ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 540
  • 541
  • 542
  • 543
  • 544
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas Allegations of working while incapacitated

#10821 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 12:46 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

Tell us al again Thomas what exactly
You were charged with re the fraud case.
YOU were NOT charged with working


DavePosted Image


The fraud prosecution relied upon the ACC 18 medical certificates.

In order for fraud to be proven it needed to be found that I was not incapacitated as described in those medical certificate in other words the Doctor had falsified the information within.

The doctor confirmed that he had not falsified the information and continue to provide medical certificates in reliance upon the expertise of his specialist colleagues.

Judge Morris persuaded himself that because of the ACC decision to cancel the claim that the ACC would have had to have determined that I was no longer incapacitated or had never been incapacitated On the basis of the assumptions made by the ACC have relied upon private investigators who went of the community to obtain impressions and assumptions of fact from those members of the public who had no direct knowledge, no qualifications and no ability whatsoever to provide evidence as required by legislation.

The sentence I received was based on the assumption that I had earned $1.3 million.



The ACC had subsequently acknowledged that none of the information judge Morris relied upon was true. This means the ACC had committed perjury along with their informants.

The fact that the ACC relied upon the falsely acquired criminal conviction for the civil proceedings compounds the perjury.
0

#10822 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:29 PM

Would this be fact enough ;; http://www.nzlii.org...y=alan%20thomas

"Having considered all the information available made to me by way of Mr Thomas’ ACC files, the submissions made, and evidence given at the review hearing, I accept Mr Tui’s submissions on both counts.

I find that the decision concerning incapacity previously made at review and pending determination in District Court on Appeal is binding on Mr Thomas.

No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001.

In my view, ACC have correctly determined that Mr Thomas does not have an entitlement to weekly compensation. As a result, he is also not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.

At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."
0

#10823 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:39 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

The fraud prosecution relied upon the ACC 18 medical certificates.

In order for fraud to be proven it needed to be found that I was not incapacitated as described in those medical certificate in other words the Doctor had falsified the information within.

The doctor confirmed that he had not falsified the information and continue to provide medical certificates in reliance upon the expertise of his specialist colleagues.

Judge Morris persuaded himself that because of the ACC decision to cancel the claim that the ACC would have had to have determined that I was no longer incapacitated or had never been incapacitated On the basis of the assumptions made by the ACC have relied upon private investigators who went of the community to obtain impressions and assumptions of fact from those members of the public who had no direct knowledge, no qualifications and no ability whatsoever to provide evidence as required by legislation.

The sentence I received was based on the assumption that I had earned $1.3 million.



The ACC had subsequently acknowledged that none of the information judge Morris relied upon was true. This means the ACC had committed perjury along with their informants.

The fact that the ACC relied upon the falsely acquired criminal conviction for the civil proceedings compounds the perjury.


Not the wonder you lose all the time Thomas
who cares whether you worked or not here
acc never
YOU MISLEAD THEM thus used a document capable of-gaining /obtaining a pecuniary gain with an intent
and ya done
the 1.3 millions was a round about of money and anothere of the who cares anyway about that
YOU MISLEAD THE ACC trying to have erc while you were NOT TELLING THEM WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY DOING
UNTIL A SMARTER THAN YOU ,CASE MANAGER CAUGHT YOU.
Dave
0

#10824 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:40 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 02:18 AM, said:

The issue before the court was whether or not ACC have any information that I was working. The fact that neither of the ACC witnesses were able to describe a single work task activity at any Material time Even with the assistance of a large number of search warrants it also revealed that no information whatsoever is the evidence before the court. Judge Barber engaging in a cooperative effort of the ACC of a character assassination as an alternative to evidenceIs entirely unbecoming of the entire judicial process. It simply does not meet the criteria for evidence under the evidence act.

It should not have escaped your notice is that Mister Davey was described the courts extremely little involvement with myself as he simply came to the owner of the company to inform me that the manager of my company and stolen a vast sum of money without carrying out the proper work. The dishonest practice of Mr MasoeThat revealed itself repeatedly was that he would deliberately sabotage the company he was managing for the sole purposeOf destroying my company to make the way open for him to start his own along with his Accomplice, the other ACC witness. Document as to this effect were submitted to the court yet there was absolutely no reference to them.

