Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
The following 2 users liked this post by Flaming galah:
Thread Starter
MLE
I have put this on here, directed towards MLE, but it does apply to everyone that has followed this thread. Assuming that MLE has moved on as he siuggested I have also sent it as a PM.
MLE. First. Thank you for your support to date, and I understand that you are no doubt a "supporter" still, but a frustrated one. You are not alone.
The support from this forum has been exceptional, it really has. I know this sounds dramatic, but I would be in a far far darker place if it wasn't for Pprune and Aunty Pru. I chose to stay away from Facebook, Tik Tok etc. I wasn't trying to Grandstand or cause mischief. I turned immediately to Prune, and those initial responses, the empathy, and the support landed right on target. They buoyed me significantly.
If it wasn't for Pprune, CASA would have buried me years ago, and I have no doubt at all about that. The only weapon I have at my disposal was to see if there was widespread industry support out there. There was. Its been well intentioned, staunch, knowledgeable, and there can be no doubt that it has been invaluable to me.
I will give you only one of many dozens of examples. I can't locate the Post but it is in there somewhere.
CASAs own ICC found that CASA had known about APTA for a significant period of time. With everything going on the significance of that was lost on me at the time.
'After that ICC finding, the Ombudsman found that CASA didn't know about APTA.
How could the Ombudsman arrive at a finding that CASA didn't know about APTA if CASA had already found that in fact CASA did know about APTA.
The CASA ICC had found that CASA did know, so that should be the CASA narrative from that date. However, someone else from within CASA, and I have no doubt that it is Mr. Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman otherwise.
Very clearly someone is misleading the Ombudsman. One Organization cannot possibly have two contrasting narratives.
I believe that this point will become significant at a future date.
Anyway, I had overlooked the fact that CASAs own ICC had found that CASA did know.
Someone on here made a post about exactly that. Something that I had completely missed.
A second example is the background support and learned advice that I have received from here, or just the well-intentioned comments.
I am aware that my supporters are waning and becoming increasingly frustrated, and that many also contributed to the GoFund me Page for the very purpose of seeking legal assistance.
I used a portion of those funds to seek "guidance". I want to be a bit careful with I write here.
One of those initial meetings was with a very reputable firm.
At that stage had I have proceeded; it was very clear that my outlook was bleak. Had I proceeded, it is unlikely that I would have succeeded. This is a case at that time that would have cost me over $750,000. A staggering amount.
I stepped back, and withy the information I now had I knew what was important and the direction I needed to take. I also got some exceptional learned advice on here from one poster in particular.
A portion of those funds has been used to obtain some tweaking along the way.
A lot of the legwork that has been done, with at least half of it not on PPrune, I believe that I am very well prepared. The ping pong component is done and finished. The exact tactics that CASA used on me, would have been used on my legal team at significant expense. I have certainly learnt that CASA has a lot of "capability" when it comes to delaying tactics, as the industry is completely aware.
To may on here, what appears as a long rant in correspondence is in my mind something more than that. Most correspondence has multiple recipients from within and outside the industry, so i am trying to capture a wide variety of recipients, and at the same time "involve" parties that may prefer to not be "involved" such as my MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland, and also the Minister.
I'm ensuring that there can be no defense as to a lack of awareness.
Consider this. Minister King is fully aware that CASA now admits that in fact I did not stalk or assault any CASA Employee despite Shane Carmody PSMs false statement to the Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. The Minister is aware of that and far more, yet chooses not to act, but rather to facilities misconduct. As this matter moves to the next stage the Ministers involvement and knowledge will become increasingly apparent.
Recently, I have begun to question myself about my chosen path, due to the withdrawal of support. But I truly reflected on it, and I'm satisfied with my decisions. Not all of them perfect admittedly, nevertheless they were my decisions and I'm responsible for them.
On a slightly deeper level, I sought some "professional" advice to discuss my real motivations and here is what i discovered.
I opened up my flying school with a good friend in 2005, and we both had a vision. A very passionate one. That business boomed from day one, and exceeded our expectations, in how much satisfaction it gave us. We never advertised and it grew on word of mouth. We maintained an industry leading level of safety and compliance, and no disrespect to any other school, but we attracted the very best instructional team at Moorabbin airport.
My "legacy" was going to be a flying school that was fondly remembered in the industry.
The business grew and the 'legacy" that i wanted to leave grew. I wanted to preserve regional flying schools that were going to discontinue operations.
The question was put to me. What was the single one thing that you wanted most.
I recounted the MFT opening party in 2006, which was probably one of the biggest parties that the Airport had ever seen. I wanted a similar thing when i retired. I wanted a large farewell where I could surround myself on my last day with all my past staff, students, suppliers etc. and look around and reflect on what a fortunate life I had. Quite sadly, it was almost exclusively about that farewell. Quite sad and self-centered really, but it was something actually much deeper than that. I had envisaged a night that would be one of the most significant in my life.
