[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 22 January 2015 - 07:05 PM, said:

The problem is not only a judge to believe me but rather a judge to hear me.
The persistent problem I have had is that the ACC have always managed to be one step ahead of the judicial procedure and prevent the judge from ever seeing any form of exhibits such as medical reports.

The Court of Appeal expressed concern that it would be a pity for the junior courts to be continuing to Be making decisions based on jurisdictional issues and failing to hit the substantive issues. Obviously we are rapidly heading back in the direction whereby insurance companies would manipulate judicial procedures to prevent hearing of the substantive matters which caused the ACC to come into existence in the first place. However now we are worse off because we have one insurance company that is a monopoly.

We cant whip up kindly Judges to spend another four or so years on a case that has already been heard in the criminal court, the Acc court (right up to the top) and now a whole lot of reviews coming through which someone if taken seriously will have to read all and see if they have been bought up before if the have they are res judicata and if they are not rejudicata, you could be accused of abuse of process. Full stop!!

This is probably what is going to happen in the end. Then you have nothing.

I admit they did an absolutely sloppy job on the investigation into your business's before they accused you of fraud. But it doesn't matter now, because any small points put altogether that are not in your favour are what has got you bound hands and feet. The precise reasons your are really guilty of fraud are going to be many, through many departments of govt.

You have the answers, but you don't show us when we ask, so don't expect anyone here to help you. It is tiresome and out of most peoples range of education.

Besides they cannot answer with just your dribs and drabs that you let out.

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 24 January 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

Doesn't anyone of you wonder why the first case of Thomas is in 2003 but he was taken off ACC for fraud in 1998. For five year all that happen was the civil case. No one challenaged ACC for anything at all. Totally unbelievable. Wag the tongue, whinge and moan, but never ask them through the law why sec 71, 73a and 73b were never carried out. Never ask for a capacity test through the ACC courts. This would have solved the problem instantly if Alan Thomas was correct that he could not work.

Never even think of asking for a occupational test from a well respected specialist, using his own money. (which he had, remember the $10,000 difference in the bank accounts.)

Also remember that this claimant had been many years on ACC w/c and knew the ropes so well that he had a grant from them for education in business. So he was not a newbie who knew nothing of ACC act and what was allowed and what was not. This is but a small bit of what the judge took into consideration.

Why did he have no Lawyer who was actually dedicated to the ACC law, and no occupational specialist report to use as defence?

The questions are endless and pointless to go over again on here for the umpteenth time.

Mini

Mini the files show that my complaint made to the ACC complaints investigator was in my favour and that the ACC was required to either disclose the information in their possession or rescinded their decision. With regards to my appeal to the reviewer the reviewer adjourned because the ACC had made no disclosure and did not reconvene before deciding nnot to disturb the ACC decision. There was no review hearing of whether or not I was working because the ACC had made no disclosure preventing the possibility of the matter being heard. I appeal the reviewers decision to the district court that ACC asked the court registrar to suspend my right to be heard indefinitely with the result that I was unable to have a hearing at all concerning whether or not I was working. By 2006 the court decided to start the appeal processes and directed the ACC to release the information they relied upon for the decision. ACC did not release that information at the court continued on anyway not to determine whether or not I was working but an entirely different question of fact it was not contained within the cancellation of my claim decision. In fact the court decided that the ACC were not allowed to cancel anybody's claim to that part of the decision I won. As there was no information about work the court decided to determine for itself whether or not I continue to be incapacitated which is the issue the court decided the ACC should have decided upon. However the ACC had never carried out any assessment procedure concerning degree of incapacity. The ACC did not even have the information necessary to determine degree of incapacity as they had no information about my preinjury work task activities and had no information concerning alleged work activity after being injured up until the time they cancelled the claim. Judge Barber's decision you already know. The problem is judge Barber did not make a decision based on either the cancellation of claim letter or any information because there wasn't any. In this situation there is no possibility of challenging a decision of fact because there were no facts. However judge Barber simply invented the facts to support an end of entitlement decision and then processed those invented facts through s37A as the ACC should have done with real facts. In doing so judge Barber has taken on the medical medical profession with his magical powers of determining whether or not someone is lying about the injuries and other matters.

