[Alan Thomas]

My response In blue

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

You signed the cheques of all the companies. You have said so in your writings. This makes you responsible for them, even if someone got paid to 'run' them.

Don't get all 'dorky' on us as though we have no idea of how involved a company director/shareholder/owner has to be. Although I must say ripping you off would have been very easy if you didnt even sign the cheques to pay the bills and the wages.
The ACC legislation does not apply in the way that you are perceiving it to be. When a business owner is injured or even if a claimant after getting some form of pay out the best in the business and is a director of a business and has signing authority in all manner of responsibilities in connection with that business that in itself does not affect ACC entitlements at all, not even a little bit.
The active ingredient of entitlement is measured by a doctor. The doctor determines whether or not there exists a residual capacity to carry out certain tasks.
So it is the carrying out of various tasks that is the only issue That can be consideration for ACC. In certain task are carried out on a part-time basis in accordance with the medical certificates and still below the standard necessary to return to the preinjury occupation but no earnings result then still it is of no concern to the ACC.
Mini you seem to have suffered from the ACC social engineering. You need a brain adjustment. The cure to your brain maladjustment is to read the ACC legislation.


You would have been considered to be a very disassociated Director from the Companies Act point of view, therefore not seen in a good light when you went bankrupt. How many years were you bankrupted for Thomas. That will tell me a lot about your interest in the companies.
The title director does not imply work task activities have been undertaken. The title director is merely a the district duty which identifies the individual who is responsible. A director is simply responsible for the lawful functioning of the company. This includes the management of the company. A director will ensure that the company is properly managed. This may be that the director assigns the management responsibility to himself or ensures that a manager is employed for that function.
Throughout my life prior to my injury and after when injuries I have employed managers for my companies and have not participated in management.

It is clear from what you have written that you do not comprehend the basics of company law, in particular the nature of being a director and most interestingly your viewpoint is about bankruptcy. This does not surprise me because I challenged the IRD in the High Court when successfully defending a friend of mine against bankruptcy when the IRD attempted to bankrupt him. Nonetheless the IRD still destroyed his company and reputation as the damage had been done prior to my involvement.


Mini

Mini

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 08 August 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

My response in blue

Firstly I never ever had Rehabilitation other that what I iniated and paid for myself.

And secondly I am the one that has won my IA,(backdated to date of injury) W/C, (Backdated to date of end of work and denial of w/c), two vehicles (one b/d to date of request while still working), and many other bibs and bobs along the way.

Your record Thomas is enough for me to say, that I am quite right in my challanges to you as I have won, you have not. Therefore, sometimes my way works better than yours. The outcome speaks for itself.

But then my integrity has never been questioned by ACC, in fact they have given me a letter to use against the bullies of this and another site, that I have never received any monies to which I have not been entitled and am therefore not a ACC fraud, as some are so keen to say of me. Green oooz is what it is.

Our backgrounds are actually opposite.

Bye

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

Thomas

See where you fall down. Read what you have written above Thomas. It is all me, me, me.

None of it anywhere states the most important of facts, and that is, if you make money or do business you must let ACC know how much and who with.
I have continuously advised in this thread the importance of disclosing any earnings for purposes of abatement of earnings. Please read before you attack.

As for ownership of businesses, that is none of ACCs business, as it is being a director of businesses. The only issue is whether or not work tasks are carried out for purposes of earning and there are actually earnings.

This is a prerequist and most important to obtaining and coninuousey getting your e/r/c.
The only prerequisite to ERC as the medical certificates. There are disclosure requirements but of course if there is no information to disclose there is no obligation therefore to make disclosure is there! In other words if you have not worked or earned then there is nothing to report. The problem I faced was that the ACC were upset that I did not report what they imagined I might be doing. They arrange for private investigations to confirm their imaginations and the private investigators despite asking probably around 100 people and obtaining a very large number of search warrants found no evidence of a single work task activity at any material time. The highlight of the investigation was to managers of my companies who reported their imagination as to what they thought I might have been doing.


It says so on the documentation you sign and date before it is given to you. If you should like I will get the exact wording for you. I keep it all handy. It should also have been part of your evidentual evidence put before the court in some many instances.
I think it would be helpful for you to post the wording that you think is relevant so we can have an open discussion as to the meaning of that wording. It seems to me that this discussion will demonstrate how both the ACC has socially engineered a large portion of the country which includes yourself. I would dearly love to help you out with your problem in this area because I am sure you are not the only one.

Mini

My response in blue

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

Any person having given fraud in Thomas' fraud trial, should have been in front of the Judge many years ago.

Mini

Mini your sentence is incomprehensible. Perhaps there is a wrong word or missing word. Could you please rewrite it with the necessary correction.

[Alan Thomas]

My response in blue

David Butler, on 08 August 2014 - 12:46 PM, said:

One could [82 regime acts,] undertake looking at other opportunities self bought to the table with acc and acc would look at that and if applicable they would assist where they could.
Looking at other opportunities under the 1982 act and even up until November 1997 was entirely voluntary. The ACC however would put pressure on people and even suspend or cancel claims unlawfully. The reason why they have attacked me is because I have challenged them on this point of law successfully at review hearing in 1992.

I went thru that process way way back on a number of occasions doing what was classed as a voluntary trial / unpaid time at a couple of things but was not able to handle the work i chose to do so i was basically refused to do that process with acc involvement as case managers re injuries being the problem
As my injuries had NEVER like a lot of us been diagnosed as to exactly what was the problem most things failed miserably so They were right as well but i wanted to resurrect some companies that had been sitting just idling along and needed My input or selling
Once the proper rehab assistance was given after proper assessing was carried re injuries, and I understood why the issues were arising =being me the problem-I managed them / problems / issues re head injuries and understood / knew my limitations I did the same again many years later and that is going exceedingly well as a part time occupation.