Instead of resolving this matter in a matter of hours as Aleck/CASA could have he/they chose a far more engineered and destructive path that was entirely unnecessary.
MLE, and others. Please be 100% assured that I will meet my deadline to pursue litigation.
What the legal firm will have is a client, who is extremely task focused, knowledgeable, and well prepared. There will be no unnecessary delays while we wait for significant FOI requests. The firm will be able to move forwards quickly and effectively.
CASA will find an adversary that they have not come up against before, and i will fully expose this.
I got forced out of the industry and had my family's life upended as a result of this.
The direction is about to change and change substantially. I have nothing to lose, and quite frankly. If I do go down, I will go down swinging.
MLE, can i ask that you return in early April to the forum.
My legacy has been somewhat altered, and i will settle for nothing less than bringing an end to the misconduct within CASA.
Thankyou sincerely, sipping the last bits of coffee, and heading out the door.
Cheers Glen
MLE. First. Thank you for your support to date, and I understand that you are no doubt a "supporter" still, but a frustrated one. You are not alone.
The support from this forum has been exceptional, it really has. I know this sounds dramatic, but I would be in a far far darker place if it wasn't for Pprune and Aunty Pru. I chose to stay away from Facebook, Tik Tok etc. I wasn't trying to Grandstand or cause mischief. I turned immediately to Prune, and those initial responses, the empathy, and the support landed right on target. They buoyed me significantly.
If it wasn't for Pprune, CASA would have buried me years ago, and I have no doubt at all about that. The only weapon I have at my disposal was to see if there was widespread industry support out there. There was. Its been well intentioned, staunch, knowledgeable, and there can be no doubt that it has been invaluable to me.
I will give you only one of many dozens of examples. I can't locate the Post but it is in there somewhere.
CASAs own ICC found that CASA had known about APTA for a significant period of time. With everything going on the significance of that was lost on me at the time.
'After that ICC finding, the Ombudsman found that CASA didn't know about APTA.
How could the Ombudsman arrive at a finding that CASA didn't know about APTA if CASA had already found that in fact CASA did know about APTA.
The CASA ICC had found that CASA did know, so that should be the CASA narrative from that date. However, someone else from within CASA, and I have no doubt that it is Mr. Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman otherwise.
Very clearly someone is misleading the Ombudsman. One Organization cannot possibly have two contrasting narratives.
I believe that this point will become significant at a future date.
Anyway, I had overlooked the fact that CASAs own ICC had found that CASA did know.
Someone on here made a post about exactly that. Something that I had completely missed.
A second example is the background support and learned advice that I have received from here, or just the well-intentioned comments.
I am aware that my supporters are waning and becoming increasingly frustrated, and that many also contributed to the GoFund me Page for the very purpose of seeking legal assistance.
I used a portion of those funds to seek "guidance". I want to be a bit careful with I write here.
One of those initial meetings was with a very reputable firm.
At that stage had I have proceeded; it was very clear that my outlook was bleak. Had I proceeded, it is unlikely that I would have succeeded. This is a case at that time that would have cost me over $750,000. A staggering amount.
I stepped back, and withy the information I now had I knew what was important and the direction I needed to take. I also got some exceptional learned advice on here from one poster in particular.
A portion of those funds has been used to obtain some tweaking along the way.
A lot of the legwork that has been done, with at least half of it not on PPrune, I believe that I am very well prepared. The ping pong component is done and finished. The exact tactics that CASA used on me, would have been used on my legal team at significant expense. I have certainly learnt that CASA has a lot of "capability" when it comes to delaying tactics, as the industry is completely aware.
To may on here, what appears as a long rant in correspondence is in my mind something more than that. Most correspondence has multiple recipients from within and outside the industry, so i am trying to capture a wide variety of recipients, and at the same time "involve" parties that may prefer to not be "involved" such as my MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland, and also the Minister.
I'm ensuring that there can be no defense as to a lack of awareness.
Consider this. Minister King is fully aware that CASA now admits that in fact I did not stalk or assault any CASA Employee despite Shane Carmody PSMs false statement to the Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. The Minister is aware of that and far more, yet chooses not to act, but rather to facilities misconduct. As this matter moves to the next stage the Ministers involvement and knowledge will become increasingly apparent.
Recently, I have begun to question myself about my chosen path, due to the withdrawal of support. But I truly reflected on it, and I'm satisfied with my decisions. Not all of them perfect admittedly, nevertheless they were my decisions and I'm responsible for them.
On a slightly deeper level, I sought some "professional" advice to discuss my real motivations and here is what i discovered.
I opened up my flying school with a good friend in 2005, and we both had a vision. A very passionate one. That business boomed from day one, and exceeded our expectations, in how much satisfaction it gave us. We never advertised and it grew on word of mouth. We maintained an industry leading level of safety and compliance, and no disrespect to any other school, but we attracted the very best instructional team at Moorabbin airport.
