ACCforum: Legal advice to the ACC - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Legal advice to the ACC

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 01:15 PM

What is the person who signs themselves DT trying to say to the ACC regarding the ACCs decision to cancel my claim because they thought they possessed information I was working.


Is the advice given to the ACC by DT correct or wrong?


MEMORANDUM



TO : File



FROM : Dane



DATE: 15 November 1999



RE: Thomas vs ACC



Decision by Review Officer



The primary decision of the Corporation in 1997 was to cease the appellant's weekly compensation. It had evidence that the appellant was employed and on that basis issued its decision. The Review Officer confirmed that decision on the basis that there was sufficient information to show that the appellant was working. It appears that Thomas was involved in a number of companies.



The question however, is not whether the appellant was working or whether he was receiving an income but whether he was incapacitated, i.e.; unable to perform to work that he had been performing immediately prior to his accident. Whether or not the appellant was earning an income or to go towards the abatement of any entitlement not to whether he is entitled and the first instance. Although, evidence of working may go towards showing that despite the medical certificates Thomas was not incapacitated.



The accident occurred on or about 27 December 1989. The appelant was sailing in a boat and was swept overboard and held on by a road to the boat which tore some ligaments. It is unclear what is occupation was at the time of the injury. That will need to be looked at in some detail. There is a Review decision dated 3 July 1992 by Mr Carter concerning his entitlement to weekly compensation but really is not satisfactory in setting out the appellant's pre-accident employment either. That decision is tabbed.



The things to do in this matter are as followed:-



1. Determine what exactly was Thomas's pre-accident employment; and



2. Assess the evidence from the criminal Hearing to determine whether the Corporation's decision to cease the appellant's weekly compensation is correct or whether the decision ought to go towards abatement instead.



D. T.







This advice was given to the ACC by an officer of the court two days before the end of the criminal trial. All officers of the court have a duty to the courts to make available information they know to exist for purposes of assisting the court make a legal decision. The thinking was that if DT place information in my file that would have been usable for me then he would have been complying with his obligation to the court in his capacity as an officer of the court so as not to be struck off. He also had a duty to his client, the ACC to inform them of their legal position concerning the proper way to make decisions in accordance with legislation. There are other communications that continuing this pattern which of course does raise alarm bells concerning the ACCs wilfulness to the extent that they disregard legal advice. Of the ACC should have done is informed the judge of the information they had received thus preventing the trial from progressing to an unlawful conclusion based on false information and this information regarding how the ACC legislation works.






-1

#2 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 03:14 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

What is the person who signs themselves DT trying to say to the ACC regarding the ACCs decision to cancel my claim because they thought they possessed information I was working.


Is the advice given to the ACC by DT correct or wrong?


MEMORANDUM



TO : File



FROM : Dane



DATE: 15 November 1999



RE: Thomas vs ACC



Decision by Review Officer



The primary decision of the Corporation in 1997 was to cease the appellant's weekly compensation. It had evidence that the appellant was employed and on that basis issued its decision. The Review Officer confirmed that decision on the basis that there was sufficient information to show that the appellant was working. It appears that Thomas was involved in a number of companies.



The question however, is not whether the appellant was working or whether he was receiving an income but whether he was incapacitated, i.e.; unable to perform to work that he had been performing immediately prior to his accident. Whether or not the appellant was earning an income or to go towards the abatement of any entitlement not to whether he is entitled and the first instance. Although, evidence of working may go towards showing that despite the medical certificates Thomas was not incapacitated.



The accident occurred on or about 27 December 1989. The appelant was sailing in a boat and was swept overboard and held on by a road to the boat which tore some ligaments. It is unclear what is occupation was at the time of the injury. That will need to be looked at in some detail. There is a Review decision dated 3 July 1992 by Mr Carter concerning his entitlement to weekly compensation but really is not satisfactory in setting out the appellant's pre-accident employment either. That decision is tabbed.



The things to do in this matter are as followed:-



1. Determine what exactly was Thomas's pre-accident employment; and



2. Assess the evidence from the criminal Hearing to determine whether the Corporation's decision to cease the appellant's weekly compensation is correct or whether the decision ought to go towards abatement instead.



D. T.







This advice was given to the ACC by an officer of the court two days before the end of the criminal trial. All officers of the court have a duty to the courts to make available information they know to exist for purposes of assisting the court make a legal decision. The thinking was that if DT place information in my file that would have been usable for me then he would have been complying with his obligation to the court in his capacity as an officer of the court so as not to be struck off. He also had a duty to his client, the ACC to inform them of their legal position concerning the proper way to make decisions in accordance with legislation. There are other communications that continuing this pattern which of course does raise alarm bells concerning the ACCs wilfulness to the extent that they disregard legal advice. Of the ACC should have done is informed the judge of the information they had received thus preventing the trial from progressing to an unlawful conclusion based on false information and this information regarding how the ACC legislation works.







Thomas

This document is not a legal document for court purposes, it is not dated. It is not signed by the so called writer and my worry is that it is not even the orginal wording of the document as it has too many mistakes in it.

You must have know you had been to a Review concerning the matter of your w/c been taken off you. The document reads this way, so why did you not ask the Reviewer to send you an email of his decision. This is after all a decision, to look at your case from another point of view. By law you had to have a copy. and the court should have had one to look at the point as it was risen by the Reviewer. I have seen a Judge stop a murder trial well into its life, when he questioned the trustworthiness of the witness for the Crown. Stop , Halt, no more to be said and the accused is innocent. Well, he is not guilty that's for sure, as far as that court case is concerned and it cant be heard again if I recall correctly.

What I am saying is you had two days to show the implications of the Reviewer words to ACC. Maybe ACC, intended, or did say no we are not prepared to do that because Alan Thomas is a Liar and all the other bits and pieces they had against you at the time. Why didn't you ask for the reviewer to be heard by the court on your behalf. Did the writer of that note ever appear before any court?.

Mini
2

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 02 November 2018 - 05:17 PM

View PostMINI, on 02 November 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

Thomas

This document is not a legal document for court purposes, it is not dated. It is not signed by the so called writer and my worry is that it is not even the orginal wording of the document as it has too many mistakes in it.

You must have know you had been to a Review concerning the matter of your w/c been taken off you. The document reads this way, so why did you not ask the Reviewer to send you an email of his decision. This is after all a decision, to look at your case from another point of view. By law you had to have a copy. and the court should have had one to look at the point as it was risen by the Reviewer. I have seen a Judge stop a murder trial well into its life, when he questioned the trustworthiness of the witness for the Crown. Stop , Halt, no more to be said and the accused is innocent. Well, he is not guilty that's for sure, as far as that court case is concerned and it cant be heard again if I recall correctly.

What I am saying is you had two days to show the implications of the Reviewer words to ACC. Maybe ACC, intended, or did say no we are not prepared to do that because Alan Thomas is a Liar and all the other bits and pieces they had against you at the time. Why didn't you ask for the reviewer to be heard by the court on your behalf. Did the writer of that note ever appear before any court?.

Mini


Mini that document forms part of my files of which the ACC failed to disclose. Once I did acquire it the author did give and take the produced it and placed it on my file.

The question that I'm asking is about the content, whether it is legally correct advice to the ACC

So how could a trial for ACC fraud have ever continued when the ACC refused to disclose the foundation information relied upon to make the accusation of fraud. ACC claimed that they could cancel my claim based on the having information that was working despite the fact that they have no evidence of any sort, not even one single work task activity of any material time. They just assume that I would be working because I owned a number of companies and nothing more.

