ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 745
  • 746
  • 747
  • 748
  • 749
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#14921 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 09:34 AM

View PostMINI, on 08 March 2016 - 08:40 AM, said:

Excuse me Thomas, BUT

An Act to use a document to Name and lie about someone is defamation. Especially if the document used to retrieve the name is a court document that is not meant to be used in that manner.

So are you saying you did not know the Acts when you put the full name of Mini onto this thread and lied about her?

Don't call on others re the law when you have a known record of winning zip doodle in the courts many times.

Mini



Many of your postings has nothing whatsoever to do with either myself or this thread.
I most certainly have not told any lies about yourself.
1

#14922 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 08 March 2016 - 12:34 PM

Again...you have mistaken identity

I do not know Douglas WeaL

I have never knowingly engaged with Douglas WeaL

I have never contacted Douglas WeaL

I joined the forum as stated in Aug 2008

After researching the acc acts and the Crimes act, plus extensive reading of case law I successfully defended 10 separate criminal issues within my brief of evidence to win my own case

I was targeted by a tag team of people with criminal backgrounds,creating criminal harassment under the guise of "clearing Alan Thomas,s convictions"
Ie Royal prerogative of mercy for time served

I have no interest in the takapuna bomb plot other than mistaken identity (supposition/accusations/criminal harassment) and clearing my own name, plus holding those accountable for ongoing criminal harassment

Plus 21 years of backdated compo from acc due to
THEIR ADMISSIONs of MALFEASANCE and Financial Fraud...

Got enough to do mopping up the mess acc created in my life...

And holding every person who crossed me accountable, so won't be running off to the police on Your behalf at all...
2

#14923 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1219
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 08 March 2016 - 02:28 PM

Not wanting to start an argument here, but indeed, I do agree with Alan.

A person can be convicted of fraud for failing to advise ACC of income earned, or providing misleading information and still be entitled to weekly ERC and in my case ACC admitted that as well.

In short as an example, if you were working 10 hours a week, and you didnt tell ACC, you can be convicted of misleading the corporation, If you are earning, ACC must apply the legislation and accordingly work out how much if any abatement is required. Earning 10 hours a week may or may cause you to lose some ERC because it is abated.

Someone who is injured and lets say is working 20 hours a week, and is earning more than pre injury income, is still entitled to receive ACC assistance. It may not necessary be weekly ERC if you are well over the abatement level, but other entitlements such as medications, treatment, etc still flow on because of the effects of the injury.

ACC are required by legislation to issue a decision, and even its fraud unit is not immune from this process, however, as we know, ACC fails to comply with its own legislation which I have seen on numerous cases that I have been privy to.

What is wrong with ACC is they are charging people with the crimes act, when ACC itself has its own remedies when a claimant defrauds them. The most severe punishment in the ACC act is s308 and s310, one carrying a fine to a maximum of $5000 and or imprisonment for 3 months, the other, only a maximum fine of up to $5000. ACC are required to charge a person under there own act, allow that person to challenge that decision at review and DC but as we know, ACC side steps the process that it must duly follow like we are required to do when we challenge ACC, and charge the person in another jurisdiction. There is more to come on this and it aint gonna be nice for ACC.

ACC senior fraud staff member later admitted to me when attempting to nail me for fraud was the fact that all they could pursue was if my correct entitlements were being received and whether there should be an abatement.

On most instances when ACC charges claimants on fraud it is charges laid for providing a false document for pecuniary gain, and the document that ACC relies on is the medical certificate for these charges (ARC18). There is some interesting stuff going on around the ARC18, and this is due soon and if successful, is going to blow away ACC.

So indeed a person can be found guilty of fraud, and still be entitled to weekly ERC or a number of other entitlements.
1

#14924 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 08 March 2016 - 03:15 PM

the key word being...DISCRETIONARY

this is in the 92, 98, and 2001 acts....

the crimes act and new updated acts are being applied in full force...

Alan is now being charged court costs when attending appeals

this shows acc have NO INTENTION of compensating him for 2 severe crimes that he has done time for...

you, as well as i Huggy know exactly the standard and effort to ascertain Burden of Proof....plus evidential standards.....
2

#14925 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:16 PM

NTV
Are you suggesting that it is discretionary per ACC to choose between dealing with matters under the crimes act or the ACC act or both?
Are you also suggesting that whether or not the ACC need to have actual evidence is also discretionary. As I keep on saying to you the ACC had no information describing a single work task activity at any material time so how is it possible for the ACC to secure a conviction?
0

#14926 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:27 PM

Were you actually charged with WORKING as you state ?
0

#14927 User is offline   not their victim 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10829
  • Joined: 04-August 08

Posted 08 March 2016 - 04:33 PM

if you werent working, then you werent entitled to compo as you had no income!!!




so if you are as innocent as you state you are...how come you havent PROVEN THIS???

in 2 instances acc have thrown the book , PI and police at me...

on both occasions i proved acc wrong!

its called evidence....
3

#14928 User is offline   Brucey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9394
  • Joined: 26-January 07
  • LocationEarth

Posted 08 March 2016 - 06:07 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 08 March 2016 - 04:16 PM, said:

NTV
Are you suggesting that it is discretionary per ACC to choose between dealing with matters under the crimes act or the ACC act or both?
Are you also suggesting that whether or not the ACC need to have actual evidence is also discretionary. As I keep on saying to you the ACC had no information describing a single work task activity at any material time so how is it possible for the ACC to secure a conviction?


ACC secured a conviction, so they must have had evidence that you committed a fraud of some kind. end of story.
1

#14929 User is offline   tommy 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 07:27 PM

residual capacities will rear its head again as in work capacities as in vocational rehab, ie if it is vocational rehab in an alternate position to the claimants pre injury occupation here the forum goes again
0

#14930 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 07:27 PM

The Crown prosecuted Thomas -Section 229[a] Crimes Act 1961
0

#14931 User is offline   tommy 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 07:33 PM

allan thomas as you mentioned believes he still has a case of being proven innocent,
0

#14932 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 07:52 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 08 March 2016 - 04:27 PM, said:

Were you actually charged with WORKING as you state ?

Wrong
I have never stated that.
Why do you make a statement followed with a question mark?

The criminal prosecution was for using medical certificates for the purposes of financial gain. the judge reached the conclusion that fraud had been committed given that the ACC had cancelled the claim. The point of law is whether or not the ACC was allowed to cancel the claim. My lawyer did not know anything about ACC law, he was a criminal barrister. Three times throughout the seven-week trial he attempted to resign telling the court that it was not fair to me that he did not know how to defend in an ACC issue. The judge told that it was not the court problem.

ACC cancelled my claim without being allowed under the legislation to do so. After the conviction they acknowledged that they were not allowed to cancel a claim but failed to produce a new letter containing the actual details required by the act identifying what had effectively become suspension of ERC only. The ACCs legal adviser provided a memo to my file to the effect that the ACC were not allowed to either cancel or suspend my entitlements based on an allegation of working but could only at best carry out an abatement of earnings calculation.
1

#14933 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 07:56 PM

View Postnot their victim, on 08 March 2016 - 04:33 PM, said:

if you werent working, then you werent entitled to compo as you had no income!!!




so if you are as innocent as you state you are...how come you havent PROVEN THIS???

in 2 instances acc have thrown the book , PI and police at me...

on both occasions i proved acc wrong!

its called evidence....


You seem to be confused
my earnings prior to the injury was in the top 3% of New Zealanders as result of the work that I was doing.

After I was injured and could not work the ACC imagined that I was working because the businesses I owned continued to function. There were paid managers and other staff.
I was a director who had delegated all of the work task activity for the duration of my injuries.

The ACC already had all of the information supporting my claim and when they thought I was working they even obtain search warrants, I think about 12 or 14 search warrants, but still could not find a single work task activity at any material time and neither could they find any earnings generated from myself despite the companies generating seven figure sums. But the search warrants in the ACC forensic accountant proved beyond reasonable doubt that I was neither working nor earning.. However the ACC kept on telling the court that they possessed information that I was working despite never disclosing such information to the court for examination or challenged by myself.