[Alan Thomas]

My responses in blue

MINI, on 24 January 2015 - 01:30 PM, said:

...

Never even think of asking for a occupational test from a well respected specialist, using his own money. (which he had, remember the $10,000 difference in the bank accounts.)
What $10,000 difference in bank accounts?
Is there some money I don't know about?
The money needed to pay ACC occupational assessment could only come from my invalids benefit who is to load the money because i could not get the advanced to pay her.


Also remember that this claimant had been many years on ACC w/c and knew the ropes so well that he had a grant from them for education in business.
The business course was about $350. It paid for my fiance to be on the same course. When enquiring with the course supervisor it turns out that the ACC didn't even pay their bill so after some time they simply gave up dealing with the ACC. It is quite common for the ACC not to pay their bills orderlies to pay the bills very very late.

So he was not a newbie who knew nothing of ACC act and what was allowed and what was not. This is but a small bit of what the judge took into consideration.
I saw the course advertised in the newspaper. I told the course supervisor that I was on ACC and they made the arrangements for me to beyond the course. As it turns out there is no information on my file to do with the course. Mini what you think the "judge took into consideration"?.

Why did he have no Lawyer who was actually dedicated to the ACC law, and no occupational specialist report to use as defence?
ACC prevented my having any lawyer. I arranged for an occupational specialist to produce reports as part of my appeal. ACC should have commissioned an occupational specialist before making a decision not argue with the specialist after the decision. Mini you need to sort out a new head the nature of an appellant and defendant or claimant and respondent.

The questions are endless and pointless to go over again on here for the umpteenth time.
Mini does seem to me that you are simply flailing your arms about ranting and raving asking questions without even knowing why you asking questions. I would expect more from a person with your claim background .

Mini

Mini I have answered your issues in good faith that you had those issues somehow connected with the 118 appeals to the district court. Which appeal do you think relates to your questions and issues?

[Alan Thomas]

I have zero memory failure and have superior levels of cognizance.

My observations of the tagteam is that they raise issues and ask questions that have no relationship to the issues. This is a common traits for people who have no legitimate argument. For example even judge Barber asked questions to issues that had no argument. ACC been fully aware of the extent of my disabilities cancel my claim on what they thought was a technicality which turned out not to be the case as confirmed by their own legal counsel. As the 1997 decision had no basis in fact or law judge Barber helped the ACC out by describing what the ACC should have done and allow the ACC to find the facts to support what should have been done in an attempt to remake the decision that they should have made 10 years after the fact. However ACC gathered the wrong information but armed with this wrong information judge Barber then made a decision to the ACCs liking by inventing his own information which was entirely based upon his imagination and perception that I had lied to the medical profession regarding the extent of my injuries not realising that I have never said anything to the medical profession about my injuries and letter for them to discover my injuries themselves, which by the way are self-evident.

In 1997 the ACC cancel my entire claim and disregarded me entirely for the next five years then made it known that my claim was not cancelled even though they did not make a new decision to that effect of invited and accepting payment for medical treatment and other entitlements. The ACC then engaged in an on-again off-again relationship which resulted in a considerable number of review hearing applications concerning decisions the ACC had made to calculate entitlements then not doing so creating a delay of process or simply making outrageously wrong decisions such as determining I need no home help following their assessor saying it needed seven hours per week home help. Agreeing to pay the medication one year and then stopping the medication payments and not reinstating them despite the process of the medical profession. Agreed to fund PTSD treatment and then not active paying their bills surrounding the various elements of that treatment. It is for this reason that there is a whole host of review hearing applications that have accumulated in the 15 years since the cancellation of claim 1997. To add to the difficulty there have been additional claims regarding additional injuries of which the ACC failed to process the claim automating in my favour and disregarding their duty to determine liability. This is what happens when the ACC staff become wilful and disobedience legislation. As the ACC have no factual legal basis for their behaviour they then embark upon a course of action to discredit me with the assistance of their go to guide and wannabe go to guys.

