Glen,

Read the room mate.

It’s time to go the nuclear option.

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

The silence has spoken.

While you still have the support from many here giddyup!

Glen

THEY'RE NOT LISTENING.

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

Get a lawyer

Guns blazing
 

I hear your frustration folks I really do. its essential that I exhaust every avenue available to me, so that I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment to have provided EVERY opportunity for CASA to avoid litigation, as they are compelled to do.

As I stated the Stage One being the attempt to resolve with CASA is fully exhausted. I am fully satisfied that I have gone far further than could resaonably have been expected.

I await the Ombudsman response but i suggest the deficiencies within that office suggest that is exhausted, although i believe those deficiencies are easily proven.

Within a matter of days, my expectation is that Minister King and Dr.Carinan Garland MPs stance will have been clearly demonstrated.

In anticipation of going to the next stage being litigation, I have commenced drafting correspondence on this matter, and i have attached it below. It is a rough draft. I am open to feedback. I am yet to embed previously provided suggestions from a learned Pruner into that document.

You have my assurance folks that by the 2nd April 2024, the final copy of this correspondence will be sent.To the Law Institute of Victoria.

My name is Glen Buckley.

I was previously employed in the aviation industry for 30 years and operated my own Flight Training Organisation for a decade, until CASA action led to the closure of that business, and significant associated harm to Employees, Students, Staff, Customers, and Suppliers.

It is a matter that caused significant and totally unnecessary harm to me and my family. Apart from the financial devastation caused, it caused significant mental trauma, which resulted in my breakdown and a period in a psychiatric hospital. The ramifications of Mr Alecks conduct are ongoing, and cumulative. My wife and I have been left without a home and destitute.

This matter in its absolute entirety was a matter that could have been fully resolved at any time in a single meeting provided good intent prevailed.

It did not. The matter dragged on totally unresolved for 8 months, and there is no other plausible explanation, other than Mr Jonathan Aleck deliberately prolonging resolution of a matter that could have been immediately resolved.

I am seeking the assistance of your Office with regards to resourcing the appropriate Law Firm or Lawyer.

I appreciate the very specific nature of this request, and that is why I am seeking your assistance.

It is an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs

The aviation Industry established a crowd funding website fund for me many years ago, and having exhausted all other options for resolution, I now intend to utilise those funds, as I am requiring substantive legal assistance. My intention is to use the funds made available to me by industry to fund a robust initial assessment of my matter.

My allegations are that the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck used his significant power within CASA to specifically target me, with the intent to cause harm. His actions were targeted, harmful, totally unnecessary, and importantly , unlawful. On every opportunity that Mr Aleck was presented with two options, he would consistently choose the option that caused more harm.

This has been the subject of a 5-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

Under FOI, I have obtained documents that leave me with no doubt that the CEO of CASA, Ms. Pip Spence, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), Mr Jonathan Hanton have been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information to that Ombudsman investigation.

I realise that these are substantive allegations, and I appreciate the challenges associated with such allegations, as “intent” is a critical factor, in any allegation of misfeasance in public office. I am fully satisfied that I can clearly attend to these allegations with a significant body of evidence, including statements by qualified ex CASA personnel, that will clearly indicate that I was the victim of targeted malice.

In distributing this correspondence, could I ask that in addition to any Law Firms that you select, could I request that one of those firms be the firm that assisted the “I Cook Foods” founder, Mr Ian Cook, for no other reason than they will have experience in similar matters.

In order to assist in a prompt initial assessment, may I put forward some further dot points for consideration, and to expedite processes.

It is

· I would have a very strong preference that this matter is taken all the way through to a determination in a Court of Law, even if this were to potentially result in a lesser financial outcome. The point being that any “out of court” settlement “walking up the steps” into the Courtroom, would in fact be a lost opportunity to potentially improve CASA and potentially improve the safety of aviation. A key factor in me pursuing this matter with such determination over a sustained period is the improvement of CASA for the benefit of the industry. My reasons are not all altruistic, nevertheless, this must be a Key consideration. The matter is too significant, that it be “swept under the carpet”, by way of an out of Court settlement.

· Industry has crowed funded me to date, and I am confident of continuing support subject to a “comprehensive initial assessment” by an appropriate Lawyer, that I could present to industry.

· I do not believe that I will require litigation funding, and the selection of an appropriate firm would not be based on a requirement for a litigation funder, although I do not dismiss that approach if the firms advice is that be the preferred option.

· If I am alleging that a CASA Employee acted with misconduct by way of misfeasance in public office, and I am alleging that the matter was covered up at the most senior levels within CASA.

· I am alleging that three CASA personnel, have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth ombudsman investigation.

· This matter needs to go through to a determination. It is essential to the potential t

· Over the last 5 years there has been substantial correspondence and pertinent and revealing FOI requests completed. The point being that much of the “heavy lifting” has already been done.

· At one stage CASA sent a direction to my employer that my continuing employment was no longer tenable based on comments that I made publicly. CASA have acknowledged that and made a financial offer. That Offer is quite frankly insulting in the amount offered, but there is some acknowledgement by CASA of fault.

· I will shortly have completed a substantive document that attends a specifically to Government specified criteria regarding misfeasance in public office. I have drawn addressed criteria comprehensively.

· What should have been a simple “tooth clean” early on has evolved into “maxillofacial surgery’ , by CASAs own choosing. It can be clearly demonstrated that I have attempted all attempts to avid litigation, including making appeals to my Local MP, ms Carina Garland, I’m a 60-year resident of her Electorate.

· Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, has directed my local MP, being Dr. Carina. Garland, not to assist me with this matter. That direction concerns me that my matter may be the subject of some political interference, potentially from as high as Minister Kings office.

· The propensity for senior CASA executives to provide false and misleading information to the ombudsman office is concerning. CASA places me in a position where I am proving things to be true that CASA already know to be true, and that has very much been my experience to date. Whilst not currently in litigation, I sincerely question CASas commitment to acting as a model litigant based on past conduct, and that I must be realistic in assuming that CASa will be robust in their defence, to the extent that they are prepared to provide false and misleading to a Court, as I allege they have to the Ombudsman investigation.

· I have raised these allegations before a Senate inquiry, and that link can be accessed here.

I appreciate that this initial inquiry is brief, and that substantially more information is required.

May I respectfully request that you distribute this request for assistance to some selected firms. My strong preference would be to have a face to face discussion with the applicable law firm as an initial meeting. I will be frank, my mental capacity for excessive typing and document preparation is close to exhausted, and a face to face initial meeting will assist me to direct my somewhat limited mental capacity effectively.
Respectfully Glen Buckley

Use Google - find a lawyer who has suceesfully fought CASA

Go directly to them

FOI rerquest
 

Freedom of Information Request- Complaints by other Operators about APTA.



To the FOI Department of CASA.



In October of 2018, CASA initiated action with no prior warning to close down my business of 10 years, as it had apparently been operating unlawfully throughout those 10 years, and CASA had not realised until over a decade later.

The entire matter was absurd, and I am fully satisfied that CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs had specifically targeted me and my Organisation, based on existing acrimony.

I was able to secure a meeting with the CASA CEO, Ms. Pip Spence and the Chair of the CASA Board after 5 years of constant and requests. That meeting proceeded on Tuesday 3rd October.

At that meeting it was clearly indicated to me that this CASA action was in part based on “complaints by other Operators that were made to CASA” about my Organisation.

Honestly, I was stunned by that comment. This was the first time that anybody from CASA had mentioned any concerns that were potentially directed towards any quality outcomes or any safety aspects.

My understanding of this entire matter was that CASA had determined that my structure was unlawful because I utilised personnel that were not always employed by the same organisation that held the CASA Approval. A most unusual and unique requirement that Mr Aleck applied to me and my organisation only.

This was most concerning for me, as I had taken particular pride in the high levels of safety and compliance, and to use CASAs own words they had been “industry leading”.

In fact, I am fully confident that we did maintain industry leading standards in everything that we did.

To be frank, I feel that if any complaints were made to CASA regarding any aspect of safety and compliance about my organisation by another Operator to CASA, they may have been malicious, not factually correct, and submitted to cause harm to me and my business.

I am quite astounded that it took over 5 years for CASA to bring this information to my attention and that has prompted this FOI request.

I am concerned that CASA may have provided those “complaints” to the Ombudsman Office as part of their investigation, and I had no awareness of those allegations.



My specific FOI request

Can I request documents that CASA hold on to file for the period October 23rd 2013 to October 23rd 2018.

Those documents would be complaints or information made to CASA about my Organisation on any aspect of safety or compliance, or anything of any nature that would rightfully raise concerns within CASA.

Those complaints would have been submitted by a person or Entity external to CASA.

I consent to the removal of names and any information that may identify any person or Entity.

I completely understand that there is a formalised system for confidential reporting of matters or safety concerns. It appears that the Complainant about my operation has bypassed those procedures and approached CASA with alternative methods.

