ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 552
  • 553
  • 554
  • 555
  • 556
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#11061 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 09:52 AM

MINI ,i think hes popped off for some medicated assistance before he comes back .
He dosent seem to understand or Intelligent enough after 15 years of what he was charged and found guilty of
and that was
Using a document capable of Producing a Pecuniary Gain for himself or OTHERS.

Dave
0

#11062 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:00 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 August 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

You finally seem to be getting to a point of nothingness in excuses
Who gives a hoot about your bollocks of wrok directors etc

The issue is
YOU WITH AN INTENT DEFRAUDED the ACC
You were found Guilty
How did you ''WITH AN INTENT'' use a document to defraud the ACC

YOU CAN TELL US ONE ASSUMES?

AND when was that laid up your ass Thomas?
NOT in 1992 mate was it
Dave


The ACC fraud conviction was based on the ACCs claim that I was working and that working contradicted the medical certificates.
The ACC did not provide the court with one single work task activity at any material time but just the claim that I was working and that they had the authority as the ACC to cancel my claim.
The ACC private prosecution for fraud included all of the medical certificates including the medical certificates prior to the 1992 reviewers decision.
As my claim had been cancelled therefore I have no entitlement therefore it is fraud.

However
the ACC have recanted their assertion that I was working. They confess to having no information that I was working.
I have always said that I was not working.
In addition the ACC have also acknowledged that the 1992 review decision remains binding until the present. This is an open acknowledgement that they were wrong before the reviewers decision and after.

Now what should I do?
Prosecute the ACC from committing perjury?
Appeal the criminal conviction?
Prosecute you for defamation of character?
0

#11063 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:06 AM

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 August 2014 - 09:52 AM, said:

MINI ,i think hes popped off for some medicated assistance before he comes back .
He dosent seem to understand or Intelligent enough after 15 years of what he was charged and found guilty of
and that was
Using a document capable of Producing a Pecuniary Gain for himself or OTHERS.

Dave


David the medical certificates is solely for the purposes of pecuniary gain.

The criteria for that pecuniary gain is an incapacity to carry out the pre-injury work task activities.

All of the scientific evidence confirms that when a person is hand is not connected properly to his arm that he cannot use it in a meaningful way for any activity.

However to help you out here a little medical certificate also says I can work on light duties two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. Do you think that this might have got the ACC a little bit confused when people claimed to have seen me doing something?

Remember ACC now acknowledged they had no information whatsoever about any particular work task activity at any material time. This means that your ranting and raving at the moment is without any substance whatsoever and makes you look like an absolute fool as you are now supporting an ACC action that they themselves have acknowledged have no basis in fact. Put simply that the ACC informants did not know what I was doing neither that the ACC. This without any possibility of doubt means that the ACC has embarked upon a false private prosecution and achieved a conviction without lawful basis but instead relied upon their authority it is of course an abuse of that authority in the worst possible way.

David why aren't you speaking up for righteousness?
David why are you sneaking around in the shadows trying to re-argue the ACC nonsense that they themselves have accepted as nonsense? What is your motive? Have you slipped back into your old tagteam ways, reverting to your old hobby hell bent on making other people's lives as miserable as your own?
0

#11064 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:34 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

David the medical certificates is solely for the purposes of pecuniary gain.

The criteria for that pecuniary gain is an incapacity to carry out the pre-injury work task activities.
You moved past that Thomas
You been asked
did you have a irp with other duties involved
SEEMS YOU DID from your writings

All of the scientific evidence confirms that when a person is hand is not connected properly to his arm that he cannot use it in a meaningful way for any activity.

However to help you out here a little medical certificate also says I can work on light duties two hours per day fragmented throughout the day. Do you think that this might have got the ACC a little bit confused when people claimed to have seen me doing something?

Remember ACC now acknowledged they had no information whatsoever about any particular work task activity at any material time. This means that your ranting and raving at the moment is without any substance whatsoever and makes you look like an absolute fool as you are now supporting an ACC action that they themselves have acknowledged have no basis in fact. Put simply that the ACC informants did not know what I was doing neither that the ACC. This without any possibility of doubt means that the ACC has embarked upon a false private prosecution and achieved a conviction without lawful basis but instead relied upon their authority it is of course an abuse of that authority in the worst possible way.

David why aren't you speaking up for righteousness?
David why are you sneaking around in the shadows trying to re-argue the ACC nonsense that they themselves have accepted as nonsense? What is your motive? Have you slipped back into your old tagteam ways, reverting to your old hobby hell bent on making other people's lives as miserable as your own?




0

#11065 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:44 AM

David I and I am one have sole authority over my rehabilitation. That is the law. s18 of the 1992 act.

I informed the ACC how I was utilising the residual capacity described on my medical certificates of two hours per day.

