[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 26 April 2018 - 06:18 PM, said:

No you won’t thomas as if you do you have to give different answers now your caught out. 🦆

In all my life I have never lied, stolen, cheated on anyone and don't even get angry. I'm not even given to bad language as is so common amongst those who do not have language skills to express themselves.

There would be absolutely no point in seeking help by deception on the site. That notion is just ridiculous. All that I am interested in is what the medical professionals have to say as that is what the legislation demand as the criteria for determining cover and entitlements, nothing else. So with that in mind I don't even express my own opinion about anything on any ACC documents but rather rely upon the information originating from the relevant experts. So that would exclude idiots like Kenneth Miller, Douglas weal and Dave Butler who seem to think that they are the guiding light for the ACC not realising that the ACC are just using them so they won't get the blame if everything turns to custard..

[tommy]

so to date , alan you mention " information originating from relevant experts ", , can you be more specific , as to date as in how your claims towards lost entitlements , are progressing towards the corporation ,, re 17461 posting

[Hemi]

Alan Thomas, on 26 April 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:

In all my life I have never lied, stolen, cheated on anyone and don't even get angry. I'm not even given to bad language as is so common amongst those who do not have language skills to express themselves.

There would be absolutely no point in seeking help by deception on the site. That notion is just ridiculous. All that I am interested in is what the medical professionals have to say as that is what the legislation demand as the criteria for determining cover and entitlements, nothing else. So with that in mind I don't even express my own opinion about anything on any ACC documents but rather rely upon the information originating from the relevant experts. So that would exclude idiots like Kenneth Miller, Douglas weal and Dave Butler who seem to think that they are the guiding light for the ACC not realising that the ACC are just using them so they won't get the blame if everything turns to custard..

Bollocks
You avoided the issue and are deceptive
Your post showed that.
You stated you had no documents and threatened others to give them to the police
You had the documents Thomas

You lied
$100.00 please.
You are correct tho
Waste a time being in this site looking for help that you do seek from others in here as you are using deceptive means.

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 26 April 2018 - 08:41 PM, said:

so to date , alan you mention " information originating from relevant experts ", , can you be more specific , as to date as in how your claims towards lost entitlements , are progressing towards the corporation ,, re 17461 posting

Tommy relevant experts other ones referred to in the ACC legislation. The legislated criteria restricts ACC from only receiving information from relevant experts. While the ACC might choose their experts fact remains that the experts must meet the legislated criteria. For example a registered medical professional to determine whether or not someone is injured and incapacitated to carry out certain physical activity. Occupational assessors are the only ones permitted to provide the medical assessor a list of those occupational work task activities.

While that is the legal situation we do find that the ACC routinely disregard the legislation and make their decisions based on their own instincts or what they claim to be common sense. The ACC have argued this point in court and lost. The more recent caselaw involved is Burnett versus ACC about 10 years ago but this point of law is long-standing and goes back to the beginning of the ACC legislation.
As you will know the ACC cancelled my claim based on what they claimed to be information. rt that they use the right type of information and decision making process to cancel my claim and therefore claim that I had committed fraud based entirely upon their claim to follow the proper legislated procedure. The factors they didn't use the proper procedure. When I appealed in the civil court I argued that the ACC had not used the proper procedure and that work was not even relevant information ffor them to have made a decision anyway. Even so the ACC argued that it was common sense that if someone is working they are not incapacitated to work which of course is absolute nonsense as large numbers of claimants work while injured disregardiand injure themselves further. In cases where claimants work while injured the ACC have a duty to encourage the claimant to stop work and even suspend compensation for putting themselves at risk but I do know stretch of the imagination can the ACC cancel the claim and entitlements based on the rationale that a person working is no longer incapacitated and therefore the doctor is wrong. That would be idiotic.

I am currently in the first stage of undermining the ACCs decision process and the courts error by ensuring that the ACC have only the legislated information on my file and are restricted to make decisions based on that information alone to the exclusion of what they claim to be common sense, even the judge claiming his own common sense as the judge of course also is not permitted to make decisions that are not bbased on the legislated criteria. This point has not been appealed at the higher courts as I was not granted leave to appeal.

[Tomcat]

Alan Thomas, on 26 April 2018 - 06:26 PM, said:

In all my life I have never lied, stolen, cheated on anyone and don't even get angry. I'm not even given to bad language as is so common amongst those who do not have language skills to express themselves.

There would be absolutely no point in seeking help by deception on the site. That notion is just ridiculous. All that I am interested in is what the medical professionals have to say as that is what the legislation demand as the criteria for determining cover and entitlements, nothing else. So with that in mind I don't even express my own opinion about anything on any ACC documents but rather rely upon the information originating from the relevant experts. So that would exclude idiots like Kenneth Miller, Douglas weal and Dave Butler who seem to think that they are the guiding light for the ACC not realising that the ACC are just using them so they won't get the blame if everything turns to custard..

