[Alan Thomas]

greg, on 04 August 2014 - 07:43 PM, said:

there seems to be nothing to support such an ACC claim apart from his own world.

Greg you are quite wrong. ACC routinely acknowledge that they are required to process applications for entitlements including the independence allowance in the presence of the reviewer. On the basis of the promises by the ACC to the reviewer the reviewers inevitably give the ACC 20 days to make good on their promise which in reality it is an alternative middleground from the reviewer actually making a decision to direct the ACC to a consequence should they fail to deliver.

[greg]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

Greg you are quite wrong. ACC routinely acknowledge that they are required to process applications for entitlements including the independence allowance in the presence of the reviewer. On the basis of the promises by the ACC to the reviewer the reviewers inevitably give the ACC 20 days to make good on their promise which in reality it is an alternative middleground from the reviewer actually making a decision to direct the ACC to a consequence should they fail to deliver.

You are still not a claimant.

[tommy]

Good points, but i would also like to bring to light why you had involvements with bill birch , of which he had many roles in the national govt, more as one role as minister of finance?

[RedFox]

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

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.

Bullshit Mr Thomas.

To quote again from the court record.

Stephen Davey

[285] On 26 June 2008 the appellant produced an affidavit from Stephen Davey dated 24 June 2008 during the cross-examination of Mr Masoe. The contents of the affidavit concern the period from about June 1996 through to the present time. The contents of the affidavit mirror almost identically the evidence from the appellant provided in his examination in chief.

I guess you hold dear to your heart the old adage "baffle them with bullshit".

But 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?

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

[RedFox]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 07:12 PM, said:

Time, monies ,energies, and many other descriptives could be applied to having energies towards in claiming entitlements you believe are yours as an acc claimamt or ex claimant Al\so the very small minority whom are left trying to get rightful l entitlements back reinstated for various reasons has become personal left overs as what as i think the corp looks at it, and whom as assessors lawyers are the more to gain financially longterm.In saying that the amounts of monies in the corps are so plentifull it does not matter to them it they win or lose May be i have a philosphical view , but does it really matter ?

Exactly.

Look at the legal fee's paid by Mr Miller to gain his rightful entitlements and interest. Well over 120K

ACC paid Mr Millers legal fee's in order to settle his claim for interest so that the case did not go on and set further legal precedence.

[Alan Thomas]

RedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Exactly.

Look at the legal fee's paid by Mr Miller to gain his rightful entitlements and interest. Well over 120K

ACC paid Mr Millers legal fee's in order to settle his claim for interest so that the case did not go on and set further legal precedence.

Now that was a waste then wasn't it.
He bailed out before the issue was resolved so someone else will have to fix the problem.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 04 August 2014 - 07:53 PM, said:

Good points, but i would also like to bring to light why you had involvements with bill birch , of which he had many roles in the national govt, more as one role as minister of finance?

I had numerous meetings with Bill Birch and hosted A function where I posed questions to him in relation to international investment into New Zealand. He was addressed in relation to his draw role as Minister of immigration and Minister of Finance.

My particular interest in the interaction was in relation to the computerisation of utilising residual capacity after being injured or transference of skills from one job to another as it relates to ACC and social welfare Along with what is now called the Australia and New Zealand standard classification of occupations where it creates a rudimentary description of occupation which forms the foundation of what was yet to come, the quantification of all of the individual work tasks. The qualification component became the New Zealand and classification of occupations. The Auckland Branch of NZQA at one stage was going to rent office space from me. But we should not forget how to match overseas skill sets, qualifications and suchlike into the New Zealand scheme of things which of course has an application with them the New Zealand Immigration Service.

I trust you can now see the importance of what I had been proposing shortly after I was unable to return to my preinjury occupation as reported to the ACC as early as October 1990 when they first accepted my claim for my hand wrist elbows injury. Obviously ACC stood to lose vast sums of money if the scheme was introduced was forced upon them.

Computerisation Of the individual qualifications and composer qualifications which can be cross credited together with the individual work task competency is and of course let's not forget work experience in order to prove the ability to perform in the workplace so as to be an actual earner. This removes anything theoretical and relabelling as we see with the ACC now. As you can appreciate computerisation/database matching of information is of course the way to go in order that you completely remove any possibility of incompetent bureaucrats who have no idea what they're talking about sticking their interfering mumbo-jumbo into quite sophisticated matters.

Of particular interest of course is his involvement with the development of the 1992 ACC legislation of which he was primarily concerned that the ACC was out of control, financially mismanaged and dysfunctional without yielding much in the way of quality result. He introduced the case management system and required the ACC to provide qualified case management starting with the case management self being qualified to do the jobs. This resulted in large-scale dismissal of staff but did not want to study to become case managers. ACC ultimately abandoned the idea of teaching or qualifying the case managers to do their jobs. In addition the ACC were required to fund vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation when there was no hope of returning to the preinjury occupation as opposed to permanent retirement. This was the requirement under section 51 to produce regulations which was ultimately called The Work Capacity Assessment Procedure. This is another classical example of ACC total failure to comply. How is it that the ACC took from 1992 till the end of 1997 to formulate this assessment procedure? Incompetence and poor management. Frustrated the politicians then introduced this concept into the legislation itself which has developed into the legislation is we see it today.

Course I expressed my viewpoints at the strategic times at the beginning of my claim. This along with other things has not earned be any friends with the ACC but then all of that section is another story that is yet to be told.

[Alan Thomas]

Red box the only issue permissible under the ACC legislation to provide or takeaway entitlements is whether or not a person continues to be incapacitated from their injuries.

The legislated mechanism is clear in as much as only qualified people are permitted to produce information for the purposes of determining entitlements. Under no circumstances the ACC permitted to rely upon unqualified person much less themselves using such things as "commonsense". Judge Barber should have known better that as he didn't the issue of criteria had to go through the appeal process so as to correct this mistake.

Are you really trying to suggest that all the nonsense side issues had any relevance whatsoever in regards to whether or not the integrity of my claim is intact?

[REX]

quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1407144550' post='188371']
Now that was a waste then wasn't it.
He bailed out before the issue was resolved so someone else will have to fix the problem.
[/quote]

yep he bailed out and boasts in his hypocritical statements as if he's robin hood.

Tomcat, on 31 July 2014 - 09:10 PM, said:

/> T.Y. Sparrow...
Its never been about money... Just the principles of Right Vs Wrong...

JUST A SCAM ARTIST CRIM ON THE ACC GRAVY TRAIN..

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

Now that was a waste then wasn't it.
He bailed out before the issue was resolved so someone else will have to fix the problem.

The issue was resolved in his favour.

the issue was resolved in claimants favour.

Just because the existing decision doesn't cover all the situations is not his problem is it?

You haven't haven't won anything.. and are not yet entitles to interest.

Loser

[Tomcat]

RedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 08:01 PM, said:

Exactly.

Look at the legal fee's paid by Mr Miller to gain his rightful entitlements and interest. Well over 120K

ACC paid Mr Millers legal fee's in order to settle his claim for interest so that the case did not go on and set further legal precedence.

/>... ACC fronted up for legal fees for their appeal and a bit more for the "waffle time" after high court decision...
Most of my legal costs has been "Legal Aid"... there is an amount (not large)not covered by costs by court order... as a lien on my property...

ACC made an offer... I asked for other monies not received, which increased the final amount heaps...6 figures.
Taking in the length of time it had taken and cost and the potential of more lengthy appeals and possible loss,
It was about as good as it was going to get...
I accepted... Health and injury issues dictated that decision.
The only issue left to argue was the start date ACC must pay from... = no point in another lengthy run around over the eventual amount of a few 100 $s...

Besides I have1 more big issue to sort out ...
another of ACC's not abiding by the legislation... that I am sure Of WINNING...
in or out of court...

Then theres the tax issue of having to pay huge amounts all in the 1 year ....
One thing at a time... Slow ... but its worked...

[RedFox]

REX, on 04 August 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

quote name='Alan Thomas' timestamp='1407144550' post='188371']
Now that was a waste then wasn't it.
He bailed out before the issue was resolved so someone else will have to fix the problem.
/quote]

yep he bailed out and boasts in his hypocritical statements as if he's robin hood.



JUST A SCAM ARTIST CRIM ON THE ACC GRAVY TRAIN.. />/>/>

Not at all.

A winner who has benefited thousands of ACC claimants previously denied interest.!!!

Miller, just like Kearney, Buis and Wardell, thanks to their perseverance have advanced the cause of all ACC claimants.

Rex, you cannot say the same about your case can you.!

Fuckwit.

[Alan Thomas]

RedFox, on 04 August 2014 - 11:53 PM, said:

Not at all.

A winner who has benefited thousands of ACC claimants previously denied interest.!!!

Miller, just like Kearney, Buis and Wardell, thanks to their perseverance have advanced the cause of all ACC claimants.

Rex, you cannot say the same about your case can you.!

Fuckwit.

As the whole issue was not resolved and the ACC or the way some of the money that should have beenpaid out ACC have engaged in 1 to a very significant level. Getting some of the money of what you are owed is by definition losing. Every time the ACC profit by way of a claim filing to see the thing through the then only encourages the ACC to continue in the same modus operandi making it harder for the next and the next and any.

Capitulation is the coward's way out.

Having said that I can understand how an injured person is progressively ground down over several decades and for that Kenneth Miller does have my absolute and unreserved sympathy. He just does not have my respect. If he was a man of courage and integrity he would not have capitulated, he would have seen the thing to the end.

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 04 August 2014 - 09:52 PM, said:

Red box the only issue permissible under the ACC legislation to provide or takeaway entitlements is whether or not a person continues to be incapacitated from their injuries.

The legislated mechanism is clear in as much as only qualified people are permitted to produce information for the purposes of determining entitlements. Under no circumstances the ACC permitted to rely upon unqualified person much less themselves using such things as "commonsense". Judge Barber should have known better that as he didn't the issue of criteria had to go through the appeal process so as to correct this mistake.

Are you really trying to suggest that all the nonsense side issues had any relevance whatsoever in regards to whether or not the integrity of my claim is intact?

Waffle.

If as you say ACC have not made or denied you a claim a lump sum entitlement for your claim under the 1982 act then that that is to your advantage.

They cannot deduct it from your existing whole person impairment under the 1992 & current act can they!

You may profess to be the world foremost expert on ACC law but if you have not applied for an independence allowance under the existing act you simply have no position on which base your stance.

All the more a loser

[Alan Thomas]

Whenever there is a situation whereby action or inaction there is a financial loss the person or entity liable is responsible to make good on those losses.In cases where by the ACC corporate staff in the Corporation is responsible. In situations where anACC employee make the decision without endorsement of the Corporation in the individual is personally liable. We must always remember that the ACC individual staff members are afforded no protection under the act for the wrongdoing they commit or actions or inaction that are not directed by the ACC itself. This means that we can take private lawsuits against individual employees of the ACC and bankrupt Them. In addition when the individual employee are proving to be aware that they have acted unlawfully or not supported in law then private criminal prosecutions should be made against them for such criminal conduct. If several ACC employees were either bankrupted and or incarceratedI am confident that the rest of them would very quickly come into line and demand that their employer, the ACC, determine the nature of the legislation but sufficient precision so as not to put them at personal risk. This was entirely eliminate decisions made by so-called commonsense. Everything would have to be decided by way of criteria. Once decisions are made by criteria mistakes are very easily discovered and put right.

With that in mind the judicial review approach will resolve everything rather than attempting to reverse engineer what ACC had actually that and trying to the way through legislation that by that as to where they went wrong and what the court should do about it is an incredibly difficult situation for all kinds of legal problems. It is that the best to address the thing has simply as possible as stated above .

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 12:04 AM, said:

As the whole issue was not resolved and the ACC or the way some of the money that should have beenpaid out ACC have engaged in 1 to a very significant level. Getting some of the money of what you are owed is by definition losing. Every time the ACC profit by way of a claim filing to see the thing through the then only encourages the ACC to continue in the same modus operandi making it harder for the next and the next and any.

Capitulation is the coward's way out.

Having said that I can understand how an injured person is progressively ground down over several decades and for that Kenneth Miller does have my absolute and unreserved sympathy. He just does not have my respect. If he was a man of courage and integrity he would not have capitulated, he would have seen the thing to the end.

Get it right.

Ken Miller won.

ACC paid his legal fee's.

That's more than can be said for your losses to ACC to date is it not?

What exactly is your bill to ACC for legal expenses to date?

Loser.

[RedFox]

Alan Thomas, on 05 August 2014 - 12:10 AM, said:

Whenever there is a situation whereby action or inaction there is a financial loss the person or entity liable is responsible to make good on those losses.In cases where by the ACC corporate staff in the Corporation is responsible. In situations where anACC employee make the decision without endorsement of the Corporation in the individual is personally liable. We must always remember that the ACC individual staff members are afforded no protection under the act for the wrongdoing they commit or actions or inaction that are not directed by the ACC itself. This means that we can take private lawsuits against individual employees of the ACC and bankrupt Them. In addition when the individual employee are proving to be aware that they have acted unlawfully or not supported in law then private criminal prosecutions should be made against them for such criminal conduct. If several ACC employees were either bankrupted and or incarceratedI am confident that the rest of them would very quickly come into line and demand that their employer, the ACC, determine the nature of the legislation but sufficient precision so as not to put them at personal risk. This was entirely eliminate decisions made by so-called commonsense. Everything would have to be decided by way of criteria. Once decisions are made by criteria mistakes are very easily discovered and put right.

With that in mind the judicial review approach will resolve everything rather than attempting to reverse engineer what ACC had actually that and trying to the way through legislation that by that as to where they went wrong and what the court should do about it is an incredibly difficult situation for all kinds of legal problems. It is that the best to address the thing has simply as possible as stated above .

UMMMMM cough cough cough splutter.

ROFLMFAO

That attitude has to date has got you nowhere.

Woo will befall anybody who agrees and subscribes to your idea's

[Alan Thomas]

RedFox, on 05 August 2014 - 12:30 AM, said:

Get it right.

Ken Miller won.
No he received a substantial payment but he did not win.


ACC paid his legal fee's.
They paid a substantial proportion to his legal fees The legal aid still have a lean over his houseSo there is a great deal not paid


That's more than can be said for your losses to ACC to date is it not?
But ACC have paid me $232,000 And agree that still only lump sum and independence allowances related to 12 accepted claims for cover.


What exactly is your bill to ACC for legal expenses to date?
No money whatsoever. ACC At legal aid not to pay for any legal counsel andLegal aid complied.


Loser.

Red box Why do you keep on getting your facts wrong? Have you allowed your compulsive obsessive disorder regarding myself to overwhelm your cognisant functions?

[Alan Thomas]

We must never forget that Kenneth Miller had a favourite saying, slowly slowly catch the monkey. Well we can now see that he has got a monkey. Personally I would prefer all of the money together with all of the losses a caused by the ACC incompetence whether that be deliberate or accidental

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 03 August 2014 - 07:55 PM, said:

Tommy each and every time anybody throughout the country assists others with ACC matters they are routinely attacked by a very large number of idiots that hope to get some special favouritism from the ACC my carrying out such attacks. You should be well aware of people like Douglas weal who offered the ACC "high-value information" while at the same time he was being investigated the ACC fraud.

That is ONLY your opinion on Weal High Value information Thomas
You have NO idea of what Weals high value information was
I DO
You dumbly never acted properly with me to receive that information re weal from me
Your way off the mark with what you think Weal was doing ,as opposed to what Weal was doing.
As for your claims of being attacked You provide false hope and misleading info to others so not the wonder you are taken to task on your Many losing actions that you wish others to follow.
That is not an attack-You make it an attack with your misleading and wordsmithing so It is common sense to show you up as a Misleading loser ,until you can show otherwise via proper Courts documentation and not your drawn out cobblers of what you say is the law,as opposed to the courts re your issues and 25 years later your not doing all that well Thomas.
People should be well aware of you offering help stirring along ,to ones like Jonny who didn't need your whacko input as he was already whacko enough.
Were you the final UNNEEDED tipping point is something a lot would like to know there.
Dave