ACCforum: Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acc Fraud ACC V Thomas district court T990176

#1 User is offline   Paradigm Shift 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 17 May 2007 - 06:41 PM

The ACC achieved a criminal conviction alleging working without any information describing work task activities law describing the material time the alleged activities took place claiming protection of the Privacy Act rendering a defence impossible. This is the longest ACC fraud trial being seven weeks.

This case and the appeal decision to this case appeared to be the lead cases referred to in ACC fraud case law. Given that the very similar Donaldson and brown cases have been overturned.

The scanned version is too big to load. Will need to learn how to use the OCR and then try again. Anybody who needs this material urgently contact me directly.
0

#2 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 December 2007 - 02:03 PM

kindly hosted by huggy until further notice

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 1.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 2.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 Fraud sentencing.pdf



Because of the size it has been broken into two parts.
Page 1 -20

Attached File(s)


0

#3 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 December 2007 - 02:11 PM

Because of the size it has been broken into two parts.
Page 1 -20

Attached File(s)


0

#4 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 28 December 2007 - 02:15 PM

Sentencing

At the sentencing hearing the ACC withdrew the allegation of the quantum of overpayment acknowledging that the calculation had not taken place. The sentencing was on the basis of approximately $700 in regards to some administration fee to initiate a prosecution.

Attached File(s)


0

#5 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 01:52 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 28 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

Attachment 1999_decision_b.docBecause of the size it has been broken into two parts.
Page 1 -20

This file is corrupt and will not download
0

#6 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 01:53 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 28 2007, 03:03 PM, said:

kindly hosted by huggy until further notice

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 1.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 2.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 Fraud sentencing.pdf
Because of the size it has been broken into two parts.
Page 1 -20

This file is corrupt and will not download
0

#7 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:20 PM

Medwyn we are attempting to resolve this problem. Two of them do not want to download however the sentencing one seems to be okay.
0

#8 User is offline   Huggy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1214
  • Joined: 18-October 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 02:58 PM

Medwyn if you copy and paste these into your internet explorer they will download.

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 1.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 2.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 Fraud sentencing.pdf
0

#9 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:16 PM

View PostHuggy, on Dec 29 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

Medwyn if you copy and paste these into your internet explorer they will download.

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 1.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 decision Part 2.pdf

www.fairfieldweather.info/store/1999 Fraud sentencing.pdf

Thank you Huggy for that.

They make for very interesting reading.

In the brief time I've had to read it, there a several points where in answer to my polite questioning re computer knowledge and security, the judgement throws an entirely different picture of Alan's computer knowledge that what he wants us to believe to the point in my opinion he is lying through his back teeth.

The judgement also makes for sobering reading, in that the whole way through the proceedings Thomas was noted by the Judge as constantly interrupting his counsel all the time and questioning his while counsel was engaged in cross-examination. In short he was obstructive. He was also in contempt of court by bringing a PC into the court and bail was revoked and he spent time in the cells for non attendance.

I know Alan will have an answer for that, but after reading that document. I have no faith in Thomas' honesty or ability to be honest in whatever dealings he has on the board, you just cannot believe what he posts.
examples:
Re computer knowledge he claims he does not possess:

Compugraphic Visual Sytems
Computer Aided Graphic Design carried out in many languages..........translating from any language to any other Advertising, WWW Home pages, signs, posters and Autocad..........

The sophistication to use programmes such as AutoCad is high with high levels of expertise required see the following URL:
http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index...amp;id=10095402 re certification

And to quote the judge:
" In so far as my assessment of Mr Thomas I formed the distinct impression of an exceedingly verbose person - (I use the word verbose purposefully
[The adj verbose has 1 sense (no senses from tagged texts)

1. long-winded, tedious, verbose, windy, wordy -- (using or containing too many words; "long-winded (or windy) speakers"; "verbose and ineffective instructional methods"; "newspapers of the day printed long wordy editorials"; "proceedings were delayed by wordy disputes")

0

#10 User is offline   Spacecadet 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 24-January 07

Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:28 PM

WARNING !