Why i asked thomas what i did was as i see reading his thread he apparently went ahead something similar
While I Extensively explored many opportunities and even registered companies to protect the intellectual property of my ideas I never actually took part in any work activity despite being a partner to some of these companies such as with my de facto wife and the immigration consultancy and the Chinese magazine or the employment consultancy and even a real estate agency which of course excludes any participation, including management unless the relevant exams have been passed. There are examples such as a cosmetic surgery company that owned the patent that never actually started. While the ACC was invited to participate and provide much-needed assistance such as voice software to assist me with my rehabilitation, and had recommendation from their medical assessor, ACC did not provide any contribution of any assistance whatsoever.

-This is what id like to do = BUT NEVER TOLD THEM until he was CAUGHT OUT.
As stated above the ACC were frequently and are routinely notified both Ollie and several times in writing after I got the voice software which was funded by myself. When you say court out the only observations ever reported to the ACC via their private investigators discussions with their informants were their informants observations of me producing business plans which involve my carrying out various research, overseas travel, various business meetings which included people coming to New Zealand from overseas in response to my visit to them of which is tied to various business plans submitted to immigration in order to obtain the appropriate business visitors permits and suchlike of which provided a very extensive paper trial as to the reality of the situation. The real information was reconfigured by the ACC to the court in a manner that can only be described as perjury as perjury includes leading up information in the ACC possession.

Thomas away behind what acc were doing re rehab as opposed to old days of we dont know whats wrong with these ones so pay them and leave them alone
which looking back now astoundingly they did just that -which the result of that tact was the moves in the late 90's to g thru each case in its office of origin and many were kicked off of treated
i was a lucky one as i never knew a thing about head injures and could just have easily been one who went to the sin bin of winz my languishing unknowingly in winz as a a wrong decision of acc
Thomas thought he was a man of the times.
I most certainly was not alone in relation to the way in which the ACC conducted their business which included relying on private investigators gathering information from informants and then selectively reconfiguring the information to cancel claims. This process has gone all the way through to the criminal court. The ACC behaviour in these matters has been rendered illegal. Judge Barber disregarded the superior courts viewpoint along with a total lack of regard for the rules of evidence and even became his own medical specialist to assert that I was no longer incapacitated which was not even the appeal put before him. Because of the very large number of people that have been treated like me it is important that a high level of awareness is made into the community to undo the harm the ACC has done to be public mind by way of the social engineering it has engaged in seems to have included judge Barber.

AS I SEE IT'
HE WAS WAY BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL AT THAT TIME HE DECIDED TO PLAY HIS OWN GAME AND ACC SYSTEN was slowly for a while and then had changed behind the scenes and he never knew that
As an aside the very first thing i did was to stop driving UNLIKE Thomas who blames everyone else for his driving whilst hes doped up
Any HONEST SELF INPUT by THOMAS re safety of others and his own ability's in conjunction with his providers of the MONETARY entitlements he wanted =THats a joke from him
David David David. The ACC legislation is for the purposes of the injured. The ACC legislation is the injured persons game. You are quite aware that the ACC through their abuse of the duty of care to administer the act have stolen the game and are doing their own thing running away with the ball giggling into the night With our money and physical well being.

Dave

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

Thomas, you didnt need seventeen companies to do that.

Tommy did you have to have even one company to try to recuperate yourself or did you only need to have a plan and be a sole trader??

Yes I did need the various companies for no other reason than I could not carry out the work task activities for the various projects and each company needed certain task activities to accomplish project which require different partnerships. There was no possibility that I could rehabilitate on my own in anything in particular in the form of an occupation which necessitated collaboration with others. In other words I have no right hand so I had to form a partnership with someone who did. The problem is you need someone else who knows how to use that right hand for the appropriate project.

As I was injured there was no possibility I could ever be a sole trader. It follows that to be a sole trader then of course I would be fit to work on my own account and therefore have an opportunity to rehabilitate through the ACC scheme of things. What I was doing was over and above what the ACC were permitted to do. Not any that I funded these things myself of which the ACC could only benefit if I succeeded. Instead the ACC smashed everything to pieces like a little spoilt child who could not dominate their parents. Do not for a moment forget that we are ACC staff's employer which means they are our servants to do our bidding . Sadly you have been socially engineered to take the opposite viewpoint. Perhaps the starting point of your viewpoint originates from you being a public servant yourself who has adopted the viewpoint that you somehow are in control of those you are meant to serve.

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 08 August 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

Firstly I never ever had Rehabilitation other that what I iniated and paid for myself.

And secondly I am the one that has won my IA,(backdated to date of injury) W/C, (Backdated to date of end of work and denial of w/c), two vehicles (one b/d to date of request while still working), and many other bibs and bobs along the way.

Your record Thomas is enough for me to say, that I am quite right in my challanges to you as I have won, you have not. Therefore, sometimes my way works better than yours. The outcome speaks for itself.

But then my integrity has never been questioned by ACC, in fact they have given me a letter to use against the bullies of this and another site, that I have never received any monies to which I have not been entitled and am therefore not a ACC fraud, as some are so keen to say of me. Green oooz is what it is.

Our backgrounds are actually opposite.

Bye

Mini

Mini your integrity has been called into question. I and others have called into question your integrity.

Further you are wrong to say that I have never won. I wonder review hearings in 1992. ACC simply ignored the authority of the reviewer and make the exact same decision again and then set about committing perjury and undertaking all kinds of other illegal activities to force their decision which included preventing any possibility of civil appeal in order to get a criminal conviction and then rely upon a criminal conviction for the civil appeal when I finally did get that into court.

Please leave your copycat comments from your Ken Miller friend off this site, otherwise
we will need to give both of you an enema as a brainwash.

[doppelganger]

there is another section that Mr Thomas had to follow.