. I dont post on here, as there is no point in adding fuel to his fertilizer machine(brain)

The hi-lited bit above has raised great laughter in high places

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 27 April 2018 - 04:17 AM, said:

Bollocks
You avoided the issue and are deceptive
Your post showed that.
You stated you had no documents and threatened others to give them to the police
You had the documents Thomas

You lied
$100.00 please.
You are correct tho
Waste a time being in this site looking for help that you do seek from others in here as you are using deceptive means.

My failure to provide you with evidence of your imagination in no way indicates I have told a lie. Only an arrogant and stupid person could look at the world in that way.

With regards to Douglas weal's imagination which was documented in sent to you I have only ever requested you to surrender that information to the police so as they may carry out a proper investigation in regards to allegations he made to you of which you expressed your concerns to the ACC which started off a chain of events resulting in a false conviction. The only way to unravel this nonsense is for you and others like you to surrender what information they have to the police for examination. Giving me the information does nothing so I don't want it providing the police have it. I'm not going to enter into any arguments with you with regards to your imaginary sequence of events that serve your interest a set of mine or the public good. The only way to serve the public and to maintain the public good is for you to surrender that information to the police.

[tommy]

to date , then to if whom can be as in the aboves , alan is suggesting , hemi is withholding informations , the point to as in then ,whom is going to initiate, a rehearing , retrial , to resolve these issues, ,can you elaborate , hemi , or alan ,

[MINI]

tommy, on 27 April 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

to date , then to if whom can be as in the aboves , alan is suggesting , hemi is withholding informations , the point to as in then ,whom is going to initiate, a rehearing , retrial , to resolve these issues, ,can you elaborate , hemi , or alan ,

tommy

Sorry to jump in here re the post and page I was looking for the page being 242 comes up as "page not found" 404 decline. So some one has hid it and they don't want me telling people like you that he lies and proving it. BUT of course I have it here and at my lawyers. It show precisely what alan Thomas feelings towards Mini was when she was trying to get documentation taken down off LF and here and people to stop lying about me and he was one of them. I can scan the page and put it up here if I can be bothered. But it really is not necessary at this stage as you either believe me or you don't. I have said where and what it is often enough to have allowed you to look it up before if you were interested. when I need it I will get it from my hiddy hole and scan and print it. But the lawyer has had it for years anyway.

Why do you think I couldn't start a proscecution or a police criminal case Tommy? Why do you think Alan Thomas lets me stay in here when others have be disallowed.

And when it came to helping someone in here, a person came for help thru my PM only a couple of weeks ago. I helped that person with what they wanted. There are many Thank you's in my PM that shows that I help people when I can. Of course alan wants either I or hemi/David butler to take court action, as then he thinks he will be able to stand up and go back mega years and make the case his. With mine he would not have a chance to do that as I would object But he may have more chance with David Butler as the main hassle they have with each other is the documents that Alan thinks that David had that will assist him to prove he is not guilty of any Bomb Plot to harm ACC.

I have no documents to help him clear his name so he wouldn't get a chance to get that part of his bothers opened to the courts and so can be of little us to him.

Never mind either one of them can start up a case at any time. I have been ready for a very long time.

Mini

[MINI]

Tomcat, on 27 April 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

. I dont post on here, as there is no point in adding fuel to his fertilizer machine(brain)

The hi-lited bit above has raised great laughter in high places

I don't doubt that at all Tomcat as he has lied and spun his speech against me many times BUT it shows clearly that he is a liar and a nasty supposed human being. He doesn't even get angry when it is one of the list of emotions that every human being possess's. it is what you do with that emotion that matters.

Hope you are well.

Mini

[MINI]

Hemi, on 24 April 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

The plan was NOT FALSE Thomas

you were found guilty of having the plan
you had it
no one else
weal found it
and you were nailed

end of story />

and another end to your other bullshit story of entitlement to erc
3 miles out to sea
in a raging storm
Thats outright BULSHIT Thomas,

butler

Holy hell I didn't know that. Weal found a map with something about the TBP. At Thomas flat?? With a document like that he is fried. But do you have a copy of it. If you don't what good is the information worth. Weal will not come out of the closet just to give you or I that. You have either got it now and it proves that it is from Thomas's computer, because if it doesn't do that again it is not worth the paper it is written on. It must have been used in the trial surely.?? See you do have the documentation that is needed. BUT you don't use it? Why?

Mini

[tommy]

re posting 17468m mini , the fact remains , as in there was no harm done , as in deaths , injuries etc , , as towards corporation staff , as in if the tbp , had reached that goal , in doing so , would it be fair to suggest , as allan received home dentention , i believe , , as his part , which , is a minor conviction , as in tommy,s understanding , would it be fair to suggest what is all the fuss about to date ,

[MINI]

Alan Thomas, on 26 April 2018 - 12:46 PM, said:

Yes mini you raise an interesting point when you say "long before this forum started". You prompted my mind and I recall that throughout the entire period of my injuries ACC has never once answered a single question with actual information relating to that question and neither has it agreed to any meeting for any discussion about anything. For example in 1990 my business partner wrote to the ACC asking if they would fund manager to take my place. They did not reply. I asked the same question and they still did not reply. I asked if I could have earnings compensation so I could use that money to pay for the wages of someone to take my place and they did not reply. I asked what type of participation with by companies was okay and what was not okay or what kind of arrangements could be made regarding some minimal participation within my capacity and they still did not reply. When my surgeon asked ACC to fund a CT scan they still did not reply. Ultimately they simply stopped payment on my earnings compensation and refused to fund the surgery at all which meant the communication had to be restricted to that of review hearings which were found in my favour. Then from 1992 until 1995 the only communication took place was when the ACC was a me to agree to a vocational rehabilitation plan which when I went to the meeting to discuss what they had in mind I pointed out that I was under the 1982 legislation with the result that they either had to fund the reconstructive surgery or rate be as permanently incapacitated as there was no concept within the legislation whereby they could require me to engage in a vocational rehabilitation instead of surgery. Then the ACC cancel my claim entirely again In 1997. So from 1989 until the present there has not been one meeting with the ACC nor any reply answering any questions in writing.

What is the solution to this problem?
As the ACC acted unlawfully has it has not complied with his duty to me?

Thomas

What I am reading is unbelievable. You write, in 2000 you had someone contact acc many time o ask them to pay some one to take your place in the busness's. THAT is constantly telling them you are working. Am I write that the date they wrote the fraud letter was 1998?

What kind of fool are you? OR what kind of fool do you think I am? It is nonsence like this that is part of the reason that I cannot help you. if I have made an interpretation mistake, please show me where and how?

Mini

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 27 April 2018 - 03:02 PM, said:

to date , then to if whom can be as in the aboves , alan is suggesting , hemi is withholding informations , the point to as in then ,whom is going to initiate, a rehearing , retrial , to resolve these issues, ,can you elaborate , hemi , or alan ,

Nothing is going to happen until someone who knows something or has some concrete evidence confirming that Douglas weal conspired with others to make a false allegation of terrorism comes forward to the police as what they have done is a very very serious crime.
Obviously that cannot be me as i am the victim who had no connection whatsoever with the false allegations.Neither had I made any contribution of any sort whereby anyone would even imagine what Douglas weal was telling others could have any connection whatsoever with reality.
Obviously It makes no sense whatsoever to come to me with this information. The only way that this can work is those who have some information given to the police.

David Butler suggestions that he has given me something is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard as it is quite impossible for me to put forward to the police any kind of evidence whatsoever in the form of me claiming to have heard that someone has said something. Also I'm not able to put forward any document in the form of an email or anything that just comes from a printer as that is not evidence at all in any way or form as it can be easily generated by myself and as such will not be believed. In addition the courts just do not work that way. The courts may only take into consideration first-generation information that is submitted to the court by either the person making the document or the person receiving the document from the author.

So Tommy as you can appreciate it is not up to me to initiate an appeal against Douglas weal is false allegation and those who keep repeating his story.
Further it is not evidence that something has happened just because the court has been convinced something has been happened by way of hearsay such as what Douglas weal put forward.

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 27 April 2018 - 05:02 PM, said:

tommy

Sorry to jump in here re the post and page I was looking for the page being 242 comes up as "page not found" 404 decline. So some one has hid it and they don't want me telling people like you that he lies and proving it. BUT of course I have it here and at my lawyers. It show precisely what alan Thomas feelings towards Mini was when she was trying to get documentation taken down off LF and here and people to stop lying about me and he was one of them. I can scan the page and put it up here if I can be bothered. But it really is not necessary at this stage as you either believe me or you don't. I have said where and what it is often enough to have allowed you to look it up before if you were interested. when I need it I will get it from my hiddy hole and scan and print it. But the lawyer has had it for years anyway.

Why do you think I couldn't start a proscecution or a police criminal case Tommy? Why do you think Alan Thomas lets me stay in here when others have be disallowed.

And when it came to helping someone in here, a person came for help thru my PM only a couple of weeks ago. I helped that person with what they wanted. There are many Thank you's in my PM that shows that I help people when I can. Of course alan wants either I or hemi/David butler to take court action, as then he thinks he will be able to stand up and go back mega years and make the case his. With mine he would not have a chance to do that as I would object But he may have more chance with David Butler as the main hassle they have with each other is the documents that Alan thinks that David had that will assist him to prove he is not guilty of any Bomb Plot to harm ACC.

I have no documents to help him clear his name so he wouldn't get a chance to get that part of his bothers opened to the courts and so can be of little us to him.

Never mind either one of them can start up a case at any time. I have been ready for a very long time.

Mini

Mini if you have destroyed email and other electronic communications in relation to a criminal prosecution you have committed a crime. I would suggest that you find the documents that were given to you as is evidenced by the person who gave them to you. It will not serve your case well if you plead ignorance is that is not an excuse. I have warned you continuously over these last 10 years.

[Alan Thomas]

Hemi, on 24 April 2018 - 04:51 PM, said:

The plan was NOT FALSE Thomas

you were found guilty of having the plan
you had it
no one else
weal found it
and you were nailed

end of story />

and another end to your other bullshit story of entitlement to erc
3 miles out to sea
in a raging storm
Thats outright BULSHIT Thomas,

If what Douglas weal claimed was true and that there was a terrorist planned to blow up the ACC for investigating him for fraud then when will the ACC be blown up?

Is there any information of any sort that would cause anyone to imagine that the plan has been cancelled?

After all David Butler you are the one that claims to know everything.

[tommy]

so you are suggesting douglas weal , is a person to then give evidence , alan , re postiong 17473, and if so and when will that event happen alan

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 27 April 2018 - 05:23 PM, said:

butler

Holy hell I didn't know that. Weal found a map with something about the TBP. At Thomas flat?? With a document like that he is fried. But do you have a copy of it. If you don't what good is the information worth. Weal will not come out of the closet just to give you or I that. You have either got it now and it proves that it is from Thomas's computer, because if it doesn't do that again it is not worth the paper it is written on. It must have been used in the trial surely.?? See you do have the documentation that is needed. BUT you don't use it? Why?

Mini

The claimed existence of a map is something that I have never heard of before. I just asked David Butler about that map that the claims to exist a few days ago and he has not replied but rather chose instead to make a diversionary comment in the hope that somehow he would distract me from asking that question again. Mini you spotted the obvious and we are yet to see what documented plan that David Butler claims to exist was withheld from the court and why? It seems that David Butler is withholding quite a lot from the court in the police despite my many suggestions that he should go to the police as quickly as possible.

See you do have the documentation that is needed. BUT you don't use it? Why?

[tommy]

would one not put this subject to rest , and then decide if to be reinvestigated , do so , , and then report back in time , zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Alan Thomas]

tommy, on 27 April 2018 - 05:26 PM, said:

re posting 17468m mini , the fact remains , as in there was no harm done , as in deaths , injuries etc , , as towards corporation staff , as in if the tbp , had reached that goal , in doing so , would it be fair to suggest , as allan received home dentention , i believe , , as his part , which , is a minor conviction , as in tommy,s understanding , would it be fair to suggest what is all the fuss about to date ,

But you are forgetting that there is nothing to suggest that the so-called plan has ever been cancelled. In other words the plan described by Douglas weal is yet to happen.

[Alan Thomas]

MINI, on 27 April 2018 - 05:45 PM, said:

Thomas

What I am reading is unbelievable. You write, in 2000 you had someone contact acc many time o ask them to pay some one to take your place in the busness's. THAT is constantly telling them you are working. Am I write that the date they wrote the fraud letter was 1998?

What kind of fool are you? OR what kind of fool do you think I am? It is nonsence like this that is part of the reason that I cannot help you. if I have made an interpretation mistake, please show me where and how?

Mini

Could you rewrite that with a little bit more precise language is what you have written could mean several different things.

The allegation that I've committed fraud from the time the claim was lodged until ACC cancelling my claim 1997. They were relied upon every single medical certificate as being a false document as the medical delivered it describe me as incapacitated to return to my job. Then the ACC claim that I was working but don't stipulate what type of work that was and what relation that had with anything, not to mention whether or not the legislation supports that type of reasoning, which of course it doesn't.

Mini what the ACC has been doing With hundreds and hundreds Of claimants that own businesses every year Is accuse them of working and then show the my photograph, newspaper clippings and suchlike in order to frighten away from their claims for entitlements.

I don't know why you are calling me a fool when you are quoting wrong information to support your beliefs.

Mini what would help is addressing the core issues which is the legislated criteria for the ACC to determine when a claim is no longer a claim. In other words is a claim ceased to have validity to claim entitlements when the person is no longer injured? Or is the ACC allowed to cancel a claim because someone who is trying to take over the business alleges the injured business owner has been working in the ACC can use that information to overturn the medical facts in some way or form without even explaining what information particular they are relying on and how they have use that information in relation to the legislation?

So many if you look at how the law works in this regard then you will be of help. Perhaps you could help draft a question to put before Parliament.