My "legacy" was going to be a flying school that was fondly remembered in the industry.
The business grew and the 'legacy" that i wanted to leave grew. I wanted to preserve regional flying schools that were going to discontinue operations.
The question was put to me. What was the single one thing that you wanted most.
I recounted the MFT opening party in 2006, which was probably one of the biggest parties that the Airport had ever seen. I wanted a similar thing when i retired. I wanted a large farewell where I could surround myself on my last day with all my past staff, students, suppliers etc. and look around and reflect on what a fortunate life I had. Quite sadly, it was almost exclusively about that farewell. Quite sad and self-centered really, but it was something actually much deeper than that. I had envisaged a night that would be one of the most significant in my life.
Instead of resolving this matter in a matter of hours as Aleck/CASA could have he/they chose a far more engineered and destructive path that was entirely unnecessary.
MLE, and others. Please be 100% assured that I will meet my deadline to pursue litigation.
What the legal firm will have is a client, who is extremely task focused, knowledgeable, and well prepared. There will be no unnecessary delays while we wait for significant FOI requests. The firm will be able to move forwards quickly and effectively.
CASA will find an adversary that they have not come up against before, and i will fully expose this.
I got forced out of the industry and had my family's life upended as a result of this.
The direction is about to change and change substantially. I have nothing to lose, and quite frankly. If I do go down, I will go down swinging.
MLE, can i ask that you return in early April to the forum.
My legacy has been somewhat altered, and i will settle for nothing less than bringing an end to the misconduct within CASA.
Thankyou sincerely, sipping the last bits of coffee, and heading out the door.
Cheers Glen
The following 4 users liked this post by glenb:
If they are, I regret them as I think you’re now on the right track going after the ICC for his total lack of integrity and corrupt conduct. You can’t trust a word that comes out of that snake’s mouth, I wonder what the purpose of those findings were as they can only have been to benefit CASA.
Thread Starter
Deadlegdeadengine
Cheers for taking the next step from being a lurker to joining in order to make that post. Very much appreciated, and especially as I know I am losing many due to fatigue. Landed at a good time. Cheers
Thread Starter
Ombudsman Response #2915,2923,2962
I know your weary folk but I do have a few more days on my own deadline. A few finishing touches.
In posts #2915,2923, and 2962 I made a request of the Ombudsman over several months. The response is below. Nothing new or exciting in it, but I am just posting it for reference. Cheers,.2019-713834 / 2024-102179
28 March 2024
Mr Glen Buckley
By email: [email protected]
Dear Mr Buckley
Your complaints about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
I am writing in response to your emails of 16 January 2024 and 26 February 2024 regarding the Office’s handling of your complaint about CASA between 2019 and 2023.
While your emails are lengthy and cover several issues, I understand your main points
to be:
• you believe Office investigation staff understood there were flying schools other than APTA involved, which is incorrect.
• you are unhappy that, despite your requests to withdraw your complaint about CASA, the Office elected to continue with its investigation.
• you believe the Office’s conclusions regarding your complaint about CASA were based on false and misleading information.
To consider these issues, I reviewed all records associated with the investigation conducted by Mike and Mark, and the review conducted by Catherine.
Involvement of 'other' flying schools
In your emails, you asserted that correspondence provided to you by Office staff suggested those staff understood that the existence of flying schools other than APTA
was a factor in CASA's decision making. You pointed out that entities that wish to deliver flying training must hold relevant CASA approvals and asked the Office to identify
which other entities held these.
In my review of our records, I did not identify any statements by Office staff about approved flying schools other than APTA. I also did not identify any such statements in
CASA's responses to the Office's investigation.
Further, based on the records and correspondence on the investigation file, I am satisfied that Mike, Mark and Catherine understood that, across its members, APTA was
the only CASA approved flying school. The records reflect Office staff were aware that APTA's business model was premised on flying training being conducted from
members' bases under APTA's authorisation, being necessary because members did not hold their own approvals.
Failure to act on requests to withdraw
I acknowledge that on at least 2 occasions you asked Mark and Catherine to pause or cease their handling of your complaint about CASA. At those times you explained that the impacts of CASA’s decision on your business and finances were causing you significant distress and you no longer wished to engage with the Office about these or associated matters.
Under section 8(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976, Ombudsman staff have broad discretion to investigate complaints in the way they think best. This means that while
staff may agree to cease their investigation when a complainant asks them, they are not required to do so. It is clear from the records and from their contacts with you that
Mark and Catherine believed the matters you raised with the Office were serious and complex and - given the time the Office had already invested and the serious impact
you said that CASA’s actions had on your business - warranted continued investigation.
I note that you continued to communicate with Mark and Catherine about the investigation after they declined your requests to withdraw your complaint.
