ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 431
  • 432
  • 433
  • 434
  • 435
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#8641 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 10:36 AM

 David Butler, on 19 January 2014 - 02:52 PM, said:

Agaln Fran has shown within here many years ago -that he was able to work at computing for quite some lenghty hours which he freely admitted within a work assessment that the acc asked him to partake in
whether fran now claims his injuries prevent him from working -THEN THAT seems a rather odd situation
he can work at computers documented at that -THEN on the other hand hes claiming he cant work and needs retraining
Seems as from Fran that his claim has been denied as an accident injury anyways
But whatever the issue is that fran moans about
hes showed he can work
WHY is he not out doing some WORK instead of bludging siting at home using computers day and nite [which he claims to all and winz-hes re training in the use of computersPosted Imageor maybe as Rex has hinted at he is on winz re Mental health issues as his injuries dot seem to affect WHAT IS AN ABILITY TO GAIN AN EMPLOYMENT] his computerizing at all.
PLENTY OF WORK around with the use of computers even using just the basics[WHICH FRAN HAS SHOW HES WELL ABOVE THE BASIC LEVEL]http://accforum.org/...efault/wink.gif

BULLSHIT LAND IS WHERE FRAN LIVES.

Dave


Fran's WORK in not computers.
He has to be assessed back to his old job before any one even start rehab into anything including computers.
2

#8642 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 10:36 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 10:31 AM, said:

I did not.

How could I?


You and Cooke HAD the information required Alan

There is NO How Could I to be needed in any equation you come back with
The FACT IS
You had the information available to yourself and moreso to your Barrister Nigel Cooke
You NOW publish and have done so for a long time
The How could I Bullshit -along with the ''I had no defense'' which is also bullshit Alan

WHY DID YOU NOT USE WHAT YOU HAD MADE AVAILBLE TO YOU.
Dave
2

#8643 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 10:42 AM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 10:36 AM, said:

You and Cooke HAD the information required Alan

There is NO How Could I to be needed in any equation you come back with
The FACT IS
You had the information available to yourself and moreso to your Barrister Nigel Cooke
You NOW publish and have done so for a long time
The How could I Bullshit -along with the ''I had no defense'' which is also bullshit Alan

WHY DID YOU NOT USE WHAT YOU HAD MADE AVAILBLE TO YOU.
Dave


The police said to the judge that you did not want to come to court to present these documents.

They were not my documents so I can't present them.
2

#8644 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 10:46 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

The police said to the judge that you did not want to come to court to present these documents.

They were not my documents so I can't present them.


What day / date /year and which policeman said that Alan?



dave
1

#8645 User is offline   RedFox 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 248
  • Joined: 11-March 13
  • LocationNorth of Christchurch

Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:12 AM

More double standards from the forum resident policeman.

 netcoachnz, on 19 January 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

<snip>
This is an admission that Blurb has no respect for privacy of his fellow forum members, he allows screenshots from the members only section to be placed within a website that he owns and operates.
<snip>

I note Alan Thomas made the following statement.

 Alan Thomas, on 19 January 2014 - 11:26 AM, said:

Rex I have gone through Blurb (Fran) case very carefully. He is certainly injured to the point that he can no longer carry out the work task activities of his preinjury occupation safely. It is noteworthy to state that he has defied the advice of his medical treatment provider by carrying out some of those tasks which undoubtedly put at risk of further harm which the ACC would not be obliged to be liable for as it would come under the category of self harm. It is these types of things that have led a significant number of people, including the ACC, believe that he is not injured simply because he works while injured from time to time. Over the years he has got worse. This could be spontaneous degeneration because of the original injury or he is aggravating that original injury. He has had additional injuries along the way which has certainly aggravated the original injury with the ACC attempting to pay him compensation based on the new injuries rather than the original injury.

Rex we have to acknowledge that a significant portion of the New Zealand population do not understand ACC legislation at all and tend to focus their minds on how decisions are influenced as opposed to the criteria for decisions. Blurb (Fran) is one of these people who has a belief system that is driven by impressions. This decision-making process is of course not logical and even irrational. It mirrors the style decision processes seen within the ACC which gives him confidence that his way of approaching life is right. We see lots of claimants on this site adopting this rationale when interpreting the world around them. When such a person is injured and disorientated the decision-making processes become worse where they lash out at all and sundry including those who are attempting to help which in this case is me. It is for this reason blurb (Fran) attacks me. I have helped in the best way I know how with applying the law as seen by the senior judiciary including pertinent judicial decisions to the facts of this case.

I have researched and presented this case on his behalf. Unfortunately there is a driving force or cloud that hangs above me at work That influences anything presented by myself. The negative outcome from such an irrelevant cloud hangs over me has made Blub very angry at me causing him to go on the attack. This is also common with others including Douglas Weal and Kenneth Miller. Although the three, and others, have nothing in common with each other a collective mentality has developed to make me responsible for their woes. This common denominator between these previously unassociated people with the same irrational approach to life is of course extraordinarily dangerous to good order.

It is of courseAnd the ACC interest that the typical mindset of people like blub are encouraged rather than discouraged people like myself are brutally attacked using such ones. My experience with people like blurb is that ultimately the ACC takes advantage of their a rational assumptions and conclusions in order to achieve a criminal prosecution with the most recent being plotted in conspiring to blow up the branch investigating Douglas weal for fraud at the exact same time I am about to present to the court my submissions appealing a decision made based on others making equally irrational assumptions that I was working when I was actually observed complying with the ACC direction to work on the development of business plans as part of rehabilitation.

The question I would pose to you Rex is what can we do about the "blurbs" of this world? The difficulty is how do you bring logic into the lives of the irrational?

Now that netcoach is a breach of privacy by frans advocate.

If I were fran I'd be making a complaint to the Privacy commissioner.
1

#8646 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 11:43 AM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

What day / date /year and which policeman said that Alan?



dave


On the day of the recall of the witnesses, which the judge wanted you to be added, the prosecutor claimed that you have refused to attend.
2

#8647 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 12:19 PM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

What day / date /year and which policeman said that Alan?



dave



 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

On the day of the recall of the witnesses, which the judge wanted you to be added, the prosecutor claimed that you have refused to attend.




SO EXACTLY WHEN [day/date/year ] WAS THAT Recall hearing date Alan?

Dave
1

#8648 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:15 PM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 12:19 PM, said:

SO EXACTLY WHEN [day/date/year ] WAS THAT Recall hearing date Alan? Dave


That information has already been posted.

What is the point that you are trying to make?
1

#8649 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 01:36 PM

As you WILL NOT reply with an HONEST answer ALAN
The recall hearing
way way past the actual trial evidence days
ALL the trial bomb plot prosecution evidence -and OBVIOUSLY YOUR OWN LACK OF DEFENSE DOCUMENTS -which you CHOSE=NOT TO USE'' was all done before any recall hearing was set sown,
Now
YOUR OUT HERE CLAIMING THAT you had no defense as you couldnt place that documentation before the courts yourself
WHY DID YOU NOT Ensure that the evidence was used when it should have been
WELL before any recall hearings
YOU HAD THE DOCUMENTS
YOU SIMPLY FAILED TO PRESENT THEM TO THE COURTS AS YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO DO
WHY NOT Alan
Otherwise all your claims of being a victim are well washed away
You ca tell me why you NEVER PRESENTED DOCUMENTATION to the court in the ''proper manner'' cant you??
dave
2

#8650 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:02 PM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

As you WILL NOT reply with an HONEST answer ALAN
The recall hearing
way way past the actual trial evidence days
ALL the trial bomb plot prosecution evidence -and OBVIOUSLY YOUR OWN LACK OF DEFENSE DOCUMENTS -which you CHOSE=NOT TO USE'' was all done before any recall hearing was set sown,
Now
YOUR OUT HERE CLAIMING THAT you had no defense as you couldnt place that documentation before the courts yourself
WHY DID YOU NOT Ensure that the evidence was used when it should have been
WELL before any recall hearings
YOU HAD THE DOCUMENTS
YOU SIMPLY FAILED TO PRESENT THEM TO THE COURTS AS YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO DO
WHY NOT Alan
Otherwise all your claims of being a victim are well washed away
You ca tell me why you NEVER PRESENTED DOCUMENTATION to the court in the ''proper manner'' cant you??
dave


The trials addressing the defamation of my character will be addressed first.
That will be followed by the perjury together with the conspirators to that perjury.

Only then will there be an appeal against the Takapuna bomb plot conviction.
1

#8651 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:21 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

The trials addressing the defamation of my character will be addressed first.
That will be followed by the perjury together with the conspirators to that perjury.

Only then will there be an appeal against the Takapuna bomb plot conviction.


You have AVOIDED the response to the question Alan
WHY do you always do that re the plot
You FAILED to provide ANY defense documentation and now you blame everyone else for the conviction which keeps this place running on nasty libel slander abuse Much to yur amusement it would seem
As The Victim ROLE that you play -At the expense of forum members Then i guess the truth would stuff that position up somewhat?
What you should be saying is
YOU GAVE NO EVIDENCE TO THE COURTS as a defense
WHEN YOU HAD IT ALL IN YOUR HANDS BUT NEVER USED IT
A civil case re defamation wont make a scrap of difference to the Plots convictions

You really think that a civil case would alter what has been said about you and then overturn the Plots conviction
Your a JOKE Alan
And im for one not being involved in your own jokes.


NOW again Alan

Did you AND you Barrister or did you both NOT have documents available to you to use in court at the start if the trial and be in possession of that documents during the trials life until your sentencing day.?


Im ''STATING'' ''AS A FACT'' that you BOTH DID IN FACT have documents to use in court=and you both failed to use what was available.
WHAT is your answer to that Alan???

Dave
2

#8652 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:44 PM

David Butler
All of these things that you see as points of interest are totally irrelevant to the victim. The expectation is all those who believe the victim is innocent should rush to support the victim and nurture the victim and do whatever they can to restore the victim.

What is the point of your questions?
What are you trying to achieve?
0

#8653 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:03 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 02:44 PM, said:



What is the point of your questions?
What are you trying to achieve?


I want to KNOW
WHY
you NEVER placed or ATTEMPTED TO place in a PROPER manner the documentation provided to you and your barrister before the courts
and
NOW
You claim to be a victim
You WERE a victim and you had the chance to undo that
WHY NOT is the POINT Alan
Aa number of people in here support the cause that the Plot is a sham fairy tale by Weal
You had the information to look into how much of a sham it was YET YOU DID NOTHING
i AM of the opinion that the way you have it is the way you set it out to be
the bigger the victim the more your poor me you will appear to be
which is WRONG and misleading everyone Alan.
You could have had the trial done properly and if that failed you had an appeal to use.
YOU HAVE FAILED TO ACT IN BOTH SITUATIONS
WHY??

Dave
0

#8654 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 03:22 PM

David Butler you have just been told I cannot present your exhibits. In other words on one side we had Douglas weal making a claim of fact with Kenneth Miller providing a character reference of me to support the accusation while on the other side I was able to say not guilty but I could only put myself in the stand to present my version of events. And nothing ever happened or what ever said there was no version. Just a complete vacuum. On the other hand numerous people have come into possession of various documents, e-mail, Fitzy report and suchlike that could have been presented to the court. Court rules of evidence require of those persons present the evidence. This is not something I can do.

I cannot understand why you are blaming the victim for the way the system works.

I cannot understand why you were not more vigourous in providing the police with the exhibits that you came into possession of but rather withheld information from the police. As I said if you disclose the information to the police the police would have disclosed that two my lawyer and then you could be subpoenaed so you could be questioned about the document that came into your possession. How can you explain yourself? As you only gave a a few fragments of information that indicated that there was yet more information available or a lawyer could do was tell the court about the potential for more information which is the reason why the judge directed the police to bring you to the court.

I do not control the way in which the police prosecute their case nor the way in which the courts work. I therefore can't understand why you are attacking me as the victim. You only make my pain worse.
1

#8655 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 04:47 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 03:22 PM, said:

David Butler you have just been told I cannot present your exhibits.


In other words on one side we had Douglas weal making a claim of fact with Kenneth Miller providing a character reference of me to support the accusation while on the other side I was able to say not guilty but I could only put myself in the stand to present my version of events. And nothing ever happened or what ever said there was no version. Just a complete vacuum.

On the other hand numerous people have come into possession of various documents, e-mail, Fitzy report and suchlike that could have been presented to the court. Court rules of evidence require of those persons present the evidence. This is not something I can do.


I cannot understand why you are blaming the victim for the way the system works.

I cannot understand why you were not more vigourous in providing the police with the exhibits that you came into possession of but rather withheld information from the police. As I said if you disclose the information to the police the police would have disclosed that two my lawyer and then you could be subpoenaed so you could be questioned about the document that came into your possession. How can you explain yourself? As you only gave a a few fragments of information that indicated that there was yet more information available or a lawyer could do was tell the court about the potential for more information which is the reason why the judge directed the police to bring you to the court.

