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

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 05:27 PM

Do you believe this to be true? If so Why?
[10] Ms Vaughan's advice was documented in a file note dated 6 May 2005 and in particular, referred to her disquiet that Alan Thomas impersonated himself as a client and specifically introduced himself as Robert Norris over the phone.

[11] No issue has been taken by the appellant contesting Ms Vaughan's opinion that Mr Thomas personated [sic] the appellant on the telephone.

[13]... the Corporation had evidently formed the view that Mr Thomas posed a significant obstacle to the proper administration and discharge of its obligations to the claimant. The impersonation incident was only one reason for that view. Thus far the Corporation's objection to Mr Thomas did not appear unreasonable.


The recording shows a lie was told to the court

The judge then took it apone himself to expand the lie
1

#22 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 05:58 PM

You seem to be conveniently ignoring what Judge Powell has ruled and ACC accepted concerning cancelling entitlements based on the refusal to provide consent by way of the ACC 167 form.

The bottom line is with this regard I was right and the ACC were wrong along with both the reviewer and the dish a Court being wrong.
As the ACC have now accepted that they were wrong why can you not accept that you are wrong.

why do you not celebrate the fact that I was correct in my understanding of the law and that I stood by what was right through thick and thin
0

#23 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 22 August 2015 - 06:53 PM

My response in blue

View Postanonymousey, on 22 August 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

RE : [11] No issue has been taken by the appellant contesting Ms Vaughan's opinion that Mr Thomas personated [sic] the appellant on the telephone.
So are you claiming that Mr Norris's lawyer was incompetent. I would suggest that the ACC routinely falsify such circumstances on a routine basis and the bottom line is that such a mature red herrings that have nothing whatsoever to do with the critical issues are not worth the time of day nor needed the effort by the lawyer to refute such nonsense. However having said that the judge does seem to have been suckered in to the ACC little game of distraction from the real issues.


I believe that ONLY relevant supported truth evidenced in this court judgement so far Alan is that -
The only issue is whether or not there existed a clinical examination resulting in a diagnosis describing a disability and incapacity from the injury. Everything else is superfluous and not worth the time of day. The problem is that the ACC wanted to ignore the medical evidence readily available already on the file paid for by the claimant which provide proof beyond reasonable doubt of the incapacity which is needed for the measurement of the ACC liability.

1/ Mr Norris did NOT support your claim when his case was heard. ie when the issue of your impersonation was formally raised
I think they just ignored it as being irrelevant aand a waste of the court's time which is quite correct as it did not actually factor into the end result which was I was right and the ACC were wrong.

2/ Ms M C Kavanagh clearly did NOT supply your alleged audiofile to the court...
As I said that issue was irrelevant and did not need to waste valuable court time.


3/ I am uncertain if your audiofile was certified and thus recognised and validated as acceptable evidence to the court. ie any credible independent support missing
Mr Norris was in the room listing to the conversation and even as heard on the recording confirming I had his consent to speak on his behalf which further distances the ACC assertions from reality (proves they are lying). Whether or not the ACC lied has nothing whatsoever to do with the degree of disability and ACC duty to carry out the calculations based on the information already on file.


4/ Ms Vaughan was NOT questioned by any authority concerning professional malpractice. I am sure if there are professional ramifications for Ms Vaughan with regards to the serious issue of any potential charges of malpractice or misconduct etc
This case was not about malpractice it was about ACC's duty to calculate entitlements


5/ Judge Ongley referred several times to your impersonation behaviour so it was a significant issue emphasised as credible &or verified evidence IMHO. This disclosure however was only one factor that related to Ongley findings and support with ACC concerns that " Mr Thomas' intervention would be an obstacle to reasonable communications between the Corporation and the claimant."
There was absolutely no evidence to support the ACCs allegation left alone anything to support the judges belief in order that he makes the accusation is judgement. That type of behaviour is common with some of the junior judges who are not very experienced with deceptive practices and allow themselves to be easily sidetracked into the relevant issues.
Whether or not the ACC staff member truly believed I was Mr Norris is the end of the day totally irrelevant as it does not matter how the information is being transferred to the ACC as it is the message that matters. Notwithstanding that the recording does show that I clearly introduced myself, as did Mr Norris and we are clearly different people. tthe simple problem is that you have become fixated upon an irrelevancy which is what the ACC like to do with people like you so as you get all confused and totally disabled from looking at the relevant issue


6/ There is NO explanation given for the absence of any alleged audiofile with coverage of the dispute review matters!
As I said above that issue is irrelevant to the appeal but rather it is simply some form of an excuse by the ACC which is an empty excuse that does not in any way affect the ACC's relationship with their duties to calculate their liability.

I am just wondering now if you claiming that AT NO TIME before 20 November 2007 were you given any prior warning, knowledge or explanation by either Ms Vaughan, ACC officers, DRSL Reviewers, Mr Norris, and Ms M C Kavanagh of this matter Alan Posted Image
No one ever asked me. However if I was running the appeal in the district Court I would have adopted the exact same strategy as Mr Norris's lawyer which I believe was the correct approach, simply ignore the red herring as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of law or the relevant facts which is the ACC duty to calculate degree of their liability based on the measurement is derived from medical reporting.at the end of the day the ACC has the claimant's ACC 45 consent and needs no more consent than that as it covers everything. Mr Norris withheld nothing from the ACC. What actually happened is that the ACC were withholding information from the assessor and seeking Mr Norris's permission to withhold such information. it is the ACC duty to fund and acquire the information necessary to be providedto the assessor, not the claimant.

In fact this court Judgement shows me that aroundabouts 22 June 2005 - Mr Norris and you were both advised in writing!! paragraph [18] gives this information that Ms Vaughan wrote a cancellation report and to quote again, "The report noted that, after Mr Thomas had impersonated the appellant on 6 May some unsuccessful attempts were made in June to contact the appellant"
Mr Norris brought all as corresponds to me and instructed me to write a letter to the ACC. It is the ACC who were unwilling to communicate with me by responding to communications I wrote, despite the fact that Mr Norris told me what to say.

Therefore Alan - the fact is you specifically had several years of written notice concerning the written complaint about your *impersonation* behaviour. To stop any hardship and suffering by Mr Norris then clearly this was the time to correct the official record and supply the audiofile ...
An offer was made to the frontline ACC staff to play the recording but that they would not speak to me on the phone. Calls were made through to the manager with the same thing happened. What more could be done when the ACC refused to communicate in order to avoid confronting the fact that they had lied and the manager was supporting the lie.

You must appreciate that a very large number of ACC claims become traumatised by the behaviour of frontline ACC staff and find themselves totally unable to communicate. Frequently I have had to speak to experts concerning the suicidal idealisation of such ones. Mr Norris was not that far but he was severely disabled by the trauma they have created. Don't forget he was nearly killed by way of mismanagement by those who had responsibility to manage his well-being. This type of abuse does cause severe and long-term trauma. People like you compound the trauma because you have no training or expertise to deal with such long-term trauma and allow your arrogance to take precedence over their interests.


0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:52 AM

I have gone back and re-read the judgement.

Mr Norris''s lawyer understood quite clearly the position I had taken and represented that position to the court. In other words I did the ground work and she carried out the task of winning the case.

The lawyer presented the factual matters together with the points of law with precision and professionalism.

However the judge clearly did not comprehend what was before him, reconfigured what was said in accordance with this understanding and then also fail to understand the points of law involved concerning the control of one's private information and the integrity of one's consent.

In essence when the ACC failed to disclose information critical for an assessment the ACC have quite clearly breached the claimants consent for the ACC to provide the assessment with all the relevant information as required to legislation. The moment the ACC failed to comply with legislation the contract of consent becomes null and void.

Unfortunately the judge imagined that somehow Mr Norris wanted to edit or censor the actual report which is of course utter nonsense. All Mr Norris wants to have happened is that the ACC provides the specialist reports and suchlike on file relevant to the assessors needs to carry out the assessment. The assessor would then have freehand to proceed with the assessment process unhindered and with total independence as the law requires. What happened was that the assessor was informed that the ACC was in breach of the legislation to the extent that the consent issue had been compromised by the ACC and needed to be restored by the ACC providing the information on the file. It is not more complicated than that. Ultimately ACC has complied establishing that I was correct all along.

Now I'm not sure what all the fuss is about in this overwhelming need to defend the wrongdoing of others. Only a person with a capacity to be corrupt could go along with such corruption. I wonder what the motive is?
1

#25 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 01:11 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 25 August 2015 - 12:00 PM, said:

As I am still busy with other matters IRL, yup I shall respond to this posting in my own time Alan....

IMHO it is worse than your usual or typical spindoctoring trying to baffle and manipulate with bullsh*te and buzzwords etc

IMHO you are still trying to deceive readers about the Judge's findings here....


The judge's decision is only permitted to be in response to the appeal.

In this case the appeal was in the claimant's favour consistent with my advice.

However It is noticeable that many judges and indulge themselves in criticism of claimants in regards to matters that are not strictly part of the judgement. In this case the ACC refusal to deal with me is nothing to do with the appeal, as is the ACC's assertions that were put forward to encourage the judge to make numerous unwarranted and might I say unsubstantiated criticisms. What is quite bizarre as the judge swallowing the ACC unsubstantiated criticisms hook line and sinker as if he is some kind of go to guy for the ACC.
0

#26 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 August 2015 - 01:35 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 25 August 2015 - 12:01 PM, said:

In the meantime, I am posting another quick comment which should highlight why I still do NOT believe your various contradictions & claims of innocence regarding the abhorrent misconduct with impersonation Alan.

IMHO your story still has no credibility - plus I also have no doubt now that you are the author of any personal misfortune that allegedly existed ...

In the numerous comments above, I have already noted that you are blaming Mr Norris, his lawyer, & or accusing ACC staff, and numerous impartial or independent professionals of deception and corruption within your everchanging spindoctoring palaver

I disagree because I believe that you are the gameplayer still trying to prevent normal concerns about some facts reported in this official decision Alan....

FYI I have already evidenced the exhibits which demonstrate that you had several years of formal notification in order to present your *audiofile* but clearly you did not instead choosing to trivialise this matter as "wasting court time" or worse



IMHO you are very fortunate that ACC still do not have the modern technology and forensic countermeasures to support a civil restraining order against you Alan ...

I also think it is important that you remember the fact that you currently, plus at the time, were/are trespassed from all ACC branches! This would likely have influenced various staff to limit their verbal interactions with you IMHO Alan.

There would also of course be the official responsibilities and duties likely involved concerning *privacy* and *authority* with regards to Ms Vaughan and even Mr Norris relevant here IMHO...

So my question to you here is why did you NOT send a simple copy of the purported *audiofile* to Ms Vaughan? You could have easily done this electronically before Mr Norris lost his entitlements ie when you were officially notified about any of her concerns Posted Image

If you had simply emailed a digital copy of the audiofile to Ms Vaughan, then I believe she would have reviewed her report & misgivings; and as a professional she would corrected or amended the cancellation report within ACC file records; & specifically she likely would NOT let her opinion be used as an official court record etc

Likewise, in my POV, if Ms Vaughan listened to your audiofile BUT still believed you impersonated Mr Norris so there was zero conflict resolution here - then and only then - you could have notified her that you would email her managers &or the relevant senior referring ACC officers IMHO

RE your statement : "What more could be done when the ACC refused to communicate ..."

So the simple answer here is/ was send your purported *audiofile* at the right time to the right person Alan.


Also of course remember that trying to bully ACC officers to interact with you on the phone would be ironic considering your complaint, and totally inappropriate behaviour whilst there is an official trespass order placed against you Alan IMHO. Do not forget there was also clear written documentation that they would not recognise you as a spokesperson either. IMHO your obsessive unacceptable attitude that *they speak to you on the phone* would only have supported their decisions to manage you & your case demands from the Remote Claims Unit ...


You still have not indicated why you believethe ACC claims that I impersonated Mr Norris. The ACC have not put forward any evidence of any sort. They have not even described to the judge any legal basis for the comment to existed anyway as the nature of the communications between the ACC and the claimant are irrelevant as the only issue that matters is the information of which the ACC has a duty to collect which in this case they were exerting themselves vigourously not only to not to collect information but they were very calculatedly and deliberately seeking to collect information known to be wrong by the misrepresentation of the facts to their assessor thus seeking a false document for pecuniary advantage (insurance fraud)

With regards to the evidence of communications between myself and the ACC as it relates to Mr Norris I have stated to you already and I do not think I need to stated again but I will that ACC staff creating imaginary scenarios in order to create red herrings aren't worthy of my time or Mr Norris legal representatives time as the important issue is whether or not the ACC have fulfilled their information gathering duties by providing the assessor with all of the relevant information. Whether or not I've ever been involved or what the nature of that involvement was is completely irrelevant. the purpose for recording ACC is in the event that I am personally called to task or it becomes necessary to initiate criminal prosecutions against ACC staff. I'm not aware if this staff member placed in front of the court an affidavit to support your allegation or whether the judge made a decision based entirely upon hearsay. If there was to be any difficulties with this case necessitating a criminal prosecution of perjury for pecuniary advantage will then of course the communications evidence would be available.you must appreciate that ACC are engaging in this type of falsehood and misdirection on a routine basis with such a volume of false statements such as this occurring every day. It is not common for the judges however to be so easily duped and frankly we expect a higher standard of judges ruling on the ACC appeal itself.

You seem to be mistakenly assuming that the ACC would not communicate to me because of one of their staff believing I was portraying myself to be Mr Norris. And this of course you are entirely wrong. Gerald McGreevy had issued an email to all ACC staff forbidding anybody to have any communication interactions with me at the beginning of the millennium which is a circumstance that holds until the present. The ACC staff member involved did find herself communicating with me knowingly and fully aware of the wire was. It seems that she could not help herself. However it is highly likely that when she was taken to task about her wilful decision to communicate with me in direct contradiction to the Chief Executive's instructions she invented for herself an excuse. It seems to me that her excuse grew legs and got out of hand with other people quoting her without her having any direct knowledge that she had been quoted in court. I don't thing we need to be too hard on inexperienced naive and sometimes stupid frontline staff as sometimes their superiors place them in awkward situations. This young lady clearly did try to do her best to communicate and address the actual issues and for that she needs to be commended, not punished so perhaps you could send her a note of apology for interpreting on her behalf what actually happened without you having her permission to make such interpretations.

As I was Mr Norris's elected spokesperson with him informing the ACC of that fact there is no basis whatsoever for the ACC to challenge Mr Norris's right of free choice and decision. We do not live in a nanny state where the ACC have some kind of magical authority over Mr Norris in this regard. Put simply the ACC are not allowed to choose Mr Norris's spokespersons, representatives, legal counsel or whatever he feels he needs for whatever reason he has for his choice. With regards to ACC choosing not to speak to me they too have no legal basis for not speaking to me as legislation requires the ACC to communicate. The ACC are not able to point to any particular issue, confrontation or anything else to justify the position they have taken. It seems to me and numerous high end legal professionals that the ACC only want to deal with stupid people that they can dominate. In my case the ACC have more recently gone on to make false allegations in order to somehow justify their past behaviour towards me given the fact that there has been no substance to the position whatsoever. Clearly the ACC do not actually believe the allegations made by Douglas weal with regard to the surrounding facts of the matter inconsistent with their feigned fear within days of hearing his story. Neither the police involvement nor the court decision has changed the ACC's actual true position. By international standards the ACCs culpability in causing a false prosecution and conviction is something of a legend in other countries, particularly the USA but interestingly also countries like China, Thailand and even Russia with such behaviour is commonplace to the point that the general population are not so easily duped.

You have now raised the bar making a brand-new allegation asserting that I'm somehow blaming Mr Norris and his lawyer for something rather. Quite the contrary they have done exactly what I prescribed.. As for the medical profession involved with this case nothing they have reported could be brought into question here as Mr Norris's injuries are well defined and obvious with the reporting about them more than adequate.
0

#27 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 13 November 2015 - 08:14 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 12 November 2015 - 10:16 PM, said:

NB I have transferred this comment from another thread because Alan Thomas today sent a private message about reporting my comments. There were again absolutely no facts supplied with his abusive complaint & it appears just his predictable litigation threat sadly....


Mousey

I note that your writings are due to Alan Thomas dictatorial manner in wording of requesting certain procedure of the assessor.

For the benefit of all involved I decided to put one of my assessments forward as a request that gave me what alan Thomas is talking about.

I asked the assessor, not the ACC if I could look at his report to correct any errors, as it was very hard to get them corrected in the hands of the ACC. He emailed me his first draft copy and there was one particularly harming statement. Not to me but to others in my family, so I pointed it out to him in reply and he fixed it up before the original went to the ACC where it remains to this day.

So it goes to show, depending on who you get as an assessor and how you address them makes a huge difference to how you are treated from their point of view.

It pays to be reasonable, (in fact we have a legal obligation to be reasonable) and polite, and just try the professional way before stamping ones feet.

Cheers
Mini
0

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 13 November 2015 - 02:45 PM

The author of postings numbers 49, 52, 53 & 55 is demonstrating a propensity towards a personal attack which is obviously as a result of a compulsive recessive disorder/stalking disorder whereby she feels a need to challenge me as a person rather than address the actual issues. This overwhelming compulsive force at work leads her to quote all manner of irrelevancies including irrelevant caselaw nothing whatsoever to do with what I have been saying, as I was clearly relying upon entirely different caselaw. this type of behaviour pattern is quite sad as it is distracting from the quality of this Internet forum designed to help people keep up with the latest court information assisting the proper understanding of case law. There is no point on my attempting to respond to each and every nonsense uttering as that were just clog up the site. I must point out however that in every single case the courts have eventually prove me to be right in regards to proper and correct interpretation of law.
1

#29 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 14 November 2015 - 08:27 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 13 November 2015 - 02:45 PM, said:

The author of postings numbers 49, 52, 53 & 55 is demonstrating a propensity towards a personal attack which is obviously as a result of a compulsive recessive disorder/stalking disorder whereby she feels a need to challenge me as a person rather than address the actual issues. This overwhelming compulsive force at work leads her to quote all manner of irrelevancies including irrelevant caselaw nothing whatsoever to do with what I have been saying, as I was clearly relying upon entirely different caselaw. this type of behaviour pattern is quite sad as it is distracting from the quality of this Internet forum designed to help people keep up with the latest court information assisting the proper understanding of case law. There is no point on my attempting to respond to each and every nonsense uttering as that were just clog up the site. I must point out however that in every single case the courts have eventually prove me to be right in regards to proper and correct interpretation of law.



alan Thomas
u are being a bully to anonymousey because shehas a different point of view than yourself. If I were her I wouldn't even waste my time arguing with you, as it is pointless.

You say things like the Judge agreed with you on a point, but forget to say to everyone else here that the Judge still dismissed the case.

In lots of cases this may happen. I have had it happen myself, only to find that it is dismissed because I am in the wrong court. ie should have been in the IRD Court. Though at that stage, neither I or the Judge knew that ACC had an unwritten Tri departmental agreement with WINZ and IRD. No telling now if that information would have held ACC as responsible as IRD!! BUT he agreed I had a right to argue the apparent wrongfulness BUT the case was dismissed in ACC court BUT in IRD High Court the Justice said that we had both had a partial win.

So your actual points with no full reasoning are actually misleading. In that you have taken the wrong road as I had by going through ACC court and WINZ Court before finally getting to the IRD Court. That time was over a six year period and now I have Netcoachnz actually adding up my losses against my wins in the Appeal Court. If he was adding them up before the end of the H/C IRD one, it looks like losses to me all the way and I accept that. I personally don't give a rats arse what figures he comes up with, as even losses are a learning curve. However, when things are not read as they actually are meant, then any wrongful meaning can come of them. So quite frankly you must keep to the reasoning of the argument and in this case it is Anonymousey said the process demanded by the ACC, has been disregarded by yourself. You think you can 'hold them to ranson', even though in here I am told I cannot hold 'Admin' to ransome, to take my stuff down. Two sets of rules always with you and your agents in here!!

This is why you always lose. You never give an inch when it come to if you are right or not. At the end of the day it is all about the outcome of the case for the claimant. If it is going no further, then a loss is a loss and a win is a win and normally that means an entitlement of some significance. Nothing to be scoffed at and made little of.

Mini
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2015 - 12:20 PM

Post 58 is off topic and has been reported for that and the false statements contained within.

Such stalking behaviour is entirely unacceptable on this site and particularly when the stalking includes utterly false and incorrect statements for the purposes of defaming someone's name.
1

#31 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2015 - 12:27 PM

Mini she does not have a different point of view. Point of view must be well founded based on actual evidence. If you read carefully what she is doing is making a statement about a fact and then speculating on opposing viewpoint without benefit of any support then on the basis of their speculation extrapolating further allegations and assumptions for the purposes of defamation. This type of conduct is highly illegal well beyond the new laws which merely deal with harassment behaviour on the site only.

This thread addresses issues surrounding Mr Norris and his right to choose him every pleasers as his representative. The judgement was and the ACC favour not because the ACC has the right to choose a claimant's representative or worse still single out a certain person such as myself so as to exclude anybody from seeking my help because they do not like the points of law and ramifications of those points of law. The judge correctly stated that this issue is not subject to a review hearing and therefore could not be subject to a district court appeal of a review hearing. The proper place for this issue to have been dealt with would have been by way of judicial review. There is of course the complaints process but then the complaints process concluded that as legislation did not have anything to say on the matter the complaints office could not comment.

Whether or not a judge should repeat the ACCs personal criticisms against me and his judgement is another matter not for appeal on a point of law under the ACC judicial procedures but rather putting the judge on judicial review. It would of course have been appropriate for me to have asked the judge to withdraw his judgement and reworded in accordance with the criteria by which she should renders judgements. This type of thing is particularly important when the judge makes comment based on unsubstantiated assumptions made by the ACC which was not part of the issues before him of which I found no need to respond in court because it simply wasn't part of the issue at hand. This type of behaviour whereby ACC have been demonstrating a propensity towards making personal criticisms to muddy the waters for their own financial advantage is disgraceful conduct of the worst sort for any public body. It is much worse for the judge to follow suit. Sadly persons such as the author of this thread seem to be following the ACC and the court's lead which obviously lowers the whole moral fibre of the country which is the reason why the ACC and the judges are not permitted this type of disgraceful conduct.
1

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 November 2015 - 12:29 PM

The issue of this thread is essentially whether or not ACC are entitled to exclude certain members of the public from representing claimants and the claimant's right to choose such persons. The ACC has no legal mechanism of any kind of exclusion. we simply don't have access to a judicial remedy within the ACC scheme of things.

the judgement is written in a rather confusing way where it generates an impression to vulnerable weak minded and easily manipulated persons, such as the author of this thread, who have perceived that persons such as myself can be legally excluded for no actual substantiated reason. this person then sets out to validate the hate campaign conducted by the ACC based on nothing more than further assumption and conjecture which is also the driving force of the ACC. Obviously when someone or a body such as the ACCset out to defame someone's name for their own financial gain and without factual basis for their position they commit very serious crimes which the police should investigate but instead the police likewise allow themselves to be manipulated by the fact that the same body is their insurer with the additional complication being that the ACC and the police operate under a memo of understanding.
1

#33 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 14 November 2015 - 04:11 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 November 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

The issue of this thread is essentially whether or not ACC are entitled to exclude certain members of the public from representing claimants and the claimant's right to choose such persons. The ACC has no legal mechanism of any kind of exclusion. we simply don't have access to a judicial remedy within the ACC scheme of things.

the judgement is written in a rather confusing way where it generates an impression to vulnerable weak minded and easily manipulated persons, such as the author of this thread, who have perceived that persons such as myself can be legally excluded for no actual substantiated reason. this person then sets out to validate the hate campaign conducted by the ACC based on nothing more than further assumption and conjecture which is also the driving force of the ACC. Obviously when someone or a body such as the ACCset out to defame someone's name for their own financial gain and without factual basis for their position they commit very serious crimes which the police should investigate but instead the police likewise allow themselves to be manipulated by the fact that the same body is their insurer with the additional complication being that the ACC and the police operate under a memo of understanding.


Mr Thomas

They have more than enough reason to exclude you. You simply do not appreciate that FACT, so you ignore it, to your perile, as your thinking in all instances of how you view yourself and the law, loses you any case you do. If all you can come out with is: They agreed with me about ***** BUT you lost the case. Then it is obviously never going to change.

This is not harassing you, it is simply seeing anonymousey Point of view.


Mini
2

#34 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 November 2015 - 02:22 PM

View PostMINI, on 14 November 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

Mr Thomas

They have more than enough reason to exclude you. You simply do not appreciate that FACT, so you ignore it, to your perile, as your thinking in all instances of how you view yourself and the law, loses you any case you do. If all you can come out with is: They agreed with me about ***** BUT you lost the case. Then it is obviously never going to change.

This is not harassing you, it is simply seeing anonymousey Point of view.


Mini


"enough reason to exclude you"

Reasons must have facts!

What reason?
What are the facts?

What are the facts connecting this with Mr Norris?
2

#35 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10433
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 16 November 2015 - 12:03 PM

The above claimant who is suffering from a compulsive recessive disorder that involves stalking me has made the following false statements which I deny. The false statements have no basis in fact whatsoever but merely reiterate the ACC position of which likewise had no factual support whatsoever. This is followed by misinterpretation and reconfiguration of the nature of an appeal.

The judgement only concerns whether or not the ACC has the legal authority and write to deny claimants access to legal representation, advocates, McKenzie friends, support groups and others of their own choosing all-weather ACC has the authority to choose these people for them. Further the ACC has adopted a practice of blacklisting those who seek to help without any factual basis to support their claims they can only be described as defamatory. very significant pressure of this type has been imposed upon a significant number of very fine and capable fully qualified and experienced legal representatives while others such as John Miller complains that ACC expend far more of their financial and legal resources going up against him that it is clearly disproportional solely for the purpose of using ACC levies to defeat him as a person based on his competency and credibility regarding the interpretation of law. the ACC are doing this in the full knowledge that the only mechanism to bring a halt to the ACC disgraceful behaviour is by way of judicial review and even criminal prosecutions but the financial burden to do this acts as a significant deterrent which has allowed the ACC to get away with this type of behaviour for decades.

In the Norris case the judge certainly did not make any "legal" findings regarding any factual matters concerning the ACCs assertions concerning myself as that was nothing whatsoever to do with the case will points of law at hand.as previously stated as the ACC ridiculous allegations were not part of the case there was no point in wasting the court's time with those red hearings the ACC laid out for inexperienced judges that find themselves at the bottom of the barrel dealing with ACC matters. the issue is simply a point of law as to whether or not the ACC had a legal entitlement to deny advocacy and/or representation of the claimants choosing. On this matter the judge was correct in as much as the ACC legislation makes no comment and therefore the issue must be resolved in the ordinary courts. That was the end of the matter and the case was no longer pursued. For the sake of Mr Norris someone else continued on with my recommendations successfully so as myself as the person did not continue to be embroiled with ACCs misbehaviour. This scenario repeat itself with a significant number of others such as Benson who as result of my interventions is now doing exceptionally well in his chosen profession overseas after every single thing concerning ACC legislation wwas complied with.


The above poster wrote in red

The subject issues of this thread - and how it relates to Mr Norris is simple Alan.

1/ You encouraged Norris to deny his release of assessments to ACC so that they apparently could be *corrected* as per your belief pattern and ideology. You utilised ACC documentation in this case however it appears you are also happy to direct the 3rd party by some letter forbidding them too.
You are talking utter nonsense. That is not what happened.

2/ Mr Norris lost his ERC for a lengthy period because of your advisement. I am uncertain how he survived during this time ie whether or not he had WINZ or family support?
Again utter nonsense. Why do you make up such rubbish?

3/ You also impersonated this claimant Mr Norris during the times you were acting as spokesperson.
Again utter nonsense as I have never ever impersonated anybody.

4/ ACC refused to recognise you as a spokesperson and then the Judge confirmed this.

The judge did not confirm that what the ACC was doing was lawful but rather the ACC legislation did not protect Mr Norris against ACCs behaviour. In other words we had to go to a different court.


The poster goes on to accuse me of somehow manipulating medical reports which of course is nothing more than ridiculous imagination that has been bandied about swallowed whole by the most foolish amongst us. Medical reporting follows scientific-based principles that in the case of ACC medical reports certain criteria must be followed as a matter of law. Therefore cannot be said that medical reports and being interfered with when that criteria is enforced by the proper legal procedures. Just because some of the legal procedures might be unfamiliar with those who do not properly acquaint themselves with the law does not mean that they are in any way manipulative. For example of the ACC forgets to provide the medical assessor with the relevant medical files it is quite in order to provide the ACC with the necessary reminder. As for the privacy act again that exists for the purpose of maintaining the integrity about an individual's information and it is quite in order for wrong information to be intercepted and to provide the person responsible for that information to make the necessary scientific corrections in accordance with proper scientific principles in accordance with legal requirements. In most cases this is just by way of incompetence or negligence such as forgetting information and is not as many people imagine wavered or dishonest medical professionals contracted to the ACC. Indeed most medical professionals a truly grateful for the "heads up"in the manner of a tactful reminder. As has been proven repeatedly such as the very recent case concerning the ACC 167 form judge how pointed out that they form went beyond legislated criteria in as much as the ACC were using it as a fishing licence instrument in order to acquire the relevant information from which it went on to make irrational decisions. This of course included collecting irrelevant information of which the ACC refused to make available to the claimants before accusing them of dishonesty, such as the Norris case. As stated ultimately we won but the nature of the situation is completely private and not open for discussion.

The above person then again proved the overwhelming effects of the compulsive obsessive disorder facing their attention on me accuse me of manipulating the doctor to acquire medical certificates which formed the basis of the ACC prosecution against me. This again is utter nonsense as the doctor involved continue providing me with the exact same medical certificates after the conviction while other medical professionals ranging from GPs through to specialists, including one of the ACCs own medical assessors confirmed the ongoing incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation unless the ACC funded reconstructive surgery and that surgery was successful. This proves without any shadow of a doubt that the scientific basis of the medical certificates were roughly upheld and that both the ACC and the judiciary were factually incorrect leaving the conviction factually unsupported. Even the ACC have acknowledged that they did not even have any information describing a single work task activity of any material time from which they assumed I was no longer incapacitated of which the ACC used to challenge the medical certificates and acquire the criminal conviction against me in support of their cancellation of my entire claim. Clearly both the ACC and the courts have made horrendous mistakes in my case. Obviously I expect the support of the members of the site given such a horrendous situation. I can only conclude that the author of the above posting seeking to discredit me is in the service of the ACC for a corrupt motive for the alternative they are completely bonkers is not even the ACC believe what they have said.


Why is it that you are endorsing the ACC practice of harassing injured claimants and denying them access to meaningful guidance and assistance. As the Norris had nobody to help them and I was the only one that stepped up to help them and now thanks to my help he has got it. It is fair to say that the majority of claimants have to jump through quite a few hoops before they eventually succeed. While you focus on the perils of the journey along the way rather than the end result?
2

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