ACCforum: Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acc Fraud ACC V Thomas district court T990176

#21 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 December 2007 - 11:14 AM

Not Waddie you have evaded the questions

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 asked you if you and your client is was faced with the situation been accused of working in the ACC did not disclose the information before the review hearing what would you as the advocate do?

I did not ask you what the ACC should have done. Any idiot can do that. Read the 18 August 1997 decision and again and tell the people on this site how a professional advocate would defend their client.

ACC claimed to have information in their possession describing work but would not disclose it.

How does anybody prove that they were not doing something if they are not told what the something is?

Once there is no ability to defend a review hearing, because the ACC do not surrender the information, it follows that there is no ability to defend a criminal prosecution.

I am not asking for any one to hold my hand in asking for the technical know-how from a seasoned professional. Obviously if you and other advocates and legal professionals do not know the answer to this disentitlement technique ACC will use it more frequently, which is of course exactly what they have done and it seems that I am their poster boy.

Attached File(s)


0

#22 User is offline   doppelganger 

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

Posted 31 December 2007 - 01:03 PM

the work tasks are in the Fraud decision that includes Writing letters, articles for news letters, speeking in public, orginisating activities, and being a consultant. this is what is in the fraud decision and can't the ACC lawyer read this?

as said previously you should look at doing something that you can do to the best of your ability.

you may have to make it payment by contract and start small.

Having earnings would get you a base to request ACC to make abatements.
0

#23 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 31 December 2007 - 01:31 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Dec 31 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

Not Waddie you have evaded the questions

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 asked you if you and your client is was faced with the situation been accused of working in the ACC did not disclose the information before the review hearing what would you as the advocate do?

I did not ask you what the ACC should have done. Any idiot can do that. Read the 18 August 1997 decision and again and tell the people on this site how a professional advocate would defend their client.

ACC claimed to have information in their possession describing work but would not disclose it.

How does anybody prove that they were not doing something if they are not told what the something is?

Once there is no ability to defend a review hearing, because the ACC do not surrender the information, it follows that there is no ability to defend a criminal prosecution.

I am not asking for any one to hold my hand in asking for the technical know-how from a seasoned professional. Obviously if you and other advocates and legal professionals do not know the answer to this disentitlement technique ACC will use it more frequently, which is of course exactly what they have done and it seems that I am their poster boy.



As I have previously said, I would argue that the decision is incorrect because working is not a reason to stop entitlements. If ACC wished to stop weekly compensation then the correct procedure is to carry out a medical assessment to make a determination on capacity to work. I would have also argued that any information ACC was withholding for the purposes of the fraud investigation is irrelevant to this matter (stopping entitlements). I would have also submitted that any information that the reviewer was to consider would have also required to be made available so that submissions could be made, and if the reviewer considered any information that was not made available, that would be a breach of natural justice.

You seem to have the same problem as ACC and that is separating the two different issues, capacity to work and failing to disclose information for pecuniary gain.

Of course the Judge in your current appeal could take Judge Cadenhead's view and that is if you are dishonest in your claim then you lose all rights to entitlements. To me that is punishing someone twice for the same offence and you have already done your time plus missed out on weekly comp while in prison. This is an argument worth making at your current appeal. If the Judge pooh poohs it then just blame me.

Thats about as much advice as I am prepared to offer. I would rather be considered an idiot than continue an idiot discussion.
0

#24 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 31 December 2007 - 06:40 PM

Not Waddie thank you for showing me when you would have done if you are representing me appealing the 1997 decision.

As I have previously said, I would argue that the decision is incorrect because working is not a reason to stop entitlements. If ACC wished to stop weekly compensation then the correct procedure is to carry out a medical assessment to make a determination on capacity to work. I would have also argued that any information ACC was withholding for the purposes of the fraud investigation is irrelevant to this matter (stopping entitlements). I would have also submitted that any information that the reviewer was to consider would have also required to be made available so that submissions could be made, and if the reviewer considered any information that was not made available, that would be a breach of natural justice.

You have accused me of being stupid and the author of my own demise yet I already did exactly what you have suggested. I even went further and secured an adjournment. The reviewer did it again so as to find out what is the so-called "working" information was and what the ACCs position was on the point of law. The reviewer did not reconvene and decided not to overturn the ACC decision.

Based on the review hearing and the ACC's favour the criminal court judge found that the fact of my working was already proven and that the ACC had carried out the proper procedure to cancel my claim. At that point has there ever been an opportunity to argue any work task activity at any material time or to argue the point of law about whether or not working can cancel a claim.

As you and I agree on the procedure to address the ACC cancellation letter does that mean that we are both stupid and that you would process your clients review hearings in the same way so as they to prosecuted for fraud?

Your argument concerning judge Cadenhead's view is on the basis of a circular argument with no standing in law or reliance on actual fact as "working" does not cancel a claim and at no time have I ever been able to be heard regarding refuting the so-called "working" allegations.

So as your clients do not think you are an idiot it might be better that you carry this argument through to its conclusion or at least demonstrate where the ACC have gone wrong and what you would propose to do about it even at this late stage. We are now appealing the review hearing decision but still waiting for the ACC to reveal the S73 information about "working".


0

#25 User is offline   Spacecadet 

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

Posted 31 December 2007 - 07:48 PM

and the ACCforum annual award for LOOSER of the year goes to .......

Alan Thomas !

I have never had such a good laugh as reading the judgement and convictions. This guys performance in court was absolutely unbelievable for its arrogance and stupidity.
0

#26 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 31 December 2007 - 07:52 PM

I think the Judge in the fraud case based his decision on the evidence presented at the hearing, including evidence from people you worked with. If you think he has based it on the review decision then can you post where he refers to it as being relevant to arriving at the decision of guilty.

In relation to your current appeal, its about application of the legislation. If you feel you have interpreted the law correctly, and agree with me, then you have met the burdon of proof in showing that ACC's decision is incorrect based on its application of the legislation. Now it is up to the Judge to issue a decision.

This judge is not going to rehear the fraud case, you were found to be guilty of fraud, end of story. As I have previously pointed out, they are two separate issues. If you cannot comprehend that and want to merge the two issues then thats your problem.

Sorry, but I have no more advice to offer. If you feel the need to continue discussion on these matters and prattle on and on and on and on and on and on and on, then find someone else. Wasn't Warren and a lawyer assisting you?
0

#27 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:00 PM

Doppelganger you kindly focus your attention on the key issues leading to the cancellation of my claim, the alleged "work". The ACC relied upon private investigators producing statements for the witnesses from which they then perceived an end of incapacity to return to my preinjury occupation.

The problem is legislation does not permit the ACC to rely upon the impressions of members of the public for what is essentially a medical question, end of incapacity.

Looking at the apparent "information" individually with the actual information would make it extremely easy to refute the ACC assertion that they could even begin to think I might be capable of returning to my preinjury occupation and to have the need of a medical examination to establish that fact. Instead the ACC have kept the actual details of the information a secret knowing that they could persuade a gullible district court judge to go along with them and maintain the cancellation of claim in order to secure a criminal conviction in order to have that criminal conviction as the evidence for their original decision. I hope you can see that there is a circular argument that is not based on actual fact or law. But rather an assumption that lead to a hypothesis from which the ACC had abused their duty to administer the act and committed perjury in order to obtain an unlawful judgement for pecuniary advantage. The implications of what the ACC had done to me horrendous as places a large number of employees in jail.

The individual components of the apparent information.

Writing letters.
Over a period of many years there is an exceptionally small number of letters of which I have been involved, starting with the letter quoting work to be undertaken that was found undelivered because my doctor said I could not do that work. But later formed the basis of the ACC decision cancellation and conviction. There are a small number of other communications with the highlight being in 1996 communicating with someone in China concerning a number of projects that I was investigating of which I had told the ACC that I was investigating from which the ACC required to produce business plans. In order to produce business plans there needed to be communication of this type.

Articles for news
I did a business course of six weeks because I did not have the necessary academic learning and expertise to manage the company and I was funding a company for my girlfriend. She also was on the same course. The editor of the magazine, that promoted her business and I unashamedly used to promote myself in order to maximise my residual capacity, read some of the course material about business plans and other suchlike so as to produce an article. As I thought I might be able to provide some assistance with my residual capacity for the benefit of people wanting to be in business in New Zealand it seemed an ideal opportunity to promote myself. Is it not a requirement for incapacitated claimants to utilise residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable? 1992 act S18.

Speaking in public
for the same reason an article was published to the business community I also spoke in public fielding various questions to various ministers on the half of the migrant business community in the hope of utilising my residual capacity as a conduit. Is it not a requirement for incapacitated claimants to utilise residual capacity to the maximum extent practicable? 1992 act S18.

Organising activities
I do not know what activities you are referring to but I certainly had a significant number of ideas that I discussed with a significant number of people. Organising activities that promote rehabilitation falls within the requirements of S18. I think however they may have been some reference to the organising of activities that other people carried out. For example organising seminars.

Being a Consultant
Being a Consultant seems to feature highly on the list of possibilities of "working" information. This would no doubt be an immigration consultant or an employment consultant. They would have got this idea because I owned both an immigration and employment consultancy. They had witnessed as to state that I spent long periods of time interviewing clients.

The question is whether or not these impressions as to what I was doing are correct or not?

With immigration consulting it would be impossible not to leave a paper trial and especially with New Zealand immigration. ACC attempted to do this by obtaining records from immigration themselves. They relied upon my fiancee residency and work permit application by claiming that she was a customer. They blotted out all forms of identification on this documentation and presented to the court as evidence while at the same time seeking to prevent her from coming to New Zealand to give evidence that she the document was produced by her and that she was not a customer.

As far as the employment consultancy goes ACC have not presented any evidence suggesting that I was an employment consultant.

In my written communications to the ACC for purposes of my IRP described the need for voice software and the building of an interactive database so as I could improve my rehabilitation opportunities by integrating me into the existing business with this very necessary disability equipment. The ACCs response was they would not assess my entitlement to disability equipment until I was already working. A little bit like providing an umbrella after the sun comes out.


The 1997 decision was upheld by the reviewer on the basis that there was a fraud investigation in progress and that as the "information" could not be provided without compromising the fraud investigation the reviewer would not disturb the decision to cancel the claim. The ACC gave the reviewer a list of their suspicions only of which I had a right to refute my having the information made available. As far as I can see my right to be heard was taken from me.

Likewise the criminal trial did not rely upon actual fact that merely the impressions of various third parties not having first-hand knowledge of what I was actually doing. I was found guilty on the basis of the ACC being administrators of the legislation and the review hearing having standing in law establishing a fact that I was not entitled. All of the 43 witnesses and 208 exhibits merely created impressions whereupon the judge spoke of the overwhelming balance of probability the ACC were correct to cancel my claim. Criminal charge aware that cannot be on the basis of the balance of probability and must be by way of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The proof beyond reasonable doubt is that I have been obtaining entitlements using medical certificates can only be based on the ACCs decision of which the judge is required to rely upon.

The judge was not there to decide whether or not I was entitled. That would now be the job of the judge dealing with the appeal to the 1997 and reviewers decision.


Doppelganger I researched and exerted myself to the maximum extent practicable, while having regard for my injuries and incapacities, for the purposes of rehabilitation. Why are you suggesting that I should "do something to the best of my ability" when doing so will result in a criminal conviction? Surely the lesson is that I should have been watching TV instead.

The surgeons had said that I should not do the things that damage my wrist while waiting for surgery. Why are you suggesting a progressive start into active rehabilitation prior to the surgery or instead of the surgery?

Why would I want to have an abatement of earnings when I can have 100% ERC?

I do not think you understand what was happening. He was a review hearing 1992 that require the ACC to support reconstructive surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation. Investigating alternative occupations in the event that the surgery was to fail was not an intention to work per se but just to establish a pathway to an alternative should the worst situation occur.


Not Waddie you still have not answered the 3 basic questions. Had he read answer these questions you would have been able to function as an advocate more effectively. Instead you appear to have swallowed the ACC line of my "working" hook line and sinker.

What I had asked of you is
what is the technique inexperienced advocate uses to disprove false allegations about someone working when there is no evidence of the working. So far ACC have succeeded in decisions in their favour in a review hearing and criminal trial solely with the use of a barrage of assumption. How is an assumption disapproved in the absence of fact?

As we have both agreed on the reasonable response (breach of natural justice) and have both been proven to be wrong with this response and as this process is being repeated with others in a community surely we need to use this site to resolve this type of problem.

Unfortunately the ACC and the judges have not separated the two issues. This is a key element of the problem that you may be missing.

ACC did not address a capacity to work in the original 1997 and review hearing appeal. At no time has the end of incapacity ever been an issue and therefore not part of any rebuttal. As all of the medical evidence was that I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation and no conceivable relationship could exist it could suggest any activities of my preinjury occupation it would have been ridiculous to go down that road as it would mean all possible contingencies would need to be covered making a review hearing run for many weeks. Review hearings are only to address the decision which was whether or not I was "working" and if working how much and how in law that could not cancel the claim but only at best initiate an abatement of earnings. It could not have been more complicated than that.

ACC seemed to be out of step with legislation by obtaining a criminal conviction in order to justify the original decision. The criminal conviction also does not address or cover an end of incapacity. Yet the ACC use as a conviction in and irrational leap of logic back to the original decision. Judge Cadenhead has bought into this irrationality and has gone one step further in his judgement, which is now case law, is basically says that fraud creates a break between the original injury, claim and ongoing incapacity and any possibility of future entitlements because effectively the fraud cancels the claim. This concept is not part of the ACC legislation.

I think you might have misunderstood judge Cadenhead's view with your suggestion that someone might be punished twice for the same offence. It would seem to me that your thinking might be that ACC is using the cancellation of a claim as a punishment. If you are able to think these types of thoughts perhaps this might be the driving force behind the ACC thoughts. Thoughts of this type are so outrageous that only a person of a unique brain function could think of them. I do not mean this in a nice way.

Not Waddie as a significant number of people that have either been or currently in similar circumstances to myself it is important that we keep addressing this issue until we have properly comprehended and resolved this technique the ACC are embarking upon to cancel claims for cover. I understand ACC Fraud Unit investigates something in the order of 600 claimants with more than half of them losing their entitlements by way of intimidation alone.
0

#28 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 01:17 PM

Not Waddie in response to your post #27.

You spoke of evidence presented at the hearing including evidence from people you work with. But nobody suggested that they work with me. The ACC witnesses presented to the court the impressions about what they thought I might be doing. This is hearsay and as an advocate you should be able to understand this concept.

The judge is not legally entitled to decide whether or not I am entitled to my ACC cover. He may only rely upon the ACC and reviewer's decision as he is not qualified as an occupational or medical assessor under S51 of the 1992 act which makes reference to capacity to work in a new occupation, which what the judge appears to have thought when thinking that because of an empire of companies I might have had the job as Emperor. The judge had no perception that the ACC had cancelled the claim and therefore alleged fraud on the basis of my no longer having an entitlement to the claim when reasoning a capacity to return to the preinjury occupation under S37 of the 1992 act. The judge was duped on the basis of the ACC perjury that they had cancelled the claim legally. Of course I was prevented from appealing the ACC decision by the ACC withholding the information from the reviewer.

ACC had not disclosed any interpretation of law or the basis of their decision in order to appeal on the basis of law. At the stage we can only surmise the basis of the ACC decision. Almost 10 years after the decision by ACC have revealed that the information they claimed to possess cause them to believe that incapacity to return to the preinjury occupation S37. That information was not available at the review hearing nor at the criminal trial establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt that I had no possibility of defending either review hearing or criminal trial. This also establishes a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by the departure of the proper administration of the act.

As the ACC have not been able to disclose the basis of the 1997 decision they had sought and successfully obtained a review hearing appeal judges permission to rely upon the criminal court trial which means that we are now working our way through the criminal trial as part and parcel of the ACC appeal. Your response "
If you cannot comprehend that and want to merge the two issues then thats your problem." Is therefore based on a wrong premise.

As your advice and thus far has not actually addressed the issues all that you are demonstrating is an inability to assist claimants in your capacity as expert advocate.

The legal counsel I have available to me is a barrister that acknowledges no knowledge of ACC matters who is greatly assisted by Warren. In fact when it came time to describe the points of law the lawyer was completely out of his depth and Warran had to step in and described to the judge the case, which of course he did an excellent job.

We are still left with the basic problem that large numbers of claimants are losing their entitlements by way of the deceptive practices of the ACC fraud unit. The problem we have is the appearance of activities is being used to obtain criminal convictions which are in turn used to support cancellation of claim. The problem is the departure of legislated procedure. My case of ACC fraud allegation and conviction (appealed) is the lead case been relied upon as caselaw by the ACC in other prosecutions and we still have not got to the bottom of addressing the key issues.


0

#29 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 02:22 PM

I am obviously way out of my depth so it would be wrong for me to pretend I can give you advice on such a complex matter.

I suggest you engage the best ACC specialist lawyer available, John Miller. I realise you say legal aid ran out, but I recall you saying the Judge was going to make funds available for your free lawyer so perhaps you can make better use of the money with JM.

That is unless John Miller has already already been subjected to you prattling on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on, and has become weary of you or dropped you like a hot potato. Of course, if everyone has turned their backs on you then Warren has proven himself and you have confidence in him, so discuss it with him.
0

#30 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 02:42 PM

Not Waddie what is complex about this issue? ACC had cancelled the claim on the basis of private investigators collecting assumptions from members of the public calling that "S73 information" as an alternative to legislated procedure. The ACC then withheld that so-called "information" preventing any form of rebuttal thus depriving my right to be heard and right of appeal.

John Miller exhausted legal aid fundings trying to obtain from the ACC the withheld "alleged information" and without funding could not go any further.

After 10 years waiting, my acquiring a court direction on my own for the ACC to surrender the information, some weeks into the appeal spread over a year still without the information of which I am trying to appeal. After we finished the extended proceedings some months ago my legal counsel still had not received one dollar. This is like giving somebody an umbrella after it stops raining. Legal funding is required prior to asking for the information which is to be appealed and not after the trial has been finished.

The result has been that the only legal counsel prepared to work on this case is somebody with no legal experience ACC matters.

The purpose of this site and those motivated by the belief in justice is to help one another in a kindly humanistic way. Warren who has helped many people for free in a kindly and humanistic way may or may not be available as and when needed and as such it would be irresponsible of me to place my faith in a lawyer that has no experience in ACC matters or somebody who does that may not be around long enough if the ACC are able to continue with their strategy of delay.

This site and its predecessor has endured for 10 years starting a few months after ACC cancelled my claim with the assistance of social welfare provided disability equipment which included a computer and software reasoning that I am incapacitated to earn any money. Social welfare also believed that the equipment would even help me build up expertise that I did not have using the opportunity of my addressing ACC matters as the practice vehicle for those skills. I understand Dennis that you think I do not have sufficient skills yet which is the reason why I am asking for help.
0

#31 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 02:51 PM

Alan why dont you just drop it get on with it get into court rather than keep going on and on its a new year now and quite frankly you are driving people away from this site.

You have told the story over and over. You and only you know the finer intricacies of the case. Rather than debate and ruin the site why dont you spend your time on trying to get this case sorted out in a manner that a judge doesnt see you as a rambler.

You may think its others that are attacking you when all honest opinion it is you that keeps the attacks going by baiting these people to do so.

Its as simple as you can stop all this fiasco by stopping the baiting.

People are leaving this site because they are sick of your long winded replies, who can be bothered to read through threads that are totally bogged down by your replies. There is nothing constructive coming out of this with your continued postings and if anything its destroying this site.
0

#32 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:25 PM

Huggy if it was not for my having no legal protection followed by conviction you would not have been enjoying your liberty in this New Year. I have undergone a significant number of attacks before the attack finally succeeded. I would suggest that you make Lyntott essential reading for your New Year so as you will realise that the ACC may very well renewed their attack on you.

Huggy unless we remain on top of the situation by not only remain in danger but others will be in danger. We are not out of the woods yet and simple reassurances of a light at the end of the tunnel is not sufficient.

The purpose of this site is to gather together the combined intelligence and experience New Zealand ACC claimants and those who are willing to help. Frankly I am not interested in those who are cowardly hiding from these problems and I am only interested in those who are willing to express a voice to resolve these problems. The site does not exist simply for social reasons for those who want to criticise or tell jokes.

You say that I am the only one that knows the finer intricacies. As this case is the fraud case at the ACC are using as case law in other such cases as such as the Hayes case through to the case that they try to bring against you it is important that there should be more people than just me that has a comprehensive understanding of the ACC technique of reducing their liabilities by false prosecution. You above most people should be putting your weight to the wheel and nose to the grindstone.

If I lose this case and if the Hayes case is also lost it goes without saying that the ACC will, without question, renewed their attack on you. They may very well do so anyway if we do not learn how to protect ourselves.

How dare you accuse me of baiting people! You have dodged the same bullet that brought me down yet you have gone on national television to draw attention to yourself and public sympathy while I have been working silently in the background to preserve your liberty while at the same time drawing on the knowledge and experience of others that but for my case you would not have enjoyed their help. Huggy you should not be so disrespectful of those who have provided you with so much help, including the site.

If you are not interested in maintaining the liberty simply do not come online to the site. If you are willing to share the workload preserving your own liberty and clearing the names of those similarly accused, including my own, then by all means come on site but do share the workload in a constructive way.

The site does not exist for people who want to engage in a popularity contest. It exists so as we may properly understand the nature of those who attack us and how to protect ourselves from them while at the same time securing our entitlements. I therefore hope that in the New Year you resolve to stand up in the name of what is right. The work may not be particularly pleasant work but it is noble work.
0

#33 User is offline   Sparrow 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:41 PM

Sorry, your last post is way over the top.
You have been asked by many to stop all this. You are ruining the site with all this repetitive bull*** and a lot of it is just not true.
You have a cheek to say " :angry: " Huggy if it was not for my having no legal protection followed by conviction you would not have been enjoying your liberty in this New Year. "

Are you trying to insinuate that Huggy got his FREEDOM COS OF YOU????
Huggy did the hard yards, kept his own counsel and never posted millions of words on here. This is why he has been succesful in his own right.
Noone an d I repeat noone on this site has you to thank, EVER!! You are dishonest, been jailed for fraud, that is clear from your trial and you cannot see the wisdom in keeping your peace and your thoughts to yourself. I would think that poor Warren is totally fed up now as well. Noone can help you.

So stop pushing yourself.
Take note Mr Thomas, THERE IS NOONE ON THIS SITE WHO CAN HELP YOU. NOONE COULD EVER GET THEIR HEADS AROUND TRUTHS AND UNTRUTHS FOR A START.
so, DO AS ASKED, GET BACK INTO YOUR HOLE AND STOP ALL THIS RUBBISH AND LETS US GET ON WITH IT IN A TIMELY MANNER WITH NO THOMAS BLAH FOR EVER.....

I am utterly sick of your constant posts all repeating every hour. There is nothing too much wrong with you, go get a job and get yourself occupied. Think of other things and stop letting ACC ruin your life.
Thankyou
0

#34 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:48 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 1 2008, 04:25 PM, said:

Huggy if it was not for my having no legal protection followed by conviction you would not have been enjoying your liberty in this New Year. I have undergone a significant number of attacks before the attack finally succeeded. I would suggest that you make Lyntott essential reading for your New Year so as you will realise that the ACC may very well renewed their attack on you.

Huggy unless we remain on top of the situation by not only remain in danger but others will be in danger. We are not out of the woods yet and simple reassurances of a light at the end of the tunnel is not sufficient.

The purpose of this site is to gather together the combined intelligence and experience New Zealand ACC claimants and those who are willing to help. Frankly I am not interested in those who are cowardly hiding from these problems and I am only interested in those who are willing to express a voice to resolve these problems. The site does not exist simply for social reasons for those who want to criticise or tell jokes.

You say that I am the only one that knows the finer intricacies. As this case is the fraud case at the ACC are using as case law in other such cases as such as the Hayes case through to the case that they try to bring against you it is important that there should be more people than just me that has a comprehensive understanding of the ACC technique of reducing their liabilities by false prosecution. You above most people should be putting your weight to the wheel and nose to the grindstone.

If I lose this case and if the Hayes case is also lost it goes without saying that the ACC will, without question, renewed their attack on you. They may very well do so anyway if we do not learn how to protect ourselves.

How dare you accuse me of baiting people! You have dodged the same bullet that brought me down yet you have gone on national television to draw attention to yourself and public sympathy while I have been working silently in the background to preserve your liberty while at the same time drawing on the knowledge and experience of others that but for my case you would not have enjoyed their help. Huggy you should not be so disrespectful of those who have provided you with so much help, including the site.

If you are not interested in maintaining the liberty simply do not come online to the site. If you are willing to share the workload preserving your own liberty and clearing the names of those similarly accused, including my own, then by all means come on site but do share the workload in a constructive way.

The site does not exist for people who want to engage in a popularity contest. It exists so as we may properly understand the nature of those who attack us and how to protect ourselves from them while at the same time securing our entitlements. I therefore hope that in the New Year you resolve to stand up in the name of what is right. The work may not be particularly pleasant work but it is noble work.


I guess the Führer has no further use for you Huggy. Easier just to ignore it.
0

#35 User is offline   Huggy 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 03:57 PM

Alan i am in no way in your position. Your help didnt get me where i am today however many others on this site did help.

I didnt take your advise when we had talked on the phone because i saw your way as a potential to land me in deep crap.

I have a lot to contribute to this site, it will help a lot of others but i dont know if it will help you.

The way you are driving people away has made me think is it worthwhile putting it up on this site. I want the information where people will see it but the way the site is going it will not exist.

I went on TV to expose the dodgy contracts not for sympathy. If you had taken a different approach with your case you may have succeeded as well.

Fine i am more than happy to not return to the site because obviously me trying to calm the situation down by trying to get you to see sense obviously is not to your liking.

I will deal with the many good people on this site via other means so good luck to you Alan.

Rather than sit online on this site all day long waiting for people to take your bait you should concentrate on working on your case. You can handle the site near on 12 hours a day so any wonder ACC see you as being capable of working.
0

#36 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 04:03 PM

Sparrow without my situation being worked on Huggy certainly would not have received the assistance he has received. Only did not do the hard yards. The hard yards were done by other people. Had he has not remained at liberty by remaining silent but from screaming from the rooftops. This is no discredit to huggy but the heroes of the situation are operating behind the scenes that would not have been here but for the site and other factors.

Sparrow it is completely arrogant of you to suggest that the site would not exist but are certain factors that are not about to describe to you but are generally understood. Amongst other things the site does stand to preserve individual claimant's integrity by providing a voice. Sometimes this voice must stand against false allegation that even results in criminal conviction as a result of perjury.

If it was not for this site neither huggy nor myself would receive the assistance we have received. That proves that speaking out on the site and in other ways is the right and proper thing to do in the absence of any legally aided funded remedy. Numerous people have contacted me privately who have read material on the site but are not even members providing not only practical help but also legal guidance and reassurances that I am doing a proper thing.

What is interesting Sparrow is that human nature seems to come to the fore to the extent that members of the site even accused me of things that neither the ACC nor the courts had even thought of which goes towards saying something about human nature, or the lack of the humanity of human nature. Your postings are a case in point.

Sparrow I paid levies so as to receive surgery to return me to my preinjury occupation. I did not pay levies so as to become a call centre operator or a ticket seller. If you are not happy with this site you can treat it like your television set and turn it off or watch a different channel. This thread is for people who have interests about ACC making false allegations of work capacity and do not receive any assessment procedure but instead are prosecuted as the ACC exit strategy.

Sparrow if you are not interested in these more serious matters you are not invited to contribute. If you want to reduce your postings to personal attack of course that will cause the site to be changed to prevent that type of abuse. You are of course encouraged to participate in the various discussion groups on the site, including this thread, if you can restrict your postings to the issues.


Not Waddie whether huggy realises it or not we still need each other for technical protections regarding the understanding of the act and future attacks and for the humanistic support that such fellowship brings.
0

#37 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 04:19 PM

Alan, it might be better if you apologise to Huggy and blame it on the medication. It might be also wise to take his advice.
0

#38 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 04:34 PM

Not Waddieall that you have established is that if ACC allege someone to have been working that they will not receive any assistance from the average advocate,
Huggy included. You will be no apology to huggy because he is promoting that we become delusional or put our heads in the sand, a strategy of which I strongly disagree.

In addition had he actually did to meaningful work for pecuniary advantage, not to himself but to a third party on the basis that he was gaining experience for purposes of rehabilitation. Somebody else in New Zealand is doing exactly the same as huggy was of which the ACC had vigorously attempted to tamper with his entitlements knowing that this fellow was following exactly the same advice given to Huggy.


Media attentiion should not be the mode of securing an entitllement and even though huggy hass been successful in this way it is not a mechanism that should be encouraged as aan alternative to proper and competent advocacy or legal representation.

Not Waddie This thread aand others like it will continue until such time as thee claimant's and advocates alike comprehend a reasonable strategy aagainst tthe attacks on ACC makes up on the likes of huggy and myself. Please keep in mind that huggy did work for pecuniary advantage and I did not so before you criticise me you should work that one out as tto why huggy has not been prosecuted while I was.
0

#39 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 01 January 2008 - 04:44 PM

The thread may continue on and on and on and on... , but it may only be you discussing it with yourself.
0

#40 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10459
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 01 January 2008 - 05:00 PM

Not Waddie

WHAT A LOAD OF NONSENSE

I only ever respond
0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 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