Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Thread Starter
FOI request- Authorisations
Dear Keeley (CASA FOI Office) -My reference Pprune 32741
In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which leads me to believe that confusion may exist within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter, and that concern has prompted this FOI request.
I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's Office; however, I believe it’s 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, and I will provide you with some background information to assist you with your search.
In correspondence from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman stated.
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
That statement makes it very clear that the arrangement whereby, “APTA itself was conducting the flight training at the various locations”, was not only CASAs understanding, but it was acceptable to CASA, and approved by CASA, as it had been since I commenced operations in 2006.
· Understandably, if someone else’s Authorisations were being used, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006.
· Similarly, if a different flight training organisation was delivering the training, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval. because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006
However, if APTA was delivering the training with APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding, then that would be acceptable, and that was the structure that had been approved by CASA for APTA throughout the previous decade. That structure remained unchanged since 2006 when the Business commenced.
That statement by the Ombudsman, suggests that based on information received from CASA, there may have been some change away from CASAs understanding of that pre-existing structure and CASA approved structure. A change away from APTA itself conducting the training using its own Authorisations to “some other” structure or some other arrangement, where some other Authorisation was being used, or some other flying school, other than APTA was using its own Authorisation. It suggests that some “confusion” may have arisen as to who was delivering the flight training. i.e., that CASA was uncertain who was conducting the training, and whose Authorisation was being used.
CASA has misled the Ombudsman if the Ombudsman has formed the view that there was any change at all away from that CASA approved structure of the previous decade, or that there were any other “Authorisations” involved, or that there were any changes to the way I was operating.
There was no change throughout the previous decade and there is no reason that CASA could reasonably perceived there was any change. The truth is there was no change. None at all. The only thing that really changed was Mr Alecks personal opinion, and I assume by now you will have received some briefing on this matter.
I went into APTA at 7.30 AM on October 23rd, 2018, as I did on every day for the previous decade, it really was just another day at work, which, as always, I enjoyed.
In the mid-afternoon I received an email from CASA, completely out of nowhere, with absolutely no concerns having ever been raised with me. I was totally blind sided.
That email notified me that, that my business of more than a decade, was now suddenly determined to be unlawful, and my business only, I confirmed this with other Operators.
Other flight training organisations operating in exactly the same structure across Australia were unaffected, it was only Glen Buckleys business, no other. In fact, on the day of writing this letter almost five years later, CASA still permit other businesses to operate in the identical structure that I adopted. You will appreciate why I am fully satisfied I was the victim of targeted malice by Member/s of the CASA Executive.
The notification from CASA advised me that the structure that I had adopted for the previous decade was now unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees.
I had been operating for the previous decade with this apparently unlawful and unauthorised structure, and CASA gave the business 7 days’ notice of continuing operations, at which stage it was most likely that all operations across all bases including bases that CASA had approved over a decade earlier would have to cease operations, including my own flying school MFT.
CASA also advised that an “administrative freeze” had been placed on all regulatory tasks, and that we could not upgrade personnel, add new courses, flight simulators, etc. nor would any more Members be permitted to join APTA until further notice. The correspondence advised that I had breached the Aviation Ruling, CASR 141.050, Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act, and s29 of the Civil Aviation Act. I was subject to CASA regulatory prosecution. My members may also be subjected to that regulatory action.
This came out of nowhere. I truly was completely blindsided. My business of 10 years was clearly about to be decimated by CASA.
It was particularly inexplicable because I had just invested significantly in a 3-year program working side by side with 10 CASA personnel, to have the entire structure ready for the completely new regulatory suite being introduced by CASA in September 2018. The very purpose of that three-year investment was to be able to continue my Single Authorisation, Multi Base Structure that I had adopted for the previous decade forward into the new Part 61/141/142 regulatory structure and was fully approved by CASA to do exactly that. That was the very purpose of the business and had been for over 10 years.
That three-year program where I worked side by side with those 10 CASA personnel, developing all APTAs systems led to me becoming one of Australia’s first flying schools to be revalidated to that new regulatory structure, and I obtained that in April of 2017, being 18 months prior to the introduction of the new legislation, recently postponed by CASA to September 2018.
The new legislation was introduced by CASA in September of 2018 as scheduled, and in October 2018, being the very next month after the new legislation, was introduced, I was advised that I was operating unlawfully, and those trading restrictions were put in place. This is despite that three-year investment that I had just made to have the entire structure approved by CASA for the new regulations that were introduced the previous month prior to CASAs complete backflip.
I’m sorry Keeley for the extensive background, but there may be further FOI requests at a later date, and I feel it important that you have an understanding, and I acknowledge that the CASA Executive may have an alternate narrative, and that you may need to consult with them, and particularly Mr Aleck as he would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA.
I will return to the purpose of the FOI request.
The Ombudsman stated.
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
If APTA was conducting the training at the various locations, using APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding in that statement above, then that is perfectly acceptable to CASA, and had in fact been acceptable to CASA since I commenced operations in 2006. That statement identifies that fact.
That is to say, the structure I had adopted for more than a decade, was known to CASA, it was accepted by CASA, and it was approved by CASA.
The statement suggests however that there has been some change with the CASA approved structure that I adopted, or, or the perception of change, when clearly there was not. It suggests that there may have been some confusion as to who was now delivering training or whose Authorisations were being used, or that other Authorisations existed.
It leaves me to question why did the complete reversal by CASA happen on 23rd October 2018, and why was the CASA approach so harmful, when less harmful options were available. i.e., a well-intentioned four-hour discussion would have fully resolved the matter in its entirety.
Nothing has changed. I had adopted that same structure for over a decade, been through countless CASA audits, fully validated the entire structure with CASA eighteen months earlier, had a full Level One audit only 12 months earlier, had literally had daily discussions and meeting with CASA on literally hundreds of occasions.
Over the years I had added bases at various locations, and CASA had formally approved those base additions on every occasion, using these very same CASA approved procedures that I used when I made application for the addition of two further aero clubs being Latrobe Valley and Ballarat Aero Club. On submission of those applications, I had no idea that they would trigger a situation where CASA determined that the business in its entirety was now operating unlawfully.
If I had changed the way I operated, or if there had been a legislative change I would understand, but this was different.
CASA had decided that all personnel operating under the Authorisation must now specifically be employed directly by the Authorisation Holder, i.e., they could not be employed by another Entity, they could not be a volunteer, they could not be a contractor. They had to be directly employed by the Authorisation Holder. CASA advised that if I made all personnel operating under my AOC, all my “direct employees” the restrictions could be lifted, and I could return to business as usual.
A most absurd situation that has absolutely no basis in the legislation, or in precedent, and was being applied to my business only, and no others.
The point being that there was no change. The only change throughout the decade was a change of awareness by a CASA employee or employees. With that awareness came a reversal of opinion of that CASA employee/s/
For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that someone else’s Authorisation were being used or that someone else was now delivering the training is preposterous, and there is no reason for CASA to believe that was the case because quite simply there are no other Authorisations.
There was only ever one Authorisation, and that Authorisation being APTAs. How can there be confusion if there is only one option.
The truth is that CASA was always “aware” that the one and only APTA Authorisation was being used, because CASA issue those Authorisations after a very comprehensive and expensive process.
In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each have required three CASA approved Key Personnel for a total of 24 Key Personnel that would have had to have gone through a formal CASA process, and formal approval. Obviously, that was not the case, so CASA could not have credibly believed that to be the case.
1. I would request all CASA issued Approvals, Authorisations, and CASA approved Key Personnel that were issued to APTA ARN 759217 on October 23rd, 2018, and throughout the twelve months prior.
2. I request is for a list of all active CASA issued Authorisations that any of the listed APTA Members that they held in their own right for the period 12 months prior October 23rd, 2018.
It was APTA itself conducting flying training in the various locations using only APTAs Authorisations, because there were no other Authorisations other than APTAs. That is to say, there could be no other alternative other than using APTAs Authorisations because no other authorisations existed with any other Entity, as far as I am aware.
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 Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion, because there was no possible alternative. CASA could not possibly have any confusion as to whose Authorisation was being used as there was only the one Authorisation.
To be conducting flight training under Approvals and authorisations other than APTAs, then those Authorisations need to exist. If those approvals do not exist, and were not issued by CASA, then how could CASA possibly think that anyone other than APTAs Authorisations were being used, because there are no other Authorisations. For CASA to suggest that after more than a decade they suddenly thought in October 2018, that someone else’s Authorisations and approvals were suddenly being used is beyond preposterous, as those within Industry would be fully aware.
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 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 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.
This FOI request will clearly demonstrate that there was only one CASA issued Authorisation and that was the Part 141/142 Authorisation that I held, there were no others. There was one Authorisation, one Exposition, one set of courses, one set of CASAs approved Key personnel only.
No one else conceivably could have been delivering the training, as CASA was fully aware throughout the decade that I and many others adopted the identical structure that I adopted.
Thankyou Keeley for attending to this request, and I acknowledge that you have some outstanding requests that are with me. I apologise for the delayed response on those matters and will get back to you within 24 hours.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
In correspondence I received from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman made a statement, which leads me to believe that confusion may exist within the Ombudsman Office with regard to this entire matter, and that concern has prompted this FOI request.
I am not suggesting bad intent from within the Ombudsman's Office; however, I believe it’s 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, and I will provide you with some background information to assist you with your search.
In correspondence from the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office on February 8th, 2023, the Ombudsman stated.
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
That statement makes it very clear that the arrangement whereby, “APTA itself was conducting the flight training at the various locations”, was not only CASAs understanding, but it was acceptable to CASA, and approved by CASA, as it had been since I commenced operations in 2006.
· Understandably, if someone else’s Authorisations were being used, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006.
· Similarly, if a different flight training organisation was delivering the training, that would not be acceptable without CASA approval. because that was not CASAs understanding of the structure that they had approved continuously since 2006
However, if APTA was delivering the training with APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding, then that would be acceptable, and that was the structure that had been approved by CASA for APTA throughout the previous decade. That structure remained unchanged since 2006 when the Business commenced.
That statement by the Ombudsman, suggests that based on information received from CASA, there may have been some change away from CASAs understanding of that pre-existing structure and CASA approved structure. A change away from APTA itself conducting the training using its own Authorisations to “some other” structure or some other arrangement, where some other Authorisation was being used, or some other flying school, other than APTA was using its own Authorisation. It suggests that some “confusion” may have arisen as to who was delivering the flight training. i.e., that CASA was uncertain who was conducting the training, and whose Authorisation was being used.
CASA has misled the Ombudsman if the Ombudsman has formed the view that there was any change at all away from that CASA approved structure of the previous decade, or that there were any other “Authorisations” involved, or that there were any changes to the way I was operating.
There was no change throughout the previous decade and there is no reason that CASA could reasonably perceived there was any change. The truth is there was no change. None at all. The only thing that really changed was Mr Alecks personal opinion, and I assume by now you will have received some briefing on this matter.
I went into APTA at 7.30 AM on October 23rd, 2018, as I did on every day for the previous decade, it really was just another day at work, which, as always, I enjoyed.
In the mid-afternoon I received an email from CASA, completely out of nowhere, with absolutely no concerns having ever been raised with me. I was totally blind sided.
That email notified me that, that my business of more than a decade, was now suddenly determined to be unlawful, and my business only, I confirmed this with other Operators.
Other flight training organisations operating in exactly the same structure across Australia were unaffected, it was only Glen Buckleys business, no other. In fact, on the day of writing this letter almost five years later, CASA still permit other businesses to operate in the identical structure that I adopted. You will appreciate why I am fully satisfied I was the victim of targeted malice by Member/s of the CASA Executive.
The notification from CASA advised me that the structure that I had adopted for the previous decade was now unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always my direct employees.
I had been operating for the previous decade with this apparently unlawful and unauthorised structure, and CASA gave the business 7 days’ notice of continuing operations, at which stage it was most likely that all operations across all bases including bases that CASA had approved over a decade earlier would have to cease operations, including my own flying school MFT.
CASA also advised that an “administrative freeze” had been placed on all regulatory tasks, and that we could not upgrade personnel, add new courses, flight simulators, etc. nor would any more Members be permitted to join APTA until further notice. The correspondence advised that I had breached the Aviation Ruling, CASR 141.050, Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act, and s29 of the Civil Aviation Act. I was subject to CASA regulatory prosecution. My members may also be subjected to that regulatory action.
This came out of nowhere. I truly was completely blindsided. My business of 10 years was clearly about to be decimated by CASA.
It was particularly inexplicable because I had just invested significantly in a 3-year program working side by side with 10 CASA personnel, to have the entire structure ready for the completely new regulatory suite being introduced by CASA in September 2018. The very purpose of that three-year investment was to be able to continue my Single Authorisation, Multi Base Structure that I had adopted for the previous decade forward into the new Part 61/141/142 regulatory structure and was fully approved by CASA to do exactly that. That was the very purpose of the business and had been for over 10 years.
That three-year program where I worked side by side with those 10 CASA personnel, developing all APTAs systems led to me becoming one of Australia’s first flying schools to be revalidated to that new regulatory structure, and I obtained that in April of 2017, being 18 months prior to the introduction of the new legislation, recently postponed by CASA to September 2018.
The new legislation was introduced by CASA in September of 2018 as scheduled, and in October 2018, being the very next month after the new legislation, was introduced, I was advised that I was operating unlawfully, and those trading restrictions were put in place. This is despite that three-year investment that I had just made to have the entire structure approved by CASA for the new regulations that were introduced the previous month prior to CASAs complete backflip.
I’m sorry Keeley for the extensive background, but there may be further FOI requests at a later date, and I feel it important that you have an understanding, and I acknowledge that the CASA Executive may have an alternate narrative, and that you may need to consult with them, and particularly Mr Aleck as he would be the Subject Matter Expert within CASA.
I will return to the purpose of the FOI request.
The Ombudsman stated.
"I understand that CASA had accepted that APTA was itself conducting flight training in the various locations, under its own Authorisations.”.
If APTA was conducting the training at the various locations, using APTAs own Authorisations, as was CASAs understanding in that statement above, then that is perfectly acceptable to CASA, and had in fact been acceptable to CASA since I commenced operations in 2006. That statement identifies that fact.
That is to say, the structure I had adopted for more than a decade, was known to CASA, it was accepted by CASA, and it was approved by CASA.
The statement suggests however that there has been some change with the CASA approved structure that I adopted, or, or the perception of change, when clearly there was not. It suggests that there may have been some confusion as to who was now delivering training or whose Authorisations were being used, or that other Authorisations existed.
It leaves me to question why did the complete reversal by CASA happen on 23rd October 2018, and why was the CASA approach so harmful, when less harmful options were available. i.e., a well-intentioned four-hour discussion would have fully resolved the matter in its entirety.
Nothing has changed. I had adopted that same structure for over a decade, been through countless CASA audits, fully validated the entire structure with CASA eighteen months earlier, had a full Level One audit only 12 months earlier, had literally had daily discussions and meeting with CASA on literally hundreds of occasions.
Over the years I had added bases at various locations, and CASA had formally approved those base additions on every occasion, using these very same CASA approved procedures that I used when I made application for the addition of two further aero clubs being Latrobe Valley and Ballarat Aero Club. On submission of those applications, I had no idea that they would trigger a situation where CASA determined that the business in its entirety was now operating unlawfully.
If I had changed the way I operated, or if there had been a legislative change I would understand, but this was different.
CASA had decided that all personnel operating under the Authorisation must now specifically be employed directly by the Authorisation Holder, i.e., they could not be employed by another Entity, they could not be a volunteer, they could not be a contractor. They had to be directly employed by the Authorisation Holder. CASA advised that if I made all personnel operating under my AOC, all my “direct employees” the restrictions could be lifted, and I could return to business as usual.
A most absurd situation that has absolutely no basis in the legislation, or in precedent, and was being applied to my business only, and no others.
The point being that there was no change. The only change throughout the decade was a change of awareness by a CASA employee or employees. With that awareness came a reversal of opinion of that CASA employee/s/
For CASA to lead the Ombudsman to believe that someone else’s Authorisation were being used or that someone else was now delivering the training is preposterous, and there is no reason for CASA to believe that was the case because quite simply there are no other Authorisations.
There was only ever one Authorisation, and that Authorisation being APTAs. How can there be confusion if there is only one option.
The truth is that CASA was always “aware” that the one and only APTA Authorisation was being used, because CASA issue those Authorisations after a very comprehensive and expensive process.
In order for those 8 Members to have their own CASA issued Authorisation, they would each have required three CASA approved Key Personnel for a total of 24 Key Personnel that would have had to have gone through a formal CASA process, and formal approval. Obviously, that was not the case, so CASA could not have credibly believed that to be the case.
1. I would request all CASA issued Approvals, Authorisations, and CASA approved Key Personnel that were issued to APTA ARN 759217 on October 23rd, 2018, and throughout the twelve months prior.
2. I request is for a list of all active CASA issued Authorisations that any of the listed APTA Members that they held in their own right for the period 12 months prior October 23rd, 2018.
- Latrobe Valley Aero Club
- Ballarat Aero Club,
- ARC Aviation
- AVIA Aviation
- Melbourne Flight Training
- Sim jet
- White Star Aviation
- Learn to Fly
It was APTA itself conducting flying training in the various locations using only APTAs Authorisations, because there were no other Authorisations other than APTAs. That is to say, there could be no other alternative other than using APTAs Authorisations because no other authorisations existed with any other Entity, as far as I am aware.
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 Authorisations, so there could not possibly be any confusion, because there was no possible alternative. CASA could not possibly have any confusion as to whose Authorisation was being used as there was only the one Authorisation.
To be conducting flight training under Approvals and authorisations other than APTAs, then those Authorisations need to exist. If those approvals do not exist, and were not issued by CASA, then how could CASA possibly think that anyone other than APTAs Authorisations were being used, because there are no other Authorisations. For CASA to suggest that after more than a decade they suddenly thought in October 2018, that someone else’s Authorisations and approvals were suddenly being used is beyond preposterous, as those within Industry would be fully aware.
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 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 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.
This FOI request will clearly demonstrate that there was only one CASA issued Authorisation and that was the Part 141/142 Authorisation that I held, there were no others. There was one Authorisation, one Exposition, one set of courses, one set of CASAs approved Key personnel only.
No one else conceivably could have been delivering the training, as CASA was fully aware throughout the decade that I and many others adopted the identical structure that I adopted.
Thankyou Keeley for attending to this request, and I acknowledge that you have some outstanding requests that are with me. I apologise for the delayed response on those matters and will get back to you within 24 hours.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Makiko Post #2738
Dear "Makiko",
First, let me thankyou for your previous posts, they were appreciated.
Regarding your comment
"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"
I will provide some more info.
Regarding bankruptcy. Unfortunately, I cannot address the terminology correctly. The process is quite complicated and costly, but parties can pursue that through the Courts as they have. A determination is made and effectively active. The Party that implemented the process can effectively immediately activate it, as they desire.
This may seem unusual but to be honest, I wasn't in the state to find out. At this stage I had lost everything, quite seriously we had a couple of weeks where the local church provided groceries, I mean I lost EVERYTHING. I was at low point and to find out that someone had enacted that, at that stage of my life would have been the tipping point, and I had asked my family not to check (if they knew how to), or to tell me. Some time ago, despite my request, and out of good intention checked it and told me that no Pary had activated it at this stage. That was some time ago. If somebody does have that information, i still do not want to know. I am proceeding as though it has not been enacted.
The fact is that declaring me bankrupt, wont achieve much because we have nothing. A successful resolution by an Act of Grace or Litigation will resolve that matter, as it will for everyone, including the majority that chose not to pursue that course of action.
For those that pursued the legal system and bankruptcy there is not any animosity at all, and I fully respect their position. The only disappointing part is that I want to pay everybody back, without that hanging over me i.e., a more gentlemanly and respectful manner. I particularly look forward to paying back the staff that were impacted by this.
Regarding the staff staying around, working less and getting wages. I appreciate that was intended somewhat tongue in cheek, but let me assure you that was not the case.
The entire structure that I designed with CASA over the three years required 10 Members on Board to maintain APTA. That is my school MFT and 9 other APTA bases. In very rough equations it cost approximately $1,000,000 per year to operate and required 10 members contributing $100,000 per annum. It was somewhat more complicated because there were significant discounts for non-commercial ventures such as an aero club as opposed to a "business" such as MFT.
As soon as CASA put a stop to my achieving 10 Members despite me having them wanting to join in October 2018, it fell upon MFT to cover the shortfall, which was obviously not possible, and that's when my parents stepped in to help me pay staff salaries. Please understand that during the 8 months we had a temporary approval to operate that was as little as minute by minute but never more than three months. Not only was my own school MFT heavily subsidizing the operation, it was impossible and unethical to enroll students into an 18-month course if the school may not be permitted to continue.
Cashflow was immediately smashed. As in any business, the staff knew it. Each of them had their own employment tied to the length of that CASA approved interim approval. The employment market was strong. At any time, any of those instructors could easily have left, and found alternative employment with the deserved level of job security that they need and are entitled to. On occasion staff would step forward and offer to get paid late, so that others could be paid. Some were casual staff, and as their work dried up they were impacted. Suppliers started getting edgy, and no one including me could understand why this entire fiasco could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours as it should have been.
The Company is obviously in the CASA firing line. Other Companies start to approach my Key Personnel offering alternative employment, and as you can appreciate these Key personnel are highly dependent on me for their livelihood., but each and every one of them stayed by my side far longer than they should have. I asked them to trust me, as i truly felt that this entire matter could be resolved.
Its hard to convey to you Makiko just how special MFT was. There are some pruners on here who have identified themselves as past staff, although i don't know which staff members they were. It was a very capable, professional and well-intentioned team in that Company, and very good people always gravitated to MFT., and that extended to our students.The secret for any small business owner. Surround yourself by people that are more capable than you at what they do, well that what we achieved. Truly it was unique and the very best years of my life.
If I had more time i would go on and on, but I'm just finishing a very substandard coffee in the local 24-hour restaurant and heading off to work. Cheers all, and thanks Makiko for your involvement. Due time constraints I haven't had a chance to edit this. Hope it reads OK, cheers. Glen.,
First, let me thankyou for your previous posts, they were appreciated.
Regarding your comment
"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"
I will provide some more info.
Regarding bankruptcy. Unfortunately, I cannot address the terminology correctly. The process is quite complicated and costly, but parties can pursue that through the Courts as they have. A determination is made and effectively active. The Party that implemented the process can effectively immediately activate it, as they desire.
This may seem unusual but to be honest, I wasn't in the state to find out. At this stage I had lost everything, quite seriously we had a couple of weeks where the local church provided groceries, I mean I lost EVERYTHING. I was at low point and to find out that someone had enacted that, at that stage of my life would have been the tipping point, and I had asked my family not to check (if they knew how to), or to tell me. Some time ago, despite my request, and out of good intention checked it and told me that no Pary had activated it at this stage. That was some time ago. If somebody does have that information, i still do not want to know. I am proceeding as though it has not been enacted.
The fact is that declaring me bankrupt, wont achieve much because we have nothing. A successful resolution by an Act of Grace or Litigation will resolve that matter, as it will for everyone, including the majority that chose not to pursue that course of action.
For those that pursued the legal system and bankruptcy there is not any animosity at all, and I fully respect their position. The only disappointing part is that I want to pay everybody back, without that hanging over me i.e., a more gentlemanly and respectful manner. I particularly look forward to paying back the staff that were impacted by this.
Regarding the staff staying around, working less and getting wages. I appreciate that was intended somewhat tongue in cheek, but let me assure you that was not the case.
The entire structure that I designed with CASA over the three years required 10 Members on Board to maintain APTA. That is my school MFT and 9 other APTA bases. In very rough equations it cost approximately $1,000,000 per year to operate and required 10 members contributing $100,000 per annum. It was somewhat more complicated because there were significant discounts for non-commercial ventures such as an aero club as opposed to a "business" such as MFT.
As soon as CASA put a stop to my achieving 10 Members despite me having them wanting to join in October 2018, it fell upon MFT to cover the shortfall, which was obviously not possible, and that's when my parents stepped in to help me pay staff salaries. Please understand that during the 8 months we had a temporary approval to operate that was as little as minute by minute but never more than three months. Not only was my own school MFT heavily subsidizing the operation, it was impossible and unethical to enroll students into an 18-month course if the school may not be permitted to continue.
Cashflow was immediately smashed. As in any business, the staff knew it. Each of them had their own employment tied to the length of that CASA approved interim approval. The employment market was strong. At any time, any of those instructors could easily have left, and found alternative employment with the deserved level of job security that they need and are entitled to. On occasion staff would step forward and offer to get paid late, so that others could be paid. Some were casual staff, and as their work dried up they were impacted. Suppliers started getting edgy, and no one including me could understand why this entire fiasco could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours as it should have been.
The Company is obviously in the CASA firing line. Other Companies start to approach my Key Personnel offering alternative employment, and as you can appreciate these Key personnel are highly dependent on me for their livelihood., but each and every one of them stayed by my side far longer than they should have. I asked them to trust me, as i truly felt that this entire matter could be resolved.
Its hard to convey to you Makiko just how special MFT was. There are some pruners on here who have identified themselves as past staff, although i don't know which staff members they were. It was a very capable, professional and well-intentioned team in that Company, and very good people always gravitated to MFT., and that extended to our students.The secret for any small business owner. Surround yourself by people that are more capable than you at what they do, well that what we achieved. Truly it was unique and the very best years of my life.
If I had more time i would go on and on, but I'm just finishing a very substandard coffee in the local 24-hour restaurant and heading off to work. Cheers all, and thanks Makiko for your involvement. Due time constraints I haven't had a chance to edit this. Hope it reads OK, cheers. Glen.,
Thread Starter
FOI request re. stalking and assaulting CASA staff. re post #2606
In Post # 2606, i published my FOI request to CASA regarding allegations that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff.
On 28th June i received this follow up request came from CASA., my proposed clarification will be in the next postASA Ref: F23/21663
Good afternoon Glen
On 11/07/23 CASA sent a follow up because I had not responded, that read as follows.CASA Ref: F23/21663
Good evening Glen
Further to my email below, I have not yet received a response from you regarding clarifying the scope of your request and answers to my questions as below.
If you could please respond to me asap, as I’m sure you appreciate this is very time sensitive. Given the time lost awaiting your reply if I haven’t heard from you in the next day or two I’ll have to assume you wish to obtain all documents in scope of this request and will therefore include those documents previously provided to you when calculating the charges to be applied.
Thank you.
Further to your request below, I am seeking clarification on the scope of your request. I note you had a previous FOI request in 2020 (F20/22396) the request was as follows – Request for any information that CASA has on file about me regrading stalking or assaulting CASA personnel. I understand at the time some 18 documents were released to you in response to this request, those documents will again fall into scope of this current request.
Therefore can you please clarify are you seeking to obtain documents already provided to you?
I would also appreciate if you could please also respond to the following:
Kind Regards,
On 28th June i received this follow up request came from CASA., my proposed clarification will be in the next postASA Ref: F23/21663
Good afternoon Glen
On 11/07/23 CASA sent a follow up because I had not responded, that read as follows.CASA Ref: F23/21663
Good evening Glen
Further to my email below, I have not yet received a response from you regarding clarifying the scope of your request and answers to my questions as below.
If you could please respond to me asap, as I’m sure you appreciate this is very time sensitive. Given the time lost awaiting your reply if I haven’t heard from you in the next day or two I’ll have to assume you wish to obtain all documents in scope of this request and will therefore include those documents previously provided to you when calculating the charges to be applied.
Thank you.
Further to your request below, I am seeking clarification on the scope of your request. I note you had a previous FOI request in 2020 (F20/22396) the request was as follows – Request for any information that CASA has on file about me regrading stalking or assaulting CASA personnel. I understand at the time some 18 documents were released to you in response to this request, those documents will again fall into scope of this current request.
Therefore can you please clarify are you seeking to obtain documents already provided to you?
I would also appreciate if you could please also respond to the following:
- What is the date range of the documents you seek access to?
- Do you agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents you are seeking?
- Do you agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents you are seeking?
Kind Regards,
Thread Starter
My response to previous post
This is a proposed response at this stage. keen on any feedback. Cheers. Glen
Good Morning Keeley,
Apologies for the delay in responding. I understand that my delayed response may impact on response times.
Could I ask that you treat this as a a separate request to the request made previously, as those documents did not appear to attend to the specific allegation that I had "stalked and assaulted CASA staff". If CASA deems that those documents support CASAs allegation specifically of stalking and assaulting CASA staff then I ask that you resubmit them with this FOI request
For clarity, the request is not about my passion, assertiveness, preparedness to provide feedback, or even my temperament., The query relates specifically to the CASA CEOs allegation of "stalking and assaulting" CASA staff in Victoria presumably, therefore as defined in Victorian Law.
The allegations made before the Senate by the CASA CEO were specific, and presumably well considered, as one would expect in such a formal setting as a Senate Inquiry, albeit protected by parliamentary privilege.
Please understand that I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I had stalked or assaulted anyone, until the CASA CEO made those allegations.
I have contacted the Victoria Police on this matter and I am advised that in order to access any allegations made against me i would need to submit a Freedom of Information Request to the Victoria Police, so the first step for me in pursuing that information with the relevant police force is to ascertain if any allegations were ever made, and to which police force they were made to.
My requests would be as follows:
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of stalking of any CASA staff has ever been made to any Police Force In Australia. This requires only a yes or no response.If CASa has made a police complaint could you identify which police force so I can pursue this with the relevant authority.for further information
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of assault of any CASA staff has ever been made to any Police Force in Australia. This requires only a yes or no response..If CASa has made a police complaint could you identify which police force so I can pursue this with the relevant authority.for further information
If the answers to any of those two questions above is in the affirmative, and an allegation was brought to the attention of the Police,may I request that any allegations, statements or documents related to those allegations, that were submitted to the Police,also be released to me under FOI, so that i can make my self aware of the incident/s that meet the threshold of staking or assault.
Regarding the date range, that's difficult for me to identify, as I have no recollection of ever having stalked a CASA Emplyee/s. so I could not identify the date. Perhaps those dates could be nominated by CASA., and perhaps by the employee/s that were either stalked or assaulted by me.
In the event that I am required to nominate a date range, may I suggest 10th June 1965 being my date of birth until the date that the CASA CEO made those allegations 20/11/20.
May I make a specific requirement if any text messages are released. In the event that CASA releases any text messages to me, may I specifically request that the "entire conversation" is released to me, in chronological order. On the last FOI request, I felt somewhat that highly pertinent messages in conversations were omitted, and that may have changed a reader's interpretation of the information provided.
I agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents I am seeking.
I agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents I am seeking?
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
Good Morning Keeley,
Apologies for the delay in responding. I understand that my delayed response may impact on response times.
Could I ask that you treat this as a a separate request to the request made previously, as those documents did not appear to attend to the specific allegation that I had "stalked and assaulted CASA staff". If CASA deems that those documents support CASAs allegation specifically of stalking and assaulting CASA staff then I ask that you resubmit them with this FOI request
For clarity, the request is not about my passion, assertiveness, preparedness to provide feedback, or even my temperament., The query relates specifically to the CASA CEOs allegation of "stalking and assaulting" CASA staff in Victoria presumably, therefore as defined in Victorian Law.
The allegations made before the Senate by the CASA CEO were specific, and presumably well considered, as one would expect in such a formal setting as a Senate Inquiry, albeit protected by parliamentary privilege.
Please understand that I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I had stalked or assaulted anyone, until the CASA CEO made those allegations.
I have contacted the Victoria Police on this matter and I am advised that in order to access any allegations made against me i would need to submit a Freedom of Information Request to the Victoria Police, so the first step for me in pursuing that information with the relevant police force is to ascertain if any allegations were ever made, and to which police force they were made to.
My requests would be as follows:
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of stalking of any CASA staff has ever been made to any Police Force In Australia. This requires only a yes or no response.If CASa has made a police complaint could you identify which police force so I can pursue this with the relevant authority.for further information
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of assault of any CASA staff has ever been made to any Police Force in Australia. This requires only a yes or no response..If CASa has made a police complaint could you identify which police force so I can pursue this with the relevant authority.for further information
If the answers to any of those two questions above is in the affirmative, and an allegation was brought to the attention of the Police,may I request that any allegations, statements or documents related to those allegations, that were submitted to the Police,also be released to me under FOI, so that i can make my self aware of the incident/s that meet the threshold of staking or assault.
Regarding the date range, that's difficult for me to identify, as I have no recollection of ever having stalked a CASA Emplyee/s. so I could not identify the date. Perhaps those dates could be nominated by CASA., and perhaps by the employee/s that were either stalked or assaulted by me.
In the event that I am required to nominate a date range, may I suggest 10th June 1965 being my date of birth until the date that the CASA CEO made those allegations 20/11/20.
May I make a specific requirement if any text messages are released. In the event that CASA releases any text messages to me, may I specifically request that the "entire conversation" is released to me, in chronological order. On the last FOI request, I felt somewhat that highly pertinent messages in conversations were omitted, and that may have changed a reader's interpretation of the information provided.
I agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents I am seeking.
I agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents I am seeking?
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
Glen well that's great that you haven't been declared bankrupt, keep it that way if at all possible. The process is highly technical
& occurs in the Federal Circuit Court, the petitioner has to get a bankruptcy notice from Official Receiver , serve it on you, you have to
attend , then a creditors petition can be filed. So the process has a few steps & it is the Federal Court Registrar (like Magistrate) who makes
the decision (not the petitioner) . To initiate the process the petitioner has to get the bankruptcy notice , normally this is done by giving them proof
of a court order for money (has to be greater than $5000) . A court order for money is alive for six years
It sounds like maybe someone took legal action against you & got a judgement (default maybe ?), all past now but court judgments are good to avoid
whenever possible. As they can stay on a credit record etc, and can be used to initiate bankruptcy
Fight tooth & nail & negotiate do whatever to avoid personal bankruptcy(if someone initiates process) as you just don't need that
Like others here I think the only possibility is litigation , this is "personal" now & these guys will never offer you a dime
If you get bankrupted you likely will not be able to litigate, passport taken away , etc etc etc , some bad consequences
& occurs in the Federal Circuit Court, the petitioner has to get a bankruptcy notice from Official Receiver , serve it on you, you have to
attend , then a creditors petition can be filed. So the process has a few steps & it is the Federal Court Registrar (like Magistrate) who makes
the decision (not the petitioner) . To initiate the process the petitioner has to get the bankruptcy notice , normally this is done by giving them proof
of a court order for money (has to be greater than $5000) . A court order for money is alive for six years
It sounds like maybe someone took legal action against you & got a judgement (default maybe ?), all past now but court judgments are good to avoid
whenever possible. As they can stay on a credit record etc, and can be used to initiate bankruptcy
Fight tooth & nail & negotiate do whatever to avoid personal bankruptcy(if someone initiates process) as you just don't need that
Like others here I think the only possibility is litigation , this is "personal" now & these guys will never offer you a dime
If you get bankrupted you likely will not be able to litigate, passport taken away , etc etc etc , some bad consequences
There are many huge obstacles in Glen’s way. Surprisingly, personal bankruptcy isn’t one of them. That’s for a simple reason: The proper party in any proceedings arising from any alleged unlawful treatment of APTA by CASA is … APTA.
Thread Starter
Confirmation of meeting with Ms spence and Board Chair
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your meeting request.
CASA CEO Pip Spence and Board Chair Mark Binskin are available to meet with you.
Date: Tuesday 3 October
Time: 2pm – 4pm
Location: Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, Philip
Kind regards Rosie
Thank you for your meeting request.
CASA CEO Pip Spence and Board Chair Mark Binskin are available to meet with you.
Date: Tuesday 3 October
Time: 2pm – 4pm
Location: Aviation House, 16 Furzer Street, Philip
Kind regards Rosie
Thread Starter
Stalking and Assault- FOI follow up
In post #2606 i published my FOI request
In post #2743 i published CASAs follow up.
Below is my finalized sresponse
Good morning Keeley,
Apologies for the delay in responding. I understand that my delayed response may impact on response times.
Could I ask that you treat this as a separate request to the previous request, as those documents did not appear to attend to the specific allegation that I had "stalked and assaulted CASA staff". If CASA deems that those documents support CASAs allegation specifically of stalking and assaulting CASA staff, then I ask that you resubmit them with this FOI request.
For clarity, the request is not about my passion, assertiveness, preparedness to provide feedback, or even my temperament., The query relates specifically to the CASA CEOs allegation of "stalking and assaulting" CASA staff, presumably in Victoria, therefore as defined in Victorian Law.
The allegations made before the Senate by the CASA CEO were specific, and presumably well considered, as one would expect in such a formal setting as a Senate Inquiry, albeit protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
Please understand that I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I had stalked or assaulted anyone, until the CASA CEO made those allegations to the Senators on 20/11/20 with my family and many industry peers watching.
I have contacted the Victoria Police on this matter, and I am advised that in order to access any allegations made against me i would need to submit a Freedom of Information Request to the Victoria Police, so the first step for me in pursuing that information with the relevant police force is to ascertain if any allegations were ever made, and to which police force they were made to.
My requests would be as follows:
The search of CASA records be limited to a timeline from November of 2017 as the Ombudsman has acknowledged that at that stage I had a good relationship with my current CASA team being CMT 2. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would have acknowledged that relationship if I had stalked or assaulted any CASA employees at that stage.
The end of the date range would be 20/12/20 being 30 days after the allegations were raised in the Senate on 20/11/20 by the CASA CEO.
I agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents I am seeking.
I agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents I am seeking
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of stalking of any CASA staff has ever been made to a police force in Australia, and could CASA provide me with copies of any statements or documents provided to the Police in support of that allegation..of stalking and assaulting, both being significant criminal acts.
In addition to the request for any documents submitted to police, I am also making a separate request for any other CASA documents including , but not limited to ,correspondence to and from the CASA CEOs Office within the date range specified which either or both of the words "assault" and/or "stalking" are used in whatever grammatical form as a descriptor for any behavior by me.within that time frame.
If a document is located with those descriptors, I am requesting that document only, at this stage, and no other correspondence in that conversation. For clarity, each released document would contain either of those descriptors, stalking or assaulting, no other documents are required..
My final request is that I am trying to ascertain the nature of the injuries, if any, caused to CASA personnel. At this stage I am not interested in who was stalked or assaulted, but I do want to ascertain any harm caused. Could i request any deidentified documents, that would indicate the nature of any injuries sustained, either mental or physical by any CASA Employees, as i presume this would be well documented by CASA OHS protocols.,
May I make a specific requirement if any text messages are released.. to me. May I specifically request that the "entire conversation" is released to me, in chronological order. On the last FOI request, I felt somewhat that highly pertinent messages in conversations were omitted, and that may have changed a reader's interpretation of the information provided.
For clarity, I require only CASA "documents" that contain the descriptors, "stalking" ad/or "assault", but in the event of text messages of conversations between CASA staff and myself being provided, I am requesting those phone text conversations in full.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance, and apologies for the delayed response
Respectfully Glen Buckley
In post #2743 i published CASAs follow up.
Below is my finalized sresponse
Good morning Keeley,
Apologies for the delay in responding. I understand that my delayed response may impact on response times.
Could I ask that you treat this as a separate request to the previous request, as those documents did not appear to attend to the specific allegation that I had "stalked and assaulted CASA staff". If CASA deems that those documents support CASAs allegation specifically of stalking and assaulting CASA staff, then I ask that you resubmit them with this FOI request.
For clarity, the request is not about my passion, assertiveness, preparedness to provide feedback, or even my temperament., The query relates specifically to the CASA CEOs allegation of "stalking and assaulting" CASA staff, presumably in Victoria, therefore as defined in Victorian Law.
The allegations made before the Senate by the CASA CEO were specific, and presumably well considered, as one would expect in such a formal setting as a Senate Inquiry, albeit protected by Parliamentary Privilege.
Please understand that I had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that I had stalked or assaulted anyone, until the CASA CEO made those allegations to the Senators on 20/11/20 with my family and many industry peers watching.
I have contacted the Victoria Police on this matter, and I am advised that in order to access any allegations made against me i would need to submit a Freedom of Information Request to the Victoria Police, so the first step for me in pursuing that information with the relevant police force is to ascertain if any allegations were ever made, and to which police force they were made to.
My requests would be as follows:
The search of CASA records be limited to a timeline from November of 2017 as the Ombudsman has acknowledged that at that stage I had a good relationship with my current CASA team being CMT 2. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would have acknowledged that relationship if I had stalked or assaulted any CASA employees at that stage.
The end of the date range would be 20/12/20 being 30 days after the allegations were raised in the Senate on 20/11/20 by the CASA CEO.
I agree to the removal of the names of any CASA officers from the documents I am seeking.
I agree to the removal of the names of any third parties from the documents I am seeking
Could CASA clearly state if any allegation of stalking of any CASA staff has ever been made to a police force in Australia, and could CASA provide me with copies of any statements or documents provided to the Police in support of that allegation..of stalking and assaulting, both being significant criminal acts.
In addition to the request for any documents submitted to police, I am also making a separate request for any other CASA documents including , but not limited to ,correspondence to and from the CASA CEOs Office within the date range specified which either or both of the words "assault" and/or "stalking" are used in whatever grammatical form as a descriptor for any behavior by me.within that time frame.
If a document is located with those descriptors, I am requesting that document only, at this stage, and no other correspondence in that conversation. For clarity, each released document would contain either of those descriptors, stalking or assaulting, no other documents are required..
My final request is that I am trying to ascertain the nature of the injuries, if any, caused to CASA personnel. At this stage I am not interested in who was stalked or assaulted, but I do want to ascertain any harm caused. Could i request any deidentified documents, that would indicate the nature of any injuries sustained, either mental or physical by any CASA Employees, as i presume this would be well documented by CASA OHS protocols.,
May I make a specific requirement if any text messages are released.. to me. May I specifically request that the "entire conversation" is released to me, in chronological order. On the last FOI request, I felt somewhat that highly pertinent messages in conversations were omitted, and that may have changed a reader's interpretation of the information provided.
For clarity, I require only CASA "documents" that contain the descriptors, "stalking" ad/or "assault", but in the event of text messages of conversations between CASA staff and myself being provided, I am requesting those phone text conversations in full.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance, and apologies for the delayed response
Respectfully Glen Buckley
Glen,
Many years ago an elderly and wise financial counsellor introduced me to a concept know as 'judgement proof'.
In colloquial terms, it is expressed as 'you cannot get blood from a stone'.
It is where it is impractical to sue somebody as you will not get anything out of them even if you win.
Just wondering if that is relevant, to you individually, and to APTA as an entity (they are different - be sure the correct entity is bringing legal proceedings).
Being judgement proof has its freedoms, and can strongly dissuade creditors from bringing bankruptcy proceedings. There is also a defined statute of limitations for how long they can pursue debts, and bankruptcy is not forever (just saying).
On a different issue, lack of complaints registered with the Victorian Police does not prove staff from CASA were not threatened or felt intimidated. Like sexual harassment, it is not the opinion of the perpetrator that is considered as valid, but the feelings of victim. You are possibly extrapolating too far as absence of proof does not mean the act was not committed, however the subtle hints in the parliamentary submission may have done the damage intended to paint you in a very bad light, without the strength to be exposed to defamation proceedings. You know they had it vetted by lawyers before it was submitted, don't you? Have you also approached the Australian Federal Police (the ones with jurisdiction on the ACT) with similar enquires? Should you?
I sincerely feel sorry for Ms Keeley, looking for the needle in the haystack, looking for something that may not be that relevant to your case overall, but still distracting you from the main goal of accountability of public servants for the decisions they make. FOI request of such broad range (2017 to 2020 is a lot of material to look through) can have costs associated that you may be asked to pay. They will use that to dissuade you to continue your fishing exercise, and then you will have to use the court process of discovery to get what you need. Even if you can prove defamation, compared to the dollar amount in respect of your major case, it will only be a minor sideline. Still, hinting at the possibility of lack of evidence may be the flipside of the argument used by them when the time comes for the judge to consider your case, or the Commonwealth lawyers to advise CASA to settle before the case comes to court, and by how much. Two can play this game.
Is there a statute of limitations in respect of initiating legal proceedings here? How far away is it? Has it already passed, long ago? CASA has delayed your case by setting your appointment for October, many months away. In Canberra, not Victoria. For only two hours. Why have you allowed them to do this? Are they controlling your case? Why are you letting them do so? Haul them before a court and get the judge to dictate when and where.
Have you read the RoboDebt report released a few days ago? Did the victims wait for the good grace of the politicians and public servants to rule? Did they allow such a grave injustice to continue forever? Was discussion in social media and forums of much use to change things? Did it cause widespread public outrage but nothing happened until court proceeding were initiated? Did they allow things to be delayed forever and buried? Has the legal repercussions and compensation ceased? Hell no! The lawyers are frothing at the bit to take on cases on a no-win, no-pay basis, and also for the kudos. The commissioner concluded that there was not only a clear case of misfeasance in public office, but also venality, incompetence and cowardice - very strong terms, and clearly aimed at ensuring future legal claims would be in the pipeline. Read the report - only 1,039 pages, and the perpetrators are all publicly bleating they did nothing wrong - even a Royal Commission has not made them penitent. Rest assured there are many public servants and politicians that are carefully reviewing their retirement plans and superannuation balances in anticipation of the future grilling in a court of law, or far worse, in the probing of the new National Anti-Corruption Commission. A little light reading at https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...-robo-debt#mtr
You really do need good legal advice. FAST. Your amateur lawyer attempts will/have derailed your case significantly, and in the long run, you will not have saved any money or time.
Many years ago an elderly and wise financial counsellor introduced me to a concept know as 'judgement proof'.
In colloquial terms, it is expressed as 'you cannot get blood from a stone'.
It is where it is impractical to sue somebody as you will not get anything out of them even if you win.
Just wondering if that is relevant, to you individually, and to APTA as an entity (they are different - be sure the correct entity is bringing legal proceedings).
Being judgement proof has its freedoms, and can strongly dissuade creditors from bringing bankruptcy proceedings. There is also a defined statute of limitations for how long they can pursue debts, and bankruptcy is not forever (just saying).
On a different issue, lack of complaints registered with the Victorian Police does not prove staff from CASA were not threatened or felt intimidated. Like sexual harassment, it is not the opinion of the perpetrator that is considered as valid, but the feelings of victim. You are possibly extrapolating too far as absence of proof does not mean the act was not committed, however the subtle hints in the parliamentary submission may have done the damage intended to paint you in a very bad light, without the strength to be exposed to defamation proceedings. You know they had it vetted by lawyers before it was submitted, don't you? Have you also approached the Australian Federal Police (the ones with jurisdiction on the ACT) with similar enquires? Should you?
I sincerely feel sorry for Ms Keeley, looking for the needle in the haystack, looking for something that may not be that relevant to your case overall, but still distracting you from the main goal of accountability of public servants for the decisions they make. FOI request of such broad range (2017 to 2020 is a lot of material to look through) can have costs associated that you may be asked to pay. They will use that to dissuade you to continue your fishing exercise, and then you will have to use the court process of discovery to get what you need. Even if you can prove defamation, compared to the dollar amount in respect of your major case, it will only be a minor sideline. Still, hinting at the possibility of lack of evidence may be the flipside of the argument used by them when the time comes for the judge to consider your case, or the Commonwealth lawyers to advise CASA to settle before the case comes to court, and by how much. Two can play this game.
Is there a statute of limitations in respect of initiating legal proceedings here? How far away is it? Has it already passed, long ago? CASA has delayed your case by setting your appointment for October, many months away. In Canberra, not Victoria. For only two hours. Why have you allowed them to do this? Are they controlling your case? Why are you letting them do so? Haul them before a court and get the judge to dictate when and where.
Have you read the RoboDebt report released a few days ago? Did the victims wait for the good grace of the politicians and public servants to rule? Did they allow such a grave injustice to continue forever? Was discussion in social media and forums of much use to change things? Did it cause widespread public outrage but nothing happened until court proceeding were initiated? Did they allow things to be delayed forever and buried? Has the legal repercussions and compensation ceased? Hell no! The lawyers are frothing at the bit to take on cases on a no-win, no-pay basis, and also for the kudos. The commissioner concluded that there was not only a clear case of misfeasance in public office, but also venality, incompetence and cowardice - very strong terms, and clearly aimed at ensuring future legal claims would be in the pipeline. Read the report - only 1,039 pages, and the perpetrators are all publicly bleating they did nothing wrong - even a Royal Commission has not made them penitent. Rest assured there are many public servants and politicians that are carefully reviewing their retirement plans and superannuation balances in anticipation of the future grilling in a court of law, or far worse, in the probing of the new National Anti-Corruption Commission. A little light reading at https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/...-robo-debt#mtr
You really do need good legal advice. FAST. Your amateur lawyer attempts will/have derailed your case significantly, and in the long run, you will not have saved any money or time.
Last edited by Thirsty; 14th Jul 2023 at 19:04.
The following 3 users liked this post by Thirsty:
Thread Starter
CASA refusal to provide documents re. Stalking and/or assault
I am hoping that this link works, I'm sure you will inform me if it doesn't.
Post #2606 My FOI request regarding stalking and assaulting.
Post #2743 CASAs request for clarification.
Post # 2748 My response providing specific clarification.
Post #2751 Is the Dropbox link to CASAs refusal to provide those documents. I should clarify that no documents received by me previously were related to stalking or assault, and those descriptors were never used.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m0gkj...n5n12ohze&dl=0
Post #2606 My FOI request regarding stalking and assaulting.
Post #2743 CASAs request for clarification.
Post # 2748 My response providing specific clarification.
Post #2751 Is the Dropbox link to CASAs refusal to provide those documents. I should clarify that no documents received by me previously were related to stalking or assault, and those descriptors were never used.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/m0gkj...n5n12ohze&dl=0
It’s not a refusal to provide access to the documents. It’s a statement that there are no documents with those words (other than in your emails).
If such serious allegations had been made by CASA staff, they would have been documented.
If such serious allegations had been made by CASA staff, they would have been documented.
The following users liked this post:
It seems clear that there was a “Melbourne office event” where Police were briefed.
Are you suggesting that nothing significant enough happened to warrant charges, the standard or proof has not been met and therefore as a result, they aren’t entitled to refer to the event as stalking and assault?
It sounds like you’re suggesting that as there were no criminal charges, they can’t say that you did in fact stalk and assault. Am I reading this right?
Are you suggesting that nothing significant enough happened to warrant charges, the standard or proof has not been met and therefore as a result, they aren’t entitled to refer to the event as stalking and assault?
It sounds like you’re suggesting that as there were no criminal charges, they can’t say that you did in fact stalk and assault. Am I reading this right?
Who's "they" and why didn't "they" use the word "stalking" or the word "assault" in any internal CASA correspondence, if that is "their" allegation?
It sounds like you're suggesting that it's OK for me to say that you're in fact a paedophile, even though nobody ever used that word in any allegation to police and even though you've never been charged with paedophilia. Am I reading this right?
It sounds like you're suggesting that it's OK for me to say that you're in fact a paedophile, even though nobody ever used that word in any allegation to police and even though you've never been charged with paedophilia. Am I reading this right?
Who's "they" and why didn't "they" use the word "stalking" or the word "assault" in any internal CASA correspondence, if that is "their" allegation?
It sounds like you're suggesting that it's OK for me to say that you're in fact a paedophile, even though nobody ever used that word in any allegation to police and even though you've never been charged with paedophilia. Am I reading this right?
It sounds like you're suggesting that it's OK for me to say that you're in fact a paedophile, even though nobody ever used that word in any allegation to police and even though you've never been charged with paedophilia. Am I reading this right?
Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.
If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?
A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.
From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.
Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.
Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court.
Would lying to Parliament constitute a naughty offence? Just wondering in light of recent Public Circus accountability events, and their implications and repercussions. By the time Glen finally gets around to doing something from a legal aspect, they will all have cheerfully resigned on a full super pension and be off limits.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Further information on stalking and assault
In the sense of openness and transparency of this entire matter, I have elected to release the FOI results that were previously provided to me regarding stalking and assault.
I must say that i reviewed them only once and it was a number of years ago. A re-read certainly doesn't paint me in the best light.
As a background, and somewhat in my defense.
At this stage, we were destitute and unable to even pay our rent, and the local church had stepped in. CASA had advised that all personnel operating under the AOC, had to be employed by the AOC Holder, under what was called direct operational control, therefore I had to transfer all my MFT instructors, bank accounts etc to the new owners of APTA, and I had lost my job with APTA based on the directive by the CASA Regional manager. My parents had lost over $300,000, and my life was truly falling apart, and I was at my lowest.
I had tried to arrange a meeting to discuss the direction that my position as the HOO was no longer tenable and was being stonewalled< i advised that I would attend the CASA Office, as I did.
The witness statement by the CASA FOI that I shoved him is false. If I had of shoved a CASA Employee, it is likely that the other CASA Employee present would have at least mentioned it in his statement, but it does not appear.
Of course, there are always two sides to every story, and I cannot possibly expect that everyone will accept my version of events.
I was approached by two CASA FOIs, one that i knew well, and one that I had met on one occasion prior and did not recognize.
The lesser-known FOI is substantially larger than me in stature, and adopted a "challenging" posture, with his arms crossed, and well within my personal space. To say it was a threatening posture would be exaggerating but it was certainly designed to intimidate me.
I used a technique that i used in my time at Youth Justice, and that was to place by center three fingers gently on , or close to the chest, and ask the person to step back, which in this case the FOI did.
The terminology used in this FOIs statement is exaggerated and colorful. I WAS heightened, and I do not deny that. I did not shove any CASA Employee, and that CASA Employee would not have had to change his feet positioning at all, in order to maintain balance. It is a gesture that i use to emphasize that is the limit, and nothing more. This entire "event" happened within 15 meters of a staffed security desk, and no security personnel noticed the event, intervened, or came over.
Anyway, here is the link I believe.
https://www.dropbox.com/t/jbuacoulKMQXNnb0
Anyway, lets hope I can post the link
I must say that i reviewed them only once and it was a number of years ago. A re-read certainly doesn't paint me in the best light.
As a background, and somewhat in my defense.
At this stage, we were destitute and unable to even pay our rent, and the local church had stepped in. CASA had advised that all personnel operating under the AOC, had to be employed by the AOC Holder, under what was called direct operational control, therefore I had to transfer all my MFT instructors, bank accounts etc to the new owners of APTA, and I had lost my job with APTA based on the directive by the CASA Regional manager. My parents had lost over $300,000, and my life was truly falling apart, and I was at my lowest.
I had tried to arrange a meeting to discuss the direction that my position as the HOO was no longer tenable and was being stonewalled< i advised that I would attend the CASA Office, as I did.
The witness statement by the CASA FOI that I shoved him is false. If I had of shoved a CASA Employee, it is likely that the other CASA Employee present would have at least mentioned it in his statement, but it does not appear.
Of course, there are always two sides to every story, and I cannot possibly expect that everyone will accept my version of events.
I was approached by two CASA FOIs, one that i knew well, and one that I had met on one occasion prior and did not recognize.
The lesser-known FOI is substantially larger than me in stature, and adopted a "challenging" posture, with his arms crossed, and well within my personal space. To say it was a threatening posture would be exaggerating but it was certainly designed to intimidate me.
I used a technique that i used in my time at Youth Justice, and that was to place by center three fingers gently on , or close to the chest, and ask the person to step back, which in this case the FOI did.
The terminology used in this FOIs statement is exaggerated and colorful. I WAS heightened, and I do not deny that. I did not shove any CASA Employee, and that CASA Employee would not have had to change his feet positioning at all, in order to maintain balance. It is a gesture that i use to emphasize that is the limit, and nothing more. This entire "event" happened within 15 meters of a staffed security desk, and no security personnel noticed the event, intervened, or came over.
Anyway, here is the link I believe.
https://www.dropbox.com/t/jbuacoulKMQXNnb0
Anyway, lets hope I can post the link
Last edited by glenb; 4th Aug 2023 at 21:17.
Ok LB, can you say that you were stalked and assaulted by someone without any charges having been laid against the perpetrator? I feel like the answer to that may actually be a yes.
Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.
If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?
A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.
From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.
Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.
Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court.
Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.
If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?
A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.
From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.
Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.
Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court.
Ok LB, can you say that you were stalked and assaulted by someone without any charges having been laid against the perpetrator? I feel like the answer to that may actually be a yes.
But whether what you say is true is an entirely different question. Just because someone says and earnestly believes they were “assaulted” does not make it so. I can swear on a stack of bibles that I “feel” I was “assaulted” and that does make it so. Not all physical contact constitutes an assault in law - you know that.
And your ‘Part 2’ picked up the point that - although anyone “can” say anything they like - doing so comes with some risk:
Part 2: can someone go around saying that you assaulted someone and get away with it? Well that depends on how deep their pockets are, or how much evidence that they possess once it hits the civil court.
Can a police officer say that you’re a speed limit breaker and a dangerous driver even though he/she didn’t fine you for it and you didn’t front a magistrate? That feels like a yes.
If it’s not written down in any correspondence, does that mean it didn’t happen?
If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s around to hear it, does it make a sound?
In this case, there were people around to hear and see any trees falling. You know what they’re called: Witnesses. And stuff was written down. And - astonishingly - it appears the word “assault” and the word “stalking” does not appear anywhere in what was written down by CASA, even though the crimes were allegedly committed against CASA staff.
From the limited information available on this matter, my gut feeling is that someone at CASA felt that they had been treated in a way that constituted assault and or stalking, a discussion with Police followed and advice was given that suggested that either the points of proof for a charge were not satisfied or it was suggested that the chances of a conviction were unlikely… a common occurrence, at which time it was decided not to proceed.
Maybe Carmody’s opinion is that the police were incompetent or lazy for not pressing for prosecution. If that’s part of the truth, that’s what he should have told the Senate Committee.
Maybe part of the truth is that the police were concerned that the circumstances could have constituted an assault on Glen. Maybe Glen thought he was about to be manhandled by someone and Glen’s response was a reasonable way of reducing the likelihood of that happening. If that’s part of the truth, that’s what Carmody should have told the Senate Committee. (Coincidentally, the only time I’ve ever gone to police on the basis I’ve been assaulted was when a couple of idiot football spectators got in my face - nose-to-nose - and ‘ordered’ me to move from the place I was standing perfectly lawfully. Nobody had to touch Glen in order for him to reasonably apprehend the application of physical force from someone else.)
But instead, Carmody - who isn’t a judge or magistrate and wasn’t there - simply made the bald assertion that specific crimes had been committed by Glen and just skipped over the bit about who decided charges wouldn’t be laid against Glen and why that decision was made.
Does that mean that the accused assaulted or stalked? Maybe… maybe not. You can’t even say in the eyes of the law it did or didn’t constitute assault because it never went before a magistrate to make that judgement.
What you seem blithely to be accepting is a situation in which a public official states that specific crimes have been committed by a named member of the public, and that’s fine even though “it was decided not to proceed” with any prosecution for those crimes and no explanation is given by that public official as to who decided not to proceed and why.
Don’t you think it would put an ever-so-slightly different slant on things if the truth is that the police reckoned there was a reasonable chance that Glen could show that he was assaulted and reasonably responded to the assault?
Just hypothetically.
You might ‘feel’ that I’m merely speculating. But so are you, at least as to the reasons for no prosecutions proceeding.
We do know, for sure, that there was an ‘interaction’ that ended up with police ‘involvement’ as a consequence of ‘some set of circumstances’, yet no prosecution of Glen followed. The word “assault” and the word “stalking” appear nowhere in any CASA record relating to Glen (according to the results of the FOI process). I interpret that as tending to show that no assault or stalking happened.
If CASA considered one or the other or both happened, it is open to CASA to pursue a private prosecution without the involvement of VICPOL. And if the circumstances involved public officials being assaulted or stalked in the course of their duties, offences would probably arise under the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the CDPP would be interested. Yet - nothing.
A pedophile is a bad example, because you can be a pedophile and have not acted upon it and you would not have committed any offence. Once acted upon, you become a pederast. A pedophile allegation is a baseless allegation, despite it sounding nasty.
When some public official in front of a Parliamentary committee states that Squawk is a pedophile, you’ll just shrug that off, comfortable in the knowledge that being a pedophile is not an offence and unperturbed by the fact you have no practical way of refuting the statement? Seriously?