64 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLAIMANT
(1) Every person who claims for or is in receipt of any rehabilitation, compensation, grant, or allowance shall, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation,—
(a) Give to the Corporation the prescribed certificate of a registered health professional as to such matters, and containing such information, as the Corporation requires:
( Furnish to the Corporation such other relevant information as the Corporation requires:
© Authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records which are or may be relevant to the claim:
(d) Undergo examination, at the expense of the Corporation, by an appropriate registered health professional specified by the Corporation for the purpose:
(e) Undergo assessment of impairment, disability, or handicap at the expense of the Corporation:
(f) Undergo assessment of present and likely capabilities for the purposes of rehabilitation at the expense of the Corporation:
(g) Take action by way of rehabilitation in order to endeavour to terminate or reduce the extent of any impairment, disability, or handicap.
(2) Every claimant under this Act and every person who is receiving or has received any payment or rehabilitation under this Act shall, whenever required by the Corporation, give to the Corporation a statement in writing, and, if the Corporation so requires, as a statutory declaration or in a form supplied by the Corporation, with respect to such matters relating to the person's entitlement or continuing entitlement to any payment or rehabilitation under this Act as the Corporation specifies.

[Alan Thomas]

doppelganger, on 08 August 2014 - 03:34 PM, said:

there is another section that Mr Thomas had to follow.

64 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLAIMANT
(1) Every person who claims for or is in receipt of any rehabilitation, compensation, grant, or allowance shall, when reasonably required to do so by the Corporation,—
(a) Give to the Corporation the prescribed certificate of a registered health professional as to such matters, and containing such information, as the Corporation requires:
( Furnish to the Corporation such other relevant information as the Corporation requires:
© Authorise the Corporation to obtain medical and other records which are or may be relevant to the claim:
(d) Undergo examination, at the expense of the Corporation, by an appropriate registered health professional specified by the Corporation for the purpose:
(e) Undergo assessment of impairment, disability, or handicap at the expense of the Corporation:
(f) Undergo assessment of present and likely capabilities for the purposes of rehabilitation at the expense of the Corporation:
(g) Take action by way of rehabilitation in order to endeavour to terminate or reduce the extent of any impairment, disability, or handicap.
(2) Every claimant under this Act and every person who is receiving or has received any payment or rehabilitation under this Act shall, whenever required by the Corporation, give to the Corporation a statement in writing, and, if the Corporation so requires, as a statutory declaration or in a form supplied by the Corporation, with respect to such matters relating to the person's entitlement or continuing entitlement to any payment or rehabilitation under this Act as the Corporation specifies.

Doppelgänger

I most certainly did take that Section of the act very very seriously. Of course you might want to read section 18 of the 1992 act which not only says that but also describes The claimant to have the primary duty of rehabilitation, to the effect that they manage their rehabilitation.

There are claimants believe it or not who refuse medical treatment.
There are claimants who refuse various aids to assist them return to the preinjury occupation.

It was by way of review hearing decision that I forced ACC to provide medical treatment. Still they refused. I continue to pursue access to medical treatment and placed numerous proposals to the ACC for this purpose Which continued with all manner of obstacles to the extent that right up until the present the ACC are still generating obstacles with the most recent one ACC cancelling my ACC 167 consent document and claiming they needed another one before they could investigate whether or not I needed home help while recovering from the surgery that they did not pay for of which the 1992 review hearing decision required to fund.

With regards to various aids to assist me return to the workplace the ACC send me to a physiotherapist to see if they could manipulate the broken bits and send me on my way however instead they received a report describing the extent of the damage and impossibility of the return to my preinjury occupation. The report went on to advise that the ACC should provide me with voice software and training and if I was able to do any work at all that the ACC should provide an assessor to determine the outcome. The ACC refused.
I purchased by own voice software in order to comply with the ACC decision requiring me to produce business plans as I did not have the physical capacity to comply. While learning to use voice software The ACC were not satisfied with my progress in producing business plans so suspended my ERC under s73 (2) until I achieve the business plans. ERC was reinstated but instead of following their medical advisers report whereby a qualified assessor would observe my progress ACC arrange for private investigators to obtain information from their informantsWho were unaware of my assignment to produce business plans resulting in them assuming I was working With the result that the ACC cancelled my claim under s73 (1).

Doppelgänger I have seen all this before. What is the point that you are trying to make?

[David Butler]

REVIEW NO: 45/98/3076


APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
BY
ALAN THOMAS.



HELD AT: PANMURE
DATE: 5 JANUARY 1998
BEFORE: G. M. SMITH, REVIEW OFFICER
PRESENT: THE CLAIMANT.






DECISION.
Pursuant to Section 90 of the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992.








Issue:

This application for review concerns ACC's decision of 18 August 1997, ceasing the claimant's entitlements pursuant to Section 73, as ACC were of the opinion that the claimant was working whilst in receipt of weekly compensation.


Background:

The claimant, now 42, suffered a traumatic injury to his right arm on 27 December 1989. He first sought treatment in respect of the injury on 3 April 1990 and was certified unfit for work thereafter. The subsequent history of Mr Thomas' treatment and claim is well recorded on his files, and will only be referred to in detail if relevant to the issue under discussion.

Also recorded on file is Mr Thomas' involvement in a self-employed rehabilitation venture called Career Pilot, which apparently never got off the ground. It is also noted that Mr Thomas was investigated by ACC in respect of that venture, but at the time there was insufficient evidence to establish that he was working. That issue also went to review, which was successful.

On 1 April 1996, the claimant wrote to ACC highlighting the fact that since his accident, and whilst being in receipt of weekly compensation, there had been a considerable period where there was no obvious return to work in sight. He also mentioned he was going to seek out new opportunities, and that technology was now available for him to look at making income without the use of his hand, as mouse work and manually using keyboards exacerbated the injury. At the conclusion of his letter, the claimant stated he wanted to:

"Find a suitable working opportunities that will offer the flexibility to allow for a learning curve. The only type of work that could be realistically achieved would be a self employed position. The type of work would need to be of a consulting type with little or no overheads. As most of my working life has been of a self employed type with 15 - 20 workers, and many more sub-contractors this presents no real obstacle."

He also mentioned setting up an immigration consultancy, as well as import/export ventures, and also an employment placement business. It appears that ACC may have initiated some investigation into Mr Thomas' ongoing activities, and requested him to provide a statutory declaration concerning whether he was working. Mr Thomas provided a statutory declaration, dated 21 May 1996, in which he declared that:

"I have not been working or creating an income for work carried out at any time over the last years.

I have however been collecting information and preparing a business plan with the aim to start a business.

The ACC remains my sole means of support. "

Also on file, is a Vocational Rehabilitation plan signed by the claimant on 23 July 1996, outlining his attendance with a job placement agency. The claimant attended

Brian Cranstone-Hunt for the purposes of vocational rehabilitation, and the subsequent history of his interactions with Mr Brian Cranstone-Hunt are well recorded on the file as well. Mr Thomas also provided a rather extensive rehabilitation project relating to self-employed schemes, including a Chinese newspaper, manufacturing in the Third World, logging of hard wood in Western Samoa, as well as other assorted activities. However, on 29 April 1997, Mr Thomas advised he was working on a self employment consultancy with another person, but that venture fell through. The name of that venture was Techlink.

Some considerable time later on 18 August 1997, ACC, which had obviously been carrying out some investigation, wrote to the claimant ceasing his weekly compensation as he had been working.

The claimant applied for a review against that decision and the matter proceeded to a hearing.


Review Hearing:

For the purposes of the review hearing, ACC lodged written submissions outlining the history of the claim and subsequent investigations. Ultimately, the submissions stated that as a consequence of the Corporation's investigations:

�...13. ACC has the following information to support their contention that Mr Thomas has been working whilst in receipt of full weekly compensation. The following information is also advanced to support the contention that Mr Thomas has failed to adequately advise ACC of his work activities:

(a) Investigations carried out revealed that Mr Thomas was involved in the following companies: - Orac Holdings Ltd (incorp 16 March 1994) listed as a director, Orac Migration Services Ltd (incorp 22 April 1994) listed as the director/secretary, National Qualifying Co (incorp 11 March 1996), The National Translation Centre Ltd (incorp 10 May 1996), International Funds Transfer Ltd (incorp 10 July 1996) and ORAC Publishing Ltd (incorp 8 August 1996).

( In April 1997 the claimant was noted to be attending the Office of Orac Immigration Services Ltd on a regular basis. This company


employed 14 to 15 staff. He was regarded by the telephonist as the Offices General Manager.

� The Corporation has numerous letters and faxes dated March and June 1997, signed by Mr Thomas as Director, for the following companies, ORAC Holdings Ltd, ORAC International Ltd, ORAC Migration Services Ltd, the National Qualifying Academy Ltd. The faxes and letters are in response to ongoing communications between Mr Thomas and various other parties.

(d) ACC has obtained statements from a number of people who have had involvement with Mr Thomas. These people have indicated that they dealt with Mr Thomas as the Manager of ORAC Holdings. These people have not been named to protect their interests prior to prosecution. Their details are contained in the fraud file. In essence their statements confirm:

-Mr Thomas presented himself as Orac Holdings and was running an immigration business.

-Mr Thomas was involved in meetings as the Manager of ORAC Holdings and wrote out cheques on behalf of the Company.

-Mr Thomas signed the deed of lease agreement for the property rented for the business.

-Mr Thomas was responsible for paying the rent on the property and for maintenance activities such as cleaning.

-Mr Thomas had talked about earning and making a living from ORAC Holdings.

-Mr Thomas was involved in employing people including drawing up employment contracts.

-Mr Thomas was present at the office and spent a lot of time interviewing clients. His working day was 9.00 till 5.00 p.m. and often later.

-Mr Thomas was the manager of the Office and called himself the Managing Director

-Mr Thomas signed all contracts with clients. The business appeared to have a reasonable income.

-Mr Thomas was also involved in a number of other Companies that never got off the ground.

(e) Mr Thomas has been offered the opportunity to answer these allegations. He has refused to do so on the basis that ACC is on a fishing mission and will miss use any information provided.

In summary, ACC has considerable information indicating Mr Thomas was the key figure in the management of ORAC Holdings. This business was incorporated in 1996. Mr Thomas also appears to have been involved in setting up a number of other companies."

Mr Thomas, on the other hand, submitted that as ACC had not provided the fraud file (upon which they based their decision), that in the absence of such, his weekly compensation should be reinstated. He also provided written submissions which I have read, and they are attached to this decision. (1)

With respect to ORAC Holdings, Mr Thomas stated he only owns the lease agreement and was not deriving any income from it. He further stated that from the time of commencing being in receipt of compensation from ACC, there had been no active rehabilitation intervention by ACC whatsoever, and in the absence of such, stated he proceeded in carrying out and exploring his own ideas for self employment, including exploring 0800, 0900 numbers for an employment consultancy. He also stated that he co-owned a company and was to be paid some $50.00 per week, but that did not eventuate.

He again reiterated that he had been working on alternative employment options in the absence of any intervention from ACC. He confirmed that for the purposes of self-employment, he had been involved in a number of activities he has invested in, such the Chinese magazine that he had set up with a former girlfriend. He helped to fund it and point people in the right direction, as he had previously been involved that industry. He stated that he believed a statement like that could of course quite legitimately be deemed as working, but the definition of "work" for ACC purposes, hadn't been explained to him at all. He ultimately saw his involvement in such activities as being an investment in his own rehabilitation, and stated that the income derived from the investment did not denote work.

He acknowledged he had been involved with a number of companies, but had merely been looking at opportunities to enhance his rehabilitation, and one such company


was an immigration consultancy. He stated that as an owner and director, he had put money into such ventures that he had subsequently lost because of unsatisfactory business partners. With respect to the leasing of a building, he became a signatory on the lease as his girlfriend and business partner at that time had separated from him, and stated that the company was generating income, which was going through the company. He opened up a new company in his name in the absence of the girlfriend and confirmed the company ran at a loss. The company was also growing until an employee took a lot of the business elsewhere.

He stated he was also looking at employment consultancy, and had set up a company at home, which he states he is not benefiting from it, and confirmed that a lot of his work was now done on the Internet.

With respect of ORAC, which is an immigration consultancy, he stated he did employ people and signed employment contracts, but that the business ran at a big loss. He also said he lived at the office and did not interview any clients. He did acknowledge however that he was instrumental in the company's direction and was also a shareholder/director of the National Translation Centre, where he also did not work. He submitted that ultimately there was a �grey" area between working and rehabilitation, and believed he was not in the real sense working, but merely pursuing rehabilitation options. He did confirm that he signed cheques and contracts, but he had derived no earnings from the ventures that he had undertaken.

Following the hearing, ACC provided a copy of the fraud file upon which they relied in making their decision, a copy of which was sent to Mr Thomas for comment. The fraud file is attached to the main file.

The fraud file records interviews carried out by ICIL with several people including a Nora Chu Young, Patrick John Taylor, Kathryn Marie-Speeding Teh, and Benjamin Falelaufai Masoe.

Mrs Young was the landlord for the business premises and she had dealings with the claimant between January and August 1997. Mr Taylor also had dealings with Mr Thomas in connection with Mrs Young, and stated that he and the claimant had conversations, which clearly showed that the claimant was running a business.

Ms Teh was employed by the claimant between April and December 1996 as an immigration consultant, and Mr Benjamin Masoe, who was a partner with the
claimant, gave evidence of being employed by the claimant initially as an employee, then as a partner in Media House in Symonds Street, between April 1995 and July
1996.

A statement by Ms Nora Young dated 23 October 1997, in part records the claimant discussing that he was in the Immigration Consultancy business, and he signed an agreement to lease a property floor on the 7th Floor of Peace Tower at 2 St Martins Lane. Also attached to this statement was a copy of the lease agreement, and her statement is similarly appended to this decision. (2)

A statement from Catherine Speeding Teh also records that she was an ex-immigration officer, the date of the statement is 29th October 1997 and records being contacted by Mr Thomas in respect of an interview for the purposes of employment. The statement records in part:

�... Thomas told me that he had a bust up with his previous partner, who was a Chinese woman by the name of Cynthia Liu and had to pay her out, and that the company was just recovering from a loss of clients who went with Liu.

He said that they had been (Masoe) in the Immigration side, and that was growing, that it was easy money, and that himself had wanted to focus more on a company who was setting up to bring in high tech equipment from China.

The rest of the statement concerned her employment with the company and also noted that the claimant wrote out a couple of cheques in her presence, on behalf of either ORAC Immigration Services, or ORAC Holdings. It also recorded that the claimant spent a considerable amount of time interviewing clients, and also stated that the claimant managed all the staffing and was the controlling figure in the whole operation and called himself director of the company. She also stated that he was interviewing some four to six people per day, with a typical interview taking up to several hours. She also confirmed that the claimant was there every day at the employment.

The statement from Patrick Taylor records he was a real estate agent who similarly had dealings with Mr Thomas, and was similarly under the impression that the claimant was actively running the business on a day-to-day basis.


Finally, a statement from Mr Ben Masoe, who got to know Mr Thomas in September 1993, confirmed he was hired as a consultant by Mr Thomas in April 1995, and worked at level 7 Media House, 76 Symonds Street. He also confirmed that the consultancy business was called ORAC Immigration Services Limited, which involved processing work permits and so forth, relating to the Immigration Department. He also confirmed that they would sign up to three to five people on average per week, with an average gross income to the company of $2000.00 per client. His statement also records:

"... Thomas paid me by cherub and as far as I was aware the partnership between him and Cynthia was an equal partnership, although Thomas appeared to be running the businesses as well as attending to at least five clients a week by himself. "

He also stated that during the year he was working, being April 1995 through July 1996, the claimant and he founded a company called International Funds Transfer which was set up to remit funds to Western Samoa, but it apparently never got off the ground. Mr Masoe also stated he was made a director of ORAC International, but that somehow that company never got off the ground at all. The same was with a company called ORAC Employment. Ultimately, he stated:

"During the time that I worked for Thomas, Thomas ran the business, had management control over the other staff and business, would sign off all the contracts that other staff had put together, would conduct weekly sales meetings, and had his own client base where he would see at least five clients a week."

He also confirmed that:

"THOMAS also rang a magazine for Orac Publishing which is another company that he set up.

The magazine was directed for the Chinese market, was free, but the revenue came from advertising.

I cannot recall who printed the magazine but the layout was done by THOMAS at Orac Immigration Services, and it was one of the functions that THOMAS was responsible for.




The magazine came out monthly. "

In an extensive letter dated 9 February 1998, Mr Thomas replied to those allegations. His reply is similarly appended to this decision.(3)
With respect to the statements of Ms Young, Mr Taylor and Ms Teh, Mr Thomas absolutely rejected their statements and submitted that they were lying, and also highlighted the fact that some of the statements were not signed by the witnesses. He also disputed Ben Masoe's evidence.

In conclusion, Mr Thomas submitted:

"... The ACC have not justified their decision to disentitle. The so called "convincing" evidence is merely misdirected impressions and unsubstantiated conjecture. Throughout my file I note there are a greater number of errors than correct facts. I conclude that the ACC is it entirely incompetent. The conclusion that ACC arrived at is a direct result of amateur detective work carried out by misguided poorly managed unqualified personnel. There are conclusions that have been bolstered by a collection of individuals that have clear ulterior motives. Observations that lead to personal impression does not create facts no matter how many people form impressions. I am not at all surprised at this and I have not seen any reasonable reason to take countermeasures in order to pander to the ACC's need to control recipient's activities. ACC exists to serve my needs, not for me to serve theirs. There is no evidence to suggest that I have any income other than what is provided by the ACC. This is confirmed by my tax records.

It is in the interests of both ACC and the investigating company to continue with an investigation for reasons other than truth. ACC could seek to avoid weekly payments together with expensive surgery and the investigating company have a "Cash Cow" that has delivered for them for 7 years and could go on to deliver so long as they don't get "evidence". It is apparent that this current investigation has continued for more than 18 months which is sufficient time for a competent investigator to establish simple facts. There is nothing to indicate that an investigation should have been initiated in the first instance as the initiating factors have not been identified






"The investigating company is clearly incompetent or unwilling to formulate a proper investigation plan or to correctly carry it out. References made regarding search warrants and bank accounts demonstrate clear ignorance of their craft. For a private person such as an investigator to suggest to the ACC that a search warrant could be obtained is fanciful to say the least in view of their presentation and the nature of the case. Such fishing expeditions simply do not happen as those issuing warrants are professionals.

An experienced investigations company will know what is lawful and feasible. An experienced ACC officer is recommending and authrozing continued expenditure for this investigation. The so called inexperienced ACC officer is a barrister. I have brought this anomaly to the attention of the ACC Complaints Investigator regarding the potential abuse where she promptly informed the so called inexperienced ACC officer. Should anything be amiss I can now be sure that the ACC neither have the expertise or the motivation to investigate itself. Evidently this problem has burst forth on more than one occasion at the highest level within the ACC. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the problem ACC have is throughout the organization including it's contractors.

Funding comparisons with other similar organizations confirm the lack of proper control. They cannot investigate themselves and neither can they properly investigate the ACC recipient.

If somebody was intent on committing the level of fraud that is suggested and had the expertise to deceive the ACC for almost a decade would not have any evidence accessible at all, let alone in the home as suggested I received from ACC less than $300 per week which is insufficient motive to engage in fraudulent activities as described by ACC. My pre ACC income exceeded $1000 per plus vehicle etc.

It is necessary to be busy if one is serious about rehabilitation. Opportunities are few and far between. Many opportunities need to be explored in order to determine viable opportunity. ACC have been fully aware of my activities though they may not confirm to standardized ACC routine. My personal observations of ACC routine is that they are hopelessly disorganized and ineffective. Self rehabilitation is the only practical option and should not be interfered with.







Rehabilitation activity may indicate a work capacity but does not indicate a breach of the ACC obligation to report work activity. Both rehabilitation and work activity have the same objectives in that the outcome is pecuniary gain but they are not the same thing. Preparatory and succeeding activities are represented Work for the sake of the ACC policy is the latter.

The fact of the matter is that from the time of my accident and throughout my recovery I have made continuous and consistent efforts to rehabilitate myself with every means at my disposal. I have even investigated opportunities of rehabilitation outside of my area of previous work experience."


Decision:

From the available information and evidence, it appears clear to me that Mr Thomas is relying on what he considers the vagueness of the definition of "work" under the Act, to promulgate the idea that the activities that he has clearly been involved in are part of some self rehabilitation programme, rather than "work" in the natural sense of the word.

Mr Thomas' quite rightly highlighted the fact that "work" is not defined under the Act. However, in the absence of such, one will look for its normal and natural meaning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines work as:

"...something that is or was done; what a person does or did; an act, deed, proceeding, business, ..."

Moreover, I believe the only expression under the Act that comes near to defining what work is, is contained in Section 6, which describes a work injury. It provides:

"6. Definition of "work injury"---(1) For the purposes of this Act, "work injury", in relation to any person, means personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment of that person ... "

Employment is defined under Section 3 as:


"...means work engaged in or carried out for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit; and, in the case of an employee, includes any period of paid leave other than paid leave on the termination of employment: "

Clearly, and from Mr Thomas' own evidence, he was working in the natural sense of the word. Furthermore, the available evidence indicates he was working for the purposes of pecuniary gain or profit. That he may not have had some pecuniary gain or profit as a consequence of that work because of unfortunate business setbacks, is peripheral to the fact that he worked. It is also evident that he worked quite extensively in the various businesses.

Furthermore, I believe Mr Thomas has clearly avoided informing ACC concerning his I other business activities, apart from those that were legitimately recognized by ACC.

I also believe that his statutory declaration is quite fatal to his claim, as it is quite clearly at variance with his statements at the hearing and the available information and evidence surrounding his work activities.

The history of the file records the claimant's involvement in setting up a number of companies (without ACC's knowledge) under the aegis of self-rehabilitation, all of which were clearly set up to generate income, which they clearly did.

Mr Thomas sees his own rehabilitation initiatives, such as setting up various companies, signing lease agreements and also employing various staff for the purposes of generating income, is again clearly at variance with the notion that he was not working.

On a balance on probabilities, the available evidence including that of the claimant, establishes that he was working for a considerable period of time without ACC's knowledge. I do not accept Mr Thomas' statements that the activities he was obviously involved in are really just a self-rehabilitation programme and not work at all. He appears to justify this by semantic legerdemain<<>> Meaning of legerdemain is a follows here>>Skillful use of ones hands when performing conjuring tricks=Sleight of hand-WIZARDRY-trickery-Chicanery=SKULLDUGGERY-DECIET-DECEPTION-ARTIFICE - artfulness-CUNNING-CRAFTINESS ]in respect of the definition of work.

In conclusion, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, I cannot be persuaded that Mr Thomas' claim has any merit whatsoever. I believe ACC's decision is sound and should not be disturbed.



The review is therefore unsuccessful, and ACC's decision is confirmed.



G. M. Smith
REVIEW OFFICER.

Date of Decision: 25 February 1998


APPENDIX.


(1) 5 January 1998 - Written submissions from Mr Thomas

(2)Nora Young's statement

(3) 9 February 1998 - Written submissions from Mr Thomas
[/quote]
acc GOT THAT WORD > LEGERDEMAIN < in the right context

Dave.

