ACCforum: Norris v ACC case NZACC46 - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Norris v ACC case NZACC46 ACC would not recognise Alan Thomas as spokesperson

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 18 August 2015 - 06:47 PM

,
2

#2 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 19 August 2015 - 10:44 AM

Ive only been to Court twice as in D/C

the 1st time, I had NO KNOWLEDGE that my medical file had deliberately been withheld, and that leave of court directions were abused by acc...

the Judge got miffed waiting for the info, (which was provided to acc, and never sent to the judge, as there is NO referencing of said documents)


so in the fight to get into Court a second time, while it was on the issue of VI only....my 170 supporting statements of irrefutable evidence, covering 300 pages told the Judge the STORY OF HOW I CAME TO BE IN THE COURTROOM THAT DAY

the Judge appears to have investigated further, as she has written learned comments, not exact words from my medical file...and taken her time to read the EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO QC STANDARDS...


PRESENTING THE TRUTH, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE, FACTS, MEDICO LEGAL DIAGNOSIS AS DETERMINED BY HIGHLY QUALIFIED SPECIALISTS AND REMAINING DIGNIFIED, CALM, AND ARTICULATE IS WHAT WON THE DAY....

so while I was just there for VI....all issues were presented to the Judge and ruled upon in a Court of Law....


and my journey continues.....
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2015 - 11:05 AM

View PostAurora, on 18 August 2015 - 10:13 PM, said:

[38] I consider that, on the facts of this case, the Corporation acted unreasonably. It has been said before that the suspension of entitlements is a grave step that should only be taken for sound reasons. In this case the Corporation had initiated a flawed process of assessment by failing to provide information to the assessor. In my view it was not reasonable to suspend the appellant's entitlements on the ground that he failed to give an unqualified authority for the Corporation to obtain the assessment. There was a clear reason why the Corporation could not use the assessment and the Corporation should first have addressed that problem and only then taken action under s 117 of the Act affecting the appellant's entitlement.


No idea why this Judgment was posted - brilliant find!!

Lodged another OCI complaint on this basis as scu sent me to 3 assessments in 2011 and 2012 and failed to advise ANY of the assessors that I had 2 covered injuries.

I am applying to have all 3 assessments removed - this Judge says scu can't rely on them!!

Of course they did - TWICE - to decline entitlements. I didn't know of this judgment then!!

Failing that if ACC or scu send them to ANY further assessments I will simply review the assessment on the basis that scu are using flawed reports!!

SCU are idiots exposing themselves like this!!!!

Obtaining flawed assessments is a waste of taxpayer time and monies!!

Grow up scu!!


Thank you.

The ACC were attempting to shift the onus upon the claimant when in fact the ACC should have disclosed the information provided to them by the medical profession whereby only one possible conclusion would be the outcome. The ACC were attending to create conflict and confusion whereby the claimant would end up being in a no win situation. This approach given the circumstances was the appropriate thing to do as the ACC would not communicate with the claimant prior to my involvement and particularly when I was involved. When legal counsel became involved the ACC still would not cooperate relying instead upon the of brute bureaucratic force until justice enforced what I had set in motion.
2

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2015 - 11:08 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 19 August 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

In my recently released file records Aurora- I noted that some supportive specialist assessments were completely missing & the few others less helpful or accurate that were remaining on ACC computers are also flawed and unreliable too Aurora. However there was also zero information disclosed to me under my data request about ANY of these reports or questions that were being provided to the 3rd party assessors - thus I cannot comment upon risks of bias or manipulations & errors by casemanagers that occurred before any of my meetings ie unlike this claimant, I never got copy of my referral forms back then nor since Posted Image

RE :

[12] ACC has not provided any additional documentation to Mr Cowden other than what is noted on the referral form and I have enclosed a copy of the referral form for your information.

You do however have a copy of your claim file in your possession. If you feel you would like to disclose particular documents to the assessor please take along your file and make available any documentation that you wish to do so.


I am not sure if you also noted these highlighted statements Aurora - but the way I read them saddened me as it appears the client participation and autonomy significantly deteriorated as this dispute and strife escalated perhaps? The way it looks to me is that after the the multiple conflicts with the spokesperson had taken hold then the necessary information decisions completely swung the other way right into casemanager hands unfortunately BUT fortunately the CMs then made mistakes etc

IMHO it is great that the advocate Ms A J Douglass identified the technical process steps and missing material when these casemanagers made their mistakes during the conflict circumstances etc Not sure though if all of this strife could have been avoided in the first place - nor how this claimant may feel about any apparent loss of previous goodwill or positive relationship with ACC &or the hardship suffered ie until another advocate came to their assistance etc


You are being somewhat of a cheeky monkey coming onto the site reading someone's post and judgement and then imagining reality and then giving your advice based on that imagination. Please curb your ego and never again let your imagination take the place of the facts which you clearly don't know.
2

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 19 August 2015 - 02:19 PM

My response in blue

View Postanonymousey, on 19 August 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

fyi Alan

I can read the postings above from Aurora or other members PLUS the various facts as described within the reported court decision from Judge Ongley ... and then yup even come to my own opinion &or clearly disagree with your POV Posted Image
you can neither read nor form an opinion about the judgement given in as much as you are not even focusing on the issue of the decision.

The bottom line is that the judge ruled as I knew he would have to do for the rule of law which requires ACC to collect and provide the proper complement of information to the assessor and may not hold back information that will financially benefit the ACC. Obviously the judge could not possibly endorse the ACC committing such a criminal act as the matter would then escalate into the criminal Court if the judge allowed the ACC to indulge in such nonsense.

The legislation did not enable irrelevant criticisms to be made.


In fact I know other members and readers can think for themselves too Alan
I doubt very much if you know anybody who can actually think let alone think for themselves.


I also know that I have little time for your mindreading efforts about reality when opinions are different to your POV alan
At no point in my life have I ever attempted to read anyone's mind. I most certainly would not want to poke a stick at your mind for the same reason I wouldn't get into a muddy puddle to help get someone clean.


ps I also did not give any *advice* here in this thread Alan. I simply shared some of my opinions about this case and some issues therein
When you use phrases such as you don't know but... And then go forward to say something the wording of your sentence does not indicate that you have formed an opinion because you have or is said you don't know. However your manipulative technique does influenced weak minded people. This is where the saying comes "the blind leading the blind" comes from.



0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 11:37 AM

Consent belongs to the individual.

There is no possibility that any ordinary person would provide the ACC with their consent and continue to endorse that consent with the full knowledge that the ACC was misrepresenting the facts of the matter to a third party. Clearly a claimant's consent does not go that way.

The judge of the ruling you have quoted is quite clearly an error on this point as clarified by Judge Powell recently with regards to the ACC 167 consent form whereby the wording in that form was worded in such a way that the ACC were easily able to read into that consent form an allowance to do exactly what I have described. In fact that consent form even allows the ACC to believe that they have obtained the claimant's consent to conduct a private investigation and obtain information from those who have absolutely no knowledge nor qualification to provide any information to the ACC yet we find that the ACC do indeed acquire information from such persons and provide that information to various assessors while removing information from the most highly qualified professionals whereby the assessor is being led with predetermined information sets so as to enable the ACC to acquire a report to their own liking. ACC have become so callous to what they are doing that they have been doing this blazingly in front of the claimant and using stand over tactics or bureaucratic thuggery to impose information that they know is wrong to an assessor in order to have a false document produced for their own financial advantage. Yet you seem to imagine that a claimant's consent extends to the point where that type of going on is allowed. You must be as naive as the judge you have quoted in conjunction with a total incapacity to comprehend the law on these matters of consent together with the ACCs duty to administer the act in accordance with the legislation which they are clearly not doing in these circumstances. the thought that someone can address the situation after the fact is sheer nonsense and the judge should be properly ashamed of himself by suggesting such nonsense given the history of the situation whereby 70% fail review hearing and 70% fail at district Court level primarily through a multibillion dollar corporation with unlimited legal resources continuing in the same pattern.

We have been granted authority over our consent for a very good reason yet the ACC our surrender of that consent.

You seem to be promoting subservience and submissiveness in the capacity as a promoter of capitulation to the rule of law which by the way would make you a conspiracy with the lawbreaker who falsifies documents on the circumstances.

Teaching this philosophy to members of the site is exactly the same as the philosophy being taught to rape victims who go out and suffer the same experiences again and again. I often wonder about your modus operandi and what makes you tick. You appear to have been severely damaged and for that you have my sympathy however you must learn from your life experiences and learn to rely upon the law and stand up for what is right if not for yourself for others.
1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 01:30 PM

The simple fact of the matter regarding the issue of consent is that subsequent to judge Powell identifying the wrongdoing in his decision, which is consistent with my viewpoint that I have defended, the ACC have now acknowledged their wrongdoing.

How on earth can you reconcile your above nonsense when the ACC themselves now recognise their wrongdoing?



Your last comment, In red, in response to my previous comment in blue identifies the floor in your capacity for cascading logic supported by the superior facts produced by the medical profession and suchlike. It is arrogance alone that cause people to place their own impressions and assumptions ahead of those who have a superior capacity and grasp of reality who rely upon scientific technique to establish truth. Given that the absolute force of proof beyond reasonable doubt fact bypasses your capacity of comprehension demonstrates not just wilfulness on your part but more than likely psychological disturbances brought about by some form of brain damage unless of course you are simply corrupt and have a motive for your attack against me.

Sadly there are very large numbers of people who seek out assumptions made by third parties in order to support their own assumptions in order to then claim possession of the facts.

Not sure the relevance of this comment as certainly the members who have contributed to this thread have all referenced the Judgement as evidence to support their opinions. I will not comment on the remaining typical offensive and abusive comments uploaded by Alan

throughout your diatribe you make continual references to your assumptions in total disregard of the facts of which I have been personally and intimately acquainted. In other words I have read the medical reports etc that the ACC had excluded in favour of irrelevancies while you have not ever been in a position to acquaint yourself with the facts of this matter. your personal attack is not a replacement for real facts nor comprehension of the law as portrayed by Judge Powell and now accepted by the ACC.

It is difficult to understand why you continue supporting the ACC while the ACC have acknowledged their wrongdoing.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 03:07 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

I have once again highlighted this issue because of your continued denials and wordplay Alan

In another thread with some discussion on the Norris court Judgement, I made the following comment



I am of course referring here to the evidence contained within this judgement Alan AND the fact is that Judge Ongley states "Takapuna Branch" twice in his reported decision at paragraph #4



I am not sure if you are trying some toxic little wordgame here or not Alan but the Judge states *Takapuna Branch* so IMHO if you are trying terminology trickery such as office or agency or whatever then you have not supported such a statement

Furthermore in the likelihood that you are now going to try memory problems and mistakes about your ignorance over the fact that there was some ACC prescence in Takapuna - older members such as myself also recall other evidence to support opinions etc

For example, because you are still refusing to acknowledge the evidence before you derived from Judge Ongley - perhaps the following attachment which includes a fax number for the Takapuna Branch [which you uploaded yourself] may help you admit your error ... and then you can apologise ...


You appear to have published a stolen document. Please remove it immediately and tell me how you came in possession of that document which provides private intimations including my bank account number and tax number which could be used by a third party for dishonest activities.

I have made a complaint in regards to your objectionable behaviour designed to cause me harm.

You should be aware that the ACC provide the Court's false information on a routine basis. Causing a judge to believe that a Takapuna branch office exists resulting in the judge's placing such false information in his decision is clearly a criminal offence. the Takapuna branch office was shut down with all of those files and staff going to Albany which is almost 10 km away. Your using a stolen 20-year-old document does not establish the existence of an ACC Takapuna branch within the context of this thread as there has been no Takapuna branch for more than 10 years which covers the period of this discussion. your dishonest practice is no worse than the ACC propensity towards misrepresentation. Not only are you using a stolen document but you are also misrepresenting it to support your irrationality. It does seem that you are suffering from a very severe compulsive obsessive disorder which involves you stalking me. Obviously I must be concerned when someone who was stalking me is in possession of personal identification information and bank numbers.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 03:19 PM

Whenever any government department breaches or misrepresents a claimant's consent there can be no possible reason why that government department can somehow enforce the claimant's consent to the departments will. Consent is always limited and is never unfettered.

In the case of Mr Norris he did not provide ACC with his consent to misrepresent his injuries or disabilities by withholding reports or replacing reports with other persons impressions of which the ACC had no right to include in this file as those additions did not meet the criteria of legislation.

The wording of the ACC 167 form was argued by the ACC as some form of unfettered discretion for the ACC to do what they are clearly not allowed to do. Judge Powell without doubt upheld the claimants right to maintain control of their consent which did not need to go beyond the confines of the legislated criteria in regards to information gathering or dissemination. The ACC did not appeal and produced a new form. In other words any judgements prior to that decision of Judge Powell's has become redundant and irrelevant. Anybody using previous judgements are therefore miss representing the correctly understood interpretation of the law. If it is good enough for the ACC to accept the proper interpretation of law then you have no business misrepresenting the law on this site. It seems to me that you are something of a troublemaker simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

with regards to the assertion that the ACC had simply made a mistake that is absolute nonsense. I have first hand knowledge by way of extensive correspondence and discussion to know that the mistake hypothesis is complete nonsense but rather the ACC actions were both calculated and deliberate for the purposes of misrepresentation for a financial gain to themselves which was basically stealing from Mr Norris.
0

#10 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 August 2015 - 03:37 PM

Anonymousey,

please dont waste precious energy responding to this

Alan Thomas did to me, what he did to Mini a few weeks ago

He placed his own words into the body of a post i had written to make it appear I had added something extra

when pointing out what he also said, scripted in bright blue...which was defamatory, and so in line with another vitriolic thread that was pulled down (also captured I might add)

then POOF...it all mysteriously vanished.....

not even plausible deniability...just outright lies....

I now cant discuss what was written, as its been placed as Evidence....
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:24 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 21 August 2015 - 03:37 PM, said:

Anonymousey,

please dont waste precious energy responding to this

Alan Thomas did to me, what he did to Mini a few weeks ago

He placed his own words into the body of a post i had written to make it appear I had added something extra

when pointing out what he also said, scripted in bright blue...which was defamatory, and so in line with another vitriolic thread that was pulled down (also captured I might add)

then POOF...it all mysteriously vanished.....

not even plausible deniability...just outright lies....

I now cant discuss what was written, as its been placed as Evidence....


What a horrible lie.

I most certainly did not and would never tamper with anybody's posting.

Please apologise.

You know the rules if you want to make postings on this site. You simply cannot go round making a scurrilous claims of fact of which you have no basis to believe and you most certainly not defame fellow members of the site.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:30 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:

Oh my goodness Alan - what a load of rubbish

I have stolen nothing and your documents are STILL on display today within this forum

I am not sure who you have complained to Alan so I await their assessment and your apology! I can then delete the attachment once this independent person verifies that I have not stolen anything

FYI unfortunately because I can not easily share snaphots I have provided the URL and audit tags


YOUR UPLOADED DOCUMENTS



4 Attachments included
post-744-1178940385
post-744-1178940416
post-744-1178941271
post-744-1178941577


ps What law abiding citizen would be interested in the identity of a convicted criminal Alan. In fact NZ already has the dubious international distinction of a criminal already impersonating another criminal and being jailed for this crime Posted Image


I did not give you permission to publish my private information so therefore it is stolen.
The information you have gathered is in reference to the ACC accusing me of $1.3 million earnings and the nature of their investigation. that is plenty of motivation for anyone seeking to inflict harm upon me etc such as yourself.

Nonetheless you have used a document to misrepresent what you are claiming by using the document out of context.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:33 PM

anonymousey

Notwithstanding that you are repeating the mistake contained within a judgement to the effect that the Takapuna office existed at the time of dispute when it did not that does not mean that you are immune from tthe repercussions subsequent to repeating that same mistake after being corrected. You simply cannot make a statement of fact without knowing it to be true.information that the judge assumed to be true placed into his judgement does not make it so. Whether or not an ACC branch office servicing client needs exists as a matter of reality not a variety of people making statements of fact.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 04:39 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2015 - 04:19 PM, said:

Goodness out of all this blagging - yup IMHO there is only one paragraph which appears to have some relevance to the issues being discussed with purpose of this thread

Alan - please pay attention and try to comprehend my next sentence....

At no point does it seem that Judge Only considered that ACC tried to "misrepresent his injuries or disabilities by withholding reports or replacing reports with other persons impressions".


In fact it was the opposite finding described by Judge Ongley




Put simply, the judge was wrong.in any event the judge does not even claim what you wrote to be a fact when he uses the phrase ..."does it seem"... What we have here is the judge trying to write up something to provide an escape mechanism for the ACC knowing full well that the individual producing the false document designed for pecuniary advantage stands to face a criminal trial.

As I was the one directly communicating with the ACC and have the voice recordings I am in the unique position of knowing first-hand what the truth is well beyond what was made available to the judge. Again I must state the judge was wrong. the judge clearly was not aware that the ACC staff member involved point-blank refused to provide the relevant information to the assessor and instead deliberately withdrew that information to keep the information away from the assessor thus manipulating the outcome of reporting which is of course nothing less than insurance fraud.

Your practice of crossing out what I have written is much the same as an ostrich burying their head in the sand. Vast numbers of ACC claimants routinely complain about the manipulation of information going to assessors. Mr Norris's experience is by no means unusual or unique.
0

#15 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 21 August 2015 - 05:01 PM

thankfully i am tech savvy and learnt computing via DOS..

even better, i know someone who can remote my computer, and also get into things that i may possibly need to retrieve...deep web...

I wasnt sure it was able to be done on here, yet didnt doubt what Mini had said, was just a bit stunned that doing what was done to me today...just like acc does, was so freaking blatant!

as stated, what happened has been stored......and is a jurisdictional issue....


so no amount of baiting, asking questions, calling me a liar, whatever...(entrapment)....will work

to quote another resident troll....

I love my work, I really do! // lol
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 05:02 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2015 - 04:46 PM, said:

Good as gold NTV

RE : He placed his own words into the body of a post i had written to make it appear I had added something extra

Several years ago I highlighted this disturbing problem for a few additional reasons too FYI

For example, at one point when ACC were taking copies of material within this forum to place in real life courtrooms - then the risks of misrepresentation and deception escalated astronomically IMHO

Currently I believe that the owner and webmaster now should carry the burden of providing audited forensic exhibits &or financial proving the truth in any potential disputed material...

I also am concerned that nonsubscribed family members are particularly at risk of severe harm of their loved ones losing entitlements due to these risksI I refer to the use of our older postings possibly written by any vulnerable claimant still easily being exploited &or misrepresented etc IMHO it is also an extremely very fine line that must be logically connected to avoidable identify theft issues sadly. There were a couple of other concerns such as the necessity of having colour photcopying and faxing resources whilst this needless hardship is being condoned by this forum platform unfortunately

Thankfully it seems that the webmaster may have finally recognised the problem and legal risks he was managing and the quote block functions have been restored

Now this means there is no excuse for Alan to keep tampering with material on whim etc Sadly because of the wordgaming and spindoctoring and gobbing of the machine - it can become virtually impossible to isolate the different aspects of his blagging IMHO. Yup I also waste a lot of my time making sure I am being clear with my feedback and questions to Alan so this can be exhausting

ps because I am not IT or techsavvy - I find the abuse of the software robots to hide postings and threads deeply troubling. I have previously stated that I also consider this behaviour to be unacceptable trolling & corruption rather than responsible moderation ie no accountability and transparency


It seems to me that your imagination has got the better of you whereby you the author of your own stress.

It seems to me that you are a very imaginative person, and that is not a compliment, and that as a result of this imagination you are burdening yourself with many hardships. When you find yourself not being able to support your imagination with any facts you routinely change the subject and orchestrate a brand-new scenario/hobbyhorse with the main theme remaining exactly the same which is generally in my experience an attack against me despite there being no rational basis for that attack. This type of behaviour is consistent with that of a stalker and as such I would very much appreciated if you had a talk with your doctor who could refer you through to a psychiatrist/psychologist. I say psychiatrist because of the known conditions that you are suffering from
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 21 August 2015 - 05:49 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 21 August 2015 - 05:16 PM, said:

Sorry Alan - this spindoctoring is not going to change the central factor no matter how many times you try to rewrite your everchanging stories

This simple issue of your fraud files being managed by the Takapuna Branch was merely explored because YOU CONTINUE to deny this simple fact Alan

FYI the reason this public IRD document was used rather than the attachment of an ACC memo naming 2 female officers, from this branch, was because I was proactively trying to reduce the predictable abuse responses from you


I will say to you again my files have never been managed by anyone in Takapuna. My files were managed by Auckland and Henderson officers with the Henderson office making the decision to cancel my claim. Why on earth would you contradict the fact that I give you? Are you a complete idiot or is it that you are wilful and arrogant to the extent that you believe your own imagination over and above the facts? They're simply isn't any information to support your nonsense. Your behaviour is consistent with the ACC behaviour which makes you a very suspicious person.