ACC was not satisfied and wanted me to do things their way which resulted in ACC producing an IRP and requiring me to sign its or have my ERC suspend. The IRP required me to produce business plans which I did within the limits of my medical certificates. Still dissatisfied the ACC suspended my ERC because they wanted me to work beyond the two hours described in my medical certificates. I refused so my ERC was suspended based on s73 (2). When I pointed out that I have already submitted the business plans ahead of schedule they reinstated my ERC. They then relied upon the fact that I had carried out work task activities producing those business plans and that I'd be utilising my two hours per day residual capacity throughout the claim within the medical certificates and cancel my entire cover and entitlements based on s73 (1) with the information being that they possessed information that I was working without the ACC defining what that work was or how long I have been working. The ACC absence acknowledged that in actual fact they had no information whatsoever as their informants under oath have confirmed that they had only assumed that I was working and in particular they had assumed that I was working as an immigration consultant with the ACCs investigation revealed no information involving immigration. I also thought that I worked as the manager of the companies I owned yet their own informant acknowledged that he was the manager.

Judge Barber recognising the ACCs possession decided that he should put aside 18 August 1997 cancellation of claim and entitlements decision and replace it with a new decision that my entitlements to ERC was suspended only in on the basis that I was not incapacitated to return to my pre-injury occupation. The defect of judge Barber's decision was that he based his decision on the information ACC claimed I was doing prior to my wrist injury but while I was on light duties from my strain injury.

David Butler you seem to be horribly horribly confused because the ACC propaganda has been withdrawn yet you seem to be singing from an old songsheet. If you want to attack me you really do need to get the new songsheet from the ACC. The new songsheet is that no one in the ACC is allowed to talk (or even sing). However some of their staff have been squealing in private which has revealed many truths.
0

#11066 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:44 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

David I and I am one have sole authority over my rehabilitation. That is the law. s18 of the 1992 act.

I informed the ACC how I was utilising the residual capacity described on my medical certificates of two hours per day.

ACC was not satisfied and wanted me to do things their way which resulted in ACC producing an IRP and requiring me to sign its or have my ERC suspend. The IRP required me to produce business plans which I did within the limits of my medical certificates. Still dissatisfied the ACC suspended my ERC because they wanted me to work beyond the two hours described in my medical certificates. I refused so my ERC was suspended based on s73 (2). When I pointed out that I have already submitted the business plans ahead of schedule they reinstated my ERC. They then relied upon the fact that I had carried out work task activities producing those business plans and that I'd be utilising my two hours per day residual capacity throughout the claim within the medical certificates and cancel my entire cover and entitlements based on s73 (1) with the information being that they possessed information that I was working without the ACC defining what that work was or how long I have been working. The ACC absence acknowledged that in actual fact they had no information whatsoever as their informants under oath have confirmed that they had only assumed that I was working and in particular they had assumed that I was working as an immigration consultant with the ACCs investigation revealed no information involving immigration. I also thought that I worked as the manager of the companies I owned yet their own informant acknowledged that he was the manager.

Judge Barber recognising the ACCs possession decided that he should put aside 18 August 1997 cancellation of claim and entitlements decision and replace it with a new decision that my entitlements to ERC was suspended only in on the basis that I was not incapacitated to return to my pre-injury occupation. The defect of judge Barber's decision was that he based his decision on the information ACC claimed I was doing prior to my wrist injury but while I was on light duties from my strain injury.

David Butler you seem to be horribly horribly confused because the ACC propaganda has been withdrawn yet you seem to be singing from an old songsheet. If you want to attack me you really do need to get the new songsheet from the ACC. The new songsheet is that no one in the ACC is allowed to talk (or even sing). However some of their staff have been squealing in private which has revealed many truths.


But what exactly did you tell them -OR as tghe case turned out ''INTENTLY OMIT and NOT TELL THEM'' as to the requirements on the acc 18 from and the acc atc obligations IMPOSED on you when ac accepted the claim that you made your claim to acc fro erc and rehab
Thats the issue Thomas
not your bullshit\
Dave
0

#11067 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 August 2014 - 11:47 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 10:44 AM, said:

David I and I am one have sole authority over my rehabilitation. That is the law. s18 of the 1992 act.

I informed the ACC how I was utilising the residual capacity described on my medical certificates of two hours per day.

