Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[Sandy Reith]

I think most, if not all of us, as supporters of Glen are more than keen to see a legal challenge to right the egregious wrong done to Glen, his family and staff, not to mention GA as a whole.

About Glen’s prolific writing to politicians; if, and hopefully, when, judgement day finally arrives none of those elected representatives will be able to claim innocence due to lack of knowledge.

Responsibility needs to be sheeted home to our MPs who have supported by inaction and acquiescence the wrong model of governance, that of an independent regulator which was invented in 1988 by shifting aviation out of then Minister Gareth Evans’ Transport Department.
.
The government of our country consists of ourselves as voters as well as the legislatures and the judiciary, therefore we also bear responsibility.

Ring write contact your MPs and State Senators asking what policies do they have to reform Australia’s GA industry, and do they support Ministerial responsibility as a cornerstone of the Westminster system of democracy.

[glenb]

To the FOI Department CASA.


You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date.

I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this matter, and my understanding is that by now she will have forwarded on my documents as requested as they are highly relevant. My understanding is that she will have established contact with the Ombudsman. I have been seeking clarification from her Office for over two months now, but have not heard back from her, although I will follow up again

I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman FOI Department as this correspondence will be the basis of a request that I will be making of that Office that is related to this matter, and will form part of my evidence gathering.

My intention is to take this information to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek guidance on options available to me, to pursue my allegations against Mr Aleck.

Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.


This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" was not aware of the structure that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful.

I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.



There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct, and in this correspondence I will present my evidence and be seeking further supporting evidence.



I will be making a separate request under FOI for the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. In support of my allegation I will refer to documents that I obtained under FOI, and present that information here.



Under FOI, I have obtained a document dated 9 October 2017 . This document was submitted to CASA by a competitor of APTA as they identify themselves as one. . The tone of the letter suggests that it was not a friendly competitor. No Competitor had ever approached me raising concerns or to clarify their understanding. It is possible that the letter was sent for reasons other than reasons of aviation safety.



The second point that I would make is that the "writer" is clearly not a flight instructor, and probably unqualified to comment. The writer obviously has negligible knowledge of the regulations, and the wording of the email to CASA clearly indicates that.



Irrespective of the lack of understanding of the writer, the writer importantly does receive a response from CASA. I have also received that response from CASA under FOI, and that response is concerning because the CASA employee in his response to the writer clearly states that he or she will approach the "legal area" of CASA. The date of the correspondence is 12 months before Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department being the "legal area" first became aware.



Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.



Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018.



Yet under FOI, I receive correspondence 12 months prior where a competitor has raised concerns about the structure, and the CASA employee responds to that competitor stating.



"Hello (redacted)
Thanks for your email. Let me look into this for you. I will most likely have to seek advice from our legal area. I will be back in touch when I have more.

Best regards, (redacted) Safety Assurance Branch/CASA \ Aviation Group"



Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department first became aware in October 2018, yet correspondence dated 12 months prior leaves me in little doubt that truthfully the date was 1 year prior than Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman.





The documents that I am requesting.



The CASA employee gave the competitor an undertaking in early October of 2017, being 1 year before Mr Aleck claims the "legal area" first became aware that he would establish contact with the legal area of CASA. It is unlikely, but perhaps the CASA Employee took 12 months to get around to establishing contact with the legal area, and in that case I would withdraw my allegation on this particular subject.



I am seeking the document that the CASA Employee sent to the legal area, and the chain of emails that are related to this specific topic, including correspondence back to the original writer.



This is significant because one must wonder why if the legal area first became aware 1 year prior than Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe, there was absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss the matter, raise any concerns, seek a solution. CASA merely sat on that for 12 months and then 1 year later blindsided me with correspondence advising that my business of a decade is unlawful, threatens me with prosecution, contacts all my customers destroying mine and my businesses reputation, places crippling trading restrictions, and advises I have 7 days to continue operating.



It makes no sense.



Thankyou for accepting this FOI request in support of my allegation that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.



Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Mandatory referral obligations NACC placed on the CASA CEO-Ms Pip Spence.



To: Ms Pip Spence- CEO of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

My name is Glen Buckley.

Mr Jonathan Aleck is the Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

You are aware and have been throughout your tenure as the CEO of CASA, that I have made two allegations against CASA Employee Mr Jonathan Aleck.

I have raised allegations directly with you as the Agency Head of CASA, with Minister King, as the Minister responsible for CASA, and with my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland the Member for Chisholm.

The two allegations that I have made against Mr Aleck are.

1. Deliberately provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck is fully aware that the information provided was grossly false and misleading. It was not an act or omission; it was deliberate and considered. He provided that false and misleading information to cover up his own misconduct, and



2. Misfeasance in Public office, by acting with targeted malice towards me personally.



The purpose of this correspondence.

I am fully satisfied that you have an “expert” knowledge of my allegations. I have kept you fully briefed.

My understanding of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 legislation is that there are obligations placed on you as the Agency Head stipulating mandatory referral to the Commissioner.

My understanding is that as the Agency Head you are obliged to refer a matter to the NACC if the issue concerns the conduct of a person who is a Staff Member, and you suspect that this matter could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic.

Having reviewed the legislation, I am satisfied that the corruption demonstrated by Mr Jonathan Aleck is both serious and systemic.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs has demonstrated as a minimum, serious corrupt conduct and more towards severe or grave. It is clearly not negligible or trivial. I have made you aware of that.

Furthermore, I am fully satisfied that the corruption is systemic. I say that because I have been contacted by other victims of Mr Alecks misconduct. Although in this correspondence I am referring to my matter only. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr Alecks conduct is more than an isolated case. It involves a pattern of behaviour. I have been contacted by several individuals who would come forward given the suitable forum.

Because of Mr Alecks longstanding position of over 20 years, operating at the highest levels of the CASA Executive, and considering that his position is second on the CASA Organisational structure, and because of the significant power that his position entails, it is likely that if Mr Aleck is corrupt, it is likely that the impacts would embedded in the system, as I and many in industry have observed.

With evidence that I have obtained, I believe that his misconduct was deliberate and co-ordinated, and based on industry feedback I am confident that it is systemic.

I have carefully reviewed the legislation to arrive at that determination.

The purpose of this correspondence is to seek a formal response from you in your role as the CEO of CASA.

I believe that there is a significant body of evidence that has been presented to you, that should cause reason for concern.

It is not reasonable that you would have full confidence in Mr Alecks integrity, unless there is some other motive.

I will be very upfront.

As the person whose family has been significantly affected by the actions and decisions of Mr Aleck, I am very concerned that you are “covering up” this matter, and affording Mr Aleck a far higher level of protection than his conduct entitles him to, or the public would expect.

At this stage that statement will not form part of my formal submission to the NACC, although you should be aware that it is a serious consideration, and your response to this correspondence will be a key determinant.

I have approached the Australian Federal Police (AFP) on this, matter, and I am satisfied that it is a matter to be considered by the NACC.

As the Agency Head, I feel you are compelled to refer this matter to the NACC. and should already have done so.

You are not meeting legislated obligations that are placed on you in that legislation

The legislation stipulates that a person who is required to refer a corruption issue must do so as soon as reasonably practicable after becoming aware of the issue.

If you have not referred the matter to the NACC, this is my formal request of you that you do so.

For complete clarity, I am making a formal request of you as the Agency Head of CASA to refer this matter of Mr Alecks misconduct to the NACC.

I have included Minister King in this correspondence because she has those same obligations in the legislation placed upon her, and I also make that request of her, if you are unwilling or unable to do so.

I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence because the legislation also places those same obligations on her as a Parliamentarian. My understanding is that Parliamentarians are Agency heads of their parliamentary offices and are also subject to mandatory referral obligations.

As I am pursuing this matter through an application to the NACC, it is essential that I receive a response from you in your role as the CEO of CASA.

Are you prepared to refer the matter of Mr Alecks conduct to the NACC. If you are unwilling or unable to refer this matter to the NACC, can you advise your reasons.

I can see no reason why a well-intentioned Agency Head would have any resistance to referring this significant matter to the NACC.

Your response will allow me to make a clear determination and proceed with my submission.

The Australian Federal Police referred me to the NACC, advising that the resources of the AFP are available to assist the NACC, if called upon by them.

I have spent time ensuring that I have a knowledge of the legislation regrading the NACC.

The NACC Act defines 4 types of “corrupt” conduct that a person can engage in.

1. They are a public official, and they breach public trust.

2. They are a public official, and they abuse their office as a public official

3. They are a public official, and they abuse their office as a public official, and they misuse information they have gained in their capacity as public official.

4. They do something that adversely affects a public officials honest or impartial exercise of powers or performance of official duties.

After reviewing those 4 types of corrupt conduct. I am fully satisfied Mr alecks conduct falls within the criteria of 1,2, and 3

On the criteria of “public trust” as outlined in legislation

Mr Aleck is a public official in the role of CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services, the most senior of positions, and a position that wields enormous power including the power to close down businesses.

Those powers are granted to Mr Aleck “on trust” for the Australian Public. Those significant powers that Mr Aleck holds are to be used for the purposes for which the power was granted i.e. the sfety of aviation and must not be used in the process of exercising targeted malice, or any other improper purpose.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Aleck has exercised his official power other than honestly for the purpose for which it was conferred.

On the criteria of abuse of office

I am fully satisfied Mr Aleck has engaged in both “improper acts” and “omissions. Improper acts with regards to the way that he engaged with me, and omissions with regards to the way he engaged with the Ombudsman Office.

Mr Alecks actions and decisions were deliberate and considered and caused detriment to me.



On the criteria of misuse of information.

Mr Aleck was the decision maker that made the decision to close my business. During the Ombudsman investigation, Mr Aleck was nominated by CASA as the person to represent the Agency and respond on CASAs behalf.

I made multiple requests of CASA that it seemed unjust that Mr Aleck, the person I made the allegations against was the person solely responsible for providing information to the Ombudsman investigation. It seemed totally unreasonable.

Because of Mr Alecks senior position within CASA, his role as the Agency Representative, and the provider of information, Mr Aleck was afforded an unacceptable level of opportunity to misuse and access information that he had access to because of his position.

He provided false and misleading information to benefit himself by “covering up: his own misconduct, and to cause detriment to me.

My expectation of that response is that you will advise me:

1. If you have previously referred the matter to the NACC.

2. The date that you referred it to the NACC.

3. If you have not referred it to the NACC, the reasons for that decision.

4. If you have not referred the matter to the NACC, I request that you do so prior to Monday June 3rd, 2024, as I will be making my submission on Tuesday 4th June, and feel that the matter should be preempted by the Agency Head, in accordance with your legislated obligations.

Respectfully
Glen Buckley

[Gne]

Glen,

I hope that letter was drafted with legal assistance and on the formal advice of an experienced legal practitioner. .
Gne

[Global Aviator]

Any update from the lawyers?

[MalcolmReynolds]

I would hope and expect that from now on, the use of a total cone of silence from Glen until successful settlement or court case outcome. Anything else is case suicide. Take everything, give them nothing. Let your legal team deal with this from now on. No more Pprune letters on this matter. We all want to know what is happening but that is not your concern. If you continue to post you will potentially ruin your advantage and lose the case. Please stay off PPRune and GO TO COURT!