[MINI]

 netcoachnz, on 16 January 2015 - 11:15 AM, said:

Considering the fact that RedFox maybe a Blurb multi-member or sock puppet then this posting becomes very interesting in that it could be evidence pointing to a sustained attack and harassment of Alan Thomas.

NCNZ

Oh how you would love that Mr Netcoachnz, as it has been over two years since alan Thomas and his tribe put up names and personal details about us members on Lauda Finem and you haven't been able to substantiate that one of us have been harassing him or anyone else involved in the vindictive debacle to get alan Thomas a retrial for the tpb. In tact you have spent all that time trying to put us down enough so that we react to give you reason enough to do it.

Nothing I repeat nothing will get you free of the threatening to harm mentally and physically. You and your sock puppets, the list is not long and will be shorter too, once the police get real names for the sock puppets!!

Think deeply before you threaten others on here.

mini

[RedFox]

 Alan Thomas, on 16 January 2015 - 01:05 PM, said:

As for Red Fox nonsense
The High Court appeal hhas already been lodged. the courier receipt together with the courier letter of apology sending my package to the wrong address Together with the lawyers advice as to the last date of my submissions forms the basis of whether or not Powell J acted reasonably when exercising this power of discretion. Of course while discretion might appear to be subjective when dealing with issues of impossibility matters of objectivity must come into play.

Good to hear.

I await the next installment of your saga with anticipation.

On the other hand could this decision be of advantage to claimants?

If the Judges are prepared to enforce the rules then when ACC is lax and tardy in getting their submissions in on time (as per the rules)

Then surely what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

The claimants or their advocates should not allow ACC an extension of time!

[BLURB]

 Alan Thomas, on 14 January 2015 - 05:55 PM, said:

And there we have it from Kenneth Miller,

an ultimatum with a direct threat of violence.

Have you reported that to the Police Mr Thomas?

If not, why not?

[BLURB]

 REX, on 14 January 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

Alan..

Blurb/Fran/BLUDGER/weasel has obviously played a LARGE part in seeing that all went to plan right through.

When he visited you at your home and was getting undetermined information from you.

The questions he asked of you is vital to write down from what you remember of his visits.

This will be asked in court.

When did I visit Alan Thomas's home Rex?

[BLURB]

18 January 2015

Mr Alan Gordon Thomas

You have stated in earlier posts (here on this forum) that the reason you chose not to give evidence at your (TBP) trial was because you didn't know anything etc.

Do you stand by those earlier statements?

Please provide a clear and concise answer.

Fran Van Helmond
Rd3
Cambridge
3495

[BLURB]

18 January 2015

Mr Alan Gordon Thomas

Re: Death threat against you allegedly made by Douglas Weal

Having searched all the posts in this forum, you appear never to have stated whether you contacted the Police when Douglas Weal allegedly made his alleged death threat against you.

Did you contact the Police at that time?

If yes, when, where and time that you contacted the Police.

Did they give you an incident reference number?

If yes, what is it?

If no complaint was made to the Police, why not?

Please provide a clear and concise answers.

Fran Van Helmond
RD3
Cambridge
3495

[BLURB]

18 January 2015

Attention: Alan Gordon Thomas

Do you have a history of lying in order to seek public sympathy?

This image of you was found in one of your posts.



How did you suffer the bruising seen on your face in the image?

Were they self-inflicted while you were intoxicated?

Fran Van Helmond
RD3
Cambridge
3495

[BLURB]

#13108

I'm not sure if you have your latest Court Decision posted on this thread Mr Thomas, if not, here is the ruling and a link to the entire Judgement.

It was posted elsewhere and by someone else but it seems to have disappeared.


Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZACC 332 (19 December 2014)

Taking all these matters together – the lack of any identified merits, the overall procedural history of the appeals and the lost opportunity to hear these appeals in my view far outweigh any of the grounds identified by Mr Thomas to support the reinstatement of the jurisdictional appeals. As a result, I decline to reinstate any of the jurisdictional appeals. The lack of any specific reasons to support the late filing of those jurisdictional appeals that were filed outside the statutory timeframe would only further support my decision not to reinstate those appeals where the issue is relevant.

Decision

[30] For the reasons set out above Mr Thomas’s application to reinstate his 118 appeals is dismissed. Should the Corporation seek costs on the application, a memorandum on behalf of the Corporation is to be filed by 30 January 2015. If a memorandum is filed, Mr Thomas will have until 27 February 2015 to respond, following which I will determine the issue.

Judge L G Powell
District Court Judge

http://www.nzlii.org...C/2014/332.html

[netcoachnz]

 MINI, on 16 January 2015 - 03:22 PM, said:

NCNZ

Oh how you would love that Mr Netcoachnz, as it has been over two years since alan Thomas and his tribe put up names and personal details about us members on Lauda Finem and you haven't been able to substantiate that one of us have been harassing him or anyone else involved in the vindictive debacle to get alan Thomas a retrial for the tpb. In tact you have spent all that time trying to put us down enough so that we react to give you reason enough to do it.

Nothing I repeat nothing will get you free of the threatening to harm mentally and physically. You and your sock puppets, the list is not long and will be shorter too, once the police get real names for the sock puppets!!

Think deeply before you threaten others on here.

mini

A topic containing Mini's argy bargy has been started in members only, this post is one example that warrants being copied there. Mini has made threats towards netcoachnz which have been *report posted* and the appropriate authorities alerted. Mini is defaming us by saying we have threatened to harm her. As your mate Blurb would say... Have a great night Mini.

[Alan Thomas]

 BLURB, on 18 January 2015 - 03:34 AM, said:

18 January 2015

Attention: Alan Gordon Thomas

Do you have a history of lying in order to seek public sympathy?

This image of you was found in one of your posts.



How did you suffer the bruising seen on your face in the image?

Were they self-inflicted while you were intoxicated?

Fran Van Helmond
RD3
Cambridge
3495

So you are not satisfied with someone else brutalising me
and find yourself having the desire to brutalising again of this thread.

What kind of a monster are you???
What type of the monster would give the above post a Greenpoint? There were three Greenpoint is awarded!!!


When the other trustee of this site was also beaten to a similar levelI note that I he was also abused in the same way I have just been abused.

[Alan Thomas]

 BLURB, on 18 January 2015 - 03:14 AM, said:

18 January 2015

Mr Alan Gordon Thomas

Re: Death threat against you allegedly made by Douglas Weal

Having searched all the posts in this forum, you appear never to have stated whether you contacted the Police when Douglas Weal allegedly made his alleged death threat against you.

Did you contact the Police at that time?

If yes, when, where and time that you contacted the Police.

Did they give you an incident reference number?

If yes, what is it?

If no complaint was made to the Police, why not?

Please provide a clear and concise answers.

Fran Van Helmond
RD3
Cambridge
3495

The police refused to disclose that information against their ACC witness, Douglas weal, in order not to disturb is allegation against the court.

[Alan Thomas]

 BLURB, on 18 January 2015 - 02:33 AM, said:

Have you reported that to the Police Mr Thomas?

If not, why not?

The police refused to make this information available to the court.

[Alan Thomas]

Yesterday, 19 January 2015, I attended the review hearing time and date set down to hear 25 review hearing applications of which the date was set a month ago, each with their own review hearing number.
Three months from the date of application was 16 January 2015.
A week after I was notified of the time and date for the 25 review hearing applications to be heard on the one day I had asked for the reviewer to set down new hearing times and dates so as it was possible to actually have hearings for each of the applications.
The reviewer did not provide me with a written decision with new dates and the three months expired 16 January 2015 from the date of the applications I have formed the opinion that from that date the reviewer was no longer entitled to seek new dates.
Yesterday we started the 25 but only 3 were heard.
Even though 4 hours was set for the 25 my doctor had written to the ACC and reviewer insisting that my limit was only two hours so after two hours I left. I followed by doctors instructions exactly as the previous week I had been taken to hospital for a suspected stroke which undoubtedly was the result of me was a myself beyond my capacity preparing the review hearing submissions.
The reviewer states that he would like to continue somehow with the balance of the review hearings on another day.

What is the opinion of the forum regarding the legality of the reviewer setting a new dates beyond the three months?
Please make reference to the appropriate portion of legislation and give reasons.

[netcoachnz]

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 07:28 AM, said:

Yesterday, 19 January 2015, I attended the review hearing time and date set down to hear 25 review hearing applications of which the date was set a month ago, each with their own review hearing number.
Three months from the date of application was 16 January 2015.
A week after I was notified of the time and date for the 25 review hearing applications to be heard on the one day I had asked for the reviewer to set down new hearing times and dates so as it was possible to actually have hearings for each of the applications.
The reviewer did not provide me with a written decision with new dates and the three months expired 16 January 2015 from the date of the applications I have formed the opinion that from that date the reviewer was no longer entitled to seek new dates.
Yesterday we started the 25 but only 3 were heard.
Even though 4 hours was set for the 25 my doctor had written to the ACC and reviewer insisting that my limit was only two hours so after two hours I left. I followed by doctors instructions exactly as the previous week I had been taken to hospital for a suspected stroke which undoubtedly was the result of me was a myself beyond my capacity preparing the review hearing submissions.
The reviewer states that he would like to continue somehow with the balance of the review hearings on another day.

What is the opinion of the forum regarding the legality of the reviewer setting a new dates beyond the three months?
Please make reference to the appropriate portion of legislation and give reasons.

Looking at the situation from a purely pragmatic view it makes sense that if there were only 3 reviews heard thus leaving 22 unheard, that in order to adequately address these 22; then additional time should be allocated. This view may not be what the legislation prescribes. We will have to re read part 5 of Act and try and find any caselaw. We will get back to you Alan.

[netcoachnz]

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 07:20 AM, said:

The police refused to make this information available to the court.

Alan, this does not answer Blurb's question. You had made the comment that Tomcat had threatened you violence in a recent posting within this topic, Blurb asked you if you had reported Tomcat to the NZ Police for this recent threat.

[netcoachnz]

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

So you are not satisfied with someone else brutalising me
and find yourself having the desire to brutalising again of this thread.

What kind of a monster are you???
What type of the monster would give the above post a Greenpoint? There were three Greenpoint is awarded!!!


When the other trustee of this site was also beaten to a similar levelI note that I he was also abused in the same way I have just been abused.

We have *report posted* Blurb for his personal attack upon Alan Thomas. Blurb's original posting now has 7 green positive points, must be Blurb plus his many monikers and/ or his many sock puppets.

[Alan Thomas]

 netcoachnz, on 20 January 2015 - 08:23 AM, said:

Looking at the situation from a purely pragmatic view it makes sense that if there were only 3 reviews heard thus leaving 22 unheard, that in order to adequately address these 22; then additional time should be allocated. This view may not be what the legislation prescribes. We will have to re read part 5 of Act and try and find any caselaw. We will get back to you Alan.

I think if we were taken the pragmatic view the best solution would be a mediation conference.
After all the 25 issues are covered claimant right issues involving ACC failure tto communicate and provide information.

Clearly plots and counter plots must have been afoot in conjunction with predetermined outcomes for the ACC, fairway and the reviewer to be anticipating 25 matters could be heard on the same day which to me is a fair indication that the past history would be a good indication of the future.

The nature of my question really addresses what the law says so as I can benefit from whatever protection law offers me.
What is the law?
and
how my best able to obtain the best advantage from it?

[Alan Thomas]

 netcoachnz, on 20 January 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Alan, this does not answer Blurb's question. You had made the comment that Tomcat had threatened you violence in a recent posting within this topic, Blurb asked you if you had reported Tomcat to the NZ Police for this recent threat.

Sorry I have no interest in reading brands postings very carefully. I thought he was referring to another episode.
Sadly the police have demonstrated on repeated occasions that I other servants of the ACC as opposed to servants of the public. I will need to instigate private criminal prosecutions. As there is no time limit on private criminal prosecutions I will simply let them accumulate into the more once.The benefit of approaching it this way is that there will be a firm history of repeated behaviour following a lifetime of crime. This way it should be able to yield the maximum sentence for the conviction.

[Alan Thomas]

 netcoachnz, on 20 January 2015 - 08:33 AM, said:

We have *report posted* Blurb for his personal attack upon Alan Thomas. Blurb's original posting now has 7 green positive points, must be Blurb plus his many monikers and/ or his many sock puppets.

Thank you for that.
Yes I to reported the post.

Yes it does appear to be extremely odd that such an evil post should receive so many green points. I would hate to think there were seven different people with this type of mindset living in New Zealand let alone posting in this site.
Perhaps Fran can shed some light on why he thinks there are so many green points.

[Tomcat]

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2015 - 07:16 AM, said:

So you are not satisfied with someone else brutalising me
and find yourself having the desire to brutalising again of this thread.

What kind of a monster are you???
What type of the monster would give the above post a Greenpoint? There were three Greenpoint is awarded!!!


When the other trustee(PAUL SUTTON) of this site was also beaten to a similar levelI note that I he was also abused in the same way I have just been abuse

/>/>....LIAR FRAUDSTER PERVERT...... BOTH YOU AND PAUL SUTTON WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT BULLSHIT...