Follow up to Ms spence
 

02/07/23

My reference Pprune #2719



Dear Ms Spence,

Please accept this follow up correspondence in regard to our meeting in October 2023.

Thank you for facilitating a meeting of 2 hours. I appreciate that you won’t walk out the room on the 121st minute, nevertheless I believe that we can achieve what we need to achieve, in a well-intentioned two-hour meeting.

I have had a few days to reflect, and after a rather restless night, made the decision to write to you this morning.

I don’t want you to be “broadsided” at that meeting, so the purpose of this letter is to ensure that we have clear expectations, and I appreciate you outlining, that you don’t want to be going over “old ground”.

Please understand that from my perspective, my business, livelihood, health has been impacted. Our family lost absolutely everything, including our family home as a result of this.

My mental health has been devastated by this entire episode, and the sad truth is that in the depths of depression, and on the cusp of taking my own life a couple of months ago, I ended up in a psychiatric facility. I am now a patient of one of Australia’s leading psychiatrists, and a psychologist. After a lifetime of avoiding any medication, I am now on antidepressants. My family lost absolutely everything. Their home, their savings, their Father and Husband.

This matter in its entirety was completely avoidable.

From my personal perspective, without any doubt, the most heartbreaking aspect of this entire matter has been my loss of self-esteem and self-respect because of all the people that have been impacted by placing their trust and confidence in me.

I would like to achieve the following outcomes during that two-hour meeting.



Expected Outcome One- Act of Grace Payment

I am of the opinion that CASA unlawfully and with targeted malice took action that closed my business and was entirely unnecessary. There were no legitimate safety concerns nor were there any regulatory breaches, and at all times I operated fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in my Exposition/Operations Manual.

I believe that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA. That is not my preferred option.

Throughout the last five years, I have gone further than could be reasonably expected of any person to avoid litigation. Litigation suggests to me that there is a complete breakdown of “good intent”. It is unnecessarily combative, protracted and distracts resources.

My preferred course of action is to put forward a request for an Act of Grace payment. This request would not be successful if it were opposed by CASA.

My hope is that An Act of Grace payment could be considered an Alternative Dispute Resolution, as outlined in Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017, where it states



“the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.

In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:

• act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
• deal with claims promptly
• make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
• pay legitimate claims promptly
• not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
• keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
• consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.”

At the end of that two-hour meeting, I would like to obtain a decision from you and the Chair of the Board, whether or not CASA will oppose that claim for an Act of Grace payment.

For simplicity of the Act of Grace Payment, it would be for the purpose of compensating/reimbursing staff, customers, students, Suppliers, the other businesses closed down by CASA actions, and others who were dependant on me.

It would not contain any claim for me personally, or for the harm and trauma caused to me. I would waive any claim to those aspects in the interests of a prompt resolution, by way of an Act of Grace Payment By rectifying the harm caused to so many, it would lift an enormous mental burden from me, and at least go some way to resolving this entire matter and allowing me to move forward with my life.

It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA simply “changes its mind” about a business after 10 years, the persons affected by that change of “interpretation” of the law, should not be impacted, just as a homeowner is reimbursed when the house is to be bulldozed for a road. It is an entirely reasonable expectation.

If the CASA Chair and CEO determine that they will oppose an Act of Grace Payment, then I can see little benefit in waiting until October to receive that information.

Could you please advise if you would be in a position to advise me at the conclusion of that meeting if CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment?



Expected Outcome Two- Why this matter could not be fully resolved in 4 hours.

As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that this matter could have been fully resolved in four hours, yet it dragged on for over 8 months, and was still not resolved. I am fully satisfied that if CASA was acting in Good Faith this matter and its associated harm could have been completely avoided.

I would like to obtain CASAs explanation on why this matter could not be fully resolved in four hours.

There must have been some reason from CASAs perspective as to why it was not easily resolved in one meeting of less than four hours. If I could explain that to my family, the people impacted, and the wider industry, it would assist me greatly.

In order to go someway to restoring my reputation I would like to be able to explain to those that were dependent on me, as to why I could not resolve this apparently simple matter to CASAs full satisfaction. It seems an entirely reasonable expectation, and I am sure you will concur.





Expected Outcome Three- The single issue was all personnekl were not directly employed by me.

