ACCforum: ACC Fraud Unit Audit - ACCforum

Jump to content

  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

ACC Fraud Unit Audit Discussion and input please

#61 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 09 February 2014 - 04:21 PM

View Postpractioner123, on 09 February 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

New Zealand is covered on this list- if there is ANY chance of a criminal ANYTHING, then ALL evidence must be treated with the utmost care, and ALL heresy objected to, forthwith, lest a miscarriage of justice occur http://en.wikipedia....say#New_Zealand



A recent case- "probative value" means of value to findings of law, generally. Law dictionary free online https://my.lawsociet...13-NZCA-247.pdf
1

#62 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 04:43 PM

View PostDavid Butler, on 09 February 2014 - 03:55 PM, said:

Alan
Your wrist did NOT stop you owning and operating a number of companies nor doing work within them.
someone was running theses and someone was doing the book work and someone was doing the tax stuff-someone was doing the banking
WHO WAS THE PERSON/S who did all that if you didnt and were they owners shareholders or paid employees if it is the case someone else did this things
It rather like de Plot
I ask you questions
YOU MISLEAD WITH WPRDS WHICH AT TIME MAKES A LIE
and rather like de Good ship hector-the 40 foot yacht
im still fathoming the sailing of hector for a bloody long way singe handedly at that in raging storms-the storm caused grounding -which must have had the yacht lying on its side keel and all-the amazing un-grounding t and the boat was not damaged and you sailed it back again
anyone with half a brain would have turned round 1/3rd the way up de channel with the weather that was there-let alone an idiot that continued into a gale out to sea which =sea is cook strait area.
you do pose interesting quandaries at times in all your explanations via wordsmithing
Knowing exactly where yp say you clambered aboard de yacht makes it more of a poser that you sailed for a LONG time and a LONG way in stormy weather before ya even got to the sea -
mmmmm Dave,


David you start making an accusation that my wrist injury did not stop me from working.
Then you immediately ask who did the work which diminishes your first accusation.

The ACC initially claimed that I was working as a director and working as an immigration consultant without any evidence whatsoever.
After a large number of search warrant they still found no information to support their allegations.

ACC asked that the reviewer make a decision in good faith that they do have information and that the information not be disclosed to me so they can achieve a criminal conviction. The reviewer cooperated in this conspiracy to achieve a criminal conviction with secret information and decided not to ddisturb the ACC decision. The ACC relied upon the reviewers decision as the basis of the criminal conviction. The ACC asked that my appeal to the reviewers decision be withheld from me until after the criminal conviction. The district court registrar cooperated with the ACC in denying the right to appeal.

10 years later I finally got the district court to direct the ACC to disclose their alleged information with the result that the ACC was not able to describe a single work task activity at any material time.

I showed at the district court each and every one of the company activities And who carried out that activity together with the pay records describing who got paid to do what. This demonstrated I could not have carried out a single work task activity for any of the businesses I owned as each of the employees involved did carry out all the activities of the business to the exclusion of myself. The evidence was in the form of documented evidence. This included every single business transaction including all immigration consultant contracts which ACC also sought to determine from New Zealand Immigration Services themselves. In other words not one single work task activity was attributed to myself. All these facts are documented into the court record. Judge Barber in his decision however declared that he chose to ignore the information presented to him and he even excluded the submissions and exhibits entered into court evidence identifying what he had excluded in his decision.

As for the accident event regarding the yachting that has already been discussed at length. You appear to be trying to provoke a new discussion in regards to matters that have already been settled.
1

#63 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 05:34 PM

Practitioner 123

In the judgements of both the criminal and civil hearings the judge congratulated the ACC in the "comprehensive" submissions to the extent that they both decided that they could safely disregard my submissions. To put this in writing is incredible that that is what they did. At the criminal trial the ACC used up more than six weeks of court time before I got a chance to respond. When I went to submit exhibits in response the judge shut my response down and refused to allow me to make any submissions presenting exhibits. Basically I did not have hearing.

The foundation document in both civil and criminal trial was the ACC decision letter asserting that it could cancel my entire claim and entitlements on the basis that they have information I was working and that the information was what is reference to an section 73 (1) of the 1992 ACC legislation. Every element of that was wrong. 10 years after the letter I got the signatory to the letter in the stand under oath. She was a barrister at the time of signing the letter and asserted that she did not or the letter, did not understand the letter and cannot remember who made the decision or instructed her to type up and find it despite the fact that there was a note on my file from the manager of the ACC fraud unit in Auckland enquiring as to why my entitlements had not been stopped and why his instructions to cancel my claim had not been obeyed. When he was under oath he denied memory of the memo which found its way onto my file despite the fact that he had dated & signed it. I asked if both could confirm that the reason they date and sign documents is for the very reason they asserted in this court, that they might forget and that is why a written signed record is important.

I did file a complaint with the ACC at the time of the decision letter with the result that the complaints officer made enquiries which followed the advice that they withdraw their decision if they don't want to make disclosure. The advice of the complaints officer was disregarded. The complaints officer under oath in the district court appeal brought to the attention of the court that they were effectively a public relations officer rather than the complaints office that we have today. The current office of the complaints investigator assert that they have no responsibility to look into the failure to disclose information as the problem originated prior to the formation of their office, despite the fact that in 2006 the court has ordered the ACC to make disclosure.

It is very clear that the ACC did all that they could to distance themselves from a decision and simply stole my money, health and position in the community while running away giggling into the dark. They even joined and with the making of comments like it should be fun deporting my wife who was a 24 hour per day seven day per week witness directly involved my rehabilitation projects and in impression that the ACC informants may have had as to whether or not I was working. She assisted me with my rehabilitation projects required of me by the ACC on pain of suspension of ERC.

