Once the security guard asks for the “visitor” to leave, if the refuse to leave, they are officially trespassing, especially if one did not have an appointment to be there. It wouldn’t quite stand up with the constabulary if you then said I’m here to visit Medibank or whoever else is the tenant.

The security personnel belong to the building, so they have the legal right to ask you to leave.

Should I add “security guard” to the list of CASA FOI duties of which I wasn’t aware in their Duty Statement?

Probably a good idea LB.

And maybe at the same time you could add a note on the Duty Statement that any expectation to behave honestly and with integrity can be disregarded as/if/when convenient.

Same result, they ask the visitor to leave as they don’t have an appointment… if they don’t, they can then ask the security guard to do it for them.

And yet - as with stalking and assault - Glen wasn’t charged with trespass. So, if he was asked by someone with authority over the foyer to leave, I’m guessing he left.

Trespass
 

There was no assault.

There was no “yelling” and “screaming”

I was never asked by anyone to leave the foyer, and i left completely of my own accord, once it was obvious that a meeting was not going to occur

Yeah, I wouldn't be listening to legal advice from VicPol, or for that matter, trusting them in any way. Track history and all.

Police don't generally give legal advice, they enforce the law, not make judgement on it, it's more likely they will arrest somebody causing a nuisance or danger and let the courts decide whether it was warranted. They will know the basics of trespass laws and such though, so if they are asking you to leave its probably a good idea to comply. Even in many public spaces the police have the power to ask you to move on.

You go to a lawyer for legal advice, still best to listen to the police if they direct you to do something reasonable, like move on or leave the area. Even if you think you are right, there are some whacky and weird local bylaws out there that can be enforced.

Even if you ARE right, is the issue one you want to make your stand on? Is it worth being arrested by some brainless police officer, only to prove them wrong in court months and thousands of dollars later?

Tell them they're wrong - but move on anyway.

FOI follow up to alleged assault.
 

03/08/23


Dear Keeley,


I apologise for the additional workload that I am bringing to your Office, hopefully you might get a Personal Assistant from all of this.

First, could you clarify if you are awaiting anything from me regarding the progression of my request for "contracts".

The purpose of this request is to make an FOI request for any footage of the alleged assault of a CASA Employee in the foyer of the CASA Building in Melbourne. My assumption is that had a CASA Employee been assaulted directly underneath a security camera in the foyer of the building, then CASA would be reasonably expected to have obtained footage of that incident from the Building security, and that footage would clearly confirm whether the CASA Employees claims that he was assaulted by me are factual, or has he in fact provided a false and misleading statement to CASAs investigation of the matter.

If CASA holds this footage then it would indicate to me that "CASA" has always been aware that the claim by the CASA employee was false and misleading and chose not to disclose that information.

Therefore, I am requesting that if CASA hold any footage of the alleged "assault" of the CASA footage that the footage be released to me under FOI.

If CASA does not retain the footage, am I able to request an answer to the following question, although I appreciate that it is not a request for a document as such.

If CASA does not retain footage of the alleged assault, can CASA advise if any CASA employee has ever viewed footage of the alleged event.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Glen I’m sorry but constant private letters to CASA are pointless. Get a good legal team who can apply pressure and scare them into a settlement or better beat them in court and get the buggars jailed!

I refer to the Brittany Higgins / Bruce Lehrmann’s / Lisa Wilkinson sh@t show where Bruce Lehrmann’s legal team caught the DPP lying his ass off. He will likely lose the DPP job and be wide open for being sued.

https://www.news.com.au/national/pol...e07cba399b5490

Glen,

I know you have a plan, you have mentioned legal.

It is becoming even more obvious that it’s time, certainly legal rep with you at the October meeting.

After that it is time for full legal team. How much is in the gofundme? I’m sure if you were to fire up the legal option the donations would continue to roll in.

CASA know what you want and deserve but no offers to this point?

It’s time to say ok I’ve tried my best to be nice now it’s GLOVES OFF and handball all to the legal team and set an extremely high settlement bar.

Good luck!

We're talking VicPol. There's no thug like a VicPol thug. Plenty of evidence on the interweb.

Glen, as much as enjoy your posts and appreciate the devastating affect that this has had (continues to have) on you and your family. I really think you need to listen to Thirsty and Malcolm Reynolds. Factor in the number of "likes" their posts have received. For each "like" there is probably x5 the number of people who agree.

Not at all relevant as the police played no part in this.

Letter from Ms. Spence re. meeting
 

· 26/05/23, Ms. Spence, CASA CEO, wrote to me offering the meeting she had committed to once the Ombudsman investigation was completed. (My reference Pprune post #2608 p.131)

· 04/06/23, I responded to Ms. Spences offer of a meeting., accepting it and clarifying some misconceptions in that previous correspondence from Ms. Spence. (My reference Pprune post #2620 p.131)

· 27/06/23, Ms. Spence responds and advises that a meeting will not be available until October if my requirement is to have the CASA Chair in attendance. (My reference Pprune post 2703 p.136)

· 29/06/23, I wrote to Ms. Spences P.A. accepting a delayed meeting in order to facilitate the CASA Chair to attend. (My reference Pprune#2711 p.136)

· 02/07/23, I wrote follow up correspondence to Ms. Spence very clearly outlining my expectations of that meeting. (My reference Pprune #2719 p.136)

· 3/07/23, I received an email from Ms. Spences PA, advising the details of the scheduled meeting with the Chair and CEO. (My reference Pprune #2747 p.138)

· 29/07/23, I sent correspondence, asking for very clear direction on whether or not CASA would oppose a request for an Act of Grace payment. (My reference Pprune # 2776 p.139)



On 04/08/23, I received this correspondence from Ms. Spence advising that CASA will not oppose a request for an Act of Grace Payment. I believe that this is significant but may be overly optimistic. Please be assured that I am listening to you, and I do understand that there is a strong push for me to engage legal assistance, and I hear it, I really do.

To everyone that has commented or has been sitting on the sidelines. My timelines are tight. I’m keen on feedback, I need your input. Cheers. Glen, and below is the correspondence I received from Ms. Spence yesterday.

This correspondence specifically addresses the expected outcomes of my correspondence in Pprune Post #2719 where I listed 5 “Expected Outcomes” of the meeting.



04/08/23



Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your email about our meeting scheduled for October. I do appreciate you taking the time to set out your main expectations for that meeting, and have set out below my comments in response to those expected outcomes.



Expected outcome 1:

In the spirit of the apology I conveyed in my 26 May letter to you, where I acknowledged that CASA could have done things better, I can advise that we would not oppose your claim for an Act of Grace payment should the Department of Finance seek the views of CASA.

Such an application from you would result in an independent, third-party assessment which we would welcome, and we would provide any information requested to enable that assessment including the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

This also addresses the question in your most recent email to me of 30 July.

Expected outcome 2:

As I explained in my most recent email to you on 21 June, I don’t intend to revisit issues that you have previously raised, noting that CASA stands by the Ombudsman’s findings, as set out at expected outcome 5 below.

Expected outcome 3:

As in my comments about revisiting matters in response to your second expected outcome, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:



We accept CASA’s explanation that it became concerned about the APTA operational model in 2018 as it became uncertain whether APTA’s model met legislative requirements to show sufficient control between the authorisation holder and the affiliates conducting training…. It was therefore open to CASA to take steps to be satisfied the legislative requirements were being met. We accept that CASA can and should act when it identifies an operator is working in a way that may not comply with legislative and regulatory requirements… (E)ven if CASA had previously authorised the APTA model in the knowledge that it was providing oversight of its affiliates, rather than conducting flight training in its own right, we cannot be critical that it reassessed its position when concerns arose about whether this model was in line with civil aviation legislation… (W)e remain satisfied that CASA’s concerns about the APTA operational model at the time of the Notice were not without basis and no further investigation is warranted in relation to its decision to issue the Notice.



Expected outcome 4:



I would have anticipated that any information relevant to your complaint would have been provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman during the course of its review of your concerns. If it was not, your allegations and any material to support those allocations should be directed to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for consideration.



Expected outcome 5:



For the reasons set out above, CASA stands by the findings of the Commonwealth Ombudsman dated 21 February 2023:



We are satisfied that CASA adopted a collaborate approach to resolving the issues raised in (the Notice of 23 October 2018)… Records that CASA provided to us show that its officers met with Mr Buckley and his father on behalf of APTA multiple times and there was frequent email communication between the parties. CASA provided guidance on the reasons it required contracts, obtained legal advice to support its position, and provided model clauses to Mr Buckley for his use in May 2019. We acknowledge Mr Buckley’s concern about the length of time matters extended without a resolution but are satisfied that, despite the delay, CASA provided advice to Mr Buckley that the existing approvals for APTA remained in place, and he could continue operating as he had prior to the Notice. In hindsight, there may have been ways to improve the communication to ensure Mr Buckley was given a consistent message by all parties within CASA, but we note this was difficult because Mr Buckley was contacting multiple people within CASA. We further note that CASA ultimately implemented a strategy to have one contact point for him, to reduce the risk of mixed messages.





Regards



Pip

Looks to me like you are going to be stonewalled.

It will be interesting to read what others think.

I reckon a pittance will be offered if an act of grace is made, no apology or no admission of any wrong doing.

Not referring to this incident, referring to the Big 43'ers post regarding Police and legal advice :ok:​​​​​​​

Glen’s request is not for a payment from the Commonwealth. Glen’s request is for a payment from CASA. CASA isn’t the Commonwealth.

Unfortunately, he chose to use the term “act of grace” and that has enabled CASA to use the Commonwealth scheme as a distraction from the substance. (Every time you send out one of your emails, Glen, you complicate rather than simplify the path to any potential solution. As each day passes, you’re one day closer to the expiration of the limitation period on potential causes of action, even assuming they haven’t already expired.) There’s nothing stopping CASA from making a payment in like circumstances for like reasons as those in and for which the Commonwealth makes payments it calls “act of grace” payments. CASA is a body corporate and spends its own money.

All that said, it remains bleedingly obvious that no big cheques (well, not even a little one) will be handed over to Glen at the meeting. That’s never going to happen unless and until CASA faces the real prospect of being found liable to Glen by a court. (And to emphasise my earlier point: When CASA settles a legal claim and writes a cheque, it doesn’t get the Finance Minister’s approval or spend the Commonwealth’s money. CASA makes the decision itself and spends its own money.) I hope that the passage of time and the mountains of correspondence have not effectively buried whatever prospects Glen might have had.

Was it you that told him LB, that CASA could make a grace payment?