[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 22 April 2018 - 01:32 PM, said:

Thomas

I will attack your words of tripe as long as I am here. You state often that Butler/Hemi and I are part of some sort of tagteam, whatever it represents. You say that ACC commission the members Douglas Weal and any tagteam to attack him.

You are walking on quicksand when you state people have conspired to harm you. If all you have as far as I am concerned, is that you think I should have gone to the police as soon as I was told that the email had already gone to sue north of the ACC, without any paperwork to back it up. Then you have said I have withheld information that they were already getting thru ACC. That is a fact. And even though I have never made a conscious decision of talking to the police about you one way or the other, it probably would have been different if I held some type of evidence.

Would you still be thanking me for going to the police and complaining about you doing something of which I Knew nothing, if in face ACC had decided not to take the information to the police to charge you.

I don't thing so. You would have verbally be tearing me to bits. ie What business was it of mine etc etc.

You are a very stupid man and you float very close to a dangerous position of being in my face. And I don't like smelling bad breathe.

Mini

Neither point that I'm at pains to make is that it is not up to you to decide what is evidence and what is not evidence. That is for the police and the courts. Just imagine what the world would be like if individual citizens were to decide what evidence the police were going to have and what they weren't going to have! That is why there are laws that prevent you from deciding such matters. The point that I'm making is that you should have made everything available to the police and answered whatever questions they thought were relevant. That way ever looked like you are provided everything and what the police reported to the courts sounded credible that would be the end of the matter for you. However if anything is missed out or seems to be missed out on a case as serious as this you can guarantee that you would be subpoenaed to the court and asked about the missing information that wasn't provided. So as things stand now with your viewpoints of being able to decide for yourself what the police and court shall have you are guaranteeing that you would be called to the court to surrender the balance.

Keep in mind that it is not up to you to interpret information or prejudge anything as that is not your role in life when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

If the judge or the police found that you were wilfully withholding information it is more likely than not that you would be prosecuted for obstructing justice. If you are acting with a motive to protect Douglas weal or anyone else then there would be an additional charges of conspiracy to make false allegation.

Is not too late, please go to the police.

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 22 April 2018 - 04:55 PM, said:

Neither point that I'm at pains to make is that it is not up to you to decide what is evidence and what is not evidence. That is for the police and the courts. Just imagine what the world would be like if individual citizens were to decide what evidence the police were going to have and what they weren't going to have! That is why there are laws that prevent you from deciding such matters. The point that I'm making is that you should have made everything available to the police and answered whatever questions they thought were relevant. That way ever looked like you are provided everything and what the police reported to the courts sounded credible that would be the end of the matter for you. However if anything is missed out or seems to be missed out on a case as serious as this you can guarantee that you would be subpoenaed to the court and asked about the missing information that wasn't provided. So as things stand now with your viewpoints of being able to decide for yourself what the police and court shall have you are guaranteeing that you would be called to the court to surrender the balance.

Keep in mind that it is not up to you to interpret information or prejudge anything as that is not your role in life when it comes to criminal prosecutions.

If the judge or the police found that you were wilfully withholding information it is more likely than not that you would be prosecuted for obstructing justice. If you are acting with a motive to protect Douglas weal or anyone else then there would be an additional charges of conspiracy to make false allegation.

Is not too late, please go to the police.

the quicksand gets more slithery.

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

The 1974 injury has no relevance whatsoever to do with the 1989 injury. Further you have only reference one of the review hearings resulting from the five decision is the ACC made between October 1991 and June 1992.

Your technique of harvesting information to suit yourself does not provide you with the necessary intellectual facilities to address unresolved issues. As this is beyond your capacity there is little point in having any discussion with you. The example of you using the 1974 injury inappropriately has already been addressed previously and resolved so your raising it again is demonstrating a nefarious intent. A person of your state of mind does not have a capacity to provide any meaningful help and thus far in your career on this site has been limited to hate speech to the point that I'm considering legal action against you so as that you might be properly controlled given that you cannot control yourself.

One has to ask Thomas why you haven't put this up here before. It is obviously in your favour and should have been used to get you operations with Mr Rees. They willing to pay private for the operations.

They paid complete private for mine and I drip feed them half of each one back. Worked wonderfully. I didn't have to find extra monies to help pay the bills. Just $100 each week. And in those days 1996 &1997, One night stay in hospital and rest up at home. Only guess you would have had the operations, let of prision, and then looked after when you get back.

How on earth has this wonderful decision been not carried out. It is exactly what you are complaining about now and a long time back. They did not give you your treatment/operations, and you have had injuries that would award you your erc all along.

Mind you, you still had the problem that fraud can take away anything they liked and they proved you were working. Look back and read the case that gave you the jail sentence, then see what the Judge said. I think it over rides what a Reviewer says. But I should imagine it didn't need too over ride the Review as you still could have had your operations from jail. Like you have often said a Review decision is binding.

Unless of course there is another piece of paper that has been dated since this one that takes over from that.

Mini

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 19 April 2018 - 07:37 PM, said:

The 1974 injury has no relevance whatsoever to do with the 1989 injury. Further you have only reference one of the review hearings resulting from the five decision is the ACC made between October 1991 and June 1992.

Your technique of harvesting information to suit yourself does not provide you with the necessary intellectual facilities to address unresolved issues. As this is beyond your capacity there is little point in having any discussion with you. The example of you using the 1974 injury inappropriately has already been addressed previously and resolved so your raising it again is demonstrating a nefarious intent. A person of your state of mind does not have a capacity to provide any meaningful help and thus far in your career on this site has been limited to hate speech to the point that I'm considering legal action against you so as that you might be properly controlled given that you cannot control yourself.

Thomas

Wether or not your wrist injury in 1974 was relevant or not would depend on when it happened in 1974, because, ACC only started sometime in that year didn't it and if your accident from the tree was before the start date it wouldn't be covered would it.?

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

I am not going to discuss issues that have already addressed and provided the relevant information.
To summarise I provide the following

