Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
I said that Pedo was a bad example. It’s very different. They are many levels of “assault.”
To be honest, when I first read the word assault here, I straight up assumed it was a verbal assault and the “stalking” was a few too many phone calls… many would be guilty of that if we were in a predicament. If it was a full physical assault, there would be charges and or a conviction and this whole thread probably wouldn’t exist.
To be honest, when I first read the word assault here, I straight up assumed it was a verbal assault and the “stalking” was a few too many phone calls… many would be guilty of that if we were in a predicament. If it was a full physical assault, there would be charges and or a conviction and this whole thread probably wouldn’t exist.
Last edited by Squawk7700; 24th Jul 2023 at 06:19.
Certainly, reading the information CASA has released to you under FOI on the incident a few years ago, where reports of staff being threatened, buildings locked down, staff having to work from home, avoid wearing identifying uniforms, security beefed up in Canberra, Melbourne and Moorabbin, it would appear that taking the law into your own hands is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. Reading this from a non-biased view (embarrassed and having no axe to grind for anybody involved), it would appear that CASA had valid concerns (in their own eyes - which is what matters), that you were stalking and threatening. I am astonished this was not brought up on these forums in discussion before - it certainly helps explain why CASA has been avoiding you (and the direction to staff to not engage you in public, or specifically in these forums that have been mentioned by name). Your future discussions should be in a courtroom, in front of a judge, and possibly a jury, and let the lawyers present your case in a factual, effective, emotionless way.
Looking back, if you had attended with a lawyer (or preferably sent them instead to speak with a level headed legal approach) to serve notice of intended legal proceedings, and had actually followed through with it, these matters may have come to a favourable conclusion many years ago.
All is not lost. I can understand the reticence of CASA to have any further face-to-face meeting with you, and your heightened emotions taking a leading role in your approach to dealings with CASA at the time, you will probably find a couple of beefy Federal Police in attendance at your appointment in a few months in Canberra to make sure matters do not become heated. Carefully consider your current frame of mind - is there even a slight possibility it might become emotional - if so do not go alone. Wouldn't a well briefed lawyer that was engaged all those years ago have been a more favourable approach? You certainly will do a lot to relieve their anxiety if you would attend with a well briefed lawyer from now on if you insist on making this personal in the future. Are you still hell-bent on taking down the individual public servants, or has your attitude changed to now understand that the organisation is ultimately responsible for the delegated actions of their officers, and responsibility goes up the line right to the top? Who will you sue - the individual or the organisation? Who will pay you the millions you deserve to right this matter on just terms? Would a begrudging forced written apology from the offending individuals right the situation and reverse your fortunes?
An apology for the threatening and inappropriate way you carried on all those years ago may help calm things down. Whether you should do this before, during, or after your court case is something your legal counsel will advise you on.
Airing your grievances in these public forums and trying to do everything in an amateurish way has possibly cost you the most favourable outcome. Yes, it would appear you have quite a valid case, and the threats you made are just but a small diversion, but can I continue to strongly suggest you place this matter in the hands of a competent lawyer and let them run with it instead of playing amateur lawyer? You have been trying to justify your approach in these public forums. It has obviously not worked, as it is the wrong approach. Talk to your wife and family and friends and ask their opinion and then listen to it. Go get a lawyer and take it from there.
Looking back, if you had attended with a lawyer (or preferably sent them instead to speak with a level headed legal approach) to serve notice of intended legal proceedings, and had actually followed through with it, these matters may have come to a favourable conclusion many years ago.
All is not lost. I can understand the reticence of CASA to have any further face-to-face meeting with you, and your heightened emotions taking a leading role in your approach to dealings with CASA at the time, you will probably find a couple of beefy Federal Police in attendance at your appointment in a few months in Canberra to make sure matters do not become heated. Carefully consider your current frame of mind - is there even a slight possibility it might become emotional - if so do not go alone. Wouldn't a well briefed lawyer that was engaged all those years ago have been a more favourable approach? You certainly will do a lot to relieve their anxiety if you would attend with a well briefed lawyer from now on if you insist on making this personal in the future. Are you still hell-bent on taking down the individual public servants, or has your attitude changed to now understand that the organisation is ultimately responsible for the delegated actions of their officers, and responsibility goes up the line right to the top? Who will you sue - the individual or the organisation? Who will pay you the millions you deserve to right this matter on just terms? Would a begrudging forced written apology from the offending individuals right the situation and reverse your fortunes?
An apology for the threatening and inappropriate way you carried on all those years ago may help calm things down. Whether you should do this before, during, or after your court case is something your legal counsel will advise you on.
Airing your grievances in these public forums and trying to do everything in an amateurish way has possibly cost you the most favourable outcome. Yes, it would appear you have quite a valid case, and the threats you made are just but a small diversion, but can I continue to strongly suggest you place this matter in the hands of a competent lawyer and let them run with it instead of playing amateur lawyer? You have been trying to justify your approach in these public forums. It has obviously not worked, as it is the wrong approach. Talk to your wife and family and friends and ask their opinion and then listen to it. Go get a lawyer and take it from there.
The following 4 users liked this post by Thirsty:
Certainly, reading the information CASA has released to you under FOI on the incident a few years ago, where reports of staff being threatened, buildings locked down, staff having to work from home, avoid wearing identifying uniforms, security beefed up in Canberra, Melbourne and Moorabbin, it would appear that taking the law into your own hands is not the most effective way to resolve this issue. Reading this from a non-biased view (embarrassed and having no axe to grind for anybody involved), it would appear that CASA had valid concerns (in their own eyes - which is what matters), that you were stalking and threatening. I am astonished this was not brought up on these forums in discussion before - it certainly helps explain why CASA has been avoiding you (and the direction to staff to not engage you in public, or specifically in these forums that have been mentioned by name). Your future discussions should be in a courtroom, in front of a judge, and possibly a jury, and let the lawyers present your case in a factual, effective, emotionless way. …
It’s only in aviation that I see this industrial strength nonsense. Some other sectors come close, but aviation seems to bootstrap itself to orders of magnitude higher levels of stupidity.
I see your point: The trespasser at the organisation where you worked actually did the organisation a favour by trespassing and making a big scene. Glen did CASA a favour in bringing about a change in 'security posture' through his stalking and assault.
It's no wonder "it was decided not to proceed" with any prosecution action. These people weren't committing crimes: they we were doing a public service.
It looks like ex-High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle was being too 'black and white' when he issued the ultimatum to the Victorian government to disband his office or he would resign, citing frustration with the Victorian director of public prosecutions refusing to approve criminal charges against those involved in 'Lawyer X' scandal. (Victoria is regularly on the medal podium in the (very strong) competition for the Australian jurisdiction whose police and prosecutors most frequentlypervert the course of justice see all that grey in between the black and the white.)
Still doesn't explain why the CASA FOI officer can't find any CASA documents with the word "assault" or the word "stalking" to describe Glen's behaviour, nor why Carmody was "sick of it". Maybe "it" was not only Glen's behaviour but also the failure of police and prosecutors to get off their arses and do their jobs?
Or maybe there was no assault or stalking and Glen's behaviour was lawful and the perfectly reasonable response to CASA's industrial-strength, corporate incompetence?
I reckon it would be great to get to the truth.
It's no wonder "it was decided not to proceed" with any prosecution action. These people weren't committing crimes: they we were doing a public service.
It looks like ex-High Court judge Geoffrey Nettle was being too 'black and white' when he issued the ultimatum to the Victorian government to disband his office or he would resign, citing frustration with the Victorian director of public prosecutions refusing to approve criminal charges against those involved in 'Lawyer X' scandal. (Victoria is regularly on the medal podium in the (very strong) competition for the Australian jurisdiction whose police and prosecutors most frequently
Still doesn't explain why the CASA FOI officer can't find any CASA documents with the word "assault" or the word "stalking" to describe Glen's behaviour, nor why Carmody was "sick of it". Maybe "it" was not only Glen's behaviour but also the failure of police and prosecutors to get off their arses and do their jobs?
Or maybe there was no assault or stalking and Glen's behaviour was lawful and the perfectly reasonable response to CASA's industrial-strength, corporate incompetence?
I reckon it would be great to get to the truth.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Glen, go to Court bloody right now! This has gone on way too long. FINISH IT! One way or the other! The Nuclear Option is way past due!
That attachment was a sobering read. Kudos I guess for having the balls to post it. Those text messages you sent to CASA staff paint a very different picture to the one of innocent victim I had previously formed.
I’m not going to give you a lecture here because I’m sure others have.
What I will do, is encourage you that you’re incredibly lucky Pip has even agreed to meet with you. I don’t doubt that you’ve been treated unfairly, but the fact they’re not completely stonewalling your requests to meet at this point is surprising.
Read the PPrune room Glen - and the countless people that have told you to get professional representation.
If you walk into that meeting without counsel present, well then I’d suggest no-one here can help you.
I’m not going to give you a lecture here because I’m sure others have.
What I will do, is encourage you that you’re incredibly lucky Pip has even agreed to meet with you. I don’t doubt that you’ve been treated unfairly, but the fact they’re not completely stonewalling your requests to meet at this point is surprising.
Read the PPrune room Glen - and the countless people that have told you to get professional representation.
If you walk into that meeting without counsel present, well then I’d suggest no-one here can help you.
The following users liked this post:
Not unless it will be spent on independent legal advice that Glen will - and this is the most important bit - heed.
Those text messages you sent to CASA staff paint a very different picture to the one of innocent victim I had previously formed.
I bet your social conscience supports men dressing up as women pissing in women's toilets?
So, in any consideration, what you would call a coward hiding behind public servant protection, defames Glen and destroys his 30 year career. And you don't think Glen is a victim? Based on what I would call under the circumstances, understandable texts. Remember, this coward wanted CASA support for the threatened civil action. CASA support which means your tax money to defend a coward, money out of CASA's budget that should be supporting aviation.
I bet your social conscience supports men dressing up as women pissing in women's toilets?
I bet your social conscience supports men dressing up as women pissing in women's toilets?
Once you take your foot out of your mouth, read my post again.
My “innocent victim” comment was about the opinion I had formed reading posts where that information hadn’t previously been offered up. MY opinion, nothing more nothing less.
Your definition of “understandable” in the context of those SMS messages may be very different to mine, or most people, or a federal circuit court judge.
I also gave him respect for sharing it, because that would have been hard to do.
Furthermore, I made it clear I still had no doubt in my mind that Glen had been treated unfairly. Read it again if you like.
What I did say, was that:
- now I’ve read those texts, I was surprised he managed to get a meeting with CASA CEO, and
- that if he enters that forum without legal representation at this point that’s a poor decision.
And then lastly, you throw your toys out of the pram in a final “your political views on such and such must be this” type rant. Really mature stuff 🤨
Deep breaths mate. Think, then post 👍
And just to make it crystal clear for you, I (like you) hope Glen can find a way forward.
The following 3 users liked this post by Slippery_Pete:
What CASA does with those texts is up to them, they can assess threats along with the law.
Manipulate the meaning of your post any way you like. I don't need to read it again, its intent is pretty clear.
Do you want me to copy, paste and re-post mine? Or do you just want to re-read it? I'm happy not to reconsider it or manipulate the meaning of it.
Manipulate the meaning of your post any way you like. I don't need to read it again, its intent is pretty clear.
Do you want me to copy, paste and re-post mine? Or do you just want to re-read it? I'm happy not to reconsider it or manipulate the meaning of it.
Thread Starter
My update on stalking and assault
Another tight deadline> i have to head off to work but wanted to get this out before the day kicks off. Apologies for any substandard editing. Cheers. Glen.Back at the 24-hour Pancake Parlor enjoying a less than optimal coffee. Definitely a pancake venue, and not a coffee venue.
Regarding the incident in the Melbourne Office where a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) was allegedly “assaulted,” when he was “shoved” by me.
Please be assured that no CASA Employee was ever shoved by me. This did not happen.
This document has been downloaded over 100 times, so obviously this has generated some interest, and I feel I need to attend to it again.
If I had been yelling, screaming, and shoved the CASA Employee, I appreciate that would be irrational behaviour.
Between October 2018 until June 2019, CASA had crippled the business, and I knew about by now that I had lost everything, including $300,000 of my parents money which was used to sustain salaries and avoid redundancies.
I had secured ongoing employment with APTA until CASA advised that my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, based on comments that I made on Pprune, and based on a letter I wrote to the PMs Office.
I was in a bad way, as it was obvious that with that direction by CASA, I was about to totally exit the industry, as I did. CASA had approached my Employer directly, and not advised me of their decision. I had made multiple attempts to have that Employee speak with me on the phone and he avoided that, and I advised that I would come into the CASA Office seeking that explanation that I felt I was entitled to.
Some points to consider.
· By now this matter had been continuing for 8 months, and it would “suit’ CASA to have possibly overreacted to assist their “agenda”. It is likely that CASA realised that I had presented them with an opportunity, and they made the most of it.
· This entire incident happened in a large corporate building foyer with a number of high-profile tenants. There is very tight security, and several security guards were less than 15 metres away at their security desk, well within earshot and clear line of sight. Had I have been “screaming” and “yelling “in what is a very quiet foyer area, then the security personnel would have intervened, looked across, approached us, or at least taken some action. They were obviously completely unaware until CASA approached them after the incident. There was most likely emotion involved, but there was no “screaming” or “yelling”.
· This entire incident happened directly under a security camera that was approximately 3 metres above us. Had I have stalked or assaulted anybody, with all of the other security protocols that were being enacted by CASA , one would have thought that obtaining video footage would have been high on the list of priorities to bolster CASAs case, or an independent witness statement from security, at the very least. The correspondence suggests that the video footage was considered, and I suggest that it indicated that in fact no CASA Employee was “shoved”, and that’s why it never went any further, and no footage was obtained.
· I myself tried to obtain that footage and spoke to the Building security Manager. While he would not address that specific occurrence, he assured me that are was exceptionally well recorded, but understandably not available to me without extensive processes
· Regarding the incident in the foyer.
If you refer to the email dated 6th February titled, “below is a summary of events today”
There were two FOIs present, one of whom I had known for 20 years, and the other one who I did not immediately recognise.
The lesser-known FOI states “I advised that I would not be leaving, Mr Buckley then approached me and shoved me in the chest.”
This part of the statement is completely false.
What truthfully happened. I had “asked”, not “directed”, that he let me, and the other FOI talk alone, which I would have been very comfortable with, and that would have deescalated the situation immediately. Nevertheless, the lesser-known FOI chose not to step back, and that is where he claims that I “shoved” him.
Importantly, if you go to the “file note 6th February” it states “and went to push with an open hand- I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a Government Official in such a way. He backed off….”
So the question is which of those CASA Officers statement is truthful. Did I “shove” the Flight Operations Inspector, as the other FOI indicates that in fact I did not “shove” anyone.
The difference is significant. As stated, my best recollection of the events is that I used a technique that I have used throughout my life and regularly in the violent environment of Youth Justice. I believe in such a situation I would have adopted that same tactic if someone was too close or encroaching on my personal space. I would use three fingers placed very gently against the chest, to indicate that is the limit. If the person makes a decision to stay in spot or reposition rearwards that is the preferred option, but if you make the decision to step forward, then the nature of the situation is changing.
The conversation withy the police was withy regards to the matter of “trespass”, and it appears that the CASA staff at this stage have not raised either stalking or assault with the police.
On page 13 of the document, they discuss the assault, and encourage the victim to make a police complaint. If he had been assaulted, and his Employer CASA was encouraging him to make that complaint, and he chose not to. Why would that be? If you had been assaulted in the workplace, and your Employer was encouraging you to have it documented with the police, why would you not proceed. Could it be that he knew he had provided false and misleading information, and that by escalating the process, he knew that the other CASA Employee may not be prepared to be complicit in the matter. I only speculate, but it is highly suspicious that no complaint was ever made to the police, and the entire matter ground to a complete halt at the stage of making a statement to police.
Page 18. If you see Mr Buckley, immediately call 000. Honestly. This is ludicrous, and so far out of proportion.
Wow, I just re read my text messages from all those years ago. Bought back memories. There was no doubt that I was in a bad place, and very much on the edge. Nevertheless, please be absolutely certain that I never assaulted anybody. The statement by that CASA Employee is a completely false and misleading statement, as CASA are by now fully aware
Regarding the incident in the Melbourne Office where a CASA Flight Operations Inspector (FOI) was allegedly “assaulted,” when he was “shoved” by me.
Please be assured that no CASA Employee was ever shoved by me. This did not happen.
This document has been downloaded over 100 times, so obviously this has generated some interest, and I feel I need to attend to it again.
If I had been yelling, screaming, and shoved the CASA Employee, I appreciate that would be irrational behaviour.
Between October 2018 until June 2019, CASA had crippled the business, and I knew about by now that I had lost everything, including $300,000 of my parents money which was used to sustain salaries and avoid redundancies.
I had secured ongoing employment with APTA until CASA advised that my Employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable, based on comments that I made on Pprune, and based on a letter I wrote to the PMs Office.
I was in a bad way, as it was obvious that with that direction by CASA, I was about to totally exit the industry, as I did. CASA had approached my Employer directly, and not advised me of their decision. I had made multiple attempts to have that Employee speak with me on the phone and he avoided that, and I advised that I would come into the CASA Office seeking that explanation that I felt I was entitled to.
Some points to consider.
· By now this matter had been continuing for 8 months, and it would “suit’ CASA to have possibly overreacted to assist their “agenda”. It is likely that CASA realised that I had presented them with an opportunity, and they made the most of it.
· This entire incident happened in a large corporate building foyer with a number of high-profile tenants. There is very tight security, and several security guards were less than 15 metres away at their security desk, well within earshot and clear line of sight. Had I have been “screaming” and “yelling “in what is a very quiet foyer area, then the security personnel would have intervened, looked across, approached us, or at least taken some action. They were obviously completely unaware until CASA approached them after the incident. There was most likely emotion involved, but there was no “screaming” or “yelling”.
· This entire incident happened directly under a security camera that was approximately 3 metres above us. Had I have stalked or assaulted anybody, with all of the other security protocols that were being enacted by CASA , one would have thought that obtaining video footage would have been high on the list of priorities to bolster CASAs case, or an independent witness statement from security, at the very least. The correspondence suggests that the video footage was considered, and I suggest that it indicated that in fact no CASA Employee was “shoved”, and that’s why it never went any further, and no footage was obtained.
· I myself tried to obtain that footage and spoke to the Building security Manager. While he would not address that specific occurrence, he assured me that are was exceptionally well recorded, but understandably not available to me without extensive processes
· Regarding the incident in the foyer.
If you refer to the email dated 6th February titled, “below is a summary of events today”
There were two FOIs present, one of whom I had known for 20 years, and the other one who I did not immediately recognise.
The lesser-known FOI states “I advised that I would not be leaving, Mr Buckley then approached me and shoved me in the chest.”
This part of the statement is completely false.
What truthfully happened. I had “asked”, not “directed”, that he let me, and the other FOI talk alone, which I would have been very comfortable with, and that would have deescalated the situation immediately. Nevertheless, the lesser-known FOI chose not to step back, and that is where he claims that I “shoved” him.
Importantly, if you go to the “file note 6th February” it states “and went to push with an open hand- I immediately warned Mr Buckley that he could not physically touch a Government Official in such a way. He backed off….”
So the question is which of those CASA Officers statement is truthful. Did I “shove” the Flight Operations Inspector, as the other FOI indicates that in fact I did not “shove” anyone.
The difference is significant. As stated, my best recollection of the events is that I used a technique that I have used throughout my life and regularly in the violent environment of Youth Justice. I believe in such a situation I would have adopted that same tactic if someone was too close or encroaching on my personal space. I would use three fingers placed very gently against the chest, to indicate that is the limit. If the person makes a decision to stay in spot or reposition rearwards that is the preferred option, but if you make the decision to step forward, then the nature of the situation is changing.
The conversation withy the police was withy regards to the matter of “trespass”, and it appears that the CASA staff at this stage have not raised either stalking or assault with the police.
On page 13 of the document, they discuss the assault, and encourage the victim to make a police complaint. If he had been assaulted, and his Employer CASA was encouraging him to make that complaint, and he chose not to. Why would that be? If you had been assaulted in the workplace, and your Employer was encouraging you to have it documented with the police, why would you not proceed. Could it be that he knew he had provided false and misleading information, and that by escalating the process, he knew that the other CASA Employee may not be prepared to be complicit in the matter. I only speculate, but it is highly suspicious that no complaint was ever made to the police, and the entire matter ground to a complete halt at the stage of making a statement to police.
Page 18. If you see Mr Buckley, immediately call 000. Honestly. This is ludicrous, and so far out of proportion.
Wow, I just re read my text messages from all those years ago. Bought back memories. There was no doubt that I was in a bad place, and very much on the edge. Nevertheless, please be absolutely certain that I never assaulted anybody. The statement by that CASA Employee is a completely false and misleading statement, as CASA are by now fully aware
And then there’s the small point that you haven’t been prosecuted for anything…
Actual offences against public officials usually result in actual action: https://media.amsa.gov.au/media-rele...wner-hot-water
Actual offences against public officials usually result in actual action: https://media.amsa.gov.au/media-rele...wner-hot-water
From my own perspective & one who considers himself reasonably calm & rational, I doubt whether I could have handled myself as well as you have Glen. Us human's can only take so much stress before lashing out in one form or another - that is normal behaviour, particularly as you say, when you've lost everything, including family money etc.
The following 2 users liked this post by VH-MLE:
Thread Starter
Litigation V act of Grace. Let CASA determine
29/07/23
My reference Pprune# 2776
Dear Ms Spence,
Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you and the Board Chair on October 3rd, 2023, and I look forward to that opportunity.
In my correspondence to you on 02/07/23 (my reference Pprune #2719), I outlined some topics that I hope to address at that meeting.
In that correspondence I addressed the possibility of an Act of Grace Payment as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
You are aware that this matter has attracted widespread industry interest on two industry forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune, the former being a more technical platform, and the latter an industry discussion forum, that has attracted well over one million views and thousands of substantive industry comments. The topic in its entirety can be accessed here, and I particularly draw your attention to the more recent posts that attend to this specific topic, i.e. pursuing litigation. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Whilst I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, they do represent the industry.
Increasingly on those forums, the industry is becoming frustrated at my reluctance to pursue litigation, and particularly so considering the statute of limitations that could apply to this matter.
Over the last four and a half years, I believe that I have been more than reasonable in trying to avoid litigation. I perceive litigation as the very last resort as it indicates a complete breakdown of all good intent.
The ball is very much in CASAs court.
I have two options before me, and they are litigation, or an Act of Grace Payment. There are no other options available to me, and it is CASA that must determine which approach I adopt.
I do need CASA to clearly identify to me with the information that is available to CASA at the present time, will CASA oppose an application for an Act of Grace Payment?
If the intention of CASA at this stage is that they would oppose an Act of Grace payment as an ADR to bring this entire matter to a close, then I have no other option available to me, other than to pursue litigation.
You will be aware that the industry has established a crowdfunding site to support any potential litigation, and that I have asked that any contributions be put on hold until CASA can clearly identify their position with regards to an Act of Grace Payment.
May I respectfully request that you discuss this with my local MP, Ms Carina Garland, the Minister, the Board and anybody else that you need to incorporate into your decision making.
For clarity, my specific question that I respectfully request that you address is,
With the information available to you in your role as the CEO of CASA at the present time, is CASAs intention to oppose any request for an Act of Grace payment that I submit, leaving me with no other option than to pursue litigation.
Thank you for your consideration of my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
My reference Pprune# 2776
Dear Ms Spence,
Thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you and the Board Chair on October 3rd, 2023, and I look forward to that opportunity.
In my correspondence to you on 02/07/23 (my reference Pprune #2719), I outlined some topics that I hope to address at that meeting.
In that correspondence I addressed the possibility of an Act of Grace Payment as an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
You are aware that this matter has attracted widespread industry interest on two industry forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune, the former being a more technical platform, and the latter an industry discussion forum, that has attracted well over one million views and thousands of substantive industry comments. The topic in its entirety can be accessed here, and I particularly draw your attention to the more recent posts that attend to this specific topic, i.e. pursuing litigation. Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA - PPRuNe Forums
Whilst I appreciate that it is easy to be dismissive of such forums, they do represent the industry.
Increasingly on those forums, the industry is becoming frustrated at my reluctance to pursue litigation, and particularly so considering the statute of limitations that could apply to this matter.
Over the last four and a half years, I believe that I have been more than reasonable in trying to avoid litigation. I perceive litigation as the very last resort as it indicates a complete breakdown of all good intent.
The ball is very much in CASAs court.
I have two options before me, and they are litigation, or an Act of Grace Payment. There are no other options available to me, and it is CASA that must determine which approach I adopt.
I do need CASA to clearly identify to me with the information that is available to CASA at the present time, will CASA oppose an application for an Act of Grace Payment?
If the intention of CASA at this stage is that they would oppose an Act of Grace payment as an ADR to bring this entire matter to a close, then I have no other option available to me, other than to pursue litigation.
You will be aware that the industry has established a crowdfunding site to support any potential litigation, and that I have asked that any contributions be put on hold until CASA can clearly identify their position with regards to an Act of Grace Payment.
May I respectfully request that you discuss this with my local MP, Ms Carina Garland, the Minister, the Board and anybody else that you need to incorporate into your decision making.
For clarity, my specific question that I respectfully request that you address is,
With the information available to you in your role as the CEO of CASA at the present time, is CASAs intention to oppose any request for an Act of Grace payment that I submit, leaving me with no other option than to pursue litigation.
Thank you for your consideration of my fair and reasonable request.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Compalint to ICC of false allegation by CASA FOI
Complaint of a CASA Employee making a false and misleading Statement that he was assaulted by Glen Buckley- My reference Pprune #2777
Background to the Complaint
On 20/11/2020, Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO at the time, made an allegation before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I, Glen Buckley had “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees. The link to Mr Carmody PSMs false and misleading allegations can be accessed via the following link.
I resolutely maintain that I have never stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee.
There are two CASA Employees involved in this matter, and their names were not released to me under Freedom of Information, so I will refer to them as Flight operations Inspector One (FOI 1) and Flight Operations Inspector Two (FOI 2).
In this complaint, I will refer to documentation that I have obtained under freedom of Information, and that document can be accessed here. Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf
On page 21 of 55 of the attached official commonwealth document FOI 1 states that Mr Buckley “went to push FOI 2 with an open hand” however was warned by FOI 1, and “backed off. This statement by CASA FOI 1 clearly indicates that no contact was made, and therefore FOI 2 was not “shoved” as FOI 1 claims.
On page 4 of 55, FOI 2 claims that Mr Buckley in fact “approached me, and shoved me in the chest”
It is this statement on official documentation by FOI 2, that I am claiming is false and misleading.
In support of my allegation that FOI Two has made a false and misleading statement on official commonwealth documentation.
· FOI Ones observations are different than FOI Twos observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.
· No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a compliant of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.
· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.
· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.
· I am fully satisfied that FOI Two made that false and misleading statement to cause me reputational harm, as it has, and to hinder my attempts at a fair and reasonable resolution to other matters that were ongoing at the time with CASA.
My expected outcome
I am requesting that the ICC establish contact with both FOI One and Two and clarify those two contradicting statements and advise whether CASAs official position as presented to the Senators is that I had stalked and assaulted CASA Employees, or has the ICC identified that in fact FOI 2 has made a false and misleading statement that I moved towards him and “shoved” him, as he falsely claims.
Could you clearly identify to me why there would be two statements that conflict on such substantial matters?
If CASA identifies that a CASA Employee has made a false and misleading statement that I advanced towards him and shoved him, i.e. assaulted him, could you advise what options are available to me to have CASA correct that false and misleading statement.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Background to the Complaint
On 20/11/2020, Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO at the time, made an allegation before the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee that I, Glen Buckley had “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees. The link to Mr Carmody PSMs false and misleading allegations can be accessed via the following link.
I resolutely maintain that I have never stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee.
There are two CASA Employees involved in this matter, and their names were not released to me under Freedom of Information, so I will refer to them as Flight operations Inspector One (FOI 1) and Flight Operations Inspector Two (FOI 2).
In this complaint, I will refer to documentation that I have obtained under freedom of Information, and that document can be accessed here. Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf
On page 21 of 55 of the attached official commonwealth document FOI 1 states that Mr Buckley “went to push FOI 2 with an open hand” however was warned by FOI 1, and “backed off. This statement by CASA FOI 1 clearly indicates that no contact was made, and therefore FOI 2 was not “shoved” as FOI 1 claims.
On page 4 of 55, FOI 2 claims that Mr Buckley in fact “approached me, and shoved me in the chest”
It is this statement on official documentation by FOI 2, that I am claiming is false and misleading.
In support of my allegation that FOI Two has made a false and misleading statement on official commonwealth documentation.
· FOI Ones observations are different than FOI Twos observations, with FOI 2 claiming that I advanced toward him and shoved him, although FOI 1s statement contradicts that.
· No statement was ever made regarding stalking or assault to Police that attended in response to a compliant of possible “trespassing” by me being in the foyer of the CASA building. That was the complaint made to the police, no allegations of stalking or assault were ever made.
· The alleged incident happened directly under a security camera, and my understanding is that CASA accessed that footage, and no evidence of physical assault was on that recording.
· CASA FOI Two was encouraged to document the assault with police by his Employer, and he did not follow that guidance. I believe he may have chosen not to pursue that path as he was aware that he had made a false and misleading statement and was not prepared to proceed for his own reasons.
· I am fully satisfied that FOI Two made that false and misleading statement to cause me reputational harm, as it has, and to hinder my attempts at a fair and reasonable resolution to other matters that were ongoing at the time with CASA.
My expected outcome
I am requesting that the ICC establish contact with both FOI One and Two and clarify those two contradicting statements and advise whether CASAs official position as presented to the Senators is that I had stalked and assaulted CASA Employees, or has the ICC identified that in fact FOI 2 has made a false and misleading statement that I moved towards him and “shoved” him, as he falsely claims.
Could you clearly identify to me why there would be two statements that conflict on such substantial matters?
If CASA identifies that a CASA Employee has made a false and misleading statement that I advanced towards him and shoved him, i.e. assaulted him, could you advise what options are available to me to have CASA correct that false and misleading statement.
Thankyou in anticipation of your assistance in this matter.
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
I must have missed the bit of the CASA FOI Duty Statement that includes bodyguarding and bouncing duties in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building.
Two people on one, and the two people came to the one in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. Until the two arrived, the one was a threat to nobody, so far as I can tell. And there were multiple witnesses and a security camera.
The simplest and most obvious reason why the one was not prosecuted for assault is: The one assaulted nobody. A self-appointed bodyguard/bouncer tried to intimate the one, but the tactic failed.
And I very much doubt whether CASA has the authority to decide who is allowed and not allowed in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. That would probably the decision of the building owner, not individual tenants.
Two people on one, and the two people came to the one in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. Until the two arrived, the one was a threat to nobody, so far as I can tell. And there were multiple witnesses and a security camera.
The simplest and most obvious reason why the one was not prosecuted for assault is: The one assaulted nobody. A self-appointed bodyguard/bouncer tried to intimate the one, but the tactic failed.
And I very much doubt whether CASA has the authority to decide who is allowed and not allowed in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. That would probably the decision of the building owner, not individual tenants.
The following users liked this post:
I must have missed the bit of the CASA FOI Duty Statement that includes bodyguarding and bouncing duties in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building.
Two people on one, and the two people came to the one in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. Until the two arrived, the one was a threat to nobody, so far as I can tell. And there were multiple witnesses and a security camera.
The simplest and most obvious reason why the one was not prosecuted for assault is: The one assaulted nobody. A self-appointed bodyguard/bouncer tried to intimate the one, but the tactic failed.
And I very much doubt whether CASA has the authority to decide who is allowed and not allowed in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. That would probably the decision of the building owner, not individual tenants.
Two people on one, and the two people came to the one in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. Until the two arrived, the one was a threat to nobody, so far as I can tell. And there were multiple witnesses and a security camera.
The simplest and most obvious reason why the one was not prosecuted for assault is: The one assaulted nobody. A self-appointed bodyguard/bouncer tried to intimate the one, but the tactic failed.
And I very much doubt whether CASA has the authority to decide who is allowed and not allowed in the foyer of a multi-tenant office building during business hours. That would probably the decision of the building owner, not individual tenants.
The security personnel belong to the building, so they have the legal right to ask you to leave.
Should I add “security guard” to the list of CASA FOI duties of which I wasn’t aware in their Duty Statement?