ACCforum: Michael Cruickshank - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

Michael Cruickshank an update

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 November 2019 - 09:50 AM

ACC appears to still be failing Michael Cruickshank by way of typical bureaucratic thuggery.
The background of this man's history is that :

he was injured and his claim was accepted by the ACC.
ACC rigorously created all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense in order to deliberately fail to make good on their liabilities.
The ACC then prosecuted for fraud, obtained a conviction and then later successfully prosecuted for threats of which Michael Cruickshank denies.
ACC have acknowledged the authority of the courts and as much as that they had not carried out the legislative procedures correctly and were required to reimburse Michael Cruickshank yet he continues to be shortchanged.

Historically we see a significant number of ACC claimants who are quite clearly unable to work being prosecuted for working despite there being no actual evidence of work or anything contrary to the medical certificates. This practice seems to be continuing until the present despite the ACC being aware that work does not form the criteria for cancelling a claim much less ACC's claims of information about so-called "work" from various dubious sources including from those who have a conflict of interest.
Historically we see ACC continuing in the practice of accusing claimants of being threatening as a weapon and mechanism to avoid engaging with the claimants having legitimate claims that they have not been able to dispose of lawfully.

Background Sample of media history:

https://www.stuff.co...-on-against-acc
http://www.stuff.co....burton-killings
http://www.voxy.co.n...-claims/5/56465
https://www.change.o...bush/u/24963022


Michael Cruickshanks You-tube site
https://www.youtube....3-6eEASgOUa0D4w

Michael Cruickshank continues in this most noble crusade to clear his name.

The basis of this discussion concerning Michael Cruickshank's claim and what appears to be a legitimate expectation that ACC comply with and administer the legislation by calculating the entitlements in accordance with the legislated criteria.
ACC acknowledge that he is injured and cannot return to his occupation and that he has not been rehabilitated into any new occupation. So what is the basis for the ACC cancelling his earnings compensation?
He had acknowledged that he had carried out some minor work for a variety of people without earnings. Does that give the ACC a lawful entitlement to bypass very stringent legislated criteria without any qualification as to the nature of the work and whether or not it relates to previous work task activities or the clinical integrity of the medical certificates?




A side note is that blurb considers that his case, a variety of other cases and mine have many parallels. I'm assuming he means points of law and similar facts.


Please try to remain on point by discussing only points of law, issues of fact and not become embroiled in any kind of personalities.



-1

#2 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1929
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 25 November 2019 - 02:16 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 25 November 2019 - 09:50 AM, said:

ACC appears to still be failing Michael Cruickshank by way of typical bureaucratic thuggery.
The background of this man's history is that :

he was injured and his claim was accepted by the ACC.
ACC rigorously created all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense in order to deliberately fail to make good on their liabilities.
The ACC then prosecuted for fraud, obtained a conviction and then later successfully prosecuted for threats of which Michael Cruickshank denies.
ACC have acknowledged the authority of the courts and as much as that they had not carried out the legislative procedures correctly and were required to reimburse Michael Cruickshank yet he continues to be shortchanged.

Historically we see a significant number of ACC claimants who are quite clearly unable to work being prosecuted for working despite there being no actual evidence of work or anything contrary to the medical certificates. This practice seems to be continuing until the present despite the ACC being aware that work does not form the criteria for cancelling a claim much less ACC's claims of information about so-called "work" from various dubious sources including from those who have a conflict of interest.
Historically we see ACC continuing in the practice of accusing claimants of being threatening as a weapon and mechanism to avoid engaging with the claimants having legitimate claims that they have not been able to dispose of lawfully.

Background Sample of media history:

https://www.stuff.co...-on-against-acc
http://www.stuff.co....burton-killings
http://www.voxy.co.n...-claims/5/56465
https://www.change.o...bush/u/24963022


Michael Cruickshanks You-tube site
https://www.youtube....3-6eEASgOUa0D4w

Michael Cruickshank continues in this most noble crusade to clear his name.