The document you are referring to was informing IRD with information that it wished the IRD to reiterate back to the ACC. However the IRD confirmed that there was no information which of course is consistent with my not working leaving that line of enquiry for the ACC devoid of any information.
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 01:12 PM


anonymousey
From 1991 the Takapuna ACC branch office has moved several times within the Takapuna area. But the most recent move was over 10 years ago to Albany 10 km away and so there is no longer a branch office in Takapuna.

what is the driving force that causes you to quote our updated information to support your irrational conclusions after I have already corrected your mistakes?it sounds to me that your pride and arrogance has got the better of your good judgement to the point that if you are capable of such ridiculous behaviour of such simple things that you cannot be trusted on anything.




Your compositor recessive disorder compels you to persist and as you put it "ASAP" as if what you are doing is somehow important when of course it has absolutely no relevance to this thread whatsoever and I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make in any event except to stir up trouble. Talk about a dog with a bone...



0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 03:04 PM


anonymousey
I only ever dealt with the Albany office and I recall all of Mr Norris's meetings were with the Albany office. That means that the judge was wrong, plain and simple.if the judge has been caused to make such a basic mistake what other mistakes as he made. From what I have read of his judgement quite a few but this is by no means unusual and of course such mistakes are not even significant or relevant so I don't know why you are getting so heated up about these minor things. Try to focus on the points of law instead of getting sidetracked. Unless of course that is your intention in which case please leave.

Mr Norris did not lose his earnings compensation because of me. He came to me asking me to help him get his entitlements back and to maintain them. The problem is that you are believing ACC propaganda which has even had a profound effect on the judge. This is hardly surprising given that the ACC quarters a rather low-level court with the ACC being a multibillion dollar corporation exerting the level of pressure that only a multibillion dollar corporation can while I am no more than a fellow invalid with no legal training and very little experience. In these circumstances once the points of law and the integrity of the case is understood it is just a matter of standing steady, which of course what I suggested he do and what I did.

This thread is in relation to the ACC using bureaucratic thuggery in an attempt to force someone's consent to enable the ACC to manipulate the assessors by providing the assessor with false and relevant information for the sole purpose of denying entitlements. The judge has the feeling that the ACC have only made a minor error obviously not recognising the intensity and ferocity of their behaviour towards poor Mr Norris who was effectively being blackmailed into signing his consent away and condoning illegal behaviour. I was the only one listed up for him and even withstood a good handbagging from the judge and even yourself for my troubles. Nonetheless as this case run its course the court could not possibly conclude anything other than the fact that I was right.

The bottom line is that our consent is our own property for us to control alone and that the ACC cannot force us to consent to allow them to act unlawfully.
0

#20 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10601
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 03:07 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 22 August 2015 - 02:51 PM, said:

RE :the mistake contained within a judgement to the effect that the Takapuna office existed at the time of dispute

The legal judgement issued and signed by Judge Ongley which is examining and verifying the dispute STATES that an ACC Takapuna Branch existed in 2003 and 2005 qv paragraph 4.

fyi I also expect that various ACC letters written to Mr Norris or Mr Thomas originated from staff connected to this branch. I am however uncertain of exact locality base for the 2006 decision issued by a Reviewer involved.

NB I have previously explained why I consider the remaining blagging to be irrelevant fallacy that is seeking to distort and pervert historical events.

RE : "... does not mean that you are immune from tthe [sic] repercussions subsequent to repeating that same mistake after being corrected."

No idea what *repercussions* are being threatened here? Posted Image


I had no involvement with Mr Norris 2003. I understand that he transferred from the Owria office to the Albany office. I can't imagine why you have become fixated about the side issue that has no importance whatsoever other than to stroke your own ego. Please stop as you have the appearance of being a person that is totally out of control with a compulssive recessive disorder.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 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