ACCforum: Total Declinature Of Claim / Alan Thomas - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 459
  • 460
  • 461
  • 462
  • 463
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

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

#9201 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 09:43 AM

 David Butler, on 22 February 2014 - 09:13 AM, said:

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


David the factual sequence is a little bit different to what you have described.
The ACC stopped ERC and surgery in 1991 on the basis that they thought I was working.
ACC did not like the two 1992 review hearing decisions in my favour And instead of appealing they ignored the point of law described by the reviewers and took the view that they just needed more information to make the same decision. In other words the ACC think that they can cancel a claim and entitlements such as medical treatment and ERC because someone is working. This is a false doctrine. If someone is working, which I was not, ACC may only calculate abatement of earnings, nothing more. If the ACC perceive that the work indicates that the claimant might not be as injured as the medical profession think the next it for the ACC is to require the claimant to be assessed by their own medical professional assessors. The ACC do not want to do this when they know the medical reports are going to confirm the same thing as the reviewers had already confirmed in 1992.

When the ACC find themselves in this no-win situation they then embark upon attempting to intimidate the claimant by a fraud allegation. The vast majority of claimants, more than 50%, surrender their entitlements in fear of being accused of fraud. This represents a very profitable mechanism for the ACC to rely upon. The ACC fraud unit based that they are the most profitable unit within the ACC in as much as they convert valid claims into invalid claims.

The ACC cancellation of claim was followed by the ACC preventing any possibility of review hearing or district court appeal so they could achieve a fraud conviction instead and then rely upon the fraud conviction as a legally superior determiner of fact in order to support the civil challenges through the review hearing and district court processes. In my case because I pressed the matter through the ACC complaints unit and privacy Commissioner the acc could not stop the review hearing process start. However the reviewer was asked by the ACC to secretly look at the fraud file which had not been disclosed to me. The reviewer read the file opened the review hearing but adjourned because no information was disclosed to me that the ACC relied upon for the decision. The reviewer continue to have discussions with the ACC and the reviewer then made his decision without reconvening the hearing with the result being that there was no actual hearing of the matters appealed. The application to the district court was intercepted by the ACC with the ACC asking the court registrar to place an indefinite hold on my appeal so that they could achieve a prosecution. The criminal prosecution proceeded with the ACC spending more than six weeks rambling on about various impressions but with no actual facts. In other words not one single work task activity At any material time was ever made available for challenge. So the ACC relies upon informants to create an impression with no information and informants to take any flak if there is any. There was no possibility that anybody can challenge a non-descript impression. If this was a murder there was No Dead Body as in accusation of working with no work described.

With regards to the Start of the claim that determines earnings compensation That is the June 1989 strain injury was placed me on light duties. In other words I went from full-time work to part-time work and continued working part-time not performing the functions before being directed to stop work by my treatment provider (surgeon) for fear of suffering from additional strangulated hernias which of course is potentially lethal. While waiting for surgery I had the wrist injury. This makes the wrist injury simply a matter of interest and basis of ongoing incapacity. The current situation is I am still slightly incapacitated from the strain injury, not yet measured, and grossly incapacitated by the wrist injury, not to mention the various other injuries. Obviously all things are not taken into account mistakes will be made.

The 1974 injury is entirely irrelevant as it is to a different part of my body. I think the mistake you are making David this is a mistake weal made in his report to the ACC on the subject. That is understandable because neither of you have any medical expertise which is the reason why legislation requires the ACC to rely upon independent qualified medical assessment in such matters rather than their own commonsense. My understanding of the doctrine of commonsense is that it has its foundation in a bureaucratically minded person wanting to hold dominance over the decision-making process and that they see the experts as secondary to their authority.

The 1997 decision canceled the entire claim in the same way as the 1991/92 decision brought an end to both medical treatment, earnings compensation and all other entitlements. By 2002 the ACC was maintaining the same stance in as much as it refused to contribute towards medical treatment and even made a request to WINZ that they do not pay for such things as opiate pain medication as it would Bring into question the ACC decision, as described by WINZ notes.

David you make a wild assumption to the effect that you are thinking the cancellation of claim was only related to the wrist injury. That is obviously wrong and that the ACC determined the degree of incapacity for all claims they could not have come to the conclusion that they can cancel everything. To do that would require professional medical opinion which on my file shows both my own treatment providers and the ACC assessors confirming incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation and any other occupation . The binding effects of the 1992 review decision requires the ACC to fund reconstructive surgery for me to return to my old occupation.

The court did not describe and engineers capacity at all. The ACC claimed that I only use the mouse in my preinjury occupation and did not even need to use the mouse in any event. The ACC even put before the court a person who claim that I could do my occupation with one hand tied behind my back. When that person was questioned be firmly stated that my work was far more involved and that. I got a report from the ACC occupational assessors instructor who described to the court the length and breadth of my preinjury occupation and why the ACC assumptions were wrong. But the ACC and the district court judge preferred to ignore the technical expertise in favour of their own commonsense which was based upon no expertise whatsoever. In other words the ACC, district court judge are is arrogant as many people on this site thinking that they know better than those who have spent a lifetime studying, gaining qualifications and experience in order to have a right of a qualified opinion. When putting these self-styled nobodies, including additional court judge, up against the technical professionals in different fields I am appalled at the arrogance that those in power use and how subservience those who allow themselves to be socially engineered by the ACC have become in this increasingly Orwellian society.

As a final observation I am not stupid to the extent that I know who is stupid and who to rely upon for expert information in order that I may be wise.
2

#9202 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:04 AM

 David Butler, on 22 February 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

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




David it is not surprising to me that you don't think you are subservience. Those who understand the nature of social engineering to recognise you as being incredibly subservience to subtle pressure and your desire to gain acceptance in society amongst what you view as your peers. You seek to impress people by telling them what you think they would like to hear to make you more important. For example providing some exhibits while withholding others so you have power of life and death of the judicial process demonstrates a significant component of your personality profile. Your previous subservience to the tagteam arrangement whereby you would receive information in order to fight for someone else demonstrates again your subservience. You do not do these things for no reason. It is to increase your standing in your circle of peers in the best way you think you know how. While you think you have some form of strategy in getting your point across in reality it is quite erratic and definitely emotionally driven as opposed being driven by conviction and principal.

With regards to your criticism of my response to attacks against me it seems that you do not recognise that I rely upon the expertise of those expert in such matters. You have come in conflict with these experts in the sense that you think you know better than they do and because you cannot approached indirectly you attack me.