ACC was not satisfied and wanted me to do things their way which resulted in ACC producing an IRP and requiring me to sign its or have my ERC suspend. The IRP required me to produce business plans which I did within the limits of my medical certificates. Still dissatisfied the ACC suspended my ERC because they wanted me to work beyond the two hours described in my medical certificates. I refused so my ERC was suspended based on s73 (2). When I pointed out that I have already submitted the business plans ahead of schedule they reinstated my ERC. They then relied upon the fact that I had carried out work task activities producing those business plans and that I'd be utilising my two hours per day residual capacity throughout the claim within the medical certificates and cancel my entire cover and entitlements based on s73 (1) with the information being that they possessed information that I was working without the ACC defining what that work was or how long I have been working. The ACC absence acknowledged that in actual fact they had no information whatsoever as their informants under oath have confirmed that they had only assumed that I was working and in particular they had assumed that I was working as an immigration consultant with the ACCs investigation revealed no information involving immigration. I also thought that I worked as the manager of the companies I owned yet their own informant acknowledged that he was the manager.

Judge Barber recognising the ACCs possession decided that he should put aside 18 August 1997 cancellation of claim and entitlements decision and replace it with a new decision that my entitlements to ERC was suspended only in on the basis that I was not incapacitated to return to my pre-injury occupation. The defect of judge Barber's decision was that he based his decision on the information ACC claimed I was doing prior to my wrist injury but while I was on light duties from my strain injury.

David Butler you seem to be horribly horribly confused because the ACC propaganda has been withdrawn yet you seem to be singing from an old songsheet. If you want to attack me you really do need to get the new songsheet from the ACC. The new songsheet is that no one in the ACC is allowed to talk (or even sing). However some of their staff have been squealing in private which has revealed many truths.

Alan Thomas
"Sole authority over my own rehabilitation"

That is not what section 18 of the 1992 Act says. It says: Sect 18 Right to Rehabilitation---- Every person who has suffered personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act is responsible for his or her own rehabilitation to the extent possible having regard to the person's condition and is entitled to the extent provided by this Act to rehabilitation necessary to enable the person to lead as normal a life as possible, having regard to the consequences of his or her personal injury.

Why do you bullshit all the time??

The paperwork you sign under the 1992 Act says: I am fully aware that I am liable for prosecution should I not comply with the above.

The above says at one point: "a am aware that I am obliged to notify ACC immediately if I partcipate in any activities which cold be seen to aggravate my injuries or affect my entitlement."

ACC Obviously thought you affected your entitlement under section 37 of the 1992 Act. It was up to you to adhere to the rules and laws you had been made aware of when you got e/r/c and the consequences of not doing so.

You really do make yourself look a dork on here when you cannot and do not put the necessary parts of the Act up here to allow all to see, that ACC were doing only what they were allowed to do in the circumstances, otherwise you wouldnt have been found criminally and civially quilty.

And please do not state that you had nothing to argue with. If I was in that situation I certainly would have plenty to argue with.

Mini
0

#11068 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 12:14 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 August 2014 - 11:44 AM, said:

But what exactly did you tell them -OR as tghe case turned out ''INTENTLY OMIT and NOT TELL THEM'' as to the requirements on the acc 18 from and the acc atc obligations IMPOSED on you when ac accepted the claim that you made your claim to acc fro erc and rehab
Thats the issue Thomas
not your bullshit\
Dave


The ACC were told not only orally but also in writing. Everything is on the file.

ACC refused to disclose the file. Over the years a progressively got more and more portions of the file as each portion of the file revealed that other portions of the file were actually in existence but not yet delivered. For example the ACC withheld all of the business plans from the reviewer and criminal court but portions were made available to the civil court 10 years later. The ACC private investigators acknowledged that they had no idea that they should be expecting to see me complying with s73 (2) of the act which was producing the business plans and that some of those plans were already on the ACCs possession which describes names dates and other such details that the private investigator could have easily verified rather than relying upon unqualified persons that had no direct knowledge of what I had been doing but were merely speculating and assuming in much the same way that you are doing David. Can you imagine ACC relying upon people like you making anonymous telephone calls and then sending e-mails asking the ACC for you to keep your communications anonymous, as you did, and then the ACC totally ignoring the actual original information while preferring to rely upon the likes of yourself? What kind of the world would be earth the ACC staff were like that?

The ACC told me what to do and I did it and then me what we do it in order to claim that the doctors were wrong. The problem is I did not exceed two hours per day doing things that have nothing to do with my preinjury occupation when the judge later made a decision that I was working full-time and could return to my preinjury occupation safely despite the medical impossibility and the fact that there was no information whatsoever support the judges decision, not even presented by the ACC.
0

#11069 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 12:29 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 August 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Alan Thomas
"Sole authority over my own rehabilitation"

That is not what section 18 of the 1992 Act says. It says: Sect 18 Right to Rehabilitation---- Every person who has suffered personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act is responsible for his or her own rehabilitation to the extent possible having regard to the person's condition and is entitled to the extent provided by this Act to rehabilitation necessary to enable the person to lead as normal a life as possible, having regard to the consequences of his or her personal injury.

Why do you bullshit all the time??

The paperwork you sign under the 1992 Act says: I am fully aware that I am liable for prosecution should I not comply with the above.