Rules of evidence has been continuously stable and without much change over a very long period of time. The bottomline is that the ACC had no evidence of any description other than submitting to the court what they believed to be "commonsense" based on intuition with the result that the judge in his wisdom determined that as the ACC had no information describing single work task activity the ACC should have determined whether or not I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation and therefore must have made such a determination despite the fact that the ACC did not even know what my preinjury occupation was at the time of decision and neither found out at a later stage despite spending vast sums of money 10 years after the decision trying to find out without regards to be comprehensive report describing my preinjury occupation by the professional that trains the ACC occupational assessors. Up to surgery my capacity for my right dominant hand has increased to 4 KG and prior to surgery the medical report describes no useful capacity whatsoever. I could not even maintain two or three lines of writing let alone operate the mouse adequately. The ACC position was that a mechanical design engineer did not need the use of his right hand. They also inform the court by way of the expert witness who have no qualifications whatsoever that computer-aided design decisions do not need a mouse. Even if that were true, which is not, I would still have needed some form of occupational rehabilitation to teach me to use entirely different software that the ACC presented to the court. This offer I used could not be used any other way other than using a mouse and with a significant level of dexterity and precision as confirmed by the 1992 review hearing in my favour. The court disregarded that the reviewers decision was even binding upon the court and the ACC cannot simply make a new decision and asked another court to rule differently but rather must appeal the reviewers decision in 1992, even out of time, it was to challenge that review hearing decision.

With regards to Bruce and with respect to Bruce he has not had to endure and keep on pressing the case as I have. In terms of legal procedures and so forth this case is only a very small percentage of what I had to face. The ACC acknowledged that this I have had to endure is by far the biggest case in their history. They have used my case to attack the likes of Bruce. Despite taking a few backward steps in this case they still carry on in total disregard of any discipline resulting from this case with mine and the majority of others. They just function in a more secret and defiant way.

The foundation of my case is that there was an agreed accident event resulting in structural damage. In 1991 the ACC felt that I was no longer incapacitated but the reviewers decision found otherwise. The ACC simply disregarded the reviewers decision and proceeded to fraud prosecution claim that work cancelled out a claim without actually describing his work. On both counts they were wrong so they then changed tack to assert that I was no longer incapacitated and convincing the judge to press on with that line of approach despite never making a decision to that effect in 1997 that was effectively happened is the judge disregarded absolutely everything and decided to defy the 1992 reviewers decisions which already addressed that issue. The judges position on the matter during the trial was that I should put him in judicial review for disregarding the ACC decision, making a new one and then ruling in a new decision without regard for any fact of any description.

It is a little difficult functioning in the court room with the judge total disregard is the case that is before him and inventors on and then rules on that.

I don't know if framed is the proper word most certainly the ACC and their informants did commit perjury and most certainly the judge totally disregarded what he was therefore.

I certainly do cross-examined the ACC informants who under oath confessed that they had committed perjury in as much as they had no information to suggest I was working and that I was not the manager as they have told the ACC bus they in fact were managing my companies while at the same time setting up a petition company's of their own and gutting the one they were meant to be managing. When the court out red-handed a promise of a bloodbath was issued. What they did not realise that I had recorded them and played a recording to the court while also providing documented evidence that they were managing, not me. They then broke down and confessed that they had lied to the ACC and court. The judge disregarded this confession of perjury and turned his attention back to what the ACC said that they were going to say rather than what they did say under oath.

I don't think what we have was hearsay gossip but rather cold calculated perjury for pecuniary advantage. But one hearing confessions of perjury in such circumstances the judge should have issued a bench warrant for the arrest but instead he simply closed hid ears.

Most certainly I did not fail to object. I objected so strenuously that the ACC did not have a case and that the judge should require the case immediately found in my favour during the course of the hearing. The judge had announced that he was issuing a new decision for the ACC entirely different to what was being appealed in order that he helped the ACC out with a decision that had no substance!

I remind you that the ACC had already gone to legal aid seeking that I received no legal aid funding, to which legal aid obliged and refused funding. It was not as I did not have a case. Proving this to be the reality ACC found it necessary to have three lawyers going up against in the court room or once. I had an extremely robust case. I am the type of person who prepares his case meticulously and comprehensively both in point of law and with proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits. I subpoenaed the ACC staff into the dock where they were questioneed under oath and revealed the absolute reality of this case in as much as there was no evidence to support the ACC decision, no point of law that they relied upon and that the ACC had knowingly acquired informants as a firewall to themselves and gone to considerable lengths to hide their dishonesty.

This gets to the nature or standard of reviewers and district court judges in the ACC judicial arena. When two different judges hear a similar number of cases yet one judge finds in favour of the ACC at twice the percentage of the other it is reasonable to call at judge into question as to the comprehension of ACC law, motive and even integrity. I find myself asking how a judge can determine that all medical profession are wrong in favour of his intuition that he describes in the judgement as it is medically qualified to serve the authority of the medical profession as to fact.

I take the view that the laws in New Zealand are relatively stable. I think this is the international opinion supported by relevant authorities as well. I think what we may be looking at is rather the nature of our bureaucrats and how they go about this regarding reason abusing the law. During the 50s and 60s judges felt it to be a privilege to be a judge, even an honour. Today however we do not find the best legal minds becoming judges but rather, especially in the junior courts, the dregs of the legal fraternity. The level of integrity steadily rises throughout the superior courts. We must not forget that we are very small country drawing from an even smaller pool of legal professionals with fewer and fewer wishing to become a judge.

I do not agree that fascism is corporatism. ACC is a Corporation in name only with a very loose use of the word. By definition it seeks to be a socialist entity with the majority of New Zealanders seeking something for nothing. The ACC claim that most New Zealanders want to pay less in levies but without a change in legislation this simply isn't possible unless the accident victims, the minority, are shortchanged. In a democracy of course the majority rule, the levy payers. In a privatised situation with multiple insurance companies to choose from market forces would have the effect of a competition to demonstrate a greater level of honesty. With a monopoly ACC simply do not have this inconvenience of even having attempting to generate the perception of being honest.

ACC most certainly do when there front-line staff with the assistance of profiling tools. Typically they select overweight past their use by date divorced woman who are nurses/teachers and suchlike who hate their work and have become cynical because they have no future prospects in life. ACC offer slightly higher earnings capacity rendering it impossible for them to go anywhere else thus having a captive employee whereby they are malleable and compliant.
1

#64 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 February 2014 - 05:47 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

David you start making an accusation that my wrist injury did not stop me from working.

THE COMPANIES TURNED OVER MONEY ALAN-You were a director of some of them
EVEN THE ONES YOU WERNT A DIRECTOR OF, TURNED OVER MONEY
Who run ''ALL''the companies basics ?

Then you immediately ask who did the work which diminishes your first accusation.
If it wasnt you Then who was and who rolled the money round-someone had to do the baking over the counter-Must be someone CANT BE NO ONE



The ACC initially claimed that I was working as a director and working as an immigration consultant without any evidence whatsoever.
They had something that nailed you otherwise you would have got off
After a large number of search warrant they still found no information to support their allegations.

ACC asked that the reviewer make a decision in good faith that they do have information and that the information not be disclosed to me so they can achieve a criminal conviction. The reviewer cooperated in this conspiracy to achieve a criminal conviction with secret information and decided not to ddisturb the ACC decision. The ACC relied upon the reviewers decision as the basis of the criminal conviction. The ACC asked that my appeal to the reviewers decision be withheld from me until after the criminal conviction. The district court registrar cooperated with the ACC in denying the right to appeal.

10 years later I finally got the district court to direct the ACC to disclose their alleged information with the result that the ACC was not able to describe a single work task activity at any material time.

I showed at the district court each and every one of the company activities And who carried out that activity together with the pay records describing who got paid to do what. This demonstrated I could not have carried out a single work task activity for any of the businesses I owned as each of the employees involved did carry out all the activities of the business to the exclusion of myself. The evidence was in the form of documented evidence. This included every single business transaction including all immigration consultant contracts which ACC also sought to determine from New Zealand Immigration Services themselves. In other words not one single work task activity was attributed to myself. All these facts are documented into the court record. Judge Barber in his decision however declared that he chose to ignore the information presented to him and he even excluded the submissions and exhibits entered into court evidence identifying what he had excluded in his decision.

As for the accident event regarding the yachting that has already been discussed at length. You appear to be trying to provoke a new discussion in regards to matters that have already been settled.
No its like de Plot Alan NEVER settled as far as i concerned
I personally dont believe you had an accident at the sounds as you described but had rather a different set of circumstances which you wordsmith your way round in here all the time
as like i know that erica was eating at mcdonalds at a particular day time I KNOW exactly on each particular day youy were there-what the weather winds etc ''very detailed at that and having spent a lot of time in the sounds in a boat and out in the seas where you say you ,were and what you describe just dont add up
NEVER HAS
Just how did Hector re floatPosted Image itself gain alan?
Dave




0

#65 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:10 PM

David Butler how many times must I explained that of the companies I was either 100% owner of or a shareholder of a did not participate in any of the work task activities, not even in my capacity as director. Other people did all the work including counting the money. Under oath the ACC confessed having no information of any description describing a single work task activity at any material time. The ACC asserted $1.3 million earnings by me claim to be in reliance upon the forensic accountant yet when I got the forensic accountant in the stand, subpoenaed and under oath, he told the court that the ACC withheld the financial details from them that they are acquired by search warrant and asked him to produce a report that described the and goings in outgoings of the company. It was from the revenue that the ACC claimed I was earning without attaching a single work task activity to a single event. If there was no employees you still would not have been any earnings as the company was not making a profit as was confirmed by the forensic accountant putting an end to any nonsense about $1.3 million earnings by me. When looking at the wage books and financial records of the various contract staff together with all of the company expenses the last dollar was proven to be accounted for to the exclusion of any work acceptable to myself. To add to that every single work task activity within the company was accounted for as I previously explained to you. What I find myself repeating the same information to if you are not comprehending what I'm writing please clarify what part of the information you don't understand. We went through all of this type of thing when your best buddies with Douglas weal within providing you the questions.

On what basis do you believe the accident event. The ACC are certainly explored any possibility very different event and even asked the surgeon to give an alternative explanation for my injuries with the result that the surgeon said under oath that my injuries were perfectly consistent with the accident event described and at the same time. In any event there was structural damage that was caused by a severe outside force causing disability confirmed by a significant number of scientific instruments such as CT and MRI scans.

On the day of the injury there was a storm warning and there was a storm. There was a made a call out and the boat was towed of the soft sand at the beach which I gently touched and towed back to base with the owner flew in only minutes later during the emergency over the radio concerning his yacht. There are photos of the shown in court at the judges request. I was not out to sea as you say but within the sound with only very slight chop but high winds which funnelled down through the the hills. I cannot speak to your inexperience with yachts and yachting but can only describe what happened on the day of the accident event which has already been described more than adequately for all concerned. If you wish to make trouble it will soon be evident and I certainly won't respond.

Why David do you try to challenge reality even when the ACC with their multibillion-dollar resources cannot and don't. Is it that you think you can help the ACC out in some way with superior expertise. Why are you attempting to wind me up.
0

#66 User is offline   unit1of2 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 20-March 12

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:18 PM

Talk about a life long obsessive problem........fcuk sake!!! Get a blaRdy life... for pete's sake...


0

#67 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 09 February 2014 - 06:29 PM

View Postunit1of2, on 09 February 2014 - 06:18 PM, said:

Talk about a life long obsessive problem........fcuk sake!!! Get a blaRdy life... for pete's sake...




Tell ACC about it.

I only want to go back to my old job
0

#68 User is offline   David Butler 

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

Posted 09 February 2014 - 07:28 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

David Butler how many times must I explained that of the companies I was either 100% owner of or a shareholder of a did not participate in any of the work task activities, not even in my capacity as director. Other people did all the work including counting the money. Under oath the ACC confessed having no information of any description describing a single work task activity at any material time. The ACC asserted $1.3 million earnings by me claim to be in reliance upon the forensic accountant yet when I got the forensic accountant in the stand, subpoenaed and under oath, he told the court that the ACC withheld the financial details from them that they are acquired by search warrant and asked him to produce a report that described the and goings in outgoings of the company. It was from the revenue that the ACC claimed I was earning without attaching a single work task activity to a single event. If there was no employees you still would not have been any earnings as the company was not making a profit as was confirmed by the forensic accountant putting an end to any nonsense about $1.3 million earnings by me. When looking at the wage books and financial records of the various contract staff together with all of the company expenses the last dollar was proven to be accounted for to the exclusion of any work acceptable to myself. To add to that every single work task activity within the company was accounted for as I previously explained to you. What I find myself repeating the same information to if you are not comprehending what I'm writing please clarify what part of the information you don't understand. We went through all of this type of thing when your best buddies with Douglas weal within providing you the questions.

On what basis do you believe the accident event. The ACC are certainly explored any possibility very different event and even asked the surgeon to give an alternative explanation for my injuries with the result that the surgeon said under oath that my injuries were perfectly consistent with the accident event described and at the same time. In any event there was structural damage that was caused by a severe outside force causing disability confirmed by a significant number of scientific instruments such as CT and MRI scans.

On the day of the injury there was a storm warning and there was a storm. There was a made a call out and the boat was towed of the soft sand at the beach which I gently touched and towed back to base with the owner flew in only minutes later during the emergency over the radio concerning his yacht. There are photos of the shown in court at the judges request. I was not out to sea as you say You have stated that in here many times alan-OUT TO SEA.but within the sound with only very slight chop WAHAT BAY WERE YOU ALLEGEDLY IN Alan?but high winds which funnelled down through the the hills. surface winds in the Harbour area were mAX 20 Knots-Now de storms alan There was storms and they was out a long way from there and the readings ARE SURFACE WIND SPEED 42 knots recorded so above that you know its gets a lot stronger than that-AND YOU WERE SAILING IN IT AND GENTLY GROUNDED-Get off de grass alan ya full of crap I cannot speak to your inexperience oH DEAR INEXPERIENCE news time for ya there AlanPosted Imagewith yachts and yachting but can only describe what happened on the day of the accident event which has already been described more than adequately for all concerned. If you wish to make trouble it will soon be evident and I certainly won't respond.

Why David do you try to challenge reality even when the ACC with their multibillion-dollar resources cannot and don't. Is it that you think you can help the ACC out in some way with superior expertise. Why are you attempting to wind me up.

0

#69 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 10 February 2014 - 05:47 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 04:43 PM, said:

David you start making an accusation that my wrist injury did not stop me from working.
Then you immediately ask who did the work which diminishes your first accusation.

The ACC initially claimed that I was working as a director and working as an immigration consultant without any evidence whatsoever.
After a large number of search warrant they still found no information to support their allegations.

ACC asked that the reviewer make a decision in good faith that they do have information and that the information not be disclosed to me so they can achieve a criminal conviction. The reviewer cooperated in this conspiracy to achieve a criminal conviction with secret information and decided not to ddisturb the ACC decision. The ACC relied upon the reviewers decision as the basis of the criminal conviction. The ACC asked that my appeal to the reviewers decision be withheld from me until after the criminal conviction. The district court registrar cooperated with the ACC in denying the right to appeal.

10 years later I finally got the district court to direct the ACC to disclose their alleged information with the result that the ACC was not able to describe a single work task activity at any material time.

I showed at the district court each and every one of the company activities And who carried out that activity together with the pay records describing who got paid to do what. This demonstrated I could not have carried out a single work task activity for any of the businesses I owned as each of the employees involved did carry out all the activities of the business to the exclusion of myself. The evidence was in the form of documented evidence. This included every single business transaction including all immigration consultant contracts which ACC also sought to determine from New Zealand Immigration Services themselves. In other words not one single work task activity was attributed to myself. All these facts are documented into the court record. Judge Barber in his decision however declared that he chose to ignore the information presented to him and he even excluded the submissions and exhibits entered into court evidence identifying what he had excluded in his decision.

As for the accident event regarding the yachting that has already been discussed at length. You appear to be trying to provoke a new discussion in regards to matters that have already been settled.


"ACC was not able to describe a single work task activity at any material time." That sounds like grounds for appeal, on its own, a la David Bain. I would proceed with caution, because if what you say is true, then it would be rather embarrassing for ACC if you overturned your criminal case. So I suggest one foot in front of the other, attacking any even seemingly minute detail that may have forged the foundation of the conviction. If you never confessed (especially if there was nothing to confess to), and were found "guilty" by a jury, especially if here-say was allowed as "evidence" (i.e.: "he's a witch!" or not evidence because nobody will swear to it as fact "so help me God," you should have a look at the legal concepts of "actus rea" and "mens rea," because these have formed the basis of appeal decisions that have overturned convictions as a matter of law. If, however, you "cut a deal" or "accepted you were guilty" in any way, whatsoever, then I'm afraid you have a tougher hill to climb). If, however, you maintained your innocence consistently, then you could very well have a case, and you may, in fact, have been convicted on a theory, which is a miscarriage of justice. If you go and read everything you can find Greg King's speeches to the court on Ewan McDonald, you will see a master at his craft, and one address to the court was about theories. If your case is resolved, and you have yet to receive ever single piece of paper used against you to obtain a conviction, then that in itself, is possible grounds for appeal, because it is a "settled" matter. If they really are "hiding something" then some heads some roll for not turning it over, and like Bruce did, complain complain complain, until you get it. And be sure you have a good paper trial, that you can attest UNDER OATH, that "I did this, and this, and sent this, and no reply." IF they ARE hiding something, it is up to you to dredge it up, because if they secured a conviction on HERE-SAY, then that itself is considered a mis-carriage of justice, by any Western legal standard.

If none of the ACC staff could swear to any of their "facts" under oath, then it is "here-say." Other countries know full and well that securing criminal convictions, regardless of the "circumstances," or how bad the person might look "guilty," results in a miscarriage of justice most every time. "He looks guilty" is not EVIDENCE. That is what's called an "ad hominem" argument. It means, like the scene from Quest for the Holy Grail "She's a witch!" "She turned me into a newt!" Classic= but unfortunately such medieval logic is still practiced in this country, and hence probably why it took so long for the 2006 Evidence rules to be introduced, as was the Bill of Rights. These existed in other countries long before they existed in NZ
0

#70 User is offline   practioner123 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10-January 13

Posted 10 February 2014 - 10:31 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 05:34 PM, said:

Practitioner 123

In the judgements of both the criminal and civil hearings the judge congratulated the ACC in the "comprehensive" submissions to the extent that they both decided that they could safely disregard my submissions. To put this in writing is incredible that that is what they did. At the criminal trial the ACC used up more than six weeks of court time before I got a chance to respond. When I went to submit exhibits in response the judge shut my response down and refused to allow me to make any submissions presenting exhibits. Basically I did not have hearing.

The foundation document in both civil and criminal trial was the ACC decision letter asserting that it could cancel my entire claim and entitlements on the basis that they have information I was working and that the information was what is reference to an section 73 (1) of the 1992 ACC legislation. Every element of that was wrong. 10 years after the letter I got the signatory to the letter in the stand under oath. She was a barrister at the time of signing the letter and asserted that she did not or the letter, did not understand the letter and cannot remember who made the decision or instructed her to type up and find it despite the fact that there was a note on my file from the manager of the ACC fraud unit in Auckland enquiring as to why my entitlements had not been stopped and why his instructions to cancel my claim had not been obeyed. When he was under oath he denied memory of the memo which found its way onto my file despite the fact that he had dated & signed it. I asked if both could confirm that the reason they date and sign documents is for the very reason they asserted in this court, that they might forget and that is why a written signed record is important.

I did file a complaint with the ACC at the time of the decision letter with the result that the complaints officer made enquiries which followed the advice that they withdraw their decision if they don't want to make disclosure. The advice of the complaints officer was disregarded. The complaints officer under oath in the district court appeal brought to the attention of the court that they were effectively a public relations officer rather than the complaints office that we have today. The current office of the complaints investigator assert that they have no responsibility to look into the failure to disclose information as the problem originated prior to the formation of their office, despite the fact that in 2006 the court has ordered the ACC to make disclosure.

It is very clear that the ACC did all that they could to distance themselves from a decision and simply stole my money, health and position in the community while running away giggling into the dark. They even joined and with the making of comments like it should be fun deporting my wife who was a 24 hour per day seven day per week witness directly involved my rehabilitation projects and in impression that the ACC informants may have had as to whether or not I was working. She assisted me with my rehabilitation projects required of me by the ACC on pain of suspension of ERC.

Rules of evidence has been continuously stable and without much change over a very long period of time. The bottomline is that the ACC had no evidence of any description other than submitting to the court what they believed to be "commonsense" based on intuition with the result that the judge in his wisdom determined that as the ACC had no information describing single work task activity the ACC should have determined whether or not I was incapacitated to return to my preinjury occupation and therefore must have made such a determination despite the fact that the ACC did not even know what my preinjury occupation was at the time of decision and neither found out at a later stage despite spending vast sums of money 10 years after the decision trying to find out without regards to be comprehensive report describing my preinjury occupation by the professional that trains the ACC occupational assessors. Up to surgery my capacity for my right dominant hand has increased to 4 KG and prior to surgery the medical report describes no useful capacity whatsoever. I could not even maintain two or three lines of writing let alone operate the mouse adequately. The ACC position was that a mechanical design engineer did not need the use of his right hand. They also inform the court by way of the expert witness who have no qualifications whatsoever that computer-aided design decisions do not need a mouse. Even if that were true, which is not, I would still have needed some form of occupational rehabilitation to teach me to use entirely different software that the ACC presented to the court. This offer I used could not be used any other way other than using a mouse and with a significant level of dexterity and precision as confirmed by the 1992 review hearing in my favour. The court disregarded that the reviewers decision was even binding upon the court and the ACC cannot simply make a new decision and asked another court to rule differently but rather must appeal the reviewers decision in 1992, even out of time, it was to challenge that review hearing decision.

With regards to Bruce and with respect to Bruce he has not had to endure and keep on pressing the case as I have. In terms of legal procedures and so forth this case is only a very small percentage of what I had to face. The ACC acknowledged that this I have had to endure is by far the biggest case in their history. They have used my case to attack the likes of Bruce. Despite taking a few backward steps in this case they still carry on in total disregard of any discipline resulting from this case with mine and the majority of others. They just function in a more secret and defiant way.

The foundation of my case is that there was an agreed accident event resulting in structural damage. In 1991 the ACC felt that I was no longer incapacitated but the reviewers decision found otherwise. The ACC simply disregarded the reviewers decision and proceeded to fraud prosecution claim that work cancelled out a claim without actually describing his work. On both counts they were wrong so they then changed tack to assert that I was no longer incapacitated and convincing the judge to press on with that line of approach despite never making a decision to that effect in 1997 that was effectively happened is the judge disregarded absolutely everything and decided to defy the 1992 reviewers decisions which already addressed that issue. The judges position on the matter during the trial was that I should put him in judicial review for disregarding the ACC decision, making a new one and then ruling in a new decision without regard for any fact of any description.

It is a little difficult functioning in the court room with the judge total disregard is the case that is before him and inventors on and then rules on that.

I don't know if framed is the proper word most certainly the ACC and their informants did commit perjury and most certainly the judge totally disregarded what he was therefore.

I certainly do cross-examined the ACC informants who under oath confessed that they had committed perjury in as much as they had no information to suggest I was working and that I was not the manager as they have told the ACC bus they in fact were managing my companies while at the same time setting up a petition company's of their own and gutting the one they were meant to be managing. When the court out red-handed a promise of a bloodbath was issued. What they did not realise that I had recorded them and played a recording to the court while also providing documented evidence that they were managing, not me. They then broke down and confessed that they had lied to the ACC and court. The judge disregarded this confession of perjury and turned his attention back to what the ACC said that they were going to say rather than what they did say under oath.

I don't think what we have was hearsay gossip but rather cold calculated perjury for pecuniary advantage. But one hearing confessions of perjury in such circumstances the judge should have issued a bench warrant for the arrest but instead he simply closed hid ears.

Most certainly I did not fail to object. I objected so strenuously that the ACC did not have a case and that the judge should require the case immediately found in my favour during the course of the hearing. The judge had announced that he was issuing a new decision for the ACC entirely different to what was being appealed in order that he helped the ACC out with a decision that had no substance!

I remind you that the ACC had already gone to legal aid seeking that I received no legal aid funding, to which legal aid obliged and refused funding. It was not as I did not have a case. Proving this to be the reality ACC found it necessary to have three lawyers going up against in the court room or once. I had an extremely robust case. I am the type of person who prepares his case meticulously and comprehensively both in point of law and with proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits. I subpoenaed the ACC staff into the dock where they were questioneed under oath and revealed the absolute reality of this case in as much as there was no evidence to support the ACC decision, no point of law that they relied upon and that the ACC had knowingly acquired informants as a firewall to themselves and gone to considerable lengths to hide their dishonesty.

This gets to the nature or standard of reviewers and district court judges in the ACC judicial arena. When two different judges hear a similar number of cases yet one judge finds in favour of the ACC at twice the percentage of the other it is reasonable to call at judge into question as to the comprehension of ACC law, motive and even integrity. I find myself asking how a judge can determine that all medical profession are wrong in favour of his intuition that he describes in the judgement as it is medically qualified to serve the authority of the medical profession as to fact.

I take the view that the laws in New Zealand are relatively stable. I think this is the international opinion supported by relevant authorities as well. I think what we may be looking at is rather the nature of our bureaucrats and how they go about this regarding reason abusing the law. During the 50s and 60s judges felt it to be a privilege to be a judge, even an honour. Today however we do not find the best legal minds becoming judges but rather, especially in the junior courts, the dregs of the legal fraternity. The level of integrity steadily rises throughout the superior courts. We must not forget that we are very small country drawing from an even smaller pool of legal professionals with fewer and fewer wishing to become a judge.

I do not agree that fascism is corporatism. ACC is a Corporation in name only with a very loose use of the word. By definition it seeks to be a socialist entity with the majority of New Zealanders seeking something for nothing. The ACC claim that most New Zealanders want to pay less in levies but without a change in legislation this simply isn't possible unless the accident victims, the minority, are shortchanged. In a democracy of course the majority rule, the levy payers. In a privatised situation with multiple insurance companies to choose from market forces would have the effect of a competition to demonstrate a greater level of honesty. With a monopoly ACC simply do not have this inconvenience of even having attempting to generate the perception of being honest.

ACC most certainly do when there front-line staff with the assistance of profiling tools. Typically they select overweight past their use by date divorced woman who are nurses/teachers and suchlike who hate their work and have become cynical because they have no future prospects in life. ACC offer slightly higher earnings capacity rendering it impossible for them to go anywhere else thus having a captive employee whereby they are malleable and compliant.


Believe it or not, the judge, I think, by saying such things was probably on your side. However, you did not have eyes to see, because you are not familiar with the way the legal system works. Through my eyes, what he was calling attention to was your APPEAL. Judges do this every time. through my glasses, he was calling attention to all of the stuff that you, or your lawyer, failed to object to. Every single document must have a person attached to it, who can be cross-examined, under oath. Another trick that most people do not know is that if they should lie on the stand, they are subject to personal liability, so when they take the stand YOU ASK FOR THEIR REAL ID, like a passport or drivers license, not some ID badge, which could be an alias- because they can lie, otherwise. Also, a person testifying that "they saw this and this and this" does not mean a damned thing unless you agree to it, because they are not the author of what is really happening. In the words of Greg King- it's a THEORY. Also, You want the REAL PERSON to come out and swear that all of these supposed truths ARE true, and are FACT "so help me God, I will go to jail if I am lying" fact. They are not allowed to lie under oath, because it is their words that put you in prison, so they had better be sworn under oath, the REAL PERSON, not a badge ID. Otherwise, once again it's here-say. This is what destroys their case. If you, or your lawyer, fail to object and remove every shred of so-called "evidence," then it WILL be used against you. If you or your lawyer failed to object to the collection of said evidence, as being "unfair" (principle 4), then you lose, as well. Sheer volume of "evidence" is not "evidence" per se, unless you or your lawyer allowed it to be entered, un-disputed. So, once again, I think what the judge was really saying was "do you see this? Why haven't you challenged any of it?" If you want to see a good movie, I highly recommend "find me guilty." You can watch it free on youtube. It was the longest trial in history, against a mob. A guy represented himself- and won. Nobody has seen or heard of the movie. All throughout, he attacked the so-called "evidence." It's hilarious how he does it, because the script from the movie was taken directly from court testimony. And he destroys the prosecution, makes em look like a bunch of clowns. And rightfully so. Seeing a few people get off for dealing drugs is far less of a crime than a judicial system running amok.



You can watch of a few minutes of him destroying the FBI guy on the witness stand. Listen to how these guys speak as if what they are saying is fact, when it could be anything.


0

#71 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2014 - 11:03 AM

Practitioner 123 I think you would have needed to be there to really see what was going on. I have the whole hearing recorded. I most certainly raised objections at the various critical moments. Every document was certainly attached to its author whether it be the ACC staff member involved with memo documents or exhibits from my company presented by myself.

The problem is, for example, after the examination of myself by the ACC barrister when I went to present the rebuttal together with exhibits the judge said that he did not need to hear it. Fortunately I had the entire rebuttal produced in writing linked to each of the exhibits together with all of the exhibits. This was presented to the judge despite the fact that he shut me down. However even in his judgement he was at pains to point out that he disregarded everything I presented.

What you may not be aware of is that I asked him to recall his judgement on the basis that he failed to address either the questions of law or questions of fact put before him as my appeal. He simply gone right off track of what he was there to do. While he was doing this during the trial he was reminded of this continued propensity to depart from the issues and he suggested that I put him on judicial review. It was quite aware that he was sabotaging my appeal.

Both the ACC witnesses and their staff recanted their positions under oath. The transcripts did not give the judge the opportunity to contradict what they said as a clarity of what was said is not open to any form of interpretation by the judge. The problem is the judge decided to rely upon his intuition instead of the exhibits and witness statements. This of course completely departs from the duties of the judge. The judge is not there to manufacture evidence and in particular cannot make medical diagnosis at all let alone a diagnosis based on his intuition. This is probably one of the key points before the appeal Court.

The ACC were directed by the court at the beginning to produce the decision maker. They didn't and none of the staff could remember who the decision maker was. The signatory of the decision, a barrister, couldn't even remember. The file gives no indication of any other person involved and all those that were involved were examined in court. It was as if they had colluded to feign ignorance. Fortunately the exhibits in the file spoke for themselves. Unfortunately the judge relied upon his imagination as an alternative to the exhibits.

With regards to the evidence of who did what in my companies and what I did with my time the ACC of the no challenge. This means that my exhibits had to hold the day as absolute facts and that the ACC assumptions had to be subordinate to those facts. Objective fact supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt exhibits is superior to subjective assumption. The judge is incapable of generating evidence yet that is exactly what he did do.

A course of action that I will be taking at a later stage will be private criminal prosecutions in relation to perjury. Quite apart from the damage done to the trial process the damage done to the legal system is immeasurable given that the ACC is a monopoly situation whereby large numbers of people simply surrender their entitlements as soon as the ACC mention the word fraud and particularly when the ACC PIs and fraud investigation staff show them how they crushed me. It seems that I am their poster boy.

You see practitioner 123 despite all of the court rules and suchlike the steamrolling process continued in total disregard of the rules. The situation is not uncommon. All you need to do is talk to some of the more experienced specialist ACC barristers working on behalf of claimants. There are lots of similar horror stories.
0

#72 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 11:36 AM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 09 February 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

David Butler how many times must I explained that of the companies I was either 100% owner of or a shareholder of a did not participate in any of the work task activities, not even in my capacity as director. Other people did all the work including counting the money. Under oath the ACC confessed having no information of any description describing a single work task activity at any material time. The ACC asserted $1.3 million earnings by me claim to be in reliance upon the forensic accountant yet when I got the forensic accountant in the stand, subpoenaed and under oath, he told the court that the ACC withheld the financial details from them that they are acquired by search warrant and asked him to produce a report that described the and goings in outgoings of the company. It was from the revenue that the ACC claimed I was earning without attaching a single work task activity to a single event. If there was no employees you still would not have been any earnings as the company was not making a profit as was confirmed by the forensic accountant putting an end to any nonsense about $1.3 million earnings by me. When looking at the wage books and financial records of the various contract staff together with all of the company expenses the last dollar was proven to be accounted for to the exclusion of any work acceptable to myself. To add to that every single work task activity within the company was accounted for as I previously explained to you. What I find myself repeating the same information to if you are not comprehending what I'm writing please clarify what part of the information you don't understand. We went through all of this type of thing when your best buddies with Douglas weal within providing you the questions.

On what basis do you believe the accident event. The ACC are certainly explored any possibility very different event and even asked the surgeon to give an alternative explanation for my injuries with the result that the surgeon said under oath that my injuries were perfectly consistent with the accident event described and at the same time. In any event there was structural damage that was caused by a severe outside force causing disability confirmed by a significant number of scientific instruments such as CT and MRI scans.

On the day of the injury there was a storm warning and there was a storm. There was a made a call out and the boat was towed of the soft sand at the beach which I gently touched and towed back to base with the owner flew in only minutes later during the emergency over the radio concerning his yacht. There are photos of the shown in court at the judges request. I was not out to sea as you say but within the sound with only very slight chop but high winds which funnelled down through the the hills. I cannot speak to your inexperience with yachts and yachting but can only describe what happened on the day of the accident event which has already been described more than adequately for all concerned. If you wish to make trouble it will soon be evident and I certainly won't respond.

Why David do you try to challenge reality even when the ACC with their multibillion-dollar resources cannot and don't. Is it that you think you can help the ACC out in some way with superior expertise. Why are you attempting to wind me up.


As though anyone is interested in going into all this again. Thomas

And as far as ACC not getting you for this fraud Alan. They did. It doesnt matter what you say now, if you havent got the paperwork to prove ACC said anything different. You are still a convicted fraudster. And you have spend time in jail, which will make it difficult for you to go outside NZ. Therefore get used to telling the truth.

You will soon be on old age pension and what you got to show for your life. Crimes crimes crimes. One after the other. Very serious ones at that. Ones that you will carry for the rest of your life.

Just got away and dig in the garden with your newly rebuilt hand. Your spitful rantings of all others wrongs and none of your own are lopsided and dont make sence. Nearly every lie you tell can be shown as exactly that on here, and that is lies. Get used to it. Or stop posting.

New stuff concerning ACC will get swamped with all this rubbish and lies.

Mini
0

#73 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:01 PM

A firm reminder to those whom can not read & comprehend.

Please put your own Personal Stories in your own jolly thread instead of hi-jacking others topics.

Personal Stories
http://accforum.org/...rsonal-stories/

Better still go and take a break off this damn forum and find a job as your computer skills and 24/7 been on this forum suggests you are very capable of doing some form of job - voluntarily or paid!!


We, & we are sure others, didn't join this forum to be bombarded with same old garbage ramblings of those whom are repeating same garbage day in day out.

Thank you.



View Posthukildaspida, on 05 February 2009 - 11:12 AM, said:

In Advance it would be appreciated if you would PLEASE stick to this Topic & keep your personal stories where they belong.

There have been positive changes with the requirements relating to what Private Investigators are & are not able to do as a result of a number of you on this site & other places input.

Unfortunately an area that has not yet been addressed which one would've hoped would have been undertaken by now is that of an AUDIT of ACC staff & there actions etc who are involved in it's Fraud Unit to ensure Transparency & ACCountabilty.

It's a well known fact that Bank Staff must take at least a week off on annual leave to ensure they are not doing anything untoward to clients files & as financial gain is also possible with ACC staff should not ACC staff have to do the same?

As an example it is quite clear that there are people's ACC files that have had documents removed to make them look guilty of offences, including Fraud, that they have not committed, more than one set of files on clients & files in more than one place with a Liquorice allsorts of documents.

Should a 3rd party, NOT Private Investigators be assigned to do random Audits of clients files that have been accessed by the Fraud Unit to ensure documents are all intact etc?

This would ensure those whom are ACCountable for knowingly removing/ altering documents including that of an electronic nature etc are brought to ACCountability & if necessarily before a Criminal Court of Law.

What follow ups have been done on people to see what help etc they are getting who have had accidents & lost payments/entitlements as a result of false & vexatious allegations?

Are they on WINZ benefits, back at full-time work etc as these things are all interelated?

What processes have been put in place by ACC to ensure full checks and balances are done PRIOR to any client files, including that of claimants, medical professionals etc, are referred for to Private Investigators for surveillance and or investigation?

Has there been any formal investigations done to see if there has been a history of conflicts of interest between ACC staff at their Fraud Unit since it was set up and that of Private Investigators who perfed from the Police?

Are there figures available for each year to show how much of ACC Levies have been spent on surveillance / investigations from all ACC branches?

What is the average number of hours spent on surveillance / investigation per ACC client?

What procedures have been put in place by ACC to ensure that clients who have stood up for their Legal Rights are not further Victimised by repeated Investigations because someone in ACC's Fraud Unit has an axe to grind and *Flagged the clients ACC file as being a Risky Client?

* please refer to Flagged file threads on this & http://www.accfocus.org websites for further information.

1

#74 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:03 PM

Mini when it is obvious that the claimant is grossly injured and cannot return to his preinjury occupation or even work in any other occupation and ACC disregard all of the medical evidence when claiming that person does not have the claim in order to prosecute for fraud in order to of with liability,
what do you think you would like to do about that if it was within your power?
0

#75 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:03 PM

Personal Stories
http://accforum.org/...rsonal-stories/
0

#76 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:06 PM


hukildaspida
Focus your attention on what is being written. You will find that the topic being discussed is ACC fraud unit issues. This discussion addresses the nature of their conduct and the consequences of what happens when the ACC fraud unit get it wrong.

The site is designed for contributors to help one another. Bearing in mind that I have been accused of fraud with the ACC achieving a successful prosecution on the basis that I was not entitled yet the ACC had a liability to fund reconstructive surgery, which I've only just had, in order to return me to my preinjury occupation, which I am now doing.




Ask yourself what the ACC fraud unit has done wrong in my case and you will be able to comprehend what is going on in order to help others even if you don't like me and don't wish to help me.



0

#77 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:20 PM

View Postpractioner123, on 10 February 2014 - 05:47 AM, said:

"ACC was not able to describe a single work task activity at any material time." That sounds like grounds for appeal, on its own, a la David Bain. I would proceed with caution, because if what you say is true, then it would be rather embarrassing for ACC if you overturned your criminal case. So I suggest one foot in front of the other, attacking any even seemingly minute detail that may have forged the foundation of the conviction. If you never confessed (especially if there was nothing to confess to), and were found "guilty" by a jury, especially if here-say was allowed as "evidence" (i.e.: "he's a witch!" or not evidence because nobody will swear to it as fact "so help me God," you should have a look at the legal concepts of "actus rea" and "mens rea," because these have formed the basis of appeal decisions that have overturned convictions as a matter of law. If, however, you "cut a deal" or "accepted you were guilty" in any way, whatsoever, then I'm afraid you have a tougher hill to climb). If, however, you maintained your innocence consistently, then you could very well have a case, and you may, in fact, have been convicted on a theory, which is a miscarriage of justice. If you go and read everything you can find Greg King's speeches to the court on Ewan McDonald, you will see a master at his craft, and one address to the court was about theories. If your case is resolved, and you have yet to receive ever single piece of paper used against you to obtain a conviction, then that in itself, is possible grounds for appeal, because it is a "settled" matter. If they really are "hiding something" then some heads some roll for not turning it over, and like Bruce did, complain complain complain, until you get it. And be sure you have a good paper trial, that you can attest UNDER OATH, that "I did this, and this, and sent this, and no reply." IF they ARE hiding something, it is up to you to dredge it up, because if they secured a conviction on HERE-SAY, then that itself is considered a mis-carriage of justice, by any Western legal standard.

If none of the ACC staff could swear to any of their "facts" under oath, then it is "here-say." Other countries know full and well that securing criminal convictions, regardless of the "circumstances," or how bad the person might look "guilty," results in a miscarriage of justice most every time. "He looks guilty" is not EVIDENCE. That is what's called an "ad hominem" argument. It means, like the scene from Quest for the Holy Grail "She's a witch!" "She turned me into a newt!" Classic= but unfortunately such medieval logic is still practiced in this country, and hence probably why it took so long for the 2006 Evidence rules to be introduced, as was the Bill of Rights. These existed in other countries long before they existed in NZ


You actually believe him at your peril.

I agree Investigators did a pigarse job, but then they are ex-coppers, not business auditors.

It is not actually difficult to prove someone has been working. In Tomos case you cant or I cant anyway see him letting go of his many cheque books for different companies.

A company that is not working has no reason to have a cheque book and banks usually ask for all the necessary numbers before opening a bank account. it is easy to see by tracing the companies who owned them. That has been done long ago, and I dont know how many of the geniune members believed he did not work. It was before our time anyway, so too late to dig him out of a hole he had got himself into.

In both charges he stood up for himself in neither of them and in the Plot more recent one, he did nothing to assist himself even though he had plenty of time.

If you know your innocent you fight that is my motto anyway and I am still fighting for my ACC rights,14 years after they gave me false information and I beleived them.

I will remain fighting for what I know to be the truth continually, until I decide when to stop. It is not now.

Do you mind answering me a question?

Are you someone who has come on here to assist Thomas or do you need some assistance yourself.

I read ACC are trying to get you on charges of misappropriation of monies as a GP or something like that.

how can any of us assist you. Rather than worry about Tomo long standing criminal convictions, shouldnt you be worried about your own problems?

I am quite willing to help if I can. If it is a audit trial your looking at. Been there done that.

Mini
0

#78 User is offline   hukildaspida 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:25 PM

Please read and comprehend what we wrote instead of me, me, me & put your story in your own thread.

You started a thread years ago in your own name so please keep it all in there.

Thank you.

We are not interested in reading your ramblings and garbage.

GAYLA.


Total Declinature of Claim Alan Thomas

http://accforum.org/...600#entry168239

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 February 2014 - 12:06 PM, said:

hukildaspida
Focus your attention on what is being written. You will find that the topic being discussed is ACC fraud unit issues. This discussion addresses the nature of their conduct and the consequences of what happens when the ACC fraud unit get it wrong.

The site is designed for contributors to help one another. Bearing in mind that I have been accused of fraud with the ACC achieving a successful prosecution on the basis that I was not entitled yet the ACC had a liability to fund reconstructive surgery, which I've only just had, in order to return me to my preinjury occupation, which I am now doing.




Ask yourself what the ACC fraud unit has done wrong in my case and you will be able to comprehend what is going on in order to help others even if you don't like me and don't wish to help me.

0

#79 User is offline   MINI 

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

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:33 PM

View PostAlan Thomas, on 10 February 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

Mini when it is obvious that the claimant is grossly injured and cannot return to his preinjury occupation or even work in any other occupation and ACC disregard all of the medical evidence when claiming that person does not have the claim in order to prosecute for fraud in order to of with liability,
what do you think you would like to do about that if it was within your power?


The difference between you and me thomo is I would have done it at the time. And it would have been at that time that I would have made the decision what to do. If i could have. Unfortunately unlike your phyiscal injury, I stopped my job and was given Misleading information by ACC when I was both physically and mentally unable to do anything about it. That is why my dission to do something about it was a couple of years late, and even though the main important issues have been fixed, we are still proving our right

claire
0

#80 User is offline   Alan Thomas 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 10812
  • Joined: 10-June 06

Posted 10 February 2014 - 12:45 PM

Mini GAYLA rightly says this topic is about fraud. Did ACC accuse you of fraud as they did me? If not just talk about those of us that have suffered at their hands.
0

Share this topic:


  • 7 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 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