With regard to the ACC fraud issue you attempt to address the concept of "intent" within the context of fraud. The issue of intent simply does not come into it as the foundations of fraud accusation was fatally flawed in the beginning in as much as I have not performed any work task activity of any sort that needed to be report to the ACC and the actual work that I was involved in as much as I was complying with the ACC direction to produce business plans was then reported the ACC anyway. The ACC case manager failed to inform the fraud unit what type of work task activity she had issued ultimatum for me to perform so as they could distinguish the difference. I certainly was observed speaking to numerous business people, learning to use voice software and Microsoft Office software in order to produce business plans. However the ACC informants were unable to describe what I was actually doing so they are unable to distinguish for the court whether I was complying with the ACC requirements to work on rehabilitation or I was doing some other kind of work. The ACC were financially benefited by choosing what they want to believe. They then followed a process of discrediting me in order to make the story believable which is the same process you use yourself David. You try to discredit people in order to support your argument without your argument having any support in fact.

For me to have an intention to defraud the ACC the first component would be misrepresenting the medical certificates by misrepresenting my injuries to the doctor who signed those certificates. In my case the simply was not possible. It was impossible for me to influence the medical missions opinion as they relied upon Xray, CT and MRI scans together with an actual surgical examination. It is the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence of my are not being connected to my hand that result in the medical professionals decision that I cannot carry out the work tasks of my preinjury occupation. ACC want to put aside reality in favour of informants assumptions. This is nothing short of blatant insurance fraud by the ACC have clearly demonstrated an intent to commit fraud and continue maintaining that fraud as it continued in his wayward course until the present including the so-called bomb plot allegation claims to prevent me making my submissions appealing the ACC decision.

I am not going to show the reviewer, criminal court and district court decisions as they are not representative of any proof beyond reasonable doubt fact. As the legislation require proof beyond reasonable doubt fact the only fact that is relevant is the fact that my arm has not been connected to my hand which prevent me from return to my preinjury occupation. This has now been clarified in the sense that the foundation reconstructive surgery has taken place with my re-entering the workplace with the expectation that I will receive further treatment to increase my capacity. Further proof that there's irrefutable is the increase of capacity up to 4 KG has been achieved by surgery when prior to that surgery there was no capacity. As four KG capacity does not return to my preinjury occupation there is no possibility that the ACC position of the right and therefore no possibility that fraud could exist.

The proof beyond reasonable doubt of my innocence of ACC fraud is in the impossibility of me being able to work in my preinjury occupation and the complete absence of the ACC claimed fact in as much as they presented no work task activity of any material time nor demonstrated any earnings despite vast numbers of search warrants that only revealed all work task activities were carried out by employees of the company's I owned exclusion of myself.

David why are you attempting to argue the ACC case with the same level of irrationality while also adopting the same technique of discrediting me?
1

#9203 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 10:32 AM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

David it is not surprising to me that you don't think you are subservience. Those who understand the nature of social engineering to recognise you as being incredibly subservience to subtle pressure and your desire to gain acceptance in society amongst what you view as your peers. You seek to impress people by telling them what you think they would like to hear to make you more important. For example providing some exhibits while withholding others so you have power of life and death of the judicial process demonstrates a significant component of your personality profile. Your previous subservience to the tagteam arrangement whereby you would receive information in order to fight for someone else demonstrates again your subservience. You do not do these things for no reason. It is to increase your standing in your circle of peers in the best way you think you know how. While you think you have some form of strategy in getting your point across in reality it is quite erratic and definitely emotionally driven as opposed being driven by conviction and principal.

With regards to your criticism of my response to attacks against me it seems that you do not recognise that I rely upon the expertise of those expert in such matters. You have come in conflict with these experts in the sense that you think you know better than they do and because you cannot approached indirectly you attack me.

With regard to the ACC fraud issue you attempt to address the concept of "intent" within the context of fraud. The issue of intent simply does not come into it as the foundations of fraud accusation was fatally flawed in the beginning in as much as I have not performed any work task activity of any sort that needed to be report to the ACC and the actual work that I was involved in as much as I was complying with the ACC direction to produce business plans was then reported the ACC anyway. The ACC case manager failed to inform the fraud unit what type of work task activity she had issued ultimatum for me to perform so as they could distinguish the difference. I certainly was observed speaking to numerous business people, learning to use voice software and Microsoft Office software in order to produce business plans. However the ACC informants were unable to describe what I was actually doing so they are unable to distinguish for the court whether I was complying with the ACC requirements to work on rehabilitation or I was doing some other kind of work. The ACC were financially benefited by choosing what they want to believe. They then followed a process of discrediting me in order to make the story believable which is the same process you use yourself David. You try to discredit people in order to support your argument without your argument having any support in fact.

For me to have an intention to defraud the ACC the first component would be misrepresenting the medical certificates by misrepresenting my injuries to the doctor who signed those certificates. In my case the simply was not possible. It was impossible for me to influence the medical missions opinion as they relied upon Xray, CT and MRI scans together with an actual surgical examination. It is the proof beyond reasonable doubt evidence of my are not being connected to my hand that result in the medical professionals decision that I cannot carry out the work tasks of my preinjury occupation. ACC want to put aside reality in favour of informants assumptions. This is nothing short of blatant insurance fraud by the ACC have clearly demonstrated an intent to commit fraud and continue maintaining that fraud as it continued in his wayward course until the present including the so-called bomb plot allegation claims to prevent me making my submissions appealing the ACC decision.

I am not going to show the reviewer, criminal court and district court decisions as they are not representative of any proof beyond reasonable doubt fact. As the legislation require proof beyond reasonable doubt fact the only fact that is relevant is the fact that my arm has not been connected to my hand which prevent me from return to my preinjury occupation. This has now been clarified in the sense that the foundation reconstructive surgery has taken place with my re-entering the workplace with the expectation that I will receive further treatment to increase my capacity. Further proof that there's irrefutable is the increase of capacity up to 4 KG has been achieved by surgery when prior to that surgery there was no capacity. As four KG capacity does not return to my preinjury occupation there is no possibility that the ACC position of the right and therefore no possibility that fraud could exist.

The proof beyond reasonable doubt of my innocence of ACC fraud is in the impossibility of me being able to work in my preinjury occupation and the complete absence of the ACC claimed fact in as much as they presented no work task activity of any material time nor demonstrated any earnings despite vast numbers of search warrants that only revealed all work task activities were carried out by employees of the company's I owned exclusion of myself.

David why are you attempting to argue the ACC case with the same level of irrationality while also adopting the same technique of discrediting me?


I see ya on de Professors of Albequirie TRIP AGAIN Alan
Ya avoided the issue completely apart from saying you WONT show the court/judges decision in the Intent to DeFraud case against you
Now hy would that be i wonder
you say you think is not proof beyond any reasonable doubt
Thats odd then one ould assume you would appeal that issue
as usual NOTHING-a lame attempt as a showing to keep you on the road to the Londons judges-as like the Plot-another of alans half assed attempt at looking like you try an appeal BUT NOTHING of substance was ever done
Im not discrediting you lan-YOUR DOING THAT JUST FINE ALL BY YOURSELF THANKS.
Im asking for you to show the courts things to say that you HAD NO ABILITY AS AN ENGINEER AND THEREFORE YOU CANT BE AN ENGINEER AT THE TIME DURING YOUR ACC Claim that was declinated.
The problem i have with your claims of alleged innocence is this
YOU WENT ABOUT /DID AS AN ENGINEER DOES and you denied it
whilst you trued to claim erc saying you had no abilities and hid from the acc what you were really doing[for quite some time at that]
now piss off ,stop moaning and show the evidence that you are NOT GUILTY
The Judge SAW what you were doing AS SUSPECTED BY THE ACC Wjo asked the courts to see what de f was going on and seems the courts figured it all out Alan
The Judge said
On the basis and face of the evidence he had in front of him-One document in particular caused this comment of the judge alan and YOU KNOW FULL WELL on that score,
'''Judge says=""You clearly demonstrated an ability to work at your trade as an engineer''>>>IN august 1990 Posted Imageyet you claimed /stated you cant do anything as a engineer since 1989 thru to the day they nailed you and stopped ya erc.
Thats how i read the issue
dave
pp
i really dont know who the f you think you are alan -some superior being from another world sent here to train us all in Thomas doctrines
that type of actions has already got you in the crap for Fraud and already again got you in the crap re the Plot from what i see on both those issues
yet you continue to be a self promoted and self certificated idiot messiah from the land of PRATVILLE
DAVE
0

#9204 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:26 PM

 David Butler, on 21 February 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

Alan
as you consistently fail tp even remotely provide info so that ones can see whats gone on and this maybe accede to your request of help-what are the members going to do
it must be this then
YOU HAD A CLAIM accepted for
a reinjury to an older injury to your wrist Completed as a claim officially made by you ,complete with medical certification and information re the accident in September 1990 .
THE ACCIDENT IN QUESTION initially occurred in december 1989
mmmm 1990 you made a claim??
I do understand that you had a hernia injury around this time but it seems from you that that was all fixed up and you were back on deck so to speak so no further cover needed there.?
Yo CLEARLY STATED-You strained an OLD injury in your right arm as result of a sailing accident-thrown overboard by the said in a storm when you wer three miles out to sea as a lone sailor at that [-the Good Ship Hector one assumes here?Posted Image]
The acc obliging accepted that claim bearing in mind you never provided any independent evidence or medical notes to acc within that transaction of claim data -from that period of 1989
and then LATER
UNACEPTED IT VIA THE DECLINIATION

is that the case alan
A Simple YES or No answer please without the wordsmithing avoidance
Claire if ya round
ya may just find today and the weekend a tad interesting in this thread
times up for alan im afraid
dave


I recall him saying that he was awaiting the tummy surgery when he went sailing. Dont ask me to go find it cause I dont care about his ACC rip off. I wasnt even around or on ACC in 1990. So I dont give a what not.

I am interested in why a case that appears legitimate for this forum has been stuffed off down the bottom of the accforum index, yet Alan Thomas thread up here on its ownsome in the open

How you gonna keep it there Snoopy, if someone comes in and over rides it.

Mini
1

#9205 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:42 PM

David the ACC position in the private criminal prosecution against me for ACC fraud relied upon the assertion that I had misrepresented my injuries when acquiring ACC 18 medical certificates. The question of fact is whether or not I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. The ACC claimed that all the medical profession were wrong because I had somehow deceived the entire medical profession who have relied upon Xray, CT, MRI and surgical examination to determine that it was not safer me to carry out the work task activities of my former occupation.

As to the nature of my preinjury occupation the ACC accept that I was injured by way of an overload injury causing a strain. The ACC were concerned that I had had numerous such overload strain injury yet the evidence was confirmed by surgery so the ACC accepted the reality that my occupation involved heavy work from time to time.

The ACC however misrepresented the facts to the criminal trial. Essentially the ACC board investigator team manage the ACC private criminal prosecution by way of the Private Investigator. The ACC claim management team withheld critical information from the private investigator which resulted in the private investigator misrepresenting matters to the court. This technique of divide and conquer and separating liability is the stock in trade of the ACC fraud unit when setting out to achieve convictions.

David it is clear that you have not read or understood the ACC, conviction decision that they achieved. The judge said in his decision that he had relied upon what he called the overwhelming balance of probability to make a determination. This is quite different from the proof beyond reasonable doubt criteria necessary for a criminal court decision. The judge claimed that he could make such a decision based on the fact that he thought the ACC could make a balance of probability decision And that he could rely upon their decision that my entitlement was no longer valid. Yet the ACC ultimately relied upon a criminal court decision to produce what they called superior information to their own thus creating an irrational illogical circular argument.

This level of irrationality is very difficult for a financially impoverished physically disabled invalid to challenge, particularly since one of the injuries is a brain injury.

I have already told you that I am not the one saying I cannot work as an engineer. I am not qualified to say whether or not I medically fit. The medical profession have all agreed that it is not safe for me to work in my preinjury occupation or any other occupation for that matter except for some light duties that do not involve my right hand so long as I restrict the activity to 2 hours per day fragmented throughout the day. I have obeyed that medical limitation criteria.

You have made the rather interesting statement that you think I was working carrying out engineering activities. Not even the ACC have accused me of that so why would you? Are you claiming to know something that the ACC don't know or are you just being provocative by introducing made up complete and utter nonsense?

Nothing has been hidden from the ACC. ACC were informed in writing about my commercial interests, partnerships, roles as a director and suchlike. Even two review hearing decisions went over the details confirming that the ACC were wrong in regards to determining the degree of incapacity and there liability based on allegations of work/directorship/shareholding and suchlike. Even if I did work, which I did and that does not in any way affect entitlement to ERC or more importantly the whole claim. The ACC simply prefer to ignore the court decisions and continue disregarding the authority of the law in favour of given themselves a discount by way of fraud and theft.

David I keep on repeating myself that the evidence of my incapacity has been and always will be the medical reporting as is required by legislation. Nothing more or less is relevant to any suggestions about any other means to determine entitlements is irrelevant. David your argument is not improved regarding matters of law by ignoring the legislation. If you want to argue this matter you need to be addressed in the point of law. Even with your imagination about fact the legislation establishes the principle by which you are wrong. Legislation requires medical professionals to determine incapacity and end of incapacity. This is not something ACC yourself or anyone else for that matter is permited in law to do. ACC having authority or individuals possessing arrogance does not usurp the authority of the law as we are all equally subject to it.

I note the irrationality of your argument that the judge saw what I was doing which effectively was described by the ACC suspicion of what I was doing. Indeed the judge did decide that he could rely upon is intuition to determine fact rather than the documentation presented to him combined with the ACCs own informants (witnesses) who confessed to the judge that they had lied to the ACC and judge. This means that the judge cannot say I was the manager of my company when the ACCs own informant and witness confesses that he had lied to the effect that he Acknowledged he was the manager and that he had lied to the court saying I was the manager. The judge simply does not have the authority to change the witnesses evidence, yet he did which makes his judgement defective and open to appeal.

In addition the judge relied upon the ACC when thinking that I could return to my preinjury occupation. As the ACC did not know what my preinjury occupation was it was other and total impossibility for the ACC to say that it was safe for me to return to work when the medical profession, including the ACCs own assessors, universally agreed that it was not safe. Once more the judge is not permitted to override a previous review hearing decision that was not appeal confirming that I could not return to my preinjury occupation unless I had reconstructive surgery and that surgery was successful. That decision is binding on all parties, including the district court judge when addressing different issues. The ACC wanted to appeal the reviewers decision they needed to apply to the court for an out of time hearing and cannot piggyback that issue into these proceedings.

In addition the ACC did not have any information of any sort describing any single work task activity at any material time. In other words they had no information whatsoever that I had been carrying out any work let alone engineering work so ask yourself how is it possible that the judge concluded that I could return to my preinjury occupation without anyone knowing what that was and in reliance upon unqualified informants who had confessed laying to usurp the authority and qualification of the medical profession in its entirety.

David I cannot understand why you are pretending to speak like a prisoner on this site. Speaking like a prisoner does not add to your credibility. I would suggest you start writing like an adult. We all know you can so what are you trying to achieve by pretending to write as if you are an idiot? I would recommend that you just rely upon the proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits which is the medical reports and there is documentation that when tired altogether identify reality in preference to a never-ending stream of argy-bargy nonsense imaginary facts based discussion, which is a complete and utter waste of time, unless of course you are trying to discredit me by hiding the real facts amongst utter nonsense.
1

#9206 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:46 PM

 greg, on 21 February 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

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.


The good one looking for help was down the bottom of the first index page in accforum and the poor Fish Hook person hadnt even had time to read it. And guess what, Alan Thomas was only one on new postings. Just were David Butler and Alan thomas want it to be.

They dont want genuine people needed genuine members to be helping them, so they bury those ones away where a newbie wouldnt even think to look.

Discussing manipulation of the system.

Mini
1

#9207 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:48 PM

 MINI, on 22 February 2014 - 12:26 PM, said:

I recall him saying that he was awaiting the tummy surgery when he went sailing. Dont ask me to go find it cause I dont care about his ACC rip off. I wasnt even around or on ACC in 1990. So I dont give a what not.

I am interested in why a case that appears legitimate for this forum has been stuffed off down the bottom of the accforum index, yet Alan Thomas thread up here on its ownsome in the open

How you gonna keep it there Snoopy, if someone comes in and over rides it.

Mini


Mini I confirm I was awaiting "timely" surgery when I went sailing. I think there seems to be an issue because people think that if I was sailing maybe I was not injured and therefore could return to work. People with that doctrinal belief undoubtedly think that if I was working it would be like sailing and therefore I would not be entitled to my ACC claim ERC etc.

The fact is mini that the ACC legislation does not operate that way. Legislation requires the ACC to make decisions based on legislated criteria which is dependent upon independent qualified medical reporting and not curative decision-making which such people use the term "commonsense" decision-making. Legislation for the ACC from being their own experts and as such the notion of commonsense is just completely excluded from the decision-making process. What they need to do that they are dealing a little bit of common sense coming on is consult a doctor. Once they have got the doctor's report legislation requires them to rely upon it. In my case they disobey the law and decided to disregard the medical reporting in favour of what they call "commonsense".

Mini if you think you and other bureaucrats can rely upon their own commonsense then you would need to try and get the fundamental laws of New Zealand changed to that of communism. As the ACC legislation is inherently a Communist based in (socialist) it is easy to understand how the bureaucrats within the ACC are so easily confused.
1

#9208 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 12:58 PM

 Alan 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
The court have already found you quilty of fraud on this one so until you undo that charge and sentence, you cannot say anything different, so I am actually surprised that snoopy would think I would find this interesting.

More interesting to me is the fact that you want your declination out here in front of everything when you are going to have IA soon so you said recently.

You have to be seen to look rational for David Butler, but you cant look too rational or you will never get PTSD or Mental in any way as the Judges think you are clever. And you healed wrist will probably be less than 10% so you be buggered then thomo. No IA, really!!! Cant be can it, who you gonna blame then. And how many more court hours you take up.

Mini
0

#9209 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 01:02 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Mini I confirm I was awaiting "timely" surgery when I went sailing. I think there seems to be an issue because people think that if I was sailing maybe I was not injured and therefore could return to work. People with that doctrinal belief undoubtedly think that if I was working it would be like sailing and therefore I would not be entitled to my ACC claim ERC etc.

The fact is mini that the ACC legislation does not operate that way. Legislation requires the ACC to make decisions based on legislated criteria which is dependent upon independent qualified medical reporting and not curative decision-making which such people use the term "commonsense" decision-making. Legislation for the ACC from being their own experts and as such the notion of commonsense is just completely excluded from the decision-making process. What they need to do that they are dealing a little bit of common sense coming on is consult a doctor. Once they have got the doctor's report legislation requires them to rely upon it. In my case they disobey the law and decided to disregard the medical reporting in favour of what they call "commonsense".

Mini if you think you and other bureaucrats can rely upon their own commonsense then you would need to try and get the fundamental laws of New Zealand changed to that of communism. As the ACC legislation is inherently a Communist based in (socialist) it is easy to understand how the bureaucrats within the ACC are so easily confused.


I dont need to do a thing Thomo one of the h/c Judges did it in the past week in something I was reading. Commonsence raised its ugly head again!! Oh my golly gosh how dare they???

Mini
0

#9210 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 01:07 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 12:42 PM, said:

David the ACC position in the private criminal prosecution against me for ACC fraud relied upon the assertion that I had misrepresented my injuries when acquiring ACC 18 medical certificates. The question of fact is whether or not I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. The ACC claimed that all the medical profession were wrong because I had somehow deceived the entire medical profession who have relied upon Xray, CT, MRI and surgical examination to determine that it was not safer me to carry out the work task activities of my former occupation.

As to the nature of my preinjury occupation the ACC accept that I was injured by way of an overload injury causing a strain. The ACC were concerned that I had had numerous such overload strain injury yet the evidence was confirmed by surgery so the ACC accepted the reality that my occupation involved heavy work from time to time.

The ACC however misrepresented the facts to the criminal trial. Essentially the ACC board investigator team manage the ACC private criminal prosecution by way of the Private Investigator. The ACC claim management team withheld critical information from the private investigator which resulted in the private investigator misrepresenting matters to the court. This technique of divide and conquer and separating liability is the stock in trade of the ACC fraud unit when setting out to achieve convictions.

David it is clear that you have not read or understood the ACC, conviction decision that they achieved. The judge said in his decision that he had relied upon what he called the overwhelming balance of probability to make a determination. This is quite different from the proof beyond reasonable doubt criteria necessary for a criminal court decision. The judge claimed that he could make such a decision based on the fact that he thought the ACC could make a balance of probability decision And that he could rely upon their decision that my entitlement was no longer valid. Yet the ACC ultimately relied upon a criminal court decision to produce what they called superior information to their own thus creating an irrational illogical circular argument.

This level of irrationality is very difficult for a financially impoverished physically disabled invalid to challenge, particularly since one of the injuries is a brain injury.

I have already told you that I am not the one saying I cannot work as an engineer. I am not qualified to say whether or not I medically fit. The medical profession have all agreed that it is not safe for me to work in my preinjury occupation or any other occupation for that matter except for some light duties that do not involve my right hand so long as I restrict the activity to 2 hours per day fragmented throughout the day. I have obeyed that medical limitation criteria.

You have made the rather interesting statement that you think I was working carrying out engineering activities. Not even the ACC have accused me of that so why would you? Are you claiming to know something that the ACC don't know or are you just being provocative by introducing made up complete and utter nonsense?

Nothing has been hidden from the ACC. ACC were informed in writing about my commercial interests, partnerships, roles as a director and suchlike. Even two review hearing decisions went over the details confirming that the ACC were wrong in regards to determining the degree of incapacity and there liability based on allegations of work/directorship/shareholding and suchlike. Even if I did work, which I did and that does not in any way affect entitlement to ERC or more importantly the whole claim. The ACC simply prefer to ignore the court decisions and continue disregarding the authority of the law in favour of given themselves a discount by way of fraud and theft.

David I keep on repeating myself that the evidence of my incapacity has been and always will be the medical reporting as is required by legislation. Nothing more or less is relevant to any suggestions about any other means to determine entitlements is irrelevant. David your argument is not improved regarding matters of law by ignoring the legislation. If you want to argue this matter you need to be addressed in the point of law. Even with your imagination about fact the legislation establishes the principle by which you are wrong. Legislation requires medical professionals to determine incapacity and end of incapacity. This is not something ACC yourself or anyone else for that matter is permited in law to do. ACC having authority or individuals possessing arrogance does not usurp the authority of the law as we are all equally subject to it.

I note the irrationality of your argument that the judge saw what I was doing which effectively was described by the ACC suspicion of what I was doing. Indeed the judge did decide that he could rely upon is intuition to determine fact rather than the documentation presented to him combined with the ACCs own informants (witnesses) who confessed to the judge that they had lied to the ACC and judge. This means that the judge cannot say I was the manager of my company when the ACCs own informant and witness confesses that he had lied to the effect that he Acknowledged he was the manager and that he had lied to the court saying I was the manager. The judge simply does not have the authority to change the witnesses evidence, yet he did which makes his judgement defective and open to appeal.

In addition the judge relied upon the ACC when thinking that I could return to my preinjury occupation. As the ACC did not know what my preinjury occupation was it was other and total impossibility for the ACC to say that it was safe for me to return to work when the medical profession, including the ACCs own assessors, universally agreed that it was not safe. Once more the judge is not permitted to override a previous review hearing decision that was not appeal confirming that I could not return to my preinjury occupation unless I had reconstructive surgery and that surgery was successful. That decision is binding on all parties, including the district court judge when addressing different issues. The ACC wanted to appeal the reviewers decision they needed to apply to the court for an out of time hearing and cannot piggyback that issue into these proceedings.

In addition the ACC did not have any information of any sort describing any single work task activity at any material time. In other words they had no information whatsoever that I had been carrying out any work let alone engineering work so ask yourself how is it possible that the judge concluded that I could return to my preinjury occupation without anyone knowing what that was and in reliance upon unqualified informants who had confessed laying to usurp the authority and qualification of the medical profession in its entirety.

David I cannot understand why you are pretending to speak like a prisoner on this site. Speaking like a prisoner does not add to your credibility. I would suggest you start writing like an adult. We all know you can so what are you trying to achieve by pretending to write as if you are an idiot? I would recommend that you just rely upon the proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits which is the medical reports and there is documentation that when tired altogether identify reality in preference to a never-ending stream of argy-bargy nonsense imaginary facts based discussion, which is a complete and utter waste of time, unless of course you are trying to discredit me by hiding the real facts amongst utter nonsense.


What a load of noxious dribble!!!
0

#9211 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 01:35 PM

 MINI, on 22 February 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

What a load of noxious dribble!!!


Well try reading it then
1

#9212 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 02:13 PM

 MINI, on 22 February 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

What a load of noxious dribble!!!


Agrred
Thomas HAD commenced and kept going as a design engineer and was in the proceed of selling one of those design plans along with the designers expertise in assembly thru to commissioning anf further if needed
this plan was in progress and had a monetary reward
ITS ALL O N PAPER / DOCUMENTED
Alans OWN paperwork
AND THOMAS says he cant be a design engineer when in fact he was and still IS
tHOMAS
YA WERE NABBED FOR
USING A MEDICAL CeRT THAT COULD BE capable if USED FOR A PECUNIARY GAIN -namely acc money as ERC

you mislead lied never told acc what you were doing
YU WERE DONE ON USING Med certs with an intent to defraud
nothing to do with whether you were injured or not here on the fraud
YOU WERE FOUND ON having an intent and tus the Judge agreed
Ya medical bollock never came into the equation as you did what you did as an alleged injured one who said he couldnt work on the forms
you played with the no go back t original job as per that act
You were caught doing that work -you said you could nit do -alan and found guilty of it
along with a host of other activity's you were definitely involved in.
get real and stop telling lies out here
dave
0

#9213 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 02:38 PM

David it seems that you have not grasped the fundamentals of accident insurance(ACC).

My injuries prevented me from carrying out all the work task activities of my preinjury occupation. My preinjury occupation included the was not limited to design manufacturing of components, assembly and commissioning of machinery. The act does not focus on the concept of occupational title but rather the individual work tasks traditionally undertaken to generate earnings. Occupational title is only something that comes subsequent to rehabilitation and until then occupational title is irrelevant.

A medical certificate is necessary to demonstrate level of incapacity. In my case, as I previously stated, the medical certificate limited my capacity to light duties, two hours fragmented throughout the day, so long as those work task activities did not include the use of my right hand. In other words if I was able to earn 100% of my pre-injury earnings while undertaking these light duties I would still have 100% entitlement to earnings compensation with the result that an abatement of earnings calculation would be necessary. It certainly does not mean that I would not have cover or would lose earnings compensation entitlement. I trust this corrects your mistaken preconceptions that would clearly a result of the ACC social engineering which demonstrates you to be a succeeded in person not having the intellectual fortitude to resist propaganda.

With that correct understanding of the ACC legislation you will see why I am perfectly entitled to undertake design activities exactly similar to my pre-injury design activities as the thinking part does not have anything to do with my disability. Had I earned significant sums of money as you had imagined, then of course the ACC would be entitled to abatement of earnings. Even though I registered a medical patent and as many ideas, some of which were secured by registering companies to secure the intellectual property, that in no way indicates That I have recovered from a injury. All this activity occurred within the context of having a two hour per day capacity fragmented throughout the day with the activity not involving the use of my right hand. Are you getting the sense of this yet David? If you are not one then I suggest you read some of the decisions made by the various superior courts on this matter. Obviously neither the ACC for the district court comprehended the basic fundamentals but got caught up in the rational thought driven by propaganda due to the week mind So it is not uncommon for weak minded people to think that they can rely on commonsense rather than rely upon the expertise of those who have superior intellectual capacity, education and experience. The resistance and barrier to seeking out the expertise of those with such area capacity of course is arrogance.

So in summary despite being injured to return to my preinjury occupation full-time in order that I enjoy my maximum earning potential as before I am perfectly entitled to utilise my residual capacity to generate as much earnings as I can with the ACC only entitlement being abatement of earnings. That is the law which the ACC and it is recorded have defied despite the wisdom of the superior courts.
1

#9214 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:09 PM

decision THOMAS v ACC 61/2010-DCA 129/98
21 april 2010


tells the tale Alan-places all your info in basically one place
as well as the judge Morris sentence details
YOU MISLEAD THE ACC using the acc med certs to achieve that
IT IS CALLED

Intent to defraud using a document able to be used for a PECUNIARY GAIN
Which Alan-due to your MISLEADING the acc
YOU WERE FOUND GUILTY OF

The rest of your unable to be wanking hand wrist bollocks you can argue till the cows come home That crap wont change the fraud sentence.

IF you had been honest and upfront with acc then maybe all youd have been in was an abatement on the company books [albeit a VERY late one to move into action on your case file info-as they never knew re any OF YOUR work doings]
they cant abate what they dont know AS YOU NEER TOLD THEM WHAT YOU WERE DOING
Moreso when you were forced to YOU AGAIN MISLEAD THEM
Move aside from ya wrist alan
Ot was UP TO YOU to inform acc of what you were doing employed or SPECIALLY WHEN YA >>>>>>>self employed
THERE IS A PROCEDURE TO USE AND YOU FAILED TO USE THAT-WITH AN INTENT TO DEFRAUD,
ya a con man not very good at it-AND YOU WERE CAUGHT.
You at that time had MORE than most especially as of now as a lot of claimants would sure love a specific rehab case person now in 2014
YOU HAD A REHABILITATION OFFICER ASSIGNED TO YOU' And you tried to con them
bad move Alan
dave
i query ya yacht accident info
s did acc a tad late-not to late to looksee at that tho
i have-NIWA has some teal interesting data on you fateful day
YOU WERNT 3 MILES OUT TO SEA IN A STORM Posted ImageAS YOU STATED ALAN
2

#9215 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 04:49 PM

David the purpose of court hearings is to address issues of fact and law. The reason why these court decisions are being appeal is that the court failed on both of those points. Despite the ACC and their witnesses confirming that there was no information on my working both judges continue with their decisions as if I was working and further departure from the legislated criteria with the doctrine of believe promoted by the ACC that the claimant is working they are not entitled to a claim and entitlements. This of course is a lie that the ACC has been promoting for quite sometime which has been addressed in the claimant favour in the Supreme Court with the ACC rely upon their win against me and one other person as the basis to support their doctrinal belief.

My medical certificates allowed me to work two hours per day on light duties. ACC claimed I was working but did not reach any conclusions as to whether it was 5 min or 24 hours per day. He simply let that up to the imagination of the judge which they kindly obliged. The judge having a bit of imagination is not a legal fact no matter how you dress it up. It follows then that the judgement is unlawful on that point alone.

Claimants are encouraged to work to the maximum extent practicable so long as it is within the limitations described in the medical certificate. ACC never challenged that point of fact and law and the judge simply closes eyes to the law. As I was providing the ACC with business plans and have described how I have gone overseas, had meetings with numerous people and went voice software and Microsoft programs to produce those business plans of course I was describing myself as someone carrying out certain types of work. The question of fact/law is whether or not I exceeded the limits described in the medical certificates. The court has traversed these issues within the judgement despite a requirement in law for the judges to rule on that point of fact and law. The fact that they did not means that the issues get transferred to the Superior Court as the judgement is incompetent.

As I had disclosed to the ACC everything that I was doing there was nothing further to describe. Out there for a you are imagining that I withheld information? The ACC have received documented evidence describing my activities blow by blow in accordance with the requirements under section 73 (2). Under questioning the ACC case manager under oath confirmed that I have complied the information requirements despite the fraud unit informing the court that I had not. The fraud unit staff went on to say that they had not received any information from the ACC case management team thus depriving themselves of this critical information when accusing the of fraud. I might add that the ACC withheld my file until after the fraud prosecution thus preventing me from any kind of appeal of the basis of what information I actually provide the ACC so as to prevent the ACC from accusing me of claiming that I have withheld information. David others point you seem to be arguing matters that the ACC has already confessed to have bungled on. Why would someone claiming to be helping ACC claimants argue in such and irrational way in an attempt to curry favour with the ACC despite the ACC acknowledging that they were wrong.

To reiterate as I was not self-employed but merely owned companies there was no work task activities concerning those companies to report. In 1992 review hearing confirmed that simply being an inactive director is a relevant to the ACC and is merely represents the protection of investments and have nothing whatsoever to do with "working". Perhaps someone could explain to you that you cannot provide information to anyone in no information exists.

I reiterate that the ACC position is that it was the medical professionals they had been misled and not the ACC itself. The ACC asserted that I was not incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation in opposition to the medical opinion and their own medical reports produced by their own assessors. David your attempting to argue a wrong and the relevant argument. The centrepoint of the argument is whether or not I continue to be incapacitated and don't need surgery to return to my preinjury occupation. I suggest you focus your mind on the real issues if you want to examine this case.

And that you assert that I had a rehabilitation officer resigns any. This in fact is not true. As my medical remedies had not yet been exhausted I had no entitlement to vocational rehabilitation. Nonetheless given that the ACC perceive that I could utilise my residual capacity within one of my companies or some other activity a required me to produce business plans so as to exploit that residual capacity so as to diminish their overall liability even if it was only two hours per day. That is not in any way or form ACC vocational rehabilitation intervention. Added to that the ACC did not have any mechanism by which to measure vocational rehabilitation under s51 and it did not produce the vocational rehabilitation regulations until November 1997 which was three months after the ACC had made its decision.

David you are demonstrating an overactive imagination and then you are attempting to justify that imagination by imagined the facts based on what you perceive the ACC should have been doing despite the fact that you have no evidence to even suggest that they even brought about what you think should be the. It seems to me that your imagination is being driven by your arrogance in conjunction with an overwhelming desire to present yourself to the community and alpha dog along with the other competing alpha dogs with the same level of maturity as yourself. Next you'll be telling me that you have experience within the Russian Secret Service and eight by and are offering your services to provide the ACC with high-value information based on your own intuition, commonsense and sense of self-importance.

With regards to be on an injury the precise details are entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that the surgeons diagnosing my condition have confirmed that my injury is exactly consistent with the accident event described together with the timing of the accident. In fact all the matters that there is evidence of the application of a force that has caused structural damage that prevents me from returning to my preinjury occupation immediately prior to that damage. As that information is incredibly well document and is in no danger of any kind of attack, especially from the likes of you who rely upon your imagination when claiming to possess high-value information, problem consistent with your community.
2

#9216 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:23 PM

acc claimed you were using a document with intent to defraud the acc via a PECUNIARY GAIN
The INTENT TO DEFRAUD was what you were found guilty of Alan
YOU MISEAD ALL AND SUNDRY STILL TO THIS DAY
Time ya left i think
Having been on acc/ erc for longer than you Alan-i know the workings re case / rehab management practices at that time
seems you cant remember, i wonder why?
oh i forgot
you were your own rehab officer and yoy never told acc you were
until they forced you to when it was far to late for you to squiggle away out ya,mess-enter judge morris goodbye alanPosted Image
your bollocks in here is about the same as ya case management file data-ALL YOU AND YOUR RULES
dave
2

#9217 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 05:37 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 04:49 PM, said:



To reiterate as I was not self-employed but merely owned companies there was no work task activities concerning those companies to report. In 1992 review hearing confirmed that simply being an inactive director is a relevant to the ACC and is merely represents the protection of investments and have nothing whatsoever to do with "working". Perhaps someone could explain to you that you cannot provide information to anyone in no information exists.





Then One must assume from the above that the Alan Thomas OF NO WORK NO SELF EMPLOYMENT but merley owned companies and the ALAN THOMAS of/ in PUBLIC OFERED engineering design plan provide give me the money please as soon as possible when dealing with a client ****** ******** of Hygex nz ltd was NOT alan thomas but a mere ghost named Casper and that Casper was not employed by anyone NOR was Casper Self Employed or had any business dealings with Hygex ltd
Alan dont be so silly YOU ARE Casper matePosted Image
1

#9218 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 06:35 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

I can empathise how the Cyber bullying has a horrendous effect on individual well-being and also standing in the community based on my own experiences on this site by those who are otherwise known as the tagteam that have persistently bullied me on this site for almost a decade. Only by a narrow margin I have not gone the same way Ms Dawson clearly has gone.

The lesson to be learned from this death is that under no circumstances should we tolerate cyber bullying, particularly when the bullying is occurring against invalids. We need to be brave enough to speak against bullying by specifying the exact fact that has been falsely claimed by the bully. This is particularly important when the bully users very vague terminology based on assumption upon assumption an outright gossip.

Having said that, None of us object to actual fault based on reality of evidence-based fact being addressed against law and this is what the site is for.


Lets have your crap where it belongs Thomas within your own writings that upset many people in ways you can imagine as you seem to enjoy being the asshole whilst claiming poor me ya bullied
ya the biggest bully in the site doing it real sly ya *****
dave
0

#9219 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 07:32 PM

David the documents in question was the medical certificates. The medical certificates are for the sole purpose for every single person using them to acquire a pecuniary advantage (gain). Therefore the question has to be was there an illegal use of the document. The only way that using a medical certificate illegally is by falsifying the document itself. In other words claiming an injury that does not exist.

The ACC reason that if a person is working the ACC may use their "commonsense" to conclude that the person is no longer incapacitated. In other words the ACC claim that a person who is working is not entitled to acquire a medical certificate saying that they should not work.

As I had been diagnosed proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that my right hand was not sufficiently attached to my arm there is no question about my being injured. This leaves the question as to whether or not I could perform the work task activities without the use of my right hand. The ACC brought into the court room a witness that they had said would come the court that I could do my preinjury occupation without the use of my right hand. I examined the fellow under oath going through the individual work task activities that he perceive were relevant to my preinjury occupation. In the end he told the court that I could not carry out all the work task activities of my preinjury occupation. In other words the ACC said the direct opposite to what the ACC wanted the court to believe.

So at the end of the day the court heard that the ACC agreed my injuries were serious and I could not properly use my right hand and that the ACC witnesses gave evidence that both hands were necessary for me to work at my preinjury occupation. So what went wrong? It is obvious they that both the ACC and the district court judge had allowed pride to get away, just like you, and persist with the a decision that they knew they could not support. They simply used their authority in defiance of rational thought and the evidence. It is for this reason that we have the appeal process, which is what I am currently doing.


I might add that when the ACC do not fund vocational rehabilitation and I take it upon myself to explore my residual capacity and what work I might be able to do the end that is entirely my own business and most certainly not the business of the ACC. In other words the ACC had no right to know what I am doing in regards of things that they claimed to have no involvement. As the ACC wanted the information about vocational rehabilitation will then they had to pay for it and manager within the ACC scheme and proper context.

Having said that I most certainly did provide the ACC with so much information they complain that I provide them with too much information. The business plans I produced they claimed contained too many details such as facts and figures. The ACC viewpoint about what a business plan should be is simply a series of wishful thinking and good intentions of which they can base their this entitlement decision on. When that plan of the ACC failed miserably they then decided to prosecute for fraud.

It is a disgrace that the ACC attack for invalid that had no means to withstand the onslaught of the ACC private criminal prosecution of which the ACC has millions of dollars resorting them which included fully funding private investigators even to travel to other countries trying to find evidence to support the theories or at least accusations they think they can support in court regardless of the fact they know they are false allegations.

Next shall be deal with the ACC practice of handpicking judges they want to use. The judges may not even be aware that they have been hand-picked. Morris J who presided over the ACC private criminal prosecution kept on going to sleep during the six weeks of ACC presentations. This judgement indicated that he completely fail to read the transcripts in order to catch up on the bits of the hearing he missed. He ended up confusing ACC witnesses, even could not tell the difference between my defence lawyer and myself. For example when my lawyer arrived late for a hearing he threatened to put me in jail for the entire hearing not realising I was there the whole time.

The case management file has no relationship to the cancellation of my claim. After the criminal trial the ACC asked for an adjournment at this level hearing because my file had not been looked at. This was followed by an acknowledgement of my file was in a complete mess and totally unreadable. Instead the ACC made decisions based on the fraud file which it refused to disclose at the time when it was needed and continue to refuse to disclose along with the Warren seized items that they had not returned. The list of documents that they have kept are exactly the type of documents a claimant would need for the defence. In other words the ACC stole my defence exhibits to prevent a defence. I guess you can get the sense that individual employees of the ACC are going to end up being incarcerated. This is going to be particularly easy given the confessions made while under oath in the civil hearing.