The basis of this discussion concerning Michael Cruickshank's claim and what appears to be a legitimate expectation that ACC comply with and administer the legislation by calculating the entitlements in accordance with the legislated criteria.
ACC acknowledge that he is injured and cannot return to his occupation and that he has not been rehabilitated into any new occupation. So what is the basis for the ACC cancelling his earnings compensation?
He had acknowledged that he had carried out some minor work for a variety of people without earnings. Does that give the ACC a lawful entitlement to bypass very stringent legislated criteria without any qualification as to the nature of the work and whether or not it relates to previous work task activities or the clinical integrity of the medical certificates?




A side note is that blurb considers that his case, a variety of other cases and mine have many parallels. I'm assuming he means points of law and similar facts.


Please try to remain on point by discussing only points of law, issues of fact and not become embroiled in any kind of personalities.

where are you to date as in points of law ,,,,,,,,,as in lost entitlements being restored ,allan as then why you have become being involved as in the above claimants issues with the corporation ,,,,
1

#3 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 25 November 2019 - 03:47 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 25 November 2019 - 09:50 AM, said:



Historically we see a significant number of ACC claimants who are quite clearly unable to work being prosecuted for working despite there being no actual evidence of work or anything contrary to the medical certificates. This practice seems to be continuing until the present despite the ACC being aware that work does not form the criteria for cancelling a claim much less ACC's claims of information about so-called "work" from various dubious sources including from those who have a conflict of interest.
Historically we see ACC continuing in the practice of accusing claimants of being threatening as a weapon and mechanism to avoid engaging with the claimants having legitimate claims that they have not been able to dispose of lawfully.





Thomas where is your evidence that ACC are charging a significant number of claimants for fraud ??????

Below is a snippet, albeit from a few years ago, on how few claimants are getting charged by ACC now.





"New figures provided to the Attorney-General have raised questions about whether the ministry is being too tough on benefit fraudsters, compared with the actions of agencies such as ACC, or Inland Revenue's targeting of white-collar tax avoidance.

The figures, in a briefing by Crown Law on the public prosecutions systems' efficiency, show the ministry made 670 prosecutions in the year to March 2015, while ACC made only four in the same period."



"Crown Law's briefing said MSD had a 94 per cent conviction rate, noting: "Questions might also be raised of ACC, who has a 100 per cent conviction rate, but has only prosecuted four times in the same period."

https://www.stuff.co...rshly-by-courts
3

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 25 November 2019 - 04:03 PM

 Huggy, on 25 November 2019 - 03:47 PM, said:

Where is your evidence that ACC are charging a significant number of claimants for fraud ??????

Below is a snippet, albeit from a few years ago, on how few claimants are getting charged by ACC now.





"New figures provided to the Attorney-General have raised questions about whether the ministry is being too tough on benefit fraudsters, compared with the actions of agencies such as ACC, or Inland Revenue's targeting of white-collar tax avoidance.

The figures, in a briefing by Crown Law on the public prosecutions systems' efficiency, show the ministry made 670 prosecutions in the year to March 2015, while ACC made only four in the same period."



"Crown Law's briefing said MSD had a 94 per cent conviction rate, noting: "Questions might also be raised of ACC, who has a 100 per cent conviction rate, but has only prosecuted four times in the same period."

https://www.stuff.co...rshly-by-courts

huggy I have used the Michael Cruickshank Case as an example in point. You may not be aware that after he was convicted of fraud he was later exonerated as far as the issue of his ongoing entitlements. Your assumption that the ACC are not so rabid in their quest to prosecute for fraud seems to stem from what you believe to have been changes brought about within the ACC subsequent to your own case yet his case is after your case. Could it be that you have bought into some kind of social engineering foisted by the ACC public relations team?

For several decades the ACC fraud unit had been investigating approximately 300 or more claimants for fraud. When the ACC Fraud Unit felt that they had reason to believe that fraud has taken place frequently the claimant would be interviewed by either a private investigator or one from the unit to confront them with sufficient to elicit some kind of confession and if a confession was not forthcoming the case would escalate. The short answer is that more than 10% would be convicted. However this thread is in relation to the ACC alleging work as being a basis for a conviction of fraud as opposed to all manner of other allegations of fraud.

From the time that you were in the process of being investigated and then prosecuted for fraud on the basis that ACC had believed you were working and therefore were not entitled to your claim and entitlements for earnings compensation it was discovered that ACC had acted improperly in their processes as opposed to the actual point of law. As you have pointed out since your case ACC has made many promises in regards to prosecution of claimants but has not really released much information.

In the absence of statistical data about ACC investigating claimants for working and cancelled their claims on that basis, whether or not a fraud prosecution occurs or not, the issue was whether or not work forms the basis of ACC's decision-making criteria or whether or not the legislation's criteria is something different.


As to the frequency of the ACC Investigating claimants for working in the current timeframe as opposed to prior to your case Huggy we may infer whether or not there has been any changes in the absence of statistics by just looking at the size of the ACC fraud unit. Has the size of this unit changed by being reduced or increased? If you can answer that question then you will have your answer as to whether or not this practice is continuing.

it seems that the majority of cases whereby a claimant is accused of working as recommended by legal counsel to surrender entitlements and take the ACC deal regardless as to whether or not they have been working or not. I am quite aware that my case has been used by the ACC with my case and photo et cetera as being the poster child in support of the ACC's threat of fraud prosecution in these matters.


The identifying feature of the Cruickshank Case is the fact that ACC had had to reimburse him for his loss of earnings while at the same time his conviction has remained on the basis that he should follow the ACC doctrine that working provides the means of disqualification of earnings compensation, ACC the opportunity to cancel entitlements, therefore a false declaration made on the medical certificates and therefore fraud. In other words huggy if you were put in the place of Mr Cruickshank you most certainly would have been convicted of fraud in accordance with the decision made by the Court of Appeal describing these points of law.

However the point that I am making is whether or not ACC are properly represented the legislation to the Court of Appeal and whether or not ACC advocates and specialist lawyers have the necessary knowledge and expertise concerning these matters in order to enforce the ACC legislative criteria in these matters.
2

#5 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1929
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 25 November 2019 - 07:46 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 25 November 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

huggy I have used the Michael Cruickshank Case as an example in point. You may not be aware that after he was convicted of fraud he was later exonerated as far as the issue of his ongoing entitlements. Your assumption that the ACC are not so rabid in their quest to prosecute for fraud seems to stem from what you believe to have been changes brought about within the ACC subsequent to your own case yet his case is after your case. Could it be that you have bought into some kind of social engineering foisted by the ACC public relations team?

For several decades the ACC fraud unit had been investigating approximately 300 or more claimants for fraud. When the ACC Fraud Unit felt that they had reason to believe that fraud has taken place frequently the claimant would be interviewed by either a private investigator or one from the unit to confront them with sufficient to elicit some kind of confession and if a confession was not forthcoming the case would escalate. The short answer is that more than 10% would be convicted. However this thread is in relation to the ACC alleging work as being a basis for a conviction of fraud as opposed to all manner of other allegations of fraud.

From the time that you were in the process of being investigated and then prosecuted for fraud on the basis that ACC had believed you were working and therefore were not entitled to your claim and entitlements for earnings compensation it was discovered that ACC had acted improperly in their processes as opposed to the actual point of law. As you have pointed out since your case ACC has made many promises in regards to prosecution of claimants but has not really released much information.

In the absence of statistical data about ACC investigating claimants for working and cancelled their claims on that basis, whether or not a fraud prosecution occurs or not, the issue was whether or not work forms the basis of ACC's decision-making criteria or whether or not the legislation's criteria is something different.


As to the frequency of the ACC Investigating claimants for working in the current timeframe as opposed to prior to your case Huggy we may infer whether or not there has been any changes in the absence of statistics by just looking at the size of the ACC fraud unit. Has the size of this unit changed by being reduced or increased? If you can answer that question then you will have your answer as to whether or not this practice is continuing.

it seems that the majority of cases whereby a claimant is accused of working as recommended by legal counsel to surrender entitlements and take the ACC deal regardless as to whether or not they have been working or not. I am quite aware that my case has been used by the ACC with my case and photo et cetera as being the poster child in support of the ACC's threat of fraud prosecution in these matters.


The identifying feature of the Cruickshank Case is the fact that ACC had had to reimburse him for his loss of earnings while at the same time his conviction has remained on the basis that he should follow the ACC doctrine that working provides the means of disqualification of earnings compensation, ACC the opportunity to cancel entitlements, therefore a false declaration made on the medical certificates and therefore fraud. In other words huggy if you were put in the place of Mr Cruickshank you most certainly would have been convicted of fraud in accordance with the decision made by the Court of Appeal describing these points of law.

However the point that I am making is whether or not ACC are properly represented the legislation to the Court of Appeal and whether or not ACC advocates and specialist lawyers have the necessary knowledge and expertise concerning these matters in order to enforce the ACC legislative criteria in these matters.

as in your long standing case as fraudulent activities ,allan , where are you to date as in points of law ,,,,,,,, as in your entitlements being restored ,,,,,,,
2

#6 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 November 2019 - 11:17 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 25 November 2019 - 09:50 AM, said:

ACC appears to still be failing Michael Cruickshank by way of typical bureaucratic thuggery.
The background of this man's history is that :

he was injured and his claim was accepted by the ACC.
ACC rigorously created all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense in order to deliberately fail to make good on their liabilities.
The ACC then prosecuted for fraud, obtained a conviction and then later successfully prosecuted for threats of which Michael Cruickshank denies.
ACC have acknowledged the authority of the courts and as much as that they had not carried out the legislative procedures correctly and were required to reimburse Michael Cruickshank yet he continues to be shortchanged.

Historically we see a significant number of ACC claimants who are quite clearly unable to work being prosecuted for working despite there being no actual evidence of work or anything contrary to the medical certificates. This practice seems to be continuing until the present despite the ACC being aware that work does not form the criteria for cancelling a claim much less ACC's claims of information about so-called "work" from various dubious sources including from those who have a conflict of interest.
Historically we see ACC continuing in the practice of accusing claimants of being threatening as a weapon and mechanism to avoid engaging with the claimants having legitimate claims that they have not been able to dispose of lawfully.

Background Sample of media history:

https://www.stuff.co...-on-against-acc
http://www.stuff.co....burton-killings
http://www.voxy.co.n...-claims/5/56465
https://www.change.o...bush/u/24963022


Michael Cruickshanks You-tube site
https://www.youtube....3-6eEASgOUa0D4w

Michael Cruickshank continues in this most noble crusade to clear his name.

The basis of this discussion concerning Michael Cruickshank's claim and what appears to be a legitimate expectation that ACC comply with and administer the legislation by calculating the entitlements in accordance with the legislated criteria.
ACC acknowledge that he is injured and cannot return to his occupation and that he has not been rehabilitated into any new occupation. So what is the basis for the ACC cancelling his earnings compensation?
He had acknowledged that he had carried out some minor work for a variety of people without earnings. Does that give the ACC a lawful entitlement to bypass very stringent legislated criteria without any qualification as to the nature of the work and whether or not it relates to previous work task activities or the clinical integrity of the medical certificates?




A side note is that blurb considers that his case, a variety of other cases and mine have many parallels. I'm assuming he means points of law and similar facts.


Please try to remain on point by discussing only points of law, issues of fact and not become embroiled in any kind of personalities.



 Alan Thomas, on 25 November 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

huggy I have used the Michael Cruickshank Case as an example in point. You may not be aware that after he was convicted of fraud he was later exonerated as far as the issue of his ongoing entitlements. Your assumption that the ACC are not so rabid in their quest to prosecute for fraud seems to stem from what you believe to have been changes brought about within the ACC subsequent to your own case yet his case is after your case. Could it be that you have bought into some kind of social engineering foisted by the ACC public relations team?

For several decades the ACC fraud unit had been investigating approximately 300 or more claimants for fraud. When the ACC Fraud Unit felt that they had reason to believe that fraud has taken place frequently the claimant would be interviewed by either a private investigator or one from the unit to confront them with sufficient to elicit some kind of confession and if a confession was not forthcoming the case would escalate. The short answer is that more than 10% would be convicted. However this thread is in relation to the ACC alleging work as being a basis for a conviction of fraud as opposed to all manner of other allegations of fraud.

From the time that you were in the process of being investigated and then prosecuted for fraud on the basis that ACC had believed you were working and therefore were not entitled to your claim and entitlements for earnings compensation it was discovered that ACC had acted improperly in their processes as opposed to the actual point of law. As you have pointed out since your case ACC has made many promises in regards to prosecution of claimants but has not really released much information.

In the absence of statistical data about ACC investigating claimants for working and cancelled their claims on that basis, whether or not a fraud prosecution occurs or not, the issue was whether or not work forms the basis of ACC's decision-making criteria or whether or not the legislation's criteria is something different.


As to the frequency of the ACC Investigating claimants for working in the current timeframe as opposed to prior to your case Huggy we may infer whether or not there has been any changes in the absence of statistics by just looking at the size of the ACC fraud unit. Has the size of this unit changed by being reduced or increased? If you can answer that question then you will have your answer as to whether or not this practice is continuing.

it seems that the majority of cases whereby a claimant is accused of working as recommended by legal counsel to surrender entitlements and take the ACC deal regardless as to whether or not they have been working or not. I am quite aware that my case has been used by the ACC with my case and photo et cetera as being the poster child in support of the ACC's threat of fraud prosecution in these matters.


The identifying feature of the Cruickshank Case is the fact that ACC had had to reimburse him for his loss of earnings while at the same time his conviction has remained on the basis that he should follow the ACC doctrine that working provides the means of disqualification of earnings compensation, ACC the opportunity to cancel entitlements, therefore a false declaration made on the medical certificates and therefore fraud. In other words huggy if you were put in the place of Mr Cruickshank you most certainly would have been convicted of fraud in accordance with the decision made by the Court of Appeal describing these points of law.

However the point that I am making is whether or not ACC are properly represented the legislation to the Court of Appeal and whether or not ACC advocates and specialist lawyers have the necessary knowledge and expertise concerning these matters in order to enforce the ACC legislative criteria in these matters.

The “”operative word”” amongst it all is DISHONEST.

Something you fail to deal with Thomas which is why you were nailed.
No point of law removes that from you so your latest thread just another load of bollocks.
1

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 November 2019 - 12:03 PM

 Hemi, on 26 November 2019 - 11:17 AM, said:

The “”operative word”” amongst it all is DISHONEST.

Something you fail to deal with Thomas which is why you were nailed.
No point of law removes that from you so your latest thread just another load of bollocks.


The cases that we're talking about here is one whereby the ACC have prosecuted for fraud and then later were found to be wrong in fact and law or the ACC themselves confessed to have not had any information and not carried out any legislative procedure.

The difficulty in cases such as Michael Cruickshank, Burnett and others is that although the district court has found that they were entitled to was claim the criminal court will not allow an appeal on that basis.
in these cases the ACC was found to be required by a judge to reimburse all that they had withheld in the form of earnings compensation and reinstate earnings compensation entitlements. In the Burnett case it was even more clear and as much as he most certainly was working full-time and more at another job while at the same time receiving earnings compensation.

David Butler it might be helpful if you study the various court decisions on these matters so as to end your confusion.

essentially the reasoning is that ACC are required to determine whether or not the person continues to be incapacitated because of the injuries to learn and that even dishonesty is entirely irrelevant. So dishonesty does not enable the ACC to cancel a claim or entitlements. What the ACC should be doing in some of these cases where actual work and earnings have occurred is to calculate the abatement of earnings in accordance with the instructions found in legislation.


ACC are dishonest and not being obedient to the law and they themselves should be prosecuted in these matters. in my own case the ACC staff involved confessed to have had no training nor knowledge of the ACC legislation and simply carried out decisions under instructions or in accordance to how the appears of made decisions. David seems that you are one of these sheep that have been socially engineered in some way by the ACC or you are deliberately misinforming the members of the site for whatever sadistic reasoning you have which of course addresses the issues of your mental health as is the case with Tommy.

0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 November 2019 - 12:09 PM

Perhaps those reading this thread should go to Michael Cruickshanks Youtube postings so as to enable a clear picture of someone who is injured, incapacitated, suffer from PTSD who continues to be gas lighted by the likes of what we commonly call on the site tag team.
-1

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 November 2019 - 12:49 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 November 2019 - 12:03 PM, said:

The cases that we're talking about here is one whereby the ACC have prosecuted for fraud and then later were found to be wrong in fact and law or the ACC themselves confessed to have not had any information and not carried out any legislative procedure.

The difficulty in cases such as Michael Cruickshank, Burnett and others is that although the district court has found that they were entitled to was claim the criminal court will not allow an appeal on that basis.
in these cases the ACC was found to be required by a judge to reimburse all that they had withheld in the form of earnings compensation and reinstate earnings compensation entitlements. In the Burnett case it was even more clear and as much as he most certainly was working full-time and more at another job while at the same time receiving earnings compensation.

David Butler it might be helpful if you study the various court decisions on these matters so as to end your confusion.

essentially the reasoning is that ACC are required to determine whether or not the person continues to be incapacitated because of the injuries to learn and that even dishonesty is entirely irrelevant. So dishonesty does not enable the ACC to cancel a claim or entitlements. What the ACC should be doing in some of these cases where actual work and earnings have occurred is to calculate the abatement of earnings in accordance with the instructions found in legislation.


ACC are dishonest and not being obedient to the law and they themselves should be prosecuted in these matters. in my own case the ACC staff involved confessed to have had no training nor knowledge of the ACC legislation and simply carried out decisions under instructions or in accordance to how the appears of made decisions. David seems that you are one of these sheep that have been socially engineered in some way by the ACC or you are deliberately misinforming the members of the site for whatever sadistic reasoning you have which of course addresses the issues of your mental health as is the case with Tommy.

There’s a difference you fail to want to know about and I have no need to look any further at the issue. Neither does the acc or the courts.
You misled lied and were secretive.
Equals outright Dishonesty to acc
Forget the legislation Thomas

Historically = Your fucked.
As you found out. :P/>
3

#10 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 November 2019 - 12:52 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 26 November 2019 - 12:09 PM, said:

Perhaps those reading this thread should go to Michael Cruickshanks Youtube postings so as to enable a clear picture of someone who is injured, incapacitated, suffer from PTSD who continues to be gas lighted by the likes of what we commonly call on the site tag team.

Perhaps you should leave others issues alone Thomas
No one else has been on to that case as you allege, only you attempting to highlight your own pile of crap, using someone else as you’ve failed to get anywhere with the forum using your own case.
3

#11 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 November 2019 - 03:30 PM

View PostHemi, on 26 November 2019 - 12:49 PM, said:

There’s a difference you fail to want to know about and I have no need to look any further at the issue. Neither does the acc or the courts.
You misled lied and were secretive.
Equals outright Dishonesty to acc
Forget the legislation Thomas

Historically = Your fucked.
As you found out. Posted Image/>


The ACC has now confessed in the High Court that they never had any information of any work at any time for purposes of cancelling my claim or prosecuting for fraud.

In other words the ACC acknowledge that I had been truthful the whole time and had not worked.

The problem with our justice system is like Michael Cruickshank the Court of Appeal doesn't want to give leave for us to appeal in the criminal court.


It is the ACC that has forgotten the legislation and me and others who enforce it. This is what makes this site so useful. Further the site serve to expose people like you to try to promote ACC dishonesty. Shame shame shame

-2

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10624
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 November 2019 - 03:31 PM

View PostHemi, on 26 November 2019 - 12:52 PM, said:

Perhaps you should leave others issues alone Thomas
No one else has been on to that case as you allege, only you attempting to highlight your own pile of crap, using someone else as you’ve failed to get anywhere with the forum using your own case.


You will not be able to suppress ACCs dishonesty with the existence of a site like this and other international means of communications that did not exist when the bureaucratic thuggery within the ACC started.

It is a pity that people like you who are so stupid that you will fully remain blind in defence of the ACC. Shame shame shame.

-1

#13 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1929
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 26 November 2019 - 03:46 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 November 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

You will not be able to suppress ACCs dishonesty with the existence of a site like this and other international means of communications that did not exist when the bureaucratic thuggery within the ACC started.

It is a pity that people like you who are so stupid that you will fully remain blind in defence of the ACC. Shame shame shame.

as in forwarding to forum as in the aboves case ,where are you date as in points of laws allan ,as in your lost entitlements being restored ,,allan ,,,,,,,,,,,clean up your own back doors . so to speak , allan , :rolleyes:
1

#14 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 November 2019 - 04:53 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 November 2019 - 03:30 PM, said:

The ACC has now confessed in the High Court that they never had any information of any work at any time for purposes of cancelling my claim or prosecuting for fraud.

In other words the ACC acknowledge that I had been truthful the whole time and had not worked.

The problem with our justice system is like Michael Cruickshank the Court of Appeal doesn't want to give leave for us to appeal in the criminal court.


It is the ACC that has forgotten the legislation and me and others who enforce it. This is what makes this site so useful. Further the site serve to expose people like you to try to promote ACC dishonesty. Shame shame shame

You were prosecuted for using With an Intent - documents for a pecuniary gain for yourself and or others.
And the judge stated. No medical issues were needed / involved in the decision he made.

Sentence. = Nothing to do with acc at all.
In others words / that’s just your wordsmithing again as Acc have not stated / acknowledged you were truthful.
The problem is people like you who deceive the acc and create mistrust of all claimants.
3

#15 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2583
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 November 2019 - 04:56 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 26 November 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

You will not be able to suppress ACCs dishonesty with the existence of a site like this and other international means of communications that did not exist when the bureaucratic thuggery within the ACC started.

It is a pity that people like you who are so stupid that you will fully remain blind in defence of the ACC. Shame shame shame.

Bollocks
Not suppressing a thing re acc
It’s Suppressing your outright bullshit.
If the sites not available I’ll make one that continues to show all your bullshit/ lies
3

#16 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1929
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 27 November 2019 - 02:01 PM

View Posttommy, on 25 November 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

as in your long standing case as fraudulent activities ,allan , where are you to date as in points of law ,,,,,,,, as in your entitlements being restored ,,,,,,,

2

#17 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1929
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 27 November 2019 - 02:09 PM

View PostHemi, on 26 November 2019 - 04:56 PM, said:

Bollocks
Not suppressing a thing re acc
It’s Suppressing your outright bullshit.
If the sites not available I’ll make one that continues to show all your bullshit/ lies

nothing has changed as in allans abilities , towards the forum as in presenting infos in his convictions being overturned . as in his lost entitlements being restored .and such other matters :D/>
2

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