In 1989 I was working and earning
I had an accident and was injured and could no longer work
the medical profession have confirmed all of the facts and no opinion of any sort coming from myself as ever been factored into anything
Throughout the entire interactions with the ACC at every single intersectional decision-making process the ACC have disregarded the legislation and done things their own way. From the beginning they delayed so long except in the claim and making compensation payments I lost my business and house.
After accepting the claim for cover and paying entitlements the ACC suddenly stopped payment on all medical treatment and compensation without a decision letter of any sort 1991.
It took until 1992 before two separate review hearings made a finding in my favour one being for the payment of reconstructive surgery and the other thing for earnings compensation and other entitlements as I was determined to have a 60% disability overturning the ACC decision to cancel everything based on their viewpoint of my having a temporary incapacity which had run its course. Those decisions remain binding up until the present. ACC have the option to pay for the reconstructive surgery in order to avoid the outcome being a permanent incapacity under section 60 of the 1982 act.
The calculations required ACC to pay 60% on section 79 but by way of amendments they paid 100%.
The calculation for section 78 had been deferred because the ACC felt that given my injuries were deteriorating and stabilising they could not make the calculation. They still have not made the calculation.
Under the 1982 legislation there is no such thing as vocational rehabilitation. The person is either temporarily incapacitated under section 59 or permanently incapacitated under section 60 and therefore effectively retired and left to their own devices. There was no funding for vocational rehabilitation but if a person did under their own initiative engage in a new line of work and become part-time or even fully employed The claim and entitlements to ERC remained in place but with calculation is of an abatement of earnings reimbursing the ACC so as there is no double dipping.
In 1995 the ACC issued me with an ultimatum to engage in a vocational rehabilitation plan under the 1992 legislation in this regard to the criteria of 1982 legislation. The ultimatum was unlawful and as such there was no intention whatsoever to exchange my right of reconstructive surgery with ACC providing the the label of a new occupational title and therefore abandon its liabilities to ERC. I was required to carry out work task activity in order to produce reports and business plans and suchlike. As I was injured and could not write ACC suspended ERC until I complied claiming to rely upon section 73 (2). I purchased voice software at the cost of $1600 and after I learned to use it started to produce what the ACC required. To the state they have not reimbursed this cost on the basis that under the 1982 legislation they do not have pay for vocational rehabilitation costs. Several times more the ACC suspended ERC because I was not productive enough despite the fact that my medical treatment providers kept on reminding the ACC of my limitations and incapacity rendering it impossible for me to comply.
The month after the last suspension of entitlements being reinstated the ACC canceled the claim And entitlements citing section 73 (1) claiming the information requirements under that section has been fulfilled alleging that they had possession of information that I was working. It turns out that the ACC fraud investigation unit employed private investigators who observed me working on my rehabilitation plans as instructed by my case manager.
As the ACC intended prosecuting for fraud they claimed under the privacy act that it would not be in the public interest for them to disclose any information that they claim to possess under section 73 (1). The ACC privacy Officer explained to the ACC staff making the decision that they were not allowed to withhold the information as it would breach my right to appeal and they had to choose between continuing to pay and prosecute under the crimes act to be allowed to withhold information or not prosecute and proceed with the civil action and make disclosure. The privacy Officer was ignored.
The reviewer agree that the review hearing could not proceed without ACC making disclosure and decided to adjourn. Without reconvening in order to have the hearing addressing whether or not I was working and whether or not work in any bearing whatsoever on cancelling the claim the review officer decided not to disturb the ACC decision.
As the ACC had no information describing a single work task activity they sought a large number of search warrants which were granted on the basis that I was a director of companies. The ACCC is vast quantities of information and retain that property of mine making it impossible to use my property for any kind of defence in a criminal prosecution.
The ACC applied for a suspension of my rights to appeal the reviewer's decision in the district court indefinitely.
In 1999 the ACC initiated their private criminal prosecution and presented over six weeks of material to the court.
Prior to the court case the ACC requested that immigration deport my de facto wife. Immigration started this process but thought better of it given the fact that she had never overstayed and had already returned to China in order to wait for immigration due process the permanent residence application which was started two years earlier. A special-purpose visa was directed by a judge to enable her to return to New Zealand to give evidence. When she arrived ACC again went to immigration and asked her to be removed from New Zealand as they considered that her evidence was not necessary. She was my 24 hour per day seven day per week witness of my day-to-day activities. The deportation back to China Started with a period of imprisonment in New Zealand followed by her being return on the exact same flight that she had a return air ticket to go back to China on whereupon she entered China at 20° below freezing in a summer frock without her luggage resulted in the death of our unborn child. She became severely traumatised, suicidal, changed her name and fled to Canada where she lives today.
My lawyer tried to resign during the trial three times on the basis that it was impossible for him to prepare a defence without the defence exhibits of the ACC still possessed combined with his lack of experience and ACC's request for legal aid services not to fund the appeal which resulted in only a 15 hour pre-trial funding and lack of funding during the trial. The judge would not allow them to resign. He did no work or preparation for the defence. After the ACC made their presentation I started presenting exhibits for the purposes of my defence. Within minutes the judge said that he did not want to see my defence as the ACC submissions were more than adequate for his decision.The judge made a finding of guilty and despite any calculation as to any claimed losses by the ACC I was sentenced to 3 years in prison. The ACC have not yet carried out any calculations to determine such matters as an earnings compensation overpayment et cetera which if they had would have of course undermined the ACC prosecution of fraud as fraud a pecuniary advantage to myself of some sort and of course as there was no work and no earnings they can have been no overpayment. Such a calculation is quite impossible when ACC did not possess any information describing a single work task activity of any material time in other words the ACC are committed perjury and did not raise the abatement of earnings due to their definite awareness that perjury had been committed.
It took 10 years before I was able to get a hearing date for the appeal to the review hearing decision. The first order of business was for ACC to make disclosure in order for an appeal to take place. The court agreed and gave the ACC six months to make disclosure in as much as they had to describe the individual work task activities at the material times no later than September 2006. The ACC made no disclosure. The judge then decided to set aside the ACC decision on the basis that it was wrong both in fact and law. However the judge quite bizarrely departed from the norm of making a finding in my favour and decided instead to determine whether or not I was medically fit to return to my preinjury occupation. I pointed out to the judge that the ACC had no information describing my preinjury occupation so the judge adjourned and gave the ACC special leave to commission private investigators to find out what they thought my preinjury occupation was despite the fact that I have presented proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence of the work that I had been doing prior to being injured. Instead of acquiring information of what I was doing prior to being injured the private investigators provided the ACC with information about what I was doing after being first injured in June but prior to being injured in the second injury December 1989 and as such only provided the court with information of what I was doing on light duties while waiting for surgery in relation to the first injury up until the time that my incapacity for such that I could not work at all. The judge then made a ruling that though there was no information provided to the court describing a single work task activity and no information describing pre-injury work task activity that I was fit to return to my preinjury occupation in direct contrast to the entire medical evidence including the medical evidence produced by ACC medical assessors that confirmed I could not work.
As at the time period the ACC were directed to make disclosure of the alleged work task activity of which there was no information whatsoever Douglas weal claim to have heard me claim that it was about to blow up ACC which of course is ridiculous because of that point in time there was every indication that the ACC could not possibly win their case and my confidence in my winning the case was absolute. So during the latter stages of the appeal I found myself being faced with ACC initiating another prosecution of terrorism against them which of course was very distracting. Given that I could not give my attention of both cases by disregarded the terrorism accusation entirely as it was complete nonsense. A lawyer worked on the case who on the advice of other lawyers agreed that the case was complete nonsense. A decision in relation to the terrorism case was not given until after the ACC civil appeal which was in the ACC's favour.

I have since had reconstructive surgery of which the ACC had agreed to pay the did not. On the first attempt of surgery ACC involvement resulted in surgery being halted aafter I was medicated and down ready the surgery 15 minutes later. Following another year surgery did occur which has resulted in my receiving an artificial wrist joint and a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation on light duties part-time. As my capacity is very low due to continued incapacity from the primary and other injuries I am unable to generate much earnings and as such subs injury such as dislocated fingers, eye injuries etc etc I fall below the threshold of make it worthwhile to obtain earnings compensation, in the opinion of the ACC.

The current situation is that the ACC have been directed by three different review hearings two years apart for the ACC to fund the required medical assessments to determine degree of disability. Each time the reviewer gives the ACC 20 days to comply the 20 days expire resulting in a new application based on a delay of process to be lodged. This procedure has now seems to be repeating indefinitely. Obviously such a medical assessment that determines degree of disability unravels the ACC insurance fraud and perjury to both civil and criminal courts. As previously stated it is not ACC the Corporation that is at fault but rather individual employees over several decades with the more recent ones using fictitious names making it difficult to get them into the criminal court.

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

stupid people don't make me angry.

Only angry people think other people get angry as they get.

There you go again making an assumption next we'll have a speculation to do with the concept of anger.

Everything that I have ever said remains exactly static in the same without change. After all how could facts possibly change. What I have noticed however is every time I correct other people's mistakes and bring them back to the exact same set of facts they get upset that they are wrong but will not admit it and come up with an even you and more bizarre story than previously the same procedure taken place whereby I bring them back to the exact same set of facts again which in turn repeat the same process of them getting angry because they don't like being corrected. This situation has repeated itself ever since Douglas weal told everyone who I was and try to get rid of me by initiating the so-called tagteam of which later both mini and Douglas weal joined. It is difficult to know when David Butler joined because he has been using so many different names over the years.

Only those that were involved in making an accusation of plans to blow up the ACC staff investigating Douglas weal for fraud have had their postings analysed by a specialist. Kenneth Miller of course is way off the chart, a true loony tune with no apparent injury to cause it while on the other hand David Butler claims brain injury yet he is unable to explain the periods of time is quite lucid, the fact that has been pointed out to me that is quite inconsistent with the style of communications at other times with the prime example of the type of communications being in the style of the email sent to the ACC which has three different distinct styles within the one email. How could that happen I wonder?

I have challenged members of the site to identify in precise terms actual lies and even when I offer my sums of money such as $100 for a specific lie of their choosing they don't make good on the accusation of lying. This of course is a clear indicator that they themselves are lying by accusing me of being alive just like Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC when it is the ACC staff there investigating a number of fraud that he fantasises about. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder how long they have got before the alleged plot goes ahead?

Thomas

You are a liar. Show me where Douglas Weal and Mini are ever close enough to be part of his or yours so called Tagteam.

You know you are commiting a crime against me by persisting to use this language against me. You and Mr Weal are not that important in my life, to be anything other than part of a conspiracy, when he was at your house and staying overnight with you, to create a menace towards ACC. AND as far as you are concerned, the Court agrees with me. they found you guilty of TPB.

Anything to do with TPB was between you, Weal and maybe a couple of someone elses life. I never received any documentation that would let me know that anything at all concerning this was going down.

Be careful you don't push past my acceptance of no cause for court action. Persistantly referring to lies to harass another with is against the law Thomas.

Mini

Mini

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

stupid people don't make me angry.

Only angry people think other people get angry as they get.

There you go again making an assumption next we'll have a speculation to do with the concept of anger.

Everything that I have ever said remains exactly static in the same without change. After all how could facts possibly change. What I have noticed however is every time I correct other people's mistakes and bring them back to the exact same set of facts they get upset that they are wrong but will not admit it and come up with an even you and more bizarre story than previously the same procedure taken place whereby I bring them back to the exact same set of facts again which in turn repeat the same process of them getting angry because they don't like being corrected. This situation has repeated itself ever since Douglas weal told everyone who I was and try to get rid of me by initiating the so-called tagteam of which later both mini and Douglas weal joined. It is difficult to know when David Butler joined because he has been using so many different names over the years.

Only those that were involved in making an accusation of plans to blow up the ACC staff investigating Douglas weal for fraud have had their postings analysed by a specialist. Kenneth Miller of course is way off the chart, a true loony tune with no apparent injury to cause it while on the other hand David Butler claims brain injury yet he is unable to explain the periods of time is quite lucid, the fact that has been pointed out to me that is quite inconsistent with the style of communications at other times with the prime example of the type of communications being in the style of the email sent to the ACC which has three different distinct styles within the one email. How could that happen I wonder?

I have challenged members of the site to identify in precise terms actual lies and even when I offer my sums of money such as $100 for a specific lie of their choosing they don't make good on the accusation of lying. This of course is a clear indicator that they themselves are lying by accusing me of being alive just like Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC when it is the ACC staff there investigating a number of fraud that he fantasises about. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder how long they have got before the alleged plot goes ahead?

Thomas

I have more than once told you were on your on Declanature you have lied about me. Last time I looked your posting I pulled forward to prove that you in fact put it up there yourself. Must have another peek-a-boo eh??

peek-a-boo bit like a Snoopy eh Thomas?

Mini

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 05:32 PM, said:

off topic

Thomas

Everything you don't want to answer is off topic. Because you know you will get caught out telling lies if you try to answer Butler/Hemi's Question. In the past you have talked youself into the impossible and when found out later you squeal "Off topic"!! I don't think that will stop him finding out the truth. As it did not stop me finding out the truth, but you didn't pay me the $100.

MIni

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 24 April 2018 - 01:07 PM, said:

Thomas

You are a liar. Show me where Douglas Weal and Mini are ever close enough to be part of his or yours so called Tagteam.

You know you are commiting a crime against me by persisting to use this language against me. You and Mr Weal are not that important in my life, to be anything other than part of a conspiracy, when he was at your house and staying overnight with you, to create a menace towards ACC. AND as far as you are concerned, the Court agrees with me. they found you guilty of TPB.

Anything to do with TPB was between you, Weal and maybe a couple of someone elses life. I never received any documentation that would let me know that anything at all concerning this was going down.

Be careful you don't push past my acceptance of no cause for court action. Persistantly referring to lies to harass another with is against the law Thomas.

Mini

Mini

I am largely going by the way in which he spoke of you when he was in my home. He went on to a a lot of details. I then see you trying to support him ever since despite what you were writing being directly contrary to reality and without basis of any facts whatsoever. This is the modus operandi of the tagteam. To be a member of the tagteam you do not even need to know each of the take the members nor have any kind of connection and philosophies or belief systems. All that it takes is that you have the common goal of disrupting my appeal processes by addressing irrelevancies for the purposes of defaming me. Persistently warning you of your wrongdoing against me and recommendations for you to go to the police with what you have heard is not a breach of any law but rather an obligation of the law.

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 24 April 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

Thomas

I have more than once told you were on your on Declanature you have lied about me. Last time I looked your posting I pulled forward to prove that you in fact put it up there yourself. Must have another peek-a-boo eh??

peek-a-boo bit like a Snoopy eh Thomas?

Mini

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Please be specific and point to the evidence as well.

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 20 April 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

stupid people don't make me angry.

Only angry people think other people get angry as they get.

There you go again making an assumption next we'll have a speculation to do with the concept of anger.

Everything that I have ever said remains exactly static in the same without change. After all how could facts possibly change. What I have noticed however is every time I correct other people's mistakes and bring them back to the exact same set of facts they get upset that they are wrong but will not admit it and come up with an even you and more bizarre story than previously the same procedure taken place whereby I bring them back to the exact same set of facts again which in turn repeat the same process of them getting angry because they don't like being corrected. This situation has repeated itself ever since Douglas weal told everyone who I was and try to get rid of me by initiating the so-called tagteam of which later both mini and Douglas weal joined. It is difficult to know when David Butler joined because he has been using so many different names over the years.

Only those that were involved in making an accusation of plans to blow up the ACC staff investigating Douglas weal for fraud have had their postings analysed by a specialist. Kenneth Miller of course is way off the chart, a true loony tune with no apparent injury to cause it while on the other hand David Butler claims brain injury yet he is unable to explain the periods of time is quite lucid, the fact that has been pointed out to me that is quite inconsistent with the style of communications at other times with the prime example of the type of communications being in the style of the email sent to the ACC which has three different distinct styles within the one email. How could that happen I wonder?

I have challenged members of the site to identify in precise terms actual lies and even when I offer my sums of money such as $100 for a specific lie of their choosing they don't make good on the accusation of lying. This of course is a clear indicator that they themselves are lying by accusing me of being alive just like Douglas weal accusing me of planning to blow up the ACC when it is the ACC staff there investigating a number of fraud that he fantasises about. Tick tock tick tock. I wonder how long they have got before the alleged plot goes ahead?

Thomas

What gives you the right to have 'specialists' analyse people from this forum. You say you are not the owner, so what gives you the right??? Who are these people you had analysed, name them up here. What a gross invasion of privacy and you are taking who to the Court room? you are so full of yourself you are frightening and shouldn't be here.

Mini

[tommy]

so to date allan , your injury status as in an income as covered with winz , and as so , you will receive a income to suit , untill you can overturn your convictions as ortherwise with the corporation , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tommy]

the 20 day expiry date , can you elaborate allan , as in a start and end point , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 24 April 2018 - 01:56 PM, said:

I am largely going by the way in which he spoke of you when he was in my home. He went on to a a lot of details. I then see you trying to support him ever since despite what you were writing being directly contrary to reality and without basis of any facts whatsoever. This is the modus operandi of the tagteam. To be a member of the tagteam you do not even need to know each of the take the members nor have any kind of connection and philosophies or belief systems. All that it takes is that you have the common goal of disrupting my appeal processes by addressing irrelevancies for the purposes of defaming me. Persistently warning you of your wrongdoing against me and recommendations for you to go to the police with what you have heard is not a breach of any law but rather an obligation of the law.

Thomas

You take off to the law and police, whoever you like and tell them about what Weal said about me and that I was one of the tagteam that ended up on LF. Yes indeed do that, and I will respond to them. I will not run away. I will face you in Court and deny your ravings as that of a lunatic.

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 24 April 2018 - 04:56 PM, said:

Thomas

What gives you the right to have 'specialists' analyse people from this forum. You say you are not the owner, so what gives you the right??? Who are these people you had analysed, name them up here. What a gross invasion of privacy and you are taking who to the Court room? you are so full of yourself you are frightening and shouldn't be here.

Mini

When people act in a criminal way against another it induces a criminal investigation. When people like Douglas weal promote that his fellow tagteam members put a bullet in the back of my head it is appropriate to investigate all of those tagteam members so as to determine the level of risk. What we have established with yourself is that you have elected to remain silent and not even go to the police about that type of death yet you were preoccupied with someone posting a cartoon. That indicates a level of inappropriateness that has been described as a psychological break with regards to your perceptions of reality and what is important and what is not.

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 26 April 2018 - 08:37 AM, said:

Thomas

You take off to the law and police, whoever you like and tell them about what Weal said about me and that I was one of the tagteam that ended up on LF. Yes indeed do that, and I will respond to them. I will not run away. I will face you in Court and deny your ravings as that of a lunatic.

Mini

I have never had in the interests of any involvement whatsoever with "LF". Your ongoing departure from reality in this regard speaks to your mental disposition. It seems to me that you have exported the conduct of David Butler and his relationship with you and your privacy to the part of your brain which thinks about myself and imagined some kind of connection. Imagining connections that in fact do not exist identifies a breach in your capacity to perceive reality. This means that you are the raving lunatic, not me.

[doppelganger]

anonymousey, on 19 April 2018 - 05:44 PM, said:

The Corporation administratively reviewed the matter but decided that, as it believed Mr Thomas was clearly capable of working, the decision should not be changed and the matter came to hearing.





4621988_surgery.doc

this is what ACC make many decision based on today as well as then.

Its a pitty that the reviewer did not deal with the problem then as well as every reviewer had not dealth with this problem since.

The request for surgery was to restore the earnings to the maximum capacity. Not to have the person in low earnings which is not suitable to the claimant.

See Allan was offered employmant as a consultant (that was in suitable employment and earning to the maximum capacity.) Was asked for Alan to supply the written offer of employment or more likely it was just hear say.

[tommy]

doppelganger, on 27 April 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

this is what ACC make many decision based on today as well as then.

Its a pitty that the reviewer did not deal with the problem then as well as every reviewer had not dealth with this problem since.

The request for surgery was to restore the earnings to the maximum capacity. Not to have the person in low earnings which is not suitable to the claimant.

See Allan was offered employmant as a consultant (that was in suitable employment and earning to the maximum capacity.) Was asked for Alan to supply the written offer of employment or more likely it was just hear say.

as you quoted , doppel , allan was offered employement as a consultant, etc , and then you mentioned was asked for allan to supply the written offer, or was it hearsay , can you expand on those comments,

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 26 April 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

When people act in a criminal way against another it induces a criminal investigation. When people like Douglas weal promote that his fellow tagteam members put a bullet in the back of my head it is appropriate to investigate all of those tagteam members so as to determine the level of risk. What we have established with yourself is that you have elected to remain silent and not even go to the police about that type of death yet you were preoccupied with someone posting a cartoon. That indicates a level of inappropriateness that has been described as a psychological break with regards to your perceptions of reality and what is important and what is not.

Mr Thomas

I never saw or read anything about a bullet concerning you or anyone else by Mr Weal. If it was here at all, it may have been only in the hours that I was off the computer, which as you would know by now have consistently been during the evening and AM hours until at least seven or eight AM. It could have been up and off in that time and well you know it. Stop harassing me about things you have not investigated in any way at all. As I say you skate on thin ice indeed.

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

doppelganger, on 27 April 2018 - 09:01 PM, said:

this is what ACC make many decision based on today as well as then.

Its a pitty that the reviewer did not deal with the problem then as well as every reviewer had not dealth with this problem since.

The request for surgery was to restore the earnings to the maximum capacity. Not to have the person in low earnings which is not suitable to the claimant.

See Allan was offered employmant as a consultant (that was in suitable employment and earning to the maximum capacity.) Was asked for Alan to supply the written offer of employment or more likely it was just hear say.

I don't understand what you're saying. The reviewer did deal with the ACC problem then in as much as the ACCs review was found to be wrong in fact and in law in as much as the ACC were not permitted to cancel compensation and surgery based on their assumption that I was working as work does not form the basis of ACC decision-making processes but more to the point I was not working in the ACC No information of any work combined with the fact that the ACC claims that my injury was temporary and I have recovered from that temporary injury despite the fact that the ACC have no medical evidence at all in a situation whereby the ACC were required by the legislation to seek and pay for medical assessments to that effect. It is for this reason that the reviewer decided that I was not working as there was no information of work, work do not form the basis of ACC decision-making and the medical evidence was that I was grossly injured and in urgent need of surgery with the result that the reviewer directed the ACC to fund the reconstructive surgery. That decision remained binding upon all parties. All parties means everybody including subsequent judges and suchlike.

Sadly ACC breached the authority of the 1992 review hearing decisions and some be made a new decision which included a decision to prosecute for fraud. The ACC demonstrated total disregard and contempt for the review hearing process and the reviewer in as much as they made the exact same decision in reliance upon the exact same assumptions that they had made previously. They claim to possess information that did not exist and as such committed ACC fraud when producing a document to that effect.

I don't know where you get the idea that I was offered employment as a consultant. That is sheer lunacy! I'm not a consultant, never have been a consultant and don't want to be a consultant. The entitlement to surgery to return to the preinjury occupation. I wanted nothing else other than ACCs submissive compliance to the legislation. The 1982 legislation does not entitle the ACC to fund rehabilitation into a different occupation So why would I surrender my right to surgery and self fund into a new occupation? That would be idiotic thinking. These things are not hearsay but are well documented within my ACC files. ACC insisted that I produce business plans to include me on various companies I owned some of which were offering consultant services. ACC were quite upset when the business plans required not only that I receive the relevant qualifications and be trained but also the same reconstructive surgery that would have me return to my preinjury occupation anyway. So the ACC asked me to produce yet more plans and this time arranged me to be watched and then cancelled my claim based on their informants who watched me produce those plans and claimed that I was working. My doctor's report to the ACC described additional injury caused by that work of which he had already advise the ACC was outside my capacity. The injury was caused by my doing something against my medical certificates because the ACC had suspended my earnings compensation. So my entitlements were suspended for not working and then when it was proved that I was working on both prescribed rehabilitation program the ACCs cancel my whole claim and all entitlements for working.

Doppelgängers you think you can explain what went wrong?