ACCforum: Acc Fraud - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Acc Fraud ACC V Thomas district court T990176

#81 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 03 January 2008 - 07:59 AM


Thats why he never makes any sense perhaps. He certainly is not a good liar.


#82 User is offline   Not Waddie 

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

Posted 03 January 2008 - 08:57 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on Jan 3 2008, 02:15 AM, said:

I simply do not have thhe mental agility to be a liar as the extensive and complicated set of circumstances would be well beyond my capacity to keep up with.

I thought you considered you have above average cognitive ability despite having part of your brain damaged?

#83 User is offline   flowers 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 25-March 04

  Posted 03 January 2008 - 08:59 AM

The Answer is there for all to see: Attached File  dont_vote_labour.gif (6.45K)
Number of downloads: 4

#84 User is offline   Hardwired 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 36
  • Joined: 18-February 07

Posted 08 January 2008 - 12:03 AM

bump de bump

#85 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 27 November 2015 - 02:09 PM

Thomas v Accident Compensation Corporation [2015] NZACC 321 (28 October 2015)

Last Updated: 13 November 2015


[2015] NZACC 321 ACR 48/14






Hearing: 10 June 2015

Evidence Completed: 3 July 2015

Appearances: The appellant in person

D Tuiqereqere for the respondent

Judgment: 28 October 2015


[35] For the reasons outlined, the appeal is dismissed.

Judge Denese Henare
District Court Judge

[1] Van Helmond v Accident Compensation Corporation [2012] NZACC 42

View PostAlan Thomas, on 02 January 2008 - 07:01 PM, said:

BoHo Refugee I believe in the purity of fact and the purity of law and do not pander to those who believe they are in some kind of hierarchy of decision-making authority trying to influence one another. With regards to making any type of representation to a prospective customer or employer I am always most careful to be honest. For example when I was injured while working for trigon I was not honestly able to continue while incapacitated. For another example the principal exhibit of the ACC was a letter made out to a customer who wanted to pay me money for my designs and services, a letter that was not delivered because I was not honestly able to service his needs.

The ACC sent me to an employment consultant in the hope that he would find me a job. He spent much of his time trying to get me all enthusiastic about getting a job. He wanted to assist me to produce CV which essentially would have been a false document. I clearly remember him telling me I should fake it until I could make it. I reported his dishonesty to the case manager. To my horror the case manager did not seem to think he was too much wrong with that type of dishonesty even thinking it was not necessarily dishonest. Being an employer most of my life if I was duped into playing someone based on dishonesty I would prosecute the employee for the dishonesty.

I reminded the case manager that I was not available for employment. I reminded the case manager that I could not involved myself in any employment until I had the surgery as awarded to me by the 1992 review hearing decision. I did offer to demonstrate by way of business plans while I was unable to work in the businesses I owned and why the ACC cannot expect me to subsidise myself within a jointly owned company such as the immigration consultancy and how any such activities would need to be within the context of a new company solely owned by myself supported by the ACC so as I do not commit fraud upon anybody.

My rehabilitation plan is given to the ACC involved all of the different options ranging from doing nothing and waiting for the surgery through to reeducation, voice software and so forth through to creating a business designed to support my incapacity. The ACC gave me an ultimatum to produce business plans or suspend then cancel my ERC. I complied by producing business plans that confirmed my incapacity to function in a business. My case manager was furious and cancelled my claim the following month anyway.

One other question is would anything have been different for you if you were doing your *investigations* out of hours OR would anything have been different if you disclosed/admitted a ten hour work week @$35 per hour so that ACC could have abated your ERC on actual or potential income etc I appreciate these questions may be redundant or frustrating Alan but TBH it is impossible for me to dissect *your case* specifically so I can only use on generic fraud matters and try to compare or contrast etc

What part of "not working" do you not understand. How on earth or why would I admit to anything I was not doing. I am an honest person. My preinjury charge out rate was $120. I expected reconstructive surgery to return to that capacity, no less. Hypothetically if I was working the two hours per day and allowable by the medical certificates and charging out $240 per day it is conceivable that the ACC might think I was no longer incapacitated to earn as the ERC they were paying me would have been exceeded. Why would I give the ACC a discount on the liability?

To have generic fraud situation he needs to be any "double dipping" situation. That means receiving ERC while at the same time enjoying earnings to the extent that ACC would no longer have a liability.

There is no circular issue if I am incapacitated from returning to my preinjury occupation and ACC have no information to suggest otherwise. Suggesting that I have been working purely on the assumption that I was working because of the existence of companies is insufficient in every single respect.

The interruption to the circular issue is for the ACC staff who make decisions to obey the law and not commit perjury by saying they had conducted the proper determination procedures in order to make a decision that cancelled my claim.

The circular argument is interrupted when people who commit perjury are put in prison.

He said he would keep a personal diary. I had personal diaries which the private investigator seized at the search warrant and has still got preventing me from using them as defence. The same goes for the "paper trail" ACC took away the company documents describing who did what to the exclusion of myself and kept this information from the court and myself. These documents remain in the possession of the ACC.

If you ever find yourself defending a fraud case you must rely totally upon the objective rather than the subjective. ACC however have succeeded in a guilty verdict based totally on subjective information that was arrived at by way of unsubstantiated conjecture. In this situation only objective information will come to the rescue but the ACC seized the object of information and kept it in their possession.

As the ACC brought low opposing medical information to the fraud trial and I was being taken away by ambulance the judge required the ACC to provide objective medical evidence to support their case. ACC refused and continue to base their case upon subjective assumption knowing that I had no objective information as they had taken it. Nevertheless Dr Gill Newburn and Dr Emrys produced medical reports at my cost but alas not until after the trial because I did not know they would be needed given that there was no clue about what was needed for the trial as ACC made no disclosure until during the trial. Specialists put you on a waiting list which means they would be no report until after conviction.

Neddy the original site was set up 1998 and many men this currently online contributing members back in those days. The original and subsequent sites had never set out to generate income and have never even cover costs. The users of the site do so as guests. I guess it human nature for a percentage of society to be a kindness with suspicion and can only think their own thoughts of thinking ulterior motives. My heart bleeds for these miserable souls.

Ivan & NoDRSL would have been the most predominant posters of case law. Their motives have been most noble in their gift to us all. When Tomcat wanted to start a separate site he was of course welcome to all of the same information that we all enjoy freely. I cannot for the life of me think why the security of the site was breached in an attempt to get what was freely available.

Whether or not I have obtained ERC by the use of medical certificates illegally or not depends on whether or not I am incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation. It is not more complicated than that. Unfortunately there are those befuddled amongst us who think that fraud comes about by impressions.

By befuddled I include his honor on the list of befuddled people. He was required to measure the length and breadth of an overpayment prior to conviction and especially prior to sentencing.

Michael Spraggon who is not befuddled acknowledge that the ACC had withheld this information and promised to calculate the alleged overpayment 2003.

It is only after that calculation is made that anybody can have a right to call me a thief.

With regards to the apparent necessity to automate the moderation of this site it is for the likes of yourself who make personal attacks that are making this necessary. Unfortunately we have no one available who can spare the time and energy to be a moderator. As the moderator only carried out of action in accordance with a set of rules it is just as easy to give such an instruction to the software whereby all postings go through a filter system. There will simply be an automated response advising the necessity of a modification of the posting attempting to be made. This is not unreasonable.

Mini what is there that indicates I have any connection with the function of this site, had conducted any behind-the-scenes "work" or in any way have a controlling influence? This is a reasonable similarity to the ACC allegation that I was the driving force behind an empire of companies.

Appearances and assumptions, even widely held beliefs, are not a substitute for actual fact. Anyone reading this site and reading your suggestions of my being involved in some form of dastardly plan of manipulation of this site might be forgiven for believing what you write given that you write it so many times. How many people and how many times do such things need to be written before they become true.

Do you believe in ghosts, flying saucers, global warming and global domination by superpowers as well? You are beginning to sound like our government and the bureaucrats that served them including the ACC who will believe anything and promote it so long as it is to their own advantage. What do you believe and why do you believe it? What is the driving force to your belief system? Unfortunately this disease is spreading throughout New Zealand like a plague over the last several decades.


#86 User is offline   chroy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 05-July 11

Posted 30 November 2016 - 02:06 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 01 January 2008 - 01:00 PM, said:

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.


Share this topic:

  • 5 Pages +
  • « First
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 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