ACCforum: ACC and practice of witness coaching - ACCforum

Jump to content

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

ACC and practice of witness coaching Is it lawful?

#1 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 15 January 2021 - 03:17 PM

When reading the postings on this site we see a consistent pattern whereby claimants are asserting that information providers for the purposes of ACC decisions and acquiring information for judicial purposes being acquired by the ACC has involved the ACC unduly influencing that information provider / witness in order to achieve an outcome in their favour.

Examples would include:
ACC acquiring a medical report from a medical profession whereby the ACC has provided effectively a performer report with the expectation that the medical profession produces such a report in that mode.
ACC acquiring medical reports based on a succession of questions that lead towards the answer that would be preferable to the ACC as opposed to letting the medical professional reaching their own conclusions.
ACC directly schooling witnesses for purposes of judicial proceedings to deliver a viewpoint in its favour. For example persuading a witness to give an opinion that a cardboard box lifted by the claimant was a heavy box without any knowledge as to whether or not anything was in the box at all, for example saying that the claimant had the capacity to carry out a certain task with one hand tied behind their back prior to being injured and so therefore could still carry out that task after they were injured.
ACC asking witnesses to give what effectively is a medical conclusion despite the fact that the witness has no medical qualifications stop

The medical Council usually has control over its member medical professionals with regards to the delivery of treatment but does not seem to claim any authority over medical conclusions delivered to the courts. As this actually consistent with the relevant legal duties?

So we find in countries such as the USA that it is illegal to communicate with a potential witness for fear that it might cause the witness to give out preferential testimony and that if any witnesses were going to be communicating in such a way the trial would be terminated. Do we have laws such as this of this country?
0

#2 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 18 January 2021 - 09:48 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 15 January 2021 - 03:17 PM, said:

When reading the postings on this site we see a consistent pattern whereby claimants are asserting that information providers for the purposes of ACC decisions and acquiring information for judicial purposes being acquired by the ACC has involved the ACC unduly influencing that information provider / witness in order to achieve an outcome in their favour.

Examples would include:
ACC acquiring a medical report from a medical profession whereby the ACC has provided effectively a performer report with the expectation that the medical profession produces such a report in that mode.
ACC acquiring medical reports based on a succession of questions that lead towards the answer that would be preferable to the ACC as opposed to letting the medical professional reaching their own conclusions.
ACC directly schooling witnesses for purposes of judicial proceedings to deliver a viewpoint in its favour. For example persuading a witness to give an opinion that a cardboard box lifted by the claimant was a heavy box without any knowledge as to whether or not anything was in the box at all, for example saying that the claimant had the capacity to carry out a certain task with one hand tied behind their back prior to being injured and so therefore could still carry out that task after they were injured.
ACC asking witnesses to give what effectively is a medical conclusion despite the fact that the witness has no medical qualifications stop

The medical Council usually has control over its member medical professionals with regards to the delivery of treatment but does not seem to claim any authority over medical conclusions delivered to the courts. As this actually consistent with the relevant legal duties?

So we find in countries such as the USA that it is illegal to communicate with a potential witness for fear that it might cause the witness to give out preferential testimony and that if any witnesses were going to be communicating in such a way the trial would be terminated. Do we have laws such as this of this country?

0

#3 User is offline   DARRELLGEMMA 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 448
  • Joined: 03-February 07

Posted 18 January 2021 - 09:52 AM

Yes we do it is called perjury which has a maximum sentence of 7 years jail. Influencing witnesses in a trial will lead to mistrial & possibly a retrial. I don't know if ACC influence witnesses in cases that go the district court. I did read the case of Turner where the judge said the district court should not become involved in ACC appeals.
0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 23 January 2021 - 03:46 PM

 DARRELLGEMMA, on 18 January 2021 - 09:52 AM, said:

Yes we do it is called perjury which has a maximum sentence of 7 years jail. Influencing witnesses in a trial will lead to mistrial & possibly a retrial. I don't know if ACC influence witnesses in cases that go the district court. I did read the case of Turner where the judge said the district court should not become involved in ACC appeals.


So as all medical professionals providing report to the ACC are aware that there is a significant probability that their report is going to go before the courts do you think those medical professionals consider that ACC are exerting any kind of influence on them in the manner in which the report is to be delivered. For example are the ACC asking for a river port to confirm a condition that the ACC either suspect or would prefer to be the doctors conclusion as opposed to the doctor being called upon to be totally independent. So has this condition ever been examined in court?