In reference to what you call "Hygex NZ Ltd" unable to confirm that a former customer who I build the machine for wanted another one. He was told that he could not have one built by myself because of my injury but that I could use my residual capacity to provide oral advice together with a copy of the plan for a fee. This is exactly what the legislated had in mind when they wrote section 47. Indeed under section 18 the legislated expected claimants to utilising residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable with the ACC able to acquire a discount should any earnings be achieved. David you are clutching at straws that not even the ACC with attempt to clutch. I ask you again what is your motives or driving force for your attack against me?

Caspar (spelt Kaspar) was the name of a in other claims who I produced armaments for. The biggest item I manufactured was a canon that was so big that it had to be transported in the same way that you would tow a trailer. The projectile easily broke the sound barrier but it goes without saying contains no explosive. In other words is by a solid chunk of steel in the shape of a cannon shell several kilometres or straight through buildings and out the other side unless of course it hit a lift shaft. It goes without saying that several of them would bring down the building. Sometimes he would need repairs of his pistol collection. I also manufactured components for riffles. I don't recall doing any work on the X ACC case managers collection. Such technology was taught to me by the Auckland technical Institute and forms part of my pre-injury work capacity and usual day today work.

David you must realise that the ACC doing this with hundreds and hundreds of claimant and I am dismayed that you have taken the stand deporting the ACC practice of destroying so many people's lives. Shame on you.
0

#9220 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 22 February 2014 - 08:05 PM

 Alan Thomas, on 22 February 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

David the documents in question was the medical certificates. The medical certificates are for the sole purpose for every single person using them to acquire a pecuniary advantage (gain). Therefore the question has to be was there an illegal use of the document. The only way that using a medical certificate illegally is by falsifying the document itself. In other words claiming an injury that does not exist.

The ACC reason that if a person is working the ACC may use their "commonsense" to conclude that the person is no longer incapacitated. In other words the ACC claim that a person who is working is not entitled to acquire a medical certificate saying that they should not work.

As I had been diagnosed proof beyond any doubt whatsoever that my right hand was not sufficiently attached to my arm there is no question about my being injured. This leaves the question as to whether or not I could perform the work task activities without the use of my right hand. The ACC brought into the court room a witness that they had said would come the court that I could do my preinjury occupation without the use of my right hand. I examined the fellow under oath going through the individual work task activities that he perceive were relevant to my preinjury occupation. In the end he told the court that I could not carry out all the work task activities of my preinjury occupation. In other words the ACC said the direct opposite to what the ACC wanted the court to believe.

So at the end of the day the court heard that the ACC agreed my injuries were serious and I could not properly use my right hand and that the ACC witnesses gave evidence that both hands were necessary for me to work at my preinjury occupation. So what went wrong? It is obvious they that both the ACC and the district court judge had allowed pride to get away, just like you, and persist with the a decision that they knew they could not support. They simply used their authority in defiance of rational thought and the evidence. It is for this reason that we have the appeal process, which is what I am currently doing.


I might add that when the ACC do not fund vocational rehabilitation and I take it upon myself to explore my residual capacity and what work I might be able to do the end that is entirely my own business and most certainly not the business of the ACC. In other words the ACC had no right to know what I am doing in regards of things that they claimed to have no involvement. As the ACC wanted the information about vocational rehabilitation will then they had to pay for it and manager within the ACC scheme and proper context.

Having said that I most certainly did provide the ACC with so much information they complain that I provide them with too much information. The business plans I produced they claimed contained too many details such as facts and figures. The ACC viewpoint about what a business plan should be is simply a series of wishful thinking and good intentions of which they can base their this entitlement decision on. When that plan of the ACC failed miserably they then decided to prosecute for fraud.

It is a disgrace that the ACC attack for invalid that had no means to withstand the onslaught of the ACC private criminal prosecution of which the ACC has millions of dollars resorting them which included fully funding private investigators even to travel to other countries trying to find evidence to support the theories or at least accusations they think they can support in court regardless of the fact they know they are false allegations.

Next shall be deal with the ACC practice of handpicking judges they want to use. The judges may not even be aware that they have been hand-picked. Morris J who presided over the ACC private criminal prosecution kept on going to sleep during the six weeks of ACC presentations. This judgement indicated that he completely fail to read the transcripts in order to catch up on the bits of the hearing he missed. He ended up confusing ACC witnesses, even could not tell the difference between my defence lawyer and myself. For example when my lawyer arrived late for a hearing he threatened to put me in jail for the entire hearing not realising I was there the whole time.

The case management file has no relationship to the cancellation of my claim. After the criminal trial the ACC asked for an adjournment at this level hearing because my file had not been looked at. This was followed by an acknowledgement of my file was in a complete mess and totally unreadable. Instead the ACC made decisions based on the fraud file which it refused to disclose at the time when it was needed and continue to refuse to disclose along with the Warren seized items that they had not returned. The list of documents that they have kept are exactly the type of documents a claimant would need for the defence. In other words the ACC stole my defence exhibits to prevent a defence. I guess you can get the sense that individual employees of the ACC are going to end up being incarcerated. This is going to be particularly easy given the confessions made while under oath in the civil hearing.

In reference to what you call "Hygex NZ Ltd" unable to confirm that a former customer who I build the machine for wanted another one. He was told that he could not have one built by myself because of my injury but that I could use my residual capacity to provide oral advice together with a copy of the plan for a fee. This is exactly what the legislated had in mind when they wrote section 47. Indeed under section 18 the legislated expected claimants to utilising residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable with the ACC able to acquire a discount should any earnings be achieved. David you are clutching at straws that not even the ACC with attempt to clutch. I ask you again what is your motives or driving force for your attack against me?

Caspar (spelt Kaspar) was the name of a in other claims who I produced armaments for. The biggest item I manufactured was a canon that was so big that it had to be transported in the same way that you would tow a trailer. The projectile easily broke the sound barrier but it goes without saying contains no explosive. In other words is by a solid chunk of steel in the shape of a cannon shell several kilometres or straight through buildings and out the other side unless of course it hit a lift shaft. It goes without saying that several of them would bring down the building. Sometimes he would need repairs of his pistol collection. I also manufactured components for riffles. I don't recall doing any work on the X ACC case managers collection. Such technology was taught to me by the Auckland technical Institute and forms part of my pre-injury work capacity and usual day today work.

David you must realise that the ACC doing this with hundreds and hundreds of claimant and I am dismayed that you have taken the stand deporting the ACC practice of destroying so many people's lives. Shame on you.


Posted Image what else could i place here to that GARBAGE alan
dave
0

Share this topic:


  • 905 Pages +
  • « First
  • 459
  • 460
  • 461
  • 462
  • 463
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Google