In fact the entire judgements made by judge Barber makes no reference whatsoever to any of the exhibits I placed before him remembering of course the affidavit was exhibit placed by my witness.

The affidavit that was prepared for Mister Davey was Produced from notes of the conversation he had with me 10 years after these things took place from his own recollection. What took place with things that I had no knowledge about that work from his own recollections except for the furniture in my Home which were homely furnishing items not office furniture which he did confirm.

The mysterious undated an unsigned letter that claims to have originated from Mister DaveyIs something of an aberration as there is no resemblance to any facts whatsoever. I was never employed by the company for example, never received any wages and never carried out a single work task activity for them. The handwritten badly formed piece of paper torn out of a schoolbook without being authenticated had absolutely no business being before the court as no one was able to presented as a genuine item. Nonetheless exhibits were submitted to the court describing exactly what I was doing at that time was proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence. Why was any comparative assessment of the information put before the judge ever actually considered unless it had somehow mysteriously disappeared from the judge's gaze or even something else even far more sinister. What had actually happened is that there was a discussion regarding a business plan of which there was a nondisclosure agreement which did not get a head with his company but rather went ahead with one of his competitors who when accepting the terms of by arrangement of 60% ownership of the new company to be formed the new partner wrote to the ACC on my behalf describing the new arrangements demonstrating the potential for generating a partial earnings capacity with my residual capacity. Why would you imagined that judge Barber did not comment on irrelevancies of these interactions that were supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits but instead relied upon airy fairy nonsense that isn't even evidence according to what the criteria requirements of evidence actually are.

As for Nicole Rosie she was the one that type to be cancellation of claim and entitlements letter with the letter being titled total declinature and attempted to escape from the court directives to give evidence in court concerning the integrity of the decision letter. The court confirms that legislation does not permit the cancellation of a claim for cover, particularly under section 73 (1) and that work on its own is insufficient to be called information under section 73 (1). Ms Rosie claimed that she did not understand the letter that she had written and had merely been instructed to produce it & it yet she went on to claim that I had successfully rehabilitated into an immigration consultant which was one of the occupation objectives of my rehabilitation plan without her being aware of that fact. On that basis the ACC would have been required to carry out an assessment under section 51 however the ACC had no mechanism by which to carry out the assessment as the ACC had not yet produced the regulations require until well after the decision had been produced rendering section 51 a nonstarter.

Judge Barber then went on to try and rescue the ACCs predicament by the arising that the ACC then must have carried out an end of incapacity assessment despite the fact that the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decision regarding temporary incapacity being an impossibility unless the ACC funded reconstructive surgery first in the surgery had not taken place still binding upon all parties. These two sections are the only sections that Section73 could refer toYet there is no evidence of any sort to support judge Barber is theory that the ACC had carried out the proper assessment procedures. This indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the ACC staff have committed perjury at both civil and criminal proceedings.



Red fox it is not uncommon in the hearing that has many thousands of exhibits and a large number of witnesses would there To be a small number of anomalies such as Mister Davey forgetting a details of this affidavit That are not directly pertinent to the issue at hand which is whether or not I carried out any work task activities sufficient for judge Barber to support the notion that I was no longer incapacitated to return to my pre-injury work task activities.

As a parting shot in one of the more ridiculous in most outrageous assumptions made by judge Barber is his assertion that I could return to my preinjury occupation despite the fact that ACC had absolutely no knowledge of what that occupation was. Judge Barber try to help this failing out of the ACC by introducing into evidence information that the ACC did not have as at the date of decision that the ACC was allowed to go and find the information by way of private investigators speaking to 4 different so-called witnesses that had no observations whatsoever of my preinjury occupation but only the light duties I undertook after I was first injured which certainly is not representative of my preinjury occupation. The judge being aware of those fact is demonstrated a level of competency as a judge that brings the entire system into disrepute and the necessity for applications to the superior appellate courts for a ruling on the criteria by which a judge was to determine degree of incapacity by way of answers to the points of law put before him.

We must never forget that the appeal is my appeal which requires the judge to answer the questions of law that I put before him. The fact that he failed in this duty demonstrates A disappointing or lacking in what I had every right to have a legitimate expectation that would take place. There can be no excuse for the criteria of judgements to be supplanted with character assassination as this is unbecoming of the profession. Are you are aware or not whether he continuesto be presiding over ACC matters?

Yo do waffle on don't you...

Who gives a toss about Steven Davey or Nicole Rosie or any of your rambling self justifications.

You have still not answered the question.

Where in the court record has ACC's principal informant withdrawn or acknowledged he had no idea what you were doing?

That is a question you cannot answer.

To a statement (read lie) you made on the 01 August 2014 @ 03:48 PM when you stated

"However the principal ACC informant when under oath confessed that he had no knowledge of what I was actually doing and was completely unaware that I was comply with the ACC directed s73 (2) ultimatum which involved the suspension of my entitlements if I did not produced those business plans."


Loser
0

#10825 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 01:59 PM

If my memory is correct , under the 82 act., any % of the registered injury
is considered being disabled.
Cover is granted until an ACC. specialist etc. reports your covered injury
is "Exclusively" ----.
After 1992 act., this changed to be 'Wholly or Substantially' which
then allows ACC. any % to refuse claims.

This assumes the claimant has IRD. records to prove ACC. levies
were paid for their claimed occupation.
0

#10826 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 02:34 PM

View PostRedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yo do waffle on don't you...

Who gives a toss about Steven Davey or Nicole Rosie or any of your rambling self justifications.

You have still not answered the question.

Where in the court record has ACC's principal informant withdrawn or acknowledged he had no idea what you were doing?

That is a question you cannot answer.

To a statement (read lie) you made on the 01 August 2014 @ 03:48 PM when you stated

"However the principal ACC informant when under oath confessed that he had no knowledge of what I was actually doing and was completely unaware that I was comply with the ACC directed s73 (2) ultimatum which involved the suspension of my entitlements if I did not produced those business plans."


Loser


Tank engine Thomas ,Being somewhat missing in action cruising round china etc and no where to be seen ,To update his position as to what hed already told then re schemes ,Thomas was called to account with the acc to ''FULLY'' explain his rehab schemes
He f'd up and asked fpr money to get one /SOME IF NOT ALL of a large number of things off the ground
PROBLEM he already had things off the ground
Its in here somewhere re his meeting with the case manager and WHY does he want permanent disablement when hes NOT PERMANENTLY DISABLED
Ever in 82 there we rehab officers to which thomas dealt with in his own case as he was doing OTHER things as opposed tio being disabled
He should have sat back done nothing as a disabled until he was fixed
But he even argued about the fixing as hes told us all in here
Take it or leave it re rehab fix its Thomas like the rest of had to
Dave
0

#10827 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:41 PM

View Postgreg, on 04 August 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Would this be fact enough ;; http://www.nzlii.org...y=alan%20thomas

"Having considered all the information available made to me by way of Mr Thomas’ ACC files, the submissions made, and evidence given at the review hearing, I accept Mr Tui’s submissions on both counts.

I find that the decision concerning incapacity previously made at review and pending determination in District Court on Appeal is binding on Mr Thomas.

No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001.

In my view, ACC have correctly determined that Mr Thomas does not have an entitlement to weekly compensation. As a result, he is also not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.

At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."


Why then did the ACC accept the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decision requiring ACC to fund my reconstructive surgery so I can return to my preinjury occupation and in the following months provide an agreement to the hospital to pay the hospital bill?
0

#10828 User is offline   David Butler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3370
  • Joined: 25-January 10

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:43 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why then did the ACC accept the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decision requiring ACC to fund my reconstructive surgery so I can return to my preinjury occupation and in the following months provide an agreement to the hospital to pay the hospital bill?


You wouldnt goPosted Image
Think you were waiting for a chinese limbo
0

#10829 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:44 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Not the wonder you lose all the time Thomas
who cares whether you worked or not here
acc never
YOU MISLEAD THEM thus used a document capable of-gaining /obtaining a pecuniary gain with an intent
and ya done
the 1.3 millions was a round about of money and anothere of the who cares anyway about that
YOU MISLEAD THE ACC trying to have erc while you were NOT TELLING THEM WHAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY DOING
UNTIL A SMARTER THAN YOU ,CASE MANAGER CAUGHT YOU.
Dave


And how do you interpret that assumption in relation to the act?

You have read the ACC legal counsel, Dane Tui, To the effect that work has nothing whatsoever to do with ACC earnings compensation entitlements but rather only the capacity to earn an actual earnings.

ACC have acknowledged having none of this information ever.

How do you imagine ACC is winning all of these court cases without any information?
0

#10830 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:50 PM

View PostRedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 01:40 PM, said:

Yo do waffle on don't you...

Who gives a toss about Steven Davey or Nicole Rosie or any of your rambling self justifications.

You have still not answered the question.

Where in the court record has ACC's principal informant withdrawn or acknowledged he had no idea what you were doing?

That is a question you cannot answer.

To a statement (read lie) you made on the 01 August 2014 @ 03:48 PM when you stated

"However the principal ACC informant when under oath confessed that he had no knowledge of what I was actually doing and was completely unaware that I was comply with the ACC directed s73 (2) ultimatum which involved the suspension of my entitlements if I did not produced those business plans."


Loser


Red Sox quite clearly you are the one with the compulsive obsessive disorder that keeps on addressing these issues.

To answer your question regarding the court records the information I refer to is in the court transcript and exhibits which were submitted to the court as my final submissions which required the court to address that material. Just because you do not see the judge responding to the substance of the appeal that does not mean there is no information but rather the judge is failed in his duty to address the issues before him.

How is it that you are less I am a liar in regards to the ACC ultimatum for me to carry out the work task activities of preparing business plans with the alternative ACC suspending my earnings compensation if I did not do that work?

How is it that the fraud investigation team, ACC PIs, were unaware that the ACC had required by carry out the work of preparing business plans?
If I was meant to carry out work activity under s73 (2) how is it that my entitlements were cancelled under s73 (1) on the basis that I was working?

Red Sox this is a grown-up conversation for grown-up people to have grown-up discussions about ACC matters.

Either you are interested in addressing ACC legislative interpretation or you are here as a troublemaker.
0

#10831 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:51 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Tank engine Thomas ,Being somewhat missing in action cruising round china etc and no where to be seen ,To update his position as to what hed already told then re schemes ,Thomas was called to account with the acc to ''FULLY'' explain his rehab schemes
He f'd up and asked fpr money to get one /SOME IF NOT ALL of a large number of things off the ground
PROBLEM he already had things off the ground
Its in here somewhere re his meeting with the case manager and WHY does he want permanent disablement when hes NOT PERMANENTLY DISABLED
Ever in 82 there we rehab officers to which thomas dealt with in his own case as he was doing OTHER things as opposed tio being disabled
He should have sat back done nothing as a disabled until he was fixed
But he even argued about the fixing as hes told us all in here
Take it or leave it re rehab fix its Thomas like the rest of had to
Dave

Many a clever business owner and their Accountants etc. came to grief in those days by not being accurate
about their true income , when or if they ever claimed ACC.
ACC. can only used IRD. approved figures to calculate ERC.,by what the claimant stated was their income ,
via the ACC. levy paid, which was not always the same as wage or drawing bank deposits .
0

#10832 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:58 PM

View Postgreg, on 04 August 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

If my memory is correct , under the 82 act., any % of the registered injury
is considered being disabled.
Cover is granted until an ACC. specialist etc. reports your covered injury
is "Exclusively" ----.
After 1992 act., this changed to be 'Wholly or Substantially' which
then allows ACC. any % to refuse claims.

This assumes the claimant has IRD. records to prove ACC. levies
were paid for their claimed occupation.


No Greg the percentage threshold is 15%. I remember this because the send me a long to one of their assessors who calculated 14.5%.
The medical profession with the appropriate qualification however calculated 60% of which the 1992 review hearing decisions confirmed as being the proper back to base the claim. This resulted in ACC paying out 100% of s79 and being required to pay ERC on the basis that I was incapacitated to return to the preinjury occupation unless I had the reconstructive surgery and that surgery brought me with the threshold of the legislated capacity for the ACC liability to be an end. The ACC refused to fund that reconstructive surgery and instead made secret arrangements for a salvage procedure that failed which instead of decreasing my incapacity actually increased it.

In effect a minimum of 60% remains binding upon the ACC.

As the injury was exclusively the result of an accident event there is no issue on that score so the percentage remains exactly the same except for increased incapacity which the ACC have not funded for any further assessments of any sort up until the present despite my winning numerous review hearings that have given the ACC 20 days to initiate those assessment procedures.

Levy payments had been paid. In fact my last ACC payment from my business was over $40,000 which the chartered accountant calculated using all the proper processes. ACC levies were also paid on my part-time job with trigon.
It is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not ACC has received levy payments for the purposes of claiming ACC cover and entitlements. In the event that levies are not have IRD will secure payment through the usual procedures.
0

#10833 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 03:59 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why then did the ACC accept the binding effects of the 1992 review hearing decision requiring ACC to fund my reconstructive surgery so I can return to my preinjury occupation and in the following months provide an agreement to the hospital to pay the hospital bill?

Mr Thomas you lost your injury cover in 1997 not 1992.

"No evidence has been presented to demonstrate Mr Thomas’ condition in March 2001 has deteriorated since 1997, and there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Thomas was an earner immediately before 26 March 2001."

"At the review hearing, Mr Tui said that Mr Thomas still has cover. The transitional provisions of both the 1992 and 1998 Acts provide continuation of Mr Thomas’ cover. However, he is currently not entitled to either weekly compensation or vocational rehabilitation. The cited Clauses of Schedule 1 of the current Act confirm this."

Your Judgement where you lost .

Just another side note .

Check the posting times. How could Mr Thomas post any answer prior to me posting it unless He is reading what I write.
0

#10834 User is offline   tommy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 21-September 05

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:06 PM

Reading the last set of postings ,challenging allans postings , still comes back to a simple fact , will the person see a result in his lifespan, and in whoms favour ? The courts have acknowledged he is person of high intellect, and challenging the acc and acc legisislation , which is why it has become a high ranking case in time monies etc that has been spent of tax payers money,
0

#10835 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:06 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

Tank engine Thomas ,Being somewhat missing in action cruising round china etc and no where to be seen ,To update his position as to what hed already told then re schemes ,Thomas was called to account with the acc to ''FULLY'' explain his rehab schemes
He f'd up and asked fpr money to get one /SOME IF NOT ALL of a large number of things off the ground
PROBLEM he already had things off the ground
Its in here somewhere re his meeting with the case manager and WHY does he want permanent disablement when hes NOT PERMANENTLY DISABLED
Ever in 82 there we rehab officers to which thomas dealt with in his own case as he was doing OTHER things as opposed tio being disabled
He should have sat back done nothing as a disabled until he was fixed
But he even argued about the fixing as hes told us all in here
Take it or leave it re rehab fix its Thomas like the rest of had to
Dave


Not once has ACC ever asked me what I have been doing with my time. Quite the contrary the ACC have complained repeatedly that I am in the habit of providing too much information.

ACC then that withheld the information from my file from the fraud unit who confessed under oath that they had absolutely no idea what my preinjury occupation was, whether or not I carried out any single work task activity at any material time or whether I have been paid for any work or whether any work was done properly worthy of payment. The ACC simply collected no actual information of any description whether it be by way of case management or private investigators.

David you seem to be on another one of your irrational frenzied attacks in the mode of your old tag team days. This is where you speculate some ridiculous nonsense and then build castles in the air based on that nonsense. Of course the ACC are only too happy to collect information from the likes of you firm in the knowledge that their informant or take the blame should there be any serious challenge made against the informant. You will recall how your friend offered ACC such "high-value" information.

In the process of rehabilitation into a new occupation there is nothing wrong with me expending my savings into any venture I please or joining with others in collectively funding any business scheme. Of course if I am only an investor that is none of ACCs business. However if I participate with work task activities then of course that information would be ACCs business. The ACC had been informed of both the information it was none of their business and business that could be potentially interesting to them but they ignored the information but rather sought to acquire fresh information more to their liking from people who did not know and could not. This is where the ACC informants had assumed that I was working as an immigration consultant when in actual fact I was having business discussions for purposes of preparing the business plans as ACC required.

Your nonsense about OTHER things is meaningless unless you Particularise what you are actually saying. This technique of saying something non-descript is the conduct of the ACC which leads me to believe that you might still be in contact on a regular basis with the ACC staff and is part of their information gathering team.

Far from sitting back and doing nothing all claimants who have a residual capacity are required by law to explore how they might best utilise that residual capacity. Your suggestion of doing nothing is in fact illegal.

David much of what you are saying is complete nonsense and even directly opposite to what legislation actually says.
Why are you engaging in such a ridiculous attack against me with such nonsense?
0

#10836 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:08 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 04 August 2014 - 03:43 PM, said:

You wouldnt goPosted Image
Think you were waiting for a chinese limbo


Why in your wildest imagination with you imagine that I would not have the prescribed surgery?

What on earth are you trying to say about Chinese?
0

#10837 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:13 PM

You are now exposed as having admin access . how could you answer any post before they were posted unless you have this.?
0

#10838 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:15 PM

View Postgreg, on 04 August 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

Many a clever business owner and their Accountants etc. came to grief in those days by not being accurate
about their true income , when or if they ever claimed ACC.
ACC. can only used IRD. approved figures to calculate ERC.,by what the claimant stated was their income ,
via the ACC. levy paid, which was not always the same as wage or drawing bank deposits .


Greg there are a large number of court decisions that confirmed the IRD figures cannot be relied upon to determine earnings compensation. Even the legislation has special sections the deal with a variety of circumstances to accommodate many variations of the means by which to measure true earnings. This gives quite complicated in regards to various partnerships and fragmented earnings streams particularly when there are all manner of fringe benefits, share options and suchlike that have may or may not have anything to do with IRD.

In any event how do you think ACC could possibly explain why they have not claimed ACC levies when claiming my income to be $1.3 million?

It goes without saying as I have no company management knowledge or experience nor have ever calculated anything to do with earnings or ACC it would be impossible for me to carry out my own calculations and that the most qualified to carry out these calculations is a chartered accountant. The ACC commissioned what they view to be a highly qualified forensic accountant yet when he was examined in court under oath he confirmed that he brought to the ACC's attention a very large number of anomalies in the information they had gathered and asked him to confirm what they had assumed. Of course The ACC forensic accountant examinable the search warrant seized company documents, My personal documents and information from a large number of banks clarified the fact that I actually had no earnings while I was injured Which of course is directly opposite to what the ACC had told the courts both civil and criminal and the media.

Greg why are you such a sucker for ACC propaganda and these explain why it is so easy for the ACC to socially engineer people like you?
0

#10839 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:19 PM

View Postanonymousey, on 04 August 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

AFAIK Alan - s79 is subjective reporting &or most claimants would have received 100% or if I remember right the payout was only $K10

I have snipped your opinion to focus & ask if you got a s78 payment based on your alleged 14.5% ? Think this would have been roughly 3 grand?

BTW I still have no idea how you or your cohorts ever came to a 60% figuring with the standards used back then? AFAIK this would put you above limb amputations?


As I continued to deteriorate ACC made a decision not to calculate the s78 entitlements because of their words I have not stabilised. After receiving the wrong surgery to the wrong part of my body I deteriorated in the following year when I tried to find out what the surgeon had done wrong the medical procedure carrying out that examination caused me to have a stroke. The medical profession continue to describe a steadily increasing incapacity over the years which further substantially increased when I was prescribed very strong pain medication.

I think you'll find that the ACC is required to carry out an assessment after six months of the claim and then continue to reassess the degree of incapacity as and when necessary in order to track changing incapacity so as to adjust their liability upward or downward. By not calculating degree of incapacity as and when necessary the ACC has effectively stolen my entitlements under this section.

The 60% is what it is and the expert reviewers, two of them, confirmed this figure. This figure remains binding until the present.
0

#10840 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 04 August 2014 - 04:20 PM

View Postgreg, on 04 August 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

You are now exposed as having admin access . how could you answer any post before they were posted unless you have this.?


How do you figure that Greg?
I certainly have not answered any post while you are typing it. You seem to be having a paranoid episode here Greg combined with your irrational obsession about me.
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 540
  • 541
  • 542
  • 543
  • 544
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users