The above says at one point: "a am aware that I am obliged to notify ACC immediately if I partcipate in any activities which cold be seen to aggravate my injuries or affect my entitlement."

ACC Obviously thought you affected your entitlement under section 37 of the 1992 Act. It was up to you to adhere to the rules and laws you had been made aware of when you got e/r/c and the consequences of not doing so.

You really do make yourself look a dork on here when you cannot and do not put the necessary parts of the Act up here to allow all to see, that ACC were doing only what they were allowed to do in the circumstances, otherwise you wouldnt have been found criminally and civially quilty.

And please do not state that you had nothing to argue with. If I was in that situation I certainly would have plenty to argue with.

Mini


Mini it seems that your reading age is a little bit low. Perhaps the employment criteria for the IRD does not require good reading comprehension.

What part of "---- Every person who has suffered personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act is responsible for his or her own rehabilitation

Are you seriously trying to say that the ACC staff have greater authority on what we do over and above the legislation? Well there's your problem. You seem to be a little bit mixed up between what is the law and what is the ACC dream about how they may steal entitlements by falsification of documents and define judicial decisions.

Mini you need to do more legal study and the more courageous and standing up for what is right. What I'm trying to say is that you are an ignorant and arrogant coward who simply rants and raves because of your own despair in the way you have been treated yourself. Your symptoms are undoubtedly related to the overwhelming stress that the ACC have placed you under. You will not get out of the hole you are in while you keep digging.

As I have previously stated many times I complied with the legislation and my doctors instructions at all times. I provide ACC with more information than they wanted. I think what was actually happening is that the ACC wanted to take over control of my life and relabel me into a new occupation in defiance of the 1992 review hearing decision that required them to pay for very expensive reconstructive surgery! Do you really imagine for one moment that I worked capitulate to such ridiculous an unlawful demands that occurred by way of very menacing ultimatums?

With regards to section 37 the matter had already been decided by the 1992 review hearing decision and remains binding upon all parties. All parties means myself, ACC, the reviewer and even the district court judge. None of these people can simply disregard the reviewers decision and do something different, this includes the district court judge. That the ACC were not happy with the 1992 review hearing decision then their only option was to appeal. They did not have the option to make a new decision in 1997. To avoid the appearance of making the same decision again they left out the basis of the information that was required by s73 (1) which of course by omission is perjury both civil and criminal courts. The ACC barrister who signed the 1997 decision letter claims that she was unaware of who the decision maker was but told the court that she was only instructed by the decision maker to produce the decision and sign, despite the fact that she defended her decision to the reviewer while at the same time asking the reviewer not to let me have access to the information ACC claimed to have in their possession.

The ACC modus operandi in cases such as mine is to claim to possess information as a bluff in the hope that they will intimidate people into surrendering their entitlements. Because I knew for an absolute certainty the medical certificates were totally accurate and that I had not carried out any work task activity at any material time that breached the medical certificates and that all activities are engaged in were entirely focused on exploring the use of my residual capacity while waiting for surgery in the event that surgery may not be as successful as hoped as described and consistent with the 1992 review hearing decision.

0

#11070 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:02 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 August 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

Alan Thomas
"Sole authority over my own rehabilitation"

That is not what section 18 of the 1992 Act says. It says: Sect 18 Right to Rehabilitation---- Every person who has suffered personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act is responsible for his or her own rehabilitation to the extent possible having regard to the person's condition and is entitled to the extent provided by this Act to rehabilitation necessary to enable the person to lead as normal a life as possible, having regard to the consequences of his or her personal injury.

Why do you bullshit all the time??

The paperwork you sign under the 1992 Act says: I am fully aware that I am liable for prosecution should I not comply with the above.

The above says at one point: "a am aware that I am obliged to notify ACC immediately if I partcipate in any activities which cold be seen to aggravate my injuries or affect my entitlement."

ACC Obviously thought you affected your entitlement under section 37 of the 1992 Act. It was up to you to adhere to the rules and laws you had been made aware of when you got e/r/c and the consequences of not doing so.

You really do make yourself look a dork on here when you cannot and do not put the necessary parts of the Act up here to allow all to see, that ACC were doing only what they were allowed to do in the circumstances, otherwise you wouldnt have been found criminally and civially quilty.

And please do not state that you had nothing to argue with. If I was in that situation I certainly would have plenty to argue with.