Okay so the situation is that both you and I have actual evidence so then what are you imagining the difference could possibly be between yourself and I?
1

#14934 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 08:01 PM

View PostBrucey, on 08 March 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

ACC secured a conviction, so they must have had evidence that you committed a fraud of some kind. end of story.


Yes the ACC had the evidence of themselves as the authorised decision maker to determine whether or not I was entitled. The ACC had made a decision that I was not entitled which was the primary exhibit. The ACC decision was challenged by way of review hearing by the reviewer adjourned because the ACC had not disclose the alleged work activity to enable me to challenge the ACC's decision. The reviewer then went on to maker his without reconvening the hearing meaning that I had no review hearing. The ACC venues the reviewers decision which was not to disturb the ACC's decision is the second element of evidence. Other evidence that the ACC presented was the fact that I owned numerous companies, the companies were generating income, I was a director and suchlike which went on for six weeks without actually describing any work or any actual material evidence that they claim to have relied upon for the decision.

This Internet site exists because of injustices of this sort whereby ACC make decisions mostly with out reliable evidence however in my case there was no evidence. This particularly important when the ACC legislation requires that the evidenc as to whether or not I could work to be medical evidence. All of the ACC provided was speculation an assumption which of course doesn't reach the threshold of being any sort of evidence.
1

#14935 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 08:10 PM

View Posttommy, on 08 March 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

residual capacities will rear its head again as in work capacities as in vocational rehab, ie if it is vocational rehab in an alternate position to the claimants pre injury occupation here the forum goes again


Tommy as I understand it the ACC thought that I was successfully rehabilitated into a new occupation. The occupations that they had speculated was company manager and immigration consultant. It seems that they thought I was a company manager because I was a director. From what I understand it seems that frontline ACC staff not comprehend the difference between a director and a company manager. In my case because I could not work I continue to be a director of various companies and as director had delegated all my duties out to the acting employed manager. One of those managers was one of the ACC informants who they got to say to the court that I was working. On cross-examination he agreed that he had not only lied to the ACC but to the criminal prosecution and to the judge on that very morning when being presented by the ACC legal counsel. He claimed that he was not the manager yet when providing the managerial type tasks together with the business cards that he had handed out there could be no doubting that he was the manager. The questions led to him confessing to the court that he had lied (perjury)

As for vocational rehabilitation my claim was under the 1982 act of which I had won review hearing decisions to the effect that I would remain permanently incapacitated unless the ACC funded reconstructive surgery and that the surgery was actually successful to return me to my preinjury occupation. In that environment the ACC was not permitted to make any funding towards vocational rehabilitation into a new occupation and was bound by the 1982 act that did not have the concept of vocational rehabilitation as those in that situation were not entitled to vocational rehabilitation in any way or form under the 1992 act. Nonetheless the ACC gave an ultimatum that unless I participated in a vocational rehabilitation plan into a new occupation they would suspend my ERC. I was required to produce business plans to the effect that I would be included in one of the businesses I oowned or some other activity. The ACC continue to get extremely angry when the business plan showed that once I had the surgery there would be a job waiting for me. Separately in my correspondence to the ACC they were informed that I have no intention of working in a new occupation and would only return to my preinjury occupation which place me as the principal designer within my own company. As I had no managerial experience my own company had traditionally been managed by an employed manager.

The problem with the ACC decision was that they took the view that I lead rehabilitated into a new occupation without putting me through the vocational rehabilitation assessment procedure which comes at the end of a successful period of rehabilitation.. The ACC simply leapfrog past this legislated requirement is the regulations they were required to produce under the 1992 act had not been prepared at that stage rendering it impossible for the ACC to determine any kind of success into a new occupation make it impossible to cancel entitlements let alone the whole claim. It seems then that the ACC later change their decision to that of no longer incapacitated to return to the preinjury occupation however there was no information on my ACC files describing what that preinjury occupation entailed rendering it impossible for the ACC to have made such a decision as they did not have the necessary medical reports to describe a recovery from my injuries without the required surgery or what standard of fitness was required for my preinjury occupation. In other words the ACC simply lied or committed perjury to both criminal and civil courts.

Tommy sadly you are right in as much as members of the site are not reading the information provided to them and seem to get carried away in their quest to attack and harass rather than to be helpful. Thank you for bringing this to the attention of our fellow members.
1

#14936 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 08:12 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 08 March 2016 - 07:27 PM, said:

The Crown prosecuted Thomas -Section 229[a] Crimes Act 1961


Wrong again

The Crown did not prosecute me.

The ACC conducted a private criminal prosecution with the private investigator laying the charges and supervising the entire trial. When any anomalies were addressed during the trial regarding the prosecution they were addressed to the private investigator, not the Crown prosecutor. The ACC did however improperly the Crown prosecutor in their capacity as the barristers representing the ACC.

David Butler why is it that you do not read the information you have been provided which is quite important for a person such as you who claims to know so much about the case.
1

#14937 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 08:16 PM

View Posttommy, on 08 March 2016 - 07:33 PM, said:

allan thomas as you mentioned believes he still has a case of being proven innocent,


Obviously if my hand is not attached to my arm by the orthopaedic structural elements there is no possibility I could have had the capacity let alone returned to my preinjury occupation. Added to this I have only recently had orthopaedic surgery which took the form of an artificial wrist joint which is seen in the Avatar attached.

Given the physical impossibility that I could have worked and the ACC now confessing that they never had any information I was working it follows that justice will eventually be served with the result that I will be proven innocent as opposed to not guilty. Naturally the level of compensation in such a horrendous situations that have run for a longer period than at a murder conviction will need to be high. In addition compensation needs to be calculated based on what I was actually earning(payable at the highest allowable limit) and there will need to be backdated payment together with interest for over 25 years. In all probability this will be the biggest payment of its type in the ACC's history.
1

#14938 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 08:34 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 08 March 2016 - 07:52 PM, said:

Wrong
I have never stated that.

You have filled this froum with that for a very long time Go back and read your own writings which is wordsmithing Which is why i have asked re that of you-also for a very long time and never an answer


Why do you make a statement followed with a question mark?
What statement have i made
IT IS A QUESTION
so natiurally i place the question mark at the end of the QUESTION

The criminal prosecution was for
By the Crown under Section 229[a] of the Crimes Act ->''With an intent to defraud used a document capable of being used to obtain a pecuniary advantage /namely an acc medical certificate in the name of Alan Thomas for the aPurpose of obtaining for himself or another a Pecuniary Advantage''

.Times 25 more of the same]

using medical certificates for the purposes of financial gain.
the judge reached the conclusion that fraud had been committed given that the ACC had cancelled the claim.
Well you would have a document of the Court to present to us to show that then -so /and Is that what the Judges Decision findings documents state within them Thomas ?

The point of law is whether or not the ACC was allowed to cancel the claim.
That would be an acc court matter wouldnt it-?YOu done that yet ?

My lawyer did not know anything about ACC law, he was a criminal barrister. Three times throughout the seven-week trial he attempted to resign telling the court that it was not fair to me that he did not know how to defend in an ACC issue. The judge told that it was not the court problem.
the Judge very clearly said YOU were the problem there Thomas.

ACC cancelled my claim without being allowed under the legislation to do so.
Maybe they decided your accident informations was a load of bollocks
Same as I think it was so

After the conviction they acknowledged that they were not allowed to cancel a claim but failed to produce a new letter containing the actual details required by the act identifying what had effectively become suspension of ERC only. The ACCs legal adviser provided a memo to my file to the effect that the ACC were not allowed to either cancel or suspend my entitlements based on an allegation of working but could only at best carry out an abatement of earnings calculation.
Seems acc cancelled your claim for reasons other than that Thomas




0

#14939 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 08 March 2016 - 09:13 PM

David Butler I have already explained to you that the ACC laid the charges themselves. They employed their private investigator to put his name to the charges. This did not go to the prosecutor.

You then go on to ask a question in the form of a confirmation of your statement being sought a question mark. In other words you have told me what the information is and asked me to confirm it which in itself was not a question yet you have a question mark. This demonstrates the fact that you don't have all your ducks lined up in a row.

The Crown prosecutor did not lay the charges. The charges were laid by the ACC via their private investigator.

There were 24 charges with two of them being a duplicate one of which was withdrawn. Interestingly I was even charged as if working at times when I was not even in the country. During the time period concerned I was out of the country for almost the whole year yet the court even forgot to dismiss those charges. The ACC did not stipulate any particular information having any relevance to any of those charges and especially while I was away.

Criminal prosecutions start with the accused receiving a subpoena to face the charges. That subpoena was produced by the ACC and not the Crown prosecutor.

The judges decision is based on the ACC accusation and not the Crown prosecutor.

As Tommy has pointed out ACC legislation is restricted to civil matters. However any member of the public may lay criminal charges hence the need for the ACC, a state-owned entity, to have someone other than itself lay the criminal charges which is the reason why the ACC paid the private investigator to lay the charges. When the charges were read out it was made clear that they were originating from the private investigator and not the Crown prosecutor.

Whether or not the ACC was permitted to cancel the claim is a matter that can only be dealt with via the civil hearing, and ACC court matter, which you correctly point out in the form of a statement/question. The ACC asked the civil Court registrar to indefinitely suspend my right to appeal to the civil matter. This had the effect of preventing me from challenging the ACC right to cancel my entire claim of which the ACC's own legal counsel had advised the ACC. When questioned about this in the civil hearing, 10 years later, the ACC staff involved with the cancellation of my claim all confessed that they had no knowledge of the ACC legislation and had not received any training of any sort from the ACC regarding this type of administrative duty of the ACC.

The ACC delayed my right of appeal in the civil court in order to successfully prosecute without any form of challenge at either review hearing or the appeal for the sole reason that they had no evidence of any sort to back up their claim that I was working.

With regards to my lawyer having no knowledge of ACC matters the problem is he was a criminal barrister which never had any dealings with the ACC matters and likewise ACC barristers have no experience in dealing with criminal matters. Senior barristers such as John Miller, Peter Sara and others all agree that these types of cases need to lawyers of both disciplines in order for the claimant to have any possible chance of a successful defence. As I was a legal aid defendant I was expecting legal aid services to fund what was necessary however the ACC advised legal aid not to provide any funding to me with the result that my lawyer complained to the court that he had not been paid and wanted to resign. David I can't for the life of me imagine how you have concluded that I am responsible for this predicament which is so obviously engineered by the ACC by first not providing the information which formed the basis of the allegations (working) followed by obtaining an adjournment which was never reconvened followed by rearranging the different courts to render it impossible to unwind the wicked web they have weaved.

At no stage has the ACC ever challenged the nature of my accident event or injuries. This is because the nature of the accident event and the evidence were overwhelming in the first instance. For goodness sake David my hand was almost torn off you stupid person. Why would you imagine in your wildest dreams that the information surrounding my claim was a load of bollocks. Why do you think because you make these outlandish statements from your wacko imagination that the ACC would be tempted to believe a person like you.

The ACC are required by the act to state the reason for their decision together with both the information and the basis in law for the decision. So then why are you suggesting that the ACC have cancelled my claim then change the cancellation to suspension for some other reason? Surely you have said something out of the blue like that without any information to support your speculation?
0

#14940 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 09 March 2016 - 08:42 AM

View PostBrucey, on 08 March 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

ACC secured a conviction, so they must have had evidence that you committed a fraud of some kind. end of story.


In the criminal case Alan Thomas wrote a letter to the ACC and made out that he had not started his business' at the time. ACC put in front of the Judge documentation signed by Alan Thomas which proved that he was doing business long before he wrote the letter to the ACC.

This is the one huge lie I saw which the Judge took as evidence that he was working and he lied to ACC about it.

I am not going back to find it now but with my background, you actually remember even one instance of a certain case that would have tipped the scales as to innocence or fraud, and this actually did it for me. The jUdge was right to find him guilty as he had found he was lying to ACC about working.

Of course there would then be the fact that he had the cheque books for the companies and the PI's would have grabbed them, when they broke into his offices.

The fact that he was living at the office address and using other address for ACC mail is of significance as well.

It all adds up to weighing the scale against innocence.

End of story.
1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 745
  • 746
  • 747
  • 748
  • 749
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

42 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 42 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google