ACCforum: Thought crime & inference based conviction - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Thought crime & inference based conviction

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 02:12 PM

When reading a large number of postings by a significant number of individuals it would seem that they advocate individuals being convicted based on inferential assumptions made by third parties that a crime has taken place to the extent that an individual has desired to have something or do something that by the accuses viewpoint they are not allowed to have or do.

Looking at myself as an example given that I was a co-owner and director of numerous companies the ACC felt that I should be working on one of those companies at least and should produce business plans that included me in on the action despite the fact that the judiciary had confirmed that the law requires ACC to fund reconstructive surgery to return the back to my preinjury occupation and that I have no duty whatsoever same the thought for notion oof working in any other occupation. The ACC then set about establishing a succession of individuals to be informants by way of documenting of they had imagined or inferred by way of assumption. I found myself convicted of ACC fraud based on these inferences. It didn't stop there. The judge had inferred that I have earned $1.3 million based on an ACC media release that occurred after conviction but prior to sentencing and have therefore inferred that I could not have been entitled to any of the earnings compensation I have received was formed as the basis for a three-year prison sentence.

When I got out of prison the ACC then assume that I'd be angry with them and therefore if I was angry I would likely to be dangerous to them so had my files transferred to the remote client unit. When I asked for the information they relied upon in order to treat me differently from my peers, other fellow claimants, They then set about funding private investigators trying to find someone would say something to do with their worst fears. The ACC are required to review the decision to transfer claimants to the remote client unit annually but in my case the trespassed notice and ongoing status quo have continued now for 20 years without any basis whatsoever to determine whether or not this is had any proper or lawful basis. Once I started pressing the matter Douglas weal of of what he called I valuable information to the ACC so as to provide them with the information they sought. Miller was also asked by the ACC his thoughts on the matter and his report to the court was that based on his psychological training and knowledge of me I would pose a threat to the ACC. Yes that's right is the man that has an obsession with faeces and suchlike being relied upon for the courts judgement.


My story is of course not in isolation but consistent with very large numbers of people who come to me routinely with their stories and what they plan to do about it. I've even had people contacting me pretending that they are in the situation in the hope that I would give them some kind of support for durable reprisals that they spoke of. That includes members of the site. What I have noticed is that these individuals posing their thoughts to me that not actually listen to the answer and instead reported to their friends their own imagination. We see on the site a continuation of imagine ready nonsense being expressed by all kinds of idiots. We all know who they are and of course those who are psychologically qualified to interpret their behavioural patterns likewise are aware yet they rather foolishly rely upon their pseudonyms.


ACC staff are individually and collectively aware of their duty to administer the act faithfully in accordance with what is written in that legislation. For example, notes that fences as the ACC method to generate their own information any aspect or element but rather required by legislation information gathering qualified third the criteria for what qualified by the legislation. Nonetheless we see ACC making decisions based on what they call their own common sense. For example they successfully prosecuted a claimant for working on the basis that he could not have been incapacitated to work as a painter because he was found to be working as a truck driver while receiving compensation. Now while he would have been guilty of double dipping in the form of earning was injured and receiving earnings compensation the information of the ACC could not of the third in any way or form that he was no longer injured but rather only information they had that it was working as exact driver while injured. Nonetheless they succeeded in getting a criminal conviction with the ACC convincingly from of course that they have followed the ACC legislated criteria for the purposes of the decision. When the fellow got was of the ACC then went to bankrupt the fellow in an attempt to recover the earnings compensation. My advice to him was that the ACC have broken the law by committing perjury to the court when claiming he was not entitled to earnings compensation. I further described that he was certainly entitled earnings compensation should have declared his truck driver earnings to enable the ACC to calculate abatement of earnings. As it happens he was not lawfully entitled to be driving trucks anyway and the ACC had unlawfully failed calculators earnings compensation properly from the first preinjury job which had led to them working in a new job while the very same situation. Having pointed them in the right direction one of the very few competent ACC lawyers resolved as situation. During the process of this problem I receive submissions from both that lawyer and the ACC together with the court decision at which time it was evident that the ACC were arguing the concept of common sense with needless to say is unlawful with the result that horrendous damage was done to that fellows life circumstances whereby the ACC have followed the legislation faithfully and the none of this would have happened as he would have been receiving the correct earnings compensation from the preinjury occupation.


In the many years I have been looking at ACC decisions I find that it is exceptionally rare for the ACC system immediately followed the ACC legislation. There I find that the ACC staff consider themselves to be in some kind of position of personal power to negotiate rather than calculation as per the legislated criteria . I see laziness and shortcut taken with attack against those make any challenge to their mistakes. The abusiveness is observed as horrendous
0

#2 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 03:06 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 02:12 PM, said:

When reading a large number of postings by a significant number of individuals it would seem that they advocate individuals being convicted based on inferential assumptions made by third parties that a crime has taken place to the extent that an individual has desired to have something or do something that by the accuses viewpoint they are not allowed to have or do.

Looking at myself as an example given that I was a co-owner and director of numerous companies the ACC felt that I should be working on one of those companies at least and should produce business plans that included me in on the action despite the fact that the judiciary had confirmed that the law requires ACC to fund reconstructive surgery to return the back to my preinjury occupation and that I have no duty whatsoever same the thought for notion oof working in any other occupation. The ACC then set about establishing a succession of individuals to be informants by way of documenting of they had imagined or inferred by way of assumption. I found myself convicted of ACC fraud based on these inferences. It didn't stop there. The judge had inferred that I have earned $1.3 million based on an ACC media release that occurred after conviction but prior to sentencing and have therefore inferred that I could not have been entitled to any of the earnings compensation I have received was formed as the basis for a three-year prison sentence.

When I got out of prison the ACC then assume that I'd be angry with them and therefore if I was angry I would likely to be dangerous to them so had my files transferred to the remote client unit. When I asked for the information they relied upon in order to treat me differently from my peers, other fellow claimants, They then set about funding private investigators trying to find someone would say something to do with their worst fears. The ACC are required to review the decision to transfer claimants to the remote client unit annually but in my case the trespassed notice and ongoing status quo have continued now for 20 years without any basis whatsoever to determine whether or not this is had any proper or lawful basis. Once I started pressing the matter Douglas weal of of what he called I valuable information to the ACC so as to provide them with the information they sought. Miller was also asked by the ACC his thoughts on the matter and his report to the court was that based on his psychological training and knowledge of me I would pose a threat to the ACC. Yes that's right is the man that has an obsession with faeces and suchlike being relied upon for the courts judgement.


My story is of course not in isolation but consistent with very large numbers of people who come to me routinely with their stories and what they plan to do about it. I've even had people contacting me pretending that they are in the situation in the hope that I would give them some kind of support for durable reprisals that they spoke of. That includes members of the site. What I have noticed is that these individuals posing their thoughts to me that not actually listen to the answer and instead reported to their friends their own imagination. We see on the site a continuation of imagine ready nonsense being expressed by all kinds of idiots. We all know who they are and of course those who are psychologically qualified to interpret their behavioural patterns likewise are aware yet they rather foolishly rely upon their pseudonyms.


ACC staff are individually and collectively aware of their duty to administer the act faithfully in accordance with what is written in that legislation. For example, notes that fences as the ACC method to generate their own information any aspect or element but rather required by legislation information gathering qualified third the criteria for what qualified by the legislation. Nonetheless we see ACC making decisions based on what they call their own common sense. For example they successfully prosecuted a claimant for working on the basis that he could not have been incapacitated to work as a painter because he was found to be working as a truck driver while receiving compensation. Now while he would have been guilty of double dipping in the form of earning was injured and receiving earnings compensation the information of the ACC could not of the third in any way or form that he was no longer injured but rather only information they had that it was working as exact driver while injured. Nonetheless they succeeded in getting a criminal conviction with the ACC convincingly from of course that they have followed the ACC legislated criteria for the purposes of the decision. When the fellow got was of the ACC then went to bankrupt the fellow in an attempt to recover the earnings compensation. My advice to him was that the ACC have broken the law by committing perjury to the court when claiming he was not entitled to earnings compensation. I further described that he was certainly entitled earnings compensation should have declared his truck driver earnings to enable the ACC to calculate abatement of earnings. As it happens he was not lawfully entitled to be driving trucks anyway and the ACC had unlawfully failed calculators earnings compensation properly from the first preinjury job which had led to them working in a new job while the very same situation. Having pointed them in the right direction one of the very few competent ACC lawyers resolved as situation. During the process of this problem I receive submissions from both that lawyer and the ACC together with the court decision at which time it was evident that the ACC were arguing the concept of common sense with needless to say is unlawful with the result that horrendous damage was done to that fellows life circumstances whereby the ACC have followed the legislation faithfully and the none of this would have happened as he would have been receiving the correct earnings compensation from the preinjury occupation.


In the many years I have been looking at ACC decisions I find that it is exceptionally rare for the ACC system immediately followed the ACC legislation. There I find that the ACC staff consider themselves to be in some kind of position of personal power to negotiate rather than calculation as per the legislated criteria . I see laziness and shortcut taken with attack against those make any challenge to their mistakes. The abusiveness is observed as horrendous


You publish a long posting based on the subject of the threads title
Yet all one can read is you Thomas doing exactly that and your content is nothing more than your own thoughts and much Thoamasi'ng inference to get whatever your message is across to the general public

what a NUNCER :lol:/>
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 03:29 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 03:06 PM, said:

You publish a long posting based on the subject of the threads title
Yet all one can read is you Thomas doing exactly that and your content is nothing more than your own thoughts and much Thoamasi'ng inference to get whatever your message is across to the general public

what a NUNCER Posted Image/>


I have usedexamples of which I am well-informed. Obviously I'm best informed regarding my own case but my circumstance does not dominate this thread.

Do you intend making comments on this topic or are you here to be a trouble maker?
0

#4 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 04:51 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 03:29 PM, said:

I have usedexamples of which I am well-informed. Obviously I'm best informed regarding my own case but my circumstance does not dominate this thread.

Do you intend making comments on this topic or are you here to be a trouble maker?

Well informed :lol:/> as usual with no documentation to back up what are can be only your thoughts conveyed with many many unsubstantiated inferences.
0

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 05:27 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

Well informed Posted Image/> as usual with no documentation to back up what are can be only your thoughts conveyed with many many unsubstantiated inferences.


Can you tell everybody what you hope to achieve by telling the ACC that you had information that bad things were about to happen at my hand? Where did you actually get that information? Were you accusing me of a thought crime? Did you reach your conclusions by way of inference? Did your discussions with the rest of the tagteam result in a criminal conviction which was an entirely and absolutely a conviction based on an difference to achieve a thought crime?
0

#6 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:03 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Can you tell everybody what you hope to achieve by telling the ACC that you had information that bad things were about to happen at my hand? Where did you actually get that information? Were you accusing me of a thought crime? Did you reach your conclusions by way of inference? Did your discussions with the rest of the tagteam result in a criminal conviction which was an entirely and absolutely a conviction based on an difference to achieve a thought crime?

Your plans to harm the acc are what why you were nailed on
The plot unknown to me was evidenced by others than myself so Anything else is irrelevant and therefore reported as being off topic. 🦆
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:11 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 09:03 PM, said:

Your plans to harm the acc are what why you were nailed on
The plot was evidenced by others than myself so Anything else is irrelevant and therefore reported as being off topic. 🦆


The evidence of what you thought you knew this was found in an email that you sent to the ACC designed to scare the shit out of them. History confirms that you were successful in finding the hell out of them.
Never mind about what happened as a result of your email,
What on earth made you imagine that there were any plans to harm the ACC when you emailed them?
What was the evidence you relied on when you read the email?
As at that stage you had no connection with me whatsoever in every single thing you knew or thought you knew about me came from Douglas weal on what basis were you claiming any potential harm?

When you answer keep in mind that the court relied upon the email and Douglas weal's drunken recollections and/or complete lies.

So exactly what was the evidence you relied upon at the moment in time when writing your email to the ACC telling them that they faced great danger from me?
0

#8 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:19 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

Never mind about what happened as a result of your email,
What on earth made you imagine that there were any plans to harm the ACC when you emailed them?
What was the evidence you relied on when you read the email?
As at that stage you had no connection with me whatsoever in every single thing you knew or thought you knew about me came from Douglas weal on what basis were you claiming any potential harm?

When you answer keep in mind that the court relied upon the email and Douglas weal's drunken recollections and/or complete lies.

No email ever verified as mine used in court Thomas
Wasn’t in the court
You’ve evidenced that issue as your still trying to get me there
Also I’m sure that late 06 thru to 07 was prior to Weal even appearing on the scene
You have a very selective memory when it suits your faeces.
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:31 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 09:19 PM, said:

No email ever verified as mine used in court Thomas
Wasn’t in the court
You’ve evidenced that issue as your still trying to get me there
Also I’m sure that late 06 thru to 07 was prior to Weal even appearing on the scene
You have a very selective memory when it suits your faeces.


The email that you wrote to the ACC was exhibit number one

My lawyer asked the judge why the ACC presented your email to the court in the ACC confirmed that they relied upon your email to initiate an investigation.

Weal featured in all of your postings on this site whereby he fared you lies in you publish him for am just like you published in the letter for him


I never ever rely upon my memory but rather rely upon the documents presented into court
0

#10 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:34 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 09:11 PM, said:

The evidence of what you thought you knew this was found in an email that you sent to the ACC designed to scare the shit out of them. History confirms that you were successful in finding the hell out of them.
Never mind about what happened as a result of your email,
What on earth made you imagine that there were any plans to harm the ACC when you emailed them?
What was the evidence you relied on when you read the email?
As at that stage you had no connection with me whatsoever in every single thing you knew or thought you knew about me came from Douglas weal on what basis were you claiming any potential harm?

When you answer keep in mind that the court relied upon the email and Douglas weal's drunken recollections and/or complete lies.

So exactly what was the evidence you relied upon at the moment in time when writing your email to the ACC telling them that they faced great danger from me?

Anyone reading your content has the shit scared out of them thomas.
From the prior to inception of this forum until today.
Your a very weirdo oddball to deal with Thomas
0

#11 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:55 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

The email that you wrote to the ACC was exhibit number one

My lawyer asked the judge why the ACC presented your email to the court in the ACC confirmed that they relied upon your email to initiate an investigation.

Weal featured in all of your postings on this site whereby he fared you lies in you publish him for am just like you published in the letter for him


I never ever rely upon my memory but rather rely upon the documents presented into court

Did you bother to ask Weal if he wrote the email.
Oh it’s Deary me time again my you’ve slipped up thomas😎
Your the one that states others can not present another’s evidence to the courts so how come an email of no one was used in court. Never actually presented by the person who owned it
Your full of shit.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 09:57 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 09:34 PM, said:

Anyone reading your content has the shit scared out of them thomas.
From the prior to inception of this forum until today.
Your a very weirdo oddball to deal with Thomas


And yet you are the one with a violent history and mental disabilities While at the same time doing the bidding of others.
0

#13 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 14 April 2018 - 10:04 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 09:55 PM, said:

Did you bother to ask Weal if he wrote the email.
Oh it’s Deary me time again my you’ve slipped up thomas😎
Your the one that states others can not present another’s evidence to the courts so how come an email of no one was used in court. Never actually presented by the person who owned it
Your full of shit.


David Butler the email as your name on it.
When I was interviewed by the police the very first thing they did was to bring out your email, asked me to read it and asked me what I thought of it. What is interesting they asked me if I thought you were sane and rational or whether or not you are high on drugs.
It is irrelevant who wrote the email what is relevant is that David Butler was the one assented to the ACC for the purposes of frightening them. Obviously the email succeeded in frightening the ACC

With regards to presenting and exhibit the court such as the email the only one that can present it is either the one who produced the email or the recipients. No one else is relevant as they are not a party to the document nor can provide evidence of its integrity. So in summary both you and the ACC were the owners of that document

. There is no evidence of any sort that links me to any kind of bomb threat
or Ever threatening the ACC in any way or form ever.
0

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 14 April 2018 - 10:45 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

David Butler the email as your name on it.
When I was interviewed by the police the very first thing they did was to bring out your email, asked me to read it and asked me what I thought of it. What is interesting they asked me if I thought you were sane and rational or whether or not you are high on drugs.
It is irrelevant who wrote the email what is relevant is that David Butler was the one assented to the ACC for the purposes of frightening them. Obviously the email succeeded in frightening the ACC

With regards to presenting and exhibit the court such as the email the only one that can present it is either the one who produced the email or the recipients. No one else is relevant as they are not a party to the document nor can provide evidence of its integrity. So in summary both you and the ACC were the owners of that document

. There is no evidence of any sort that links me to any kind of bomb threat
or Ever threatening the ACC in any way or form ever.

Couldn’t give 2 fuks who’s name is on what Thomas.
You probably sent it yourself or weal did or you both cooked it up to acc to hide the actual bomb plot from bring found out.
Weal states in writing he was very concerned you would blame him so he potted you first.
You have been very consistent with many statements right thru out the plot and the fraud case issues you have that everyone excluding no one but yourself to include the acc the police the judge the judiciary the lawyers all claimsnts memberd of this forum are all liars and never tell the truth
Now you state your accusations using the ones you specifically state are all liars
Fuk your s real treat Thomas
What evidence do you have that dave presented it to acc NONE is the answer
Acc can own all they like doesn’t prove fuk all or where whom it come from. All heresay and that’s not evidence. Many suspect documents abound within acc as we all know
Weal according to you was in my bus
My computer was in the bus
Who wrote the email
You don’t fuken know
If it was such importance as you claim then it would have been verified.
It wasn’t ever asked of.
Prob why I wasn’t in court to say ,hey What the fuk is this.
No summary of nothing acc owned
It’s bit of Paper by the looks of it with no verification examination of its origin or sender ever carried out.
You been conned with it and you state your the clever one
Your Just a dummy Tomas
0

#15 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7340
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 April 2018 - 12:35 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

Well informed :lol:/>/> as usual with no documentation to back up what are can be only your thoughts conveyed with many many unsubstantiated inferences.


Thomas

If you were well informed you wouldn't have lost your case.

You probably know more now than you did then, but those are your many unsubstantiated inferences. I say that because if they were anything more than that you would have the case back in court now.

Mini
0

#16 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 April 2018 - 12:53 PM

View PostHemi, on 14 April 2018 - 10:45 PM, said:

Couldn’t give 2 fuks who’s name is on what Thomas.
You probably sent it yourself or weal did or you both cooked it up to acc to hide the actual bomb plot from bring found out.
Weal states in writing he was very concerned you would blame him so he potted you first.
You have been very consistent with many statements right thru out the plot and the fraud case issues you have that everyone excluding no one but yourself to include the acc the police the judge the judiciary the lawyers all claimsnts memberd of this forum are all liars and never tell the truth
Now you state your accusations using the ones you specifically state are all liars
Fuk your s real treat Thomas
What evidence do you have that dave presented it to acc NONE is the answer
Acc can own all they like doesn’t prove fuk all or where whom it come from. All heresay and that’s not evidence. Many suspect documents abound within acc as we all know
Weal according to you was in my bus
My computer was in the bus
Who wrote the email
You don’t fuken know
If it was such importance as you claim then it would have been verified.
It wasn’t ever asked of.
Prob why I wasn’t in court to say ,hey What the fuk is this.
No summary of nothing acc owned
It’s bit of Paper by the looks of it with no verification examination of its origin or sender ever carried out.
You been conned with it and you state your the clever one
Your Just a dummy Tomas


You said
Weal states in writing he was very concerned you would blame him so he potted you first.

Weal was so drunk I don't think he really meant what he was saying so I didn't tell anybody for that reason. Further a very large number of people tell me what they would like to do. What you have said is quite enlightening and possibly provide some form of explanation as to why he worked himself up after the fact in accordance with what you have just said knowing that while he was so drunk he would be quite uncertain about what he said. This raises the anti-somewhat inasmuch as he must really be very concerned to attack me as a means to distract attention from self. Are you saying this based on what you next be seen or read and if so why have you not gone to the police about it?

So here we go to the heart of thought crime whereby Douglas weal quite clearly has an extremely high level of animosity towards the ACC and rants and raves while he is drunk, then cannot remember what he said and worries about it as to whether or not he might be prosecuted for thought crime.

I have not said everyone is lying, what I have said is that only a very small number have actually lied while others have failed to do their jobs to validate what they had heard then gone on to prosecute on the basis of thought crimes of which the only information they had originated from someone who made speculations and assumptions which of course is also nothing but thought and not evidence.

You will recall the email that you have sent to the ACC whereby you acknowledge communicating with various individuals resulting in the collective thoughts and speculations as to what you think I might do. On the basis of your email I was prosecuted based on this collective thinking in order to prosecute for a thought crime. Is this even legal? I don't know

What I do know is my accusers are now lying about all manner of things in order to hide their involvement in false allegations that have resulted in an unlawful prosecution.

What you are forgetting is that someone made a copy of what is on your computer. Obviously that person is not going to come forward to surrender their information for fear that you will pots them as well for an unlawful search and theft from your computer just like Douglas weal that when he confessed in the court that this is the routine thing he does when he finds an unsecured computer. Unless you have done something he probably still has access. Cracks you should consider setting up a honeypot for him.

Nonetheless the police forensic experts have identified the email delivered to the ACC as originating from your computer. Police do not under any circumstances but random pieces of paper in front of a court and call it an exhibit unless they have evidence as to the origin. The ACC identified the email as originating from you. The police verified it. So let's not go on with your if buts and maybes is all you are doing is confirming that you are the liar you have always been.
0

#17 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7340
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 15 April 2018 - 12:53 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 14 April 2018 - 05:27 PM, said:

Can you tell everybody what you hope to achieve by telling the ACC that you had information that bad things were about to happen at my hand? Where did you actually get that information? Were you accusing me of a thought crime? Did you reach your conclusions by way of inference? Did your discussions with the rest of the tagteam result in a criminal conviction which was an entirely and absolutely a conviction based on an difference to achieve a thought crime?


Thomas

Obviously the person who wrote the document is the one you should be talking to here Thomas and my understanding is that it was not Thomas, but then as the documentment has been mentioned and showing as not being a complete document ie what was missing from it?? It was shown as part of your lawyers bundle I would have thought, so was that question as to who wrote it bought up in court?

Mini
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 April 2018 - 12:55 PM

View PostMINI, on 15 April 2018 - 12:35 PM, said:

Thomas

If you were well informed you wouldn't have lost your case.

You probably know more now than you did then, but those are your many unsubstantiated inferences. I say that because if they were anything more than that you would have the case back in court now.

Mini


How can I be properly Informed about something that simply does not exist except in the minds of my accusers. This is the nature of a thought crime whereby the accusation materials is always merely the thoughts of others in regards to the alleged thoughts of their victim. In other words the tagteam imagined I was going to blow up the ACC which resulted in my being prosecuted for imagining I would like to do something to the ACC without anyone ever having any actual first-hand information of anything or any connection with myself. To make matters clear when someone is exceedingly drunk they do not have a proper connection with the real world which is the reason why they are not even allowed to drive let alone give evidence about their drunken recollections.

Of course at that moment the police came knocking at the door I had no knowledge about anything.
When I was interviewed the very first thing they showed me was an email produced by David Butler. They identified him as being the author of the email.
Immediately prior to the trial my lawyer was provided with a copy of all of the material that the ACC/police planned to present to the court. ACC have carried out an investigation gathered various documents for the police to present.

I then became aware that the case was nothing more than the speculated assumptions of Douglas weal with his worshippers trying to support them wherever they thought they could. David Butler made courageous attempts to sit on the fence.

To get the matter back into court by way of an appeal first I need the information from each individual that possess such information prior to the accusation. This includes you mini.
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8482
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 April 2018 - 01:02 PM

View PostMINI, on 15 April 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

Thomas

Obviously the person who wrote the document is the one you should be talking to here Thomas and my understanding is that it was not Thomas, but then as the documentment has been mentioned and showing as not being a complete document ie what was missing from it?? It was shown as part of your lawyers bundle I would have thought, so was that question as to who wrote it bought up in court?

Mini


I have already told you the document is produced by David Butler as confirmed by the police identified as exhibit number one in the initiation of the terrorist investigation that the ACC witness presented to the court as being the recipient of the document which resulted in the judge telling the police that he wants David Butler, the proven author of the document, in the court room to answer questions about that document and other matters such as Douglas weal issuing a death threat to with regards to his silence in these matters. Surely you have not been ignoring what I have written already.
0

#20 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1502
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 15 April 2018 - 02:03 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 April 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

You said
Weal states in writing he was very concerned you would blame him so he potted you first.

Weal was so drunk I don't think he really meant what he was saying so I didn't tell anybody for that reason. Further a very large number of people tell me what they would like to do. What you have said is quite enlightening and possibly provide some form of explanation as to why he worked himself up after the fact in accordance with what you have just said knowing that while he was so drunk he would be quite uncertain about what he said. This raises the anti-somewhat inasmuch as he must really be very concerned to attack me as a means to distract attention from self. Are you saying this based on what you next be seen or read and if so why have you not gone to the police about it?

So here we go to the heart of thought crime whereby Douglas weal quite clearly has an extremely high level of animosity towards the ACC and rants and raves while he is drunk, then cannot remember what he said and worries about it as to whether or not he might be prosecuted for thought crime.

I have not said everyone is lying, what I have said is that only a very small number have actually lied while others have failed to do their jobs to validate what they had heard then gone on to prosecute on the basis of thought crimes of which the only information they had originated from someone who made speculations and assumptions which of course is also nothing but thought and not evidence.

You will recall the email that you have sent to the ACC whereby you acknowledge communicating with various individuals resulting in the collective thoughts and speculations as to what you think I might do. On the basis of your email I was prosecuted based on this collective thinking in order to prosecute for a thought crime. Is this even legal? I don't know

What I do know is my accusers are now lying about all manner of things in order to hide their involvement in false allegations that have resulted in an unlawful prosecution.

What you are forgetting is that someone made a copy of what is on your computer. Obviously that person is not going to come forward to surrender their information for fear that you will pots them as well for an unlawful search and theft from your computer just like Douglas weal that when he confessed in the court that this is the routine thing he does when he finds an unsecured computer. Unless you have done something he probably still has access. Cracks you should consider setting up a honeypot for him.

Nonetheless the police forensic experts have identified the email delivered to the ACC as originating from your computer. Police do not under any circumstances but random pieces of paper in front of a court and call it an exhibit unless they have evidence as to the origin. The ACC identified the email as originating from you. The police verified it. So let's not go on with your if buts and maybes is all you are doing is confirming that you are the liar you have always been.


you were given a copy of that email of weal re potting you before you potted him
LONG AGO Thomas
email; to acc
no activity or investigation by the police or identified by the police as being written by anyone thomas NO verification as to who wrote or even sent it so thats a waste a time playing cars there thomas.
you have published as fact that weal was at/in my bus
anyone can use a computer if its there to use
an email address is a waste a time as well
couldnt give two fuks whos got a copy of computers thomas
see theres NOTHING there to be concerned about
and you cant use it anyway hahahahahahahahahahahah
for the readers here
Thomas stated he had the admin /owner of accfroum.org one Arron Wislang as the COMPUTER NERD WHO HACKS COMPUTERS AND TELEPHONES
That was a dumb threat to make thomas really dumb,
honey pot
your the fuk wit thats fallen for that ,
0

Share this topic:


  • 4 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