Mini


Thomas FAILS to discuss the issue
He was charged with intent to use a document for Pecuniary Gain
That was re acc issues that he WAS FULLY AWARE OF that if needed could be as per that act taken to court as a criminal act
ITS CLEAR AS A BELL IN THE ACT Thomas
You cant debate the REAL ISSUE of why you were charged under the criminal proceedings out OF THE ACC Acts and continue to plod on using debating methods of bullshit wordsmithing and via the continual Systematic use of LEGERDEMAIN as the acc has RIGHTLY said as to that trickery of yours Thomas.
the acc acts are NOT what you were charged under Thomas
Your deceit Started in the act and then was taken out of that to the crimes act as thats what ya did
ya committed a crime and ya should bugger off and come back when ya appealed the criminal courts sentence
You continue to act as if your a good guy and everyone should feel sorry for you
maybe if you were not such a prat and a bullshitting prick and just took the sentence Got over and started again
Until then your a no body giving nothings as advice as OIT DONT WORK Mate
Youve the living proof it dont work

Them,s de ACC rules Thomas for everyone to abide by and be aware of =except you it seems
whats so special about you that you think your above the laws of the land of NZ?

Dave
0

#11071 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:37 PM

My response in blue

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 August 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

Thomas FAILS to discuss the issue
He was charged with intent to use a document for Pecuniary Gain
The purposes of the ACC medical certificate is for pecuniary gain so there is no problem so far right.

That was re acc issues that he WAS FULLY AWARE OF that if needed could be as per that act taken to court as a criminal act
Only and only if I had falsified my injuries in any way In relation to the particular documents in question.
The 1992 review hearing decision that the medical certificates represents 60% disability based on the medical evidence remains binding on all parties ranging from the ACC through to the district court. ACC has not appealed this decision so it remains standing. Still no criminal act!



ITS CLEAR AS A BELL IN THE ACT Thomas
You have bells in your head in the act has no bells


You cant debate the REAL ISSUE of why you were charged under the criminal proceedings out OF THE ACC Acts and continue to plod on using debating methods of bullshit wordsmithing and via the continual Systematic use of LEGERDEMAIN as the acc has RIGHTLY said as to that trickery of yours Thomas.
It is you that as the one using LEGERDEMAIN. You say a lot but actually say nothing.
The issue regarding medical certificates is solely whether or not it is safer me to return to my preinjury occupation because of the injuries.
Everybody and I mean everybody agrees that I have very significant injuries that prevent me doing the tasks of my preinjury occupation. Now that I have had some of the reconstructive surgery I have a total of only four KG capacity to my right dominant hand which is still well below what is necessary for me to return to work. Before that surgery there was no capacity whatsoever. This is a scientific fact that simply cannot be argued against by any kind of LEGERDEMAIN .



the acc acts are NOT what you were charged under Thomas
The ACC made submissions to the criminal court that I was not entitled to my claim based on the medical certificates. The ACC have made the irrational assumption that I was working and that working meant that I was no longer incapacitated which in turn meant to them that the doctors were wrong. This is where you have irrational thinking and LEGERDEMAIN. The only way a criminal conviction could possibly be lawful is as if I was not injured and could return to my preinjury occupation. The ACC are required by legislation to determine the degree of capacity and incapacity by way of their administrative duties under the act which in this case they claimed I successfully rehabilitated into a new occupation they should have carried out the assessments under s51 but could not because they had not yet produced regulations. In other words they lied to the court.

After the criminal court when taken to task about how they went about making the decision all of the ACC staff and the private investigators acknowledged that the ACC have not provided them with any training or knowledge about how to interpret the act. Further the signatory to the decision claimed that she was not the author of the decision but rather she was instructed to make the decision without understanding it you try to defend the decision at review hearing level and in total disregard to the ACC complaints officer instructing her to withdraw the decision as the decision was indefensible. The ACCs own legal counsel Mister Tui advise the ACC by way of a memo to my file that even if I was working the ACC were not entitled to cancel the whole claim as that is not permissible under the section of the act they were relying upon. Someone working does not mean that they are no longer incapacitated but simply disobeying the medical certificate and even if working at best the ACC are only permitted to claim a discount on the ERC by way of abatement of earnings. Although the ACC claimed income of $1.3 million their own forensic accountant confirmed that there was no basis to claim any earnings whatsoever which confirms the chartered accountants records in conjunction with the IRD processes.



Your deceit Started in the act and then was taken out of that to the crimes act as thats what ya did
ya committed a crime and ya should bugger off and come back when ya appealed the criminal courts sentence
As I had made full disclosure in the disclosure was all in writing and on my file there was no possibility of deceit. What had actually been assumed by the criminal court was that the ACC had claimed to possess information and that I did not confirm that information, in fact I denied that information. The information turned out to be assumptions and speculations by the ACC informants who was under examination in the civil court confessed to having lied to the criminal court and even the ACC private investigators.

David David David how on earth can I be expected to confirm someone else's wild imagination Whose imagination is driven by thoughts of revenge or conflict of interest. You have recently been caught up in the exact same issue was demonstrates a continuation of the ACC modus operandi was seeks out people such as yourself to tell your imaginative stories. You yourself have acknowledged that you had provided the ACC with an e-mail make various claims that you had no knowledge as to whether or not what you are saying is true but rather that you are simply passing on what you have heard from others. You are fully aware that those others were conspiring to make false allegation and when the situation became far too real and threatened your own liberty you bailed out. These other features of the characters ACC actively seek out to gather information in order to reduce their own liability. David David David you simply failed to realise how gullible you are and how ridiculous you look trying to defend the undefendable but rather cowardly hang onto the skirts of the more powerful and even singing the song, despite the fact that you seem to be singing from an old song book that the ACC have since discarded.


You continue to act as if your a good guy and everyone should feel sorry for you
maybe if you were not such a prat and a bullshitting prick and just took the sentence Got over and started again
Until then your a no body giving nothings as advice as OIT DONT WORK Mate
Youve the living proof it dont work

Them,s de ACC rules Thomas for everyone to abide by and be aware of =except you it seems
whats so special about you that you think your above the laws of the land of NZ?

Dave

0

#11072 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 02:39 PM


anonymousey
All review hearing decisions remain binding on all parties. This is in the legislation and not difficult to understand. The only way they see is to be binding is that the ACC appeal the decision. They didn't.

The reviewer accepted that the ACC assessment of 14.5% was wrong and the surgeons assessment of 60% was correct. ACC legislation require the information to be used by a qualified medical professional of New Zealand. The ACC act has no relevance or reference to overseas medical assessments.



0

#11073 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:31 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

The ACC were told not only orally but also in writing. Everything is on the file.

ACC refused to disclose the file. Over the years a progressively got more and more portions of the file as each portion of the file revealed that other portions of the file were actually in existence but not yet delivered. For example the ACC withheld all of the business plans from the reviewer and criminal court but portions were made available to the civil court 10 years later. The ACC private investigators acknowledged that they had no idea that they should be expecting to see me complying with s73 (2) of the act which was producing the business plans and that some of those plans were already on the ACCs possession which describes names dates and other such details that the private investigator could have easily verified rather than relying upon unqualified persons that had no direct knowledge of what I had been doing but were merely speculating and assuming in much the same way that you are doing David. Can you imagine ACC relying upon people like you making anonymous telephone calls and then sending e-mails asking the ACC for you to keep your communications anonymous, as you did, and then the ACC totally ignoring the actual original information while preferring to rely upon the likes of yourself? What kind of the world would be earth the ACC staff were like that?

The ACC told me what to do and I did it and then me what we do it in order to claim that the doctors were wrong. The problem is I did not exceed two hours per day doing things that have nothing to do with my preinjury occupation when the judge later made a decision that I was working full-time and could return to my preinjury occupation safely despite the medical impossibility and the fact that there was no information whatsoever support the judges decision, not even presented by the ACC.


It was not up to the investigator to verify that what was available to ACC actually was dated and signed in such a way that it would benefit your defence. That should have been part of your defence. You gave ACC the dated documentation and obviously being the smart businessman that you are, I am looking here that you would have kept copies of what you had given them. So you didnt even have to ask for it to get it. You already had those advantages facts in your hands to prove your point, that ACC was aware of what you were doing. and presumably had been for some time.

Don't speak to me as I do not know of what I speak. I am well versed in what is valuable evidence and what is not. Thats why I win sometimes. And you don't!!!

Mini
-3

#11074 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:48 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

Mini it seems that your reading age is a little bit low. Perhaps the employment criteria for the IRD does not require good reading comprehension.

What part of "---- Every person who has suffered personal injury for which the person has cover under this Act is responsible for his or her own rehabilitation

Are you seriously trying to say that the ACC staff have greater authority on what we do over and above the legislation? Well there's your problem. You seem to be a little bit mixed up between what is the law and what is the ACC dream about how they may steal entitlements by falsification of documents and define judicial decisions.

Mini you need to do more legal study and the more courageous and standing up for what is right. What I'm trying to say is that you are an ignorant and arrogant coward who simply rants and raves because of your own despair in the way you have been treated yourself. Your symptoms are undoubtedly related to the overwhelming stress that the ACC have placed you under. You will not get out of the hole you are in while you keep digging.

As I have previously stated many times I complied with the legislation and my doctors instructions at all times. I provide ACC with more information than they wanted. I think what was actually happening is that the ACC wanted to take over control of my life and relabel me into a new occupation in defiance of the 1992 review hearing decision that required them to pay for very expensive reconstructive surgery! Do you really imagine for one moment that I worked capitulate to such ridiculous an unlawful demands that occurred by way of very menacing ultimatums?

With regards to section 37 the matter had already been decided by the 1992 review hearing decision and remains binding upon all parties. All parties means myself, ACC, the reviewer and even the district court judge. None of these people can simply disregard the reviewers decision and do something different, this includes the district court judge. That the ACC were not happy with the 1992 review hearing decision then their only option was to appeal. They did not have the option to make a new decision in 1997. To avoid the appearance of making the same decision again they left out the basis of the information that was required by s73 (1) which of course by omission is perjury both civil and criminal courts. The ACC barrister who signed the 1997 decision letter claims that she was unaware of who the decision maker was but told the court that she was only instructed by the decision maker to produce the decision and sign, despite the fact that she defended her decision to the reviewer while at the same time asking the reviewer not to let me have access to the information ACC claimed to have in their possession.

The ACC modus operandi in cases such as mine is to claim to possess information as a bluff in the hope that they will intimidate people into surrendering their entitlements. Because I knew for an absolute certainty the medical certificates were totally accurate and that I had not carried out any work task activity at any material time that breached the medical certificates and that all activities are engaged in were entirely focused on exploring the use of my residual capacity while waiting for surgery in the event that surgery may not be as successful as hoped as described and consistent with the 1992 review hearing decision.


Thomas

You are a condescending b.....sard!!! I am not working and had no trouble proving my not able to work with not being able to go back to my usual job, so pray tell me for makes you think I should still have the same skills as I did then. At least I stayed in work longer than you did at whatever you tried. Bankruptcy in business's and throw out when paying PAYE. Good strong background you got at a reasonably young age. How many years would you have not been working for because of a hernia when you retire in a few years. I had probably done three times the amount of work and raised children etc in my lifetime. Take a good long look at your piddly career, before you poke remarks at people Thomas. This is the type of stuff that will make your grisling about being hard done by on Accforum by the members, look very black and meanspirited indeed. You have no right to judge me and my disabilities. At least I have never been afraid of hard work.

You will lose if ever you try to attack me like that in Court. What right have you to judge when my Mental started ie by ACC or before. You know nothing about me obviously or you wouldnt have tried to use material on this thread to name and defame me. leaving yourself very wide open to legal action.

You are afraid of my background to make you accountable.

Mini
0

#11075 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:55 PM

I have bypassed your opinions Alan as I am trying to focus upon facts which I hope to correlate to the ACC legislation

First point is that I am able to explore the ACC assessment standard which you have previously stated was never confirmed by ACC for you with any payment ie your 14.5% figure

However because you have not verified the sourcing, I am unable to explore anything about your 60% figure as described

Are you now confirming that this 60% is just some surgeons opinion upon a localised area of your arm that you obtained?


After they ACC stopped earnings compensation and reviewed surgery they realised that they actually needed medical evidence so asked me to see their orthopaedic surgeon. They failed to give the orthopaedic surgeon all of the information with the result that be assessed me as being 14.5% disabled which is 0.5% under the 15% threshold. My surgeon who was going to do the prescribed operation was away so my doctor sent me to another surgeon who took all of information into account and determined that disability to be 60%. This information has been verified by the review hearing decisions to have been carried out properly which is now legally binding and once more I have already been posted the decision on this site.

Please stop harassing me for your own entertainment.


3

#11076 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:57 PM

Mousey
Under the 1992 ACC Act the method of measurement of injury was the American Medical Association Guidelines.

Mini

By the by when was there ever a 14.5% threshold of anything?.
0

#11077 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:01 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 August 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

I have bypassed your opinions Alan as I am trying to focus upon facts which I hope to correlate to the ACC legislation

First point is that I am able to explore the ACC assessment standard which you have previously stated was never confirmed by ACC for you with any payment ie your 14.5% figure

However because you have not verified the sourcing, I am unable to explore anything about your 60% figure as described

Are you now confirming that this 60% is just some surgeons opinion upon a localised area of your arm that you obtained?

After they ACC stopped earnings compensation and reviewed surgery they realised that they actually needed medical evidence so asked me to see their orthopaedic surgeon. They failed to give the orthopaedic surgeon all of the information with the result that be assessed me as being 14.5% disabled which is 0.5% under the 15% threshold. My surgeon who was going to do the prescribed operation was away so my doctor sent me to another surgeon who took all of information into account and determined that disability to be 60%. This information has been verified by the review hearing decisions to have been carried out properly which is now legally binding and once more I have already been posted the decision on this site.

Please stop harassing me for your own entertainment.




Where does Anonmousey end and Alan begin on this post?? Seems like someone made a boo-boo, it looks like it all comes under Alans logo, but it appears like some of it is Mousey speak.

Mini

I see mouseys words are in 'red' now. We can tell the difference.
0

#11079 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:05 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 August 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

It was not up to the investigator to verify that what was available to ACC actually was dated and signed in such a way that it would benefit your defence. That should have been part of your defence. You gave ACC the dated documentation and obviously being the smart businessman that you are, I am looking here that you would have kept copies of what you had given them. So you didnt even have to ask for it to get it. You already had those advantages facts in your hands to prove your point, that ACC was aware of what you were doing. and presumably had been for some time.

