your complaints pre-date that.
that is only one of the many problems I see with your argument.

mini
0

#24 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 20 January 2015 - 08:54 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

What a load of rubbish you speak. There is no possibility that any court in the Western world is going to take away the right to be heard simply because the case is big and complex. After all it is the ACC had created an incredibly convoluted ridiculous argument, not me.

The bottomline is whether or not I can perform the individual work task activities that I relied upon to generate earnings before I was injured.

ACC acknowledged not having any of this information when they made their decision in 1997. Judge Barber then gave the ACC leave to go and find the information but the problem is the ACC collected information about what type of work I was doing while I was already entered on another claim and working on light duties selected compare that information with what members of the public imagined what I might be going within businesses I owned with their witnesses confessing in court that they never actually saw me doing anything and their own forensic accountant confirming that every last dollar was accounted for pain peoples earnings for the work they did whereby there was no work or money left over for me to be involved in anything. At the end of the day judge Barber made a decision that all the medical professionals must have been wrong despite the fact that ACC had no medical information whatsoever to support their argument with judge Barber relying upon his instinct that I somehow must have triple the medical profession.

Thank goodness the medical profession to rely upon judge Barber.
It is a great pity that judge Barber does not rely upon the medical profession.

Alan Thomas
How much did your girlfriend take for wages out of the company you bought off her for $1???

You said that the reviewer today said he was going to allow himself of the right to determine your ability to sit through review. I am not saying that the stance is right, I am simply saying that no one appears to be bothered with the fact that you say Judge Barber did that exact same thing. Now surely if anyone were going to take you seriously on that point alone, it would have been noted in the decision of the High and court of appeal you went through last year.

Your blue answers make for interesting reading. They actually show me why Judge Barber says you are very clever. You are relying on the ACC own devious methods of conduct and using technical issues to push them into a corner and have no where to go. I am truly impressed. But I think you have under estimated them and their power. You make quotes like 'no court in New Zealand or the world etc'. I disagree with you, re: no courts would do such and such. I would go so far as to say I have enough evidence here to show that courts will go where ever they want depending on the actual ability to be able to get away with it.

Rereading my own cases I can see that they have done such things to me when I was a newbie. Luckily it has not cost me a great deal. We all make mistakes and those mistakes are taken advantage of by ACC, the Reviewer, the Judge. And then what of their own mistakes??

For instance why over the three year period your case with Judge Barber took, did he not stop long enough for you to have a full assessment as to your incapacity, rather than rely on his own years of judging such cases to make a decision on your incapacity??

You see I don't disagree with you all the time. There are some things that are not just right. However I was not there so I have no way I can help you. Not that I have the time anyway, I have my own demons. And I am very sure of one thing, I do not consider a win on a technicality a win, so I am not even in the same league as you when it comes to out-smarting the people that make the law. I only rely on the law and the manner in which ACC forget to use it correctly. You see they too must think I am getting a bit past it, and am of no use to myself let alone anyone else, but then I have only on the 15th of this month had a win that you will never see and that doubled the amount of entitlement, I got. So I still have my own way of winning, the first step being is to get in quick, with the errors they have made, so that the actual person making the decision, is actually made responsible for it.

Mini
1

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 20 January 2015 - 10:09 PM

View PostMINI, on 20 January 2015 - 08:15 PM, said:

Code of conduct issues cannot be heard in a dc appeal. they can only go to review stage and they only came into being in 2003, whereas most of your complaints pre-date that.
that is only one of the many problems I see with your argument.

mini


Nothing of what you have just posted applies to my hearings.
I have already stated that these issues are only at the review hearing level and have already pointed out that they cannot go any further within the ACC scheme however procedural matters can still be addressed under judicial review in the High Court bypassing the district court. This is quite a common occurrence when addressing way with ACC staff and reviewers who do not comply with legislation.
All the complaints relate to issues occurring under the current legislation.
You claim that there were many problems, what else are you imagining?
1

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:43 AM

The judge made an unless order decision. He is entitled to do this but it needs to be done reasonably. The question is whether or not the unless order was reasonable. The unless order is not described in his judgement as above but this is the tipping point it goes to the heart of the issue.

The judge wanted to bundle 118 separate review hearing appeals into one hearing on jurisdiction with some of the issues having an extension on to other discussions about other matters as well. The question is whether or not it was appropriate given the circumstances to create the bundle in the first instance and then expose such a vast number of cases to a single mistake on my part where an unless order would dismiss the entire bundle.

The what is reasonable issue addresses multiple matters but I think the most important is whether or not the timing was even remotely possible for an invalid with my particular disorders. If a judge issues in order that is impossible to keep obviously it cannot stand when addressed by way of appeal. Several judges have attempted to determine whether or not the medical profession are correct in their description of the disabilities by exposing me to activities that are beyond what the doctor has rated as possible. We can see part of the rationale of Powell J when he comments on the amount of work I actually did achieve even though it was a day late but neglected to notice that I haven't even completed the submissions that he asked for despite my working longer hours in the preparation and my doctor permitted and having an unusually high number of TIAs during this period which auses a stop work altogether during the episode and lowers my standard of work in the recovery phase.

Secondary is the actual compliance with the unless order whereby I thought it was okay to deliver to the courier on the deadline date while apparently should have been arriving at the registrar on that date. As I have no control over what the courier does it could theoretically deliver a month early and still arrive late or even not at all. Apparently there are two schools of thought on this issue depending which legal professional you speak to and even judges have different viewpoints. I think probably Powell J by technicality is legally correct with then comes into play his use of discretion when taking into account the circumstances as to why it was late.

My advice is considered that Powell J has been unusually harsh in his decision not to allow the 118 submissions on a prehearing matter to be reinstated particularly when the registrar has not even made available the reviewers records, exhibits and transcripts for me to prepare the submissions in the first place and still promises to deliver them. A paranoid person would consider that there existed a conspiracy to prevent me from proceeding with my right to be heard concerning an extremely high value of entitlements. Having said that I think it is highly unlikely that Powell J could be accused in this way as he seems to have an extremely good record.

With the judge that is a purist in law to my mind is a good thing rather than judge who is wishy-washy and wibbly wobbly with the law which in general will progressively degrade the quality of law in the whole country. When having a judge that is a purist in law we also have to take the good with the bad and unfortunately I am experiencing the bad On this very low grade technicality which has had some devastating consequences. the good thing is that there are also fine points of law regarding the use of discretion so an appeal is possible. The bad news is High Court judges are usually reluctant to interfere with a discretionary issue and less the situation is quite extreme. My situation is quite extreme so much so that this type of issue addressing disability access to the courts has recently gone before the United Nations the New Zealand is found to be wanting. This feedback from United Nations has come at the same time as Powell J making his discretionary decision not to allow a disabled person any concession. Probably because the law has not made any concessions for disabled people's access to the courts which is something that might need to be changed in law. We will have to see what the High Court to say about it.

Of course there are numerous other issues are factored into this important set of circumstances.
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 January 2015 - 10:57 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 January 2015 - 09:53 AM, said:

HhhMMm as there is a judgement from the Court of Appeal which is only a few months old Alan - I am reading that Judge Barbers decision stands AND you have now been denied special leave to appeal etc

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZCA 186 (16 May 2014)

"... a finding in the District Court that Mr Thomas was not incapacitated or unable by reason of personal injury to engage in his pre-accident employment."

"... the Court held that the appeal Mr Thomas wished to bring was misconceived and had no realistic prospect of success"

.... "counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and thirdly, where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled."

"As to the third category, the matters raised by Mr Thomas simply seek to relitigate issues already considered by the Court.

[7] The application for recall is accordingly dismissed."

http://www.nzlii.org...A/2014/186.html



Yes it seems that you have not been following the legal argument behind my case.

ACC cancel the entire claim on the basis that they possessed information that I was working.

Both the reviewer and the district court is only able to issue decisions on the questions of fact and law concerning the ACC decision.

The judiciary is not permitted in law to rescind the ACC decision carry out its own medical assessment as to whether or not I was incapacitated, make a diagnosis and prognosis based on no foundation information as to the preinjury work task activities and then make a decision.

The appellant courts were asked if Barber J was compliant with the legislated criteria for determining the question of fact and law in relation to the ACC decision. None of the appellant courts have answered this question.

After answering the first question the court was being asked the second question in the event that Barber J would be allowed to determine an end of incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation without any facts. The appellant courts were also asked if Barber J followed the legislated criteria to determine an end of incapacity. Again the appellant courts have not answer the question.


To date reviewer, district court, High Court and Court of Appeal have all disregarded the original ACC decision, seem to have adopted the point that the ACC decision letter was wrong in its construction and proceeded to remake the ACC decision in the way that the ACC should have done and then without following the legislated criteria to determine the end of incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation proceeded to simply imagine that I could return to it despite not having any occupational or medical information for the decision. Procedure which is of this type are addressed by way of judicial review even though the ACC appeal process has gone all the way to the Court of Appeal.

The other element is the integrity of the ACC inasmuch as we now have proof beyond reasonable doubt of the ACC staff committing perjury which the court has relied upon. Fraud of this type unravels everything.

The bottomline is there is a showstopper injury to return to my preinjury occupation no matter what that occupation was. There was inadequate structural connection between my arm and hand to produce any form of activity to a job that could not be carried out single-handedly. The zero capacity has now been raised to 4 KG with the reconstructive surgery awarded by the reviewer in 1992. That surgery still does not take me up to the standard required to return to my preinjury occupation. I am currently successfully working on my preinjury occupation on light duties at a reduced rate of hours per day. After more surgery they may be able to undertake more complex tasks for longer periods but I will still not be fit to return to my preinjury occupation fully. As my claim was under the 1982 legislation of which the reviewer has decided I cannot return to my preinjury occupation unless I have reconstructive surgery and that surgery was successful ACC continue to have a liability to pay earnings compensation. That decision remains binding upon all parties. All parties include reviewer, district court, High Court, Court of Appeal. ACC have not appeal the 1992 reviewers decision and they are now over 20 years out of time and could only embark upon an out of time appeal that they had extremely exceptional circumstances to challenge the 1992 reviewers decision. ACC have never obtain any medical opinion to challenge the reviewers decision or any other medical professional that have forbidden me to attempt my preinjury occupation in a manner that includes all of the work types but only light duties it did not involve my right hand.
0

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 January 2015 - 04:51 PM

I did not consent to the unless orders, I objected.

Your writing is quite offensive when you accuse me of making a mistake everytime you don't understand what is written.
When an application is submitted to the court registrar for an appeal to a review hearing decision the ACC is required to make available the reviewers transcript, the reviewers notes and all of the exhibits. They are also need to be providing me with a copy. The court registrar has some bits and pieces but mostly nothing and I have not received anything. Legislation requires the ACC to surrender all of this material otherwise an appeal is rendered impossible. ACC are using this is a total blockage to a fair hearing pushing people on to their submissions when it is impossible to prepare them so they can win.

In addition I did not consent to proceed with these hearings without the information being surrendered to me for the preparation of my submissions. This of course is solid basis for the High Court appeal as the legislation has been breached. A district court judge does not have the lawful capacity to bypass the legislation like that.

In the main the rest of it consists of you making a statement with A question mark behind a statement which appears to be you put before the speculation and then later relying upon your speculation as a fact from which you create a hypothesis which makes me think that you may have even been employed by the ACC at some time or are having too much association with them. Long story short a proper intellectual discussion cannot exist with such ridiculous responses that are not connected to any form of reality. You also disregard information I have given previously such as the most important documents of all an ACC decision making processes, medical information, and instead relying upon it your own for others speculations which also includes whether or not the medical information is out of date.

I would counsel you to first start with the foundation points of the legislation and then attach the relevant facts that are absolute to that legislation and then see what you have. It serves no purpose rattling on by way of speculation and then seeing if you are speculation attaches to legislation. The proper way to approach these types of situations is much the same way as that you would follow if you are examining why an aircraft crashed. You look to the engineering standards which are based on proven physics then you look for what was functioning at the time of impact and what was not and then trace back to the original cause. You certainly don't dive into a situation make a speculation and not to prove your speculation. That type of approach is the approach of idiots who are truly dangerous to society and every single level they conduct their lives that way.
0

#29 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:02 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 January 2015 - 10:43 AM, said:

The judge made an unless order decision. He is entitled to do this but it needs to be done reasonably. The question is whether or not the unless order was reasonable. The unless order is not described in his judgement as above but this is the tipping point it goes to the heart of the issue.

The judge wanted to bundle 118 separate review hearing appeals into one hearing on jurisdiction with some of the issues having an extension on to other discussions about other matters as well. The question is whether or not it was appropriate given the circumstances to create the bundle in the first instance and then expose such a vast number of cases to a single mistake on my part where an unless order would dismiss the entire bundle.

The what is reasonable issue addresses multiple matters but I think the most important is whether or not the timing was even remotely possible for an invalid with my particular disorders. If a judge issues in order that is impossible to keep obviously it cannot stand when addressed by way of appeal. Several judges have attempted to determine whether or not the medical profession are correct in their description of the disabilities by exposing me to activities that are beyond what the doctor has rated as possible. We can see part of the rationale of Powell J when he comments on the amount of work I actually did achieve even though it was a day late but neglected to notice that I haven't even completed the submissions that he asked for despite my working longer hours in the preparation and my doctor permitted and having an unusually high number of TIAs during this period which auses a stop work altogether during the episode and lowers my standard of work in the recovery phase.

Secondary is the actual compliance with the unless order whereby I thought it was okay to deliver to the courier on the deadline date while apparently should have been arriving at the registrar on that date. As I have no control over what the courier does it could theoretically deliver a month early and still arrive late or even not at all. Apparently there are two schools of thought on this issue depending which legal professional you speak to and even judges have different viewpoints. I think probably Powell J by technicality is legally correct with then comes into play his use of discretion when taking into account the circumstances as to why it was late.

My advice is considered that Powell J has been unusually harsh in his decision not to allow the 118 submissions on a prehearing matter to be reinstated particularly when the registrar has not even made available the reviewers records, exhibits and transcripts for me to prepare the submissions in the first place and still promises to deliver them. A paranoid person would consider that there existed a conspiracy to prevent me from proceeding with my right to be heard concerning an extremely high value of entitlements. Having said that I think it is highly unlikely that Powell J could be accused in this way as he seems to have an extremely good record.

With the judge that is a purist in law to my mind is a good thing rather than judge who is wishy-washy and wibbly wobbly with the law which in general will progressively degrade the quality of law in the whole country. When having a judge that is a purist in law we also have to take the good with the bad and unfortunately I am experiencing the bad On this very low grade technicality which has had some devastating consequences. the good thing is that there are also fine points of law regarding the use of discretion so an appeal is possible. The bad news is High Court judges are usually reluctant to interfere with a discretionary issue and less the situation is quite extreme. My situation is quite extreme so much so that this type of issue addressing disability access to the courts has recently gone before the United Nations the New Zealand is found to be wanting. This feedback from United Nations has come at the same time as Powell J making his discretionary decision not to allow a disabled person any concession. Probably because the law has not made any concessions for disabled people's access to the courts which is something that might need to be changed in law. We will have to see what the High Court to say about it.

Of course there are numerous other issues are factored into this important set of circumstances.


As I see Judge Powells decision mr Thomas, it was not only the lateness of your application but also the fact that he said you were regurgitating old information which had been heard and considered previously. Now I know from my own interest case which was considered the same way, it was called res judicata and was not allowed on that ground, so in comes to lawyer to argue res judicata in the special court. Even the H/c judge said that the lawyer may well be right, in that Judge joyce was wrong to use res judicata as some of the points had not been taken into consideration at the DC. He simply therefore found that I had been abusive of the process (It was very difficult not to be when Kearney and Miller were going through the system)and the other mish mash that went on with differing issues. This shows you how easily the courts and acc can jump from one reason for negative decision to another reason for negative decision.

So it is best you take all the consideration into your head before you go marching into higher court, saying that it is only the one day issue you have to resolve here. That is not a fact.

No thanks needed.

You are welcome, I am more than pleased to assist you move your hearings along. However be prepared for the fact that they can easily fail.

ACC have just taken away from me, the chance that all (ALL) claimants get to be assessed for payment of interest on their b/d w/c. Just because I did not come into the Kearney Miller cases, should not mean that I do not have the same right as others to be considered for interest. How can previous case pre-Kearney win not be section 114 yet I get clobbered with abuse of process when it was the ACC saying it was under section 114, I was saying it was under section 72 of the 1992 Act, and Kearney was saying I was right. So you think you alone in your fight. Think again, we all get treated wrongly in lots of differing ways by ACC.

mini
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:30 PM

Mini you have missed the point. There was no res judicata. the judge took into account prospects of success before a hearing which is a no no.
0

#31 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 January 2015 - 05:30 PM, said:

Mini you have missed the point. There was no res judicata. the judge took into account prospects of success before a hearing which is a no no.


Obviously as he would not let you have a chance at rehearing if he didn't feel you had a chance of success. However, I still say they will look for anything to put before the judges to mislead them, so be prepared for anything.

Mini
0

#32 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1903
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 21 January 2015 - 05:43 PM

as time erodes will be as in interest to have a result as in whoms favour as in all the controversy of allans hiostorical case . but the historicals are only then subject to a future as in whom has a result . watch the space and for as whom can report progress. which has been a lengthy subject for a lengthy time , good stuff
0

#33 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 12:27 AM

I do not have time to read your contrary replies that disregard the entirety of what I have written.The principal problem that you are having is that you do not have a good grounding in the ACC legislation and as an alternative are relying upon your instinctive or intuitive viewpoint based on your so-called worldly wisdom. As I said before the starting point is the foundation, the legislation. Unless you have a thorough grounding in legislation for your argument there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. I again reiterate that your style of making a statement followed by question mark even breaks the laws of the English language and if you cannot respect the English language there is no possibility you can interpret the English language for the purpose of making legal argument.

Incredibly you make very bold statements like numerous claims to the effect that I have not done this or that. How on earth could you possibly reach that conclusion when you have no idea what it is submitted and were not even at any of the hearings. Your arrogance is beyond belief. Obviously I've experienced in the same problem with the ACC and the reviewers with the result that both are seeking to hide the real documentation including exhibits and transcripts plus the raw information such as medical reports and rely upon intuition assumptions from which somehow mysteriously gets converted into what they call "commonsense" which is simply not permitted under legislation for any of the decision makers throughout the hierarchal judicial chain of decision. Commonwealth laws including New Zealand simply do not work that way and don't work that way in any law-abiding country in the world except where Lynch mobs have been legalised. It seems to me that you might even be in favour of "witch dunking" which is the process that numerous judges including Barber J and Powell J have done when determining for themselves as to whether or not I was physically able-bodied enough to be heard beyond the medical certificates by experimenting to see what would happen to me. That process is "witch dunking" which has been outlawed in Commonwealth law for centuries. Such behaviour is repugnant to law-abiding citizens. The ACC legislation is abundantly clear that nobody from the front-line staff through to the Court of Appeal can rely upon their "commonsense" as the alternative to independent expert information. From the ACC all the way through to the Court of Appeal have to be subservient to the expert and these chain of decision makers have absolutely no right to be calling themselves expert in specialist matters such as medical issues and are compelled by law to restrict their decision-making within the confines of that expert advice.

You still have not gotten past the very first step when you keep on insisting that somehow "Fairway" have some form of involvement in the decision-making processes. That is utter nonsense as they are simply the servants in a capacity as administrators having no authority whatsoever. By the way in which you keep on referring to matters of impression it is clearly demonstrated by your language that you are an "aggressive submissive" Who demands everybody else be equally submissive as you. You seem to have an innate tendency to submit yourself to the authority of others which is partly why you have had so many difficulties in your life up until now. It would seem to me that you fit the exact personality profile that fits with ACC employment criteria for front-line staff as your thinking processes and behaviour patterns are identical. You will continue to have difficulties to understand issues of "self-determination" and the authority individuals have when not only expressing their rights to enforce the law but to even make it.

What is needed is to comprehend the legislation, determine what the facts actually are and only then look at how the judge as related those facts to the legislation and whether or not the judge was mistaken in fact or mistaken in legislation or even did not use his discretion properly. While there are some minor mistakes in fact that perhaps influenced the judge and that the judge did clearly guest what the submissions might be based on ACC submissions it was wrong for him to infer what my submissions might have been when not only have we not got the records from the review hearing in most of these cases we do not even have the information the ACC relied upon for their original decisions which is also required under compulsion of the legislation.

I can only tell you that the legislators saw fit to require the ACC to provide Not only copies of the reviewers notes, exhibits and transcripts claimants intending to appeal but also the information that they relied upon for their own decisions leading to the problem in the first place. The purpose of this is to enable claimant to prepare submissions and without any submissions there was no possibility any judge can have it as a guess as to what those submissions are going to be, not even Powell J or yourself.

When anyone defies the legislation based on the intuition then of course the appellant courts will come to the rescue. There just isn't any possibility that anyone can misinterpret the section of the legislation makes a requirement to comply with certain criteria.While Judge Powell is correct in stating that an appeal is by way of a rehearing that does not mean that is not required to examine whether or not there was a properly formed review hearing and whether or not the legislation requires him to make a decision to overturn the reviewers decision and submit the matter back to the reviewer to do the review hearing process correctly and for the ACC to surrender the necessary information for the review hearing into the bargain. What we have seen in my case is a systemic situation whereby the ACC and the reviewers have withheld from me and services that the legislation require of them for my protection. When I have not been afforded that protection it is my implicit right to petition the district court to require the ACC processes and review hearing process is to be carried out strictly in accordance with legislation. There just isn't any room in our society for the ACC, reviewer or even a judge to disregard the legislation in this fashion.

We have the same issue with Barber J whereby he even directed the ACC to surrender to me the information that they claim to possess but would not show me which prevented any possibility of appeal and once the deadline came and went Barber J failed to enforce his own order.

It seems to me that both Barber J and Powell J have both made similar types of decision that absolutely contradict the principal With the result that the ACC has obtained an advantage. Given that several million dollars are involved I can only say that these decisions are "of most serious concern". The greater legal minds have advised me to put them both on judicial review. One of my advisers is even called Doctor judicial review who had provided invaluable advice to New Zealand's foremost judicial review specialist barrister.

Obviously it is a mistake to think I'm going to get any meaningful or insightful comments from you when you have no capacity whatsoever for comprehension of the legislation in conjunction with hierarchal cascading logic processes, But then that would be far too much to expect. What I do expect however is that you should demonstrate a little humility in order for you to open your mind to the concept that you will only be able to obtain information if there is first a vacuum for that information after your question. Unfortunately the way that your brain is working is that the vacuum in your brain is so strong that it will suck in the very first speculative assumption to fill that void and once that void is still you have no capacity whatsoever to absorb any other information. This is why your profile fits the profile for ACCs front-line staff. You see every human being functions in a different way with the evidence of this reality being that men have a far greater capacity for rational thought and invention than women and that women have greater capacity for nurturing which is primarily based on intuition. This is another reason why the ACC selects women rather than men as case managers because a greater number of women possess these traits and therefore not have the capacity to follow legislation, perceive real facts and relate those facts to the legislation. Of course no amount of feminism is going to change these realities as we are simply made different, even male brains are considerably heavier and larger than female brains.
1

#34 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 22 January 2015 - 08:05 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 12:27 AM, said:

I do not have time to read your contrary replies that disregard the entirety of what I have written.The principal problem that you are having is that you do not have a good grounding in the ACC legislation and as an alternative are relying upon your instinctive or intuitive viewpoint based on your so-called worldly wisdom. As I said before the starting point is the foundation, the legislation. Unless you have a thorough grounding in legislation for your argument there is absolutely no point in arguing with you. I again reiterate that your style of making a statement followed by question mark even breaks the laws of the English language and if you cannot respect the English language there is no possibility you can interpret the English language for the purpose of making legal argument.

Incredibly you make very bold statements like numerous claims to the effect that I have not done this or that. How on earth could you possibly reach that conclusion when you have no idea what it is submitted and were not even at any of the hearings. Your arrogance is beyond belief. Obviously I've experienced in the same problem with the ACC and the reviewers with the result that both are seeking to hide the real documentation including exhibits and transcripts plus the raw information such as medical reports and rely upon intuition assumptions from which somehow mysteriously gets converted into what they call "commonsense" which is simply not permitted under legislation for any of the decision makers throughout the hierarchal judicial chain of decision. Commonwealth laws including New Zealand simply do not work that way and don't work that way in any law-abiding country in the world except where Lynch mobs have been legalised. It seems to me that you might even be in favour of "witch dunking" which is the process that numerous judges including Barber J and Powell J have done when determining for themselves as to whether or not I was physically able-bodied enough to be heard beyond the medical certificates by experimenting to see what would happen to me. That process is "witch dunking" which has been outlawed in Commonwealth law for centuries. Such behaviour is repugnant to law-abiding citizens. The ACC legislation is abundantly clear that nobody from the front-line staff through to the Court of Appeal can rely upon their "commonsense" as the alternative to independent expert information. From the ACC all the way through to the Court of Appeal have to be subservient to the expert and these chain of decision makers have absolutely no right to be calling themselves expert in specialist matters such as medical issues and are compelled by law to restrict their decision-making within the confines of that expert advice.

You still have not gotten past the very first step when you keep on insisting that somehow "Fairway" have some form of involvement in the decision-making processes. That is utter nonsense as they are simply the servants in a capacity as administrators having no authority whatsoever. By the way in which you keep on referring to matters of impression it is clearly demonstrated by your language that you are an "aggressive submissive" Who demands everybody else be equally submissive as you. You seem to have an innate tendency to submit yourself to the authority of others which is partly why you have had so many difficulties in your life up until now. It would seem to me that you fit the exact personality profile that fits with ACC employment criteria for front-line staff as your thinking processes and behaviour patterns are identical. You will continue to have difficulties to understand issues of "self-determination" and the authority individuals have when not only expressing their rights to enforce the law but to even make it.

What is needed is to comprehend the legislation, determine what the facts actually are and only then look at how the judge as related those facts to the legislation and whether or not the judge was mistaken in fact or mistaken in legislation or even did not use his discretion properly. While there are some minor mistakes in fact that perhaps influenced the judge and that the judge did clearly guest what the submissions might be based on ACC submissions it was wrong for him to infer what my submissions might have been when not only have we not got the records from the review hearing in most of these cases we do not even have the information the ACC relied upon for their original decisions which is also required under compulsion of the legislation.

I can only tell you that the legislators saw fit to require the ACC to provide Not only copies of the reviewers notes, exhibits and transcripts claimants intending to appeal but also the information that they relied upon for their own decisions leading to the problem in the first place. The purpose of this is to enable claimant to prepare submissions and without any submissions there was no possibility any judge can have it as a guess as to what those submissions are going to be, not even Powell J or yourself.

When anyone defies the legislation based on the intuition then of course the appellant courts will come to the rescue. There just isn't any possibility that anyone can misinterpret the section of the legislation makes a requirement to comply with certain criteria.While Judge Powell is correct in stating that an appeal is by way of a rehearing that does not mean that is not required to examine whether or not there was a properly formed review hearing and whether or not the legislation requires him to make a decision to overturn the reviewers decision and submit the matter back to the reviewer to do the review hearing process correctly and for the ACC to surrender the necessary information for the review hearing into the bargain. What we have seen in my case is a systemic situation whereby the ACC and the reviewers have withheld from me and services that the legislation require of them for my protection. When I have not been afforded that protection it is my implicit right to petition the district court to require the ACC processes and review hearing process is to be carried out strictly in accordance with legislation. There just isn't any room in our society for the ACC, reviewer or even a judge to disregard the legislation in this fashion.

We have the same issue with Barber J whereby he even directed the ACC to surrender to me the information that they claim to possess but would not show me which prevented any possibility of appeal and once the deadline came and went Barber J failed to enforce his own order.

It seems to me that both Barber J and Powell J have both made similar types of decision that absolutely contradict the principal With the result that the ACC has obtained an advantage. Given that several million dollars are involved I can only say that these decisions are "of most serious concern". The greater legal minds have advised me to put them both on judicial review. One of my advisers is even called Doctor judicial review who had provided invaluable advice to New Zealand's foremost judicial review specialist barrister.

Obviously it is a mistake to think I'm going to get any meaningful or insightful comments from you when you have no capacity whatsoever for comprehension of the legislation in conjunction with hierarchal cascading logic processes, But then that would be far too much to expect. What I do expect however is that you should demonstrate a little humility in order for you to open your mind to the concept that you will only be able to obtain information if there is first a vacuum for that information after your question. Unfortunately the way that your brain is working is that the vacuum in your brain is so strong that it will suck in the very first speculative assumption to fill that void and once that void is still you have no capacity whatsoever to absorb any other information. This is why your profile fits the profile for ACCs front-line staff. You see every human being functions in a different way with the evidence of this reality being that men have a far greater capacity for rational thought and invention than women and that women have greater capacity for nurturing which is primarily based on intuition. This is another reason why the ACC selects women rather than men as case managers because a greater number of women possess these traits and therefore not have the capacity to follow legislation, perceive real facts and relate those facts to the legislation. Of course no amount of feminism is going to change these realities as we are simply made different, even male brains are considerably heavier and larger than female brains.

What arrogant nonsense.

Your track record of 20 losses in the district court and case law set that is disadvantageous to ACC claimants is your only legacy.
2

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 09:19 AM

View PostRedFox, on 22 January 2015 - 08:05 AM, said:

What arrogant nonsense.

Your track record of 20 losses in the district court and case law set that is disadvantageous to ACC claimants is your only legacy.


"20 losses"??? huh?

What "case law set that is disadvantageous to ACC claimants"???
1

#36 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 22 January 2015 - 12:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 09:19 AM, said:

"20 losses"??? huh?

What "case law set that is disadvantageous to ACC claimants"???

I have already published that information on this forum
1

#37 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 02:04 PM

View PostRedFox, on 22 January 2015 - 12:52 PM, said:

I have already published that information on this forum


As I pointed out you were wrong and you have never at any stage provided any form of evidence to support your false allegation. Why would anyone set out to falsify information and defames someone's name?
1

#38 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10583
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 January 2015 - 03:16 PM


anonymousey
As you do not have access to the facts of the case it is impossible for you to comment on matters of fact.





You continue to make classical mistakes based on ACC socially engineering such as thinking fairway staff have some form of authority. If you think that You have the basis for your rationale please identify the foundation of your perception just so we can determine for ourselves whether or not you feel somehow objectified to someone who claims authority without authorisation. In other words where in the legislation can you show their way to have any position in any of this.



0

#39 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1903
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:07 PM

i would apart of controversies of opinion among a few disgruntled claimants , the person of reckoning as in if a court hearing as in mr thomas , would then give an outcome of a if the man has credibility of a win or loss financially or vocationally
0

#40 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1903
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 22 January 2015 - 04:09 PM

the matter still rests in the courts hands , as in allans next court appearance. once again
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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