Glen Buckley and Australian small business -V- CASA
Legalities and polititics
I think most, if not all of us, as supporters of Glen are more than keen to see a legal challenge to right the egregious wrong done to Glen, his family and staff, not to mention GA as a whole.
About Glen’s prolific writing to politicians; if, and hopefully, when, judgement day finally arrives none of those elected representatives will be able to claim innocence due to lack of knowledge.
Responsibility needs to be sheeted home to our MPs who have supported by inaction and acquiescence the wrong model of governance, that of an independent regulator which was invented in 1988 by shifting aviation out of then Minister Gareth Evans’ Transport Department.
.
The government of our country consists of ourselves as voters as well as the legislatures and the judiciary, therefore we also bear responsibility.
Ring write contact your MPs and State Senators asking what policies do they have to reform Australia’s GA industry, and do they support Ministerial responsibility as a cornerstone of the Westminster system of democracy.
About Glen’s prolific writing to politicians; if, and hopefully, when, judgement day finally arrives none of those elected representatives will be able to claim innocence due to lack of knowledge.
Responsibility needs to be sheeted home to our MPs who have supported by inaction and acquiescence the wrong model of governance, that of an independent regulator which was invented in 1988 by shifting aviation out of then Minister Gareth Evans’ Transport Department.
.
The government of our country consists of ourselves as voters as well as the legislatures and the judiciary, therefore we also bear responsibility.
Ring write contact your MPs and State Senators asking what policies do they have to reform Australia’s GA industry, and do they support Ministerial responsibility as a cornerstone of the Westminster system of democracy.
The following 2 users liked this post by Sandy Reith:
Thread Starter
Mr Aleck- false and misledaing advice to Ombudsman
To the FOI Department CASA.
You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date.
I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this matter, and my understanding is that by now she will have forwarded on my documents as requested as they are highly relevant. My understanding is that she will have established contact with the Ombudsman. I have been seeking clarification from her Office for over two months now, but have not heard back from her, although I will follow up again
I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman FOI Department as this correspondence will be the basis of a request that I will be making of that Office that is related to this matter, and will form part of my evidence gathering.
My intention is to take this information to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek guidance on options available to me, to pursue my allegations against Mr Aleck.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.
This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" was not aware of the structure that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful.
I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct, and in this correspondence I will present my evidence and be seeking further supporting evidence.
I will be making a separate request under FOI for the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. In support of my allegation I will refer to documents that I obtained under FOI, and present that information here.
Under FOI, I have obtained a document dated 9 October 2017 . This document was submitted to CASA by a competitor of APTA as they identify themselves as one. . The tone of the letter suggests that it was not a friendly competitor. No Competitor had ever approached me raising concerns or to clarify their understanding. It is possible that the letter was sent for reasons other than reasons of aviation safety.
The second point that I would make is that the "writer" is clearly not a flight instructor, and probably unqualified to comment. The writer obviously has negligible knowledge of the regulations, and the wording of the email to CASA clearly indicates that.
Irrespective of the lack of understanding of the writer, the writer importantly does receive a response from CASA. I have also received that response from CASA under FOI, and that response is concerning because the CASA employee in his response to the writer clearly states that he or she will approach the "legal area" of CASA. The date of the correspondence is 12 months before Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department being the "legal area" first became aware.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018.
Yet under FOI, I receive correspondence 12 months prior where a competitor has raised concerns about the structure, and the CASA employee responds to that competitor stating.
"Hello (redacted)
Thanks for your email. Let me look into this for you. I will most likely have to seek advice from our legal area. I will be back in touch when I have more.
Best regards, (redacted) Safety Assurance Branch/CASA \ Aviation Group"
Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department first became aware in October 2018, yet correspondence dated 12 months prior leaves me in little doubt that truthfully the date was 1 year prior than Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman.
The documents that I am requesting.
The CASA employee gave the competitor an undertaking in early October of 2017, being 1 year before Mr Aleck claims the "legal area" first became aware that he would establish contact with the legal area of CASA. It is unlikely, but perhaps the CASA Employee took 12 months to get around to establishing contact with the legal area, and in that case I would withdraw my allegation on this particular subject.
I am seeking the document that the CASA Employee sent to the legal area, and the chain of emails that are related to this specific topic, including correspondence back to the original writer.
This is significant because one must wonder why if the legal area first became aware 1 year prior than Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe, there was absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss the matter, raise any concerns, seek a solution. CASA merely sat on that for 12 months and then 1 year later blindsided me with correspondence advising that my business of a decade is unlawful, threatens me with prosecution, contacts all my customers destroying mine and my businesses reputation, places crippling trading restrictions, and advises I have 7 days to continue operating.
It makes no sense.
Thankyou for accepting this FOI request in support of my allegation that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
You may or may not be aware that I have made allegations directly with Minister King that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. I have included Minister King in this FOI request as a courtesy, and to ensure that she remains fully aware of my allegations against Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, as she has been to date.
I have included my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland on this matter, and my understanding is that by now she will have forwarded on my documents as requested as they are highly relevant. My understanding is that she will have established contact with the Ombudsman. I have been seeking clarification from her Office for over two months now, but have not heard back from her, although I will follow up again
I have also included the Commonwealth Ombudsman FOI Department as this correspondence will be the basis of a request that I will be making of that Office that is related to this matter, and will form part of my evidence gathering.
My intention is to take this information to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to seek guidance on options available to me, to pursue my allegations against Mr Aleck.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information on multiple occasions. He is aware that the information is false and misleading, and he has provided that false and misleading information to deliberately cover up his own misconduct.
This correspondence deals only with the Commonwealth Ombudsman finding that the "legal area" was not aware of the structure that I had adopted until October 2018, when CASA provided me with notice that my business of a decade was now unlawful.
I thought it was quite ludicrous that Mr Aleck would assert that the "legal area" only became aware of APTA in October 2018. Throughout the 5 year Ombudsman investigation, I sensed that Mr Aleck was being afforded an extremely high level of protection by the Ombudsman Office. The Ombudsman Office did this by taking Mr. Aleck at his word, and not seeking evidence when it is clearly available, and specifically if that evidence may bring harm to Mr Aleck. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman took Mr Aleck at his word and at the conclusion of the five year investigation the Ombudsman confirmed their earlier finding, and wrote to me advising, "Complaint Officer Mark’s email to you dated 23 December 2020 concluded that the evidence available suggested the legal area of CASA had not been made aware of the business structure used by APTA prior to October 2018. This should be distinguished from CASA more broadly.
There can be no doubt at all that Mr Aleck as the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs , which is the "legal area" of CASA ,was aware of APTA far earlier than he had convinced the Ombudsman to believe. He was misleading the Ombudsman Office to cover up his own misconduct, and in this correspondence I will present my evidence and be seeking further supporting evidence.
I will be making a separate request under FOI for the Ombudsman Office to supply me the "evidence" that they referred to, and used in arriving at their determination that the "legal area was not aware until October 2018", as I hold evidence that clearly indicates that the Legal area of CASA was aware at least 12 months before Mr Aleck would have the Ombudsman believe. In support of my allegation I will refer to documents that I obtained under FOI, and present that information here.
Under FOI, I have obtained a document dated 9 October 2017 . This document was submitted to CASA by a competitor of APTA as they identify themselves as one. . The tone of the letter suggests that it was not a friendly competitor. No Competitor had ever approached me raising concerns or to clarify their understanding. It is possible that the letter was sent for reasons other than reasons of aviation safety.
The second point that I would make is that the "writer" is clearly not a flight instructor, and probably unqualified to comment. The writer obviously has negligible knowledge of the regulations, and the wording of the email to CASA clearly indicates that.
Irrespective of the lack of understanding of the writer, the writer importantly does receive a response from CASA. I have also received that response from CASA under FOI, and that response is concerning because the CASA employee in his response to the writer clearly states that he or she will approach the "legal area" of CASA. The date of the correspondence is 12 months before Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department being the "legal area" first became aware.
Mr Aleck has clearly provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Recall that on the "evidence" provided by Mr Aleck to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman had found that Mr Alecks "legal area of CASA" only became aware of APTA in October 2018.
Yet under FOI, I receive correspondence 12 months prior where a competitor has raised concerns about the structure, and the CASA employee responds to that competitor stating.
"Hello (redacted)
Thanks for your email. Let me look into this for you. I will most likely have to seek advice from our legal area. I will be back in touch when I have more.
Best regards, (redacted) Safety Assurance Branch/CASA \ Aviation Group"
Mr Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman that his department first became aware in October 2018, yet correspondence dated 12 months prior leaves me in little doubt that truthfully the date was 1 year prior than Mr Aleck convinced the Ombudsman.
The documents that I am requesting.
The CASA employee gave the competitor an undertaking in early October of 2017, being 1 year before Mr Aleck claims the "legal area" first became aware that he would establish contact with the legal area of CASA. It is unlikely, but perhaps the CASA Employee took 12 months to get around to establishing contact with the legal area, and in that case I would withdraw my allegation on this particular subject.
I am seeking the document that the CASA Employee sent to the legal area, and the chain of emails that are related to this specific topic, including correspondence back to the original writer.
This is significant because one must wonder why if the legal area first became aware 1 year prior than Mr Aleck has led the Ombudsman to believe, there was absolutely no attempt whatsoever to discuss the matter, raise any concerns, seek a solution. CASA merely sat on that for 12 months and then 1 year later blindsided me with correspondence advising that my business of a decade is unlawful, threatens me with prosecution, contacts all my customers destroying mine and my businesses reputation, places crippling trading restrictions, and advises I have 7 days to continue operating.
It makes no sense.
Thankyou for accepting this FOI request in support of my allegation that Mr Aleck has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley
