Alan 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