[tommy]

In response to mini about being a sole trader , i totally funded the self employment venture , and the corporation gave a years erc earnings in relation to my pre injury employement earnings, to enable a cash flow . then was on my own devices . I then ellected to become a sole trader , but also had interests as a landlord also , which created added interests to how it was taxable against erc etc , which it that case as i mentioned previously , to become a non exertive energy involvement as a activity regarding an abatement against erc or an amounts were not which could of resulted in a considerable sums of monies being repaid as not being taxed correctly .

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 08 August 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

In response to mini about being a sole trader , i totally funded the self employment venture , and the corporation gave a years erc earnings in relation to my pre injury employement earnings, to enable a cash flow . then was on my own devices . I then ellected to become a sole trader , but also had interests as a landlord also , which created added interests to how it was taxable against erc etc , which it that case as i mentioned previously , to become a non exertive energy involvement as a activity regarding an abatement against erc or an amounts were not which could of resulted in a considerable sums of monies being repaid as not being taxed correctly .

From the point of view of legislation everything about your arrangement with the ACC concerning your self-employment is wrong.

To add salt into the wound income from property in the form of rent to the landlord is absolutely and totally none of ACCs business let alone having any relevant to the earnings compensation. If ACC have demanded that type of money or actually produced a document of abatement then that would be ACC insurance fraud through and through. The ACC staff member, as a personal individual, would be subject to the same crimes act as anyone else. Have you thought about initiating a private criminal prosecution against the ACC staff member involved?

[Alan Thomas]

David

Quoting from the decision that you just posted
"On a balance on probabilities, the available evidence including that of the claimant,"

You will recall that the on the day of the review hearing the ACC had failed to disclose a single piece of information describing any work.

As the ACC had not made any disclosure I was unable to challenge the so-called "work" information and as such it was impossible for me to submit any evidence.

The reviewer adjourned because there was no information from either the ACC or myself before him.

The reviewer did not reconvene the hearing.

So David when is it do you think in your wildest dreams the reviewer had any information from me? I would really love to know what your answer is as the ACC have now acknowledged that they never had any information!

David are you now ACCs propaganda specialist or are you just a prat making mischief knowing full well that you are joining in with the ACC lie

[David Butler]

Alan Thomas, on 08 August 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

David

Quoting from the decision that you just posted
"On a balance on probabilities, the available evidence including that of the claimant,"

You will recall that the on the day of the review hearing the ACC had failed to disclose a single piece of information describing any work.

As the ACC had not made any disclosure I was unable to challenge the so-called "work" information and as such it was impossible for me to submit any evidence.

The reviewer adjourned because there was no information from either the ACC or myself before him.

The reviewer did not reconvene the hearing.

So David when is it do you think in your wildest dreams the reviewer had any information from me? I would really love to know what your answer is as the ACC have now acknowledged that they never had any information!

David are you now ACCs propaganda specialist or are you just a prat making mischief knowing full well that you are joining in with the ACC lie

You FAILED TO COMPLY with your obligations as an acc claimant Thomas MISLEAD THEM BIG TIME=
AND YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT
You TRIED to challenge the issue re work BUT were called a one who was LEGERDEMAIN.
i asked you whether you had a rehab program agreed with the acc

did You tell them what you were doing as you were required to do as per the act and the med cert data [ YOU SIGNED ] WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED THE COMPANIES or just before you were caught and far to late, [as it turned out ?????
No propaganda thomas
the court data says it all.

Dave

[tommy]

As another confusions of whom has rights of lawfull monies owing to the corporation thru buisness ventures i was given an amount to pay without true documentation of how they derived to the supposed amount owing , many letters and then whom to keep intimidating a claimant to surrender that monies could be never produced from the corporation, and hence the case was terminated wit h an apology , as one could ask , why were not things sorted before the allegations etc are presented to claimants originally . More in particular to long term claimants it is designed to make it difficult to retain entitlements or believing you have a right to them , in an insures point of view, but not only the corporations to date in this monetary system ?

[tommy]

Ay sou can understand allan being a longterm claimant or an ex longterm claimant does have a long set of paperwork involved , but if not then i suppose the claimant has then been successfully rehabed ?

[Alan Thomas]

My response in blue

David Butler, on 08 August 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

You FAILED TO COMPLY with your obligations as an acc claimant Thomas MISLEAD THEM BIG TIME=
AND YOU WERE CAUGHT OUT
Yes David the ACC suspended my entitlements because I have failed to comply with s73 (2) for not doing enough work. The ACC wanted me to work on producing business plans so they could have me watched working. Because I was not working e-mail my entitlements were suspended.


You TRIED to challenge the issue re work BUT were called a one who was LEGERDEMAIN.
i asked you whether you had a rehab program agreed with the acc
Yes there was a rehab program that I had signed. The ACC made the decision to vocationally rehabilitate the into a new occupation and the rehabilitation plan was signed in 1996 with editions in 1997.
The ACC submissions to the reviewer was that I had succeeded in working in one of the jobs described in the vocational rehabilitation plan without telling them because their informant but I was working as an immigration consultant. ACC later acknowledged that there was no evidence to suggest that I was in the ACC principal witness confessed to have been the manager which left no work for me In the context which they have claimed, even theoretically. The ACC had proof beyond reasonable doubt what I actually did do in the form of four business plans which tracks all of the work activity I undertook to produce those plans of which the information was submitted to judge Barber.
Judge Barber agreed that "work" was not the criteria but rather the ACC had to establish that I was no longer incapacitated. This of course requires an assessment under s37 so the rationale the reviewer relied upon was wrong. Judge Barber sought to remedy the ACC failure to carry out the degree of incapacity assessment so be carried out one all by himself. This decision was that I could return to the work task activities that I was doing before I was injured only the ACC had only provided him information after I was injured, working on light duties and before I had to stop work altogether.


did You tell them what you were doing as you were required to do as per the act and the med cert data [ YOU SIGNED ] WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED THE COMPANIES or just before you were caught and far to late, [as it turned out ?????
Yes I told them both orally and in writing what I have been doing with my time it was producing those business plans. Prior to that I also told them what they did not want to know, all of the other research I had been doing including registering companies as suggested by the tutor that conducted the business caused that the ACC paid for to secure the intellectual property I previously reminded you of on this site.
I think you might be wrong about what information is required as per the medical certificate. What you are referring to is the very light grey type on the back of the third page copy of the ACC 18 medical certificates. I have asked many people that they ever knew that this print actually exists and they are all ways confirmed that they had never heard of it. Anyway the information request asked in regard to work and earnings and as I had not engage in any work for earnings there was nothing to tell them. However I went well beyond what the medical certificates asked of me and told them much much more about what I have been doing with my time. This includes going to other countries, living in other countries, the setting up of companies, registering patents in all manner of other things. The letter from the ACC in response to all of these types of things was that they wanted me to focus on producing the business plans and that those plans were to get me into full-time work.

David this is all a matter of proof beyond reasonable doubt documentation that I provided the ACC and how the ACC has interacted with me. The facts are simply not open to any kind of propaganda manipulation of any sort by anybody.

The difficulty is of course is that the ACC, reviewer or even court makes a conscious choice not to look at the information that has been submitted. While the judge has legal protection against any kind of repercussions both the ACC staff and the reviewer certainly does not and are open to lawsuits to seek damages from the individuals.
.

No propaganda thomas
the court data says it all.
The court data certainly does not say at all as is evident by the exhibits including what the ACC themselves have produced.

Dave

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 08 August 2014 - 07:24 PM, said:

As another confusions of whom has rights of lawfull monies owing to the corporation thru buisness ventures i was given an amount to pay without true documentation of how they derived to the supposed amount owing , many letters and then whom to keep intimidating a claimant to surrender that monies could be never produced from the corporation, and hence the case was terminated wit h an apology , as one could ask , why were not things sorted before the allegations etc are presented to claimants originally . More in particular to long term claimants it is designed to make it difficult to retain entitlements or believing you have a right to them , in an insures point of view, but not only the corporations to date in this monetary system ?

Tommy I think my problem is that I am so polite that people think they can take advantage of me. Of course when they have the power they do.
I think the same thing may have happened to you.

The thing is with a private insurance company there would be an insurance policy.
With the ACC insurance we have very complex mumbo-jumbo that practically nobody can understand, not even the ACC employees.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 08 August 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Ay sou can understand allan being a longterm claimant or an ex longterm claimant does have a long set of paperwork involved , but if not then i suppose the claimant has then been successfully rehabed ?

The only group of people, and I mean only, that can decide that someone is rehabilitated to be safe to return to their pre-under occupation as the Doctor. If the ACC think the Doctor is wrong they then should challenge the Doctor not the claimant.

With regards to rehabilitation into a new occupation again the ACC are required by law to acquire information from qualified independent sources which is the occupational and medical assessors. The trouble is ACC do not have qualified occupational assessors that actually understand the occupation they are assessing and invariably failed to provide the medical specialist with any information describing with adequate detail the individual work task activities of the occupation let alone having a proper understanding of the level of qualification and work experience is necessary for the occupation. Take the example a ex schoolteacher or psychologist employed by the ACC to be an occupational assessor trying to determine whether or not an ex-747 pilot who has all sorts of multiple injuries that have caused all kinds of disability can work as a computer programmer. He was disentitled and despite spending a very large amount of money on legal fees for a review hearing was lost it wasn't until I brought him up to speed as to how the legislation actually did work and help them with the framework of his district court submissions with the result that the won. He got his ERC reinstated. With some further encouragement he is now working independently in something he can do but only after he completed the appropriate studies and gained the right level of experience in order to demonstrate sufficient skill to be an earner.

As you can see Tommy the situation is far more complex than the ACC are representing to the wider public of New Zealand. The fact that they are dumbing down the duties and lowering the expectation of many New Zealanders while at the same time intimidating injured folk we have a very serious problem. I guess this is the reason why they think I might blow them up because they are very stupid and easily excitable nincompoops who will believe anything anybody tells them that fits with what they want to believe.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 08 August 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Ay sou can understand allan being a longterm claimant or an ex longterm claimant does have a long set of paperwork involved , but if not then i suppose the claimant has then been successfully rehabed ?

The only group of people, and I mean only, that can decide that someone is rehabilitated to be safe to return to their pre-under occupation as the Doctor. If the ACC think the Doctor is wrong they then should challenge the Doctor not the claimant.

With regards to rehabilitation into a new occupation again the ACC are required by law to acquire information from qualified independent sources which is the occupational and medical assessors. The trouble is ACC do not have qualified occupational assessors that actually understand the occupation they are assessing and invariably failed to provide the medical specialist with any information describing with adequate detail the individual work task activities of the occupation let alone having a proper understanding of the level of qualification and work experience is necessary for the occupation. Take the example a ex schoolteacher or psychologist employed by the ACC to be an occupational assessor trying to determine whether or not an ex-747 pilot who has all sorts of multiple injuries that have caused all kinds of disability can work as a computer programmer. He was disentitled and despite spending a very large amount of money on legal fees for a review hearing was lost it wasn't until I brought him up to speed as to how the legislation actually did work and help them with the framework of his district court submissions with the result that the won. He got his ERC reinstated. With some further encouragement he is now working independently in something he can do but only after he completed the appropriate studies and gained the right level of experience in order to demonstrate sufficient skill to be an earner.

As you can see Tommy the situation is far more complex than the ACC are representing to the wider public of New Zealand. The fact that they are dumbing down the duties and lowering the expectation of many New Zealanders while at the same time intimidating injured folk we have a very serious problem. I guess this is the reason why they think I might blow them up because they are very stupid and easily excitable nincompoops who will believe anything anybody tells them that fits with what they want to believe.