The most distressing part of the last five years has been that I have no idea what I did wrong. I do not know what piece of legislation was breached. I don’t know what specific mistake that I made, I have no idea which of my procedures was deficient, I have no idea of any safety concerns.

My understanding is that because I utilised personnel under my AOC that were not always also my employees, I was in breach of the regulations.

That was effectively the single issue.

Had every one of those personnel operating under my AOC been directly employed by me, then CASA would never have raised any concerns at all, and my business would not ever have been contacted by CASA or had any action taken against it, as Craig Martin from CASA advised me in writing, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, flight training can be conducted by APTA Employees only, not Employees of Affiliates’

I would like to exit that meeting with a clear understanding of this requirement by CASA. It is not a requirement, and has never been a legislative requirement. This seems to be a restriction placed only on my own flying school and not on the other 300 flight training organisations in Australia.

So, my question would be. If all personnel operating under my AOC were also directly employed by me, would CASA ever have imposed the trading restrictions, and if so, could you identify the justification.



Expected Outcome Four- Allegation of misfeasancev in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

One month prior to that meeting I will provide.

· The CASA Board,

· The CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner

· My Local Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland

with a substantial document outlining my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.

If that document can be considered prior to that meeting, my intention would be that I formally submit that document to the CASA ICC for an internal investigation.

If CASA choose not to conduct their own internal investigation, then I will pursue alternatives.

I believe that Mr Aleck would support that request. I have made significant allegations against his conduct, and I expect that he would be supportive of any investigation to refute my allegations.



Expected Outcome Five

On the initial notification of 23rd October 2018, CASA placed trading restrictions on my business, based on alleged contravention of the following four rules and regulations, and these are the only four allegations that have ever been put forward to me.

· Paragraph 7 of the Aviation Ruling

· Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act

· Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act

· CASR 141.050

I would like to get a clear and concise response from CASA, after almost five years. Is the CASA position that I did, or I did not break those regulations.

Consider a person that is charged with an offence by the police, and he has to wait five years to have his guilt or innocence determined in a court of law. If over the next five years, the Police become aware that in fact no offence had occurred then they should be prepared to admit that, rather than attempt to pursue the matter, and possibly in a corrupt manner.

The point is that after 5 years of continuing investigation by the police, the reasonable expectation of the Police is that they are as confident, or more confident, of their position after 5 years.

If they are confident, they should be able to confidently restate their position, at all times throughout that five-year investigation, and right up until they walk into the Courtroom.

At our meeting, I would be seeking that same commitment from CASA i.e., a yes or no response to each of those four allegations made in October 2018.

It is an entirely reasonable request as I am sure you will agree.

Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with yourself, the CASA Chair, and Industry Complaints Commissioner in October 2018, I look forward to your considered response. Hopefully with clear expectations and good intent, we can resolve this matter in its entirety before the end of October 2023.

I must however make it very clear that if you inform me that CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment, I give you my solemn word that I will pursue legal action, as I will have pursued every other option that is available to me.

You are aware of the aviation forums of “Aunty Pru” and “Pprune”. There is strong industry pressure for me to pursue legal action and has been for a protracted period.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Follow up FOI- contracts
 

28/06/23

Dear Keeley, (CASA FOI Office)

On 14/06/23 I submitted an FOI request to CASA regarding "contracts". (My reference Pprune #2675)
On 14/06/23 You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune #2676, CASA reference F23/21245)
On 20/06/23, I provided additional information. (My reference Pprune #2690)
On 23/06/23, You responded seeking further clarification. (My reference Pprune # 2702)

My response to that request for additional information follows. (My reference Pprune # 2720)



Thank you for the further follow up regarding my FOI request for "contracts."


Ironically, the issue that you are experiencing is exactly the very same issue that I experienced. for 8 months in my dealings with CASA, iI is indeed very "broad", to use your words. Where does one begin with such a "broad" requirement?

To be upfront with you.

I am fully satisfied that CASA personnel with significant power within CASA,chose to use that power inappropriately to bring harm to me personally, and that they were successful in achieving that objective. I do not believe that their actions and decisions were motivated by the safety of aviation.

In October 2018, , after I had been operating my flying school, in that same structure for over a decade, with no prior warning,CASA advised me that I was now suddenly operating unlawfully, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost well in excess of $10,000 per week, throughout the 8 months.

The crux of the matter in its entirety, was that a CASA employee had made a determination that ALL personnel operating under my AOC must also be my Employees, they could not be an Employee of another Entity. It was a preposterous assertion. That restriction has never been placed on any other Flight Training Organisation in this Country ever., That ludicrous position put forward by CASA has absolutely no legislative basis whatsoever, and it applied to my Organisation only.

Had all personnel operating under my AOC, also been my own Employees, the fact is that CASA would never have taken any action against me, and my business, and that is why this matter in its entirety is so preposterous.

However, CASA advised that if I could change the wording in my existing commercial contracts with the customers, to the satisfaction of a CASA Employee then the trading restrictions could potentially be lifted, I would have the trading restrictions lifted, and potentially return to Business as Usual, as it would become lawful again.

I believe that the entire "wording in the contract" issue was a complete farce. It was used by CASA to maintain the trading restrictions for a staggering 8 months. It is inexplicable that such a simple task could not be resolved.


The entire matter should have been totally and fully resolved in a matter of a few hours. It is outrageous that it was still unresolved after 8 months., with crippling trading restrictions in place throughout that time..The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, simply could not be satisfied, and until he was satisfied, the crippling trading restrictions were to remain in place.

In your correspondence you stated "I have been informed CASA retains a number of commercial contracts on file, operators will identify to CASA agreements and contracts for various flight operational matters, ie aircraft hire , aircraft lease, training and checking, conduct of flight training which I believe would all currently fall within scope of your current request."


I fully understand that, as I also had such agreements all CASA approved ,on those matters. Those documents are undoubtedly operational documents, and would be contained within the organisation's Exposition, as mine were. These are completely standard industry practice, and those are not the documents that I am seeking. There was never any suggestion from CASA that there were any deficiencies in this area.. Those contracts form part of the Exposition as they did in my own organisation.

This was an entirely different requirement. It was truly bizarre. The document that CASA were insisting on involvement in is the commercial agreement between APTA and its Members.

CASA was insisting on involvement in the wording of our existing "commercial" contracts, not the CASA Exposition/Operations Manual. Commercial contracts that would not normally attend to matters of operational control., and traditionally have no CASA involvement at all.

The matter was increasingly bizarre, because CASA insisted on wording in the commercial contracts, although CASA refused to be a signatory to those commercial contracts, despite insisting on wording that satisfied CASA. All other Parties were fully satisfied with the wording, and it had been checked by lawyers on multiple occasions.

The point being that the CASA Approved Exposition is where matters of operational control are outlined as that is the document between CASA and my organisation, not a commercial contract that CASA is not, and refuses to be a signatory to. Such matters are usually of a commercially sensitive nature, and not required to be disclosed to CASA.

CASA was never able to identify to me whose responsibilities I was to be attending to, or what those responsibilities were. It was as difficult a challenge for me as it is for you,so I do appreciate your difficult position.

The purpose of the request is to demonstrate that the requirements and associated trading restrictions placed on my business were unique and targeted at me personally

I need to be very clear on this. I am fully satisfied that CASA has never stipulated the requirements that were placed on me, on any other Operator. I do not believe that CASA will have these contracts on file, with the exception of the post July 2019 contract that they accepted between APTA and Latrobe Valley days after I exited the Business.

I have put substantial thought into how to frame this request, in order to bring clarity to the request, I am hopeful that this attends to it. It's a long sentence, but i just can't work out how to shorten it sorry.



Request One.

I am requesting that CASA provide me with contracts or the relevant content of contracts from within the flight training industry prior to October 2018, and since 1938 that demonstrates in those contracts'


the clauses which CASA had previously required, so as to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

I do not believe that CASA will hold any such contracts.. This may be a futile search, but please advise me of the result.

Request Two

My operation was determined to be unlawful by CASA and CASA placed trading restrictions on my business that were to remain in place until I could satisfy CASA as to the wording of the commercial contracts. The trigger for this action by CASA was my application to add the Latrobe Valley Aero Club. as a Member.

The very day prior to my application, CASA by its own admission, had facilitated a long term and ongoing prior "arrangement" between another AOC Holder , and Latrobe Valley Aero Club, presumably with a "contract" as was required of me by CASA.

Then, after Latrobe Valley requests to transfer from the previous AOC holder to APTA in an identical arrangement, it is my business that gets determined to be illegal and has trading restrictions placed on it, until I can come up with wording in those commercial contracts to satisfy the CASA Employee.

My expectation is that CASA would have stipulated the same requirement on the previous AOC Holder delivering flight training through Latrobe Valley as they did on me. I was unable to resolve this issue in 8 months, therefore I would like to see what an Agreement looks like that did satisfy CASA, and that would be the Agreement that CASA required of the AOC Holder delivering flight training for Latrobe Valley the day prior to them transferring to me.

As with the requirement placed on me, I expect that they would demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

Please understand that I believe CASA has been deceptive in its dealing with the Ombudsman, and this document in fact was never required of the other Operator by CASA, and was in fact never required of ANY flight training operator ever. This may well be a futile search, as with request one.


Request Three

As in Request Two, I am requesting the contract that Ballarat Aero Club had in place with the AOC Holder until the day prior to them joining APTA. As in request Two, I do not believe that this document exists. As with the Latrobe Valley Aero Club, I am advised that no such contract was in place, and that CASA never placed any requirements on either Party.This was a new and unique requirement placed on me.

Request Four

With my 25 years experience in the flight training industry, I was unable to resolve the wording in the contracts to CASAs satisfaction for 8 months, and the trading restrictions remained in place.

After I exited the Business and two new individuals took over the business, with no flight training experience, they were able to immediately resolve the entire matter to CASAs full satisfaction for the operations of Latrobe Valley Aero Club.

The only thing that changed was the wording in that contract, and no doubt that attended to the shortcomings that I allegedly could not come up with over the previous 8 months and would have demonstrated to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts

This agreement was perhaps the first such agreement that CASA ever required or approved. In Australia to attend to This document does most certainly exist,and I am requiring a copy of that, as it will clearly identify what it was that I was unable to achieve in 8 months.

This document will clearly identify how the new CEO was able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of CASA,, that APTA now suddenly had the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of APTA, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts


Other contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman

The Commonwealth Ombudsman arrived at the following conclusion; “CASA has previously required evidence of contracts from other operators as evidence of operational control before it made this request of APTA.”.

I am fully satisfied that CASA has misled the Ombudsman on this matter. This was not about aircraft leasing or hiring agreements, this was a specific requirement placed on my business regarding the personnel who were not also my employees.

I am requesting I be provided with the same contracts that were provided to the Ombudsman as "evidence" of CASAs assertion that they had required contracts.

If the Ombudsman took CASA at their word," and did not request, and CASA did not provide any evidence , by way of contracts could you please advise me of such. If the ombudsman did request evidence of CASAs assertion could you please provide me with the same conatrcats that CASA provided to the Ombudsman.


Other contracts- CASA nominated

I would invite CASA to provide any other contracts that they feel may refute my allegation that CASA has never required contracts of any other operator in the flight training industry to stipulate requirements similar to those placed on me.

Those being the specific requirements that demonstrated to the satisfaction of CASA,, that flying training certificate / approval holders, have the level of operational control required by the regulations, over personnel who are not employees of the certificate approval holder, which the level of control would not exist without those contracts



Other considerations

I note that you had referred this matter to a CASA ``Business Unit", and they came back with this additional request, and I can see that there appears to be some confusion, as I had previously suggested. May I respectfully request that Mr Aleck, the decision maker in my matter, be involved in that "Business Unit "as he is the subject matter expert within CASA.. It was Mr Aleck that I was communicating with throughout the eight months. I did also have the opportunity to meet with him., and it was Mr Aleck that was not satisfied. It seems that the most efficient and effective process would be to establish contact directly with Mr Aleck, although I will leave that to your determination.

Please come back to me if I have not provided sufficient clarity to the request

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

I haven't had dealings with him personally, but the reviews of him here, in Estimates, and from Ben Morgan make it clear he's a CASA stooge.

Glen,
To re-iterate my last post, get some legal help, fast.

What do you hope to achieve by meeting with Pip Spence? She is not in a legal position as a public servant to be able to personally offer you an apology, to offer you any money, or anything except awkwardly listen to you repeat what you have written in the past. You are not currently in a position to demand anything, especially to arrange a meeting with specific attendance of other people. This you do in a court of law, calling witnesses. You are attempting to run your own court case without the underlying court structure. She certainly will not be in a position to rearrange her department, to shuffle job positions around, hire and fire at whim. She is not authorised to personally help you in your voyage of discovery. You are setting deadlines for her co-operation with no sting behind them if they are not met. You are wasting their time, and most certainly yours with this approach. Same with the Minister responsible for the Department - they have politely told you that your submissions will be noted and filed, not even actioned. You are being ignored - a vexatious litigant category.

Your recent letter seems to imitate the court process of discovery, usually done during the court case process by the legal teams of both parties, with the weight of the law behind it. In your case, the other parties are not obliged to provide you with very much at all, except the bare necessities to comply with FOI, which by now you have probably discovered is not going to get you results in a fishing process unless you can specifically nominate a document which you already know exists. Here the legal process, with the weight of law behind it is far more powerful, and far more efficient. You appear to be trying to establish precedent by absence of documentation, something that is going to come back and possibly sting you in the face when it magically appears, but not in the manner you wish.

All this needs to be done in a legal context, with Pip in the background, advised by her legal team, to determine what is legal, permitted under public service regulations, and what is lawful. She cannot gung-ho shake your hand and give you a fistful of money, an apology on behalf of people she is responsible for, etc.

You must go via legal channels, and get your legal team to throw wigs at twenty paces, and get them to be put in a corner where the only way out is to settle with lots of money, from the public purse, via Finance Department funds, which Pip Spence has absolutely no jurisdiction over. As part of the settlement you may wish to begrudgingly extract a apology on top of the money you receive. I suspect this is very important to you, and agree it will be necessary for you, to obtain full satisfaction of your claims.

You are aiming at the wrong target. Tilting at windmills. Hoping to receive sympathy where none is permitted to be given. You must go about this the correct way to get any satisfactory result.

My considered consistent advice to you is get a lawyer. FAST, before you reach the point of no return, and expiry of deadlines to be able to do anything legally. Already the statute of limitations may apply and you have dithered and possibly lost any legal recourse.

You know they are laughing at you behind your back, don't you? Look at the terminology used to describe you in the Parliamentary submission. The only way they will sit up and take notice is in a court of law, or a Royal Commission, or an anti-corruption inquiry. In this context, they will quake and tremble, roll over and do your bidding.


Bite the bullet - get yourself some legal advice, and stop wasting your time.

Don’t you get the feeling that Glen does have legal help with his replies.

I certainly hope he goes the full on legal blow as the next step.

Thats why I keep pushing GoFundMe.

And Glen… in a polite way slap yaself, you are entitled to a large personal settlement sum of money! Write down on the back of a coaster what they have caused you to loose and quadruple it at a minimum. I am sure there are legal ways to work it out but if only half of why you type is true you have been well and truly screwed and deserve appropriate compensation.

I don’t think anyone on here would disagree!

Whilst agreeing with your 'bottom line', there are some wonky assertions in there. Ms Spence can write a cheque, tomorrow in her capacity as DAS, and that cheque would be legally binding on and payable by CASA (see section 73(2) of the Civil Aviation Act). CASA spends CASA's money (some of which is appropriated to it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but is nonetheless CASA's once it is appropriated to CASA, and the rest - like fees for regulatory 'services' are paid into CASA's bank account). But, as I say, your bottom line is correct: Glen should not keep wasting his time thinking that CASA will, out of 'good intention', compensate him or anyone else.

Example: Your request for an Act of Grace payment is directed at CASA. The Minister of Finance (not CASA, Pip Spence, or Catherine King) has the jurisdiction for this. Read about the process to claim this on the Dept of Finance website at https://www.finance.gov.au/individua...grace-payments
Have you read up about the CDDA scheme?
You have been poorly advised. Get good legal advice now!

True, if Pip has a certain spending allocation in her budget allocation to allow for such things, raises an payment request that is approved by the Dept of Finance, and has some very good justification to do so. You cannot go out and just spend money without scrutiny and justification, as Christine Holgate was so rudely reminded of in parliament by Scott Morrison, and you know how that worked out! While CASA might be a law unto themselves in respect to aviation, they will be carefully scrutinised in matters of finance and spending, as this is another department.

Based on the terminology used in the submission by CASA to Parliament, and the response from the Ombudsman, I suspect that it will be shelved in the too hard basket and brushed off. The concept of 'goodwill' has certainly long gone - plain as day to see that. Commencement of a court case with strong legal representation and a well prepared case would be the motivator to change things about abruptly, and swift settlement before it comes to court and sharp, pointed, and awkward questions are asked and the underlying truth is finally discovered when potential witnesses are listed, would seem to be the mechanism that will resolved the injustice done.

Glen, make sure to ask your lawyers add a substantive amount for pain and suffering, legal costs, your time spent as an amateur lawyer, and future loss of income too. I think the way it was described in the movie "The Castle" by Lawrence Hammill is 'on just terms'. Think about it!

I can guarantee that Mr Aleck has been advised by CASA's legal team to never communicate with you ever again, and the only opportunity you will have to see him again is as a hostile witness under cross examination, or in a dark laneway (the way Darryl Kerrigan in the move 'The Castle', drove off with the Toorak mansion gates attached to his tow truck) which I suspect he is profoundly aware may be the case for both. CASA have already hinted that they fear your harassment. Do not give them the opportunity to be proven right. Do it the legal way, not across a boardroom table on CASA premises where you will be at a distinct disadvantage on their home ground, but in a courtroom or commission of inquiry, with a legal team behind you all the way supporting your case and making sure you have all aspects covered, covered well, and foolproof.

But, but, It's the Vibe...
 

Pip also has a limit. A settlement of six to eight million dollars (I'm vaguely guessing this is not an unreasonable amount to settle this case on 'just terms' - do you agree?) would be far outside her jurisdiction, and would require direct Minister of Finance signature, not some delegated staff. This amount would be a significant impact on the CASA budget, and so would not be part of their normal operations allocation, but an 'on-off' line in the annual national budget papers.

My bolding and removal of content in the quote for brevity
I've removed some of the bits, but even the Ombudsman has given you a few very big hints. Get independent legal advice, FAST. Given five months ago. Did you do that?

Thirsty
 

Cheers, and i appreciate the input.

Regarding the CDDA (Defective Decisions), that was something that I considered some time ago, but the way CASAs is established. Sorry don't remember the exact terminology the Commonwealth uses, but CASA is not party to that system, therefore leaving the only other non-litigious approach being the Act of Grace Payment. You are correct in that it goes through the Department of Finance; however they then liaise with the Agency (CASA), and you can well imagine what CASAs response would be. For those reasons, I have put out that final offering to CASA. A well intentioned and sincere discussion about an Act of Grace payment would have to be the preferred option.

As previously pointed out, there are sufficient funds available thanks to the supporters for me to move forward with this.

I have sought legal advice previously on this matter, and I have some exceptional support on here and in the background. Sufficient funds already exist for me to at least get a good start. I was chatting to my father about this yesterday. One of my challenges has been really getting to the crux of the matter, and i may have been somewhat confused by CASAs alternating narrative.

It's a bit like a pyramid, and I am now at the pointy end, with lots of the "sifting" having been done. I believe that the FOI requests will be important, and perhaps give a legal firm a good head start.

I would add that I could never have anticipated that the Ombudsman investigation would drag on for more than four years, and it has been hard to move forward until that is finalized, and that has been the legal recommendation that I have previously received. Admittedly that advice was based on a turnaround of the investigation of about 4 months, not four years.

And admittedly, I truly believed naively in the fact that there would be more "good intent": in the process., and particularly at CASA CEO and Board Level. I did not b believe that they would work so actively to effectively "crush me".

Finally, i just didn't think CASA would be blatantly prepared to mislead the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.as much as they have been prepared to. It concerns me going down a legal path against a Party that is prepared to act dishonestly, and to such a substantial extent.

I found your posts very "contemplative", and i concur. I have little doubt that on receipt of Ms. spences response to my most recent correspondence, I will act fast, and this matter will be put before a legal team.

Appreciate the input each and every one of you. Cheers. Glen

Again, while agreeing with your 'bottom line', Thirsty, I'd suggest you spend 10 minutes researching the Dept of Finance information on Act of Grace and CDDA systems.

Note, in particular, the acronym 'NCE', which stands for Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity. CASA is not a 'Non-Corporate Commonwealth Entity'. CASA is a corporate Commonwealth entity. CASA has its own equivalent policies (and spends its own money) on Act of Grace and CDDA-like payments (though CASA is subject to the PGPA). All roads lead to CASA.

We already know CASA's position and I very much doubt a meeting in 3 months will change it. Hence I agree with your bottom line. CASA won't start writing big cheques to Glen unless and until forced to.

Glen businesses fail all the time , ten of 1000s of pty ltd companies likely every year in Australia

They are dealt with by administrators / liquidators , creditors meetings etc

It just isn't appropriate for a former Director of failed company to go back "compensating" former creditors/employees years after the event

Come on look after your family if any money flows from this

Agree with others you need lawyers who have expertise in this type of V Govt stuff

You have mentioned on this thread you have been personally bankrupted , or at least discussed it (not trying to embarrass you) , if this is
the case it is highly likely you would not have the right to initiate legals (whilst undischarged at least) ?

Glen there is never "good intent" or "gentlemans rules" in these type of things - it is a blood sport. Just like the claims dept at an insurer will all have
a night out at strippers when a claimant (destroyed house or something) that they did over tops himself & his family - they will laugh mightily hard . Think these guys are any different ?

Come off it Glen , you think they will settle your grievance by round table "chattys" whilst singing for he's a jolly good fellow

Proposed FOI request
 

Removed after final editing and posted at Pprune #2741

Glen,
I sincerely hope things turn around for you this year, best wishes.
In any case, standing by, if you need financial help.
Valdiviano

Glen,
A case in point. You are misusing the FOI process to prepare your case, something your lawyer team could do with legal force of the court as part of the discovery process as part of a court case, or the The National Anti-Corruption Commission investigators would do. The information you request will possibly be deemed commercial-in-confidence by the CASA FOI team, and not be released to you. You are also showing your hand, giving them opportunity to 'lose' important information that may help your case. Another few months wasted, and your window of opportunity and success drifting away.

You have been deprived of your livelihood. The other party has already said they will not make good the damage on just terms (or any other terms either). You are not on polite gentleman terms with them any more - the bastards are trying to cheat you at every turn. Do not think you will ever be re-starting another training school with them politely helping you along. You cannot bring back the past and make it different. Time to get serious, deadly serious. The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now.

For everybody following this sorry saga, can they PM Glen with suggestions of a good lawyer that is a specialist in aviation, and can be trusted to cross-examine all the relevant parties in a clear and concise manner so that a judge and jury can clearly understand what Glen appears to think the Ombudsman and Parliament cannot understand? I suspect the case may not even come to court as the shenanigans will not withstand scrutiny, the witnesses that will be called will be too scared to stand up and lie under oath, and it will be too politically sensitive for the Federal Government (not just CASA) to lose - they will settle quickly. You lawyer will advise a reasonable sum and it will all be settled with an obligatory non-disclosure agreement which means you will not win in the court of public opinion, just in monetary terms. You will not be able to come back to these forums and gloat you won, and by how much. This thread in PPRuNe will suddenly stop, or be deleted as part of the legal settlement. Your first step is to get good legal advice, and the rest will swiftly fall into place without you continuing to tilt at windmills forever without making any progress, getting frustrated at every turn.

"The only recourse you have is legal action. Get the lawyers involved. Don't worry about costs - the judge will make the other party pay if you succeed. Your dithering may probably have cost you the case. You must act now. Stop being your own lawyer. Get a good legal team to advise you, now."

these are not nice people Glen - you will have to drag them screaming every inch of the way

get a lawyer!!

It has been reported somewhere that 40+ cases have already been referred to the NACC. If we presume that these are ones that have been referred by an organisation or MP, there may be many more that have been submitted by Joe Public for review...at any rate - they've got a lot of sifting to get through before deciding on which cases they'll investigate.

I very much doubt that the NACC would resolve Glen's issue in a timely fashion, if at all. It's likely to pale in comparison to alleged corruption in other parts of the government. I wanted to point this out because as I and others have said, you're long past the point of DIY lawyering and need a bulldog-esque legal team experienced in the opacity of aviation regulations to go hard, now!

Well FOI can be used as low cost mechanism to fish out information to determine if you do have a case

A bunny at CASA might allow something to "slip throughYes discovery is powerful, but it doesn't mean you get automatic access to everything , other side can oppose subpoenas & you
can only do this after you have initiated action

As previously mentioned Glen made some comment about being declared bankrupt (school fees or something) if that is the case there
might be significant restrictions on ability to litigate

Just don't really understand , why recover monies so you can give them away to other folk. The fact is that your employees were more than
happy to take full wages , thinking for doing a modest amount of work as students dropped off

Free country & all