The ACC process of defamation has extended to influencing the judiciary despite the fact that we would think the judiciary were people of greater intellect. The advice that I have been given by some of the best legal minds in New Zealand is that we are living in what can only be described as a banana republic. After all we are only about four times bigger than Fiji so what can we expect.

As for my submissions to the judiciary they are always comprehensive and full. Unfortunately they are simply not read as judge Barber acknowledged in his decision. Instead he relied upon the ACC impression about what my submissions were about. It would be as if the court registrar failed to provide judge Barber with my submissions. As for my submissions to the current circumstance regarding 118 appeals it is unimaginable to believe that the Courier delivered to the wrong address with them ultimately ending up in the possession of the ACC instead of the district court registry. This is most unusual and nothing we can even say bizarre Yet by no means unusual in relation to matters concerning my case.

[Alan Thomas]

You said you cannot respond to the original incapacity or the confirmed incapacity as per the following.

"RE MY EARLIER COMMENT : IMHO Alan will NOT be able to litigate on this *4 kg wrist/ right dominant hand capacity* issue with his covered injury or extant claim if THREE High Court Judges have dismissed the substance of these types of arguments, claims, & allegations etc"

It seems that you are unaware that this issue has not yet gone to court. The ACC although having the information has not yet replied with a fresh decision despite legislation requiring the reassessment of their original decision and current status when receiving such additional. You will of course be aware of the legislation that does require ACC to reassess from time to time and also to rescind form of decisions whether they be for or against the appellant or the ACC so as to reflect reality. This section of the legislation prevents the ACC from making a decision based on some anomaly in law or from benefiting from any of its mistakes. As the information confirming the medical information to be correct throughout the course of this claim is so overwhelming the ACC are required to make a fresh decision despite the decision of judge Barber who has taken an opposite view to the medical profession. In other words with this additional information ACC are unable to continue to rely upon the incompetence of judge Barber's medical expertise.

Judge Powell relying upon the decision of judge Barber to the effect that is it is a legal decision that I no longer incapacitated so as for Judge Powell to ignore the ongoing medical information that I am not able to meet the deadlines will of course be unravelled as the reality of my disabilities filters through the the judicial processes. These things do take time and it would be helpful if you were more cognisant of the fact that are being presented rather than taking a contrary view all the time solely for the purposes of your ongoing attempts to destroy my reputation all the more and even beyond what the ACC and the courts have done thus far.

We must remember that the judges are merely servants of what is put before them and that judge Barber and Powell for example Have just responded to what the ACC have put before them. Whether or not they have properly heard the matter is a separate issue that in time will be dealt with by the appellant courts.

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 03:04 PM, said:

ATTENTION ALL READERS

Please note this new initiative that I do consider is deliberate rule breaching but instead feel I have been forced to adopt a NEW STRATEGY to cope with the high volume of alans postings because the material he is uploading is hijacking discussions everywhichway PLUS is slowing me down

I shall requite the posting in order to provide a space for me to return and make my responses as fast as I can and edit each tag setting. If any members are following this thread I apologise in advance and can only suggest that checking my uploads every now and again may be helpful perhaps

Sorry I do not have fancy voice software and computers here which is disadvantaging and interrupting the evolution of linked material IMHO


Alans comments in blue

Is that your intention to promote legal processes to get to the truth of the matter or is it your intention to use the judiciary to discredit me and steal my entitlements by blindly following the ACC instead of the medical profession?