I do not control the way in which the police prosecute their case nor the way in which the courts work. I therefore can't understand why you are attacking me as the victim. You only make my pain worse.



WELL FUK ME
Thats it from you?Posted Image
Its all bullshit Alan
Not the wonder you never wanted anything in court if thats it from you
3

#8656 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 04:59 PM

The powers to be did not want evidence to be disclosed to demonstrate what really took place.

A recap of the facts are that Douglas weal then you material that you had asked for to put on the Internet in an attempt to discredit me.

You send ACC an e-mail designed to discredit me.

Things got a bit out of hand when Douglas weal wanted you to tell the ACC that I was planning to blow up the office where this fraud investigation was being managed.

You refused Douglas weal's request to go that extra step in to a criminal allegation with the result that Kenneth Miller went that extra step.

As I have no knowledge of anything that was going on I am not able to be in a position to provide any evidence whatsoever.

This means that only the people involved with the accusation of me, together with all those who simply heard information it did not reported to the police, are able to provide evidence to the court.



The outstanding question is how can a person who is innocently going about their business defend himself against a conspiracy to make false allegation and the false allegation itself when they have had no connection to any thing that has gone on within that conspiracy?
0

#8657 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 05:28 PM

 David Butler, on 20 January 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:


WELL FUK ME
Thats it from you?Posted Image
Its all bullshit Alan
Not the wonder you never wanted anything in court if thats it from you


Your post has no meaning
0

#8658 User is offline   netcoachnz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3454
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 20 January 2014 - 08:08 PM

 RedFox, on 20 January 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

More double standards from the forum resident policeman.


Better than your triple standards and the unethical behaviour of your mate Blurb.


 RedFox, on 20 January 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:



Now that netcoach is a breach of privacy by frans advocate.



It may well be RedFox, however, there are no professional standards that cover ACC Advocates. We will have to look back through all the information released to this fine forum by Blurb and Warren Forster in order to determine whether any of what Alan Thomas stated was already in the public domain and carefully analyze the Privacy Act in order to give you a YES or NO answer - this will take some time.

 RedFox, on 20 January 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

If I were fran I'd be making a complaint to the Privacy commissioner.


Blurb would first have to check through the information that he has released to this fine forum, he wouldn't want to have "egg on his face" yet again by alleging something that was his fault.
0

#8659 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 20 January 2014 - 08:12 PM

 netcoachnz, on 20 January 2014 - 08:08 PM, said:

Better than your triple standards and the unethical behaviour of your mate Blurb.




It may well be RedFox, however, there are no professional standards that cover ACC Advocates. We will have to look back through all the information released to this fine forum by Blurb and Warren Forster in order to determine whether any of what Alan Thomas stated was already in the public domain and carefully analyze the Privacy Act in order to give you a YES or NO answer - this will take some time.



Blurb would first have to check through the information that he has released to this fine forum, he wouldn't want to have "egg on his face" yet again by alleging something that was his fault.


I am not and have never been an ACC advocate.

I have however investigate people's claims, collated the relevant information, determine the relationship of the information to the legislation and acted as their spokesperson.
0

#8660 User is offline   netcoachnz 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3454
  • Joined: 26-January 11

Posted 20 January 2014 - 08:14 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 20 January 2014 - 08:12 PM, said:

I am not and have never been an ACC advocate. I have however investigate people's claims, collated the relevant information, determine the relationship of the information to the legislation and acted as their spokesperson.


Accfocus are telling a different story Alan Thomas http://accfocus.org/...-org.html#p2954

Further information that tells about the true motivation and ethics of ACCFocus admins


Re: Privacy on accforum.org
Today 13:19:54 Mr Alan Thomas a part time ACC advocate and member of accforum.org yesterday breached the privacy of one of his former clients by discussing his case on the forum.

What is worse is that this breach of privacy is malicious in its intent calling into question the mental stability of his former client in a personal attack.

Resized to 46% (was 982 x 1208) - Click image to enlargePosted Image

Definitely not a safe site to be a member of. Definitely not a person I would select as an advocate.
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 431
  • 432
  • 433
  • 434
  • 435
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

4 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users