Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA

[glenb]

2 of 2

Draft Correspondence removed and reposted #2925 and #2926

[Sandy Reith]

Legalities

Glen, I’m sure there’s loads of us glad to see you on the march again and this time talking about legal action.

I also think that waiting again for MPs to help will not achieve the goal of justice for you and your family. You have given all of them ample opportunity over and over again. We all see that a fair deal for you is sorely lacking and that glaring blot on the operations of CASA needs to be expunged.

Those of us that have contributed to your legal fighting fund will certainly be very gratified if and when you decide that this is your only recourse that has a likelihood of success. Unfortunately as the years roll on inflation is taking its toll, but still if you start a legal action I believe your fund will be turbo charged.

[glenb]

Follow up to correspondence Post #2915

26/02/24

Ombudsman reference 2019-713834

My reference Pprune #2923

To the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

On 16/01/24 I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office regarding gross technical errors that had developed within the Ombudsman investigation, and impact on my family’s ability to pursue this matter.

It seems entirely reasonable that where gross misunderstandings have developed within the Ombudsman Office, that the Ombudsman Office would be compelled to address those issues and publicly correct those errors where they have developed.

I am firmly of the belief that these misunderstandings may have developed based on false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman investigation.

I understand that the Ombudsman Office is firmly of the view that they have not been misled, although surprisingly in correspondence I received under FOI, it is immediately obvious that in fact the Ombudsman Office has previously identified that CASA had been somewhat obstructing the process and providing information that may have hindered any investigation rather than assist the investigation with CASAs best endeavours and truthfulness.

That correspondence was sent to you on 16/01/24, and almost 6 weeks later remains unacknowledged.

To be frank, I am of the view that the Ombudsman is fully aware of these gross technical errors, but has chosen to afford the Agency, being CASA, a higher level of “protection” than the public would expect of the Ombudsman’s Office.

The purpose of the correspondence was to correct a fundamental error, of which there are many.

The Ombudsman correspondence received by me indicates that there was more than one flying school, when that is incorrect. This is not a matter of contention, and CASA will be able to promptly clarify that for your Office.

If the Ombudsman maintains that there was more than one flying school which there most clearly was not, and I bought the error to the attention of the Office, it is concerning that the Ombudsman Office would be reluctant to address this fact.

I have very clearly expressed my preference that the Ombudsman withdraw the report in its entirety.

As you are aware, I made multiple requests of your Office to have the matter completely withdrawn, once I became aware that these errors had developed, based on false and misleading information.

Despite my request, the Ombudsman Office elected to proceed with the examination.

If the Ombudsman refuses to withdraw the report, then it seems entirely reasonable that the Ombudsman address those errors, rather than afford the Agency the level of protection that it has to date.

For clarity, there were no other flying schools. There was only ever one CASA approved flying school, and that error by the Ombudsman is easily corrected.

An Approval for an Entity to deliver flying training is referred to as a Part 141 or Part 142 School.

The purpose of the correspondence 6 weeks ago was to correct this gross misunderstanding and ask that the Ombudsman identify which Entities held a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

CASA issues these Approvals after a very complex, lengthy, and expensive process, and there can be no doubt that it is very clear to CASA which Entities hold a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

I am concerned because this matter could be completely clarified with a single telephone call, and it concerns me that after 6 weeks, I have not heard back from the Ombudsman Office.

The purpose of this correspondence is to follow up on that correspondence that I sent to your Office over 6 weeks ago. I know my Father has also been pursuing information from the Ombudsman Office and after 6 months he is still pursuing that matter.

The Ombudsman Office has obviously struggled with this matter in its entirety, and some statements made by that Office leave me in no doubt that there is a significant level of confusion within the Office, which has led to gross technical errors.

My request was quite simple and straight forward, I asked the Ombudsman Office to identify if there were any other flying schools or any other Entity apart from mine, holding the required CASA Approvals.

The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated that it accepts CASA Statements at face value and does not pursue evidence when it is clearly and readily available.

In order to operate as a Part 141 or 142 Flight Training Organisation, that Entity would require.

· A CASA approved Exposition.

· It would have Key personnel, such as a CASA approved Head of operations, safety Manager, and a CASA approved CEO.

· A CASA issued certificate.

· Correspondence between that Organisation and CASA on operational matters etc

The point being that these are black and white matters. The only CASA approved school was APTA, there were no others. When the ombudsman refers to the other Organisations approvals and Authorisations that is quite astounding, as there are none.

This entire investigation has limped along for over 5 years, and the entire process has been mentally exhausting, and pushed me to the very limit.

I am therefore calling on the Ombudsman to respond in a timely manner, and with good intent rather than frustrate processes.

Can the Ombudsman Office please clarify and correct its error and confirm to me that they are fully aware that there was only one Authorisation, that being APTAs, and that no other Entity was a flying school and therefore obviously could not operate a flying school.

Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter. Could I request that the Ombudsman Office outline the procedure for me to have technical errors addressed.

Respectfully.
Glen Buckley

[Global Aviator]

Glen,

You are building great background for the litigator that will take this through and help you.

You need to find that person now, work out who you are chasing and go hard.

You are noble in your attempts to see common sense, however you are fighting a government. Go hard and go now mate.

[glenb]

Submission to Office of Carina Garland 1 of 2

27/02/24

Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm,

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

You will be fully conversant with my matter.

· CASA Senior Executives being involved in the deliberately providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation with the intention to affect the outcome of an investigation.

· An allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Affairs.

I attended your Office at 4PM on 26/02/24 to submit correspondence to your Office on this matter.

A Member of your staff attended to me. I introduced myself and requested that I receive a signed acknowledgement of that submission.

Your staff member was initially willing to oblige and requested the nature of the submission.

I explained that it was of a sensitive nature, and I provided the briefest of overviews.

The staff member appreciated that it was of a substantive nature and consulted with a colleague.

I was advised that your Office would not accept the document.

I explained that I was not expecting them to ‘accept” the document as necessarily true and correct, but I am requesting that they retain the copy from an affected lifelong resident of the Electorate.

They steadfastly refused.

Up until this stage I had made no recording but advised that I would film myself leaving the document, as I did.

At this stage the staff moved to the rear of the office to be out of my view.

I made repeated requests simply to submit the document to my Local MP.

As I was not being attended to, I left the office, On my exit, I left a copy of that document at your front door, and my quite reasonable expectation is that your staff retrieved that document.

