Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Indeed. Standing is among many formidable hurdles in Glen's way.
Thread Starter
Assault allegation correspondence from CASA ICC
A summary of the Posts leading up to this.
20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.
21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.
01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.
10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee
11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.
21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.
28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.
13/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.
Correspondence from CASA ICC received 31/07/23.Hi Glen
Thanks for your email, I acknowledge receipt.
I will be back in contact (most likely late this week or early next week) to discuss next steps.
As a quick preliminary point, in your complaint you’ve said you are relying on documents released to you on 7 February 2021 under the Freedom of Information Act. It’s worth noting that the ICC Governance Arrangements prevent us (unless directed by the Board) from considering complaints about anything a complainant was aware of more than 12 months before the complaint was raised with the ICC. This jurisdictional hurdle is something I will have to consider when deciding the next steps. Happy to chat if that is easier – 02 6217 XXXX
Thanks
Jonathan
20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.
21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.
01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.
10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee
11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.
21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.
28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.
13/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.
Correspondence from CASA ICC received 31/07/23.Hi Glen
Thanks for your email, I acknowledge receipt.
I will be back in contact (most likely late this week or early next week) to discuss next steps.
As a quick preliminary point, in your complaint you’ve said you are relying on documents released to you on 7 February 2021 under the Freedom of Information Act. It’s worth noting that the ICC Governance Arrangements prevent us (unless directed by the Board) from considering complaints about anything a complainant was aware of more than 12 months before the complaint was raised with the ICC. This jurisdictional hurdle is something I will have to consider when deciding the next steps. Happy to chat if that is easier – 02 6217 XXXX
Thanks
Jonathan
Thread Starter
My response to previous post
Summary of my correspondence.
20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.
21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.
01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.
10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee
11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.
21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.
28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.
13/07/23 ( My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.
27/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2773 p.139). Some personal thoughts on the matter that I posted.
29/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2777 p.139)., I submitted my complaint to you regarding the false and mis;leading information provided by the CASA Flight Operations Inspector
03/08/23 (my reference Pprune #2788 p. 140) . I made an FOI request for any footage of the incident,
Dear Jonathan Hanton
Thankyou for establishing contact, and I look forward to meeting you again personally in October when I meet with the CEO, Chair, and yourself.
Regarding this complaint, of the CASA Employee making a false statement that I assaulted him, I feel that I should add more clarity.
There were two FOI requests, the first in February 2021, and a more recent request in June of 2023. It is the latter response from CASA that I received only a few months ago that has prompted the current complaint, and the fact that the CASA CEO has only recently identified the date of the alleged assault of the CASA Employee to me. No date had been identified to me until the recent correspondence from Ms Spence., and I was able to ascertain the date and location of the alleged assault.
Upon becoming aware of the date and reviewing the witness statements, admittedly provided to me in the first release, I noted that one CASA Employee claimed that I had moved towards him and shoved him, whereas the other CASA Employees statement mentioned specifically that in fact I did not shove him. The former being a false statement and the latter being the truthful statement.
This matter is significant, and has I believe impacted on my relationship with CASA generally, and understandably so, if CASA had formed the view that I had assaulted one of their Employees during the conduct of his employment.
I do understand that Mr Carmody was protected by Parliamentary Privilege, and the purpose of this correspondence is not to seek any other redress than to have CASA make a Statement to somewhat restore my reputation.
The harm continues many years after the false and misleading statement was made to the Senators
As recently as a couple of weeks ago, it has been suggested to me that I apologise to CASA for the assault. Whilst I appreciate the well intentioned nature of the advice, it actually saddens me, because if that person believes that it has happened, I know there will be others.
The complaint is effectively a continuing or rolling complaint because the harm caused continues. If CASA is aware that one of their senior Employees has made a false allegation that I had assaulted him, then it is incumbent upon CASA to correct the record, and most especially because of the very formal setting in which the allegation was made.
I respect that you may need to consult with the Board as to whether you can investigate this matter.
If CASA determines that there will be no internal investigation into this matter, it would be concerning if that determination was based on the expiration of a twelve month timeline
.
Irrespective of the nature of the organisation, be it a Government department, or Private enterprise, it would be expected that any organisation would robustly and diligently investigate such substantial allegations against one of their Employees, irrespective of when it happened,
This is also a matter of aviation safety. If there is a CASA Employee that is prepared to make false allegations of stalking and assault against industry participants, it is possible that such behavior could occur in other aspects of that person's employment. It simply is not a matter that can be covered up.or not addressed.
Thankyou for your consideration, and please feel free to call me on 0418772013. I work as a delivery driver now, so cannot always answer the phone immediately, however I will call you back promptly i.e. within 15 minutes.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
20/11/20 CASA CEO makes a statement to the Senators that I have stalked and assaulted his staff.
21/11/20 ( My reference Pprune #1349 p.68) the day after the CASA CEO made those false and misleading comments, I wrote to the CEO requesting that he retract them.
01/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1373 p.69) I wrote to the CASA Board, requesting that the statement be retracted.
10/12/20 ( My reference Pprune #1392 p.70 ) I wrote to the Secretary of the Senate committee
11/12/20 (My reference Pprune # 1396 p.70), I made the first of two FOI requests on this matter.
21/04/21 ( My reference Pprune #1599 p.80), I wrote to both the CASA Acting CEO, and LNP Deputy PM at the time, requesting the allegations be withdrawn.
28/06/23 (My reference Pprune #2743 p. 138) CASA asks for clarification regarding the FOI request.
13/07/23 ( My reference Pprune #2748 p.138). I provide clarification as requested.
27/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2773 p.139). Some personal thoughts on the matter that I posted.
29/07/23 (My reference Pprune #2777 p.139)., I submitted my complaint to you regarding the false and mis;leading information provided by the CASA Flight Operations Inspector
03/08/23 (my reference Pprune #2788 p. 140) . I made an FOI request for any footage of the incident,
Dear Jonathan Hanton
Thankyou for establishing contact, and I look forward to meeting you again personally in October when I meet with the CEO, Chair, and yourself.
Regarding this complaint, of the CASA Employee making a false statement that I assaulted him, I feel that I should add more clarity.
There were two FOI requests, the first in February 2021, and a more recent request in June of 2023. It is the latter response from CASA that I received only a few months ago that has prompted the current complaint, and the fact that the CASA CEO has only recently identified the date of the alleged assault of the CASA Employee to me. No date had been identified to me until the recent correspondence from Ms Spence., and I was able to ascertain the date and location of the alleged assault.
Upon becoming aware of the date and reviewing the witness statements, admittedly provided to me in the first release, I noted that one CASA Employee claimed that I had moved towards him and shoved him, whereas the other CASA Employees statement mentioned specifically that in fact I did not shove him. The former being a false statement and the latter being the truthful statement.
This matter is significant, and has I believe impacted on my relationship with CASA generally, and understandably so, if CASA had formed the view that I had assaulted one of their Employees during the conduct of his employment.
I do understand that Mr Carmody was protected by Parliamentary Privilege, and the purpose of this correspondence is not to seek any other redress than to have CASA make a Statement to somewhat restore my reputation.
The harm continues many years after the false and misleading statement was made to the Senators
As recently as a couple of weeks ago, it has been suggested to me that I apologise to CASA for the assault. Whilst I appreciate the well intentioned nature of the advice, it actually saddens me, because if that person believes that it has happened, I know there will be others.
The complaint is effectively a continuing or rolling complaint because the harm caused continues. If CASA is aware that one of their senior Employees has made a false allegation that I had assaulted him, then it is incumbent upon CASA to correct the record, and most especially because of the very formal setting in which the allegation was made.
I respect that you may need to consult with the Board as to whether you can investigate this matter.
If CASA determines that there will be no internal investigation into this matter, it would be concerning if that determination was based on the expiration of a twelve month timeline
.
Irrespective of the nature of the organisation, be it a Government department, or Private enterprise, it would be expected that any organisation would robustly and diligently investigate such substantial allegations against one of their Employees, irrespective of when it happened,
This is also a matter of aviation safety. If there is a CASA Employee that is prepared to make false allegations of stalking and assault against industry participants, it is possible that such behavior could occur in other aspects of that person's employment. It simply is not a matter that can be covered up.or not addressed.
Thankyou for your consideration, and please feel free to call me on 0418772013. I work as a delivery driver now, so cannot always answer the phone immediately, however I will call you back promptly i.e. within 15 minutes.
Respectfully Glen Buckley
Last edited by glenb; 6th Aug 2023 at 23:06.
On the subject of payments by CASA, a while ago – but post the implementation of the PGPA legislation - Avmed unlawfully place a purported restriction on my medical certificate. I applied to the AAT for review of Avmed’s decision. I had to pay a large application fee to the AAT.
The matter didn’t proceed to a hearing because Avmed’s decision was plainly unlawful – admitted as such by CASA before any more of my and the AAT’s resources were wasted – and the review was decided in my favour. (Appallingly, Avmed persisted with that unlawful behaviour because Avmed is insouciantly indifferent to its own compliance with the law and knows that most individuals cannot bear the stress and cost of seeking external review of the lawfulness and merits of what they do.)
Because of the circumstances, the AAT refunded some – but not all – of my application fee, in accordance with the AAT regs. However, CASA also wrote me a cheque for the ‘delta’ between the fee I paid and the refund I was given by the AAT.
There is no provision in the AAT Act or any other legislation that I can find which, in its terms, compelled CASA to write me that cheque. Costs are not awarded in AAT matters. I didn’t even ask for payment of the ‘delta’.
Doesn’t matter whether it was $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000. The expenditure of each and every one of CASA’s dollars is the subject of PGPA and other stringent obligations.
Either the payment was lawful or it wasn’t. Either there was a policy basis for the payment or there wasn’t.
I’d be interested in Thirsty’s views as to the source of the legal authority and policy basis for CASA having made that payment to me, and what generic description would Thirsty apply to the payment.
So far as I am concerned and unless someone can point me to a legislative provision compelling the payment – in which case I will stand corrected - it was what I call an act of grace payment by CASA because I should not have had to spend any of my time and money teaching Administrative Law ‘101’ to public officials in CASA Avmed (Administrative Law ‘101’ being a subject which CASA Avmed continues to fail, abjectly).
The matter didn’t proceed to a hearing because Avmed’s decision was plainly unlawful – admitted as such by CASA before any more of my and the AAT’s resources were wasted – and the review was decided in my favour. (Appallingly, Avmed persisted with that unlawful behaviour because Avmed is insouciantly indifferent to its own compliance with the law and knows that most individuals cannot bear the stress and cost of seeking external review of the lawfulness and merits of what they do.)
Because of the circumstances, the AAT refunded some – but not all – of my application fee, in accordance with the AAT regs. However, CASA also wrote me a cheque for the ‘delta’ between the fee I paid and the refund I was given by the AAT.
There is no provision in the AAT Act or any other legislation that I can find which, in its terms, compelled CASA to write me that cheque. Costs are not awarded in AAT matters. I didn’t even ask for payment of the ‘delta’.
Doesn’t matter whether it was $1 or $1,000 or $1,000,000. The expenditure of each and every one of CASA’s dollars is the subject of PGPA and other stringent obligations.
Either the payment was lawful or it wasn’t. Either there was a policy basis for the payment or there wasn’t.
I’d be interested in Thirsty’s views as to the source of the legal authority and policy basis for CASA having made that payment to me, and what generic description would Thirsty apply to the payment.
So far as I am concerned and unless someone can point me to a legislative provision compelling the payment – in which case I will stand corrected - it was what I call an act of grace payment by CASA because I should not have had to spend any of my time and money teaching Administrative Law ‘101’ to public officials in CASA Avmed (Administrative Law ‘101’ being a subject which CASA Avmed continues to fail, abjectly).
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, CASA employee, or involved in this case in any manner other than an interested bystander interested in truth and justice, a PPRuner not wishing to painfully read about this case forever and ever in these forums. Yes, I have tread the hallowed halls of Parliament, been involved in AAT cases as a plaintiff, and had a few legal wins myself (with the assistance of well briefed lawyers), to great satisfaction. I have also watched the movie "The Castle" more than once. I have watched people wrought a great injustice, so outraged they were unable to properly voice their indignity in such a way that other people can understand, ultimately get a less than satisfactory outcome to right a wrong as they have dilly-dallied in how to approach remedial action. Sadly, this case seems to fall into this category, and I am so frustrated to the point I have stopped being a silent onlooker and want to shove Glen into doing what I see is best for him. I also want to see the Public Service redirected back to their basic function, to provide a service, forthright, fearless and fair, to the public, parliament and the country.
If there is any situation where examining both sides of an argument is a valid approach, this thread discussion is proof of that. In my post of last month, I expressed astonishment at the manner in which CASA had presented Glen to Parliament as being a perceived threat to them, and (behind the scenes and not previously disclosed to Glen) what changes they had made in their organisation as a direct result of those. I made my comments based on just that side of the argument. The following posts that Glen has made have clarified the situation, and the overall effect on any financial settlement will probably be insignificant when added to all the other sins that CASA and their public servants have committed against Glen.
Of course, in the grand scope of things, this will be just a minor distraction from the bigger issue of who did what, when, and how, in shutting down a thriving enterprise, causing Glenn to lose a livelihood from the inappropriate, untimely, and possibly highly illegal actions of a few employees of CASA. This should be the issue that is to be addressed, and resolution should not be an apology, but a massive financial settlement. My considered suggestion is that will not arise from a polite discussion behind closed doors in the head office of CASA in Canberra, but in a court of law where both sides have robust legal representation, and the truth is examined and decisions arrived at, and the matter be finalised. Alternatively, close scrutiny by the new National Anti-Corruption Commission may result in some progress and a speedy offer of settlement before the matter is aired publicly.
The court of public opinion here in these forums, as well as our non-professional suggestions is not going to get you a win Glen. As you can see in the hint you have been given about your FOI request, time is of the essence, there are statutes of limitation, and dragging it on for ever will not get you anywhere. Go get a lawyer, fast!
If there is any situation where examining both sides of an argument is a valid approach, this thread discussion is proof of that. In my post of last month, I expressed astonishment at the manner in which CASA had presented Glen to Parliament as being a perceived threat to them, and (behind the scenes and not previously disclosed to Glen) what changes they had made in their organisation as a direct result of those. I made my comments based on just that side of the argument. The following posts that Glen has made have clarified the situation, and the overall effect on any financial settlement will probably be insignificant when added to all the other sins that CASA and their public servants have committed against Glen.
Of course, in the grand scope of things, this will be just a minor distraction from the bigger issue of who did what, when, and how, in shutting down a thriving enterprise, causing Glenn to lose a livelihood from the inappropriate, untimely, and possibly highly illegal actions of a few employees of CASA. This should be the issue that is to be addressed, and resolution should not be an apology, but a massive financial settlement. My considered suggestion is that will not arise from a polite discussion behind closed doors in the head office of CASA in Canberra, but in a court of law where both sides have robust legal representation, and the truth is examined and decisions arrived at, and the matter be finalised. Alternatively, close scrutiny by the new National Anti-Corruption Commission may result in some progress and a speedy offer of settlement before the matter is aired publicly.
The court of public opinion here in these forums, as well as our non-professional suggestions is not going to get you a win Glen. As you can see in the hint you have been given about your FOI request, time is of the essence, there are statutes of limitation, and dragging it on for ever will not get you anywhere. Go get a lawyer, fast!
Last edited by Thirsty; 7th Aug 2023 at 13:03.
The following 6 users liked this post by Thirsty:
The Christine Holgate affair comes to mind. Scotty ranted and raved on live TV in Parliament (the drooling SHE MUST GO speech), but where were the headlines when the paltry $1million hush money was surreptitiously passed to her? All over $10,000 of Cartier watches that she was legally allowed to spend to reward her hard working senior staff. This case is far worse, and settlement should be in the millions.
My take on the final outcome:
Revenge (on the Australia Post board) is a dish served cold, very cold, (delivered by Toll Global Industries of course)!
Look at where Scotty, Christine, and the profits of Australia Post and Toll have ended up.
Karma, pure karma, in large dollops.
Glen, you need some karma. Lawyers is how you will get it.
Last edited by Thirsty; 7th Aug 2023 at 13:15.
The following 5 users liked this post by Thirsty:
Glen
I had a boundary dispute with my neighbour who overstepped my fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. I contracted a lawyer and sued my neighbour. Only then did I get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
I had a boundary dispute with my neighbour who overstepped my fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. I contracted a lawyer and sued my neighbour. Only then did I get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
Sadly, I suspect the chances are receding with passage of time. The delaying tactics of CASA are not helping.
Time to bite the bullet, get the professionals involved and get some good results. The other side will have to pay the legal expenses if you win.
Admirably, some PPRuners have offered to GoFundMe for Glen's legal costs, and I am sure more will step up to the mark once they see he is proceeding, regardless of the outcome. It is not a matter of glee to see CASA put under a blowtorch, but a sense of indignity as the unfairness of it all.
Time to bite the bullet, get the professionals involved and get some good results. The other side will have to pay the legal expenses if you win.