Mr Thomas
You are not answering the question, as per usual.
According to Court records you were bankrupt for a period of time; which meant you were not able under law, to own or run a company or be a director.
I am guessing - but from the period of you absence from the Companies Office register, that this period was from mid 1988 until mid 1993. I will have to wait until mid January until the office of the Official Assignee opens to confirm the dates.

This means that many pages in this tread about the owning and directing of your company, and money received during this time is a pack of lies.

You are deliberately spinning a pack of lies as part of a game - for what purpose it is unclear. However, it is a very nasty game - and you should not be doing this to vulnerable people. You may well end up back in prison if you continue with this game.

You have found to have been operating outside the law over a period of many years as part of con-man get rich schemes,. You have been sentence to prison for 3 years on 22 charges of fraud. You continue to be engaged in the same sort of activity that lead to your incarceration. The trial judge was unimpressed with your antics during your trial - which saw you thrown into prison for what amounts to contempt of Court.

You are are a very dangerous person.

I post this as a warning to other users of this forum, who are being manipulated by the dishonest games of Mr Thomas
0

#11 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:41 PM

Alan.

To set it out for the record, just what qualifications, trade certificates, computer training, and NZQA qualifications do you possess?

Are you a member of a professional group eg Engineers, CAD designers group. NZIM etc.
0

#12 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 December 2007 - 04:55 PM

Medwyn as my council did not know anything about the ACC act and had not studied any of the exhibits he asked me to pass irrelevant material to him on-the-fly much to the obvious annoyance of the judge. As I as I was disabled I used the social welfare disability aid provided laptop to keep track of this information. Permission was granted for me to have both laptop and a recording device so as to assist me with my disability.

I was in contempt of court because I was taken away by ambulance because I had withdrawn my pain medication to quickly while at the same time exceeding the two hours per day work threshold described in the medical certificates. Bail was revoked so I could be treated in accordance with the judges medical prescription of forced medication withdrawal in Mount Eden prison. It does seem that torture has been permitted by the courts in New Zealand.

Medwyn you must understand that due to the controversial nature of the situation at the judge used the strongest language he could muster to discredit me as an alternative to relying upon evidence.

I do possess computer experience of various types but not in all things that are necessary to achieve other tasks that I would like to achieve. Preinjury I could not do anything like I could do post cancellation of claim. Without a voice software my computer usage is extremely limited.

Compugraphic Visual Systems Ltd and the various homepages were not produced by myself but by the business partner. I believe that company is still functioning today.

I have no idea how AutoCAD work as I had never used it.

With regards to the impression of my being verbose was this part of the judges medical diagnosis of the PTSD and brain damage in conjunction with the maximum dose of opiates? Gill Newburn has produced a report about this subject and I am of the opinion that the ACC legislation requires reference to his assessment rather than the unqualified judges impression.

Medwyn do you think you might be able to understand this judgement as I honestly do not see how earning companies and carrying out the fudiciary duties of those companies could cause the loss of my claim. I know the judge has assumed that I was involved somewhat more, even though there was no actual evidence, even if I had been working there was no capacity to earn and it was proven that I did not earn. If facts were presented that I was working in a new occupation capable of generating earnings surely at some stage such information should have been made available for challenge?

ACC are now claiming that nothing of what they have presented the notes a capacity to work in a new occupation as the judge so obviously had been cause to perceive. The current position of the ACC is that because some people think I have been sitting in front of a computer doing " unknown stuff for unknown periods of time", in accordance with my IRP, that I had a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation, without benefit of medical evidence.

Once the issues regarding whether or not ACC could made a decision of total declinature of my claim based on the assumptions of members of the public collected by ACC Private Investigators as taking precedence over legislated procedure utilising qualified assessors including medical professionals I would imagine this judgement is going to look more and more and more foolish. Until then I will need to be patient regarding the hurt and total loss of reputationthat it causes.