I am sending an original copy of the document to you below.

I look forward to your considered response.

For the record. At all times I remained respectful towards your staff, and I am sure that they will concur that at no stage did they feel threatened or unsafe. The only occasion that I was compelled to raise my voice, was when your staff moved out of my eyesight, but at no stage was I agitated. I did not dwell unnecessarily within your lobby for any longer than required, and I left the area once I realised that you would not accept that document. I did try to re-enter the Office to leave that copy, but the door was locked. I tried to call the office to advise them, but they hung up the phone on me.

Overall, a very concerning experience from a constituent who has been impacted, and is simply seeking the assistance of their Local MP.

If your staff believe that they felt unsafe at any time, or if my conduct was not professional and respectful, I ask that you bring that to my immediate attention.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

The correspondence submitted yesterday follows, and as you refuse to meet with me or accept any documentation from me, you have compelled me to reach out to Independent MPs of other Electorates, although I will ensure you remain fully up to date and will include your Office in such correspondence.





· Original Copy presented to the Office of Carina Garland, MP Chisholm on 26/02/24.

· Email sent to Carina Garland MP Chisholm, and other listed recipients 27/02/24.





26/02/2023



Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.

Other pertinent recipients:

Member MP

· Mr Adam Bandt MP

· Mr Stephen Bates MP

· Mr Max Chandler-Mather MP

· Mr Russell Broadbent MP

· Ms. Kate Chaney MP

· Ms. Zoe Daniel MP

· Hon Andrew Gee

· Dr Helen Haines MP

· Ms. Dai Le MP

· Dr. Monique Ryan MP

· Dr Sophie Scamps MP

· Ms. Allegra Spender MP

· Ms. Zali Steggall OAM MP

· Ms. Kylea Tink MP

· Mr. Andrew Wilkie MP

· Senator David Pocock

· Senator Lidia Thorpe

· Senator David Van

· Senator Pauline Hanson

· Senator Jacqui Lambie

· Senator Nick McKim

· Senator David Willmer

· Senator Janet Rice

· Senator Malcolm Roberts

· Senator Tammy Tyrell

· Senator David van

· Senator Larissa Waters

· Senator Peter Whish-Wilson





My name is Glen Buckley, a 59-year resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. An Electorate that four generations of my family have lived in.

As my Local MP, Ms Garland you have an expert knowledge of my matter, as I have kept you fully updated since you won the Seat of Chisholm at the last election. I have also met with you, as has my wife, and on more than one occasion. I have kept you constantly updated by email since those meetings.

I have previously extended multiple invitations to continue to make myself fully available to meet with you at your local Electorate Office in Chisholm, or in your Canberra Office, as best suits you, at any time you feel you require an update. It is crucial that you remain fully informed, as you have been to date, and that you can in turn, ensure Minister King remains fully informed, as presumably Minister King has been to date.

I acknowledge that the CASA Board is also required to keep Minister King informed and I make that assumption based on CASAs own Statement of Intent, where it states:

“CASA will promptly alert Minister King and the Secretary of the Department of any event or issue that may materially impact CASAs operations. CASA will also advise Minister King of any submissions, major media releases or speeches and other information which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.”

My allegations are substantive. If I was found to be making these statements in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I fully understand that I would potentially be subject to criminal, and/or civil action.

As you are fully aware my allegations of

· Providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation, by senior members of the CASA Executive and

· Misfeasance in public office against CASAs second most senior, and the longest serving member of the CASA Executive Management, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs,

are allegations that are substantial and no doubt the CASA Board would be compelled to ensure the Minister is fully briefed.

My intention is to attract media attention to this matter and that should further compel you to ensure that you remain fully conversant with the matter as you are and ensure that relevant persons are kept fully up to date. I have included some media outlets in this email. I have taken this action because the actions of your Office leave me with concerns that there is an attempt to cover up this matter.

These allegations of misconduct cannot continue to be “swept under the carpet”, and I have a reasonable expectation that Minister King is aware that those two allegations exist and has been kept fully informed by the CASA Board, and by your Office. This is a matter that I will continue to pursue, with widespread support of the General Aviation Industry.

You will be aware of two Pilot forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The latter has had over 1.000.000 views and thousands of comments. I understand that the Aunty Pru site also regularly updates your office on mine and other aviation matters.

For that reason, and as a lifelong resident of your Electorate, may I request of you as a Constituent, that your Office ensure that Minister King is aware of, and has been provided a copy of this correspondence by your Office.

My previous correspondence to Minister King on these allegations has not been responded to by her Office, therefore I am seeking a confirmation specifically from your Office, that Minister King is personally aware and has considered this correspondence. I do not require any response from Minister King at this stage, other than confirmation from your Office that it has been provided to her and bought personally to her attention, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

If for any reason your Office is unwilling and/or unable to facilitate that request, could you please clearly advise me of such.

I recently received further documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI), and those documents leave me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to that Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation.

The provision of false and misleading information has been provided by Dr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs and I have increasing concerns that false and misleading information may have also been provided by the Office of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), although the heavily redacted nature of the documents makes that difficult to confirm at this stage.

If the Office of the CASA ICC has not provided false and misleading information, that Office has as a minimum, facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation, and had an awareness that false and misleading information was being provided.

Recent documentation obtained by me under FOI, has raised concerns that the CEO of CASA has also been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information. specifically with regards to how long I had been operating in the CASA approved structure that I was operating with.

On this specific point regarding the involvement of the CASA CEO, and her knowledge of the provision of false and misleading information, I will address that topic after receiving further documentation under FOI. A specific allegation against the CEO of CASA is not the purpose of this correspondence but will be addressed at the appropriate time, and as always, you will be provided with a copy of that correspondence.

I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office will maintain the position that CASA has not provided false and misleading information.

The point of false and misleading information is, that it is not recognised as false and misleading information. The task of the provider of false and misleading information is made easier if the recipient requires a low threshold of evidence or chooses not to seek evidence when it is readily available.

This low threshold of evidence also highlights again deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office that reaffirm the same findings as the Robodebt Inquiry, and these are significant matters, that cannot continue to be ignored i.e. accepting information at “face value” rather than seeking supporting evidence when it is clearly available.

Of perhaps more concern is the Ombudsman’s Office considered avoidance to seek evidence that may bring harm to the Government Agency, even when that evidence is abundant and readily available.

Under FOI in have obtained heavily redacted documents although if I may quote from correspondence between the Ombudsman and the CEO of CASA where the Ombudsman Office has scratched the surface at least of identifying that CASA is not being as forthcoming as they are obligated to be, and I quote from that correspondence where the Ombudsman Office states.

“while CASA has not denied its knowledge of Mr Buckleys arrangements for APTA, we feel it has been reluctant to acknowledge the extent of its knowledge of the model to the Office, including that other Operators may have been using a similar model……had CASA been more forthcoming in acknowledging to the Office the more permissive stance it seemed to have taken in allowing Operators to share their Authorisations prior to October 2018, it would have allowed the Office a better understanding of the situation.”

Whilst the Ombudsman Office appears to have almost let that slip by with a rather “wet lettuce” approach which is concerning, it does further indicate that Mr Jonathan Aleck, his direct senior being the CASA CEO, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have let things “slip” through to the Ombudsman that perhaps were not truthful.

In fact, this presents one of my major challenges and another reason that I am reaching out to make a final request for your assistance.

If the Ombudsman has identified that CASA Employees have apparently misled or as the Ombudsman politely puts it, been ‘reluctant”, and “not forthcoming” in providing information to the Ombudsman Office, it is likely that behaviour would be replicated in a Court of Law, therefore preventing me from seeking justice.

CASA would be obligated, as it is, to conduct itself as a model litigant. I should not need to prove things to be true that the CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner and the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs know to be true.

As you are aware, I have past CASA Employees from senior positions within CASA that have approached me, and offered to come forward and expose this matter, simply by “telling the truth”. It is significant. The matter attends to serious misconduct at the highest levels within CASA, and potentially to the Office of the CEO.

It also potentially involves your Office and the Office of Minister King, although the purpose of this correspondence is not to formally make those allegations at this stage, and I await your response, and an upcoming FOI request before I proceed.

For the record I must state that I made two ex CASA employees available to meet with you. “Witnesses’ who would both be Australia’s most qualified ex CASA Employees to address this matter and bring almost immediate truth and clarity to this matter. Both your Office and the Ombudsman are unwilling to accept that offer. You will appreciate my concern that “other forces are at play” here.

I am now seeking the appropriate forum, to initially introduce at least those two past CASA Employee’s to assist in exposing this matter. Please be assured that I have access to a significant number of past CASA employees, that have offered to make themselves available. Not for the purposes of causing mischief, but to try and bring about improvement and good governance to CASA. These are significant matters, that cannot continue to be covered up.

I will use this opportunity to provide a brief chronology regarding your involvement as my Local MP and the Member for Chisholm to date.

· Prior to the last Election, I met you, and you gave me your personal assurance, if you were to win the Seat of Chisholm from the Liberal incumbent that you would assist me and my family in my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs, and the allegation that CASA was “providing false and misleading information” to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation



· Based on your assurances, in the lead up to the election, I was very active with the assistance of members of the Electorate of Chisholm. I distributed many thousands of leaflets in the Electorate calling for a change of representation to yourself. It was not a Liberal/Labor argument, but rather I was calling for a move towards integrity in Government, and at the time, I felt the Labor Party, and you personally, best represented that. A decision that I obviously regret now,



· You went on to win the Seat of Chisholm on 21/05/22.



· Over the next 6 months I made multiple requests of your Office asking you to meet the commitment that you gave me prior to the Election and meet with my family. Those multiple requests went unanswered by your Office.



· On 16/11/22, after multiple requests and visits to your Office over the 6 months trying to secure an appointment with you, I finally obtained a meeting with you, and at that meeting occurred on 16/11/22, you led my wife and I to believe that you would actively investigate this matter and help us as residents of your Electorate.



· I waited 4 months, without hearing anything at all from you. It became apparent that my matter was not high on your agenda, and presumably you had more important matters to attend to. I sent a follow up email to ascertain if there had been any developments with regards to your offer to assist me in my most serious of allegations of misfeasance in public office and providing false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation.



· On 28/03/.23, I received correspondence from your Office which simply and dismissively read.



“Hi Glen, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister Kings Office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter. I’m sorry we don’t have better news.”

That dismissive response from you as my MP was heart breaking. You were well aware of the impact that this matter had on three generations of my family, all residents of your Electorate, as well as businesses and employees that were dependent on me. You were aware that my wife and I had lost absolutely everything including our family home

Eventually after the enormous toll that Mr Alecks actions and decisions had on me and my family, I fell into a deep depression, made an attempt on my own life, very shortly after receiving your dismissive correspondence and ended up in a psychiatric hospital.

The impact of Mr Alecks actions and decisions was targeted, it was personal, and it was entirely unnecessary. Entirely.

You were aware that I was firmly of the view that Mr Jonathan Aleck had acted with targeted malice towards me, and caused significant harm, you were aware of the substantive nature of my allegations,

Whilst I don’t believe that my 6 decades in the Electorate entitles me to any higher level of assistance than any other Constituent. My family believes we were entitled to at least your best endeavours, which we clearly feel have not been met, and I am forced to question your willingness and ability to assist your Constituents, in matters that they are entitled to your assistance with.

As a Constituent of your Electorate, you have completely failed me, and my family, and to be frank, I question your genuine commitment to your constituents, and your reversal of position leads me to question your integrity.

I am compelled to move forward on this matter because it involves misconduct at the highest levels within the Executive Management of CASA. A most significant and important Government Department. I am not the only one raising allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, but as with mine, all attempts are generally covered up by CASA.

I continue to make myself available to meet with you face to face and update you on any aspects to ensure you can remain fully abreast of this matter.

I know that a person with some exposure to the world of politics, Mr Sandy Reith wrote to you encouraging you to personally make yourself aware of the “salient features of this case”, and a copy of that correspondence that was sent to you follows.

“Dear Dr. Carina Garland,


In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.

I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.

It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise, why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.

I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well-crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).

Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.

Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.

Sandy Reith”



The point of mentioning that correspondence is that it reinforces the fact that you that you have received correspondence on this matter from a third Party, and my hope is that you heeded that advice rather than facilitate a cover up of the matter, and that you have ensured you are fully aware of the “salient features” of this case.

Whilst I do not wish to be unnecessarily combative it is essential that I remain upfront, avoid blindsiding anyone, and ensure that there are clear expectations going forward.

