Originally Posted by
glenb
Regarding the letter sent to the Chair of the CASA Board and posted in Post 1373 on here regarding allegations of assault and stalking made by Mr. Carmody in Senate Estimates against me.
I asked Mr. Mathews the Chair of the CASA Board to respond by 5 PM on Tuesday 8th December.
Unsurprisingly. The time passed with no response.
Its all about "intent'
Mr Matthews is probably busy under the Ministers desk, or blowing up party balloons for Mr Carmody’s farewell lunch. Or perhaps he is eating cucumber sandwiches and drinking a Kale smoothie while relaxing in an outdoors eatery on Furzer Street. But yes indeed, it’s all about ‘intent’. I guess their ‘intent’ is to keep obsfucating, deflecting, remaining uncooperative, deceiving, spinning and ducking and weaving.
CASA’s use of ‘intent’ goes back decades and has been used heavily in most of the regulatory punishments dishes out upon industry folk, such as Glen. The legal boffins purposefully write many of the rules so that they appear ‘grey’, they can be used in whatever way CASA feels like using at the time. If they like you, you are classed as compliant. If they don’t like you, they will say you are non-compliant and then pursue you to bankruptcy such as in the case of Glen. These ‘rules’ are then followed up by a loosely constructed and poorly designed ‘Act’ which can also be massaged to suit the outcome that CASA is seeking.
History is littered with victims like Glen, people like Bruce Rhoades (R.I.P), Paul Phelan (R.I.P), Karen Casey, Gerald Repacholi (R.I.P) and Shane Urquhart and many more.
I’m surprised CASA doesn’t use ‘intent’ in their statement of expectations, mission statement and perhaps WHS statement? Something like; “Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority, where intentions are what dreams are made of”.
Glen, wishing nothing but the very best for you, your family and friends over Xmas mate.