Don't speak to me as I do not know of what I speak. I am well versed in what is valuable evidence and what is not. Thats why I win sometimes. And you don't!!!

Mini


The detailed and sequence of events together with supporting documents have been presented to the court. The judge stated that he would set a time for those submissions and exhibit to be to him together with my old submissions but he simply did not set the time. The court registrar has no record of the judge examining this material. Nonetheless all these information is before the court.

With regards to both civil and criminal courts both judges avoided any evidence from me even saying they do not want to look at any exhibit that challenge the ACC assumptions before they decided to rule against reality based entirely upon their instinct. Even the voice recording of the proceedings concerning key issues have been lost. However I have recorded the entire hearings.

Mini why on earth would you say I have not carried out something or have not asked for something. Such a statement on your is so incredibly arrogant that I am simply embarrassed for you so much so that I cringe when I read what you write. You really need to be a little bit more dignified and ask questions rather than making a succession of false assumptions followed by false statements as it what you imagine the somehow true.

Even with regards to winning and losing you seem to be experiencing a blind spot concerning the wins that I do have. I am currently in the process of preparing submissions for a prehearing concerning 118 appeals of which the vast majority are deemed decisions. In the main there are deemed decisions from ACC failing to determine cover followed by further deemed decisions when the ACC delayed in the process to determine entitlements in conjunction with a variety of wrong decisions which in the main have not been provided with review hearing dates either at all or only after three months have gone by. I have repeatedly one decisions requiring the ACC to carry out the assessment procedures for the purposes of determining lump sum and independence allowance with the reviewer giving and 20 days to get on with followed by yet another review hearing application my favour because the ACC have failed to get on with it with the result that the ACC is given another 20 days and on and on it goes.

Mini you really need to look more closely at the high-quality work I have been doing rather than what you hear from others or imagine yourself.
2

#11080 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:14 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 August 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

Thomas

You are a condescending b.....sard!!! I am not working and had no trouble proving my not able to work with not being able to go back to my usual job, so pray tell me for makes you think I should still have the same skills as I did then. At least I stayed in work longer than you did at whatever you tried. Bankruptcy in business's and throw out when paying PAYE. Good strong background you got at a reasonably young age. How many years would you have not been working for because of a hernia when you retire in a few years. I had probably done three times the amount of work and raised children etc in my lifetime. Take a good long look at your piddly career, before you poke remarks at people Thomas. This is the type of stuff that will make your grisling about being hard done by on Accforum by the members, look very black and meanspirited indeed. You have no right to judge me and my disabilities. At least I have never been afraid of hard work.

You will lose if ever you try to attack me like that in Court. What right have you to judge when my Mental started ie by ACC or before. You know nothing about me obviously or you wouldnt have tried to use material on this thread to name and defame me. leaving yourself very wide open to legal action.

You are afraid of my background to make you accountable.

Mini


Mini level of differences between you and myself is simply beyond measurement. You have richly accomplished nothing with your life and are completely inexperienced person filled with their own self-importance. Just think of what your progeny are doing compared with mine and that will show you what type of the parent you are competing with me. How many people have you employed how many overseas dollars have you brought into New Zealand because of exports? What impact have you made on your community compared with me. You're nothing but a pie cutter who rides on the back of others who make the pies. In other words your category of person is surplus to societies requirement. You haven't even been instrumental in anything of note, not even engaging in one-to-one help with your fellow man such as those who need help on this site. Your so arrogant that you think telling people of your experiences accomplishes this type of obligation to your fellow man. Just another example of your arrogance. You talk of not being afraid of hard work, when was the last time you worked for 120 hours per week on a continuous basis for very extended periods and by that I mean more than six months continuously? How many times in your life have you worked without stopping for more than 36 hours? What you have been on ACC how hard and how much effort and how much money have you put into your own self rehabilitation? Mini I find your barrage of nonsense from you on a daily basis yet you accuse me of just once speaking against you when in reality I made reference to someone else who criticise you for attacking me. That is yet another example of your arrogance.
2

#11081 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 04:16 PM

View PostMINI, on 09 August 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

Mousey
Under the 1992 ACC Act the method of measurement of injury was the American Medical Association Guidelines.

Mini

By the by when was there ever a 14.5% threshold of anything?.


There you go talking nonsense again. The 14.5% threshold was under the 1982 act. For example I was paid out 100% on the s79 lump sum entitlement in direct response to the reviewers decision in my favour. 60% is 60% Under the 1982 legislation..
1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 552
  • 553
  • 554
  • 555
  • 556
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users