ACCforum: Thomas v ACC NZACC 210 (27 July 2015) - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Thomas v ACC NZACC 210 (27 July 2015) avoiding issues of fact to be dressed up as questions of law etc

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:25 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   REX 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2653
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:32 PM

Alan Thomas' NO1 STALKER/anonymousey strikes AGAIN
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10425
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:51 PM

The situation has become more stranger than fiction.

I have an accepted claim for an injury.

ACC claim that I was no longer incapacitated because they thought I was working.

The review hearing decision was in my favour which confirmed that the ACC not only did not have any information that I was working, working is not the means to determine degree of incapacity. In the companion review hearing decision the ACC were directed to fund the prescribed reconstructive surgery stop

ACC did not appeal either decisions.

I presented myself for the reconstructive surgery not being aware that the ACC had intercepted the surgeon and my consent by directing the surgeon to perform a different operation will stop neither Procedure took place with the surgeon undertaking a third activity being nonconsensual experimental surgery which unfortunately failed and when determining what the surgeon had done wrong the following year the medical Diagnostic procedure resulted in a Stroke and brain injury of which the ACC declared would be accepted for cover as part of the original injury and claim number.

In 1997 the ACC made the exact same decision claimed to possess information that I was working and not only cancelled by claim but this time prosecuted for fraud without any regard to the previous review hearing decisions.

A review hearing was requested with the expectation that the ACC would disclose the information it claimed to possess. The ACC refused under the privacy act to disclose the information about me they claim to have possessed on the basis that it would not be in the public interest. The reviewer did not proceed with the review hearing and instead adjourned. The reviewer did not reconvene the hearing but entered into discussions with the ACC privately and made a decision not to disturb the ACC decision.

An appeal of the original decision that the ACC claim to process information that I was working was submitted to the district court.

As the ACC did not have any information that I was working obtained a search warrants in an attempt to find some information that is working but found no information of any work or any earnings despite getting 12-14 search warrants that also included other people not even associated with me.

The ACC asked the district court registrar to suspend my right to appeal indefinitely .
With the right to appeal being suspended the ACC then relied upon the reviewers decision to secure a criminal conviction without ever disclosing any information that I was working nor any information to challenge the existing medical reports that it was not physically possible for me to work.

After the criminal conviction the appeal to the district court of the original decision letter was able to proceed with the first order of business requiring the ACC to disclose the list information of work they claim to have possessed was formed the basis of the decision to cancel the claim.. The ACC spent from 1996 through to 2006 avoiding disclosure of information that was claiming to be in its possession. The reason being is that there was never any information that I was working because I could not work. I and the medical profession were always aware that there could have never been any information of my working as that was a biological impossibility.

As there was no information being put before the district court the judge decided to cancel the ACC decision based on alleged work and instead ask yourself whether or not I was incapacitated to work. He gave leave to the ACC to investigate what type of work that I have been doing at the time of injury so as they could then make an assessment after the fact of which the court would then determine whether or not I could work. ACC presented no medical evidence to challenge the existing medical evidence that I could not work.

The ACC acknowledge that I still had an accepted claim for cover and that they had never carried out any form of assessment of any type including the independence allowance. The ACC acknowledge that they would be required to carry out such an assessment yet at each stage of the procedures the ACC created obstacles and blockages so as to never discover the true degree of my disabilities which Such proof beyond reasonable doubt scientific evidence would be used to overturn the judge's decision on the basis that the judge had been quite ridiculous to disregard the legislated procedures to determine such facts together with bypassing the stated criteria to rely upon independent qualified medical professionals instead of going on its own intuition which was to the effect that he considered need to be a liar given that my presentation of all the medical evidence was so robust and therefore had also like to the medical profession, including perhaps lying to the high-tech CT and MRI scans proven beyond any possibility of doubt that my right dominant hand was not properly connected to my arm amongst many other biological anomalies Preventing the preinjury work.

It goes without saying that the ACC acknowledgement during the district court appeal to the original decision is at odds with the information the ACC claim to possess and Other claims of fact being presented to the criminal court were without merit or basis in fact . in other words the ACC had effectively confessed to committing perjury to the criminal Court.

We now have subsequent judges rather ridiculously relying upon the criminal Court despite overall on the evidence that the criminal decision was achieved by way of perjury will stop

We also have members of the siting of England tend to attempt to ridicule me by posting judgements without any form of comment.

Some years ago the subject of gas lighting and come up. Is what I have described "gas lighting"?
1

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10425
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 May 2016 - 07:41 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 15 May 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

OMG I have again struck through ALL of your storytelling balarney &or delusional thinking Alan. This is because you are still clearly NOT understanding my perspectives despite years of offering assistance with critical reasoning &or your commentary feedback & reminding you to support your opinions with objective evidence and blah blah Posted Image

For example I have numerous times indicated that I believe some your foundation arguments ARE SIGNIFICANTLY FLAWED. I am here referring to over ten years of enduring your ideology & obsessive insistence that you believe decisions from minor tribunals override HIGHER COURTS etc I posted another Judgement for you earlier this week alongside bolding some of these issues etc

As for your contradictory interpretations with manipulating medical evidence &or specialist opinions... and various other wordplays simultaneously concerning your alleged occupation and alleged injury circumstances ... yup sorry its all still wasted on me!


There is no possibility that you could be in your Tobacco and drug induced has possibly have a single rational thought. As I previously stated today you have this capacity of imagining things and then for that imagination to be converted into memory as if your imagination is in relation to real things. You also seek to manipulate other people's memories with your imagination in a manner exactly the same as those to generate false memories. The technique is extremely common and well known. If you are doing this intentionally that you are the most despicable and evil person. If you are not doing it deliberately it means that you are quite crazy. Crossing out what I say does not make what I say go away. But it does demonstrate what type of an individual you are and the degree of arrogance you portray.

As to your rational thinking there is no possibility that anyone could rationalise that a person who does not have as him properly connected to his arm can work in a profession that involved significantly heavy work together with a capacity for fine dexterity including using the mouse with CAD programs. The fact that I have needed surgery to provide an artificial wrist to improve my situation is proof enough that the ACC are grossly negligent in their duty to Determine the degree of incapacity and make proper decisions in accordance with the medical evidence presented. The fact that you still persisted in this unreal world with the belief that ACC can manipulate the court system to make decisions outside of reality somehow reconfigures scientific fact to fit the Mecca nations of the ACC to deprive legitimate entitlements demonstrates your capacity for irrationality and even corrupt thinking.

All rational and reasonable thinking people can see the contradictory interpretation was perpetrated by the ACC in yourself whereby you seek to maintain wrong thinking in spite of the overall well-being reality demonstrated by the recent surgery which proved beyond all possibility is that there was no possibility of any sort that I could have been working. This is also combined with the ACCs confession in the High Court that that At no time did they ever even have any information Describing a single work task activity at any material time. In other words that was an open confession that they had committed perjury in both civil and criminal courts.

Of course as the ACC have now confessed That they never had any information describing a single work task activity there is no possibility that there could ever been a criminal conviction. That being the case the ACC should go to the courts to make the arrangements on my behalf to have that conviction overturned. This is the least that the ACC should be doing in order to demonstrate their regret for the wrongful action against me. Failure for the ACC to do this will of course escalate matters demonstrating the true nature of the beast and their density towards vexation or being a vexatious litigant whereby they are clearly and knowingly using the court for dishonest gain. Of course taking away the criminal conviction undermines everything else that the ACC have ever done including the entire 200 review hearing applications that were never provided you hearing dates or were held up because of other defects caused by the ACC.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • 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