Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Vict Law Institute is an industry body & can just give you "three names" etc
Doyle's guide has a fair bit of horsepower & cred
The problem with Solicitors , is that they can be highly manipulative & they are extremely good at that. Maybe that is a bit to strong , what I mean is a Solicitor who is "quite good & experienced " at a particular area of law , telling you he is an expert. That's one reason why you need the best - they will be busy enough anyway
So if you google "leading administrative & public law lawyers" & that should put you somewhere in neighbourhood. I would be thinking left leaning firms such as Holding Redlich - who had a guy in the "eminent" category. But if one of the more corporate firms has someone who is better & is willing
I am totally ignorant & also unqualified but it seems as though you are in a complex area of law & a rare one - that is why most law firms don't push their skills in Govt/Administrative law
Doesn't the dispute hinge on really one matter - was CASA reasonable in the October 2018 email imposing restrictions & if they were not - do you have a cause of action ?
Isn't the "play" of CASA obvious as their boss emailed to you recently that their actions were reasonable & that in any case you were free to continue running your business
Doyle's guide has a fair bit of horsepower & cred
The problem with Solicitors , is that they can be highly manipulative & they are extremely good at that. Maybe that is a bit to strong , what I mean is a Solicitor who is "quite good & experienced " at a particular area of law , telling you he is an expert. That's one reason why you need the best - they will be busy enough anyway
So if you google "leading administrative & public law lawyers" & that should put you somewhere in neighbourhood. I would be thinking left leaning firms such as Holding Redlich - who had a guy in the "eminent" category. But if one of the more corporate firms has someone who is better & is willing
I am totally ignorant & also unqualified but it seems as though you are in a complex area of law & a rare one - that is why most law firms don't push their skills in Govt/Administrative law
Doesn't the dispute hinge on really one matter - was CASA reasonable in the October 2018 email imposing restrictions & if they were not - do you have a cause of action ?
Isn't the "play" of CASA obvious as their boss emailed to you recently that their actions were reasonable & that in any case you were free to continue running your business
Thread Starter
My follow up to Mr Hanton CASA ICC Pprune #2839
Dear Mr Hanton,
Thankyou for the advice that an independent investigator will be allocated to this matter regarding the allegation by CASA that I have stalked and assaulted CASA emplyees.I am appreciative of your offer to remove yourself from the matter, and I do derive some comfort from that. decision.
1.Can you advise me on the qualifications of the proposed independent investigator, and the criteria that was used to select that individual, before I consent to that process, as other options could also be considered by me.
2. Could you also advise a suggested timeline for that investigation. I anticipate that it would be a fairly short investigation. My hope is that it could be finalised before my meeting with senior CASA personnel including yourself, in early October.
3. Whilst I don't want to come across as disingenuous, surely the starting point of this process would be for you in your role, to establish contact with Mr Edwards and simply "ask him". again if he still maintains his original position, that I assaulted him. I have approached him directly but he has not responded to me.
4. If Mr Edwards has changed his position to a factual one, and now claims that I did not step towards him and shove him, i.e. "assault" him, then the concept of an investigation seems somewhat a waste of resources, because it would be entirely unnecessary. The important point being that the investigation should only proceed if Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him, and CASA generally supports Mr Edwards contention. Before handing over to an independent investigator, I feel you are compelled to confirm that as of today's date, Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him.
To be frank, the "investigator" that should be investigating this matter is the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and that would be my preferred option if CASA would consent to that.
Quite simply. If I have stalked and assaulted CASA employees then that matter must surely be referred to the AFP, and all CASA employees should be protected in the course of their duties by such an approach. If CASA truly believes that Mr Edwards was assaulted by me then surely CASA would be compelled to refer that matter to the AFP.
Similarly, if a CASA Employee has made a false statement that he was assaulted, and propagated that falsehood within CASA for no other reason than to cause harm, then that should also be a matter for an AFP investigation.Can you explain why a referral to the AFP is not an option that CASA has, or is considering.?
As the person that Mr Edwards made the allegation against, surely I am entitled to Mr Edwards current stance on this matter. The allegations that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees was raised in the most formal of settings i.e. by the CASA CEO before a Senate Committee. These are substantive allegations, with significant custodial sentences attached to them. that have and continue to impact me.
I am requesting that you provide clarity around Mr Edwards allegation, and I want to ensure that before proceeding he is provided with the opportunity to retract it.
I want to also emphasise that the complaint extends beyond Mr Edwards false allegation. Mr Edwards submitted that complaint to his managers. Surely it would have been a matter that was pursued with determination, and a commitment to a fair process, yet it all seemed to fade away, until the allegation was raised before the Senate over 6 months later on 20/11/20 when I first became aware of it.
It extends to the existing knowledge that CASA Employees in the direct reporting line above Mr Edwards and potentially to the most senior Executive within CASA were aware that Mr David Edwards made a false allegation, and chose to either do nothing, or be complicit and propagate that falsehood. The inquiry is more than the initial false allegation, it's really about the CASA processes after that allegation was made.
For clarity, I am fully satisfied that the most senior executives of CASA were fully aware that it was a false allegation, and that CASA was most likely aware that it was false within a short time frame of Mr Edwards' false allegation, yet raised it over 6 months later, in the Senate.
The complaint is much more than Mr Edward's false allegation. The complaint extends to the knowledge that CASA had that a false allegation was made on February 6th of 2020, and was raised by the CASA CEO over 6 months later.
I do understand that the starting point must be to ascertain if Mr David Edwards was assaulted by me, but also the processes as to who was involved stopping the matter being followed through, and the reasons behind that.
Interestingly the matter faded away immediately after Mr Edwards raised the matter within CASA. It is obvious that CASA was aware at a level above Mr Edwards that a false allegation had been made. There must have been more senior personnel involved in the decision making that were aware that Mr Edwards had made that false allegation.
Please understand that I am not trying to complicate matters, merely ensure that there are clear expectations around the investigation.
The final point that I would like to clarify is whether I will be able to interact with the investigator, or would that individual only be engaging with CASA personnel..
Thankyou for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Glen Buckley
Thankyou for the advice that an independent investigator will be allocated to this matter regarding the allegation by CASA that I have stalked and assaulted CASA emplyees.I am appreciative of your offer to remove yourself from the matter, and I do derive some comfort from that. decision.
1.Can you advise me on the qualifications of the proposed independent investigator, and the criteria that was used to select that individual, before I consent to that process, as other options could also be considered by me.
2. Could you also advise a suggested timeline for that investigation. I anticipate that it would be a fairly short investigation. My hope is that it could be finalised before my meeting with senior CASA personnel including yourself, in early October.
3. Whilst I don't want to come across as disingenuous, surely the starting point of this process would be for you in your role, to establish contact with Mr Edwards and simply "ask him". again if he still maintains his original position, that I assaulted him. I have approached him directly but he has not responded to me.
4. If Mr Edwards has changed his position to a factual one, and now claims that I did not step towards him and shove him, i.e. "assault" him, then the concept of an investigation seems somewhat a waste of resources, because it would be entirely unnecessary. The important point being that the investigation should only proceed if Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him, and CASA generally supports Mr Edwards contention. Before handing over to an independent investigator, I feel you are compelled to confirm that as of today's date, Mr Edwards still maintains that I assaulted him.
To be frank, the "investigator" that should be investigating this matter is the Australian Federal Police (AFP), and that would be my preferred option if CASA would consent to that.
Quite simply. If I have stalked and assaulted CASA employees then that matter must surely be referred to the AFP, and all CASA employees should be protected in the course of their duties by such an approach. If CASA truly believes that Mr Edwards was assaulted by me then surely CASA would be compelled to refer that matter to the AFP.
Similarly, if a CASA Employee has made a false statement that he was assaulted, and propagated that falsehood within CASA for no other reason than to cause harm, then that should also be a matter for an AFP investigation.Can you explain why a referral to the AFP is not an option that CASA has, or is considering.?
As the person that Mr Edwards made the allegation against, surely I am entitled to Mr Edwards current stance on this matter. The allegations that I had stalked and assaulted CASA employees was raised in the most formal of settings i.e. by the CASA CEO before a Senate Committee. These are substantive allegations, with significant custodial sentences attached to them. that have and continue to impact me.
I am requesting that you provide clarity around Mr Edwards allegation, and I want to ensure that before proceeding he is provided with the opportunity to retract it.
I want to also emphasise that the complaint extends beyond Mr Edwards false allegation. Mr Edwards submitted that complaint to his managers. Surely it would have been a matter that was pursued with determination, and a commitment to a fair process, yet it all seemed to fade away, until the allegation was raised before the Senate over 6 months later on 20/11/20 when I first became aware of it.
It extends to the existing knowledge that CASA Employees in the direct reporting line above Mr Edwards and potentially to the most senior Executive within CASA were aware that Mr David Edwards made a false allegation, and chose to either do nothing, or be complicit and propagate that falsehood. The inquiry is more than the initial false allegation, it's really about the CASA processes after that allegation was made.
For clarity, I am fully satisfied that the most senior executives of CASA were fully aware that it was a false allegation, and that CASA was most likely aware that it was false within a short time frame of Mr Edwards' false allegation, yet raised it over 6 months later, in the Senate.
The complaint is much more than Mr Edward's false allegation. The complaint extends to the knowledge that CASA had that a false allegation was made on February 6th of 2020, and was raised by the CASA CEO over 6 months later.
I do understand that the starting point must be to ascertain if Mr David Edwards was assaulted by me, but also the processes as to who was involved stopping the matter being followed through, and the reasons behind that.
Interestingly the matter faded away immediately after Mr Edwards raised the matter within CASA. It is obvious that CASA was aware at a level above Mr Edwards that a false allegation had been made. There must have been more senior personnel involved in the decision making that were aware that Mr Edwards had made that false allegation.
Please understand that I am not trying to complicate matters, merely ensure that there are clear expectations around the investigation.
The final point that I would like to clarify is whether I will be able to interact with the investigator, or would that individual only be engaging with CASA personnel..
Thankyou for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing back from you.
Glen Buckley
In all fairness the contracted independent investigator must interview yourself. He/she needs your statement and answers to questions asked.
If that does not occur that wii confirm it’s a sham “investigation”, a seen to be doing something exercise and arse covering for CAsA.
See #2836 for the CAsA M.O.
If that does not occur that wii confirm it’s a sham “investigation”, a seen to be doing something exercise and arse covering for CAsA.
See #2836 for the CAsA M.O.
Cheers for the heads up on the possible ally. I didn't recognize the name and did a quick: "search". While waiting for the results I was thinking "please be an Independent." Sadly, a Liberal. This matter started under a Liberal Government, with no support at all from Ms Gladys Liu my Liberal local member at the time.
I thought the change of government, to a Labor Government would bring a possible solution, after all ethics and accountability was their theme, and the establishment of an anti-corruption commission. Ms. Carina Garland, my new Labor MP for Chisholm has been of no support, and to be honest, perhaps worse than the previous incumbent.
Having ridden this journey through both a Liberal and now Labor local MP, I have absolutely no faith in any of them anymore. The ONLY politician that i truly feel would be of any assistance is an Independent.
Once again thanks for taking the time to provide input. Cheers. Glen.
I thought the change of government, to a Labor Government would bring a possible solution, after all ethics and accountability was their theme, and the establishment of an anti-corruption commission. Ms. Carina Garland, my new Labor MP for Chisholm has been of no support, and to be honest, perhaps worse than the previous incumbent.
Having ridden this journey through both a Liberal and now Labor local MP, I have absolutely no faith in any of them anymore. The ONLY politician that i truly feel would be of any assistance is an Independent.
Once again thanks for taking the time to provide input. Cheers. Glen.
What I really like about Wilkie is that he blew the whistle on the vile children overboard lie and the Liberal Party and (sorry, my opinion only) Howard, and his minions, set out to destroy Wilkie. What poetic justice it was when Wilkie ended up holding the deciding vote on whether to support the ALP or the LNP after the hung parliament election. Much gyrating and accusations of backstabbing, they really don't appear to understand the concept of what goes around comes around.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'd be contacting Wilkie if it were me.
Thread Starter
Letter to Board re. Legal representation
04/09/23
Dear Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board
Firstly, on behalf of my family, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you on Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 to 1600 at Aviation House in Canberra.
As you are aware, I have been reluctant to engage in litigation with CASA as it indicates the failure of any remaining "good intention".
My current intention was that only my wife and i would attend that meeting. You will be aware that this matter in its entirety is being covered on two discrete pilot forums referred to as Aunty Pru and Pprune. The overwhelming feedback I receive is that I would be foolish and naïve if I were to attend that meeting without legal representation, and that is the purpose of this request.
Can you advise if that meeting would proceed if I were to be accompanied by Legal representation. I need to emphasize that is not my intention at this stage.to initiate any legal action because my hope is that we can act with good intent at that meeting, and consider an Alternative Dispute Resolution at that meeting, although i understand that CASA have not led me to believe that is an option.
The purpose of bringing along that legal representation would be to ensure that I have a trained professional that can explain the situation to me at the conclusion of that meeting, and effectively act as my support person.
As you are aware I have maintained that this entire matter could have been avoided with a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, on any day prior to CASA imposing the crippling trading restrictions in October of 2018. It may be that I am missing something, and a lawyer attending that meeting may assist me to understand why CASA chose the path that they chose when other options were clearly available.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Dear Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC- Chair of the CASA Board
Firstly, on behalf of my family, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you on Tuesday 3rd October between 1400 to 1600 at Aviation House in Canberra.
As you are aware, I have been reluctant to engage in litigation with CASA as it indicates the failure of any remaining "good intention".
My current intention was that only my wife and i would attend that meeting. You will be aware that this matter in its entirety is being covered on two discrete pilot forums referred to as Aunty Pru and Pprune. The overwhelming feedback I receive is that I would be foolish and naïve if I were to attend that meeting without legal representation, and that is the purpose of this request.
Can you advise if that meeting would proceed if I were to be accompanied by Legal representation. I need to emphasize that is not my intention at this stage.to initiate any legal action because my hope is that we can act with good intent at that meeting, and consider an Alternative Dispute Resolution at that meeting, although i understand that CASA have not led me to believe that is an option.
The purpose of bringing along that legal representation would be to ensure that I have a trained professional that can explain the situation to me at the conclusion of that meeting, and effectively act as my support person.
As you are aware I have maintained that this entire matter could have been avoided with a well-intentioned 4-hour discussion, on any day prior to CASA imposing the crippling trading restrictions in October of 2018. It may be that I am missing something, and a lawyer attending that meeting may assist me to understand why CASA chose the path that they chose when other options were clearly available.
Thank you for your consideration,
Respectfully, Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Response from CASA to Post#2845
Hi Glen
Great to touch base with you again. I have forwarded the email on to Mark but please be aware he is currently overseas and only accessing emails intermittently. I will provide you with a response as soon as I hear from him.
Cheers
Colin
Colin McLachlan| Board Secretary
Great to touch base with you again. I have forwarded the email on to Mark but please be aware he is currently overseas and only accessing emails intermittently. I will provide you with a response as soon as I hear from him.
Cheers
Colin
Colin McLachlan| Board Secretary
Thread Starter
Response re #2842. CASA investigation into assault
Hi Glen
Please find responses to your queries set out below:
Thanks
Jonathan
Please find responses to your queries set out below:
- The reviewer appointed by the organisation CASA has engaged is a former Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch at the Australian Taxation Office and has also worked in the Criminal Law Division of the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department.
- I am not privy to the length of time the review may take as I have not been involved in the procurement, or any discussions with the provider. My understanding is that the review has commenced.
- Thank you for setting out what you believe my starting point in considering your complaint should have been. The Board has agreed that given your allegations about my conduct and integrity, I should not be involved in this review.
- I am not involved in the review.
- It is open to you at any time to report your allegations to the Australian Federal Police: [email protected].
- The complaint was referred to the external investigator in the same terms as it was made.
- I have had no involvement in the procurement or conduct of the external review save for providing the information set out in my email of 28 August 2023. It will be for the external reviewer to assess whether they wish to speak to you — I have been advised CASA has given no instructions either way.
Thanks
Jonathan
It will be interesting to see what definition of “assault” the investigator uses.
That reply if obviously constructed by a legal team.
Glen I hope every bit of correspondence you are sending is being at least reviewed by a legal team.
Shots fired.
Glen I hope every bit of correspondence you are sending is being at least reviewed by a legal team.
Shots fired.
Thread Starter
The CASA appointed investigator
Thanks to some diligent background work done by the crew at Aunty Pru, i think it is safe to assume that this is the individual that CASA has appointed to investigate Mr Edwards false allegation that I moved toward him and shoved him
The appointed individual is likely from this Organisation CPM Reviews
Dom Sheil – Senior Reviewer – Canberra
Dom has had a highly successful and diverse public service career of 35 years.
Most recently, Dom was the Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch (known as “Working Well”) in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Branch was located in HR and was responsible for managing (amongst other things) all misconduct matters in a diverse organization of 18,000 employees and several thousand contractors.
Dom commenced in the APS as a part-time law student working in the ATO in Sydney in varying roles. Moving to Canberra in the early 1990s enabled him to develop sharp policy formulation skills in some complex tax areas.
Once legally qualified, Dom pursued his interests in criminal law and moved to the Criminal Law Division ofbthe Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Dom initially worked on cases involving the
confiscation of criminal assets before moving into international criminal extradition. He worked on the high profile and heavily litigated cases of Peter Foster and Christopher Skase.
In order to broaden his legal skills and knowledge base, Dom moved back to the ATO to the newly developed general counsel area. He covered a broad base of complex legal issues from defamation, contract and intellectual property disputes to (civil) monetary claims against the ATO.
He later specialized in employment and industrial relations disputes before moving into ATO HR, where he reshaped the management of misconduct, worker’s compensation and underperformance.
Dom can undertake complex investigations, including those that involve senior executives and those that require the collection of sensitive evidence. He has extensive experience reviewing and analyzing systemic, process and organization-wide issues and has successfully managed a number of Public Interest Disclosures to finality.
Dom brings a wealth of investigative, legal, policy and practical management experience to any assignment. Dom has a BLegS from Macquarie university and a LLM from the university of Canberra. He is as a legal practitioner of the Supreme court (ACT and NSW) and a barrister of the high court of Australia. He is also a nationally accredited mediator.
The appointed individual is likely from this Organisation CPM Reviews
Dom Sheil – Senior Reviewer – Canberra
Dom has had a highly successful and diverse public service career of 35 years.
Most recently, Dom was the Assistant Commissioner of the Conduct, Health and Underperformance Branch (known as “Working Well”) in the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). The Branch was located in HR and was responsible for managing (amongst other things) all misconduct matters in a diverse organization of 18,000 employees and several thousand contractors.
Dom commenced in the APS as a part-time law student working in the ATO in Sydney in varying roles. Moving to Canberra in the early 1990s enabled him to develop sharp policy formulation skills in some complex tax areas.
Once legally qualified, Dom pursued his interests in criminal law and moved to the Criminal Law Division ofbthe Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department. Dom initially worked on cases involving the
confiscation of criminal assets before moving into international criminal extradition. He worked on the high profile and heavily litigated cases of Peter Foster and Christopher Skase.
In order to broaden his legal skills and knowledge base, Dom moved back to the ATO to the newly developed general counsel area. He covered a broad base of complex legal issues from defamation, contract and intellectual property disputes to (civil) monetary claims against the ATO.
He later specialized in employment and industrial relations disputes before moving into ATO HR, where he reshaped the management of misconduct, worker’s compensation and underperformance.
Dom can undertake complex investigations, including those that involve senior executives and those that require the collection of sensitive evidence. He has extensive experience reviewing and analyzing systemic, process and organization-wide issues and has successfully managed a number of Public Interest Disclosures to finality.
Dom brings a wealth of investigative, legal, policy and practical management experience to any assignment. Dom has a BLegS from Macquarie university and a LLM from the university of Canberra. He is as a legal practitioner of the Supreme court (ACT and NSW) and a barrister of the high court of Australia. He is also a nationally accredited mediator.
Thread Starter
Response to # 2845 and #2846 re. legal rep at meeting. From Board to me.
McLachlan, Colin
to me
Thu, 7 Sept, 15:51 (15 hours ago)
OFFICIALHi Glen
The Chair has asked me to check with you if I may please, whether by legal representation, you are proposing this person speak on your behalf? Also, would you intend for the legal representative to participate in place of your wife as your support person, or in addition to your wife?
Mark asked me to remind you that the purpose of the meeting is not to seek a legal solution to anything, but to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s report and the way forward.
Cheers
Colin
Thread Starter
Follow up to post #2851
len Buckley <[email protected]>
to Colin06:50 (11 minutes ago)Hi Colin,
Thanks for getting back to me.
My wife is attending as she was also the owner of the business that was impacted by the CASA actions. My wife is attending as someone significantly and unnecessarily impacted. The request would be for an additional attendee, and I am currently considering options.
If I were to bring a legal person, my intention is that I would have them accompany me to acquaint themself with the situation and advise me of my options. My approach is to do everything that I can to avoid litigation, but understandably it must remain as my last option. My expectation is that that individual would primarily be a listener.
It may be that at the conclusion of that meeting, that expert advises me that I have no basis to make a claim, then that would obviously suit CASA's agenda.
Thank You to the Chair for his consideration, and I hope you're travelling well. Cheers. Glen
Thread Starter
CASA response- legal representation at meeting
to me
Tue, 12 Sept, 16:01 (13 hours ago)
OFFICIAL
Hi Glen
Trust this email finds you well. In relation to the meeting scheduled on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation (Ms Spence’s email to you dated 27 June 2023 refers), the CASA Board Chair has confirmed he is happy for the meeting proceed with your legal support person in attendance, on the basis that he and Ms Spence may also choose to have a legal support person in attendance. We can exchange specifics closer to the date of the meeting.
Cheers
Colin
Colin | Board Secretary
Tue, 12 Sept, 16:01 (13 hours ago)
OFFICIALHi Glen
Trust this email finds you well. In relation to the meeting scheduled on 3 October 2023 to discuss the outcomes of the Ombudsman’s independent investigation (Ms Spence’s email to you dated 27 June 2023 refers), the CASA Board Chair has confirmed he is happy for the meeting proceed with your legal support person in attendance, on the basis that he and Ms Spence may also choose to have a legal support person in attendance. We can exchange specifics closer to the date of the meeting.
Cheers
Colin
Colin | Board Secretary
the CASA Board Chair has confirmed he is happy for the meeting proceed with your legal support person in attendance, on the basis that he and Ms Spence may also choose to have a legal support person in attendance. We can exchange specifics closer to the date of the meeting.
Thread Starter
Update on false allegation of assault
There are effectively two different topics running here, which can make following this matter somewhat confusing. The APTA matter, and the false and misleading statement that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees, one of which was identified as Mr. Edwards, a CASA Flight Operations Inspector in the Melbourne Office of CASA.
As time progresses i believe that these topics will be more closely intertwined.
This relates to the false allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees made by the CASA CEO to the Senators. A quick recap. I lodged a complaint with the ICC who communicated with the Board and an independent external investigator was appointed to the matter, and that investigation has apparently commenced based on the correspondence from the CASA ICC posted below. Cheers. Glen
14/09/23
Hi Glen
I have been contacted by the external reviewer and asked to provide the documents you refer to in your complaint below (Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf). I have arranged for these to be provided as requested.
Thanks
Jonathan
As time progresses i believe that these topics will be more closely intertwined.
This relates to the false allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees made by the CASA CEO to the Senators. A quick recap. I lodged a complaint with the ICC who communicated with the Board and an independent external investigator was appointed to the matter, and that investigation has apparently commenced based on the correspondence from the CASA ICC posted below. Cheers. Glen
14/09/23
Hi Glen
I have been contacted by the external reviewer and asked to provide the documents you refer to in your complaint below (Mr. Glen Buckley - Documents for release - 07.02.21.pdf). I have arranged for these to be provided as requested.
Thanks Jonathan
Thread Starter
Update on upcoming meeting with CASA
15/09/23
Dear Jonathan,
Thankyou for advising me that those documents have been requested, and that the investigation is underway.
As you are aware I am alleging that a small group of Senior CASA Employees worked collaboratively to bring harm to me personally, noting that most of those individuals have now left the employ of CASA, although a small number do remain., and most notable of those being Mr Aleck, and Mr Brad Lacey. I also believe that other CASA employees chose to collude through their "inaction".
These are the most serious of allegations as you will appreciate, and most particularly because of their respective roles of the particular Government Department that they work in. i.e. the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA)
As with any investigation an important first step is to ascertain motivation.
Can you advise me if the investigator is aware that I believe that Mr Edwaeds actions were part of a more collaborative and collusional approach by the most senior CASA Executive to abuse their significant power and bring harm to me personally?
Could I also respectfully request that you advise the Investigator that I will be in Canberra for a meeting with CASA on Tuesday 3rd October, and could make myself available on either the Monday 2nd October in the afternoon or Wednesday 4th October in the morning if a face to face meeting could be facilitated.
As an afterthought that has just occurred to me, that perhaps you could put to the Board.
As an alternative to the potentially unnecessary approach of involving lawyers, could a consideration be that the independent investigator attend that meeting as an alternative to any lawyers? Could that option be put to the CASA Board.
Regards, Glen Buckley
Dear Jonathan,
Thankyou for advising me that those documents have been requested, and that the investigation is underway.
As you are aware I am alleging that a small group of Senior CASA Employees worked collaboratively to bring harm to me personally, noting that most of those individuals have now left the employ of CASA, although a small number do remain., and most notable of those being Mr Aleck, and Mr Brad Lacey. I also believe that other CASA employees chose to collude through their "inaction".
These are the most serious of allegations as you will appreciate, and most particularly because of their respective roles of the particular Government Department that they work in. i.e. the Civil Aviation Safety authority (CASA)
As with any investigation an important first step is to ascertain motivation.
Can you advise me if the investigator is aware that I believe that Mr Edwaeds actions were part of a more collaborative and collusional approach by the most senior CASA Executive to abuse their significant power and bring harm to me personally?
Could I also respectfully request that you advise the Investigator that I will be in Canberra for a meeting with CASA on Tuesday 3rd October, and could make myself available on either the Monday 2nd October in the afternoon or Wednesday 4th October in the morning if a face to face meeting could be facilitated.
As an afterthought that has just occurred to me, that perhaps you could put to the Board.
As an alternative to the potentially unnecessary approach of involving lawyers, could a consideration be that the independent investigator attend that meeting as an alternative to any lawyers? Could that option be put to the CASA Board.
Regards, Glen Buckley
You need your legal representative present as the investigator is not impartial rather part of the system that has screwed you over time. Neither the department nor the investigator are your friend rather they are ticking boxes to cover public servant arses without giving you justice.
Stop being nice and let your legal representative handle all dealings with them. After all if they were "model litigants" they'd actuallly offer to pay your legal representation but given they have no intention of anything except covering their arses you are pushing sh_t up hill.
You need your legal representative present.
Best wishes dealing with the federal pubic service!
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post: