[anonymousey]

Alan Thomas, on 16 April 2018 - 05:57 PM, said:

My goodness what on earth were you thinking?

My goodness me I did not realise that you are so far detached from the fundamentals of our legal system which requires judges to set aside their own personal viewpoints in order that they restrict their judgement to that of the qualified facts that are presented to them and that they do not go further than applying those independent qualified facts presented to the court in relation to the legislation and that their judgements go no further than that.

Just imagine a world where judges were permitted to indulge themselves in "independent thought" and make any judgement however they thought best based on their personal viewpoints. The only result would be that the legal system would fall into disrepute and we would have anarchy. Thankfully the majority of judges are obedience to the length and breadth of the job specification and don't arrogantly Indulge themselves with any form of independent thought.

Another display of your ignorance and arrogance Alan

Do you imagine that you can sneak your wee self into everybodys brains .... and somehow miracoulously force alien thoughts in their heads by using some sort of sick mind control freakery on your victims huh?

Sorry your imagined skills as a ventroloquist and your puppet mastering playoffs with yourself are pointlessly wasted on me Alan

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 16 April 2018 - 06:31 PM, said:

Another display of your ignorance and arrogance Alan

Do you imagine that you can sneak your wee self into everybodys brains .... and somehow miracoulously force alien thoughts in their heads by using some sort of sick mind control freakery on your victims huh?

Sorry your imagined skills as a ventroloquist and your puppet mastering playoffs with yourself are pointlessly wasted on me Alan

I don't know how it is that you have found yourself imagining such ridiculous nonsense as everyone well knows that I promote freedom of speech and independent thought. With that we find that people are more inclined to engage in robust discussion as opposed to your advocacy of groupthink. Just because you find that Compelling rhetoric leading you to one and only one possible conclusion that does not mean that you are being turned into some kind of little robot. Far from it you are simply being asked to challenge your own thinking processes so as you can break away from your groupthink mentality that makes you a victim to so much harm that has been befalling you over these many years of which you have localised to me. Of course the gentleman I am I will not be going into any of the details on the site

[tommy]

judges or judges or not . allan , what it appears as in your world . you are the judge of all , but you are not , and all await if your convictions to or not be over turned , hence , can you indicate a time of such , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 16 April 2018 - 06:54 PM, said:

judges or judges or not . allan , what it appears as in your world . you are the judge of all , but you are not , and all await if your convictions to or not be over turned , hence , can you indicate a time of such , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Do you understand what I have been prosecuted for?
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not those prosecutions were for a thought crime and/or reliant upon inference based evidence to achieve an inference based conviction?
If you contribute towards the technical issues of this thread then you would advance the day whereby this whole ugly mess is unravelled.

The issue with regards to myself is cannot be prosecuted for fraud in reliance upon the ACCs claim that they possess information that I was working without the ACC actually presenting any evidence of any sort of any work task activity at any material time?
Can I be prosecuted forDouglas weal imagining that I was supporting his dream that the ACC staff investigating and for fraud should be blown up with the support of his allegations made against me being based on the recollections of what Douglas weal told various others such as Kenneth Miller and David Butler who the court also relied upon for evidence? When a conviction is as a result of someone's drunken recollections which are supported by various individuals listing to those drunken recollections being repeated followed by the judge listing to those drunken recollections from all concerned with my single voice crying out not guilty we are dealing with a conviction for what can only be described as a thought crime because Douglas weal claim that I was having thoughts about blowing up the ACC. It was never anything portrayed as greater than that and of course there is no actual reason to believe that he could possibly have believed all remembered anything while he was excessively drunk. Kenneth Miller supported Douglas weal when telling the court that he imagines that I would have said what Douglas weal told him i said? Severe we have imagine we evidence at work.

Tommy do you support convictions based on thought crime using imaginary evidence? If not how should this problem we have be dealt with?

[anonymousey]

Alan Thomas, on 16 April 2018 - 06:52 PM, said:

I don't know how it is that you have found yourself imagining such ridiculous nonsense as everyone well knows that I promote freedom of speech and independent thought. With that we find that people are more inclined to engage in robust discussion as opposed to your advocacy of groupthink. Just because you find that Compelling rhetoric leading you to one and only one possible conclusion that does not mean that you are being turned into some kind of little robot. Far from it you are simply being asked to challenge your own thinking processes so as you can break away from your groupthink mentality that makes you a victim to so much harm that has been befalling you over these many years of which you have localised to me. Of course the gentleman I am I will not be going into any of the details on the site

You do not know the meaning of the words and concepts which you gob from googling over the years Alan eg ^freedom of speech^ and ^independent thought^ or even for goodness sake ^robust discussion^

Yup I regard this nonsense as just another classic illustration of your inadequate offensive personal attacks when trying to divert readers attention away from your incompetence and ignorance Alan

Gish I wish I could speak slowly here for you ... remember Alan that Judges have their own brains and will independently think .... so if you are unable to produce any uncontested facts to try and support your submissions and personal ideas and interpretations of ACC legislation & caselaw ... you will always be undone by ACC and other persons if they have superior information presentations and relevant evidence to the Judges Alan


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tommy]

how are you going to overturn thought crime , , allan , imaginery wise

[tommy]

have you a court appearance inplace to sort out your previous convictions allan , or is it imaginery

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 16 April 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

Again I suggest you should roll /> yourself in a primary school English language course.

Noprobelems there ailen'
aisis im in the schhooll ooonn the hhhilly hill i ususally ROLL down toget to the skoooly buus

[tommy]

you were sentenced to jail for fraud , . you received home dentention , for , can you elaborate otherwise allan

[tommy]

apart from, also long a standing case , ie the simpson case and many others , how are you going to overturn these convictions , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Hemi]

tommy, on 16 April 2018 - 07:33 PM, said:

apart from, also long a standing case , ie the simpson case and many others , how are you going to overturn these convictions , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

do you refer to Bart Simpson there tommy?

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 16 April 2018 - 07:03 PM, said:

Do you understand what I have been prosecuted for?
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not those prosecutions were for a thought crime and/or reliant upon inference based evidence to achieve an inference based conviction?
If you contribute towards the technical issues of this thread then you would advance the day whereby this whole ugly mess is unravelled.

The issue with regards to myself is cannot be prosecuted for fraud in reliance upon the ACCs claim that they possess information that I was working without the ACC actually presenting any evidence of any sort of any work task activity at any material time?
Can I be prosecuted forDouglas weal imagining that I was supporting his dream that the ACC staff investigating and for fraud should be blown up with the support of his allegations made against me being based on the recollections of what Douglas weal told various others such as Kenneth Miller and David Butler who the court also relied upon for evidence? When a conviction is as a result of someone's drunken recollections which are supported by various individuals listing to those drunken recollections being repeated followed by the judge listing to those drunken recollections from all concerned with my single voice crying out not guilty we are dealing with a conviction for what can only be described as a thought crime because Douglas weal claim that I was having thoughts about blowing up the ACC. It was never anything portrayed as greater than that and of course there is no actual reason to believe that he could possibly have believed all remembered anything while he was excessively drunk. Kenneth Miller supported Douglas weal when telling the court that he imagines that I would have said what Douglas weal told him i said? Severe we have imagine we evidence at work.

Tommy do you support convictions based on thought crime using imaginary evidence? If not how should this problem we have be dealt with?

Yet Thomas you claim to remeber everything in detail even tho your are drunk, and also when you are very out of it on the potent drugs you use
id prefer someone whos had a few drinks ,over a drugged out lunatic

[tommy]

tuesday lobsang rampa , was a person on interest to then be a philospher , ,

[Alan Thomas]

anonymousey, on 16 April 2018 - 07:23 PM, said:

You do not know the meaning of the words and concepts which you gob from googling over the years Alan eg ^freedom of speech^ and ^independent thought^ or even for goodness sake ^robust discussion^

Yup I regard this nonsense as just another classic illustration of your inadequate offensive personal attacks when trying to divert readers attention away from your incompetence and ignorance Alan

Gish I wish I could speak slowly here for you ... remember Alan that Judges have their own brains and will independently think .... so if you are unable to produce any uncontested facts to try and support your submissions and personal ideas and interpretations of ACC legislation & caselaw ... you will always be undone by ACC and other persons if they have superior information presentations and relevant evidence to the Judges Alan


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Given that you have an appallingly poor capacity to express yourself in the Queen's English and introduce all manner of street talk and little funny faces I think you have not in the right to criticise my command of the language which of course is significantly above averag, but for the brain injury that is focused in the region of the language Centre. Anybody can imagine how terribly offended I am about your witticism of the consequences of my injuries with your street talk and suchlike. This is a personal attack against you and a well-deserved attack at that because your behaviour is offensive and that is the right and proper thing for me to do to address your attack in robust language

the judge may only their brain for the purposes factual evidence of a case in applying that evidence tto the law. Apart from that the judge has no capacity whatsoever for independent thinking outside of the law. The problem you are experiencing is that you have a subservient to mindset and place people like judges on some kind of pedestal with godlike qualities. That is not how the system works. The system works when judges comply with their job specifications.

In the case of the ACC fraud prosecution the ACC spent 6 1/2 weeks bombarding the judge with all manner of irrelevancies such as my ownership of companies and other suchlike the relevant information. The only relevant information is whether or not I was injured and incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. The ACC failed to enter into evidence anything that suggested an end of incapacity by way of medical report. Instead the ACC focused its mind on all kind of inferences which seems to suggest that they are asking the judge to speculate medical information of which the judge simply is not qualified to make. On the other I went to submit the medical reports from both my treatment providers and the ACC medical assessors who confirms a total incapacity by way of scientific proof describing the impossibility of my working in my preinjury occupation. As the ACC case started to be dismantled by the proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibit such as that the judge decided that he did not need to hear any evidence for the defence and ended the trial. I was found guilty.

In the case of Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC offices containing the staff that were investigating him for fraud is rather unusual inasmuch as no one could establish any connection between me and the so-called victims and the only basis for the accusation against me was the word of Douglas weal who provided a very elaborate yet quite impossible story. The story was not investigated, in fact absolutely nothing about what he said was investigated. The sole basis for the subsequent conviction was simply his word which is particularly unusual given the fact that he confessed to being drunk at the time he claimed to have heard me tell them of the so-called plan. Of course the first I heard of this plan was when the police told me yet I note that he waited six months before reset anything but the only said something when the police went to him. But wait there's more we find that he orchestrated the likes of David Butler and Kenneth Miller to tell the ACC and not the police. A normal person would immediately go to the police if they believed of any serious threat. This anomaly did not stop the conviction. In fact there was no actual evidence for the conviction for there to be an anomaly.

So the lesson here is that I was not convicted based on superior evidence. In fact I was convicted without any evidence whatsoever given the fact that hearsay evidence does not reach the threshold of being satisfactory for a proof beyond reasonable doubt conviction and in this country proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence is required before a judge can convict.


One thing I have observed in my many years helping people with difficult and intractable legal difficulties is that the innocent never ever surrender while the guilty eventually give up trying to turn around the conviction they don't like..

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 16 April 2018 - 07:26 PM, said:

how are you going to overturn thought crime , , allan , imaginery wise

When someone submits their imagination as evidence the appropriate thing to do is to convert them for perjury.
So they have the thought that I have committed the crime and have no evidence that's perjury. In other words they are not entitled to have an opinion and obtain a conviction based on an opinion. The conviction must be based on facts. In both convictions against me the ACC presented no facts whatsoever to support their first allegation that I was working and secondly a person who is drunk claiming I was going to blow up a non-existent office is not evidence.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 16 April 2018 - 07:28 PM, said:

have you a court appearance inplace to sort out your previous convictions allan , or is it imaginery

When going to war against enemies is important to prepare the artillery.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 16 April 2018 - 07:30 PM, said:

you were sentenced to jail for fraud , . you received home dentention , for , can you elaborate otherwise allan

No I was not sentenced to home detention for ACC fraud

ACC made a media release that alleges an income of $1.3 million. Despite the fact that the judges not meant to rely upon the newspapers for is evidence he did and gave me a sentence of three years. No evidence was ever presented to describe the quantum of alleged ACC fraud. The way the ACC legislation works is that if a person was working and earning the ACC are required to carry out an abatement of earnings calculation. They did not do this and thus did not present the court with any information of any sort by which the judge may establish the degree of wrongdoing and therefore appropriate sentence.

So here we have a situation where the judge was asked to exercise his imagination, which he did based on the imaginary $1.3 million which was not connected to anything to do with the ACC legislation or anything else. Later the ACC forensic accountant confirmed under oath that ACC had no evidence of any sort to describe any earnings by me at all. In fact I had actually funded companies in the manner of investment and did not get a return on investment which is exactly opposite to what the ACC live the judge to believe. This means that the ACC produce documentation of the forms of media release to induce the judge to produce a court document which is in anyone's language a crime of misleading the court.

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 16 April 2018 - 10:32 PM, said:

Given that you have an appallingly poor capacity to express yourself in the Queen's English and introduce all manner of street talk and little funny faces I think you have not in the right to criticise my command of the language which of course is significantly above averag, but for the brain injury that is focused in the region of the language Centre. Anybody can imagine how terribly offended I am about your witticism of the consequences of my injuries with your street talk and suchlike. This is a personal attack against you and a well-deserved attack at that because your behaviour is offensive and that is the right and proper thing for me to do to address your attack in robust language

the judge may only their brain for the purposes factual evidence of a case in applying that evidence tto the law. Apart from that the judge has no capacity whatsoever for independent thinking outside of the law. The problem you are experiencing is that you have a subservient to mindset and place people like judges on some kind of pedestal with godlike qualities. That is not how the system works. The system works when judges comply with their job specifications.

In the case of the ACC fraud prosecution the ACC spent 6 1/2 weeks bombarding the judge with all manner of irrelevancies such as my ownership of companies and other suchlike the relevant information. The only relevant information is whether or not I was injured and incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. The ACC failed to enter into evidence anything that suggested an end of incapacity by way of medical report. Instead the ACC focused its mind on all kind of inferences which seems to suggest that they are asking the judge to speculate medical information of which the judge simply is not qualified to make. On the other I went to submit the medical reports from both my treatment providers and the ACC medical assessors who confirms a total incapacity by way of scientific proof describing the impossibility of my working in my preinjury occupation. As the ACC case started to be dismantled by the proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibit such as that the judge decided that he did not need to hear any evidence for the defence and ended the trial. I was found guilty.

In the case of Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC offices containing the staff that were investigating him for fraud is rather unusual inasmuch as no one could establish any connection between me and the so-called victims and the only basis for the accusation against me was the word of Douglas weal who provided a very elaborate yet quite impossible story. The story was not investigated, in fact absolutely nothing about what he said was investigated. The sole basis for the subsequent conviction was simply his word which is particularly unusual given the fact that he confessed to being drunk at the time he claimed to have heard me tell them of the so-called plan. Of course the first I heard of this plan was when the police told me yet I note that he waited six months before reset anything but the only said something when the police went to him. But wait there's more we find that he orchestrated the likes of David Butler and Kenneth Miller to tell the ACC and not the police. A normal person would immediately go to the police if they believed of any serious threat. This anomaly did not stop the conviction. In fact there was no actual evidence for the conviction for there to be an anomaly.

So the lesson here is that I was not convicted based on superior evidence. In fact I was convicted without any evidence whatsoever given the fact that hearsay evidence does not reach the threshold of being satisfactory for a proof beyond reasonable doubt conviction and in this country proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence is required before a judge can convict.


One thing I have observed in my many years helping people with difficult and intractable legal difficulties is that the innocent never ever surrender while the guilty eventually give up trying to turn around the conviction they don't like..

thomas you berate others who are injured quite nastily then claim you are injured and a victim of berate ment etc
what a pillock
on the fraud trial
i think the prosecutor did rather well at showing how you misled lied to the acc failed to comply with your duties under the act and thus were found guilty of what you were actually charged with and that was not working as you claim but
''With the intent to defraud used documents capable of being used to obtain a pecuniary advantage for yourself or another''
YOU LOST THAT CASE.

on the plot
of course it was interviewed thus investigated
you were interviewed thus investigated
weal was interviewed thus investigated
you both made subsequent statements
you wont find any document or anything related such as weal asking for the plot to be given to the acc by dave thomas
never happened
as his email stated
he forgot to tell me so heres the gen on it.
he said the same to miller who sent it to acc
your assumptions are well out of timing thomas = cant be as you state accuse of as >ITS IMPOSSIBLE to be as you state<It is fully documented as being impossible you nincompoop tommo


miller
well thats in court records how he came about to send it to acc =miller did send it and rightly so in my opinion .
your the one telling us all if you suspect or know of a crime or possible crime report it.
thats what miller did thomas now you claim foul as it was you that got caught
this anomaly you speak of thomas
well in my opinion that was you being the real anomaly -so really you fuked yourself over there.
YOU LOST THAT CASE.

lesson1 is you were convicted on evidence/s
lesson 2 is dont plan to do something nasty thomas
lesson 3 DONT TELL LIES youll always get caught out one day on them = again as youve found out- it does indeed catch up on ya eh tommo

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 16 April 2018 - 07:40 PM, said:

Yet Thomas you claim to remeber everything in detail even tho your are drunk, and also when you are very out of it on the potent drugs you use
id prefer someone whos had a few drinks ,over a drugged out lunatic

The fact that you would imagine I was drunk further demonstrates the nature of this thread whereby you have a belief system of Reliance upon inference to achieve conviction to achieve conviction.

If you were in the court room you would have seen your friends Douglas weal tell the court that while he drank several bottles of wine I had a glass and a half of a very small glass. The way he said it was if he felt that I was some kind of a wimp. When the evening was finished I took my sleeping pill and pain medicationwithout further interaction with Douglas weal while he rifled my home..

Why is it that you think you can simply imagine thingsand call your imagination fact? Is it that you think that you can lie with impunity and that somehow you're following will enhance your imagination into a real facts because lots and lots of people believe what you say and have enough people believe the same thing then you have real facts. Most probably this is what you really really think is needed to overturn real evidence such as science-based medical evidence.

The thing as as I did not take the stand no evidence from me was entered into the court system. What was entered into the court system was that Douglas weal confessed to have been drunk at the time he claim to remember hearing certain things despite nothing whatsoever been said about anything connected to what he claims to be discussed. Just as a person is not allowed to drive while drunk are drunken person's recollections is not permitted into court any more than the same person is allowed to be drunk in the court giving evidence. This means that anything that Douglas weal said should have been disqualified by this rule. Sometimes of course judges demonstrate incompetence while other times they demonstrate corruption.

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 16 April 2018 - 11:01 PM, said:

thomas you berate others who are injured quite nastily then claim you are injured and a victim of berate ment etc
what a pillock
on the fraud trial
i think the prosecutor did rather well at showing how you misled lied to the acc failed to comply with your duties under the act and thus were found guilty of what you were actually cherged with and that was t''he use of documents with an intent to/for pecuniary gain for yourself or others''
on the plot
of course it was interviewed thus investigated
you were interviewed thus investigated
weal was interviewed thus investigated
you both made subsequent statements
you wont find any document or anything related such as weal asking for the plot to be given to the acc by dave thomas
never happened
as his email stated
he forgot to tell me so heres the gen on it.
he said the same to miller who sent it to acc
your assumptions are well out of timing thomas = cant be as you state accuse of as >ITS IMPOSSIBLE to be as you state<It is fully documeted as being impossible you nincompoop tommo


miller
well thats in court records how he came about to send it to acc =miller did send it and rightly so in my opinion .
your the one telling us all if you suspect or know of a crime or possible crime report it.
thats what miller did thomas now you claim foul as it was you that got caught
this anomaly you speak of thomas
well in my opinion that was you being the real anomaly -so really you fuked yourself over there.

lesson1 is you were convicted on evidence and lesson 2 is dont plan to do something nasty thomas
lesson 3
DONT TELL LIES youll always get caught out one day on them = again as youve found out- it does indeed catch up on ya eh tommo

I'm sorry I can't follow which cases you are talking about.

All as I know that I was never investigated about anything and no information I produced including proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence that absolutely conclusively proved beyond any kind of doubt that there is no possibility I could have either worked or talked about blowing up a non-existent ACC branch office containing people that I had absolutely nothing to do with of which coincidently were investigating my accuser for fraud.

The fact that Miller selected a portion of an email to send to the ACC demonstrates a criminal's mind who suppresses the evidence by restricting what evidence the ACC actually have. Come to think of it that is exactly what David Butler has been doing all this time by providing a few crumbs of information while at the same time with holding vast quantities of information from everybody and in particular the judge who told the police the going get you and the evidence you possess a have a forum in front of the courts for examination. You told the police that you refuse to come. Did you refuse to attend court or not? This is your chance!

You speak of lessons so is there anything I could have done different by not telling ACC that I wasn't working? With regards to the allegation that I am planning to blow up the ACC, is there any reason to believe that I won't because by your standard of belief system you believe that I am going to block the ACC so what's stopping me? Do you really think I have a plan to block the ACC or do you really think that Douglas weal is going to block the ACC and blame me with your help providing a prepackaged Patsy for his yet to be committed crime. Do I need to be worried that I'm yet to be accused once again only this time for real? You are putting yourself as the foremost expert on this matter so what is your evidence? Obviously you're not going to be I would you claim that you have evidence after-the-fact now are you so now is your only chance. So there we have it set up to achieve a conviction based on a thought crime with inferential evidence coming from yourself yet again.