However as can be seen by the ACC legal adviser that would not even matter if I was working and earning his that does not form the basis of a cancellation of claim of entitlement but at best only alert the ACC to request a medical assessment to see if I am still incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation.

When the judge found out that the ACC did not even know what type of occupation was engaged in before I was injured he hit the roof and stopped the hearing immediately. Instead of finding in my favour immediately the instructor the ACC to try and find out what work I did do so that he could make an assessment himself as to whether or not it was medically safe for me to carry out those work task activities. This of course raise another issue as to whether or not the judges qualified to judge medical matters opposite to the medical profession. As it happens the ACC then provided the judge with information about what type of work I was doing after I was injured and still working on light duties before stopping work altogether.

What possible reason could anyone ever imagine me to be a liar. There is no indication of any sort throughout my entire life that I'd ever told a single lieyour perception of my integrity is based on the ACC securing a prosecution based on them lying, claiming that I was working when nothing could be further from the truth.


Anyway the point of this thread is to discuss the point of law raised by the author of the document placed on my file by the ACC's legal representative

0

#4 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 09:44 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 05:17 PM, said:

Mini that document forms part of my files of which the ACC failed to disclose. Once I did acquire it the author did give and take the produced it and placed it on my file.

The question that I'm asking is about the content, whether it is legally correct advice to the ACC

So how could a trial for ACC fraud have ever continued when the ACC refused to disclose the foundation information relied upon to make the accusation of fraud. ACC claimed that they could cancel my claim based on the having information that was working despite the fact that they have no evidence of any sort, not even one single work task activity of any material time. They just assume that I would be working because I owned a number of companies and nothing more.

However as can be seen by the ACC legal adviser that would not even matter if I was working and earning his that does not form the basis of a cancellation of claim of entitlement but at best only alert the ACC to request a medical assessment to see if I am still incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation.

When the judge found out that the ACC did not even know what type of occupation was engaged in before I was injured he hit the roof and stopped the hearing immediately. Instead of finding in my favour immediately the instructor the ACC to try and find out what work I did do so that he could make an assessment himself as to whether or not it was medically safe for me to carry out those work task activities. This of course raise another issue as to whether or not the judges qualified to judge medical matters opposite to the medical profession. As it happens the ACC then provided the judge with information about what type of work I was doing after I was injured and still working on light duties before stopping work altogether.

What possible reason could anyone ever imagine me to be a liar. There is no indication of any sort throughout my entire life that I'd ever told a single lieyour perception of my integrity is based on the ACC securing a prosecution based on them lying, claiming that I was working when nothing could be further from the truth.


Anyway the point of this thread is to discuss the point of law raised by the author of the document placed on my file by the ACC's legal representative


Thomas

Are you blind?

The writer has posed two issues that need attention.

I. What was your pre injury occupation?

2. should the criminal trail be looked at to see if incapacity needs attention.

Looking at that case myself has shown me that the ACC did have information you were working and also information that you were lying to them. The Judge made that obvious. Your whole case has been because you didn't tell the ACC and that is a MUST. So that is your contradiction between you and them and nothing said on that paper work takes away from the fact that the Judge found you fraudulent.

And that is what you need to be looking at. A piece of paper that anyone could have placed on your file at any time is not worth the paper it is written on. You said you showed it to them and they took a copy of it. No date on it, nothing to make it a kosha document. Not even a authors name.

Read your criminal case again and pick out the two documents the Judge used to say you had been working and you are a liar as well. You lied to ACC in writing. Go on off you go and put the two documents up here of which I speak. Then I will tell you if they are the ones I am relying on to say the Judge was correct to find you guilty of earning and not telling the ACC.

And as far as what I deem to use to call you a liar, is the paperwork you put up on you Defamation Claim thread, which is mostly LF words and some of your own at topper and bottom. Both lots of comments are about me and others, who were witness's against you in your TP trial. You lied about me in that you published weasle words of LF that called me a Tax Fraud and other matters I was not. You also have tried since you were released from Home Detention tried to have me know stuff of which I had never heard before a certain date and could not have made me part of any group, who had known or been alerted to your meeting with and talking about TBP, when I knew nothing of any such thing. Your are a liar, for posting those lies about me on your thread. It has only to do with what you have done, not anyone else.

Mini

Mini
0

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:11 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 November 2018 - 01:15 PM, said:

What is the person who signs themselves DT trying to say to the ACC regarding the ACCs decision to cancel my claim because they thought they possessed information I was working.


Is the advice given to the ACC by DT correct or wrong?


MEMORANDUM



TO : File



FROM : Dane



DATE: 15 November 1999



RE: Thomas vs ACC



Decision by Review Officer



The primary decision of the Corporation in 1997 was to cease the appellant's weekly compensation. It had evidence that the appellant was employed and on that basis issued its decision. The Review Officer confirmed that decision on the basis that there was sufficient information to show that the appellant was working. It appears that Thomas was involved in a number of companies.



The question however, is not whether the appellant was working or whether he was receiving an income but whether he was incapacitated, i.e.; unable to perform to work that he had been performing immediately prior to his accident. Whether or not the appellant was earning an income or to go towards the abatement of any entitlement not to whether he is entitled and the first instance. Although, evidence of working may go towards showing that despite the medical certificates Thomas was not incapacitated.



The accident occurred on or about 27 December 1989. The appelant was sailing in a boat and was swept overboard and held on by a road to the boat which tore some ligaments. It is unclear what is occupation was at the time of the injury. That will need to be looked at in some detail. There is a Review decision dated 3 July 1992 by Mr Carter concerning his entitlement to weekly compensation but really is not satisfactory in setting out the appellant's pre-accident employment either. That decision is tabbed.



The things to do in this matter are as followed:-



1. Determine what exactly was Thomas's pre-accident employment; and



2. Assess the evidence from the criminal Hearing to determine whether the Corporation's decision to cease the appellant's weekly compensation is correct or whether the decision ought to go towards abatement instead.



D. T.





This advice was given to the ACC by an officer of the court two days before the end of the criminal trial. All officers of the court have a duty to the courts to make available information they know to exist for purposes of assisting the court make a legal decision. The thinking was that if DT place information in my file that would have been usable for me then he would have been complying with his obligation to the court in his capacity as an officer of the court so as not to be struck off. He also had a duty to his client, the ACC to inform them of their legal position concerning the proper way to make decisions in accordance with legislation. There are other communications that continuing this pattern which of course does raise alarm bells concerning the ACCs wilfulness to the extent that they disregard legal advice. Of the ACC should have done is informed the judge of the information they had received thus preventing the trial from progressing to an unlawful conclusion based on false information and this information regarding how the ACC legislation works.







thomas
you know full well who d t is
dane tui
why play games and be upfront with your information you place out here for debate

you clearly lose in that docs queries of you
you showed conclusive proof of fact that you were able to carry out what was your own stated >allegedly you preinury occupation
you failed to provide any meaningful accounts to show either an income or a non income for abatement purposes
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:43 AM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 09:44 AM, said:

Thomas

Are you blind?

The writer has posed two issues that need attention.

I. What was your pre injury occupation?

2. should the criminal trail be looked at to see if incapacity needs attention.

Looking at that case myself has shown me that the ACC did have information you were working and also information that you were lying to them. The Judge made that obvious. Your whole case has been because you didn't tell the ACC and that is a MUST. So that is your contradiction between you and them and nothing said on that paper work takes away from the fact that the Judge found you fraudulent.