Admirably, some PPRuners have offered to GoFundMe for Glen's legal costs, and I am sure more will step up to the mark once they see he is proceeding, regardless of the outcome. It is not a matter of glee to see CASA put under a blowtorch, but a sense of indignity as the unfairness of it all.
The following users liked this post:
Glen
I had a boundary dispute with my neighbour who overstepped my fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. I contracted a lawyer and sued my neighbour. Only then did I get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
I had a boundary dispute with my neighbour who overstepped my fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. I contracted a lawyer and sued my neighbour. Only then did I get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
Glen
Apparently Seabreaaze had a boundary dispute with their neighbour who overstepped their fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. They contracted a lawyer and sued their neighbour. Only then did They get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
Apparently Seabreaaze had a boundary dispute with their neighbour who overstepped their fenceline. A year of emails and discussions went nowhere. They contracted a lawyer and sued their neighbour. Only then did They get a meaningful discussion and settlement before the court convened.
You can not be in any meaninful negotiation until you sue legally for losses.
Thread Starter
Instructing lawyers
I can see you all roll your eyes, push against your desk as you roll your office chair back, kick your legs up slightly, and whisper an obscenity slotted in between the two words, 'about" and "time". An example would be "about @#$&ing time"
After careful consideration of the entire matter, I had a brilliant and imaginative idea. I have decided to instruct lawyers in preparation for that meeting with Ms. Spence.
I have started working on the letter and hope to publish a draft on here.tomorrow night, or Saturday morning at the latest. I have had some behind the scenes support'. My intention is to have a three-page draft. No longer than that, as an introduction. Once published i would be appreciative of any feedback. Cheers. Glen
After careful consideration of the entire matter, I had a brilliant and imaginative idea. I have decided to instruct lawyers in preparation for that meeting with Ms. Spence.
I have started working on the letter and hope to publish a draft on here.tomorrow night, or Saturday morning at the latest. I have had some behind the scenes support'. My intention is to have a three-page draft. No longer than that, as an introduction. Once published i would be appreciative of any feedback. Cheers. Glen
The following 3 users liked this post by glenb:
Instructing lawyers: Good idea.
Publishing any correspondence about what you propose to tell them: Terrible idea.
If you’re going to instruct lawyers, you first need to find lawyers with the requisite expertise who are prepared to take instructions from you. You then give them instructions, confidentially, so that those communications attract and retain legal privilege.
And then they will ask you about things they need to know and, having considered what they need to know, they’ll advise you on next steps. Those communications will also attract legal privilege.
Though it will be a matter entirely for your lawyers and you, I anticipate that their first piece of advice will be: Now is the time toSTFU be very reticent in publishing yet more material potentially containing admissions and inconsistencies that could be deleterious to your legal interests, even assuming that what’s been published so far hasn’t trashed them.
Publishing any correspondence about what you propose to tell them: Terrible idea.
If you’re going to instruct lawyers, you first need to find lawyers with the requisite expertise who are prepared to take instructions from you. You then give them instructions, confidentially, so that those communications attract and retain legal privilege.
And then they will ask you about things they need to know and, having considered what they need to know, they’ll advise you on next steps. Those communications will also attract legal privilege.
Though it will be a matter entirely for your lawyers and you, I anticipate that their first piece of advice will be: Now is the time to
Glen, listen to LB - it's sound advice. Mum's the word from here on in.
Do not broadcast your strategy to anyone.
Seek your counsel with your lawyers and perhaps a trusted friend for general advice and support.
Time to play the ball to your advantage, not theirs.
Do not broadcast your strategy to anyone.
Seek your counsel with your lawyers and perhaps a trusted friend for general advice and support.
Time to play the ball to your advantage, not theirs.
The following 5 users liked this post by vne165:
The following 4 users liked this post by havick:
The only post I’d like to see from you Glen is…….
Fireup the gofundme donations……..
We are on like Donkey Kong!
Fireup the gofundme donations……..
We are on like Donkey Kong!
The following 2 users liked this post by Global Aviator:
.
Wow, there’s a plot twist I didn’t see coming!
Finally, common sense has prevailed.
I wish you all the best in being compensated handsomely for the millions you’ve lost.
And zip it on Pprune from here on 🤐🤐🤐
Finally, common sense has prevailed.
I wish you all the best in being compensated handsomely for the millions you’ve lost.
And zip it on Pprune from here on 🤐🤐🤐
The following users liked this post: