ACCforum: Pre-current legislation complaints - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Pre-current legislation complaints

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9249
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 11:56 AM

Does anyone know the correct protocols and expectation for the pre-current legislation complaints procedure.
I had complained to the ACC that they failed to make disclosure of the information they relied upon to cancel my claim. This complaint continued from October 1997 up until the present without ACC providing me with an answer.
I also requested a copy of my file which was not forthcoming until after a review hearing.
The reviewer adjourned a review hearing because I had not received any information that the ACC relied upon for the decision being reviewed. He did not reconvene the review hearing and then after three months went on to make a decision not to disturb the ACC decision Thus depriving me of any form of review hearing.


I note by the ACC notes that their investigation Continued on until August 2001, after the start of the current legislation. As the ACC had not resolve the complaint prior to the current legislation does it mean that the complaint ship's to the current legislation criteria and protocols?

As a matter of interest I note that the complaints investigation officer advise the ACC that they would need to rescinded their decision if they don't provide me with the information relied upon for the decision.
Almost 20 years later the ACC acknowledged to a judge in the High Court that they never had any information for the purposes of the decision to cancel the claim. That explains why the ACC never is rendered any information to me and failed to provide either the criminal or the civil courts any information describing a single work task activity to any material time thus preventing any possibility that I could challenge their claim that they possessed information. Quite clearly they had conspired to pervert the course of justice from the beginning. I think I ought to have my complaint addressed and answered one way or the other whether it be under the previous legislation or current legislation. I'm seeking an apology.

0

#2 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 02 November 2018 - 03:19 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

Does anyone know the correct protocols and expectation for the pre-current legislation complaints procedure.
I had complained to the ACC that they failed to make disclosure of the information they relied upon to cancel my claim. This complaint continued from October 1997 up until the present without ACC providing me with an answer.
I also requested a copy of my file which was not forthcoming until after a review hearing.
The reviewer adjourned a review hearing because I had not received any information that the ACC relied upon for the decision being reviewed. He did not reconvene the review hearing and then after three months went on to make a decision not to disturb the ACC decision Thus depriving me of any form of review hearing.


I note by the ACC notes that their investigation Continued on until August 2001, after the start of the current legislation. As the ACC had not resolve the complaint prior to the current legislation does it mean that the complaint ship's to the current legislation criteria and protocols?

As a matter of interest I note that the complaints investigation officer advise the ACC that they would need to rescinded their decision if they don't provide me with the information relied upon for the decision.
Almost 20 years later the ACC acknowledged to a judge in the High Court that they never had any information for the purposes of the decision to cancel the claim. That explains why the ACC never is rendered any information to me and failed to provide either the criminal or the civil courts any information describing a single work task activity to any material time thus preventing any possibility that I could challenge their claim that they possessed information. Quite clearly they had conspired to pervert the course of justice from the beginning. I think I ought to have my complaint addressed and answered one way or the other whether it be under the previous legislation or current legislation. I'm seeking an apology.


Wrong again Thomas

The present Act started on list April 2002. I know because I was doing my own legal for w/c at the time. Amazing what you remember when it is needed eh??

Take it to Review or Appeal now under section 54 of this 2001 Act if it was in vogue then. (Time for getting you your information.

Mind you I think phrased the correct way with out to many ramblings it could be taken to get heard for Breach of Claimants Rights. That's what I would do. But then I am me and you are you. Please yourself.



Mini
0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9249
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:09 PM

Mini as I am asking a question how can I possibly be wrong?

I have gone to review on the basis that the ACC had delayed the process but the reviewer decide that the ACC had not made a reviewable decision, go figure..

Legal professionals have all agreed that the ACC are deliberately dragging their feet because once they do make disclosure that they never had any information or even did provide information that they hadn't prior to a court case, your position is doomed

0

#4 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 02 November 2018 - 10:03 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

... He did not reconvene the review hearing and then after three months went on to make a decision not to disturb the ACC decision Thus depriving me of any form of review hearing....



This is likely the main issue in your palaver that I can see tripping you up....

As a review hearing is essentially a minor administrative process & only first tier tribunal - your efforts in trying to push this barrow backwards to the junior decisionmakers of the system as such are utterly futile IMHO :wacko:

You have had many higher and much more comprehensive court hearings where you should have always presented your evidence then Alan. Every single time you should have utilised these opportunities in order to persuade these more experienced adjudicators that you had proper grounds or evidence in order to contest or dispute the ACC decisons upon your various claims or issues....
1

#5 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9249
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 08:28 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 02 November 2018 - 10:03 PM, said:

This is likely the main issue in your palaver that I can see tripping you up....

As a review hearing is essentially a minor administrative process & only first tier tribunal - your efforts in trying to push this barrow backwards to the junior decisionmakers of the system as such are utterly futile IMHO Posted Image

You have had many higher and much more comprehensive court hearings where you should have always presented your evidence then Alan. Every single time you should have utilised these opportunities in order to persuade these more experienced adjudicators that you had proper grounds or evidence in order to contest or dispute the ACC decisons upon your various claims or issues....


What an idiot thing to say that a review hearing would be a futile exercise. Reviewers are well educated and are instructed by legislation while also paid a handsome reward for their duties. Of course everyone has a legitimate right and expectation to expect a proper and honest job of work from these reviewers. Why on earth would you promote a doctrine of belief that we should abandon all hope. You idiot, you are just capitulating to the will of the ACC and promoting their doctrine which involves scaring way people from any kind of hope and encouraging people to give up. What kind of monster are you to encourage those who are invalided and disadvantaged by their injuries to give up. It is no wonder so many of them commit suicide with your help and guidance being a critical component to that reality.
I did not have any more comprehensive court hearings at all. The reviewer adjourned because there was no information coming from the ACC. The exact same situation happened in both civil and criminal courts with ACC failing to surrender the information that formed the basis of the allegations. Why would you choose to deliberately impose your false doctrine of belief shared with the ACC and propagandize the system? Are you deliberately trying to undermine and destroy part five of the legislation? Why would you do such a thing? The site has been set up to do the exact opposite of what you are doing and be helpful to those in need.
Obviously you are aware that if the ACC does not present the information that they base their decision on for examination in the court there can be no examination. I cannot present any evidence when there is no allegation to challenge.

0

#6 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7571
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:05 AM

View Postanonymousey, on 02 November 2018 - 10:03 PM, said:

This is likely the main issue in your palaver that I can see tripping you up....

As a review hearing is essentially a minor administrative process & only first tier tribunal - your efforts in trying to push this barrow backwards to the junior decisionmakers of the system as such are utterly futile IMHO :wacko:/>/>

You have had many higher and much more comprehensive court hearings where you should have always presented your evidence then Alan. Every single time you should have utilised these opportunities in order to persuade these more experienced adjudicators that you had proper grounds or evidence in order to contest or dispute the ACC decisons upon your various claims or issues....


Anonmousey

The ACC could, if pushed into a corner, and they have documentation, can show the Certificate that one signs when they start getting ACC. I have said often, this is the case and it clearly states that if you do not tell them if you are working or even if you do something that is clearly going to hurt your already covered injury, (that's two of four I am sure) then they can take your w/c off of you under section 73 of the 1992 Act. (Well it used that for mine). But of course I wasn't stupid enough to take a boat out in rough seas, by myself, and end up making my injury worse than it was.

He is dammed if the do and dammed if they don't. They should never have given him an assessment and cover for the boat injury. Thomas did it too himself. I am sure I could find other things given the chance to see the documents. I believe he was working. Thomas is not the sort that would give the signing of 17 company's cheque books or anything to do with the income of them over to anyone else to do unless he had first given them strict instructions to move money about. What gets me is that ACC did not even say who the cheque account authorities were. Or if there was more than one signnature needed for each of the 17 companies. I do believe that the Judge had a look at this, and has made his decision of 'guilty', using these types of issues, to enforce 'working, earning' or whatever you like to call it.



Mini
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9249
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:56 AM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Anonmousey

The ACC could, if pushed into a corner, and they have documentation, can show the Certificate that one signs when they start getting ACC. I have said often, this is the case and it clearly states that if you do not tell them if you are working or even if you do something that is clearly going to hurt your already covered injury, (that's two of four I am sure) then they can take your w/c off of you under section 73 of the 1992 Act. (Well it used that for mine). But of course I wasn't stupid enough to take a boat out in rough seas, by myself, and end up making my injury worse than it was.

He is dammed if the do and dammed if they don't. They should never have given him an assessment and cover for the boat injury. Thomas did it too himself. I am sure I could find other things given the chance to see the documents. I believe he was working. Thomas is not the sort that would give the signing of 17 company's cheque books or anything to do with the income of them over to anyone else to do unless he had first given them strict instructions to move money about. What gets me is that ACC did not even say who the cheque account authorities were. Or if there was more than one signnature needed for each of the 17 companies. I do believe that the Judge had a look at this, and has made his decision of 'guilty', using these types of issues, to enforce 'working, earning' or whatever you like to call it.



Mini


Mini what should someone tell the ACC about work if they have not been working?

With regards to being injured while on ACC how do you figure that there could be a problem with ACC paying compensation on that second injury? I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone with an existing injury having a ride on a large comfortable yacht. There is no contradiction to the existing injury but even if there was, accidents happen because of poor judgements and mistakes of which the ACC legislation provides us with cover. If you don't like that part of the law you need to take it up with a politician and lobby for a law change. Good luck on that one.


ACC earnings compensation is to be paid out in relation to earnings. When someone is on earnings compensation they are an earner. As I have previously made clear to you the insurance cover is not for working but rather earning. I don't know how to help you understand this any more than I have already done but advise you that you should read the legislation and/or consult with someone who is legally qualified that will help you understand the legislation.

With the issue concerning the various companies of which I was a part owner and other companies that were merely shelf companies not doing anything at all, if you want to argue about the signing of checks you only need to look at the ACC warrants that the issue than the information they got back from the banks which confirmed that may be 99% of the time other authorised individuals within these companies signed the cheques. The only time that I had ever signed any checks was in a situation of an emergency. I think in the space of almost a decade I have signed something like 30 checks. That would mean a primary signed about four checks per year. As I have the capacity to write may be a line of text I could manage my signature but I do recall on numerous occasions the bank challenged whether or not it was my signature as it looked different to what was on record and no two signatures were like. That type of information would seem to go against the notion that I had any kind of capacity from which I could generate earnings. Mini you should not rush in leaps and bounds with your unsupported irrational thinking as the effect of what you are doing is not just harassment but also defamation of character which of course if you are open to be sued by me for the harm that you are doing to me. Ask yourself whether or not you have become like a rabid dog and simply cannot let go Despite all what you are saying having no basis in fact nor logic. You ask yourself why the ACC did not raise the issue regarding the various signatories and suchlike to checking accounts when the information that is available should have been obvious to you. The evidence spoke against their accusation so they didn't disclose the information in their possession that demonstrated other people were running these companies except of course the shelf companies that weren't doing anything at all..
If you read the judges decisions on these matters you will find that the judge makes absolutely no reference to any actual information for no other reasons than no information was presented to the judge. This left the judge to speculate and assume. The judge disregarded the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence presented from me, such as CT scans and suchlike, and favoured is death-defying magical lie detector skills from which he claims that the only way to support the ACCs decision was to accuse me of lying but he did not actually say what the lie was and more importantly why the evidence that demonstrated that I could not possibly have lied should be disregarded. This raises the issue of judicial corruption in the worst possible way.

0

#8 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 01:11 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 November 2018 - 08:28 AM, said:

What an idiot thing to say that a review hearing would be a futile exercise.


I will emphasis my point again slowly for you Alan....

If the relevant issues of any initial review have been heard and examined within numerous other secondary tier tribunals and senior higher courts ... then I doubt you would find any junior role professional upon the planet disregarding such determinations Alan...


Reviewers are well educated and are instructed by legislation while also paid a handsome reward for their duties. Of course everyone has a legitimate right and expectation to expect a proper and honest job of work from these reviewers.

I totally agree Alan and have always expected that all first tier tribunal adjudicators are professionals.

It is you that does not seem to understand that individual first tier reviewers are only ever undertaking an initial review of the dispute. These independent first line roles being funded are also not infinite with unlimited time or money or necessarily explicit expertise on medical matters ie they would refer to other professionals much like a Judge will also seek additional information,

I have absolutely would NOT support any of your demands in this regard Alan because I know the alternative tribunal method is to have 3 adjudicators sitting. This is even what WINZ will do simply because it ensures the decision is sound and supported. Simply an individual first line reviewer is not expected to be 100% responsible for covering all the components and investigators so therefore workload and accountability is shared etc

I also would never ever support any injured claimants being expected to cover community costs for the initial reviews either Alan. I may however consider the rare use of limitations in order to ensure the review system is available to the community ie similar to the *unless orders* provision in Higher Courts to ensure there is no abuse of these resources by vexatious or spurious claims etc

SO once again, while you may wish to turn the clock back and likely try bamboozzling some first tier adjudicator with demands that numerous mountains of evidence must be investigated and hundreds & hundreds of questionable ideas and troublesome behaviours from you accepted without question... I personally do not think this will ever happen ... and nor do I believe it should even be considered or funded by the taxpayer.

This is also now one example of how I see that ACC can introduce less user-friendly legislation and practices for all claimants Alan ie you are their greatest canary asset unfortunately

Why on earth would you promote a doctrine of belief that we should abandon all hope. You idiot, you are just capitulating to the will of the ACC and promoting their doctrine which involves scaring way people from any kind of hope and encouraging people to give up. What kind of monster are you to encourage those who are invalided and disadvantaged by their injuries to give up.

This is rubbish rhetoric and your extremist thinking only harms injured claimants Alan.

The legislation clearly provides a Dispute Resolution Process with independent adjudicators....

Unfortunately you are the person clogging up the courts with irrational ideas IMHO ... I would also extend this obsessive behaviour to this forum ie I have no idea how many injured claimants have disappeared from this forum after crossing discussions with you sadly ...

IMHO sadly I would also see that you are also the main person in this country who is continually giving ACC adverse caselaw to utilise as a result of some of your demands and misinterpretations of the legislation etc Even now as they will likely continue to survey this forum they will be continually making adjustments to cover bases etc This is just basic research discovery and critical thinking done by all professionals Alan.

It is no wonder so many of them commit suicide with your help and guidance being a critical component to that reality.

I consider this to be an outrageous statement Alan.

I did not have any more comprehensive court hearings at all. The reviewer adjourned because there was no information coming from the ACC. The exact same situation happened in both civil and criminal courts with ACC failing to surrender the information that formed the basis of the allegations. Why would you choose to deliberately impose your false doctrine of belief shared with the ACC and propagandize the system? Are you deliberately trying to undermine and destroy part five of the legislation? Why would you do such a thing?

More rubbish rhetoric again IMHO

Mind you Alan, now because there was so much information presented to the Courts via medical experts and occupational experts and even forensic investigators ... this would have assisted ACC confirming their decision was correct. Such a wealth of material under oath would also have provided significant material which would all ensure their future decisions were also far more sophisticated IMHO


The site has been set up to do the exact opposite of what you are doing and be helpful to those in need.

Well thankfully many members of this site have networked and helped each other with many successful achievements Alan. Thankfully many former members of this website also continue within other settings to help those in need.


Obviously you are aware that if the ACC does not present the information that they base their decision on for examination in the court there can be no examination. I cannot present any evidence when there is no allegation to challenge.

This is just more evidence of your problem thinking issue Alan ....

The dispute you launched and placed before the Reviewer and all other civil tribunals dealing with ACC Legislation should contain YOUR EVIDENCE as you held the *burden of proof* all the way. You still must present all the evidence for their examination with any and all of your challenges to decisions being made under the ACC Legislation to this very day Alan ...

Obviously in your conviction Alan, your *evidence* and *burden of proof* should have been considered in the court by the Judge as he was critically reasoning material containing opposing opinions. It was and always is your information that the Judge will assess first and then other information will be correlated as required.

Whatever information ACC may or may not have used for their administrative decisions will be secondary and of course can be overturned by successful claimants.

Your argument is basically however that you lost in both jurisdictions Alan. Basically the ACC decision was upheld in civil settings and then some of this evidence was then available to criminally charge you too.

IMHO very little has changed since last century even to this day. Perhaps if the company income had generated concrete assets and then all of these funds and all that cash had not been spent while under your influence, or if you had ensured that you were completely disconnected from the businesses Alan ... then possibly some of the reasons for your conviction would seem more clear to you perhaps? Perhaps if you had even once declared your working activities and any dividends to ACC then then this income could have been abated? Perhaps if you never gone recklessly sailing while claiming incapacity from a hernia - then a very simple short term health event would have resolved normally? Perhaps if you had paid the few hundred dollars needed for your share of the private hospital surgery being funded by ACC levypayers and then not selfconfessed various symptom changes [eg zero pain relief needed] then the few weeks you may have had recovering from said surgery would have been easily managed by an operational company and blah blah Alan.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing Alan and I know I could go on for pages and pages but it would be pointless as I have little interest in your palaver now Alan ie it changes far too much for me to ever trust it is credible information etc My main interest these days is mostly to discover any precautionary lessons from your cases etc


Sadly as I say I am not sure that you will ever see the forest for the trees with your thinking being so stuck and intractable Alan, however there is always the hope or chance that you might accept new guidance and make small gains which can help you in your retirement &or even possibly such positive progressive might help other injured claimants too:)
0

#9 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 01:11 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Anonmousey

The ACC could, if pushed into a corner, and they have documentation, can show the Certificate that one signs when they start getting ACC. I have said often, this is the case and it clearly states that if you do not tell them if you are working or even if you do something that is clearly going to hurt your already covered injury, (that's two of four I am sure) then they can take your w/c off of you under section 73 of the 1992 Act. (Well it used that for mine). But of course I wasn't stupid enough to take a boat out in rough seas, by myself, and end up making my injury worse than it was.

He is dammed if the do and dammed if they don't. They should never have given him an assessment and cover for the boat injury. Thomas did it too himself. I am sure I could find other things given the chance to see the documents. I believe he was working. Thomas is not the sort that would give the signing of 17 company's cheque books or anything to do with the income of them over to anyone else to do unless he had first given them strict instructions to move money about. What gets me is that ACC did not even say who the cheque account authorities were. Or if there was more than one signnature needed for each of the 17 companies. I do believe that the Judge had a look at this, and has made his decision of 'guilty', using these types of issues, to enforce 'working, earning' or whatever you like to call it.



Mini


I agree Mini. I would have signed the same certificates as Alan during the same time frame but they are in a fireproof safe currently. I also think that because Alan continually blames the GP for being the writer of these certificates, he may not realise that the GP is essentially the middleman and it is Alan himself who is responsible for much of the content of the consultation and therefore his legal duty in regards to the quality and integrity of these originating certificates etc Ditto for all medical certificates thereafters too ...

It is also crystal clear now that ACC have learned many lessons in these early days of the disputes within the competing arms of our ACC compensation system eg they shut the door in regards to some aspects of claims for hernia reasons too.

IMHO ACC probably never even concieved of the astonishing risks that such a simple claim with simple evidence requirements and routine acceptance could turn into such a drama over decades costing the taxpayer probable millions etc etc

I also agree that Thomas should never have been covered for the boating accident which he claimed caused a wrist injury many months later. IMHO these circumstances should have triggered the deeper investigations immediately but there is a huge financial cost to such a policy so I can understand why ACC logically gave Alan the benefit of the doubt and even again when it was clear there was untoward activities ie their concerns which prompted two fraud investigations

However decades ago the risks of exploitation with these sorts of people likely never occurred to the early ACC systems etc Obviously these days with the digital highway, all insurers around the world have learned how to decline irresponsible &or become more skilled with recognising and managing any dishonest claims etc

Sorry I do not have access to any of the courtroom transcripts or evidence either Mini and all of that significant mucky material was done and dusted before I joined this forum. Also as I joined in the early days it was some time before Alan came out of lurk mode and even longer before I became aware of his criminal past etc Since then we have headbanged on so many different issues so these days I try to write like my comments are for other members, or new readers & digital researchers because I realise Alan rarely acknowledges the issues I raise unfortunately :wacko:
0

#10 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 01:17 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 November 2018 - 10:56 AM, said:

Mini what should someone tell the ACC about work if they have not been working?

With regards to being injured while on ACC how do you figure that there could be a problem with ACC paying compensation on that second injury? I see absolutely nothing wrong with someone with an existing injury having a ride on a large comfortable yacht. There is no contradiction to the existing injury but even if there was, accidents happen because of poor judgements and mistakes of which the ACC legislation provides us with cover. If you don't like that part of the law you need to take it up with a politician and lobby for a law change. Good luck on that one.


ACC earnings compensation is to be paid out in relation to earnings. When someone is on earnings compensation they are an earner. As I have previously made clear to you the insurance cover is not for working but rather earning. I don't know how to help you understand this any more than I have already done but advise you that you should read the legislation and/or consult with someone who is legally qualified that will help you understand the legislation.

With the issue concerning the various companies of which I was a part owner and other companies that were merely shelf companies not doing anything at all, if you want to argue about the signing of checks you only need to look at the ACC warrants that the issue than the information they got back from the banks which confirmed that may be 99% of the time other authorised individuals within these companies signed the cheques. The only time that I had ever signed any checks was in a situation of an emergency. I think in the space of almost a decade I have signed something like 30 checks. That would mean a primary signed about four checks per year. As I have the capacity to write may be a line of text I could manage my signature but I do recall on numerous occasions the bank challenged whether or not it was my signature as it looked different to what was on record and no two signatures were like. That type of information would seem to go against the notion that I had any kind of capacity from which I could generate earnings. Mini you should not rush in leaps and bounds with your unsupported irrational thinking as the effect of what you are doing is not just harassment but also defamation of character which of course if you are open to be sued by me for the harm that you are doing to me. Ask yourself whether or not you have become like a rabid dog and simply cannot let go Despite all what you are saying having no basis in fact nor logic. You ask yourself why the ACC did not raise the issue regarding the various signatories and suchlike to checking accounts when the information that is available should have been obvious to you. The evidence spoke against their accusation so they didn't disclose the information in their possession that demonstrated other people were running these companies except of course the shelf companies that weren't doing anything at all..
If you read the judges decisions on these matters you will find that the judge makes absolutely no reference to any actual information for no other reasons than no information was presented to the judge. This left the judge to speculate and assume. The judge disregarded the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence presented from me, such as CT scans and suchlike, and favoured is death-defying magical lie detector skills from which he claims that the only way to support the ACCs decision was to accuse me of lying but he did not actually say what the lie was and more importantly why the evidence that demonstrated that I could not possibly have lied should be disregarded. This raises the issue of judicial corruption in the worst possible way.


OMG Alan

I am not sure why you are focussing upon insignificant handwriting palaver or your purported wrist incapacity especially when it comes to chequesigning and money management.

For goodness sake these days, such business controls are exercised online with internet bank transfers etc etc

There were also many observations about huge sums of CASH also being handed about within business premises too Alan. No doubt you will now claim another flying zebra that you have never owned a wallet and if any of these customers ever tried to hand you money it fell on the floor etc Of course much like your argybargy about the authoring of significant business documents too, no doubt the cash exchange was also always behind closed doors or you had a little person attached and following one step behind you during these meetings and blah blah ...



BBL with feedback for some other of your palaver :wacko:
0

#11 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1770
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 03 November 2018 - 06:13 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 10:05 AM, said:

Anonmousey

The ACC could, if pushed into a corner, and they have documentation, can show the Certificate that one signs when they start getting ACC. I have said often, this is the case and it clearly states that if you do not tell them if you are working or even if you do something that is clearly going to hurt your already covered injury, (that's two of four I am sure) then they can take your w/c off of you under section 73 of the 1992 Act. (Well it used that for mine). But of course I wasn't stupid enough to take a boat out in rough seas, by myself, and end up making my injury worse than it was.

He is dammed if the do and dammed if they don't. They should never have given him an assessment and cover for the boat injury. Thomas did it too himself. I am sure I could find other things given the chance to see the documents. I believe he was working. Thomas is not the sort that would give the signing of 17 company's cheque books or anything to do with the income of them over to anyone else to do unless he had first given them strict instructions to move money about. What gets me is that ACC did not even say who the cheque account authorities were. Or if there was more than one signnature needed for each of the 17 companies. I do believe that the Judge had a look at this, and has made his decision of 'guilty', using these types of issues, to enforce 'working, earning' or whatever you like to call it.



Mini


claire
thomas would fall at the first hurdle if he re raised his claim for erc on the yacht incident
so much wrong and does not equate to a truthful story
acc would have him again for attempted fraud via use of documents for a pecuniary gain
0

#12 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 08:53 PM

View PostHemi, on 03 November 2018 - 06:13 PM, said:

claire
thomas would fall at the first hurdle if he re raised his claim for erc on the yacht incident
so much wrong and does not equate to a truthful story
acc would have him again for attempted fraud via use of documents for a pecuniary gain


After years of discussions within this forum, I agree with your opinion here Hemi :)

It is probably very fortunate that ACC does not investigate all suspicious accidents or incidents for minor injuries at the first notification. The cost to the levypayer would be astronomical imho - and the reality is very very few claimants would ever contemplate such reckless behaviour let alone have a minor secondary injury overwrite another minor original hernia event IMHO.

I also do not believe ACC has a specific unit or extensive experience or caselaw material in regards to the claims or management of self harming individuals and correlated injuries either Hemi. ie this is likely a small abnormal population.

I think too that ACC could probably count on their fingers the number of NZers who have evaded basic preinjury occupational disclosures and verifications ie CV qualifications & referees etc

Ditto the number of ACC claimants who appear unable to detail their personal levy history or relevant company levy history alongside other financial documentations etc

It would also never have been the intention of the ACC Scheme to compensate individuals who might fall victim to business failures due to incompetence or theft by a servant IMHO. This is why I find Alans palaver about his preinjury income and fringe benefit perks particularly galling as why should I or other levy payers front up a high weekly payment for him to live an expensive life of folly beyond his means following the supposed stolen $K350 of money problem etc

Sorry Hemi I was injured on the job with witnesses so this was not some reckless sporting activity being reported months later. I also likely paid far more myself for my own educational qualifications as well accruing more personal ACC Levies than Alan too when working. This is likely why I was also on a higher weekly compensation payment than him back during the same time.

FYI, I also explored postinjury self employment ventures utilising my preinjury occupational skills and while I was upfront and abated and also successful in these efforts, unfortunately injury factors and incapacity meant this business ended before I could expand the company or employ others etc. Also unlike Alan, I actually do have a permanent incapacity assessment and also accepted both lump sum offerings from ACC under the 1982 Act back in the day.

Obviously I have never returned to my own preinjury occupation Hemi and I continue to hold unbroken medical certifications ever since my injury during a workplace incident - so this is likely the main reason that I can get wound up with much of the Thomas argybargy and the harmdoing therein etc

I do actually agree with some of his ideas about how the ACC System could work betters for us claimants but because he refuses to explore issues objectively or twists everything to his situation &or misrepresents what I am saying, I feel that progress is inch by inch with one step forward and one back half the time :wacko:


While I know all of this information has previously been mentioned on this forum in relation to topical matters at different times Hemi ...so because I do not have access to as many resources or money like Alan, or for other real life reasons, it has taken me a long long time to research caselaw that may be relevant or helpful to me. In the past when I did try to launch threads to discuss caselaw issues or matters which could help me or others in similar situations these oft would be hijacked or sabotaged by ALan which is why we have had a many years of differing opinions and so on etc So nowadays I only pop in here to see if it is still going and thankfully I do have other interests which are keeping me busy while I am simultaneously percolating my options with my ACC claim as best able etc

So basically while I too would probably need to research "the correct protocols and expectation for the pre-current legislation complaints procedure" its hard to explore this issue constructively when the threadstarter is a unrehabilitated felon with extremist ideas and his selfcentered confusing contradictory civil and criminal issues always dominate the discussion directions etc etc
0

#13 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1770
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 03 November 2018 - 09:56 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 03 November 2018 - 08:53 PM, said:

After years of discussions within this forum, I agree with your opinion here Hemi

It is probably very fortunate that ACC does not investigate all suspicious accidents or incidents for minor injuries at the first notification. The cost to the levypayer would be astronomical imho - and the reality is very very few claimants would ever contemplate such reckless behaviour let alone have a minor secondary injury overwrite another minor original hernia event IMHO.

I also do not believe ACC has a specific unit or extensive experience or caselaw material in regards to the claims or management of self harming individuals and correlated injuries either Hemi. ie this is likely a small abnormal population.

I think too that ACC could probably count on their fingers the number of NZers who have evaded basic preinjury occupational disclosures and verifications ie CV qualifications & referees etc

Ditto the number of ACC claimants who appear unable to detail their personal levy history or relevant company levy history alongside other financial documentations etc

It would also never have been the intention of the ACC Scheme to compensate individuals who might fall victim to business failures due to incompetence or theft by a servant IMHO. This is why I find Alans palaver about his preinjury income and fringe benefit perks particularly galling as why should I or other levy payers front up a high weekly payment for him to live an expensive life of folly beyond his means following the supposed stolen $K350 of money problem etc

Sorry Hemi I was injured on the job with witnesses so this was not some reckless sporting activity being reported months later. I also likely paid far more myself for my own educational qualifications as well accruing more personal ACC Levies than Alan too when working. This is likely why I was also on a higher weekly compensation payment than him back during the same time.

FYI, I also explored postinjury self employment ventures utilising my preinjury occupational skills and while I was upfront and abated and also successful in these efforts, unfortunately injury factors and incapacity meant this business ended before I could expand the company or employ others etc. Also unlike Alan, I actually do have a permanent incapacity assessment and also accepted both lump sum offerings from ACC under the 1982 Act back in the day.

Obviously I have never returned to my own preinjury occupation Hemi and I continue to hold unbroken medical certifications ever since my injury during a workplace incident - so this is likely the main reason that I can get wound up with much of the Thomas argybargy and the harmdoing therein etc

I do actually agree with some of his ideas about how the ACC System could work betters for us claimants but because he refuses to explore issues objectively or twists everything to his situation &or misrepresents what I am saying, I feel that progress is inch by inch with one step forward and one back half the time


While I know all of this information has previously been mentioned on this forum in relation to topical matters at different times Hemi ...so because I do not have access to as many resources or money like Alan, or for other real life reasons, it has taken me a long long time to research caselaw that may be relevant or helpful to me. In the past when I did try to launch threads to discuss caselaw issues or matters which could help me or others in similar situations these oft would be hijacked or sabotaged by ALan which is why we have had a many years of differing opinions and so on etc So nowadays I only pop in here to see if it is still going and thankfully I do have other interests which are keeping me busy while I am simultaneously percolating my options with my ACC claim as best able etc

So basically while I too would probably need to research "the correct protocols and expectation for the pre-current legislation complaints procedure" its hard to explore this issue constructively when the threadstarter is a unrehabilitated felon with extremist ideas and his selfcentered confusing contradictory civil and criminal issues always dominate the discussion directions etc etc


hi anonmousey

the acc do investigate most claims
once acc realised thomas was a porky story telly they never needed to do a full examination of his accident details
why
they had him nailed for fraud without that info
so already knowing his accident details was so full of holes its a wonder his yacht even went to sea, they kept that process to deal with thomas for the most unlikely event that thomas somehow managed thru some miracle / reopened his claim -where that detail would >>will used to again SINK HIM
WELL DONE ACC
thomas is renowned as one who knows all of acc law acts and very knowledgeable of acc things
that has been pointed out by many of the law ones within court cases thomas has been involved in
he does however have a view of his own version of how those acc acts actually come into play.
now as the expert as our thomas hes rather dumb really in the know all of acc things

he failed to know all of actually making a claim
thought he did as hed had his hernia etc on the go
then decided to raise the yacht issue as a claim
things went a tad wrong here for thomas at that point
acc took claims of face value got the claimants some treatment and or income pretty well strait away
they later look at the real goods of the issue
thomas was under suspicion from the start
why you may ask
well-moreso as to being a claimant and self employed the acc look at the self employed as due to some claiming injury to facilitate an income as the self employment /business is or has actually failed
if your self employed your in the room for a look-see at you no ways out of that for anyone.
thomas of course had entered the room and was a great candidate for an exercise in examination of his claims re monetary matters that acc had to compensate him on.as to claimed self employment
business income
but where was the business and the income-not really an issue at all now as
>>>ah hes deceived us at acc and thus used documents with an intent-that will do nicley thank you so mucg thomas think acc.
thomas gained some luck for a while due to acc being rather inefficient that time and he was paid on the basis of acc goodwill and his supposed honesty in his claim dealing with acc
things turned to crap for thomas whilst he had the luxury of acc inefficiency for a period he quietly behind the scene and acc back set up his empire which was discovered and he was put off acc dis entitled and subsequently charged with the fraud with an intent charges
thomas and his statutory statement made in may 1996 were his final downwards fall to acc finally having enough of his lies decided to nail his ass and that they did
so anon
acc yes the do and did look closely at claims
thomas has the enjoyment of some trust in him and the ensuing time of initial period of the acc based really= of trust of the claimant -now as it says -if you f with some thsy will simply f you back and thomas
now hes been well f'd Posted Image/> and can now only resort to using this forum as an personal very moderated except for himself agenda based platform to pass out false news to make himself look good and the acc the enemy
now acc do a lot wrong but on thomas-they done it all good
much like his claim of grounding the yacht somewhere sometime some where sometime unknown
acc grounded thomas as being the yacht named DECLINATION OF CLAIM'' and sunk him.
quite frankly here if fran tidied up the misleading bollocks and personal attacks at others in his site and kept it clean this site would fold in a short time leaving only thomas to tell porkys to himself

pp
ive reported myself thomas to save you the time so youve a few xtra minutes of your two hours unused.

why the owners allow thomas the freedom and ability of control in here to mislead/ false news /lies etc /abuse etc to others in this forum and all over it who knows

surely by now they would have to be suspicious of his claims in here and think its not doing there name any good at all out in the land of google.
0

#14 User is offline   anonymousey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2398
  • Joined: 04-April 06

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:43 PM

I agree with many of your ideas and insights Hemi :)

IMHO I thought that under the 1974 1982 Act accident claims were often accepted routinely however in saying this my claims all had supporting workplace documentation and witnesses etc I actually thought that Alan was very fortunate to have any hernia claim processed especially when there was no workplace verifications etc Mind you I know that its possible this alleged injury could still have been treated by ACC eg another story could be that Alan tripped over his feet in the middle of the night but he was working & paying taxes so he would still get entitlements under the 1982 sections etc I understand what you mean about the scrutiny of the *self employed* too ... and I think there has been recent coverage of ACC stuff ups &or advocacy by Lupine on some of these isses etc etc

This is one reason why I find a lot of Alans extremist ideas and attacks on ACC legislation, people or policies a concern and will question them when I can ...and this is mostly because of the adverse influences a few people can cause to innocents etc I actually think there is still much more benefits to the ACC Schemes for injured people Hemi because I have explored some other systems etc In Alans case I would basically be referring here to the *Fundamental Dishonesty* strikeout issues which happen in other comparable systems so he would have likely lost everything from the get go and likely never ever have been offered private surgery for either minor injury etc

But because I know Alans sort is in a minority, the fact is that I think for most other claimants in this forum we probably still do or have done betters than if we were under the old prelegislation litigation environments etc Obviously a few of us may have been able to successfully sue others for multimillion dollar settlements and then become autonomous or self determining with our own quality of life and compensation monies ...but yup because I have family & friends to consider Hemi... so I hope that if they have unfortunate no fault accidents then they will always have a fair opportunity in quickly accessing treatment earnings compensation, rehabilitation and so on coverage etc Plus as with any bureaucracy or systems I already know that there are many other areas where ACC can get it wrong and even very very wrong ... and that they should always be seeking to improve the quality of their services IMHO :)
0

Share this topic:


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

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users