And that is what you need to be looking at. A piece of paper that anyone could have placed on your file at any time is not worth the paper it is written on. You said you showed it to them and they took a copy of it. No date on it, nothing to make it a kosha document. Not even a authors name.

Read your criminal case again and pick out the two documents the Judge used to say you had been working and you are a liar as well. You lied to ACC in writing. Go on off you go and put the two documents up here of which I speak. Then I will tell you if they are the ones I am relying on to say the Judge was correct to find you guilty of earning and not telling the ACC.

Mini


During the trial I challenged the ACC about whether or not it was possible to determine whether or not I can return to my preinjury occupation without the ACC act you know what that occupation was. This follows point 1 In your comment. The ACC legal counsel and the judge agreed with me when they conceded that it was not possible ACC To carry out any kind of medical assessment to determine whether it was safe to return to the preinjury occupation which would have prevented any doctor knowing what he was going to be assessing me for if any kind of assessment was ever to have taken place. The judge adjourned the hearing and directed the ACC to find out what my preinjury occupation was and what kind of work activities were carried out. On that score I asked the judge to immediately calling end to the hearing on the basis that it would have been impossible for the ACC to have produced a lawful decision. The judges position was that he was going to make a new decision for the ACC which of course steps out of the judges authority to be doing. What the judge should have done is rendered the appeal in my favour nullifying the ACCs decision on the basis that they could not have made an honest decision. The ACC then would have been free to make a new decision after getting the information that was mandatory under the legislation.
The documented this show was presented to the courts and the author of the document acknowledges that he produced it together with the date it was placed on my file. Of my file that was disclosed which revealed that document likewise identified the author and the date it was received.

Obviously as the ACC had not carried out the mandatory assessment to determine whether a safe for me to return to my preinjury occupation, as raised in point 2 in your above post, the lawyer was pointing out that it would have been impossible for a problem conviction to have been achieved as there was no information available to the court that would support the ACC's position that it made a lawful decision to claim I was not entitled to earnings compensation, surgical treatment funding, pain medication, home help and suchlike.

In the absence of any information provided by the ACC how on earth can you possibly be imagining that I have withheld information. There is absolutely nothing to support such a ridiculous viewpoint. Have you gone mad? As I have not been working it should be obvious to you that there was no information to tell the ACC about any work. You must be either an extremely stupid or horribly corrupt in trying to support a line of reasoning unsupported by any kind of information.

The documents referred to by the person calling themselves DT had been trying to get from the ACC copies of the information that form the basis of their decision. The document was in response to the ACC not been forthcoming with their own legal counsel. This provoked the advice in that document that the ACC ought to be thinking about some other approach as the way in which they conducted their decision making processes was clearly wrong in law as it was devoid of any kind of information and as such no decision could have been made within the law. This same person asked the civil Court to give an adjournment as the despite the fact that there had been a criminal trial no information had ever been presented to that trial and as such he had no information to defend the ACCs decision in the civil hearing that came the following month. At the suitable hearing he asked for an adjournment which ended out being for seven years and which time the court ordered the ACC to make full disclosure describing each individual of the work task activities at the material times so as to give me the opportunity to challenge their claim of work. Again the ACC refused so the judge cancelled the ACC decision and then made a new decision of his own based on the weird and wacky nonsense that we see in the actual decision whereby he claimed to have special lie detector skills and that he did not need any kind of evidence to issue is decision.

Any references of work by anyone who confirms that I was carrying out the work task activities to produce business plans or other matters complied with the ACC directives is discounted from being work as described by the ACC to be work. The work that the ACC had is claimed to possess was being an immigration consultant and business manager despite not actually having any information to validate the accusation. Even the immigration services had no record of any documentation or any interactions between any clients and myself. In desperation the ACC then seized upon my support letter for my fiance with regards to her residency application. In any event any work would need to be relevant to my preinjury occupation and as I had never been an immigration consultant nor manager of my companies there was no connection to preinjury occupation is which is a prerequisite. One facsimile sent from China whereby I stated that my beloveds and I were busy working did not identify what that work was. However I did have evidence that I my work was progressing very well researching and gathering information while also having a variety of meetings with potential business partners that form part of the business plan that the ACC required me to present. Nothing wrong with that and anyone would be crazy to try and suggest that those types of activities demonstrated a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation as there is absolutely no relevant connection. Quite obviously I had told the ACC what I was doing in China as the information was within the business plan together with a cover letter attached. The real problem seems to be that the ACC are relying upon their imagination instead of the documents on file. What other document are you referring to?

0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:45 AM

View PostHemi, on 03 November 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

thomas
you know full well who d t is
dane tui
why play games and be upfront with your information you place out here for debate

you clearly lose in that docs queries of you
you showed conclusive proof of fact that you were able to carry out what was your own stated >allegedly you preinury occupation
you failed to provide any meaningful accounts to show either an income or a non income for abatement purposes



Obviously as I had not been working there was no information to provide the ACC about any work or earnings. I can't believe that you are being so stupid on that point.

I can't understand what you are trying to say about preinjury occupation. You need to settle your thoughts, think about the actual information that promotes your thinking and then try to write your conclusions from the actual information. If you write down what you imagine you are only making an idiot out of yourself.

0

#8 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 10:57 AM

View PostHemi, on 03 November 2018 - 10:11 AM, said:

thomas
you know full well who d t is
dane tui
why play games and be upfront with your information you place out here for debate

you clearly lose in that docs queries of you
you showed conclusive proof of fact that you were able to carry out what was your own stated >allegedly you preinury occupation
you failed to provide any meaningful accounts to show either an income or a non income for abatement purposes


David Butler/Hemi

Bank Statements are one of the best investigative tool you can have in your hands.

They show payments made that are sometimes the same amount every week, month or year. This is why they are used for auditing purposes. With seventeen companies they show more comings and goings than are normal for any business, but the fact remains if you have them all for each company you can find where each transaction of income comes in and goes out. Date, invoice number (usually, which show who it has been paid too) and more. It is a long tedious job (work)to find out all this information and the ACC are far too stingy to do a proper job of it, and for them to say they had no information of work is because of their own sloppiness and time controlled environment, and not understanding how to trace paper items of evidence from beginning until end. I believe they have it but just not bothered to bring it up to Court evidence standard. the best they could do is add up all the companies income and all the companies outgoings and say to the court that is what went in and out over a specific period of time. Which is not what they should have been looking for, they should have been looking for where the payments ended up and if any in Thomas's hands, what for and put the free living arrangements in a company rented building as well, just for the fact that it is money thru his hands.

Mini
0

#9 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:09 AM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

David Butler/Hemi

Bank Statements are one of the best investigative tool you can have in your hands.

They show payments made that are sometimes the same amount every week, month or year. This is why they are used for auditing purposes. With seventeen companies they show more comings and goings than are normal for any business, but the fact remains if you have them all for each company you can find where each transaction of income comes in and goes out. Date, invoice number (usually, which show who it has been paid too) and more. It is a long tedious job (work)to find out all this information and the ACC are far too stingy to do a proper job of it, and for them to say they had no information of work is because of their own sloppiness and time controlled environment, and not understanding how to trace paper items of evidence from beginning until end. I believe they have it but just not bothered to bring it up to Court evidence standard. the best they could do is add up all the companies income and all the companies outgoings and say to the court that is what went in and out over a specific period of time. Which is not what they should have been looking for, they should have been looking for where the payments ended up and if any in Thomas's hands, what for and put the free living arrangements in a company rented building as well, just for the fact that it is money thru his hands.

Mini


Mini why do you continue to make such a ridiculous full letter of yourself!

The ACC spent vast sums of money obtaining search warrants in order to gain all possible financial data including bank statements, tax records and everything else. At the end of the day the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that there was no indication that I had ever participated in any work activity with the company is all of the work task activities had been carried out by other people who were paid for doing that work with no work left for me. Further no funds of any sort earn by any of these companies had ever been paid to me. That is the ACCs own star witness. This revelation came up when he was cross-examined under oath. The ACC had hoped that we would only say that the company had is income exceeding $1.3 million with the hope that such a sum of money might influence the emotional thinking of those who have no brain. As the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that he had informed the ACC that there was no connection of any income or earnings between me and these companies ask yourself why the ACC made some kind of claim to the newspapers that I had earned $1.3 million? Why would anyone tell such a ridiculous lie that had no support of any sort in fact particularly since the forensic accountant had told them the direct opposite. Why do you keep on arguing against the actual facts in favour of assumptions and speculations generated by your imagination as well? Are you crazy for a you as corrupt as the Individual staff members employed by the ACC on this matter? A you trying to generate "high-value information" for the ACC as well as your other friends in the tagteam?

The issue of my accommodation had come up of course and the evidence confirmed that I had paid the company rent for my accommodation so why would you continue to lie on this matter when you already know the truth. What makes a person like you tell such monstrous lies?
0

#10 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:41 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 November 2018 - 10:43 AM, said:

During the trial I challenged the ACC about whether or not it was possible to determine whether or not I can return to my preinjury occupation without the ACC act you know what that occupation was. This follows point 1 In your comment. The ACC legal counsel and the judge agreed with me when they conceded that it was not possible ACC To carry out any kind of medical assessment to determine whether it was safe to return to the preinjury occupation which would have prevented any doctor knowing what he was going to be assessing me for if any kind of assessment was ever to have taken place. The judge adjourned the hearing and directed the ACC to find out what my preinjury occupation was and what kind of work activities were carried out. On that score I asked the judge to immediately calling end to the hearing on the basis that it would have been impossible for the ACC to have produced a lawful decision. The judges position was that he was going to make a new decision for the ACC which of course steps out of the judges authority to be doing. What the judge should have done is rendered the appeal in my favour nullifying the ACCs decision on the basis that they could not have made an honest decision. The ACC then would have been free to make a new decision after getting the information that was mandatory under the legislation.
The documented this show was presented to the courts and the author of the document acknowledges that he produced it together with the date it was placed on my file. Of my file that was disclosed which revealed that document likewise identified the author and the date it was received.

Obviously as the ACC had not carried out the mandatory assessment to determine whether a safe for me to return to my preinjury occupation, as raised in point 2 in your above post, the lawyer was pointing out that it would have been impossible for a problem conviction to have been achieved as there was no information available to the court that would support the ACC's position that it made a lawful decision to claim I was not entitled to earnings compensation, surgical treatment funding, pain medication, home help and suchlike.

In the absence of any information provided by the ACC how on earth can you possibly be imagining that I have withheld information. There is absolutely nothing to support such a ridiculous viewpoint. Have you gone mad? As I have not been working it should be obvious to you that there was no information to tell the ACC about any work. You must be either an extremely stupid or horribly corrupt in trying to support a line of reasoning unsupported by any kind of information.

The documents referred to by the person calling themselves DT had been trying to get from the ACC copies of the information that form the basis of their decision. The document was in response to the ACC not been forthcoming with their own legal counsel. This provoked the advice in that document that the ACC ought to be thinking about some other approach as the way in which they conducted their decision making processes was clearly wrong in law as it was devoid of any kind of information and as such no decision could have been made within the law. This same person asked the civil Court to give an adjournment as the despite the fact that there had been a criminal trial no information had ever been presented to that trial and as such he had no information to defend the ACCs decision in the civil hearing that came the following month. At the suitable hearing he asked for an adjournment which ended out being for seven years and which time the court ordered the ACC to make full disclosure describing each individual of the work task activities at the material times so as to give me the opportunity to challenge their claim of work. Again the ACC refused so the judge cancelled the ACC decision and then made a new decision of his own based on the weird and wacky nonsense that we see in the actual decision whereby he claimed to have special lie detector skills and that he did not need any kind of evidence to issue is decision.

Any references of work by anyone who confirms that I was carrying out the work task activities to produce business plans or other matters complied with the ACC directives is discounted from being work as described by the ACC to be work. The work that the ACC had is claimed to possess was being an immigration consultant and business manager despite not actually having any information to validate the accusation. Even the immigration services had no record of any documentation or any interactions between any clients and myself. In desperation the ACC then seized upon my support letter for my fiance with regards to her residency application. In any event any work would need to be relevant to my preinjury occupation and as I had never been an immigration consultant nor manager of my companies there was no connection to preinjury occupation is which is a prerequisite. One facsimile sent from China whereby I stated that my beloveds and I were busy working did not identify what that work was. However I did have evidence that I my work was progressing very well researching and gathering information while also having a variety of meetings with potential business partners that form part of the business plan that the ACC required me to present. Nothing wrong with that and anyone would be crazy to try and suggest that those types of activities demonstrated a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation as there is absolutely no relevant connection. Quite obviously I had told the ACC what I was doing in China as the information was within the business plan together with a cover letter attached. The real problem seems to be that the ACC are relying upon their imagination instead of the documents on file. What other document are you referring to?


Thomas


I am referring to not only the documentation that the criminal Judge referred too. But, not only, but also, the living arrangements in company rented commercial dwelling. It is you that could have shown good faith, by showing the open market value of the rent coming into the companies bank account, from your own bank account. Companies are not yours to do as what you like. There is a certain criteria that must be met.

With all the swings and round a bouts going down in your commercially rented property and the ACC having raided it as you say. How could it be that ACC said they had not documents. Those and the ones for you business plans should have shown up some documentation of already prepared bank statements and cheque books. That is where they made the biggest mistakes, nothing to do with what they didn't have, but what they did have and as stated, that includes the using business premise for your own benefit. That's what the stupid dicks should have been looking at. DT a bit of a nutter in that it was in court before he wanted to do some further research, which should have been done before a court date. Of Course DT could only have been involved at ACC level, not at the criminal case, so it is there that your case should have still been open and appeal put in as soon as the document from him was present. Straight back to criminal. Pack of nutters by the sound of it. Par for the course for ACC.

Mini
0

#11 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:59 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 November 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Many why do you continue to make such a ridiculous full letter of yourself!

The ACC spent vast sums of money obtaining search warrants in order to gain all possible financial data including bank statements, tax records and everything else. At the end of the day the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that there was no indication that I had ever participated in any work activity with the company is all of the work task activities had been carried out by other people who were paid for doing that work with no work left for me. Further no funds of any sort earn by any of these companies had ever been paid to me. That is the ACCs own star witness. This revelation came up when he was cross-examined under oath. The ACC had hoped that we would only say that the company had is income exceeding $1.3 million with the hope that such a sum of money might influence the emotional thinking of those who have no brain. As the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that he had informed the ACC that there was no connection of any income or earnings between me and these companies ask yourself why the ACC made some kind of claim to the newspapers that I had earned $1.3 million? Why would anyone tell such a ridiculous lie that had no support of any sort in fact particularly since the forensic accountant had told them the direct opposite. Why do you keep on arguing against the actual facts in favour of assumptions and speculations generated by your imagination as well? Are you crazy for a you as corrupt as the Individual staff members employed by the ACC on this matter? A you trying to generate "high-value information" for the ACC as well as your other friends in the tagteam?

The issue of my accommodation had come up of course and the evidence confirmed that I had paid the company rent for my accommodation so why would you continue to lie on this matter when you already know the truth. What makes a person like you tell such monstrous lies?


Thomas

So you say the rent money was paid from you to the company. You show no sign of it.

Yet when I open up my cheque book to anyone or bank statements I can show you or anyone else where every penny goes.

What you are telling me is that one company NEVER loaned any of the other companies money when they needed it!! I don't believe it. And as far as the Judges were concerned criminal and civil, they both found you guilty, just as many other Judges have found against you when you have taken cases to court concerning your entitlements.

Stick at the beginning the criminal court. You might get somewhere if you quit jumping from criminal and civil court in the one thread.

You are the one that usually takes the writings off thread, because you do jump from case to case in the one breathe. Seems to me you not only tried it on the Judges you also try it on us. Disinformation. or Liar of the writer is more to the point.

Mini
0

#12 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 11:59 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 03 November 2018 - 11:09 AM, said:

Many why do you continue to make such a ridiculous full letter of yourself!

The ACC spent vast sums of money obtaining search warrants in order to gain all possible financial data including bank statements, tax records and everything else. At the end of the day the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that there was no indication that I had ever participated in any work activity with the company is all of the work task activities had been carried out by other people who were paid for doing that work with no work left for me. Further no funds of any sort earn by any of these companies had ever been paid to me. That is the ACCs own star witness. This revelation came up when he was cross-examined under oath. The ACC had hoped that we would only say that the company had is income exceeding $1.3 million with the hope that such a sum of money might influence the emotional thinking of those who have no brain. As the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that he had informed the ACC that there was no connection of any income or earnings between me and these companies ask yourself why the ACC made some kind of claim to the newspapers that I had earned $1.3 million? Why would anyone tell such a ridiculous lie that had no support of any sort in fact particularly since the forensic accountant had told them the direct opposite. Why do you keep on arguing against the actual facts in favour of assumptions and speculations generated by your imagination as well? Are you crazy for a you as corrupt as the Individual staff members employed by the ACC on this matter? A you trying to generate "high-value information" for the ACC as well as your other friends in the tagteam?

The issue of my accommodation had come up of course and the evidence confirmed that I had paid the company rent for my accommodation so why would you continue to lie on this matter when you already know the truth. What makes a person like you tell such monstrous lies?

0

#13 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 12:02 PM

Alan Thomas

So what you are saying is that ACC had information from your office of 17 companies. But they told the courts they had none.

Oh shit or dear, no wonder you have nothing.

Mini
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 12:25 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

Thomas


I am referring to not only the documentation that the criminal Judge referred too. But, not only, but also, the living arrangements in company rented commercial dwelling. It is you that could have shown good faith, by showing the open market value of the rent coming into the companies bank account, from your own bank account. Companies are not yours to do as what you like. There is a certain criteria that must be met.

With all the swings and round a bouts going down in your commercially rented property and the ACC having raided it as you say. How could it be that ACC said they had not documents. Those and the ones for you business plans should have shown up some documentation of already prepared bank statements and cheque books. That is where they made the biggest mistakes, nothing to do with what they didn't have, but what they did have and as stated, that includes the using business premise for your own benefit. That's what the stupid dicks should have been looking at. DT a bit of a nutter in that it was in court before he wanted to do some further research, which should have been done before a court date. Of Course DT could only have been involved at ACC level, not at the criminal case, so it is there that your case should have still been open and appeal put in as soon as the document from him was present. Straight back to criminal. Pack of nutters by the sound of it. Par for the course for ACC.

Mini


The holding company that rented the property, telephones, power and suchlike managed by one of the partners rented the accommodation to me which also included the costs of power and phone. This information was confirmed by the ACCs own forensic accountant. Everything was perfectly transparent and of course who we rent our homes from is absolutely none of ACCs business and as such the ACC enquiring into such matters breached my privacy and the privacy of the various other partners. That type of information has nothing to do whether or not I continue to be injured.

The ACC never said that they did not have any documents. Far from it the ACC claim to possess information was working which is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting. Get your head around these matters in the proper way please.

With regards to ACCs ultimatum requiring me to produce business plans how on earth would a business plan have bank accounts? What a ridiculous thought, registered companies sitting as a shell currently to preserve the integrity of intellectual property don't have bank accounts. There you go imagining information and then relying upon that imaginary information to reach a rational conclusions and then somehow blaming me for when your imagination blows up in your face.


DT Had already gone through the transcripts and evidence of the criminal trial and found no information to support the ACC decision and as such could not derive anything from that criminal prosecution for purposes of defending the ACCs decision in the first instance of which the criminal court judge relied upon as if the ACC decision had maintained its integrity both in fact and in law. What the ACC had done is to deliberately create a circular argument devoid of any factual or legal substance. Why would you support such ridiculous dishonesty and skulduggery? This site is designed whereby injured people can be helpful and supportive of one other in such dire circumstances as this


0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 12:31 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

Alan Thomas

So what you are saying is that ACC had information from your office of 17 companies. But they told the courts they had none.

Oh shit or dear, no wonder you have nothing.

Mini


I don't is now how you could possibly think backwards and inside out like that. What is wrong with you?
ACC obtained a very large number of search warrants and seized all information of all types. They found no information that remotely suggested that I might be working much less earning. There was no information that they claimed to possess. It was after the review hearing at which time the ACC complaints investigator instructed them that they would have to reinstate my claim or surrender the information that they claim to have had. The problem is the ACC staff involved had already committed perjury in front of the reviewer by claimant to possess information and had produced a document for their own pecuniary advantage stealing my entitlements based on a false statement, a fraudulent document (the cancellation decision).
The ACC certainly did not tell the courts that they had no information about proceeded to spend a total of 12 weeks full-time in the court going through all the information that they had in an attempt to make it look as if they had information but at the end of the day all as they had is information such as me being a shareholder and director without directors duties and living on the premises and suchlike. No information that even remotely suggested that I carried out a single work task activity at any material time. All that they did was dump a whole lot of nonsense in front of the judge and asked the judge to speculate, which he did.
The legal advice I have received is that the ACC staff, their witnesses and those presenting the case to the court have committed perjury and the judge has demonstrated himself to be incompetent into the bargain. Apparently the judge has made himself a laughing stock in the legal community much to my cost.

It is circumstances such as these that financially and physically impoverished invalids need the help of others. Please explain why you are not being helpful and why you are being deliberately antagonistic and hateful?

0

#16 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 02:17 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 10:57 AM, said:

David Butler/Hemi

Bank Statements are one of the best investigative tool you can have in your hands.

They show payments made that are sometimes the same amount every week, month or year. This is why they are used for auditing purposes. With seventeen companies they show more comings and goings than are normal for any business, but the fact remains if you have them all for each company you can find where each transaction of income comes in and goes out. Date, invoice number (usually, which show who it has been paid too) and more. It is a long tedious job (work)to find out all this information and the ACC are far too stingy to do a proper job of it, and for them to say they had no information of work is because of their own sloppiness and time controlled environment, and not understanding how to trace paper items of evidence from beginning until end. I believe they have it but just not bothered to bring it up to Court evidence standard. the best they could do is add up all the companies income and all the companies outgoings and say to the court that is what went in and out over a specific period of time. Which is not what they should have been looking for, they should have been looking for where the payments ended up and if any in Thomas's hands, what for and put the free living arrangements in a company rented building as well, just for the fact that it is money thru his hands.

Mini

Claire
i know plenty as to tax issues etc
not new to me at all claire.

work is not the issue word here Claire.


thomas uses the word -work as the red herring to confuse
he was charged with using documents for pecuniary gain with an intent
the evidence showed that he did indeed have an intent to use documents for gain on the evidence of his activites
whether work as hes attempting to say never happened or money which was there and no proper accounting for tax audit purposes dont matter
it was judged on the evidence of did he have an intennt or did he not
what he got out of the deals he was involved in who cares
he was found to have an intent to defraud in the manner of all his activities using acc medical certs
0

#17 User is offline   Hemi 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 02:20 PM

View PostMINI, on 03 November 2018 - 12:02 PM, said:

Alan Thomas

So what you are saying is that ACC had information from your office of 17 companies. But they told the courts they had none.

Oh shit or dear, no wonder you have nothing.

Mini


the court was told that there were no meaningful accounts avail;able from the search of thomas premises and or from thomas himslef


\money merry go round with nothing of value as meaningful information in thomas possession

but i guess bankrupts go broke for reasons of ineptness :lol:/>
0

#18 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 04:17 PM

View PostHemi, on 03 November 2018 - 02:17 PM, said:

Claire
i know plenty as to tax issues etc
not new to me at all claire.

work is not the issue word here Claire.


thomas uses the word -work as the red herring to confuse
he was charged with using documents for pecuniary gain with an intent
the evidence showed that he did indeed have an intent to use documents for gain on the evidence of his activites
whether work as hes attempting to say never happened or money which was there and no proper accounting for tax audit purposes dont matter
it was judged on the evidence of did he have an intennt or did he not
what he got out of the deals he was involved in who cares
he was found to have an intent to defraud in the manner of all his activities using acc medical certs



David Butler/Hemi

So what you are saying is that they only had to prove intent. I have never seen the charges written that I recall, but yours in not the interpretation I got from the papers wording etc.

It probably would only need 'deemed intention to use documents, especially with all the companies set up in his name etc. Going to China, with the ACC knowing and saying it was part of a business plan, with a Chinese girlfriend on your arm, is hardly equal to a 80% of your wages etc. Even though he was indeed living fruggely, living in a company that is making money rented business premise. Yes it certainly a long way from 'arms length transaction'. In fact too many homemade benefits, for him to not be making $$$$. But like you say only 'deeming intention' would not need any money's to be made and the Judge would have seen that.

If this is the charge then it would be right that he was found quilty, and I believe we have not seen anything of what Judge Barber saw at civil court. I have no idea how he could get around what the charge is if what you say is true.

Go onto old age pension Thomas and then start making some money on the side, BUT don't forget to do your paperwork honestly and properly or you will have IRD breathing down your neck. Don't forget these govt depts. have close contact with each other now a days.

Mini
1

#19 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 04:46 PM

View PostMINI, on 02 November 2018 - 03:14 PM, said:

Thomas

This document is not a legal document for court purposes, it is not dated. It is not signed by the so called writer and my worry is that it is not even the orginal wording of the document as it has too many mistakes in it.

You must have know you had been to a Review concerning the matter of your w/c been taken off you. The document reads this way, so why did you not ask the Reviewer to send you an email of his decision. This is after all a decision, to look at your case from another point of view. By law you had to have a copy. and the court should have had one to look at the point as it was risen by the Reviewer. I have seen a Judge stop a murder trial well into its life, when he questioned the trustworthiness of the witness for the Crown. Stop , Halt, no more to be said and the accused is innocent. Well, he is not guilty that's for sure, as far as that court case is concerned and it cant be heard again if I recall correctly.

What I am saying is you had two days to show the implications of the Reviewer words to ACC. Maybe ACC, intended, or did say no we are not prepared to do that because Alan Thomas is a Liar and all the other bits and pieces they had against you at the time. Why didn't you ask for the reviewer to be heard by the court on your behalf. Did the writer of that note ever appear before any court?.

Mini


I agree with your POV Mini :)

I read this memo as merely another persons opinion upon a Review Decision that Alan would have receipted long before any criminal proceedings were commenced etc The memo-author has attached the Carter decision to the memo also.

I see that Dane Tui was actually considering issues specifically about the preinjury occupation plus occupational earnings before and after the accident event. This informal note was possibly generated after the Judge asked the question so imho Alan can NOT plead any ignorance because he would have been in the courtroom and is in fact clearly demonstrating knowledge that his preinjury occupation has not been clarified. TBH I still think this particular question has been evaded with zero objective corroboration now many many years later Mini ie Thomas is still ducking simple evidence which he has had ample opportunity to have vouched and verified and submitted on his behalf many times over now IMHO

From my POV, this specific ACC memowriter looks like he was ensuring that the court presentation staff were focussed on comparing the before work with the after work circumstances for the Judge and thereby for themselves as a confirmation a correct decision was IMHO ie not the abatement issues because this raises different additional criteria which can be examined etc

Also Mini, remembers that I believe that ACC themselves can also always review any of their decisons for any reason at any time Mini so if they suddenly uncovered some mystery income documents logged under their system in Alans name during a courtcase - and an oversight concerning weekly abating - then ACC may have revisited aspects of their case and concerns perhaps? This is probably much the same questions if a claimant is working voluntarily where the memowriter may explore the same issues ie working activities and earnings and blah blah.

I can see from comments after yours that Alan thinks the Judge would intervene at this finding but IMHO I believe that ACC themselves would have disclosed such evidence to Alan and the court ie if Alan himself can not remember or confirm such monetary information being processed during the years while he was on ACC and used it as part of his submissions himself - then this is a possible indicator to me that he would have been just as ignorant of his legal financial responsibilities BEFORE his accident etc

I am also not sure why Alan thinks the Judge should have called any end to the court proceedings because this preinjury occupation information was so blatantly vague it seems. But that is mostly because I regard the courtcase as having several planks to it ie Thomas was working within multiple work task activities post accident event &OR Thomas was living a lifestyle funded by more vague factors in regards to his working and earnings activities &OR of course the Judge accepted the medics testimony that Thomas was likely manipulating his medical consultations with them etc

This is latter point and the medics testimony is IMHO why the Judge also determined Alans' conviction did not specifically turn upon any medical incapacity matters or the content of his medical certificates. ie the doctors clearly testifed they opined on Alans storytelling and subjective complaints about his incapacity and daily activities disclosed or not etc etc


Basically aside from the questions raised by Dane, I see that a key area he is clarifying for others can be found in the following comment

1. "Whether or not the appellant was earning an income or to go towards the abatement of any entitlement not to whether he is entitled and [sic] the first instance." = when investigating his preaccident employment and preinjury occupation to keep focus on these criteria and NOT his eligibility or questions concerning the accident etc

2. "Although, evidence of working may go towards showing that despite the medical certificates Thomas was not incapacitated." = if further information is uncovered then this may assist the Judge in regards to integrity of his medical certificates. However the Medical Specialist themselves [eg his GP doctor] testifed that their opinion was derived from Alans disclosure + they were unaware of the true extent of his activities etc

Simply I think that what Alan did with his certificates in drawing down earnings compensation whilst simultaneously doing work akin to what he was doing before the accident eg seeking clients for engineering contract earnings. The damaging quotation which was presented to the courts as evidence tells me this was a significant concern for the Judge etc Sorry even now, due to the quagmire of this forum Mini, I have no idea if Alan actually disclosed any preoccupation work activities to ACC during the time when he was dutybound OR if he was deliberately or ignorantly burying such vital detail under all these other irrelevant business activities eg when he appeared to be expecting ACC to pay for new separate qualifications and new clients etc

I personally think that there was ample extra additional information from ACC which was also placed before Alan and the Judge. Example here is, the active and passive involvements and international travel for Thomas with a high cash turnover company such as immigration. The NZLII decision I read showed that all of these nonpreinjury occupational customers and contractors also clearly considered him to be the BOSS and working within this role etc

I just wonder now hypothetically that if Alan had perchance declared a single dollar or any dividends from this company money, and then paid abatements on it, then what would have happened. IMHO he also likely would have well surpassed the maximum earnings compensation amount that could have been paid etc I now think its much like the current cases before the courts where the NZ Police can seize assets they believe which have been obtained as a result of criminal activity etc I often wonder why Thomas did not have some kind of a rational and appropriate explanation &or independent evidence for all of his international travels &or visible activities with an explanation that did not actually continually 100% blame and insult customers, contractors, medics, past employers for his situation etc I say this due to the fact that it seems he had zero or contradictory evidence reported between this forum or the NZLII decisons being reported ... and even to this day, I would not know if he was a kept man or a spoilt boyfriend or a customer cost paid for by a 3rd party and then applied against their Operating Budgets etc etc

RE your comment, "What I am saying is you had two days to show the implications of the Reviewer words to ACC." ... my POV here is that Thomas had years to do this himself Mini. He could have also addressed this issue clearly with objective evidence within his submissions presented to the courtproceedings .. long long BEFORE eventually entering the dock himself too ...


ps I also have no clue how many memos may have been written during the numerous courtcases which have been held in his claim either Mini ...so I think he thinks that the fact somebody senior in ACC decisionmaking role is routinely asking others to clarify a specific question such as his preinjury occupation ... is much the same as a referral for a medical assessment etc I think he has too much regard for this memo and its just another tree planky which is blinding him basically :wacko:
1

#20 User is offline   anonymousey 

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

Posted 03 November 2018 - 07:56 PM

AS there has been so much convoluted palaver written again and this is again same olde same olde rhetoric from over years and scores of threads and stories Alan, I am going to identify some key concepts only when I might have some free time...

RE : "... the ACC had not carried out the mandatory assessment to determine whether a safe for me to return to my preinjury occupation ..."

QUESTION - have you yet disclosed the complete details of your preinjury occupation Alan?

QUESTION - has this preinjury occupation been independently verified by peers, customers, or IRD yet?

My POV = the ball is in your court still. I would not condone waste of medical funds to assess any safety questions without appropriate reasoning Alan.

RE : "The documents referred to by the person calling themselves DT ..."


QUESTION - do you have any evidence to support your opinion or is it all just the predictable guessing and mindreading you are doing Alan?

My POV = clearly different to yours.

RE : " the court ordered the ACC to make full disclosure describing each individual of the work task activities at the material times so as to give me the opportunity to challenge their claim of work.."


QUESTION - where is this order in the NZLII database?

My POV = such an order is essentially generic and likely may be impossible to satisfy. eg when you hid away behind closed doors to play with yourself inside business premises and during normal business operating times etc etc


RE : "Any references of work by anyone who confirms that I was carrying out the work task activities to produce business plans or other matters complied with the ACC directives is discounted from being work as described by the ACC to be work."


QUESTION - where is this determination quoted in the NZ database?

My POV = such an interpretation of a directive is nonsensical because you do not have any specific ACC description of work described in regard to business plans or other work related activities Alan. Example here is turning on a computer and creating any kind of english document for either ACC or a business or a professional report or an engineering quote or a legal submission all requires similar work task activities Alan. Past arguments about digital drawing skills and mouse controls were all disputed in court too Alan. ie this work task activity was presented as one small component of the employers need. Your claims were also well disputed eg 16 hour intense unbroken muscle usage would just as astonishing to me if you believed and insisted that all flying zebras must clean their teeth for 16 hours too Alan.

My POV = work and working are similar terms derived from the same linguistic foundations and can be used in different contexts ie different definitions depending upon user and communication setting. Ditto with separate concepts like earning and earnings

RE : "In any event any work would need to be relevant to my preinjury occupation and as I had never been an immigration consultant nor manager of my companies there was no connection to preinjury occupation is which is a prerequisite"

QUESTION = how did you obtain customers preaccident? Did they fall out of the sky?

My POV = this is why material court evidence is significant &or relevant to different purposes Alan ie you knew how to operate a telephone or hold an interview while interacting with strangers/customers and even construct engineering quotations BEFORE and AFTER your injury.

My POV = you knew how to appoint a manager or an accountant long BEFORE your injury. you clearly had numerous transferable skills which are not engineering work task activities eg a self employed contractor answering the telephone after advertising their wares & services etc

My POV = you also knew the importance of your legal obligations and risks of mismanagement and embezzlement across all business fields long before your accidents Alan. I say this as the NZLII reports that you blamed others for your bankruptcy of near half a million dollars long before your alleged hernia and sailing adventures. I read zero evidence from the NZ Police concerning any official complaint of thefts by servants etc


RE : "At the end of the day the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that there was no indication that I had ever participated in any work activity with the company is all of the work task activities had been carried out by other people who were paid for doing that work with no work left for me. Further no funds of any sort earn by any of these companies had ever been paid to me. That is the ACCs own star witness "


QUESTION = do you have the transcript of this so called testimony from the ACC star witness Alan? Will you ever upload such information if it is available to you. If not why not? DO you think members can not read english or think for themselves?

My POV = I would be very surprised to discover any forensic accountant opining upon occupational work task activities Alan.

QUESTION = did these purported official forensic audited accounts disclose any indicators about why or how these businesses appeared to be so vulnerable to collapse? This could be evidence of where all the income and profit was disappearing or why it was never generated in the first place right through to his professional opinion concerning payments being made to others instead of you.

QUESTION = did this forensic accountant cost all the working activities for every employee and shareholder and director within the companies under your name Alan?

My POV = I am astonished that you were never guided or instructed on the first day of your business development activity to ensure that your role and your contributions and your activities were not immediately recorded in some official capacity. Ii also seems extremely irresponsible to have businesses operating without any buffers for the clients and staff.ie they should have continued even if you were comatose or institutionalised for a period of time etc I say this also particularly because it is clear you are claiming that these businesses were not providing you with drawings or dividends so that the proper taxes & levies could be recorded &or collected Alan.

Why why why on earth did not you not immediately seek proper expert and legal counsel on how to interact properly with ACC and any and all business vehicles you were energizing during your very first fraud investigation Alan?

If you did obtain this professional counselling then why why why on earth did you not include such official documentation in your court submissions for the second fraud investigation? This is basic 101 business intelligence and accountability Alan.

RE : "As the forensic accountant employed by the ACC confirmed that he had informed the ACC that there was no connection of any income or earnings between me and these companies ask yourself why the ACC made some kind of claim to the newspapers that I had earned $1.3 million? Why would anyone tell such a ridiculous lie that had no support of any sort in fact particularly since the forensic accountant had told them the direct opposite"

I consider your comment to be disingenuous and misleading and of course wordplay spindoctoring too Alan.
The article I read online has no such ACC claims contained in it. It discusses business turnovers. WHilst the journalist also may be using the term earning, publishing & teaching all in the same links this is an indicator of the more generic concepts of working IMHO.
It would also be unreasonable to expect a journalist let alone the general public to decide that while 2 out of 3 terms is correct, remember the words earning & working are synonymous for most people Alan.

Therefore I do not see a single lie in anything written within this article and in fact your defence arguments were also mentioned by the journalist Alan. It would consider that there is a much wider discrepancy in the newspapers final statement

An Auckland consultant whose businesses turned over hundreds of thousands of dollars has been exposed as one of the biggest ACC fraudsters...

He grossed $238,000 in accident compensation during the next seven years while also earning from an immigration consultancy, publishing a Chinese newspaper and teaching English to immigrants...

The defence argued that the real issue was whether Thomas had fraudulent intent when he used the documents...

Thomas was unable to get a straight answer out of the corporation as to what he should do to rehabilitate himself. His business ventures were rehabilitation efforts rather than work.


Basically working closely parallels earning and both terms come under legislation which includes Income definitions for IRD and ACC and WINZ and so on ..

However business ventures is simply not considered the same as rehabilitation efforts Alan. Most business people would be offended. Even if a business was functioning for 2-4 weeks with unpaid rehabilitation assessment processes Alan, an independent advisor should have been able to produce a report on your suitability for such working much like the 90 day probationary contracts for you and every single worker within those businesses Alan. IMHO most rehabilitation efforts across multiple fields would also have very little common ground with business ventures etc


RE : A you trying to generate "high-value information" for the ACC as well as your other friends in the tagteam?

My POV = You really must stop referring to this concept out of context Alan. You have hijacked and misinterpreted in order to slam and abuse innocents in addition to your other faddy upchucks. These words were coined specifically for specific information that would assist the Minister of ACC and the CEO to begin questioning particular untoward activities with ACC Managers Alan. FGS there was even a named circle of forum members here ie the conduit. IMHO you are not and never have been a high-value person to me for numerous reasons etc. You are not and also never have had management influence over ACC claimants Alan. You are also likely the main and only source of positive, negative and neutral information - or if you prefer high value information &or contradictions and baloney concerning your own claims Alan ie you are your own worst enemy IMHO


RE : "The issue of my accommodation had come up of course and the evidence confirmed that I had paid the company rent for my accommodation so why would you continue to lie on this matter when you already know the truth. What makes a person like you tell such monstrous lies? "


QUESTION = Did you actually pay market rent to your own company ALan? This is the normal treatment of such accomodation assistance with both ACC and WINZ when it comes to Income determinations and Dividends etc

My POV = Under the Income Tax Act 2007 CD 38 General calculation rule for transfers of value please remember that "(1)The amount of a dividend that is a transfer of value from a company to a person is calculated using the formula — value from company − value from person" Alan.

Therefore there would or should have been a *value* assigned to your accomodation that would have been of interest to the IRD Tax collectors Alan. This would have been part of the *Income* investigations and how these questions are explored with regard to active and passive money movements etc

My POV = did your company also evidence any rent paid by your girlfriends in this accomodation too Alan? If not why not questions may be relevant for similar reasons ie the roles of alleged employees and managers and what perks or income they may have had access to during the relevant time periods etc

RE : "The holding company that rented the property, telephones, power and suchlike managed by one of the partners rented the accommodation to me which also included the costs of power and phone."


QUESTION = who controlled the holding company Alan? You say *partner* do you mean this was a role akin to a landlord and you were just the tenant? Or you do mean one of your foreign girlfriends who was on a tourist visa perhaps? Yup I have lost track of all the stories here ... and of course the whole *working* issue for such people with immigration &or any deportation questions etc etc

Obviously in both of these types of circumstances, I would find a couple of accounting issues to be somewhat problematic eg phone costs or electricity being apportioned and properly recorded in Profit Loss Statements and so forth. Nevertheless this partner or landlord should have a legal papertrail easily accessible by IRD or Immigration or the NZ Courts on your behalf Alan. You could have also voluntarily provided such information to ACC yourself.

My POV = I am currently learning about this type of activity due to encountering a convicted fraudster who actually has their personal mortgage and council rates paid by one. As it is definitely NOT a tenancy arrangement for the felon I am investigating at present, I am endeavouring to fine tune my comprehension of such company vehicles plus all of the devious scams used by conmen and other felons convicted of fraud and obtaining by deception charges etc etc

RE : Everything was perfectly transparent and of course who we rent our homes from is absolutely none of ACCs business and as such the ACC enquiring into such matters breached my privacy and the privacy of the various other partners

My POV = this was relevant to your criminal court proceedings Alan. You are also the person who likely made such issues develop during the ACC investigations due to your untoward behaviours or evasive answers eg observations of you or your car spending hours, days, weeks, months within a business setting were reasonable and valid questions you could have answered with respect and evidence to explain such unusual activities etc Did any of your employees also live on business premises Alan? If not why not?

My POV = I agree with Mini. Stop mixing up ACC civil and NZ Criminal court proceedings and issues as such confusion and extremist rhetoric is outrageous and thankfully extremely rare. I say this because it seems you are incapable of recognising normal mature adult behaviour while you continue digging your own holes with your manipulations of community realities with citizens &or society norms and our laws. The majority of ACC claimants are honest or upfront with transparent information and actions when they are legally required Alan. Your ideas, choices, decisions and nonactions or evasions have all been part of your undoing here ie you were & still are your own worst enemy IMHO :wacko:


RE : "DT Had already gone through the transcripts and evidence of the criminal trial and found no information to support the ACC decision and as such could not derive anything from that criminal prosecution for purposes of defending the ACCs decision in the first instance of which the criminal court judge relied upon as if the ACC decision had maintained its integrity both in fact and in law"


QUESTION = Goodness gracious Alan, where is this determination from a senior ACC legal officer? Is it buried somewhere in the thousands of pages or hours of NZLII database or your personal files perhaps? Why do you not upload verified photographic evidence?

RE "I don't is now how you could possibly think backwards and inside out like that. What is wrong with you?
ACC obtained a very large number of search warrants and seized all information of all types. They found no information that remotely suggested that I might be working much less earning. There was no information that they claimed to possess. It was after the review hearing at which time the ACC complaints investigator instructed them that they would have to reinstate my claim or surrender the information that they claim to have had. "


QUESTION = What timeline and review are you trying to reference here Alan? You seem to be back into your magickal thinking with flying zebras again :wacko:

My POV = The key Review decision was dated 3 July 1992 by Mr Carter.

I dread to think of any search warrants being exercised BEFORE any simple first tier tribunal process Alan....


QUESTION = Who was the "ACC complaints investigator" Alan? If this was somebody back in 1992 or goodness even in 1997 and BEFORE your fraud investigation and criminal trial and convictions Alan then perhaps you should also upload verified photographic evidence of exactly what this purported agent ordered to be surrendered and blah blah.

My POV = In the past I always believed it was some anonymous but specific Judge who may have made this point to ACC but with the deliberate refusal to share the transcript I could never confirm. Now it seems it is not anything remotely related to a NZ Courtroom and could therefore be just another low level professional opinion from only one person who is just one cog in the system etc etc Or your imagination again ....
0

Share this topic:


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

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