Whilst I do appreciate that as a new MP, your capabilities will be somewhat limited, and I think your Offices response to me, is indicative of that, but I do have a reasonable expectation that you will act with integrity and work with your best endeavours to support Constituents of the Electorate of Chisholm, and most especially because of the very marginal nature of that Seat, and the significant harm caused to one of your Constituents,

My specific requests of your Office, and you personally as my Labor MP for the Chisholm Electorate, and as a Member of the Labor Party, therefore purportedly highly motivated to achieve the highest standards of ethics and integrity, are as follows.

[glenb]

2 of 2

Request One for a response from my MP, Dr. Carina Garland-

Why was the matter not fully resolved in a matter of hours, for what reason was it still unresolved after 8 months.

I maintain that this entire issue with CASA could have been fully resolved in less than 4 hours, if CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck had intended for that to be so.

I am simply seeking an explanation as to why that did not occur.

There is no doubt that Mr Aleck deliberately frustrated resolution of the issue unnecessarily and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support that. That evidence was obtained by me under FOI.

This matter in its entirety is about “intent’”, and very specifically about the “intent” of Mr Aleck.

The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs deliberately placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that caused enormous commercial and reputational harm. He was not compelled to make those decisions.

Less harmful, safer, and more effective actions and decisions were available to him. He clearly did not follow CASAs own stipulated procedures when taking that action, and at no stage did I have any appeal process available to me.

His actions and decisions were based on existing acrimony between us.

Why couldn’t it be resolved on the spot in one meeting that would last less than 4 hours? A truthful answer to that will promptly bring this entire matter to a head,

As you are aware, with no prior notification CASA placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost me and my family more than $10,000 per week initially, and as the months increased that figure rose to approximately $20,000 per week. These remained in place for 8 months until CASA determined that the Business would not be permitted to continue operating in the structure it had adopted for the previous decade. Importantly, Mr Aleck targeted my business specifically, and not others.

All personnel operating under the CASA issued Authorisation now had to Employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation. A most bizarre and unique requirement that has never been placed on any other person’s business, in the aviation industry ever. There is absolutely no legislation that suggests this requirement.

The CASA CEO, the Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory services is fully aware of that, as is the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

The result of having these trading restrictions being imposed for a staggering 8 months with no resolution caused significant commercial and reputational harm, not only to me and my family, but also to other Businesses, Employees, Suppliers, Customers and Students.

I am fully satisfied that a Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services deliberately prolonged resolution of a solution, to bring harm to me and my business, based on existing acrimony between us.

The only “issue” was that CASA wanted to change a paragraph or two in my commercial agreements with my customers. A most bizarre requirement, as CASA never previously had involvement in the commercial aspects of business and focussed on safety and compliance. Nevertheless, I was willing to comply. It was simply a process of retyping some new terminology based on clear and concise guidance on Mr alecks personal requirements.

This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 4 hours at any time before CASA took the action that it did. I believe that Mr Jonathan Aleck placed targeted requirements on me, and me only, and deliberately prolonged resolution of what was a matter that could have been easily resolved and that is in effect the crux of the matter. It is really a matter of “intent: and a powerful employee of CASA using his power to cause commercial and reputational harm to me personally, which in turn, significantly impacted on my health and welfare. It was targeted and it was directed specifically at me. There must be an explanation as to why this simple matter could not be resolved in a matter of a few hours. Considering all the totally unnecessary harm caused, surely my family and I are entitled to that explanation. If CASA is unwilling or unable to address that matter, it is a reasonable request of my MP that they seek that for me.

An explanation provided to you by Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, and understood by you, will help me to understand Mr Alecks actions and decisions. It is imperative that the explanation is signed off by the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence because it is CASAs explanation that I am seeking.

I am however asking that you also satisfy yourself with that explanation if it is forthcoming.

I believe it is highly unlikely that Ms Spence will be able to provide a plausible explanation, as to why a well-intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours could not have had this entire matter finalised to CASAs full satisfaction.

If a plausible explanation could be offered, then that may provide a defence/explanation for Mr Alecks actions and decisions, and it would provide him the opportunity to explain his position and why he felt compelled to make those actions and decisions.

If CASA could provide a plausible explanation, then that would compel me to stop making these public allegations about Mr Aleck, and even potentially provide him some recourse.

Assuming that Mr Aleck has nothing to hide, he would welcome an investigation into his conduct.

My very strong preference is that this is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, or a similar investigative agent or appointee who is not in the employ of CASA. They are the most serious of allegations. Mr aleck is entitled to that process, as, and I have no doubt that he would encourage it.

The Ombudsman office is not the Body to deal with the matter. Issues addressed in the Robodebt Inquiry continue to plague that Body, and its investigative ability is ineffective.

If you feel for some reason that you are not presently equipped to respond to my correspondence, which would concern me, can I actively encourage you to formulate your Offices response, and draw on CASA or the Ombudsman as you require, but ultimately what I am seeking from my Local MP is an explanation as to why so much harm was caused to him and his family, when it was so completely and easily avoidable, and I am asking that my MP obtain that for me, because CASA refuse to address this key issue.

I assume that you would be able to address that issue, as that has been the central theme of my position. i.e., that Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs took actions and made decisions that he was not compelled to make, and that he chose the more harmful option when a significantly less harmful option, more effective and safer option was available to him was fully available to him by way of a single well intentioned meeting.

I feel that I need to be perfectly frank here. I believe that you as my Local MP have acted against the interests of one of your Constituents, and therefore your explanation is crucial in determining how I proceed.

On this matter, and because of the harm caused, and so completely unnecessarily, and that there is no reason that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of a few hours, and it is an allegation of misconduct at the very highest levels of CASA, I must continue to pursue this matter.

Before doing so, I need to fully satisfy myself that I have exhausted all other options available to me, including seeking the assistance of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. It is essential that if this matter gets to Court, I can clearly demonstrate that I have made all reasonable attempts including attempting to have my parliamentary representative take up my case.

If you as my Local MP could provide a plain English explanation in writing as to why this matter could not be resolved in a matter of hours then it would confirm to me that you have considered this matter and that the stance you have adopted i.e. refusing to assist a Constituent in his allegations of misconduct against emplyees of CASA,is a considered one.

My question to you is this.

Ms Garland, as my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, and as somebody who has had his and his family’s life completely decimated by the actions and decisions of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

As the impacted individual who is fully satisfied that this entire matter could have been completely avoided, and so easily.

Could you please provide me an explanation to why this entire matter could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours, what was so complicated?



Request Two of my MP Dr. Carina Garland of Minister Kings “involvement”

I came to you personally with a substantive allegation of misconduct by at least one senior CASA Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck, and potentially two other CASA employees.

Once I became aware that false and misleading information was being provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by CASA, I approached your office, seeking your assistance, which you initially offered and then later reneged on.

Your change of position from one of offering to assist me, to a position of not being able to assist me, was because of a direction by Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, the Organisation that is being investigated, as per the email above from your Office.

You will understand why I would be concerned that Minister Kings Office may be involved in a “cover up” of misconduct, or at least frustrating processes.

A constituent who has obviously had his life impacted by the matter approaches their MP for assistance, alleging that false and misleading information is being provided to an Ombudsman investigation.

The MP initiates the matter and contacts the Minister responsible for the Agency being investigated.

The Minister responsible for the Agency under investigation then directs that Local MP that the MP is unable to assist the Constituent and provides no further explanation.

I hope you can appreciate that I would perceive that there is potentially a cover up of this matter and it extends to both your office and the Ministers Office.

At our meeting I believe that I provided you with sufficient evidence of misconduct. On the balance of probabilities, with the information that you held, any reasonable person would have been suspicious that there may potentially be an element of misconduct, and you would have had an awareness that on the balance of probabilities, CASA had possibly provided false and misleading information.

If you were unable to determine who was telling the truth you would most certainly have been aware that there are two completely different narratives, and only one of those narratives can be the truthful one.

The point being that if you are aware that there are two completely different narratives being provided on matters that are black and white with a significant body of evidence readily available indicating that one is truthful and one is not, then by choosing not to pursue that matter it indicates a concerning level of apathy, if I was to use the most polite and respectful word that applies in such a situation.

A Constituent of your Electorate of Chisholm has had he and his family’s livelihood, business, mental health and life’s savings devastated by the actions and decisions of a single CASA employee, it is a simple request, that if ethics have prevailed in this matter, should be able to be clearly and concisely responded to.

I am seeking an explanation as to why you would be directed by the Minister, not to assist me with my allegations.

The very purpose of our system of Government is that our local Representative uses their best endeavours to assist and represent their Constituents.

I am concerned that Minister King would send you a direction that you cannot assist a constituent of your Electorate, and that causes me significant concern. Whilst I am not making an allegation specifically of an attempted “cover up’ of this matter, at this stage, I am fully satisfied that I am entitled to a “statement of reasons” as the person impacted as to why a Minister would send that direction to a Local MP seeking to pursue justice in a matter that has so obviously caused so much harm and trauma to a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

To clarify this matter and ensure clear expectations regarding my second request

Part A, of this request. Could I respectfully request you confirm that Minister Kings position is unchanged, and that is, that her Office has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and therefore I need to approach other appropriate MPs and/or Senators that I have listed above and included in this correspondence.

Part B, If Minister King maintains the position that you are not able to render assistance to a family that lives within the electorate, could your Office please provide me with an explanation as to why you are unable to render that assistance. I would provide Minister Kings response to those other MPs and Senators to form part of their consideration as to whether they can render assistance to me and my family, and I feel that my family are entitled to that explanation.

Request Three- The identical structure was and continues to be permitted by CASA



CASA maintains that they never permitted the structure that I adopted in my business. I truthfully maintained that multiple organisations adopted that identical structure and that they continue to do so. There can only be one truthful answer. Either CASA always permitted it, and continues to do so 5 years later, or CASA never permitted it.

For clarity, I maintain that CASA always permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I also utilised after a comprehensive CASA process, and I had been doing so for a decade. It was, and is common-place throughout the industry only after a CASA approval

For complete clarity on this matter. CASA always, and most significantly, continues to, permit Operators to adopt the structure that I adopted.

CASA has led the Ombudsman to form the view that the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual”.

I truthfully maintain that I had been operating in that same structure for a decade, with the only changes being those of “continuous improvement” programs or keeping fully up to date with all legislative changes.

Importantly many flight training operators in Australia adopted that same structure.

To you as my MP, I put this third request to you.

If I claim that I operated in the same structure for a decade, and that I adopted a structure that was completely normal throughout the flight training industry and continues to be.

And if CASAs position is that is not the case, CASA never permitted it

CASA steadfastly refuses to respond to my requests. I’m simply asking that you consult with CASA, and obtain a response to these questions.



Fourth request

I am making a formal request to you as my MP that you arrange a meeting between CASA and myself, and I would like you to attend that meeting.

I only ask that a Board Member of CASA also participate in that meeting, in an Observer status.

I would like Ms. Spence or her nominee to attend that meeting.

If you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that meeting, I will make that same request of the other listed MPs and Senators.

I invite you to bring any person you feel may add value to the meeting, and ideally that could be a Member of the AFP or some other nominee, independent of CASA and with some expertise in investigative matters and misconduct.

I would like you to attend that meeting to provide you the opportunity to bring yourself completely up to speed on this matter and ensure full transparency. A meeting of that nature will reduce timelines by many months and avoid the “ping pong” that is so often associated with these matters, as I have experienced to date.

In that Forum, I would raise my allegations, provide evidence, and provide phone access to two past CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, and high levels of expertise in this area.

At the conclusion of that meeting, I would seek your advice on the best path forward.

If no other options are available, I would seek a robust legal assessment of this matter utilising the funds from the Crowd Funding that the industry organised for me.

For that reason, I have also provided a copy of this correspondence to the Law institute of Victoria, asking them to provide me with some guidance on this matter. I am fully satrisfied that Senior Members of the CASA Executive have acted unlawfully and demonstrated misconduct. That misconduct is considered and deliberate.

The reasonable expectation of the Community, and particularly considering the Department that they are employed by, and the Senior positions that they hold is that an investigation would be conducted in short time frames, so as to minimise the impact on CASA and

Going forward.

As the Labor Party is the Party of “ethics”, my hope is that Minister King will change her position and permit you to assist me as a lifelong constituent of your Electorate, and with your best endeavours.

If, however, the Minister continues to direct you not to assist me in this matter, I will be compelled to continue pursuing this matter. I am not the first person to raise these allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, and many have offered to come forward and support my allegations.

Three generations of my family have been residents of the electorate. My intention is to commence a petition within the Electorate of Chisholm.

I will seek the signatures of 2000 constituents of your Electorate being the Seat of Chisholm. I have been an active member of the Community and believe that I can have significant “reach” within the Electorate. I am satisfied that I can promptly obtain 2000 signatures from within the Electorate of Chisholm.

A copy of that petition will be provided to you and distributed to those above listed Independent MPs and Senators and the constituents of their respective Electorates calling on that Representative to temporarily divert some of their resources from a matter that initially may not seem to affect that Electorate.

This is however significant matter of national interest, and aviation safety. My allegation is one of corruption within CASA.

That petition will be addressed to the listed Recipients, calling on them for assistance in this matter.

My preference being very clearly that my local MP pursue this matter with their best endeavours, but if they refuse to do so, you will appreciate that I am compelled to pursue other avenues.

Thank you for consideration of this matter. I apologise for the lengthy nature of the correspondence, but these are substantial matters, and they need to be comprehensively considered.

I look forward to a response earliest opportunity.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley and his family

(four generations of Chisholm constituents)

[glenb]

Brief update

Sitting here in Pancake Parlor, shortly heading off to work.

Thanks again to all for your support.

Please be assured that I am now completely and fully satisfied that there is no "good intent" at all within CASA on this matter.

I have not been naive, but i did need to fully satisfy myself and provide every reasonable opportunity for ethics, good governance, leadership and most importantly "good intent" to prevail.

This matter now has ceased in all interactions with CASA.

When I left the meeting with the Chair of the Board and the CASA CEO, and was on the flight back to Melbourne, my wife what my thoughts were on the individuals that we met with.

My response to my wife was "Ms Spence is a political animal." (note: it was not intended literally, but figuratively). The solution does not lie with Ms Spence. She knows how to operate in the political environment. The solution completely lies withe the Board Chair"

Like most, I consider myself a good judge of character. On that assessment of Ms. Spence, i stand by it.

I am extremely disappointed in the Board Chair. I need to depart for work but I will return to this topic tonight hopefully.

This matter has no direct CASA involvement. It is now purely a political matter, and for a brief period of time that will be my direction. That direction will be relatively short term, but that hand will be forced.

If required litigation will be my only option, although in the lead up to the election, i will remain active within the electorate. Very active.

[PiperCameron]

Glen, I'm sure your intentions are pure but maybe you underestimate the extent of the rot in current Australian politics? It would appear Ms Spence is hardly the only "political animal" in this saga.

I happen to also be a resident of Chisholm and once worked in an office next door to Anna Burke - which was an eye-opening experience. In my experience Ms Garland, her entourage, associates and most of the pollies on your list are, unfortunately, only interested in feathering their nests for their own gain and representation of their constituents is the furtherest thing from their power-addled minds. If they aren't right now, they haven't been in parliament long enough!

If, as you suspect, your saga has turned political, you'll need to find someone willing to take on your cause - for their own political gain if necessary. Not an easy road, but hang in there!!

[Sandy Reith]

Go Political?

A legal challenge would concentrate minds and gain the publicity that might feed into political attention. This would then be a two pronged campaign.
And in case the discussions fall back to ‘its all the greedy politicians fault,’ just remember that most people are disconnected with their MPs, probably most wouldn’t even know their names. In a democracy the people are just as much part of government as the various elected reps and officialdom.

[missy]

You went to the electoral office without a witness. Odd.

Why don't you sent the document via registered mail?

Did you sent it to all the Victorian Senators?

[glenb]

Missy

Regarding attending the office without a witness, I wasn't really too concerned. My assumption was that such an office would have high quality recording devices operating or at least activated as required. I had absolutely nothing to hide, so wasn't too concerned.

I have emailed a copy to the Office of ms garland and received an acknowledgement of receipt

Tomorrow mornings task is distributing it. Cheers. Glen

[glenb]

spondence to attorney general

28/02/24

Dear Carina Garland, MP for the Chisholm Electorate.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. I appreciate that you are fully aware of my matter.

I do acknowledge that Minister King has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and from my personal experience as one of your Constituents in Chisholm, your adherence to the Ministers direction has been resolute. You have been a “loyal soldier”, I will say that. I am confident the Minister is aware of it and acknowledge it

Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of ethics and obligations, but “loyal: nevertheless.

A quality that no doubt will serve you well in your career.

This correspondence is directed to the Attorney General's Department, and I am seeking your assistance.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is promptly forwarded through to the appropriate and responsible person within the Attorney General's Department for consideration, and advice on the action I should now take.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is provided to Minister King and that she is fully aware of the contents of this correspondence.

· I am also requesting that you provide a copy of this correspondence to the Department of the Prime Minister. While I am not asking that the PM be made aware of this matter. I do expect that the correspondence has been received by his Office and a decision maker has assessed whether there needs to be an awareness of this matter with the PM.

If because of that direction by Minister King, not to assist me, or you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that distribution request could you please advise me, and I will seek alternative means to establish contact on this significant matter with those relevant persons. At this stage I am solely dependent on your assistance, I have not made any other attempts to reach those recipients by other means.

I believe that my request as a resident is a fair and reasonable request of you as my Member of Parliament for the Electorate of Chisholm, despite that direction from Minister King not to assist me.

I require no other assistance from your Office at this stage, apart from the confirmation that you distributed the correspondence to

· Attorney general

· Minister King

· Department of the PM



Respectfully Glen Buckley

____________________________________________________________ _____________________________



28/02/2024

To Office of the Attorney General-

I have asked my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland to ensure that this correspondence is received by the appropriate person within the Office of the AG, of these substantive allegations.

My name is Glen Buckley, I operated a flight training organisation for over a decade with bases at various locations across Australia. I operated a business model that was completely standard industry practice, although in October 2018 CASA reversed its Approval, advised I was subject to prosecution, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business only, and not others.

A more detailed explanation is not required now as it is not crucial to the purpose of this correspondence.

The matter was the subject of a five-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

I need to ensure that I achieve absolute clarity on the allegation that I am making in this correspondence. The following CASA Employees,

· Ms Pip Spence the CEO of CASA

· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs

· Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. (ICC)

Have each been directly responsible for, or been complicit in, the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation. The provision of that false and misleading information was deliberate and was intended to influence the outcome of that investigation and cover up an allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs

I am a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, and my MP is Carina Garland.

Dr. Carina Garland has written to my family advising that the Minister responsible for CASA, Minister King has advised that my MP, Dr Carina Garland is not permitted to assist me in this matter, and she has advised me of such. To say that the conduct of my Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been suboptimal would be an understatement.

I am fully satisfied that there is an attempted cover up of this matter, and I feel it essential to bring it promptly to the office of the Attorney General’s Office being the office responsible for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being the Department that is relevant to these allegations.

I encourage the office of the AG to reach out directly to Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, to seek assurances from her that she is confident that she can refute these substantive allegations, and that CASA has not provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. Obviously, that must be the AGs first step. i.e. to confirm the CASA CEOs resoluteness as to the truthfulness of information provided by herself and her Executive team.

I wish to proceed with this matter. These allegations are substantive. I have substantial supporting evidence, and I have sought professional involvement in the formulation of documentation that attends directly to my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs That will be provided in due course.

In this correspondence, I am going to provide you with two sets of “Descriptors”.

One set of ‘descriptors”, is the clear truth and can be supported with an overwhelming body of evidence, including very senior ex CASA Employees. the other is false and misleading.

I am calling on you to present these two sets of descriptors to the investigating officer from within the Ombudsman’s Office

If the Ombudsman has formed the view that the “Group A descriptors” are the more accurate set of descriptors for the structure that I adopted in my Business, then I am fully satisfied that the Ombudsman has been misled by those individuals and must insist that this matter be pursued.

Group A Descriptors.

· A “new” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· An “unusual” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· A “structure” that CASA had not dealt with before was adopted by Glen Buckley

Or,

Group B Descriptors

· Glen Buckley adopted a well “established” structure that had been completely standard industry practice for most medium to larger flying schools and approved by CASA on hundreds of occasions over many decades, as it was with his Organisation until October 2018.

· For over a decade Glen Buckley had adopted “completely normal” organisational structure that was commonplace throughout the industry but only after a formal CASA process. It fully complied with all legislation.

· Glen Buckley adopted an organisational structure that was, and importantly continues to be, a completely standard and CASA approved structure. This structure had been accepted and approved by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over previous decades and continues to be.

This approach facilitates a prompt and efficient means by which an initial assessment can be made. It could effectively be determined of a single phone call between the two Agencies.

If the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that the Descriptors in “A” are more of an accurate representation of the situation, then I am fully satisfied that the named senior CASA Executives have deliberately provided misleading information to the Ombudsman Office, and they have successfully perverted or influenced that investigation.

This rather simplified initial approach will promptly verify the two diverse representations and leave no doubt at all that one Party is providing false and misleading information. This approach requires no technical background or understanding and is intended to very clearly and concisely identify that there are two very opposite “versions”. Somebody is being deceptive and should be held to account for that deceptiveness. In information obtained by me under FOI, the Ombudsman has clearly identified a tendency within CASA to be somewhat less than forthcoming, as would be expected when trying to cover up misconduct.

This really is a black and white matter that would be immediately resolved with a single phone call to someone with expertise on this matter within CASA. That person would have to be someone other than the three named individuals who have clearly and undeniably demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information. Alternatively, I can make half a dozen ex CASA employees almost immediately available to you.

It is not a matter that should be unresolved after 5 years. The only way that this could remain unresolved is that the Ombudsman office is either unable to resolve this basic fact or is unwilling to resolve this basic fact.

I point out that throughout the five-year investigation the two narratives provided by myself, and CASA were so opposed to each other. It would have been immediately obvious at the onset of the investigation that one party was providing false and misleading information.

Turning a blind eye only encourages the continuation of such conduct. The Robodebt Inquiry identified these deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office, they continue, and must be addressed. i.e. accepting the Agencies “word” rather than seeking “evidence’

That is at least the starting point of an initial consideration. My intention is to follow up with shorter correspondence on several topics. In that correspondence you will simply need to ask the Ombudsman which of the descriptors more accurately represent the view that the Ombudsman has formed.

It is staggering that after 5 years the Ombudsman wrote to me advising that they were still unable to make a determination on this issue. A staggering inability. On one hand you have Glen Buckley advising that the structure I used was commonplace throughout the industry, and CASA advising that was not the case and they had never permitted it.

My allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs would depend very much on me being able to demonstrate that I was targeted by Mr Aleck.

An indicator of being targeted would be if Mr Aleck specifically targeted me. I appreciate the “convenience” that comes with the Ombudsman being unable to decide as to whether the structure I adopted was new and unusual, or if was completely standard CASA approved practice for over 30 years. With most medium to larger schools adopting the same structure.

It is however such a staggering inability, that one is compelled to consider that by avoiding a determination on this matter, a level of “protection” is being afforded to Mr Aleck that the public would not reasonably expect from the Ombudsman’s Office.

I also make the point that I have made Australia’s two leading Subject matter experts available to bring almost immediate clarity to this matter. Those two individuals are both ex-CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, who have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.

The refusal by the Ombudsman to accept that offer only reinforces my view that Mr Aleck is being “protected”, and that the Ombudsman is pursuing the more “convenient” path.

I must make note at this stage that the Ombudsman Office has not sought evidence in situations where evidence is available and could potentially have brought harm to the agency and I will attend specifically to those allegations in similar manner in separate correspondence at a later stage. I have put signific work into this document and intend to have it finalised within 30 days.

For your further consideration, and considering that I had operated that Business with the same structure for over decade and Ms Spence claims that the structure was “new” or “unusual” which it most certainly was not, then Ms Spence should be able to clearly identify.

Specifically

1. What was it specifically that was “new” about the structure I adopted for over a decade?

2. What was it specifically that was “unusual” about the structure that I adopted for over a decade?

3. What date was it specifically that something changed in the structure after 2006,that made it become either “new” or unusual”?

These are three questions that CASA resolutely attends to, despite my best efforts.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the AG has established contact with the Ombudsman Office to identify if the named individuals have led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that the Group A descriptors are a more accurate representation from their investigation than the Group B descriptors.

“New” and “unusual” are both “descriptors” used by Ms Spence in correspondence with the Ombudsman Office, that I obtained under FOI, and those descriptors are false and have been used to mislead.

My business model was not new or unusual. It had existed for over a decade with the identical structure. That was a structure that was completely standard industry practice and continues to be to this day. I was targeted by Mr Aleck based on existing acrimony between us.

I appreciate the substantive native of that allegation i.e. misfeasance in public office but I absolutely stand by it, and I am fully prepared to be held fully accountable if it was found that my allegations were vindictive or vexatious.

Ms Spence, the CASA CEO should be able to clearly identify specifically what it is that was “new” about my business structure. I am totally unaware of what it was that was “new”. A failure to specifically identify what was new with reference to legislation or supporting evidence, must surely raise doubts ads to the integrity of Ms. Spence. CASA steadfastly refuses to identify this to me, despite my requests. I am using the word “new” because under FOI I have identified that Ms Spence uses and accepts that terminology in correspondence with the Ombudsman office The terminology “new” is clearly false and misleading.

Ms Spence should be able to identify the specific change to my business structure and the date of that change. What was the change that suddenly made my business become “unusual” and leave me subject to prosecution? I am concerned that CASA refuses to identify this to me. In correspondence obtained by me under FOI, Ms Spence uses and accepts the terminology “unusual” for something that is not at all “unusual” and is in fact completely normal standard industry practice with CASA approval on every occasion. Ms Spence should clearly be able to identify the specific feature that made my Organisation “unusual”.

Any inability or reluctance to directly respond to those questions will clearly demonstrate the lack of “good intent”. They are the very basis that CASA used to force the closure of my business.

Thank you for your consideration of what is a most substantive allegation. If three CASA Executives were found to have provided false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation, it is a substantive matter, potentially with impacts on the safety of aviation.

Thankyou in anticipation of your careful consideration of these allegations. I hope that they will be considered with an approach of a better and safer aviation industry and that the AG Office has the willingness and ability to confront this matter.

If I can leave one final thought, should this matter proceed to litigation which appears to be CASAs preferred course of action. CASA will be compelled to act as a model litigant. One of those obligations upon CASA as a model litigant is that I should not be required to prove something that CASA already know to be true.

You will understand the difficulty that I have in proceeding with this matter if CASA chooses to mislead an Ombudsman investigation and is successful in that, it prevents me from seeking justice as it is likely that pattern would continue.

I am providing the link to a presentation I made on this matter to the Senate on 20/11/20 where I directly raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck. The other named individuals departed CASA shortly after.

Senate Rural Regional Affairs & Transport Committee GA Inquiry - Mr Glen Buckley - YouTube

I also attach a link to Pprune being a discrete pilots forum. The link will take you to the front page, my topic Glen Buckley and small business V CASA can be promptly identified. You will note that there are well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments almost entirely supportive. A staggering level of support from industry on such a discrete forum.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...-questions-91/

I have also attached a link to the GoFund Me page that was established to support me. I have placed a pause on this pending the outcome of my current attempts to bring ethics and integrity to this matter. The “comments” attached to donations are revealing.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa

I eagerly anticipate advise from the AG on how to proceed with this matter.

If I may leave the AG with one final consideration in support of my allegation of misfeasance in public office. Ms Spence should be able to provide a plausible answer as to why this matter could not have been fully resolved by a single meeting of less thah 4 hours. Why did it drag out for over 8 months with no resolution, and crippling trading restrictions in place for 8 months with the matter no further to resolution.

I have attached two articles from the Australian flying magazine that provide a good initial read. These are titled APTA before CASA action and APTA after CASA action

Respectfully



Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Distribution

A copy of the previous post has been sent to all Federal Greens MPs this morning, with this brief covering letter.

To Members of Parliament for the Greens,


":My name is Glen Buckley a Constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have approached my MP for Chishiolm being Dr. Carina Garland, and her Office has advised that Minister King has directed her not to assist me in this matter. Her conduct leaves me in no doubt that there is an attempt to suppress my allegations, and that extends through to the Office of Minister King.

At this stage, I am not seeking any specific support or action from the Greens, but I do want to ensure that there is at least an awareness of this matter amongst Green and independent representatives.

Thankyou for accepting my correspondence. Respectfully Glen Buckley

[glenb]

Distribution

I have distributed the correspondence to all Independent MPs with this brief covering letter.

My name is Glen buckley, and I am a Constituent of Chisholm. My Local MP is Dr.Carina Garland of the ALP.


I am writing to each Independent Parliamentary Representative raising awareness of my substantive allegations of misconduct within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Those allegations are raised specifically against the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Jonathan Aleck.

This has been a subject of a 5 year investigation by the Ombudsman Office. Recently I have obtained information under FOI that leaves me in no doubt that the Minister King and my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland have some level of involvement in this matter. My Local MP, Dr Carina Garland has been instructed by Minister King not to assist me on this matter. The Office of Dr Carina Garland refuses to accept any submissions from me on this matter, as a result of that direction from Minister King.

As a 4 generation family of Chisholm residents and as a 6 decade constituent myself, I am concerned that my Local MP would not assist a constituent.

While I am not seeking any specific involvement of your Office, I am wanting to ensure that there is at least an awareness amongst our Independent Representatives.


I will also be working diligently within the electorate to ensure fellow constituents are aware that my local MP has been directed by the Minister not to assist me, and those efforts will increase measurably in the lead up to the next election.

I will also be seeking media involvement.

The allegations extend into the Office of Minister King. Minister King's integrity has been recently questioned on Aviation related matters , and I too am questioning the Minister's integrity.

I have an abundance of evidence available to me,including senior ex CASA employees, and fully intend to see this matter through to a determination.

Below you will find my most recent correspondence on this matter.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

... and to Bob Katter

The Office of Hon. Bob Katter

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carina Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.


I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,


Respectfully

Glen Buckley

[glenb]

and to the Centre Alliance

The Office of Rebekha Sharkie MP,

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carinan Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.


I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,


Respectfully

Glen Buckley

[aroa]

Good luck with responses from Katter and Sharkie.
Some years ago when dealing with a serious issue with the Fort, the evil Dr and perjuring AWIs I met with Bob and handed over a packet of material re.
outcome…zip zilch. All he had done was hand it on to the perps to deal with.!!
File 13 no doubt.

[MalcolmReynolds]

Glen GO TO COURT! Stop this endless letter writing. It is a total waste of your time and mental energy.

[Global Aviator]

Glen,

Read the room mate.

It’s time to go the nuclear option.

No offence meant but on here when I open this post I roll my eyes when I see the more letters and the more attempts.

The silence has spoken.

While you still have the support from many here giddyup!

[Asturias56]

Originally Posted by MalcolmReynolds

Glen GO TO COURT! Stop this endless letter writing. It is a total waste of your time and mental energy.

Glen

THEY'RE NOT LISTENING.

These people only react to donors, the press and the courts.

Get a lawyer