As for myself the judge found himself cautioning the ACC to immediately stop speaking to each of the witnesses before giving evidence with the same witnesses acknowledging that they had been told what to say by the ACC staff. Are you suggesting then that the judge has produced evidence in the transcript to the effect that ACC had created a situation where the trial could lead to a mistrial? Another situation I recall is that when in my doctor's office I was present when the ACC called on the phone challenging his letter to the court explained the court that I was far too injured to be enduring whole day court sessions and then describe the nature of my injuries with the ACC then accusing my doctor of producing a fraudulent document to the court and threatening him with prosecution himself unless he withdrew his evidence to the court.

Over the years I have had very large numbers of people express their concern that the ACC routinely seek to influence court witnesses and particular their own doctors even pressuring the doctors to contradict their own diagnosis so it lines up with the ACCs preferred evidence of the court.
0

#5 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 26 January 2021 - 08:17 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 23 January 2021 - 03:46 PM, said:

So as all medical professionals providing report to the ACC are aware that there is a significant probability that their report is going to go before the courts do you think those medical professionals consider that ACC are exerting any kind of influence on them in the manner in which the report is to be delivered. For example are the ACC asking for a river port to confirm a condition that the ACC either suspect or would prefer to be the doctors conclusion as opposed to the doctor being called upon to be totally independent. So has this condition ever been examined in court?

As for myself the judge found himself cautioning the ACC to immediately stop speaking to each of the witnesses before giving evidence with the same witnesses acknowledging that they had been told what to say by the ACC staff. Are you suggesting then that the judge has produced evidence in the transcript to the effect that ACC had created a situation where the trial could lead to a mistrial? Another situation I recall is that when in my doctor's office I was present when the ACC called on the phone challenging his letter to the court explained the court that I was far too injured to be enduring whole day court sessions and then describe the nature of my injuries with the ACC then accusing my doctor of producing a fraudulent document to the court and threatening him with prosecution himself unless he withdrew his evidence to the court.

Over the years I have had very large numbers of people express their concern that the ACC routinely seek to influence court witnesses and particular their own doctors even pressuring the doctors to contradict their own diagnosis so it lines up with the ACCs preferred evidence of the court.

Par for the course there thomas
Of acc knowing you were capable and of being involved with a myriad of companies hands on at that then they certainly were not going to believe a letter that you proffered from your doctor who by the way somewhere in this mess if a forum you said he only put down what you told him.

Far to long ago to try your bollocks again.
0

#6 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 26 January 2021 - 09:23 PM

View PostHemi, on 26 January 2021 - 08:17 PM, said:

Par for the course there thomas
Of acc knowing you were capable and of being involved with a myriad of companies hands on at that then they certainly were not going to believe a letter that you proffered from your doctor who by the way somewhere in this mess if a forum you said he only put down what you told him.

Far to long ago to try your bollocks again.


How in your wildest dreams do you think there is any kind of conflict of interest or obstacle in owning companies and even having some involvement with those companies and doctors directions to the ACC that I cannot return to my preinjury occupation. Quite obviously no doctor is ever going to write down anything to the ACC that has not been diagnosed by way of specialised expertise and competencies with regards to the degree of disability and suchlike. I don't know why you would imagine anybody would ever tell a doctor want to write, except of course the ACC.

Perhaps of you think that the ACC have some kind of basis in law to bypass legislation and on top of that some kind of evidence to support some kind of cockamamie imaginative nonsense that you come up with. I guess that's what's Par for the course. Perhaps you should put your head back in your are ass it belongs permanently.
0

#7 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 27 January 2021 - 08:57 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 26 January 2021 - 09:23 PM, said:

How in your wildest dreams do you think there is any kind of conflict of interest or obstacle in owning companies and even having some involvement with those companies and doctors directions to the ACC that I cannot return to my preinjury occupation. Quite obviously no doctor is ever going to write down anything to the ACC that has not been diagnosed by way of specialised expertise and competencies with regards to the degree of disability and suchlike. I don't know why you would imagine anybody would ever tell a doctor want to write, except of course the ACC.

Perhaps of you think that the ACC have some kind of basis in law to bypass legislation and on top of that some kind of evidence to support some kind of cockamamie imaginative nonsense that you come up with. I guess that's what's Par for the course. Perhaps you should put your head back in your are ass it belongs permanently.

Conflict of interest?

ACC tested that area.
You were convicted for fraud and received a sentence of 3 years jail time
So of course acc would question anything you provided to them
That’s why they nailed you thomas.

