ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 458
  • 459
  • 460
  • 461
  • 462
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#9181 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 01:12 PM

David you certainly are not relying upon any information from myself. That much is clear because you are claiming fact that are the exact opposite of the exhibits and statements I have made on this site.

All of the claims I have submitted to the ACC are accepted. Of course I received earnings compensation for the June 1989 strain injury because I could not continue to work as directed by the medical profession and despite my efforts to continue regardless. Likewise the wrist claim injury has been accepted and other claims, including the chemical injury of the early 1980s has been accepted.

The only problem is ACC have cancelled my claims without any medical information to support the decision. Neither did they provide a legal or factual basis for the decision which has been confirmed by the ACC during the recent proceedings. Nonetheless the ACC doubt wish to take advantage of their winnings in court despite the fact that they have been achieved based on the original perjury. Given that the ACC is aware of the false information they have given the court they are now significantly involved in a criminal action against me by misrepresenting the situation to the court for their own pecuniary advantage (fraud) to go along with the perjury.

I will say to you again that you making guesses and even joined together with a number of people to give support to those guesses does not create information in any way or form, despite the ACC is proven ability to achieve criminal convictions based on such so-called information.
I cannot understand why a person such as your self would prostitute themselves to the ACC.

You do not have any information that says the same structural components of one injury have been damaged again. That is a lie and you do not have any such documentation. Even if you read something and imagined what you imagined to be true that still does not make it true because it simply means you have miss read something. This is a common mistake that the ACC make because they think in their arrogant way that they know more than the medical profession to the point they feel they can interpret what the doctor was really meaning.

You said something along the lines that I did something long ago, don't tell lies in reference to the absolute physical restriction limiting my capacity known to only four KG which means prior to the surgery my capacity was much less. Your response seems to be a rational, particularly when you provide no information to support your viewpoint. Without information of a substantial nature you just make yourself look like an idiot and an embarrassment on this site. Someone who writes as much is you do should make efforts to write something sensible.

Your final statement "ACC has never asked me to = that's why not" is the type of reply a silly child would try on which of course is never going to work. Try to use grown-up reasoning if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are just spinning wheels and causing the site to fall into disrepute.
4

#9182 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 03:12 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 01:12 PM, said:

David you certainly are not relying upon any information from myself.
Yes i am and your documantation of your isues


That much is clear because you are claiming fact that are the exact opposite of the exhibits and statements I have made on this site.
ahha but you never tell de real truth Alan SO whod rely on your word??

All of the claims I have submitted to the ACC are accepted.
and most TO GIVE YOU erc declined it seems
Of course I received earnings compensation for the June 1989 strain injury because I could not continue to work as directed by the medical profession and despite my efforts to continue regardless.
YOUR CUNNING Mix match time=HERNIA claim with acc or a WRIST claim with acc
Likewise the wrist claim injury has been accepted and other claims, including the chemical injury of the early 1980s has been accepted.
Wrist injury Alan what one??
The only problem is ACC have cancelled my claims without any medical information to support the decision. WHY SHOULD THEY?

Neither did they provide a legal or factual basis for the decision which has been confirmed by the ACC during the recent proceedings.

WHY SHOULD THEY =The judge did that for you-BASED ON YOUR OWN STUPIDITY

Nonetheless the ACC doubt wish to take advantage of their winnings in court despite the fact that they have been achieved based on the original perjury. Given that the ACC is aware of the false information they have given the court they are now significantly involved in a criminal action against me by misrepresenting the situation to the court for their own pecuniary advantage (fraud) to go along with the perjury.
SEEMS TO ME YA DROPPED YA SELF IN IT ALL ALAN BEING OR TRYING TO BE FAR TO CLEVER FOR YA OWN GOOD

I will say to you again that you making guesses and even joined together with a number of people to give support to those guesses does not create information in any way or form, despite the ACC is proven ability to achieve criminal convictions based on such so-called information.
I am NOT joined in with others alan-ya a deamer
I cannot understand why a person such as your self would prostitute themselves to the ACC.
I READ WHATS HERE AND WRITE ON THAT INFO Alan

You do not have any information that says the same structural components of one injury have been damaged again.
I never said i had any info re any actual structual damage as such alan=you twist a lot-WHAT I SAID WAS-That YOU SAID in your claim to acc for a wrist injury placed in the acc files at September 1990 that you RE-INJURED AN OLD ''WRIST'' INJURY and you claimed forr an accident in september 1990 thaT Happened in dec 1989-Long gap year there alan?

That is a lie and you do not have any such documentation. Its not a lie alan-It cant be-ITS YOUR OWN WORDS mate-AND YES I DO HAVE SUCH DOCUMENTATION=as do you.

Even if you read something and imagined what you imagined to be true that still does not make it true because it simply means you have miss read something. This is a common mistake that the ACC make because they think in their arrogant way that they know more than the medical profession to the point they feel they can interpret what the doctor was really meaning.
F'N Hard to misread what is there alan
You said something along the lines that I did something long ago, don't tell lies in reference to the absolute physical restriction limiting my capacity known to only four KG which means prior to the surgery my capacity was much less. Your response seems to be a rational, particularly when you provide no information to support your viewpoint. Without information of a substantial nature you just make yourself look like an idiot and an embarrassment on this site. Someone who writes as much is you do should make efforts to write something sensible.
fUK YA UPSET NOW Alan it seems on to the personal abuse time again ya so well known for in here -slyly as ya do it.
There be NO lies re that above Alan =Again its your own hand that says al that -you DID IN FACT UNDERTAKE TO WORK
YOUR THE LIAR HERE MATEY-YOU DO TELL LIES MATE-Sorry about that but o ya go about not telling porkys-YOU HAVE I DONT GIVE A F ABOUT SOME 4KG SOME PEOPLE CRAP MORE THAN THAT WEIGHTPosted Image So THAT 4kgs BOLLOCKS is IRRELEVANT HERE Alan-you design and make and try and sell.what ya can YOU GOT INTO THAT so end of story

Your final statement "ACC has never asked me to = that's why not" is the type of reply a silly child would try on which of course is never going to work. Try to use grown-up reasoning if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are just spinning wheels and causing the site to fall into disrepute.
Not my problem to deal with acc as much as you claire and fran seem to think i do quite often
if im asked in a proper legal manner then ill have to do as im asked
if not i couldnt give two hoots about ya alan
The sites in disrepute alan BECAUSE YOU as the founder and still the one who pulls all the strings of operational procedures meaning YOU decide the contents as how they are allowed and YOU have personally fd it with misleading mismanagement creating unrest radicalism etc etc Causing Alan a lot of harm unrest financial mental issues to quite a number of people due to your being de man of de accforum.and you wonder why you get taken to task-you cant even be honest in ya own thread let alone with others issues of crap that emanates from within here.
dave

0

#9183 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 21 February 2014 - 03:46 PM

For all new visitors to ACC Forum just ignore any posts on this thread.
This is all historic and today not many actual posters get any ACC weekly payments so it past history.
3

#9184 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:07 PM

You cant handle the truth about the accforums biggest misleader and fraudster i see Greg
ya rather leave alan in here bullshitting all the newbies he catches and sends them to coventry land in acc to be short changed due to alans crap; advice
Alan DID IN FACT UNDERTAKE WORK WITH HIS ENGINEERS ABILITY THAT HE CLAIMED TO ACC HE NEVER HAD DUE TO HS WRIST INJURY
How you read that as being honest then greg
SO THER BE NO BOLLOCKS LIES FROM AAN AND CON TRICKS IN HERE=NOT ON MY WATCH Mate
David Butler
4

#9185 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:39 PM

Mr Butler . do you receive a weekly ACC payment[ ERC.] for loss of income due to any current covered injury.??.
2

#9186 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:19 PM

Is that a prerequisite to be able to belong here greg?
if it is then i be ok matePosted Image
2

#9187 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:41 PM

David you are making lots and lots of claims of fact without any basis of fact. Not even the ACC or the court made such bold and ridiculous statement so why have you taken it upon yourself to say the things that neither the ACC will the court would never dare to say
3

#9188 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:42 PM

David you use the statement "not on my watch" as it you are some kind of watchman of the site. What is worse you seem to be trying to show ACC how to do their business. Now that is odd
3

#9189 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:49 PM

GOOD ISNT IT alan
ya trying to make me a spy like weal and miller did NOW YA HAVNT MANAGED TO CON ME WITH YA BULLSHIT

Plenty questions there above prior for ya alan
ya seemed to have missed them all and avoided them for some ODDPosted Image reason mate.
''ODD'' being the proactive word tonite it seems
I can only but see what others see and i guess that must include acc-as well--after all that is why ya here and the site exists for you to promote what acc said as opposed to what you said



dave
1

#9190 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

David you are making lots and lots of claims of fact without any basis of fact. Not even the ACC or the court made such bold and ridiculous statement so why have you taken it upon yourself to say the things that neither the ACC will the court would never dare to say


So whats the exact things ya pissed about alan
maybe i can enlighten you on the specifics if you could ever actually be specific on/about anything at all
let me know what ya trying to say behind wordsmithing and ill see if i can educate you,
david
1

#9191 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 05:59 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 21 February 2014 - 05:41 PM, said:

David you are making lots and lots of claims of fact without any basis of fact. Not even the ACC or the court made such bold and ridiculous statement so why have you taken it upon yourself to say the things that neither the ACC will the court would never dare to say
Maybe They never knew ALAN
Not much use asking me why acc or de courts wouldnt say such things yWHEN you just never / dont say -what it is they wouldnt dare say
You are such a enigma at times alan but quite the easy Labyrinth to enter and find the end of.Well until you move into the corn maze where you get lost and lose.Posted Image
dave.




0

#9192 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 21 February 2014 - 06:48 PM

All History from the past . why do you keep on posting past rubbish ?.
Let the forum move on.
1

#9193 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 21 February 2014 - 06:50 PM

It wont and it CANT until the truth is sorted re alans issues greg
cant you see that?
been a while sitting watching learning and basically-NOT far to go to the end of the road.
dave
1

#9194 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 21 February 2014 - 07:03 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 06:50 PM, said:

It wont and it CANT until the truth is sorted re alans issues greg
cant you see that?
been a while sitting watching learning and basically-NOT far to go to the end of the road.
dave
move it out of the open forum then so new members don't have to read historic rubbish and the
constant bullshit you all just keep repeating as if that will make any difference to past or future court judgements.
2

#9195 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:00 AM

The Question really is Greg
Should the thread be here at all as in its present form
alan has protested against he fraud charges based on generally the acc act and that he was never medically assessed before he was exited by the ac scheme of acts ect
I dont see him as being exited as re NEEDING being medically assessed as such here
His claim was declinatured IN TOTAL.
which is
Looked at thoroughly again and declined as a policy.
Alan claims acc never gave a reason
The reason s in the word declination
AND The subsequent decision of the Judge in the fraud trial
which WAS
All about An INTENT to defraud which the judge found was there
AS do I.
Your opinion would be ???

>>>>>as to whether Alan even has a right to promote the issue IN HERE AT ALL -as he is in his style version of events as he sees them<<<<<<<
which is FAR different than the actual facts / issue is about.
or
WERE ACC Correct in the declinature
Was the Judge incorrect in his findings of an INTENT by Alan?


My opinion is that he was acting in a manner that Later rather than sooner-gave acc cause to look harder and the courts then found the evidence showed hed been a rather naughty boy
which dosent in my opinion give him cause to promote the issue as he is saying he was hard done by as acc never used the medial assessing on him before dropping his claim
He simply cocked it up and he had /showed he had an ability to do what he always refers to as his preinjury work as an engineer
ALL i see is wordsmithing around any issue that alan is asked about in here and there is NO debate on the actual issue of INTENT as he was charged with-which left him without a claim as he had showed an ability as an ENGINEER-When heh had claimed he had None [engineers ability]
Dave
0

#9196 User is offline   greg 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1159
  • Joined: 15-September 03

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:09 AM

BORING who cares??.
try and find something NEW that has not been 'copy and paste' a hundred times and then maybe
maybe it might be relevant to todays world.
2

#9197 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:44 AM

View Postgreg, on 22 February 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

BORING who cares??.


Obviously Greg you are not aware that more ACC claimants are exit from the scheme based on the ACC relying upon the impressions of their informants which form the basis of a hypothetical fraud prosecution resulting in a surrendering of entitlements than by medical assessment.

What I am saying is that the ACC are using standard tactics to frighten people away from their entitlements because the ACC cannot end the entitlements by way of medical assessment.

This thread highlights this problem.

In short the ACC were instructed by two reviewers to provide funding for reconstructive surgery to enable me to return to my preinjury occupation. The surgery cost $40,000 and ACC did not want to pay so they set about interviewing large numbers of people who were in some way connected to me until they acquired more than 40 statements from 40 different individuals. In reality it seems that they had communicated with more than 100 and gotten information from more people than what they actually used. This includes a majority of people that spoke against the ACC viewpoint describing the magnitude of my incapacity. I have now had the surgery and are underway returning to my preinjury occupation, 25 years after the accident event.

Greg as the majority of claimants being excluded from the scheme are done by way of a threat of fraud prosecution how was it that you are finding this very important issue boring. Are you so heartless to say you don't care?

Greg have you actually succumb to the ACC social engineering and public and propaganda? I did not take you for being such a weak minded individual. I thought your mental capacity and intestinal fortitude was far more robust. Perhaps you need to rethink the nature of the problem and put your weight behind this most terrible problem and help me get even more people out of prison that have been falsely imprisoned than I already have while of course not forgetting securing everybody's entitlements.
2

#9198 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:49 AM

View Postgreg, on 22 February 2014 - 08:09 AM, said:

BORING who cares??.
try and find something NEW that has not been 'copy and paste' a hundred times and then maybe
maybe it might be relevant to todays world.


Read it seems that you added a little more to the posting i have quoted.

If you read through this thread you will find that there exists a consistent theme of fundamentally subservient people seeking to cosy up to the ACC by joining in with the ACC thinking in a spirit of cooperation, perhaps with the objective of being treated a little better than they have been treated. This problem is a social phenomena that has existed down through the centuries. The worst case of such behaviour would be how the Nazis relied upon a percentage of Jewish people who would hammer the hell out of other Jews on behalf of the Nazis for a extremely small extra consideration. This seems to be the nature of human beings.

2%of the population think
3% of the population think that they think
95% of the population would rather die than think.

Greg are you going to have a knee-jerk reaction like the most active on this thread who enter into argy-bargy nonsense copying the same thing over and over rather than think or are you going to join them in behaving like monsters.
-2

#9199 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:13 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

Obviously Greg you are not aware that more ACC claimants are exit from the scheme based on the ACC relying upon the impressions of their informants which form the basis of a hypothetical fraud prosecution resulting in a surrendering of entitlements than by medical assessment.

What I am saying is that the ACC are using standard tactics to frighten people away from their entitlements because the ACC cannot end the entitlements by way of medical assessment.

This thread highlights this problem.

In short the ACC were instructed by two reviewers to provide funding for reconstructive surgery to enable me to return to my preinjury occupation. The surgery cost $40,000 and ACC did not want to pay so they set about interviewing large numbers of people who were in some way connected to me until they acquired more than 40 statements from 40 different individuals. In reality it seems that they had communicated with more than 100 and gotten information from more people than what they actually used. This includes a majority of people that spoke against the ACC viewpoint describing the magnitude of my incapacity. I have now had the surgery and are underway returning to my preinjury occupation, 25 years after the accident event.

Greg as the majority of claimants being excluded from the scheme are done by way of a threat of fraud prosecution how was it that you are finding this very important issue boring. Are you so heartless to say you don't care?

Greg have you actually succumb to the ACC social engineering and public and propaganda? I did not take you for being such a weak minded individual. I thought your mental capacity and intestinal fortitude was far more robust. Perhaps you need to rethink the nature of the problem and put your weight behind this most terrible problem and help me get even more people out of prison that have been falsely imprisoned than I already have while of course not forgetting securing everybody's entitlements.


You WERE DECLINATED Alan and subsequently lost the fraud case against you
which done in your weekly entitlements
When do you start to begin again for entitlements
the origonal or reinjury of the wrist injury?
or
a further on dated claim
most i assume will give you medical treatment if it is so said to be needed by acc assessors
however
your thread is titled and the theme is DECLINIATION OF YOUR CLAIM-Which must be the wrist injury cover for erc
AS You were found to have an engineers ability by de courts and by your own stupidity
dave
1

#9200 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:26 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Read it seems that you added a little more to the posting i have quoted.

If you read through this thread you will find that there exists a consistent theme of fundamentally subservient people seeking to cosy up to the ACC by joining in with the ACC thinking in a spirit of cooperation, perhaps with the objective of being treated a little better than they have been treated. This problem is a social phenomena that has existed down through the centuries. The worst case of such behaviour would be how the Nazis relied upon a percentage of Jewish people who would hammer the hell out of other Jews on behalf of the Nazis for a extremely small extra consideration. This seems to be the nature of human beings.

2%of the population think
3% of the population think that they think
95% of the population would rather die than think.

Greg are you going to have a knee-jerk reaction like the most active on this thread who enter into argy-bargy nonsense copying the same thing over and over rather than think or are you going to join them in behaving like monsters.

My you are a odd chap alan-get out a bed to early or the drugs not kicked in yet?

Subservient
now you know FULL WELL im not subservient as YOU HAVE SPENT MANY YEARS ATTEMPTING TO HAVE ME AS YOUR SUBSERVIENT ONE
Saying Doing exactly as you want in your warped view of the law and the acc system-AND THE takapuna Bomb Plot legal issues and have me as you want and that is -Use your expertise as to what to say and place as evidence.

I listen to you
i read you
i also then read the documentation of the courts trial
and i can not see where you never had the intent to defraud alan-The plot has more tangles of the Thomas -than your fraud issues.
That dont make anyone in here subservient to the acc as you state
Perhaps the strengthen you case in here you would post the Judges decision papers on you being found guilty of intent to fraud the acc
That no doubt would show all the world of your innocence and thus ratify the promoted view of your troubles as you do in here.
I await the next post of yours to include the documents to peruse alan ,as im sure others /and Greg would also read and see your really hard done by by the acc and the courts.
and then you would have lot of support showing the facts instead of your words of your own personal view of the issue. that you wish us all t follow
SHOW US YOUR CORRECT Alan.
You can educate us into correctness re the fraud case alan i assume?Posted Image
dave


1

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 458
  • 459
  • 460
  • 461
  • 462
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

11 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 11 guests, 0 anonymous users