Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Glen,
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.
What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. You are not currently in a position to demand anything, especially to arrange a meeting with specific attendance of other people. This you do in a court of law, calling witnesses. You are attempting to run your own court case without the underlying court structure. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around, hire and fire at whim. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department - they have politely told you that your submissions will be noted and filed, not even actioned. You are being ignored - a vexatious litigant category.
Your recent letter seems to imitate the court process of discovery, usually done during the court case process by the legal teams of both parties, with the weight of the law behind it. In your case, the other parties are not obliged to provide you with very much at all, except the bare necessities to comply with FOI, which by now you have probably discovered is not going to get you results in a fishing process unless you can specifically nominate a document which you already know exists. Here the legal process, with the weight of law behind it is far more powerful, and far more efficient. You appear to be trying to establish precedent by absence of documentation, something that is going to come back and possibly sting you in the face when it magically appears, but not in the manner you wish.
All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.
You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over. As part of the settlement you may wish to begrudgingly extract a apology on top of the money you receive. I suspect this is very important to you, and agree it will be necessary for you, to obtain full satisfaction of your claims.
You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.
My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally. Already the statute of limitations may apply and you have dithered and possibly lost any legal recourse.
You know they are laughing at you behind your back, don't you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary submission. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.
Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.
What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. You are not currently in a position to demand anything, especially to arrange a meeting with specific attendance of other people. This you do in a court of law, calling witnesses. You are attempting to run your own court case without the underlying court structure. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around, hire and fire at whim. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department - they have politely told you that your submissions will be noted and filed, not even actioned. You are being ignored - a vexatious litigant category.
Your recent letter seems to imitate the court process of discovery, usually done during the court case process by the legal teams of both parties, with the weight of the law behind it. In your case, the other parties are not obliged to provide you with very much at all, except the bare necessities to comply with FOI, which by now you have probably discovered is not going to get you results in a fishing process unless you can specifically nominate a document which you already know exists. Here the legal process, with the weight of law behind it is far more powerful, and far more efficient. You appear to be trying to establish precedent by absence of documentation, something that is going to come back and possibly sting you in the face when it magically appears, but not in the manner you wish.
All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.
You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over. As part of the settlement you may wish to begrudgingly extract a apology on top of the money you receive. I suspect this is very important to you, and agree it will be necessary for you, to obtain full satisfaction of your claims.
You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.
My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally. Already the statute of limitations may apply and you have dithered and possibly lost any legal recourse.
You know they are laughing at you behind your back, don't you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary submission. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.
Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.
Last edited by Thirsty; 2nd Jul 2023 at 12:35.
The following 3 users liked this post by Thirsty:
Don’t you get the feeling that Glen does have legal help with his replies.
I certainly hope he goes the full on legal blow as the next step.
Thats why I keep pushing GoFundMe.
And Glen… in a polite way slap yaself, you are entitled to a large personal settlement sum of money! Write down on the back of a coaster what they have caused you to loose and quadruple it at a minimum. I am sure there are legal ways to work it out but if only half of why you type is true you have been well and truly screwed and deserve appropriate compensation.
I don’t think anyone on here would disagree!
I certainly hope he goes the full on legal blow as the next step.
Thats why I keep pushing GoFundMe.
And Glen… in a polite way slap yaself, you are entitled to a large personal settlement sum of money! Write down on the back of a coaster what they have caused you to loose and quadruple it at a minimum. I am sure there are legal ways to work it out but if only half of why you type is true you have been well and truly screwed and deserve appropriate compensation.
I don’t think anyone on here would disagree!
Glen,
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.
What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department.
All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.
You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over.
You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.
My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally.
You know they are laughing at you behind your back, dont you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary position. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.
Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.
What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department.
All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.
You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over.
You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.
My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally.
You know they are laughing at you behind your back, dont you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary position. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.
Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.
Example: Your request for an Act of Grace payment is directed at CASA. The Minister of Finance (not CASA, Pip Spence, or Catherine King) has the jurisdiction for this. Read about the process to claim this on the Dept of Finance website at https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...grace-payments
Have you read up about the CDDA scheme?
You have been poorly advised. Get good legal advice now!
Have you read up about the CDDA scheme?
You have been poorly advised. Get good legal advice now!
Whilst agreeing with your 'bottom line', there are some wonky assertions in there. Ms Spence can write a cheque, tomorrow in her capacity as DAS, and that cheque would be legally binding on and payable by CASA (see section 73(2) of the Civil Aviation Act). CASA spends CASA's money (some of which is appropriated to it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but is nonetheless CASA's once it is appropriated to CASA, and the rest - like fees for regulatory 'services' are paid into CASA's bank account). But, as I say, your bottom line is correct: Glen should not keep wasting his time thinking that CASA will, out of 'good intention', compensate him or anyone else.
Based on the terminology used in the submission by CASA to Parliament, and the response from the Ombudsman, I suspect that it will be shelved in the too hard basket and brushed off. The concept of 'goodwill' has certainly long gone - plain as day to see that. Commencement of a court case with strong legal representation and a well prepared case would be the motivator to change things about abruptly, and swift settlement before it comes to court and sharp, pointed, and awkward questions are asked and the underlying truth is finally discovered when potential witnesses are listed, would seem to be the mechanism that will resolved the injustice done.
Glen, make sure to ask your lawyers add a substantive amount for pain and suffering, legal costs, your time spent as an amateur lawyer, and future loss of income too. I think the way it was described in the movie "The Castle" by Lawrence Hammill is 'on just terms'. Think about it!
Last edited by Thirsty; 2nd Jul 2023 at 13:40.
28/06/23
Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)
.......
May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that "Business Unit "as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.. It was Mr Aleck that I was communicating with throughout the eight months. I did also have the opportunity to meet with him., and it was Mr Aleck that was not satisfied. It seems that the most efficient and effective process would be to establish contact directly with Mr Aleck, although I will leave that to your determination.
Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)
.......
May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that "Business Unit "as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.. It was Mr Aleck that I was communicating with throughout the eight months. I did also have the opportunity to meet with him., and it was Mr Aleck that was not satisfied. It seems that the most efficient and effective process would be to establish contact directly with Mr Aleck, although I will leave that to your determination.
But, but, It's the Vibe...
Whilst agreeing with your 'bottom line', there are some wonky assertions in there. Ms Spence can write a cheque, tomorrow in her capacity as DAS, and that cheque would be legally binding on and payable by CASA (see section 73(2) of the Civil Aviation Act). CASA spends CASA's money (some of which is appropriated to it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but is nonetheless CASA's once it is appropriated to CASA, and the rest - like fees for regulatory 'services' are paid into CASA's bank account). But, as I say, your bottom line is correct: Glen should not keep wasting his time thinking that CASA will, out of 'good intention', compensate him or anyone else.
Last edited by Thirsty; 2nd Jul 2023 at 14:11.
My bolding and removal of content in the quote for brevity
I've removed some of the bits, but even the Ombudsman has given you a few very big hints. Get independent legal advice, FAST. Given five months ago. Did you do that?
08/02/23 Ombudsman advising that my matter is closed
Our ref: 2019-713834
Dear Mr Buckley
Finalisation of Complaint – Civil Aviation Safety Authority
I am writing to confirm the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has finalised our investigation into your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
.......
I received additional information from CASA in December 2022 and am now satisfied that further investigation by the Office is not required in relation to the matters you raised. I am satisfied that the matters of administration raised by your complaint have now been adequately responded to by CASA, and further investigation would not obtain a different or better outcome for you. We will notify CASA of the outcome of our investigation and may provide feedback to CASA for its consideration as part of that notice.
...
Ombudsman’s Office satisfied that CASA has not mislead the Office
....
In advising that your complaint has been finalised, I would like to reiterate my earlier advice that I do not believe CASA has mislead the Office in responding to our investigation. The Office will advise CASA of this as well.
...
Act of Grace
We have previously discussed the availability of the Act of Grace Scheme with you. If you wish to pursue this, further information can be obtained from the Department of Finance, including at their website - Act of Grace Payments | Department of Finance. This is a discretionary scheme, and there is no automatic entitlement to payment.
...
Legal Advice
If you wish to pursue legal action against CASA, you should obtain independent legal advice in relation to whether there is a possible cause of action and relevant time limits that may apply to your circumstances.
...
Closure of your file
Thank you for your patience as we have considered your matter. I hope you can see that we have taken your concerns seriously, engaged with yourself and CASA to obtain relevant information, and reached the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted after carefully considering the concerns you raised.
We review complaints only once. This means that as I have looked at the matter afresh, the Office will not consider the same complaint again, unless you can present us with new evidence that would cause us to change our decision. We will consider, but may not respond to, further correspondence received once this review and complaint file is closed.
Yours sincerely
Our ref: 2019-713834
Dear Mr Buckley
Finalisation of Complaint – Civil Aviation Safety Authority
I am writing to confirm the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman (the Office) has finalised our investigation into your complaint about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
.......
I received additional information from CASA in December 2022 and am now satisfied that further investigation by the Office is not required in relation to the matters you raised. I am satisfied that the matters of administration raised by your complaint have now been adequately responded to by CASA, and further investigation would not obtain a different or better outcome for you. We will notify CASA of the outcome of our investigation and may provide feedback to CASA for its consideration as part of that notice.
...
Ombudsman’s Office satisfied that CASA has not mislead the Office
....
In advising that your complaint has been finalised, I would like to reiterate my earlier advice that I do not believe CASA has mislead the Office in responding to our investigation. The Office will advise CASA of this as well.
...
Act of Grace
We have previously discussed the availability of the Act of Grace Scheme with you. If you wish to pursue this, further information can be obtained from the Department of Finance, including at their website - Act of Grace Payments | Department of Finance. This is a discretionary scheme, and there is no automatic entitlement to payment.
...
Legal Advice
If you wish to pursue legal action against CASA, you should obtain independent legal advice in relation to whether there is a possible cause of action and relevant time limits that may apply to your circumstances.
...
Closure of your file
Thank you for your patience as we have considered your matter. I hope you can see that we have taken your concerns seriously, engaged with yourself and CASA to obtain relevant information, and reached the conclusion that no further investigation is warranted after carefully considering the concerns you raised.
We review complaints only once. This means that as I have looked at the matter afresh, the Office will not consider the same complaint again, unless you can present us with new evidence that would cause us to change our decision. We will consider, but may not respond to, further correspondence received once this review and complaint file is closed.
Yours sincerely
Thread Starter
Thirsty
Cheers, and i appreciate the input.
Regarding the CDDA (Defective Decisions), that was something that I considered some time ago, but the way CASAs is established. Sorry don't remember the exact terminology the Commonwealth uses, but CASA is not party to that system, therefore leaving the only other non-litigious approach being the Act of Grace Payment. You are correct in that it goes through the Department of Finance; however they then liaise with the Agency (CASA), and you can well imagine what CASAs response would be. For those reasons, I have put out that final offering to CASA. A well intentioned and sincere discussion about an Act of Grace payment would have to be the preferred option.
As previously pointed out, there are sufficient funds available thanks to the supporters for me to move forward with this.
I have sought legal advice previously on this matter, and I have some exceptional support on here and in the background. Sufficient funds already exist for me to at least get a good start. I was chatting to my father about this yesterday. One of my challenges has been really getting to the crux of the matter, and i may have been somewhat confused by CASAs alternating narrative.
It's a bit like a pyramid, and I am now at the pointy end, with lots of the "sifting" having been done. I believe that the FOI requests will be important, and perhaps give a legal firm a good head start.
I would add that I could never have anticipated that the Ombudsman investigation would drag on for more than four years, and it has been hard to move forward until that is finalized, and that has been the legal recommendation that I have previously received. Admittedly that advice was based on a turnaround of the investigation of about 4 months, not four years.
And admittedly, I truly believed naively in the fact that there would be more "good intent": in the process., and particularly at CASA CEO and Board Level. I did not b believe that they would work so actively to effectively "crush me".
Finally, i just didn't think CASA would be blatantly prepared to mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.as much as they have been prepared to. It concerns me going down a legal path against a Party that is prepared to act dishonestly, and to such a substantial extent.
I found your posts very "contemplative", and i concur. I have little doubt that on receipt of Ms. spences response to my most recent correspondence, I will act fast, and this matter will be put before a legal team.
Appreciate the input each and every one of you. Cheers. Glen
Regarding the CDDA (Defective Decisions), that was something that I considered some time ago, but the way CASAs is established. Sorry don't remember the exact terminology the Commonwealth uses, but CASA is not party to that system, therefore leaving the only other non-litigious approach being the Act of Grace Payment. You are correct in that it goes through the Department of Finance; however they then liaise with the Agency (CASA), and you can well imagine what CASAs response would be. For those reasons, I have put out that final offering to CASA. A well intentioned and sincere discussion about an Act of Grace payment would have to be the preferred option.
As previously pointed out, there are sufficient funds available thanks to the supporters for me to move forward with this.
I have sought legal advice previously on this matter, and I have some exceptional support on here and in the background. Sufficient funds already exist for me to at least get a good start. I was chatting to my father about this yesterday. One of my challenges has been really getting to the crux of the matter, and i may have been somewhat confused by CASAs alternating narrative.
It's a bit like a pyramid, and I am now at the pointy end, with lots of the "sifting" having been done. I believe that the FOI requests will be important, and perhaps give a legal firm a good head start.
I would add that I could never have anticipated that the Ombudsman investigation would drag on for more than four years, and it has been hard to move forward until that is finalized, and that has been the legal recommendation that I have previously received. Admittedly that advice was based on a turnaround of the investigation of about 4 months, not four years.
And admittedly, I truly believed naively in the fact that there would be more "good intent": in the process., and particularly at CASA CEO and Board Level. I did not b believe that they would work so actively to effectively "crush me".
Finally, i just didn't think CASA would be blatantly prepared to mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.as much as they have been prepared to. It concerns me going down a legal path against a Party that is prepared to act dishonestly, and to such a substantial extent.
I found your posts very "contemplative", and i concur. I have little doubt that on receipt of Ms. spences response to my most recent correspondence, I will act fast, and this matter will be put before a legal team.
Appreciate the input each and every one of you. Cheers. Glen
The following users liked this post:
Again, while agreeing with your 'bottom line', Thirsty, I'd suggest you spend 10 minutes researching the Dept of Finance information on Act of Grace and CDDA systems.
Note, in particular, the acronym 'NCE', which stands for Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity. CASA is not a 'Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity'. CASA is a corporate Commonwealth entity. CASA has its own equivalent policies (and spends its own money) on Act of Grace and CDDA-like payments (though CASA is subject to the PGPA). All roads lead to CASA.
We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.
Note, in particular, the acronym 'NCE', which stands for Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity. CASA is not a 'Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity'. CASA is a corporate Commonwealth entity. CASA has its own equivalent policies (and spends its own money) on Act of Grace and CDDA-like payments (though CASA is subject to the PGPA). All roads lead to CASA.
We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.
The following users liked this post:
Glen businesses fail all the time , ten of 1000s of pty ltd companies likely every year in Australia
They are dealt with by administrators / liquidators , creditors meetings etc
It just isn't appropriate for a former Director of failed company to go back "compensating" former creditors/employees years after the event
Come on look after your family if any money flows from this
Agree with others you need lawyers who have expertise in this type of V Govt stuff
You have mentioned on this thread you have been personally bankrupted , or at least discussed it (not trying to embarrass you) , if this is
the case it is highly likely you would not have the right to initiate legals (whilst undischarged at least) ?
Glen there is never "good intent" or "gentlemans rules" in these type of things - it is a blood sport. Just like the claims dept at an insurer will all have
a night out at strippers when a claimant (destroyed house or something) that they did over tops himself & his family - they will laugh mightily hard . Think these guys are any different ?
Come off it Glen , you think they will settle your grievance by round table "chattys" whilst singing for he's a jolly good fellow
They are dealt with by administrators / liquidators , creditors meetings etc
It just isn't appropriate for a former Director of failed company to go back "compensating" former creditors/employees years after the event
Come on look after your family if any money flows from this
Agree with others you need lawyers who have expertise in this type of V Govt stuff
You have mentioned on this thread you have been personally bankrupted , or at least discussed it (not trying to embarrass you) , if this is
the case it is highly likely you would not have the right to initiate legals (whilst undischarged at least) ?
Glen there is never "good intent" or "gentlemans rules" in these type of things - it is a blood sport. Just like the claims dept at an insurer will all have
a night out at strippers when a claimant (destroyed house or something) that they did over tops himself & his family - they will laugh mightily hard . Think these guys are any different ?
Come off it Glen , you think they will settle your grievance by round table "chattys" whilst singing for he's a jolly good fellow
I havent finalised this yet, because I dont know if I am conveying the significance of it. Keen on feedback. Dear Keeley (CASA FOI Office)
In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which demonstrates confusion exists within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter.
I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's office ,but believe it is a result of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman by CASA.
In this FOI request, I am attempting to clarify a critical matter.
The Ombudsman stated in correspondence to me;
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
That Statement suggests there were "someone else's ", Authorisations, involved in this matter, someone other than APTAs, and that CASA only discovered this in October 2018.
That is to say, from 2006 through until October 2018, CASA believed APTAs Authorisations and Approvals were being used, as they were, then around October 2018 CASA became concerned that in fact, someone else's Authorisations were being used., and that led to CASA taking action against me.
There were no other Authorisations. There were only my Authorisations, so how could there seriously be any confusion at all on this topic, as to which Authorisations are being used.
For clarity there were no Authorisations other than mine and that was the case up from 2006 when I commenced Operations, until, October 2018, when CASA advised me I was now operating unlawfully, when CASA had formed the opinion that other Authorisations were now being used, when the truth is that there were no other Authorisations as CASA is fully aware, so CASA could not possibly have had any confusion on this matter.
CASA could not possibly have thought that someone elses Approvals and authorisations were being used because no other Approvals or authorisations existed.
In order for the following APTA Members
In order for those listed Members to be able to have a CASA issued Approval or Authorisation they would have had to have gone through an extensive CASA process, and would in fact be "a flying school" in their own right, and therefore not a Member of APTA, because it would be pointless, as they are their own flying school, with their own CASA issued Approvals and Authorisations..
CASA has to be fully aware that those listed APTA Members do not have their own Authorisations because it would have required those Entities to have gone through an extensive and expensive process with CASA. it would have been a process that would have cost many thousands of dollars, and taken many months to accomplish. It would have required those Entities to produce an Exposition of many thousands of pages, and submit that to CASA for consideration and peer review. CASA would then interview the CASA mandated Key personnel ,being the CEO, Head of Operations and Safety Manager . If CASA was satisfied with those three nominated Key Personnel,. then CASA would formally have Approved them. CASA would then inspect the facility and then permit that entity to operate as a flying school, subject to ongoing auditing and compliance. If each of the Members had their own Authorisation each of those 8 Members would have had to have their own three Key personnel, i.e. there would be 24 CASA Approved key Personnel. None of those entities had any Key Personnel.
Once all this had been achieved, only then would CASA issue the Approval or Authorisation. to each of those members.
The point being that CASA could not seriously have thought that each of those Entities had their own Approvals or Authorisation, and to lead the Ombudsman to form that view, leaves me in no doubt that CASA has continually provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman
To demonstrate that,. I would like to make a Freedom of Information request.
I am requesting all Part 141/142 Approvals, for any of the 8 Members that existed or was Operational in the 2 years prior to October 2018 and the dates and duration that they were Approved.
In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each require three CASA approved Key Personnel in total. Under FOI, can you advise if any of those Organisations had any of the three mandated Key Personnel positions Approved by CASA, as would be required in order to have Approvals or Authorisations.
Can I request a list of all CASA issued Authorisations and CASA issued Approvals issued by CASA to each of those Organisations in the two years prior to October 2018.,
On release of these documents, I believe it will become highly apparent that there could have been no confusion within CASA. CASA was fully aware from 2006 through until October 2018, and up until now, that there were only my Approvals and Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion.
In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which demonstrates confusion exists within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter.
I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's office ,but believe it is a result of false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman by CASA.
In this FOI request, I am attempting to clarify a critical matter.
The Ombudsman stated in correspondence to me;
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
That Statement suggests there were "someone else's ", Authorisations, involved in this matter, someone other than APTAs, and that CASA only discovered this in October 2018.
That is to say, from 2006 through until October 2018, CASA believed APTAs Authorisations and Approvals were being used, as they were, then around October 2018 CASA became concerned that in fact, someone else's Authorisations were being used., and that led to CASA taking action against me.
There were no other Authorisations. There were only my Authorisations, so how could there seriously be any confusion at all on this topic, as to which Authorisations are being used.
For clarity there were no Authorisations other than mine and that was the case up from 2006 when I commenced Operations, until, October 2018, when CASA advised me I was now operating unlawfully, when CASA had formed the opinion that other Authorisations were now being used, when the truth is that there were no other Authorisations as CASA is fully aware, so CASA could not possibly have had any confusion on this matter.
CASA could not possibly have thought that someone elses Approvals and authorisations were being used because no other Approvals or authorisations existed.
In order for the following APTA Members
- Latrobe Valley Aero Club
- Ballarat Aero Club,
- ARC Aviation
- AVIA Aviation
- Melbourne Flight Training
- Sim jet
- White Star Aviation
- Learn to Fly
In order for those listed Members to be able to have a CASA issued Approval or Authorisation they would have had to have gone through an extensive CASA process, and would in fact be "a flying school" in their own right, and therefore not a Member of APTA, because it would be pointless, as they are their own flying school, with their own CASA issued Approvals and Authorisations..
CASA has to be fully aware that those listed APTA Members do not have their own Authorisations because it would have required those Entities to have gone through an extensive and expensive process with CASA. it would have been a process that would have cost many thousands of dollars, and taken many months to accomplish. It would have required those Entities to produce an Exposition of many thousands of pages, and submit that to CASA for consideration and peer review. CASA would then interview the CASA mandated Key personnel ,being the CEO, Head of Operations and Safety Manager . If CASA was satisfied with those three nominated Key Personnel,. then CASA would formally have Approved them. CASA would then inspect the facility and then permit that entity to operate as a flying school, subject to ongoing auditing and compliance. If each of the Members had their own Authorisation each of those 8 Members would have had to have their own three Key personnel, i.e. there would be 24 CASA Approved key Personnel. None of those entities had any Key Personnel.
Once all this had been achieved, only then would CASA issue the Approval or Authorisation. to each of those members.
The point being that CASA could not seriously have thought that each of those Entities had their own Approvals or Authorisation, and to lead the Ombudsman to form that view, leaves me in no doubt that CASA has continually provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman
To demonstrate that,. I would like to make a Freedom of Information request.
I am requesting all Part 141/142 Approvals, for any of the 8 Members that existed or was Operational in the 2 years prior to October 2018 and the dates and duration that they were Approved.
In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each require three CASA approved Key Personnel in total. Under FOI, can you advise if any of those Organisations had any of the three mandated Key Personnel positions Approved by CASA, as would be required in order to have Approvals or Authorisations.
Can I request a list of all CASA issued Authorisations and CASA issued Approvals issued by CASA to each of those Organisations in the two years prior to October 2018.,
On release of these documents, I believe it will become highly apparent that there could have been no confusion within CASA. CASA was fully aware from 2006 through until October 2018, and up until now, that there were only my Approvals and Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion.
A case in point. You are misusing the FOI process to prepare your case, something your lawyer team could do with legal force of the court as part of the discovery process as part of a court case, or the The National Anti-Corruption Commission investigators would do. The information you request will possibly be deemed commercial-in-confidence by the CASA FOI team, and not be released to you. You are also showing your hand, giving them opportunity to 'lose' important information that may help your case. Another few months wasted, and your window of opportunity and success drifting away.
You have been deprived of your livelihood. The other party has already said they will not make good the damage on just terms (or any other terms either). You are not on polite gentleman terms with them any more - the bastards are trying to cheat you at every turn. Do not think you will ever be re-starting another training school with them politely helping you along. You cannot bring back the past and make it different. Time to get serious, deadly serious. The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now.
For everybody following this sorry saga, can they PM Glen with suggestions of a good lawyer that is a specialist in aviation, and can be trusted to cross-examine all the relevant parties in a clear and concise manner so that a judge and jury can clearly understand what Glen appears to think the Ombudsman and Parliament cannot understand? I suspect the case may not even come to court as the shenanigans will not withstand scrutiny, the witnesses that will be called will be too scared to stand up and lie under oath, and it will be too politically sensitive for the Federal Government (not just CASA) to lose - they will settle quickly. You lawyer will advise a reasonable sum and it will all be settled with an obligatory non-disclosure agreement which means you will not win in the court of public opinion, just in monetary terms. You will not be able to come back to these forums and gloat you won, and by how much. This thread in PPRuNe will suddenly stop, or be deleted as part of the legal settlement. Your first step is to get good legal advice, and the rest will swiftly fall into place without you continuing to tilt at windmills forever without making any progress, getting frustrated at every turn.
The following 7 users liked this post by Thirsty:
"The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now."
these are not nice people Glen - you will have to drag them screaming every inch of the way
get a lawyer!!
these are not nice people Glen - you will have to drag them screaming every inch of the way
get a lawyer!!
It has been reported somewhere that 40+ cases have already been referred to the NACC. If we presume that these are ones that have been referred by an organisation or MP, there may be many more that have been submitted by Joe Public for review...at any rate - they've got a lot of sifting to get through before deciding on which cases they'll investigate.
I very much doubt that the NACC would resolve Glen's issue in a timely fashion, if at all. It's likely to pale in comparison to alleged corruption in other parts of the government. I wanted to point this out because as I and others have said, you're long past the point of DIY lawyering and need a bulldog-esque legal team experienced in the opacity of aviation regulations to go hard, now!
I very much doubt that the NACC would resolve Glen's issue in a timely fashion, if at all. It's likely to pale in comparison to alleged corruption in other parts of the government. I wanted to point this out because as I and others have said, you're long past the point of DIY lawyering and need a bulldog-esque legal team experienced in the opacity of aviation regulations to go hard, now!
Well FOI can be used as low cost mechanism to fish out information to determine if you do have a case
A bunny at CASA might allow something to "slip throughYes discovery is powerful, but it doesn't mean you get automatic access to everything , other side can oppose subpoenas & you
can only do this after you have initiated action
As previously mentioned Glen made some comment about being declared bankrupt (school fees or something) if that is the case there
might be significant restrictions on ability to litigate
Just don't really understand , why recover monies so you can give them away to other folk. The fact is that your employees were more than
happy to take full wages , thinking for doing a modest amount of work as students dropped off
Free country & all
A bunny at CASA might allow something to "slip throughYes discovery is powerful, but it doesn't mean you get automatic access to everything , other side can oppose subpoenas & you
can only do this after you have initiated action
As previously mentioned Glen made some comment about being declared bankrupt (school fees or something) if that is the case there
might be significant restrictions on ability to litigate
Just don't really understand , why recover monies so you can give them away to other folk. The fact is that your employees were more than
happy to take full wages , thinking for doing a modest amount of work as students dropped off
Free country & all
Glen,
LB said at #2731:
You are getting nowhere fast with CASA Glen. Stop wasting your time writing to them, lawyer up NOW, and hit CASA with a very big claim for a very big sum of money.
Unless you do this, things aren't going to change.
LB said at #2731:
We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.
Unless you do this, things aren't going to change.
Thread Starter
Cheers
Thanks folk, I just wanted to thank you for the well intentioned and much appreciated advice.
I agree there is little point in continuing to engage with CASA expecting good intent to prevail.
In Pprune# 2608,2620,2703,2711. I have clearly left the decision to Ms. Spence i.e., litigation V Aviation Ruling, and cannot make my next move until she advises me of CASA preferred course of action. Soon it will become clear. I do see benefit in communication via FOI requests, as they will be of assistance if I am forced to take on litigation by CASA. If I can get much of the "ping pong" out of the way, it will expedite processes.
Regarding "declaring my hand". I know it will be perceived as foolish and naïve, but I'm comfortable with CASA having that information. The more transparent, the more open, and the more honest I am, will only better serve me, and besides you cant justify the unjustifiable.
I have been working on an FOI request, which I am about to put on here, but I will be back to address the recent comments.
Cheers. Glen
I agree there is little point in continuing to engage with CASA expecting good intent to prevail.
In Pprune# 2608,2620,2703,2711. I have clearly left the decision to Ms. Spence i.e., litigation V Aviation Ruling, and cannot make my next move until she advises me of CASA preferred course of action. Soon it will become clear. I do see benefit in communication via FOI requests, as they will be of assistance if I am forced to take on litigation by CASA. If I can get much of the "ping pong" out of the way, it will expedite processes.
Regarding "declaring my hand". I know it will be perceived as foolish and naïve, but I'm comfortable with CASA having that information. The more transparent, the more open, and the more honest I am, will only better serve me, and besides you cant justify the unjustifiable.
I have been working on an FOI request, which I am about to put on here, but I will be back to address the recent comments.
Cheers. Glen