What I have noticed thus far is your propensity towards sheepishly following the mistakes of others who have authority to enforce their mistakes rather than coming to a discussion with an open mind to look at both sides of the situation supported by the purity of legislation. This is typical of someone with a subservient type mentality which throughout history unfortunate is the majority of any given population. There are very few independent thinkers that are prepared to stand up against corruption. Evil will prevail while good men do nothing and by doing nothing I mean simply following a long like sheep.

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 03:08 PM, said:

Bit more tricky as Alan has manipulated the posting of another member

I will sort this Alan blag when I can, but yup now I shall minimise it as well to show it has not YET been corrected or acknowledged

Quite the contrary I have simply unravelled the confusion of a person who did not have possession of any facts and assumed that other people's assumptions were solidly based.

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 03:10 PM, said:

Nearly missed this blagg too sorry

BBL to deal with this blagging too />

This is very solid evidence of someone just Flailing their arms about Without a proper rational argument

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 03:12 PM, said:

MORE blagging rrrgggghhhhh

Again more flailing of the arms about without a rational thought.
This puts this Post a in exactly the same category as Kenneth Millers post , please the big red letters and obscenities. We do however see that type of little faces, to both

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 03:14 PM, said:

And this one too

NB to readers I may have to update each posting in stages as I will try to locate evidence from the Judgements and use the Court material for timelines & referencing the linkages etc />

Again endorsing the ACC and judiciary after this stage whereby shooting first and asking questions later is commonplace.

This was indicative of someone who makes emotional decisions and then seeks to justify them later.

In my case I have been seen as someone owning a number of companies and apparently prospering from owning those companies and having my entitlements axed without any connection to legislation simply because of a knee-jerk reaction whereby the common held belief is that the ACC is run in much the same way as social welfare for getting that it is our capacity to earn that is insured and not a capacity to make profit.

Within the attachment to the above posting additional words were added into my thread that was quoted with the following

"RE MY EARLIER COMMENT : IMHO Alan will NOT be able to litigate on this *4 kg wrist/ right dominant hand capacity* issue with his covered injury or extant claim if THREE High Court Judges have dismissed the substance of these types of arguments, claims, & allegations etc"

It would seem that the poster is not reading my contributions to this thread it has become quite confused. The additional evidence subsequent to surgery has not been presented to any court and as such it would be impossible for the court to ever ever made any kind of comment. As my benefits from a recent surgery have not yet been further calibrated and reported on because of the time it takes to heal and settle I have needed to wait for a comprehensive report from a recognised and qualified medical professional. The ACC have been directed by the reviewer to commission such an assessor in the ACC had delayed the assessment in the hope that I would recover a little further. However in the meantime the ACC have been provided with sufficient information to go ahead with a new decision anyway. They simply don't need the finite details which is just being used as an excuse to waste a few more years without compliance with legislation. However three times I have one review hearings that required the ACC to begin the assessment process within 20 days.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 24 January 2015 - 03:20 PM, said:

Again endorsing the ACC and judiciary after this stage whereby shooting first and asking questions later is commonplace.

This was indicative of someone who makes emotional decisions and then seeks to justify them later.

In my case I have been seen as someone owning a number of companies and apparently prospering from owning those companies and having my entitlements axed without any connection to legislation simply because of a knee-jerk reaction whereby the common held belief is that the ACC is run in much the same way as social welfare for getting that it is our capacity to earn that is insured and not a capacity to make profit.

Classic bullshit from Mr Thomas , normal when all court judgements just don't suit his latest illusions of importance .?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 24 January 2015 - 03:23 PM, said:

Classic bullshit from Mr Thomas , normal when all court judgements just don't suit his latest illusions of importance .?

Actually the ACC have acknowledged shooting first and asking questions later. The ACC did confirm that they did not know what the work task activities of the preinjury occupation was and asked the judge if they could introduce a late. As the ACC had not yet acquired the information that they expected to find they need a considerable extra time for their private investigators to go and find information. Notwithstanding that problem I had already made my submissions together with exhibits describing what my preinjury work task activities were.

