ACCforum: ... - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

... .

#1 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2420
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 11 December 2016 - 06:02 PM

.
0

#2 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:46 PM

It would be a correct work type when Mr Thomas was employed by Trigon during the 70's being a Plastics manufacturing Plant.

Currently I can only find varying phrases which claim "I qualified as a tradesman toolmaker" and then a whole list
of alleged skills &or working experiences which have not been substantiated unfortunately [Ref 179509 dated 27 February 2014 ]
0

#3 User is offline   not their victim 

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

Posted 13 December 2016 - 11:36 AM

Too many expert witnesses including his own surgeon saw how he lied in court...

By his own actions...

He will NEVER get a trial/ retrial etc...
0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 14 December 2016 - 12:44 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 11 December 2016 - 06:02 PM, said:

I have started this thread to simply insert evidence that I may roll past during different discussions etc
Basically a way of trying to keep myself ... on track as best able :wacko:/>

There will likely be some issues that seem to be identified randomly perhaps ...mainly this is because there is just so much overwhelming contradictory material involved and I am attempting to clarify past assertions or evidence facts etc

I also apologise in advance if I am repeating myself or have skimmed over context ...I have found some material during my reviews to be deeply disturbing &or distressing!

Also unfortunately with so much blagging on this forum pages and pages of gobbing across many threads simply escalates the confusion .... so I now recognise that when I am exhausted to try and unravel any deliberate deceptions from the mistakes or misinterpretations and misunderstandings etc... this will likely provide trolls and abusers more opportunities for difficult word and mindgames :wacko:/>

If it becomes possible to transfer material to more appropriate discussion threads ...I will try to do this when I have time :(/>



So today, I will upload the evidence which may relate to some of my past questions or concerns ... or other issues which may or may not be helpful to current or other significant discussions which keep appearing & reappearing upon multiple threads :wacko:/>

I will try to stick to this thread as best able to start with ...mainly because I find the scrambling of the board dialogue extremely difficult to wade through when I have been aways offline sadly ...




For example, this first opening post details issues contained within a Court Memo which recently came up in discussion ... & yup I find there are clearly two different interpretations involved imho ...

For those members who have been discussing this issue, I found what may be the relevant Court Direction and have been unable to post it due to some erratic admin blocks placed on my account etc

However the official statement might still be available here .... if it does not work please let me know and I will do a transcript or try another method as best able...

My link




The key direction from Judge P Barber, was

"Outline work activities alleged to have been undertaken by Mr Thomas at the material time."






My POV is that logically and rationally, I do not consider the word *OUTLINE* to be the same legal order as ^due particularity" of any ^single work task activity^ ...




NB there are different phrases being used across the board which are part of the word games sadly ... so I will try to correlate as best able FYI :wacko:/>


anonomousey

I hope I am not barging in here unwelcome. BUT one task alan Thomas would have to do as a business owner, is sign cheques. It says in his rambles that his business's had cheque books. That is one activity he would have to carry out nearly every day. The problem is, is that he is right handed so he says and it was his right hand that was damages.

my right hand is still broken, which makes my writing unreadable to many. even I have trouble reading notes I left myself when it first happened and I had a cast on. There is no way he could sign cheques for two hours without having many breaks. could the business operate without him paying the bills, of course not, so was he a needed part of the business, yes unless he gave signatory rights to someone else and I do not think Thomas is the type of person to give complete control to anyone. Just my opinion but he was working by just doing that. Was he taking income, yes again, by living in the company rented building he has what is called "personal use" it has a value for all sorts of purposes but mainly withdrawal of quanity of income from the business. This has to be open market value and seen to be returned to the business cheque account or it is drawing to Alan Thomas that are getting taxed where. these are but two tiny examples of the auditing that would need to take place with all his income and expenses to determine if he was paid for signing the chegues.

You being an accounts person would clearly see the logic in this and I must admit I am wondering what more you are looking for. But if I came across this in the flied at my workplace, it would have to be an indepth audit for him. It is not hard, but with seventeem companies each one has to be checked at the bank before it could be said he had a full investigation. Every week of transfer of monies from his personal account to the working account for OMV of the use of the company premises by he and his mistress would have to be taken into consideration. ACC obviously didn't do this therefore there would be a discrepancy as to the two questions asked.

Did he earn? AND
Did he work?

I think ACC made a big mistake by not doing this correctly. But I consider that one of the questions is going to be answered with a yes and this is what makes me think he is quilty as charged on this one. Even if he didn't earn he still worked.

BUT the biggest Blunder he made was he never told ACC about his companies. he had majority shares in most if not all of them, therefore legally they are him. Nothing they do is an arms length transaction from him. Fact. If they are set up as he says.

A little doubt for the mistress's one that he purchased for a $1. Again hardly at the OMV Depending on the shareholding would depend if handled the correct way. If they are seen to be Defacto, it is not Omv, from wife to husband, therefore of little or no signigicance.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

would have to see all the books and it would be a nightmare doing them. Personally rather than balance them, I would take the option of finding the discrepancies and then let him answer where it came from and where it when.............if the answers didn't make sence then he guilty as sin.

Can you give a glimpse of why you are doing this for him. When he says you are trying to confuse etc etc. He is not objecting to you doing it, so looks to me like he is wanting you to find something that will help him get out of the criminal first trial.

Don't mean to be nosey, but like you I am drawn to these type of problems, only I wouldn't think of doing one that didn't have the multitude of documents available.

Mini
0

#5 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 14 December 2016 - 12:59 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 12 December 2016 - 10:12 AM, said:

One of the main reasons why this is a thread for me to try and keep track of material is because of the significant differences of opinions with respect to issues which I consider universal and relevant to all injured people around the world. I also try to consider the real life harm which can be caused by difficult times with some struggles and credibility hurdles faced by many innocents who are used & abused by either the PTBs or other folks with their hidden political or personal agendas too ...

For example, my efforts to alert innocents to the dangerous consequences with potential law changes addressing the issues of ^fundamental dishonesty^ is one area where Alan and I frequently disagree sadly! IMHO there are some fairly profound statements being made by Alan on this forum which I find deeply troubling and they will often appear when issues are being debated ... so I will endeavour to acknowledge their existence proactively for Alan in this hope that this will reduce the concerns, confusion with his professed cognitive or memory impairments &or information spinning which surrounds any alleged or confirmed facts and truth ie finding areas of agreement which will benefit or assist our future children & grandchildren ...




Continuing onwards with basic claim details and simple foundation facts ...& then identifying conflicting or contradictory evidence statements present in the forum ... this will also hopefully help Alan clarify his answers and improve his chances with any potential future claims &or information &or support requests :wacko:/>


NB I am not sure how easy it will be to share evidence with readers because of the limitations forced upon me with file uploads ... but within our archives ... there is a copy of the business card which was printed for Alan Thomas which was supplied to demonstrate that "Ted Leggett wanted me to join Sir Kerry Burke and himself as a director of Ted Leggett company."

Firstly I am hoping with this post ... that Alan can please explain the ANZIM title referenced alongside Director?


ATM I am not sure of his ANZIM claim for being included with a ^Director^ title ... so this may be a reference to some course which was funded by ACC for him perhaps but I am not sure of these two dates?


The photograph can be found here FYI



I also discovered within another posting when Alan was seeking ACC funds before his conviction ... and within the referenced material he has uploaded to the forum several times now, from the time he was writing to ACC during August 1996 and again to the case manager May 1997 ... it is clear that Alan stated,





At the moment I am mainly trying to reconcile these conflicting statements and opposing attitudes concerning his preinjury occupation qualifications!!! NB this issue of Alan clearly notifying his expectation of being work functional with funded voice recognition software and various other claims within this telling ACC document that Alan authored may be visited later ie the spotlight is only on claimant qualifications and NOT any technology or hand argybargy please ...

Currently I can only find varying phrases which claim "I qualified as a tradesman toolmaker" and then a whole list of alleged skills &or working experiences which have not been substantiated unfortunately   [Ref 179509 dated 27 February 2014 ]

So secondly, hopefully Alan can clarify that the ONLY tradesman qualification he actually holds ... is the teenage apprenticeship he did at Auckland Technical Institute night classes?


Thirdly, Alan has another alleged occupation title which is scattered across the forum which also raises some questions for me unfortunately. For example,I likely would disagree with the POV about Alan claiming that he was some sort of generic or specialised engineering ^Project Manager^ of some sort for Trigon ... mainly because of the various admissions that this Project was a failure :wacko:/>

To illustrate my POV further, I am now extremely wary with some alleged facts after having seen CVs where the authors claim specific experience or skill for a specific period of time ... when a worktrial shows they do not have the necessary skills or education & yup may have just enrolled or only sat on a classroom chair ... thus in fact they did not gain these actual qualifications etc

FYI I have also seen many parents who have never worked or obtained tertiary qualifications call themselves ^project managers^ on their Resumes or CVs these days listing multitasking abilities & skills because it seems to be some modern fashionable term? Unfortunately I have even seen casemanagers within multiple agencies use creative writing labels back in the days when persuading folks to skip or gloss over times of absence from the workfront ...so yeah unfortunately I am probably old school still :(/>

There are huge lists of preinjury occupational skills and numerous claims within archives which all appear to be mostly due to the POV by Alan that,





I disagree that any legislation [either ACC or within the world] has ever required such an extensive and expensive investigations with injury compensation systems! I do not agree with Alan and his insistence that ACC must record "any preinjury details as to education, experience and skill " as ^individual activities^!!

I would also disagree that even if Alan did perchance have any requisite official certifications and 3rd party objective references for all of his insinuated earning activities before specific relevant time with his alleged accidents ... I would still consider this to be a redherring irrelevancy because many occupations and skills evolve over the years etc Frankly I simply cannot imagine the huge escalation of levies and taxes I would have to pay in order to fund these types of matters for a minority of people who deliberately will not disclose or evidence their preinjury occupation properly it seems eg certifications & references etc

NB While I know that the original ACC medical certificates which accompany all accident claim notification forms may have a 'oneliner' occupation space to start our compensation claims ...IMHO if there is any disputes over this title qualification because a Doctor may not know or use the correct terminology ..then every ACC claimant can & should easily and quickly resolve such misunderstandings then at the first sign of required ACC background enquiries IMHO ...

I appreciate this may sound harsh to forumites & readers ... but my concern is that with minor claims ...or more complex claims from claimants who will not provide relevant evidence to ACC ...or worse the minority who may have criminal records or be unsuccessful career wise [eg bankrupts] ... the ACC levies would become astronomical and the courtcosts crippling for regular folks with serious injuries!

To illustrate my POV, currently it appears that Alan claims he is owed a couple of million dollars in disputed entitlements ...but simultaneously he also claims that ACC have spent over this amount in their court fees already! Goodness knows how much the tax payer has forked out as well as levy funds used with his claims to date sadly ... hence some of my perspective nowadays that Alan may now only be a canary or cuckootool who is mostly helping ACC develop their legal strategies to counter &or obstruct future claims from innocents eg court costs, security guards etc etc

NB I do know that there is already NZ caselaw showing that even ^security for costs^ can likely be used ..and international caselaw which even highlights some the complaints from Alan about his percieved rights as an alleged invalid accessing Justice ... hence my concern that some of the legal games Alan is currently playing will only benefit future ACC systems ie more than they will help him or other claimants etc


anonmousey

ANZIM mean Austrailian and New Zealand Institute of Management. It means nothing without the titles of the papers that you have done. I have a couple they were cross accredited to My accountancy degree.
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