ACCforum: Help In the Name of Humanity - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Help In the Name of Humanity What identifies a decent society

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 12:37 PM

Recently I have observed a viewpoint held by a significant number of the members posting on this site To the effect that both ACC and the members of the site alike should withhold any form of help or even action of entitlements to those who have been convicted under New Zealand law.

There seems to be no effort to determine whether or not the conviction has been made in accordance with the law. The result of this mindset is to the effect that all the ACC needs to do is to initiate a complex accusation that is difficult or impossible to defend in order to achieve a conviction and that way the ACC would enjoy the support of the members of the site that hold the view that the ACC may make decisions based on feelings rather than legislation.

We could look at three different levels of circumstances.

Huggy who was prosecuted by the ACC for fraud on the basis that they claim to possess information that he was working. There seems to be no regard as to whether or not he remained incapacitated to work or the criteria by which the ACC must make such decisions. He solicited the support of the community by the force of media whereby he persuaded the general population to take his side. He obtained and maintained legal support. Huggy was found not guilty and enjoys the love and admiration of those on the site and elsewhere. Huggy was working while injured in a voluntary capacity and has not had a special assessment to determine the degree of incapacity of which the medical professionals could have considered when determining the degree of disability and therefore ACCs ongoing liability.

Alan Thomas who was prosecuted by the ACC for fraud on the basis that they claim to possess information that he was working. There seems to be no regard as to whether or not I remained incapacitated to work or the criteria by which the ACC must make such decisions. As I am a private person I did not solicit the support of the community Or generate any media awareness which made their way free for the ACC to engage in a media campaign to generate the opposite effect of Huggy. ACC asked legal aid services not to provide legal aid funding with the result that only 15 hours pre-trial funding was provided to the only lawyer would take the case on who did not even reach the standard qualification to be permitted to take such a case. As a result of a catastrophic failure on behalf of the underqualified underpaid legal aid representative he resigned. In fact he tried to resign three times during the trial telling the judge that he did not understand the case. The result was a conviction on the basis that the ACC claim to possess information that I was working and that ACC with the sole authority to determine whether or not the alleged working enabled them to cancel the claim which the judge felt left no choice but to go along with the ACCs position on the matter that regardless of the fact that the medical profession advise the ACC of the continued incapacity to work the ACC could cancel the entire claim and entitlements without any reference to legislated criteria. I did not obtain the necessary legal support and was found guilty with the result that I experience continued hostilities and agitation from members of the site continuously for the last 20 years. The ACC now acknowledge that they never had any information of any work task activity and also acknowledge their duty to fund surgery, other medical treatment and various other entitlements but have not yet determined the degree of incapacity so as to determine whether or not they should continue to deny entitlement such as earnings compensation. Obviously as there was no information describing a single work task activity there can be no fraud but I cannot afford to address this point of law to establish my innocence.

Johnny Manu was owed numerous entitlements including funding for medication. Without the medication he needed he became mentally disabled and disorganised in his thinking. The ACC case manager involved had continuously avoided addressing johnnies needs and entitlements despite numerous visits. On the last visit in other ACC officer sought to show the rest of the staff how to get rid of a claimant. This led to her execution and the conviction of Johnny for her murder. Johnny Manu has now paid the penalty for his crime and of course has not made any progress in his physical recoveries under the ACC scheme and has not been receiving any entitlements. Johnny acknowledges his guilt.


The question

When the ACC accuse someone of not being entitled and then proceed to prosecute as members of the site, at what stage and on what basis should we treat such accusations in accordance with the purposes of the site to help one another.

Does a conviction provide the members of the site an opportunity to disregard their humanity and declined to provide help to those convicted?

On what basis is the ACC decisions made, legislation or common sense and public interest?
0

#2 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 12:50 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 April 2018 - 12:37 PM, said:

Recently I have observed a viewpoint held by a significant number of the members posting on this site To the effect that both ACC and the members of the site alike should withhold any form of help or even action of entitlements to those who have been convicted under New Zealand law.

There seems to be no effort to determine whether or not the conviction has been made in accordance with the law. The result of this mindset is to the effect that all the ACC needs to do is to initiate a complex accusation that is difficult or impossible to defend in order to achieve a conviction and that way the ACC would enjoy the support of the members of the site that hold the view that the ACC may make decisions based on feelings rather than legislation.

We could look at three different levels of circumstances.

Huggy who was prosecuted by the ACC for fraud on the basis that they claim to possess information that he was working. There seems to be no regard as to whether or not he remained incapacitated to work or the criteria by which the ACC must make such decisions. He solicited the support of the community by the force of media whereby he persuaded the general population to take his side. He obtained and maintained legal support. Huggy was found not guilty and enjoys the love and admiration of those on the site and elsewhere. Huggy was working while injured in a voluntary capacity and has not had a special assessment to determine the degree of incapacity of which the medical professionals could have considered when determining the degree of disability and therefore ACCs ongoing liability.

Alan Thomas who was prosecuted by the ACC for fraud on the basis that they claim to possess information that he was working. There seems to be no regard as to whether or not I remained incapacitated to work or the criteria by which the ACC must make such decisions. As I am a private person I did not solicit the support of the community Or generate any media awareness which made their way free for the ACC to engage in a media campaign to generate the opposite effect of Huggy. ACC asked legal aid services not to provide legal aid funding with the result that only 15 hours pre-trial funding was provided to the only lawyer would take the case on who did not even reach the standard qualification to be permitted to take such a case. As a result of a catastrophic failure on behalf of the underqualified underpaid legal aid representative he resigned. In fact he tried to resign three times during the trial telling the judge that he did not understand the case. The result was a conviction on the basis that the ACC claim to possess information that I was working and that ACC with the sole authority to determine whether or not the alleged working enabled them to cancel the claim which the judge felt left no choice but to go along with the ACCs position on the matter that regardless of the fact that the medical profession advise the ACC of the continued incapacity to work the ACC could cancel the entire claim and entitlements without any reference to legislated criteria. I did not obtain the necessary legal support and was found guilty with the result that I experience continued hostilities and agitation from members of the site continuously for the last 20 years. The ACC now acknowledge that they never had any information of any work task activity and also acknowledge their duty to fund surgery, other medical treatment and various other entitlements but have not yet determined the degree of incapacity so as to determine whether or not they should continue to deny entitlement such as earnings compensation. Obviously as there was no information describing a single work task activity there can be no fraud but I cannot afford to address this point of law to establish my innocence.

Johnny Manu was owed numerous entitlements including funding for medication. Without the medication he needed he became mentally disabled and disorganised in his thinking. The ACC case manager involved had continuously avoided addressing johnnies needs and entitlements despite numerous visits. On the last visit in other ACC officer sought to show the rest of the staff how to get rid of a claimant. This led to her execution and the conviction of Johnny for her murder. Johnny Manu has now paid the penalty for his crime and of course has not made any progress in his physical recoveries under the ACC scheme and has not been receiving any entitlements. Johnny acknowledges his guilt.


The question

When the ACC accuse someone of not being entitled and then proceed to prosecute as members of the site, at what stage and on what basis should we treat such accusations in accordance with the purposes of the site to help one another.

Does a conviction provide the members of the site an opportunity to disregard their humanity and declined to provide help to those convicted?

On what basis is the ACC decisions made, legislation or common sense and public interest?

The question ''is'' thomas .
when was huggy prosecuted , and when did he appear in court on that issue to be then as you state ,found not guilty as you state above in the content you published..
0

#3 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1194
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 11 April 2018 - 02:01 PM

Thanks Hemi for responding to this.

Wrong Alan Thomas I was never ever prosecuted so get your facts right.
0

#4 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 02:23 PM

View PostHuggy, on 11 April 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

Thanks Hemi for responding to this.

Wrong Alan Thomas I was never ever prosecuted so get your facts right.


yes its unfortunate that hes done as he has
having myself been false accused /actually badly abused on its issues over the years and more recently again, by thomas , of knowing nothing about the particular case i can clearly state i do know and that thomas has it all wrong and im wondering where he got that info from to publish as he has,
however it is no different than thomas's other many many publications of similar fashion.quite nasty minded at that in my factual opinion.
it does highlight the fact that much bollocks is published in here and then others give it another life with their own spin on it leaving the aggrieved,you huggy in this particular case to bear the fallout of what is lies are blatantly without a care are published
its why i take an interest in this place, as far to many have been still get hurt from bollocks being published and then used against them.
i suggest that now and it time things were done this way.
to fix a wrong that ALAN THOMAS has published then Thomas to apologise to huggy in writing in here PUBLICLY clearly setting out his apology / sorry and admit he has made false information within his publications about another acc claimant.

Hemi.
0

#5 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1144
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 11 April 2018 - 03:09 PM

View PostHuggy, on 11 April 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

Thanks Hemi for responding to this.

Wrong Alan Thomas I was never ever prosecuted so get your facts right.


This is where you should go looking first. Force Thomas to do a Public Apology
and removal of the lie or sue

http://defamationupd...5-NZHC-3363.pdf
1

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 03:43 PM

View Postgreg, on 11 April 2018 - 03:09 PM, said:

This is where you should go looking first. Force Thomas to do a Public Apology
and removal of the lie or sue

http://defamationupd...5-NZHC-3363.pdf


Reported
Off topic
-1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 04:06 PM

View PostHuggy, on 11 April 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

Thanks Hemi for responding to this.

Wrong Alan Thomas I was never ever prosecuted so get your facts right.


Quite obviously ACC set about to have you prosecuted for fraud for no other reason than they applied for a search warrant. To confirm this line of thought in order to there was a balance of probability that you had committed ACC fraud there is grounds for a fraud prosecution in your case without even considering what they might find as result of a search warrant.
So I am correct that the judicial processes to prosecute you for fraud were well underway.

I understand that you were in the dock and examined in court.
Quite clearly you cannot be examined in court without there being a prosecution first.
What proceeding was that?
Has there been any kind of court case whereby the ACC now believe you to be innocent of fraud?
If I have got it wrong please explain as all I have seen is that there was a concerted effort to have you prosecuted for ACC fraud.

So getting back to the main point of this thread let's ensure that we are talking about seeking in obtaining help from our peer group when being accused of a crime by the ACC. Huggy quite clearly you received huge amounts of help where others did not. There is an incredible difference between what you have received when the ACC had evidence of you actually working as opposed to what I received despite the fact that ACC had no information of any work and I was not working. Why would you have referential treatment over and above my circumstances when my circumstances were further away from any kind of threshold of criminal behaviour.
0

#8 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:06 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 April 2018 - 04:06 PM, said:

Quite obviously ACC set about to have you prosecuted for fraud for no other reason than they applied for a search warrant. To confirm this line of thought in order to there was a balance of probability that you had committed ACC fraud there is grounds for a fraud prosecution in your case without even considering what they might find as result of a search warrant.
So I am correct that the judicial processes to prosecute you for fraud were well underway.

I understand that you were in the dock and examined in court.
Quite clearly you cannot be examined in court without there being a prosecution first.
What proceeding was that?
Has there been any kind of court case whereby the ACC now believe you to be innocent of fraud?
If I have got it wrong please explain as all I have seen is that there was a concerted effort to have you prosecuted for ACC fraud.

So getting back to the main point of this thread let's ensure that we are talking about seeking in obtaining help from our peer group when being accused of a crime by the ACC. Huggy quite clearly you received huge amounts of help where others did not. There is an incredible difference between what you have received when the ACC had evidence of you actually working as opposed to what I received despite the fact that ACC had no information of any work and I was not working. Why would you have referential treatment over and above my circumstances when my circumstances were further away from any kind of threshold of criminal behaviour.


what a weasel
that lame ass excuse is not what you stated thomas
there was no movement to prosecution at all

no examination in a court as to the acc queries they made
APOLOGISE YOU ASSHOLE
Your response shows full well you know your wrong and youve come up with lame wordsmithing and more nasty stuff
you stuck your nose in that issue many times with your bullshit theory of thomas only made up laws-and like weal told to fuk off -and then again behind everyone's back you stuck your nose into/rudely unknown ,just-unwanted intruded into the later completely different based court issues taken to the courts by huggy, where you were also told to f off out of it] so you do know full well about the ensuing court proceedings that huggy undertook to sort out the wrongdoings and you write above as if your some dummy and dont know
Thomas your a LIAR

your character is no value and of your shown activity in here confirms that your a complete asshole.
as an aside huggy deserved help as there was no wrong doing at all anywhere by huggy and NOT as you again /cant help abusing and hurting others nastily proclaim as of criminal of huggy
YOU WERE /thus ARE NOT CORRECT THAT the judicial process was under-way at all.>>>>how could go anywhere >>>as there was nothing to go anywhere.<<< unlike your fraudulent activity where you admitted guilt via the conceded [HAD TO] to a prima facia case against you,then stupidly tried the defend that conceding and LOST.

you claim preferential treatment
WHY
NONE to be had or given

Huggy was/is HONEST

and Thomas ,YOU ARE DISHONEST.

there's the difference as the preference you mention as being in play to assist others thomas
and as much as you claim to be of above intelligence to others in here
Fact was and still is thomas-you just were not clever or intelligent enough to even be involved as the tea lady.
so bugger off to some other site and play your wicked games
preferably somewhere in china please.
0

#9 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1144
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:12 PM

View PostHemi, on 11 April 2018 - 05:06 PM, said:

what a weasel
that lame ass excuse is not what you stated thomas
there was no movement to prosecution at all

no examination in a court as to the acc queries they made
APOLOGISE YOU ASSHOLE
Your response shows full well you know your wrong and youve come up with lame wordsmithing and more nasty stuff
you stuck your nose in that issue many times with your bullshit therorys-and like weal told to fuk off -and then again behind everyone's back you stuck your nose into the later court issues to show up the wrongs so others never received the same ever again[where you were also told to f off out of it] so you do know full well about the ensuing court proceedings that huggy undertook to sort out the wrongdoings and you write above as if your some dummy and dont know
Thomas your a LIAR


your character is no value and of your shown activity in here confirms that your a complete asshole.
as an aside huggy deserved help as there was no wrong doing at all anywhere by huggy and NOT as you again /cant help abusing and hurting others nastily proclaim as of criminal of huggy
YOU WERE /thus ARE NOT CORRECT THAT the judicial process was underway at all.>>>>it was nipped in the bud before it could go anywhere and sorted, unlike your fraudulent activity where you admitted guilt via the conceded [HAD TO] to a prima facia case against you,then stupidly tried the defend that conceding and LOST.

you claim preferential treatment
WHY
NONE to be had or given

Huggy was/is HONEST

and Thomas ,YOU ARE DISHONEST.
there's the difference as the preference you mention as being in play to assist others thomas


And as you say , Thomas nows claims to be the victim , when he is the biggest story changing teller on this site.

May be if you could tell a constant lie and not deviate to suit the 'any current'
postings Mr Thomas might be taken seriously. But your can't , is it ego or just
Hatred off posters whom like me , who think you are just another crook playing for the victim card
0

#10 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1355
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:20 PM

good point as in humanity , , can you explain , what are you requiring from forum members , viewers allan , be more specific
0

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:27 PM

Hemi / David Butler you do not have the knowledge nor the intellect to discuss this topic.
Let Huggy speak for himself
0

#12 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1355
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:44 PM

View Posttommy, on 11 April 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

good point as in humanity , , can you explain , what are you requiring from forum members , viewers allan , be more specific

0

#13 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1144
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:46 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 April 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Hemi / David Butler you do not have the knowledge nor the intellect to discuss this topic.
Let Huggy speak for himself


I hope you find out when you are in court , this time money is the key.

Just apologize Mr Thomas and move on .
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:51 PM

View Postgreg, on 11 April 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

And as you say , Thomas nows claims to be the victim , when he is the biggest story changing teller on this site.

May be if you could tell a constant lie and not deviate to suit the 'any current'
postings Mr Thomas might be taken seriously. But your can't , is it ego or just
Hatred off posters whom like me , who think you are just another crook playing for the victim card


the information about work to cancel a claim. Both of those points are wrong in fact and law. Thus far ACC have confessed that they never have any information describing a single work task activity of any material time and Judge Barbour pointed out to the ACC that work does not form the basis of cancelling a claim but rather the ACC must carry out an assessment procedure based on qualified information from medical professional and others the qualifying of information. . Quite clearly I did not have the opportunity of having qualified and competent legal representation at any point. With regards to the acquisition of a search warrant the ACC most certainly obtained a search warrant under false pretences in my case as the ACC told the Judiciary that the it was illegal to be a company director. ACC are no grounds to know of my private investments and directorships in any companies at all. The companies I owned were managed by employees and did not require my working involvement in that there was no work that could have even be imagined. In Huggies case he was working so it was in order for ACC to obtain a search warrant based on doing work without reporting to the ACC. In both cases ACC had improperly jumped the gun and must use the search warrants once they obtain them. In my case ACC retains the items obtained by search warrant and refused to surrender my property back to me thus preventing me from defending myself making the wrongdoing committed against myself far more sophisticated than Huggies case.

The problem that a highlight is not the merits of each case but rather one person received help while the other did not and prior to an actual court case there was no basis for anyone to choose who they should help and who they should not. That is the point of my concerns highlighted here.

The third example I placed in this thread in order to appreciate the point that I'm trying to make is Johnny Manu's
Situation whereby someone from this site could have helped prior to the situation getting out of hand and then once he had committed the murder it would have been very beneficial for all ACC claimants for the evidence to be presented in court on Johnny Manu's behalf so as the world got to know how dangerous the environment had become in the Henderson branch office that resulted in a claimant committing murder of an ACC staff member. Obviously the problem has not been solved by simply putting him in jail as the situation continues up until the present without any of the underlying problems being solved. Further no doubt he still has an ACC claim for cover and still needs is entitlements attended to and it goes without saying that he will undoubtedly need someone to help interact with the ACC. Who then is going to do that?

So the bottom line is no matter whether the situation is as in Huggies case whereby ACC were well down the road to prosecuting him for fraud with the first judicial step being accomplished in the ACC favour by the acquisition of a search warrant on the basis of the balance of probability that fraud had been committed through to a case like mine which is an endless succession of dishonest behaviour by the ACC through to J Manu who because of his injuries and intellectual problems had no way of coping with the ACC, fellow claimants need help so as ACC does not continue to create these horrendous problems that are present in these three representative cases.
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:53 PM

View Postgreg, on 11 April 2018 - 05:12 PM, said:

And as you say , Thomas nows claims to be the victim , when he is the biggest story changing teller on this site.

May be if you could tell a constant lie and not deviate to suit the 'any current'
postings Mr Thomas might be taken seriously. But your can't , is it ego or just
Hatred off posters whom like me , who think you are just another crook playing for the victim card


Greg you have been reported again for being off topic.

You must discipline yourself into a pattern of addressing the issue instead of allowing your hatred of me to be the driving force of your actions. That type of behaviour is socially unacceptable and dangerous to myself.
0

#16 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:59 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 April 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Hemi / David Butler you do not have the knowledge nor the intellect to discuss this topic.
Let Huggy speak for himself


pretty fuken obvious who knows what here thomas
youve published LIES and know nothing so your the un -intellect one here matey.
but seeing your the expert of all and everyone else's business then Now Prove what ive written is untrue
YOU CANT AS I DO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE-.B)/>
INTELLECT OF OTHERS IS WHAT YOU CANT DEBATE AS YOU DONT KNOW WHO IS WHO OR WHO KNOWS WHAT

been enough intellect as you call it RIGHT UP YOU FOR MANY YEARS YOUVE BEEN >>>UNABLE TO HANDLE<<< EH TOMMO
and don tell me what or what not to do
you do NOT own or make the rules of this forum thomas
your a member like everyone else and your little ways to do as you please are coming to an end real soon.
now who'd follow orders of you.as your never right.
NOT ME tommo
0

#17 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 05:59 PM

View Posttommy, on 11 April 2018 - 05:20 PM, said:

good point as in humanity , , can you explain , what are you requiring from forum members , viewers allan , be more specific


Specifically this site was set up whereby everybody having dealings with the ACC may learn about the ACC and how to deal with the ACC by the experience and knowledge of the membership.

As some members are seeking to discriminate as to who shall receive this type of help and who shall not I thought it would be a good idea to analyse the nature of humanity. Even those who have murdered ACC staff still have an entitlement to humanity. In the first instance we see the example of this whereby he has access to judicial process and the funding of legal help. Further is claim for entitlements are not taken away from because of humanity. He is injured, disabled and entitled to the relevant entitlements taking away his medication for example is not only inhumane for himself but it was also as it turns out inhumane for Mrs Pike who bore the full weight of the decision not to fund his entitlements to medicated treatment That in all probability would have maintained them in a more stable frame. We all have the entitlements for all ACC branch offices not to degenerate into Bedlam as was the case in the Henderson branch of the ACC which was it truly out of control to the point that I found it necessary to have a discussion with the manager on this very point immediately prior to the murder of which the ACC responded by trespassing me immediately after and ever since up until the presentsimply because I spoke up on behalf of all claimants having dealings with the innocent branch with no knowledge whatsoever of. J Manuor anyone else that could have done exactly the same thing or might yet do exactly the same.

I note that there is a philosophy that exists within this site that also exist with the ACC of shooting the messenger and that any message in regards to the ACC wrongdoing in all manner of different unacceptable behaviour is being attacked by a few on the site that no doubt seek to win favour with the ACC by their behaviour consistent with ACC conduct.

So Tommy what I'm trying to say is that every human being will find themselves in need of help no matter who they are or what they have done and that I believe that everybody on this site should help in every single situation where they have the expertise or experience that might be of use. Advocating categories of people to be excluded from receiving help with being a member of the site for example is a great evil and against the basic belief that all humans should act humanely.
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8730
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 11 April 2018 - 06:02 PM

View Postgreg, on 11 April 2018 - 05:46 PM, said:

I hope you find out when you are in court , this time money is the key.

Just apologize Mr Thomas and move on .


The legal steps necessary to convert huggy were either underway or they were not. If those legal steps were underway then he was in the process of being prosecuted. Don't forget that it is the conviction that is the result of a prosecution that prosecution itself does not mean conviction. I can't help feeling that you might not have been aware of that fact. I trust this information is helpful for you.
0

#19 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 06:13 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 11 April 2018 - 05:51 PM, said:

the information about work to cancel a claim. Both of those points are wrong in fact and law. Thus far ACC have confessed that they never have any information describing a single work task activity of any material time and Judge Barbour pointed out to the ACC that work does not form the basis of cancelling a claim but rather the ACC must carry out an assessment procedure based on qualified information from medical professional and others the qualifying of information. . Quite clearly I did not have the opportunity of having qualified and competent legal representation at any point. With regards to the acquisition of a search warrant the ACC most certainly obtained a search warrant under false pretences in my case as the ACC told the Judiciary that the it was illegal to be a company director. ACC are no grounds to know of my private investments and directorships in any companies at all. The companies I owned were managed by employees and did not require my working involvement in that there was no work that could have even be imagined. In Huggies case he was working so it was in order for ACC to obtain a search warrant based on doing work without reporting to the ACC. In both cases ACC had improperly jumped the gun and must use the search warrants once they obtain them. In my case ACC retains the items obtained by search warrant and refused to surrender my property back to me thus preventing me from defending myself making the wrongdoing committed against myself far more sophisticated than Huggies case.

The problem that a highlight is not the merits of each case but rather one person received help while the other did not and prior to an actual court case there was no basis for anyone to choose who they should help and who they should not. That is the point of my concerns highlighted here.

The third example I placed in this thread in order to appreciate the point that I'm trying to make is Johnny Manu's
Situation whereby someone from this site could have helped prior to the situation getting out of hand and then once he had committed the murder it would have been very beneficial for all ACC claimants for the evidence to be presented in court on Johnny Manu's behalf so as the world got to know how dangerous the environment had become in the Henderson branch office that resulted in a claimant committing murder of an ACC staff member. Obviously the problem has not been solved by simply putting him in jail as the situation continues up until the present without any of the underlying problems being solved. Further no doubt he still has an ACC claim for cover and still needs is entitlements attended to and it goes without saying that he will undoubtedly need someone to help interact with the ACC. Who then is going to do that?

So the bottom line is no matter whether the situation is as in Huggies case whereby ACC were well down the road to prosecuting him for fraud with the first judicial step being accomplished in the ACC favour by the acquisition of a search warrant on the basis of the balance of probability that fraud had been committed through to a case like mine which is an endless succession of dishonest behaviour by the ACC through to J Manu who because of his injuries and intellectual problems had no way of coping with the ACC, fellow claimants need help so as ACC does not continue to create these horrendous problems that are present in these three representative cases.


thomas
you received the same applied assistance to look at your issue from many in and out of here as did huggy and others that :lol:/> my non intellect was given to.
huggy -easy as he was honest in all aspects and information
thomas
you were NOT honest at all but evasive cunning / trickery /hid much information even to the point of being challenged with the correct data you still stuck to your bullshit and wanted others to do ONLY as you ordered including the act of Perjury and no other means would be entered into discussion by you
to claim poor me in here as you are as to not receiving help and thus being picked on is a manner of deceit from yo as you do receive help offers could this help is this it why did yu do that why didnt you do that All to avail as you only wanted you as the story teller to cover what i and other sighted as outright deceit.
when it was discovered that you were planning to do the deed blow up an acc office then found guilty of that offence then its not the wonder that no one now will go near you.what the heck do you expect thomas.
your tainted goods im afraid and on ya lonesome thru all your own fault.
0

#20 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1558
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 11 April 2018 - 06:18 PM

If you want help Thomas then publish the information in here now, the sentencing summary of Judge Morris gives an indication of all the how why and what you were found guilty of , and would be the first step to undertake so others can peruse that and ask questions if they need of that document.

So if you want help contribute some meaningful input instead of being an asshole about it.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • 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