There was a gunfight in ACC came to the gunfight without any bullets in their gun.
In effect judge Barber allow the ACC to go away and find their bullets and then disregarded my artillery altogether as acknowledged in his decision.

As the ACC only acquired information after I was injured while I was on light duties the ACC "bullets" did not even fit their gun.



Botch up after botched up incompetency after incompetency that has been nonetheless fixed by way of authority rather than medical fact.

What a wicked Web they weave

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 23 January 2015 - 09:18 PM, said:

Are you saying that I should agree with ACC and the judges
and
Are you saying that I should disagree with the whole medical profesion?

Are you saying that I should not be correcting the ACC and judges?

Why don't you acknowledge that as I have had an artificial wrist joint that only gives me four KG and that my pre-work activities which required more than four KG at no stage was ever possible that my injuries could have resolved which can only result in the confirmation of the ACC liability which means that the ACC have been producing false documents and committing perjury to mislead the judges While at the same time seriously defaming my name in socially and hearing the likes of yourself to believe that all of these court cases have been a serious breach of human rights being is not just to my own in an extraordinary large number of fellow claimants? Please give reasons for your answer supported by legislation. When you go through this process you are going to realise the impossibility of both Barber J and Powell J decisions which by all accounts are completely and utterly abusive in as much as the way they had gone about business fragmented disabled people entirely unable to gain access to the judicial system by what can only be described as witch dunking as the mechanism they have followed to get where they have got.

Is anonmousey doing a review of your whole right to e/r/c Alan Thomas.

To do what she has done and give you the information she has, has taken the likes of a very patient saint. I have never seen so much effort go into one case in all my years on this thread by a claimant.

You are very lucky to have her, to help you to the extent of research she is going.

She should be getting paid for this information.

If you do not take it seriously you are very stupid although she does come to the same outcome as I do and that is that you will be found abuse of process soon, on all your requests for homehelp and toothbrushes and even e/r/c.

Mini

[greg]

MINI, on 24 January 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

Is anonmousey doing a review of your whole right to e/r/c Alan Thomas.

To do what she has done and give you the information she has, has taken the likes of a very patient saint. I have never seen so much effort go into one case in all my years on this thread by a claimant.

You are very lucky to have her, to help you to the extent of research she is going.

She should be getting paid for this information.

If you do not take it seriously you are very stupid although she does come to the same outcome as I do and that is that you will be found abuse of process soon, on all your requests for homehelp and toothbrushes and even e/r/c.

Mini

Unfortunately mini , I think his ego is so full of his belief that he is so superior to us claimants , or he is just to
thick to realise someone is offering help . I go with the first version.

[Alan Thomas]

My comments in blue

MINI, on 24 January 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

Is anonmousey doing a review of your whole right to e/r/c Alan Thomas.
I don't think so as the 118 cases before the court she is addressing in this thread relates to many different issues including ERC in relation to other claims.

To do what she has done and give you the information she has, has taken the likes of a very patient saint. I have never seen so much effort go into one case in all my years on this thread by a claimant.
She actually hasn't given any information. What she has done is gone through various judgements to find criticisms against me to the fame my name. There has not been a critical I over any of my case history concerning the nature of my claim, injuries and incapacity but rather an incredible effort to maintain the status quo without any dependence upon legislated criteria. There appears to be no interest whatsoever in the basis of my claim or the hierarchal cascading logic necessary to go from the beginning to the end which unravels the way in which decision makers have failed.
With regards to the ferocity of the effort this is merely an indication of someone with a compulsive obsessive disorder who are seeking the approval of others. It is really quite sad but we have seen this is commonplace. You undoubtedly recall David Butler and Douglas weal suffering from similar problems 2007-2008. Obviously you are unaware of the ACC Department that seeks out such individuals who they cultivate for the purposes of being their informants. Douglas weal for example of a themselves as an informant when writing claiming he has "high-value information" and even produced an extensive report supporting what he thought was relevant exhibits using the name of his dog as the author and when questioned under oath he confessed to gaining unauthorised access to my computer. We also see Kenneth Miller providing a computer expert unauthorised access to the site for the purposes of downloading the entire site.

You are very lucky to have her, to help you to the extent of research she is going.
I do not feel that I am lucky with people like you in her about. No one can feel lucky being stalked by someone with the compulsive recessive disorder.

She should be getting paid for this information.
She probably is being paid. I thought that would be pretty obvious. Maybe she wants a car.

If you do not take it seriously you are very stupid although she does come to the same outcome as I do and that is that you will be found abuse of process soon, on all your requests for homehelp and toothbrushes and even e/r/c.
I do not seriously consider the opinion of those who are suffering from delusions of grandeur, narcissistic personality disorders, compulsive obsessive disorders and those who have a history of substance abuse their obvious intellectual deficits. I do take being stalked very very seriously and have already informed the police in regards to the tagteam of which you and her are members.

With regards to abuse of processI am taking action against the ACC in regards to this very problem. Asking a reviewer to adjourn because the ACC had no information support the total cancellation of my claim on the basis that I had successfully rehabilitated into a new occupation, company manager and immigration consultant, was the first judicial abuse of note. This was followed by ACC obtaining a very large number of search warrants are not just my property bank accounts and suchlike but also invaded the privacy of others with their bank accounts were examined despite the fact they had no connection with the whatsoever. When the ACC discovered by way of search warrant that there was no information that I have ever worked would generate any earnings that should have been an end of the matter but arrogantly the ACC then initiated a private criminal prosecution anyway. In order to succeed with the private criminal prosecution the ACC refused to release the information back to my possession that confirmed that I was not working and have still kept it until the present. Committing perjury to the court registrar to apply for a search warrant by claiming directors were not entitled to ACC then using that search warrant to steal and keep information useful for my defence is a perversion of the course of Justice of the most horrific level. Perhaps the most serious abuse of process was when the ACC asked the court registrar to suspend my right to appeal indefinitely whereby took almost 10 years to get the matter back in the court and even then the ACC refused to inform the court that it never had any information that a claim.The most tragic abuse of process was when the ACC asked immigration services to deport my pregnant wife back to China claiming that he was not needed for my defence when I had secured a special purpose permit photo to attend the court case for the purposes of giving evidence given that she is the only actual witness to my activities 24 hours a day seven days per week for a number of years. The horror story simply goes on and on and on.

Mini when the ACC received medical information describing something For the purposes of obtaining an entitlement, do you think it is okay for the ACC to disregard that medical information based on their own intuition and powers of persuasion to achieve a court decision in their favourAs an alternative to the medical information?

Mini

[greg]

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?.

[greg]

anonymousey, on 24 January 2015 - 04:55 PM, said:

yet another manipulation by alan with a posting by 3rd party member to be unravelled imho

[color="#4169E1"][size="1"]

Why bother , If he has some info you may need continue , but as there has continuously been
no honestly offered from Mr Thomas ,teeth are easily.

[Alan Thomas]

Mine in Blue

greg, 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 was!!!


It would appear most just exist inside Mr Thomas brain .
Why would you say such a thing???

Produce some documents to backup any of your claims used in the courts?.
I already have. What type of issue would you like supported?

[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 24 January 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:

Unfortunately mini , I think his ego is so full of his belief that he is so superior to us claimants , or he is just to
thick to realise someone is offering help . I go with the first version.

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

[greg]

Alan 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

You have no court documents to post that support your claims except in your internal A Thomas world.
I have changed my view , He is that thick and just simply lives in his dream world of his own.
Might be time to just ignore any future posts from Mr Thomas ,
which maybe a reason to believe , he must have an unstable mind in need of some serious help.