I am satisfied this position was open to them in the circumstances and, as such, do not consider there is any basis for the Office to withdraw the conclusions that resulted from the investigation and subsequent review.
1 Under Part 141 or 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
1300 362 072 ombu
dsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
Reliance on false and misleading information
In your emails, you claimed the Office's conclusions about your complaint were based on 'gross misunderstandings' that arose from CASA providing false and misleading
information. You called on the Office to ‘address and publicly correct’ its errors. Catherine was aware of your view that CASA misled the Office by providing incorrect
information and this was one of the focuses of her review. In her letters to you on 8 and 17 February 2023, Catherine advised:
Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought
to withhold information from us.
Your most recent emails do not contain any information that would prompt me to
revisit Catherine's assessment of the truthfulness of CASA's responses. However, if you have further information or evidence on this point, I invite you to provide this to the
Office so we may consider it.
Conclusion
In the absence of additional information or evidence (as outlined above), I do not intend to take any further action on your recent emails. While I know you may be
dissatisfied with this outcome, I hope you will see that I have carefully considered the issues you raised.
If you would like to speak with me about this letter, please contact me at [email protected] so we can arrange a suitable date and time.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX
Senior Assistant Ombudsman
Investigations
In posts #2915,2923, and 2962 I made a request of the Ombudsman over several months. The response is below. Nothing new or exciting in it, but I am just posting it for reference. Cheers,.2019-713834 / 2024-102179
28 March 2024
Mr Glen Buckley
By email: [email protected]
Dear Mr Buckley
Your complaints about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)
I am writing in response to your emails of 16 January 2024 and 26 February 2024 regarding the Office’s handling of your complaint about CASA between 2019 and 2023.
While your emails are lengthy and cover several issues, I understand your main points
to be:
• you believe Office investigation staff understood there were flying schools other than APTA involved, which is incorrect.
• you are unhappy that, despite your requests to withdraw your complaint about CASA, the Office elected to continue with its investigation.
• you believe the Office’s conclusions regarding your complaint about CASA were based on false and misleading information.
To consider these issues, I reviewed all records associated with the investigation conducted by Mike and Mark, and the review conducted by Catherine.
Involvement of 'other' flying schools
In your emails, you asserted that correspondence provided to you by Office staff suggested those staff understood that the existence of flying schools other than APTA
was a factor in CASA's decision making. You pointed out that entities that wish to deliver flying training must hold relevant CASA approvals and asked the Office to identify
which other entities held these.
In my review of our records, I did not identify any statements by Office staff about approved flying schools other than APTA. I also did not identify any such statements in
CASA's responses to the Office's investigation.
Further, based on the records and correspondence on the investigation file, I am satisfied that Mike, Mark and Catherine understood that, across its members, APTA was
the only CASA approved flying school. The records reflect Office staff were aware that APTA's business model was premised on flying training being conducted from
members' bases under APTA's authorisation, being necessary because members did not hold their own approvals.
Failure to act on requests to withdraw
I acknowledge that on at least 2 occasions you asked Mark and Catherine to pause or cease their handling of your complaint about CASA. At those times you explained that the impacts of CASA’s decision on your business and finances were causing you significant distress and you no longer wished to engage with the Office about these or associated matters.
Under section 8(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976, Ombudsman staff have broad discretion to investigate complaints in the way they think best. This means that while
staff may agree to cease their investigation when a complainant asks them, they are not required to do so. It is clear from the records and from their contacts with you that
Mark and Catherine believed the matters you raised with the Office were serious and complex and - given the time the Office had already invested and the serious impact
you said that CASA’s actions had on your business - warranted continued investigation.
I note that you continued to communicate with Mark and Catherine about the investigation after they declined your requests to withdraw your complaint.
I am satisfied this position was open to them in the circumstances and, as such, do not consider there is any basis for the Office to withdraw the conclusions that resulted from the investigation and subsequent review.
1 Under Part 141 or 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.
1300 362 072 ombu
dsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601
Reliance on false and misleading information
In your emails, you claimed the Office's conclusions about your complaint were based on 'gross misunderstandings' that arose from CASA providing false and misleading
information. You called on the Office to ‘address and publicly correct’ its errors. Catherine was aware of your view that CASA misled the Office by providing incorrect
information and this was one of the focuses of her review. In her letters to you on 8 and 17 February 2023, Catherine advised:
Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought
to withhold information from us.
Your most recent emails do not contain any information that would prompt me to
revisit Catherine's assessment of the truthfulness of CASA's responses. However, if you have further information or evidence on this point, I invite you to provide this to the
Office so we may consider it.
Conclusion
In the absence of additional information or evidence (as outlined above), I do not intend to take any further action on your recent emails. While I know you may be
dissatisfied with this outcome, I hope you will see that I have carefully considered the issues you raised.
If you would like to speak with me about this letter, please contact me at [email protected] so we can arrange a suitable date and time.
Yours sincerely
XXXXXXX
Senior Assistant Ombudsman
Investigations
What the F is a Senior Assistant Ombudsman? 🤣
Thread Starter
Board response to Post # 2963, 2966
Post # 2963 I formally raised allegations of misconduct with the Board
Post # 2966 I sought clarification that Mr Aleck was not involved in the process of FOI requests.
Post #2975 I received an acknowledgement from the Board that a response would be forthcoming.
That response is below. It came via Pip Spence. Cheers.
Dear Mr Buckley
The Chair of the CASA Board, Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, has asked me to forward to you his response to your recent emails: (from Pip Spence)
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your two emails dated 20 and 22 March 2024.
Firstly, as I have previously assured you, the Board has a detailed understanding of your case. Further, the Board is satisfied that there is no risk to aviation safety in relation to the specific matters you have raised.
You may remember that when Ms Spence and I hosted a meeting with you and your wife in Canberra, I confirmed the Board’s understanding of your situation and personally apologised on behalf of the Board, and CASA more broadly, for the manner in which CASA had communicated and engaged with you some years ago.
As an outcome of that meeting, we offered a without prejudice ex gratia payment for damages that may have been caused by a 2019 email to you and a full commitment from us that we would support you with an application for an Act of Grace payment through the Commonwealth Department of Finance. I note that you are yet to respond to either of those offers.
In regard to the Minister and Government, it is your prerogative to approach them directly. Should you choose to do this, we would provide all required information.
In respect of other details in your email, CASA has fully supported an independent investigation by the Industry Complaints Commissioner and two independent investigations by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Should you have new information relevant to those independent investigations we will continue to fully support and cooperate with any new investigation by them.
Should you choose to raise any matter with the Australian Federal Police, we commit to fully support and cooperate with any enquiries they may decide to take.
Finally, I can assure you that, as you have been advised on several occasions, Dr Aleck no longer has involvement in any of the processes or matters relating to you or the allegations you have raised.
Yours sincerely
Mark
Post # 2966 I sought clarification that Mr Aleck was not involved in the process of FOI requests.
Post #2975 I received an acknowledgement from the Board that a response would be forthcoming.
That response is below. It came via Pip Spence. Cheers.
Dear Mr Buckley
The Chair of the CASA Board, Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, has asked me to forward to you his response to your recent emails: (from Pip Spence)
Dear Mr Buckley
Thank you for your two emails dated 20 and 22 March 2024.
Firstly, as I have previously assured you, the Board has a detailed understanding of your case. Further, the Board is satisfied that there is no risk to aviation safety in relation to the specific matters you have raised.
You may remember that when Ms Spence and I hosted a meeting with you and your wife in Canberra, I confirmed the Board’s understanding of your situation and personally apologised on behalf of the Board, and CASA more broadly, for the manner in which CASA had communicated and engaged with you some years ago.
As an outcome of that meeting, we offered a without prejudice ex gratia payment for damages that may have been caused by a 2019 email to you and a full commitment from us that we would support you with an application for an Act of Grace payment through the Commonwealth Department of Finance. I note that you are yet to respond to either of those offers.
In regard to the Minister and Government, it is your prerogative to approach them directly. Should you choose to do this, we would provide all required information.
In respect of other details in your email, CASA has fully supported an independent investigation by the Industry Complaints Commissioner and two independent investigations by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Should you have new information relevant to those independent investigations we will continue to fully support and cooperate with any new investigation by them.
Should you choose to raise any matter with the Australian Federal Police, we commit to fully support and cooperate with any enquiries they may decide to take.
Finally, I can assure you that, as you have been advised on several occasions, Dr Aleck no longer has involvement in any of the processes or matters relating to you or the allegations you have raised.
Yours sincerely
Mark
Glen,
April 2 is upon us………..
It’s time for gloves to come off!
April 2 is upon us………..
It’s time for gloves to come off!
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by glenb:
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Havick! Great to have you still there, bought a smile to my face as I sipped on first mouthful of coffee here at the pancake parlor.
A couple of comments while I'm here.
Please be assured everyone that I am commencing the process as i said I would. There is no doubt in my mind that CASA has forced my hand on this, and it is there preferred option.
A major hurdle to me will be those findings of the Ombudsman Office, and I am proceeding with some FOI requests.
A further hurdle is to find the right lawyer. I have spoken to one, but despite his expertise and experience in this topic, he was unable to pursue the matter as CASA is an existing client.
I have contacted the Victorian Law Society and their referral service which was of limited value. Almost appeared to generate 5 lawyers at random, with no substantive linking of experience and expertise, and i did speak to two of them.
For those outside of Victoria, there is an interesting case here where a man called Andrew Cook owned a company called "i-cook" i believe. A government employee set him up, his business was closed, and it appears in hindsight that he was "done over". The matter continues, and he ran aginst Daniel Andrews in Mulgrave last election. Presumably his legal firm would have experience in similar matters. I contacted the law society again trying to seek the name of his legal firm, or his contact details, and they could help me with neither. I will; still pursue this path, as I would like to meet with and talk to Mr Cook. If anyone by any chance has any contact details< i would be appreciative. I don't Facebook and don't really know how to use it, and would far prefer to keep it that way.
Please be assured I will keep you updated.
A couple of considerations for anyone that gets in a protracted dispute with CASA and drawing on my my last 5 years.
CASA will drag it out, and i know that the consensus will be NO! You dragged it out. Ok. lets meet half way. Something I will say, and I still stand by is that in order to make this matter progress promptly much of the background work has been done, and the evidence and people are readily available to me.
CASA would not meet with me prior to the investigation being finalised, and legal advice was to wait for that Report, and it was foolish to proceed without it. That Ombudsman investigation could have and should have taken less than 5 months, for it still to limping along after 5 years demonstrates the impotence of that Government Department. Rather than make me angry it really saddens me because the failures of that department is unacceptable as its impacted on others as identified by the robodebt investigation, and not only me.
On FOI requests. CASA have 30 days to respond. They then have other options up their sleeve to gain an additional 30 days, creating a two month delay. It only needs to be utilised several times, and there goes a year. My advice to anybody that is making an FOI request is that they also include this wording as I do now in my requests. The common one is to say that the request involves third parties and they have to consult. This usually arrives on or just before the first 30 day expiry, and results in another 30 days. The truth is that on receipt of that initial request CASA already know that it involves 3rd Parties, yet they wait 30 days to advise you. My suggested text if you make a request. More for your records and as a demonstration of "intent" or lack of, I suggest
" in order to afford me natural justice and procedural fairness, may I respectfully request that immediately your Office becomes aware that this request involves third Parties and will require a 30 day extension, could you advise me as soon as practical after you become aware. Rather than wait to the end of the 30 day limit to advise me. I appreciate that you are entitled to utilise that extension, but I believe that its intended to provide more robust responses rather than be utilised to create unnecessary delays'
One other final point. You can push hard, and to be honest I must say I have been somewhat surprised. My strong preference would have been for CASA to initiate legal action, but they have steadfastly avoided it. I thought that at least Mr aleck would have had a go. If it had of been me on a $500,000 package for over two decades, and someone made statements about me, and if they weren't true, and my Employer would act on my behalf, I would tell em to jam their job, and i would go after them personally. Unless of course I was guilty.
Anyway folks, great to have you hanging in there still. Cheers. I am moving forward.
A couple of comments while I'm here.
Please be assured everyone that I am commencing the process as i said I would. There is no doubt in my mind that CASA has forced my hand on this, and it is there preferred option.
A major hurdle to me will be those findings of the Ombudsman Office, and I am proceeding with some FOI requests.
A further hurdle is to find the right lawyer. I have spoken to one, but despite his expertise and experience in this topic, he was unable to pursue the matter as CASA is an existing client.
I have contacted the Victorian Law Society and their referral service which was of limited value. Almost appeared to generate 5 lawyers at random, with no substantive linking of experience and expertise, and i did speak to two of them.
For those outside of Victoria, there is an interesting case here where a man called Andrew Cook owned a company called "i-cook" i believe. A government employee set him up, his business was closed, and it appears in hindsight that he was "done over". The matter continues, and he ran aginst Daniel Andrews in Mulgrave last election. Presumably his legal firm would have experience in similar matters. I contacted the law society again trying to seek the name of his legal firm, or his contact details, and they could help me with neither. I will; still pursue this path, as I would like to meet with and talk to Mr Cook. If anyone by any chance has any contact details< i would be appreciative. I don't Facebook and don't really know how to use it, and would far prefer to keep it that way.
Please be assured I will keep you updated.
A couple of considerations for anyone that gets in a protracted dispute with CASA and drawing on my my last 5 years.
CASA will drag it out, and i know that the consensus will be NO! You dragged it out. Ok. lets meet half way. Something I will say, and I still stand by is that in order to make this matter progress promptly much of the background work has been done, and the evidence and people are readily available to me.
CASA would not meet with me prior to the investigation being finalised, and legal advice was to wait for that Report, and it was foolish to proceed without it. That Ombudsman investigation could have and should have taken less than 5 months, for it still to limping along after 5 years demonstrates the impotence of that Government Department. Rather than make me angry it really saddens me because the failures of that department is unacceptable as its impacted on others as identified by the robodebt investigation, and not only me.
On FOI requests. CASA have 30 days to respond. They then have other options up their sleeve to gain an additional 30 days, creating a two month delay. It only needs to be utilised several times, and there goes a year. My advice to anybody that is making an FOI request is that they also include this wording as I do now in my requests. The common one is to say that the request involves third parties and they have to consult. This usually arrives on or just before the first 30 day expiry, and results in another 30 days. The truth is that on receipt of that initial request CASA already know that it involves 3rd Parties, yet they wait 30 days to advise you. My suggested text if you make a request. More for your records and as a demonstration of "intent" or lack of, I suggest
" in order to afford me natural justice and procedural fairness, may I respectfully request that immediately your Office becomes aware that this request involves third Parties and will require a 30 day extension, could you advise me as soon as practical after you become aware. Rather than wait to the end of the 30 day limit to advise me. I appreciate that you are entitled to utilise that extension, but I believe that its intended to provide more robust responses rather than be utilised to create unnecessary delays'
One other final point. You can push hard, and to be honest I must say I have been somewhat surprised. My strong preference would have been for CASA to initiate legal action, but they have steadfastly avoided it. I thought that at least Mr aleck would have had a go. If it had of been me on a $500,000 package for over two decades, and someone made statements about me, and if they weren't true, and my Employer would act on my behalf, I would tell em to jam their job, and i would go after them personally. Unless of course I was guilty.
Anyway folks, great to have you hanging in there still. Cheers. I am moving forward.
Thread Starter
and another quick thought.
There is more than one narrative or topic here, and perhaps each requiring the services of a different law firm, and that is how I will proceed initially. Please don't be disappointed by my first legal update, and it will be brief, but, I have elected to go in first with a "jab" rather than the "punch". If you paid for a subscription, the fight will at least go more than one round. Based on the way i've managed timelines to date, it may prove to be the best value package out there!
Finally PPrune. Exceptional. I cant thank Pprune and Aunty Pru enough. PPrune had the option to shut this down at any time over the last five years. The silence has been encouraging. I own everything I say, and I'm prepared to be fully accountable for it. I do not want to drag Pprune into it. The responsibility bis mine. I assume that the experience levels behind PPrune have identified it as a public interest matter with implications to the safety of aviation as it is. Whatever the reasons its great to have these more discrete forums rather than the big brash ones. Cheers to those behind Pprune. (and Aunty Pru)
Finally PPrune. Exceptional. I cant thank Pprune and Aunty Pru enough. PPrune had the option to shut this down at any time over the last five years. The silence has been encouraging. I own everything I say, and I'm prepared to be fully accountable for it. I do not want to drag Pprune into it. The responsibility bis mine. I assume that the experience levels behind PPrune have identified it as a public interest matter with implications to the safety of aviation as it is. Whatever the reasons its great to have these more discrete forums rather than the big brash ones. Cheers to those behind Pprune. (and Aunty Pru)
The following users liked this post:
Hi Glen, if it's any help please contact the Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, they have members that would be quite happy to take on CASA:
Home | ALAANZ : Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand - aviation ALAANZ about developing Association Zealand Aviation There
Home | ALAANZ : Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand - aviation ALAANZ about developing Association Zealand Aviation There
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Walschaert valve
Hi Glen, if it's any help please contact the Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, they have members that would be quite happy to take on CASA:
Home | ALAANZ : Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand - aviation ALAANZ about developing Association Zealand Aviation There
Home | ALAANZ : Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand - aviation ALAANZ about developing Association Zealand Aviation There
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
A slight change of direction
On here going forward i've decided to hold off posting on the APTA/MFT subject. Things are moving. Slowly and requiring significant mental effort.
I will however continue to post on matters of CASA providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, which is its own topic.
Specifically I have alleged that Mr Jonathan Aleck has deliberately provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation for the purposes of covering up his own misconduct.
I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office has found that Mr Aleck has not provided false and misleading information to them. By inference it is I that has provided false and misleading information, so it needs to be fully resolved.
I have sent this correspondence to the Ombudsman Office today, and copied in my local MP, Carina Garland and Minister King
To the relevant person within the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
I have been involved in a 5 year investigation into the closure of my business by CASA, by the Ombudsman Office.
A primary reason for that investigation taking 5 years is because false and misleading information has been provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation.
I seek no comment against that, and that is not the purpose of this correspondence.
I intend to pursue my allegation that Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs has provided grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
He has done that deliberately, and has done so to cover up his misconduct.
I specifically do not want my allegation investigated by the Ombudsman Office, as it is that Body that has been successfully misled.
My preference is to approach the AFP on this matter, if that is an option.
The sole purpose of this correspondence is to seek clear and concise direction from the Ombudsman Office on the options available to me.
My Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been directed by Minister King, being the Minister responsible that she cannot assist me with this matter. That is not an option available to me, and regardless I am seeking a more formal forum. as stated with a strong preference for that body to be the AFP. I will await your guidance on this matter.
Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Glen Buckley
I will however continue to post on matters of CASA providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, which is its own topic.
Specifically I have alleged that Mr Jonathan Aleck has deliberately provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation for the purposes of covering up his own misconduct.
I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office has found that Mr Aleck has not provided false and misleading information to them. By inference it is I that has provided false and misleading information, so it needs to be fully resolved.
I have sent this correspondence to the Ombudsman Office today, and copied in my local MP, Carina Garland and Minister King
To the relevant person within the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.
I have been involved in a 5 year investigation into the closure of my business by CASA, by the Ombudsman Office.
A primary reason for that investigation taking 5 years is because false and misleading information has been provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation.
I seek no comment against that, and that is not the purpose of this correspondence.
I intend to pursue my allegation that Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs has provided grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
He has done that deliberately, and has done so to cover up his misconduct.
I specifically do not want my allegation investigated by the Ombudsman Office, as it is that Body that has been successfully misled.
My preference is to approach the AFP on this matter, if that is an option.
The sole purpose of this correspondence is to seek clear and concise direction from the Ombudsman Office on the options available to me.
My Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been directed by Minister King, being the Minister responsible that she cannot assist me with this matter. That is not an option available to me, and regardless I am seeking a more formal forum. as stated with a strong preference for that body to be the AFP. I will await your guidance on this matter.
Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Glen Buckley
Thread Starter
Correspondence to Minister King
27/04/24To Minister King,I am writing to you on a significant matter.
I will be brief because I know that both CASA and I have kept you fully briefed,
I am seeking confirmation that this correspondence has been brought to your personal attention.
I have sent previous correspondence to your Office on this matter, and it is not even automatically acknowledged. It may be a simple “error” in the settings. Irrespective I am requesting acknowledgement of this correspondence,
I want to ensure that you are fully aware that I have raised allegations with you that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
I appreciate the significance of that statement, but I stand fully behind it, and am accountable for it.
The Ombudsman Office has formed the opinion that they have not been provided false and misleading information by Mr Aleck.
That only confirms to me that they have been successfully misled.
This is a matter that needs to be fully resolved, and in as short a timeline as practical, because of the potential implications if my allegations were found to be true.
The significance of Mr Alecks position and the responsibility of the Department that he works for demands the very highest standards of integrity, and you are compelled to act.
As the Minister responsible for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) please provide me with your preferred option for me to have this matter fully resolved. A process that Mr Aleck himself will no doubt be enthusiastically supportive of.
In the first instance may I respectfully request a simple confirmation that this correspondence has been brought to the attention of the Minister, whilst a more substantive response is considered.
If a determination is made that this correspondence does not need to be brought to the attention of the Minister,may I respectfully request the Position of the person that has determined that this does not need to be brought to her direct attention.
Respectfully Glen Buckley.
Glen,
Hey mate I should possibly PM you this but no doubt it’s what many are thinking.
Just stop posting until you have an engaged law firm.
I would hate to see something you post being held against you. Mind you it’s nothing new you are positing. Now it really is starting to look like rambling.
Not having a go at you mate, actually I think you’ve stuck in my head as I just had pancakes for breakfast!
I’ve been kicked in the nuts not by CASA but by their employees in the past, unlike you I wasn’t mature enough to understand what really happened. Ahhh hindsight and as I said I’m living this case vicariously through you.
You appear to have a very strong case. Throw that GoFundMe money to a law firm now. Get their immediate advice and follow it.
I can never see this case going to court, an out of court settlement with a hush kit fitted to the 70’s model man 🤣.
I say everything above in full belief of you.
Its the individuals that need to be held accountable, but they won’t be, the organisation will be and that will only happen with that pot of gold and mate if you do this right it’s not at the end of the rainbow.
Go hard, engage, and above everything look after yourself and family. Let the lawyers take 99.99% of the stress off you!
Hey mate I should possibly PM you this but no doubt it’s what many are thinking.
Just stop posting until you have an engaged law firm.
I would hate to see something you post being held against you. Mind you it’s nothing new you are positing. Now it really is starting to look like rambling.
Not having a go at you mate, actually I think you’ve stuck in my head as I just had pancakes for breakfast!
I’ve been kicked in the nuts not by CASA but by their employees in the past, unlike you I wasn’t mature enough to understand what really happened. Ahhh hindsight and as I said I’m living this case vicariously through you.
You appear to have a very strong case. Throw that GoFundMe money to a law firm now. Get their immediate advice and follow it.
I can never see this case going to court, an out of court settlement with a hush kit fitted to the 70’s model man 🤣.
I say everything above in full belief of you.
Its the individuals that need to be held accountable, but they won’t be, the organisation will be and that will only happen with that pot of gold and mate if you do this right it’s not at the end of the rainbow.
Go hard, engage, and above everything look after yourself and family. Let the lawyers take 99.99% of the stress off you!
The following 3 users liked this post by Global Aviator: