Be careful. You're up against master sophists, Glen.
There's a difference between one flying school delivering flying training through facilities and personnel at multiple locations, on the one hand, and multiple flying schools delivering flying training at different locations on the other. An analogy: A university with multiple campuses isn't more than one university.
Each of APTA's 'franchisees' (gawd I hate that term and you would have done yourself a big favour if you'd never used it) is either a 'stand alone' flying school requiring its own authorisation, or is just part of 1 flying school operating under 1 authorisation. As I understand it, the APTA model was one authorisation held by APTA under which flying training was being delivered through facilities and personnel at multiple locations. i.e. the 'one university, multiple campuses' model.
If that's correct, your proposed question: "CASA claims that they do not permit, and have not ever permitted more than [one] flying school to operate under a single authorisation, as Glen Buckley did. Is that statement the truth?", is an irrelevant and therefore pointless question.
Even assuming it could be bothered, CASA's answer would be, I suggest, "NO", and I reckon correctly so. And what will you have achieved?