Spacecadet you have cut and pasted your posting from the other thread where you have received your answers hopefully to your satisfaction.
0

#13 User is offline   Sparrow 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 534
  • Joined: 22-March 07

Posted 29 December 2007 - 06:29 PM

Alan Thomas, it is time for you to stop replying to all this and let it go. You cannot win and all you are doing is digging yourself a big hole into which you are about to fall.
There seems to be conflict here and for you to justify yourself, you are doing yourself no favours. Noone is able to advise you about this complicated case, so PLEASE let it go immediatiely.

If you have a case and are going to appeal, you need ammunition to back it up, keep it to yourself till the Appeal and do not debate it all here.

As you well know ACC are watching and noting all this stuff and it could well be harmful to you .
We have been told time after time after time and do not need to be reminded of your so called business life etc.
Good luck with your case if you have one and you will need a pretty good lawyer to dig you out of this hole.
SO please take note and stop all the debate. otherwise it will go on and on and this will not be to your benefit.
It seems your ideas of working and ACC's are many miles apart, so just be VERY careful how you deal with this...
You have been warned.
Perhaps you should go and read your book on how to make $1 million. You may need it!!!
0

#14 User is offline   Medwyn 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-November 05

Posted 29 December 2007 - 06:47 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 29 2007, 05:55 PM, said:

Medwyn as my council did not know anything about the ACC act and had not studied any of the exhibits he asked me to pass irrelevant material to him on-the-fly much to the obvious annoyance of the judge. As I as I was disabled I used the social welfare disability aid provided laptop to keep track of this information. Permission was granted for me to have both laptop and a recording device so as to assist me with my disability.

I was in contempt of court because I was taken away by ambulance because I had withdrawn my pain medication to quickly while at the same time exceeding the two hours per day work threshold described in the medical certificates. Bail was revoked so I could be treated in accordance with the judges medical prescription of forced medication withdrawal in Mount Eden prison. It does seem that torture has been permitted by the courts in New Zealand.

Medwyn you must understand that due to the controversial nature of the situation at the judge used the strongest language he could muster to discredit me as an alternative to relying upon evidence.

I do possess computer experience of various types but not in all things that are necessary to achieve other tasks that I would like to achieve. Preinjury I could not do anything like I could do post cancellation of claim. Without a voice software my computer usage is extremely limited.

Compugraphic Visual Systems Ltd and the various homepages were not produced by myself but by the business partner. I believe that company is still functioning today.

I have no idea how AutoCAD work as I had never used it.

With regards to the impression of my being verbose was this part of the judges medical diagnosis of the PTSD and brain damage in conjunction with the maximum dose of opiates? Gill Newburn has produced a report about this subject and I am of the opinion that the ACC legislation requires reference to his assessment rather than the unqualified judges impression.

Medwyn do you think you might be able to understand this judgement as I honestly do not see how earning companies and carrying out the fudiciary duties of those companies could cause the loss of my claim. I know the judge has assumed that I was involved somewhat more, even though there was no actual evidence, even if I had been working there was no capacity to earn and it was proven that I did not earn. If facts were presented that I was working in a new occupation capable of generating earnings surely at some stage such information should have been made available for challenge?

ACC are now claiming that nothing of what they have presented the notes a capacity to work in a new occupation as the judge so obviously had been cause to perceive. The current position of the ACC is that because some people think I have been sitting in front of a computer doing " unknown stuff for unknown periods of time", in accordance with my IRP, that I had a capacity to return to my preinjury occupation, without benefit of medical evidence.

Once the issues regarding whether or not ACC could made a decision of total declinature of my claim based on the assumptions of members of the public collected by ACC Private Investigators as taking precedence over legislated procedure utilising qualified assessors including medical professionals I would imagine this judgement is going to look more and more and more foolish. Until then I will need to be patient regarding the hurt and total loss of reputationthat it causes.
Spacecadet you have cut and pasted your posting from the other thread where you have received your answers hopefully to your satisfaction.

Question or two:

If you do not use Autocad, what computer aided design software did you use?

If you have no computer knowledge ,how do you design things

What software did you use for the generation of Organisational Flowcharts did you use?
How are you able to generate drawings and schematic diagrams by using "Dragon"software this I would love to know, so to probably would Nuance the makers and developers of AutoCad the leading software for design and schematics so they can incorporate it into their next release. Better not come up with the solution though as it could be seen as generating income?????
0

#15 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 December 2007 - 06:57 PM

Sparrow I have already fallen in the hole. Things cannot get any worse than they already are. I agree that the difficulty is that nobody knows what they are talking about in relation to this very messy case. Personally I think the case is extremely simple but the ACC have made it complex quite deliberately and rely upon public outrage rather than real facts. You will see that the majority of posters to this thread are only expressing their emotion and not referring to issues, facts or legislation.

ACC rely upon their status as a multibillion-dollar state owned entity to get their own way. They will get their own way if good people do nothing.

The technique the ACC use is to make an accusation without disclosing any detail so as to prevent themselves from presenting a target so there is nothing to shoot at. The only recourse in these circumstances is to be totally conversant with every single aspect of my life and the act, which is what is effectively happening right now. Thank you to all those who have assisted in this regard.

You say that I need a pretty good lawyer to help me out of this hole. I could not agree with you more. The problem is there are no lawyers are available. I am not the only person that has experienced this oversight that the government had when setting up the ACC act. Of course ACC were quick to take advantage of this fact. The result is the site became necessary because we only have each other.

It is true that ACC and myself have different viewpoints about what "working" means in relation to a person incapacitated to work and what evidence is required to demonstrate an end of incapacity. So far all the case law is in my favour with the result that the only chance the ACC have is to delay things indefinitely.

The bottom line is either I am completely deluded and a criminal or certain individuals employed by the ACC criminal.

Information from this site given to others similarly convicted to myself has resulted in their release from prison. I am sorry but you feel inconvenienced or in any way embarrassed by these postings but even if they do not do any good for me they are already known to do good for others and with that in mind I will keep posting while I still breathe in and out.
0

#16 User is offline   doppelganger 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1706
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 29 December 2007 - 07:01 PM

Allan you were charged with lying to the corporation

You were charged under section 99 were in that section the only avenue that the ACC had to do is stop your compensation.

under section 114 if the 1982 Act you comitte an offence for not telling the Corp[oration earnings that would reduce the amount of compensation.

the 1992 Act is the same i beleive

as they are saying that you did not dupply the requested information (you had to supply and show that the information was unnecessary to calulate the compensation level.

to get your compensation I would suggest that you supply the documentation to ACC to show that there was no earnings in all of those companies by doing this you will get your compensation reinstated to the correct level but there is proof that you can work 35 hours and more in consulant in the letter quoted by the judge.

my opinion is that you should look at employment into something that you can and have done.

good luck.
0

#17 User is offline   Not Waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24-December 07

Posted 29 December 2007 - 07:27 PM

Alan can go on about it till he is till his voice recogniition software can't understand him, but the fact is he was found guilty of fraud. Perhaps he should have gone with a jury trial as he may have found one gullible juror.

The fact that Alan still expects members to believe his innocence is interesting. The fact he tries to make it seem like his circumstances are relevant to other claimants circumstances is just plain poppycock.

Whether or not he still has entitlement to weekly compensation is a separate matter and one he does still have a chance of succeeding, as in Burnett, although he does not do himself any favours. His offending was obviously much more calculated than Burnett's, and consistent with the manipulation that has gone on here. (thought I'd get that in before Alan's data vetting machine kicks in after the new year).
0

#18 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 29 December 2007 - 07:54 PM

Doppelganger I was not charged with lying to the Corporation. I was not charged under S99 or any similar section. To put it simply everything on my file was true and the ACC did not have a shortage of information.

Mrs Brown who was convicted by the same judge a few months earlier was charged with failing to inform the ACC that she had started the business and was working in that business. One day prior to my conviction the judge was found to be wrong on points of law concerning her case that he had relied on within the judgement he issued regarding myself.

Mrs Brown had the fraud convictions dropped but the conviction under the ACC act involving a failure to inform the ACC remain. ACC did not charge me with that section as there was no information that I had not informed them.

The judge concluded that rather than underinformed I had over informed them and ask too many questions which got being confused rendering them incapable of knowing that they needed to carry out a Work Capacity Assessment Procedure. This of course raises all manner of questions of law that can only be resolved by the appeal to the original question by way of a district court, something that should have been down prior to the criminal trial.

The ACC have the information that I do not have the capacity to work in any occupation more than two hours per day fragmented throughout the day even if there was an occupation.

The ACC position is that because I did not tell them what the informants imagined they were prevented from perceiving a need to assess me which they had hypothesised would have told them that I was no longer incapacitated. The obvious question arises is that once they did think they needed to assess me why they did not assess me. Their own lawyer advise them of this problem!

I am in the difficult situation of not being outwards apply nonexistent information to avoid criminal prosecution. I have supplied the ACC with the real information which is supported by the exhibits seized from my home which confirm beyond reasonable doubt exactly what I have been doing 1990-1997 which does not include being a manager or consultant or an Emperor of the empire of shelf companies.

Pray tell,
how do I show no earnings?

Pray tell,
how do I show that I was not working if no work task activity of any type or duration is identified at any material time?

Pray tell,
how do I ask an employer for an honest day's pay if I cannot do an honest days work?

I do not need your luck, I need your help!
0

#19 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 30 December 2007 - 06:49 PM

Not Waddie Are you going to answer the questions???
0

#20 User is offline   Not Waddie 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 24-December 07

Posted 30 December 2007 - 08:13 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 29 2007, 08:54 PM, said:

Pray tell,
how do I show no earnings?

Pray tell,
how do I show that I was not working if no work task activity of any type or duration is identified at any material time?

Pray tell,
how do I ask an employer for an honest day's pay if I cannot do an honest days work?

I do not need your luck, I need your help!


I suggest you read the last paragraph of the judgment. The judge did not find that you had earnings, that is not the issue
from what I can tell.

Obviously I have not heard the all the evidence or had an opportunity to question the witnesses or make judgment on the witnesses credibility. I am not a criminal lawyer. Therefore, I have to rely on the Judges decision.

He found that you did not fully disclose what you were doing. I will tackle it from an angle that I am probably more qualified to tackle it. Had I been the ACC technical claims manager and was aware that you were doing those things that the Judge found you were doing, empire-building" then I would have advised the case manager to have a work capacity assessment carried out. In fact that is what ACC should have done instead of issuing the "total declinature" decision. At the very least I would have had it all recorded in the IRP with time-frames as to when you would have your wcap done. It appears to me you put up a smoke-screen to keep that from happening in the beginning. Also, had I been fully aware of your activities, as a TCM, I would have wanted any company you had involvement with independently audited and I would have requested you complete a statutory declaration periodically.

Anyone of these would have potentially led to weekly compensation being stopped or abated. I would have at the very least had an estimated abatement running upon receipt of audited company financial statements and personal tax returns. However, a lack of full disclosure meant you could continue without these things happening, until 1997.

Thats about as best as I can explain how a lack of full disclosure can add up to a pecuniary advantage. you signed the ARC18 certificates and that is how they got you. However, I suggest you get expert legal advice to explain the Judgment. It's a criminal case.

Of course if you were successful at overturning the Judge's decision and were found not guilty, then I will equally rely on that Court decision. I would not be so arrogant to think I know better than a Judge who has heard the evidence and assessed the witnesses' credibility.

However, if you are wanting a champion then I suggest you give Joe Karam a ring.
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users