You lied to them.
You were put on non gratis with acc-remote control contact only and you firmly embedded that acc position as permanent life time with your terrorism activity Bomb making plans directed to acc and the public.
It is quite clear that you have had your own head up your ass for decades.


Hemi.
0

#8 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 January 2021 - 11:23 AM

 Hemi, on 27 January 2021 - 08:57 AM, said:

Conflict of interest?

ACC tested that area.
You were convicted for fraud and received a sentence of 3 years jail time
So of course acc would question anything you provided to them
That’s why they nailed you thomas.

You lied to them.
You were put on non gratis with acc-remote control contact only and you firmly embedded that acc position as permanent life time with your terrorism activity Bomb making plans directed to acc and the public.
It is quite clear that you have had your own head up your ass for decades.


Hemi.


You have failed to address the issue of conflict of interest.

ACC have never carried out any kind of test of any sort, not once.

Legislation require the ACC to fund independent medical assessment and more importantly may not make up information themselves nor rely upon anyone else making of information. Third-party information must be from a qualified source such as a medical professional been commissioned by the ACC to carry out a medical assessment to determine whether the medical information provided by the claimant is valid.

Essentially the valid information from both parties may be contested in court if they are not in agreement. As ACC have never put any kind of medical information forward the only information now permitted in law to make decisions by would be the medical information provided by my medical treatment providers. As there have been previous judicial hearings concerning this information that have required the ACC to submit themselves to this information the ACC are quite clearly in breach of the judiciary. When the ACC failed to appeal the judiciary but rather simply made a new decision and told the courts that they had followed the correct procedure they have of course committed perjury as well as producing documents not known to be true for pecuniary advantage (fraud).

Of greater significance to the general public is the fact that the ACC have caused people like yourself to believe that owners of businesses who are also directors carrying out some minor activities are not entitled to ACC if they continue to own those businesses and be directors and carry out minor activities. The ACC annual suggestion appeared to be in conflict with the legislation in this regard inasmuch as you are saying that business owners in this situation are not entitled to ACC. This appear strange since the ACC asked for premiums and will enforce the gathering of those premiums by force of law. In other words the ACC and yourself can't have it both ways.

As for my personal situation ACC had always been appraised of all information relevant to my claim. This information took the form of the medical information from a treatment providers and the judiciary that directed the ACC to submit to the authority of that information. Over and above this I had provided the ACC with written information describing my efforts in seeking new business opportunities whereby I could carry out work task activities of which they would in time receive an abatement of earnings deduction of my earnings compensation. What is startling is that the ACC withheld this information from the court and when this information was put before the court the ACC lied about receiving it. Further other supplementary information was submitted to the court confirming that the ACC had possession of the information and had made decisions on it such as demanding I provide them with this information with the ultimatum that they will suspend my entitlements if I failed to provide the information. Further the ACC actually did suspend my claim because they had imagined I had failed to give this information despite the fact that they already had it. As the ACC reinstated the compensation when recognising that they did have this information they confirmed acknowledgement of the information which they claimed to the court they did not receive. Perjury is a very serious crime in this country and most other Western world countries. Producing. The mentation for pecuniary advantage is an additional crime of fraud.

There is no such thing as persona non gratas within the context of the ACC legislation. When you start inventing such nonsense along with the other nonsense you talk about such as business owners do not have entitlement to ACC unless they surrender their businesses you enter into the realms of being a criminal when you usurp the authority of the ACC legislation. The person like you do such a thing? Are you a crazy person or is it that you are truly evil?

I would go so far as to say that you are truly evil given the fact that you colluded with others to make false allegation concerning section of the ACC nonsense to make false allegation concerning an alleged plan to blow up the ACC in response to Douglas weal having his claim denied because he was carrying out similar activities to myself when making a claim. You and others colluding to threaten the ACC in my name is a most terrible crime to be committing against myself not to mention crime committed against the individual ACC staff members who were terrorised by your words. I point out these were your words and had no relationship to myself. In fact the court acknowledged that there was no information of any sort relating to myself including the confirmation by way of search warrant that there was no evidence of any physical type that merited any kind of support to your allegation against me.

This topic is concerning the ACC practice of coaching their witnesses. You are quite familiar with your allegation that dark clouds were on the horizon concerning myself and the ACC as you put it in your email to the ACC along with your discussions with the ACC about the same thing. The evidence in your possession identified communication between yourself and the ACC regarding a matter that they intended to put before the courts. Quite clearly you were being coached by the ACC for this purpose. Once you realise that once Kenneth Miller had become involved it would have been apparent to you that your story was gonna come apart so you distance yourself from ACCs intention to use you as their witness.

As I have started several websites designed to help ACC claimants understand ACC legislation and to also obtain work while injured it does seem that you and your friends are at odds with the fundamental principles of the ACC legislation. The reality contradicts the story both you and the ACC seek to put about designed to distract other illegal behaviour concerning theft of ACC entitlements by way. You mentation (fraud).
0

#9 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 01 February 2021 - 03:18 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 31 January 2021 - 11:23 AM, said:

You have failed to address the issue of conflict of interest.

ACC have never carried out any kind of test of any sort, not once.

Legislation require the ACC to fund independent medical assessment and more importantly may not make up information themselves nor rely upon anyone else making of information. Third-party information must be from a qualified source such as a medical professional been commissioned by the ACC to carry out a medical assessment to determine whether the medical information provided by the claimant is valid.

Essentially the valid information from both parties may be contested in court if they are not in agreement. As ACC have never put any kind of medical information forward the only information now permitted in law to make decisions by would be the medical information provided by my medical treatment providers. As there have been previous judicial hearings concerning this information that have required the ACC to submit themselves to this information the ACC are quite clearly in breach of the judiciary. When the ACC failed to appeal the judiciary but rather simply made a new decision and told the courts that they had followed the correct procedure they have of course committed perjury as well as producing documents not known to be true for pecuniary advantage (fraud).

Of greater significance to the general public is the fact that the ACC have caused people like yourself to believe that owners of businesses who are also directors carrying out some minor activities are not entitled to ACC if they continue to own those businesses and be directors and carry out minor activities. The ACC annual suggestion appeared to be in conflict with the legislation in this regard inasmuch as you are saying that business owners in this situation are not entitled to ACC. This appear strange since the ACC asked for premiums and will enforce the gathering of those premiums by force of law. In other words the ACC and yourself can't have it both ways.

As for my personal situation ACC had always been appraised of all information relevant to my claim. This information took the form of the medical information from a treatment providers and the judiciary that directed the ACC to submit to the authority of that information. Over and above this I had provided the ACC with written information describing my efforts in seeking new business opportunities whereby I could carry out work task activities of which they would in time receive an abatement of earnings deduction of my earnings compensation. What is startling is that the ACC withheld this information from the court and when this information was put before the court the ACC lied about receiving it. Further other supplementary information was submitted to the court confirming that the ACC had possession of the information and had made decisions on it such as demanding I provide them with this information with the ultimatum that they will suspend my entitlements if I failed to provide the information. Further the ACC actually did suspend my claim because they had imagined I had failed to give this information despite the fact that they already had it. As the ACC reinstated the compensation when recognising that they did have this information they confirmed acknowledgement of the information which they claimed to the court they did not receive. Perjury is a very serious crime in this country and most other Western world countries. Producing. The mentation for pecuniary advantage is an additional crime of fraud.

There is no such thing as persona non gratas within the context of the ACC legislation. When you start inventing such nonsense along with the other nonsense you talk about such as business owners do not have entitlement to ACC unless they surrender their businesses you enter into the realms of being a criminal when you usurp the authority of the ACC legislation. The person like you do such a thing? Are you a crazy person or is it that you are truly evil?

I would go so far as to say that you are truly evil given the fact that you colluded with others to make false allegation concerning section of the ACC nonsense to make false allegation concerning an alleged plan to blow up the ACC in response to Douglas weal having his claim denied because he was carrying out similar activities to myself when making a claim. You and others colluding to threaten the ACC in my name is a most terrible crime to be committing against myself not to mention crime committed against the individual ACC staff members who were terrorised by your words. I point out these were your words and had no relationship to myself. In fact the court acknowledged that there was no information of any sort relating to myself including the confirmation by way of search warrant that there was no evidence of any physical type that merited any kind of support to your allegation against me.

This topic is concerning the ACC practice of coaching their witnesses. You are quite familiar with your allegation that dark clouds were on the horizon concerning myself and the ACC as you put it in your email to the ACC along with your discussions with the ACC about the same thing. The evidence in your possession identified communication between yourself and the ACC regarding a matter that they intended to put before the courts. Quite clearly you were being coached by the ACC for this purpose. Once you realise that once Kenneth Miller had become involved it would have been apparent to you that your story was gonna come apart so you distance yourself from ACCs intention to use you as their witness.

As I have started several websites designed to help ACC claimants understand ACC legislation and to also obtain work while injured it does seem that you and your friends are at odds with the fundamental principles of the ACC legislation. The reality contradicts the story both you and the ACC seek to put about designed to distract other illegal behaviour concerning theft of ACC entitlements by way. You mentation (fraud).

Acc tested the issue in a court of law
The criminal courts.
You were found guilty
You had the open unhindered opportunity to present whatever you liked to show acc were wrong
You couldn’t.
You could not show any defence to the charges of fraud
That showed you had no entitlement to acc benefits
All your bollocks above and the last twenty plus years does nothing to show you have A legitimate acc claim due to Fraud
Along with acc I’m the one that’s right here as you can’t prove acc or me wrong

Facts are you have no claim entitlement to even be debating acc entitlements you think you should have.
0

#10 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 02 February 2021 - 08:59 AM

 Hemi, on 01 February 2021 - 03:18 PM, said:

Acc tested the issue in a court of law
The criminal courts.
You were found guilty
You had the open unhindered opportunity to present whatever you liked to show acc were wrong
You couldn’t.
You could not show any defence to the charges of fraud
That showed you had no entitlement to acc benefits
All your bollocks above and the last twenty plus years does nothing to show you have A legitimate acc claim due to Fraud
Along with acc I’m the one that’s right here as you can’t prove acc or me wrong

Facts are you have no claim entitlement to even be debating acc entitlements you think you should have.


What you have clearly demonstrated here is how easily ACC mislead the general public by witness coaching.

At no stage ever as any court of law in New Zealand authorised by legislation to test whether or not someone is injured, disabled and therefore entitled to ACC compensation. That job is only available to medical professionals and even then only after a clinical examination.

The could transparent at no stage ever found me guilty of anything in particular. They were able to point to anything that I was pronounced beauty of in specific terms? Of course you can't because no specific terms were ever used by the ACC to support an allegation of fraud as there was nothing actually fraudulent in relation to any of the applications for ACC entitlements under the ACC legislation. In fact the judiciary had supported the medical profession and the facts of the matter which is that I suffered from a catastrophic injury and was no longer able, because of the injuries, to earn in my existing occupation. It is not open for anybody to change the legislation without going through the processes in parliament to do so. So this is were people like you are so easily confused by misrepresentation and coaching in order that you then go on to do the ACCs bidding for the purposes of the ACC financial gain.

The ACC letter to cancel my claim for cover has been confirmed by the addition could charge to be defective inasmuch as it needed described the relevant point of law nor any particular fact. Instead the ACC rely upon the relative influence first influencing the very global people such as yourself to intern influence others. This is what is known as witness coaching whereby any potential witness, such as yourself, develops of a belief which in turn promoted in the courts such as the way ACC manipulated you to misrepresent facts in a document presented to the court.

Obviously there can be no defence when the accuser makes no specific accusation as to point of law or point of fact. This is why people like you find it easy to make accusation without being specific about anything at all. It is all part of an ongoing pattern of deception and insurance fraud and perversion of the course of justice by the ACC who in turn influence people like you to support them.
Over the historical period of time a very large number of medical professionals have become involved who all overwhelmingly and unanimously agree that my injuries are such that it makes it impossible for me to return to my old occupation. What information are you relied upon to claim that they entire medical profession are wrong?

Quite simply your disobedience to legislation is in the matter that you are made accusation without substance, just empty words in support of the ACC who have stolen not just my life away but those connected with me such as my employees who have lost their jobs homes and families as well.
0

#11 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 05 February 2021 - 09:34 AM

You were accused of claiming and receiving entitlements by fraudulent means.
You were judged in a Court of NZ legislative laws and found guilty of fraud against the acc yet you want the benefits you fraudulently claimed and are guilty of falsely claiming you were unfit for any work but alas. You were judged on that falsely claiming entitlements and found guilty of Fraud and sentenced to 3 years jail
Your entitled to Nothing Thomas. 👏
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 05 February 2021 - 08:41 PM

 Hemi, on 05 February 2021 - 09:34 AM, said:

You were accused of claiming and receiving entitlements by fraudulent means.
You were judged in a Court of NZ legislative laws and found guilty of fraud against the acc yet you want the benefits you fraudulently claimed and are guilty of falsely claiming you were unfit for any work but alas. You were judged on that falsely claiming entitlements and found guilty of Fraud and sentenced to 3 years jail
Your entitled to Nothing Thomas. 👏


I have not been accused of receiving entitlements by fraudulent means. That accusation is just utter nonsense. There is no connection between ACCs allegation and the legislation and nor is there any connection with the degree of my disability as a result of the injuries that the ACC acknowledge I suffer from. The legislation require ACC to seek a medical report to determine any discrepancy between my claim and what they were paying out on. As the ACC have never challenged this information there is no discrepancy. Had the ACC wanted to prosecute for fraud on the basis of not having an injury that prevents me from working then they would have address that matter in court. No one has ever accused me of being fit for work!. They did not so what is your point. What is it that you don't understand?

ACC have acknowledged that they are liable to calculate and pay my entitlements. The judiciary have required the ACC to carry obtain this information and carry out the calculation and make payment. Each time the court is reconvened to issue another deadline, which is usually 10 days after the success of my case against them, they fail to comply with the court.

So David Butler what on earth are you talking about?



David it seems that you are involved with the ACC in their practice of coaching witnesses to create impressions which is all you seem to be doing. Not once have you ever come forward with any actual factual statement. Empty words render you nothing more than some form of ugly Troll making a nuisance of yourself
0

#13 User is offline   Hemi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2633
  • Joined: 05-January 12

Posted 07 February 2021 - 12:34 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 05 February 2021 - 08:41 PM, said:

I have not been accused of receiving entitlements by fraudulent means. That accusation is just utter nonsense. There is no connection between ACCs allegation and the legislation and nor is there any connection with the degree of my disability as a result of the injuries that the ACC acknowledge I suffer from. The legislation require ACC to seek a medical report to determine any discrepancy between my claim and what they were paying out on. As the ACC have never challenged this information there is no discrepancy. Had the ACC wanted to prosecute for fraud on the basis of not having an injury that prevents me from working then they would have address that matter in court. No one has ever accused me of being fit for work!. They did not so what is your point. What is it that you don't understand?

ACC have acknowledged that they are liable to calculate and pay my entitlements. The judiciary have required the ACC to carry obtain this information and carry out the calculation and make payment. Each time the court is reconvened to issue another deadline, which is usually 10 days after the success of my case against them, they fail to comply with the court.

So David Butler what on earth are you talking about?



David it seems that you are involved with the ACC in their practice of coaching witnesses to create impressions which is all you seem to be doing. Not once have you ever come forward with any actual factual statement. Empty words render you nothing more than some form of ugly Troll making a nuisance of yourself

You were accused of Fraud
You went to trial
You were found Guilty
Sentenced to 3 years jail.
Same as your other major case of accused and found Guilty of Acts of terrorism.

Come back and show the appeal processs showed you were not guilty of fraud
Alas after 30 years a shite show of that ever happening
Same as the terrorism charges as found you guilty
Not rocket science that either

Alan Thomas = Guilty as charged
No impressions from me Thomas
Tne evidence the courts had us all anyone needs
Time you left the room Thomas.
0

#14 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10813
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 07 February 2021 - 03:30 PM

 Hemi, on 07 February 2021 - 12:34 PM, said:

You were accused of Fraud
You went to trial
You were found Guilty
Sentenced to 3 years jail.
Same as your other major case of accused and found Guilty of Acts of terrorism.

Come back and show the appeal processs showed you were not guilty of fraud
Alas after 30 years a shite show of that ever happening
Same as the terrorism charges as found you guilty
Not rocket science that either

Alan Thomas = Guilty as charged
No impressions from me Thomas
Tne evidence the courts had us all anyone needs
Time you left the room Thomas.


This topic addresses the ACC practice of inventing stories about the injured and incapacitated with the of avoiding making payment on their liabilities. Injured people do not have either the financial or the physical abilities to stand up against and ACC attack of this type. With ACC routinely coaching their witnesses to lie the result is that claimants are getting prosecuted and convicted of crimes as a mechanism to avoid ACCs financial liabilities to such claimants. I am one just one of many such claimants.

David Butler you are one of those ones coached by the ACC to lie along with your co-conspirators did during with you in your lie. As stated above it is not possible for the injured and infirm to withstand such an attack that people like you make stop

As it has always been I and others are injured and are not receiving the ACC funding in order to receive the necessary medical treatment to no longer be injured. The evidence is rocksolid and absolute. Yet we have people like yourself that will argue against the medical profession based entirely upon your rhetoric. What a miserable and most disgusting individual you are to treat the injured in such a brutal and callous way. Why would you do such a thing?
0

#15 User is offline   chroy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 102
  • Joined: 05-July 11

Posted 27 June 2021 - 07:34 PM

Alan were you aware that Martin Williscroft past away 10 April 2021, after a battle with cancer.
0

Share this topic:


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

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