My expectation is that this document will be highly redacted. I understand that even in cases where a person makes a complaint to CASA about a competitor, they may for their own reasons choose to divert from standardised procedures and approach CASA in a less formal way using alternative methods, particularly so if they were satisfied that there was a “grave and imminent risk” to the safety of aviation.

To maintain the integrity of reporting, even when CASA procedures are bypassed, that confidentiality is integral to a robust safety culture, although it does leave the system open to malicious allegations, as potentially occurred here.

I am requesting that the document be heavily redacted and only the key information remain that would provide me the opportunity to know what it is that I am alleged to have done, or not done.

When CASA provide those documents to me, could I also request that CASA clearly identify which of those documents have been also provided to the Commonwealth Ombudsman as part of that Offices investigation.

You will understand my concern perhaps. I have made an allegation separately to this of misconduct at the most senior level within CASA. I have concerns that CASA may have provided information that I had no knowledge of to the Ombudsman, and potentially to “mislead”.

If those allegations were provided to any third Party, I have been denied procedural fairness, as I was never given the opportunity to reply, despite that forming part of CASAs decision making.
Thankyou for your consideration, Glen Buckley

Clarification as to stalking and assault
 

Complaint- “False and misleading’ allegations by CASA against Glen Buckley.



Dear Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please note that I have included the Office of Minister King in this correspondence to ensure that the Minister responsible for CASA maintains an awareness of this matter. To date I have been corresponding via my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland, and requesting that she, in turn, keep Minister King fully informed.

I sought my Local MP, Dr. Carina Garlands assistance on this matter, but she advised me that she has been directed at Ministerial level, not to assist me with my allegations of misconduct within CASA.

Presumably based on that Directive from Minister King, my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland refuses to accept my submission of allegations of corruption, will not permit me entry to her Office, will not respond to correspondence, nor take phone calls from me. I am therefore compelled to bypass my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland and approach the responsible Minister directly to ensure that she maintains a high level of awareness of this topic, as she has to date.



Mr Hanton, CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

Please accept my complaint regarding the allegation that I “stalked and assaulted”, CASA Employees.

An allegation that I fully refute as you are aware.

This allegation was made by Mr Shane Carmody PSM, the CASA CEO, under the protection of Parliamentary privilege before the Senate RRAT committee on 20/11/20.

That presentation by Mr Shane Carmody PSM was the first time that I was made aware that CASA had made these substantive criminal allegations about me. I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had apparently stalked and assaulted CASA employees.

I was with my family at the time, and to say we were shocked is an understatement, and most especially so because of the very formal setting that these allegations were first raised, and the fact that I had no prior knowledge whatsoever that I had allegedly either stalked or assaulted CASA Employees. None!

The complaint being submitted by me relates to the fact that is not true and no CASA Employee has alleged to the police or any internal CASA reporting procedures that I Glen Buckley ever stalked or assaulted any CASA Employees.

I am fully satisfied that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made this false and misleading allegation before the Senate Committee for no other reason than to cause reputational harm to me, based on existing acrimony between Mr Shane Carmody PSM and myself.

Not only was Mr Carmody PSMs approach cowardly, but it was also false and misleading, as he was fully aware when he made those false allegations about me to the Senators.

The very starting point of such an allegation is that a CASA Employee must have made a complaint to the police, or at least via CASA internal OHS procedures that I had stalked them, and they would have had to make some complaint that I assaulted them.

A complaint of “stalking” or “assault” must exist.

A review of the definition of these two most serious crimes indicates that they both have potential criminal sentences attached to them, as they absolutely must, and most especially if a government employee is stalked and or assaulted by a member of the public in the coursed of their employment.

Stalking and Assault are two of the most serious allegations that could be made against an individual, and particularly the connotations of “creepiness” with regards to “stalking” and the propensity for violence suggested by “assault”.

The point being that to have stalked and/or assaulted CASA employees as Mr Carmody PSM alleges, there would be some formal documentation in support of those very specific allegations, yet there is nothing.

CASA would no doubt be compelled to formally document such substantive allegations as part of their OHS procedures. It is just not feasible that CASA employees were either stalked or assaulted by me, and a substantive “paper trail” does not exist.

I have made a Freedom of Information request on this topic, and those results indicate that there is no documentation at all, held by CASA that indicates any report of either “stalking” or “assault’, that I have been provided access to by that FOI request.

For clarity the descriptors “stalking” and “assault’ yielded absolutely no results from within CASA from a Freedom of Information request on this topic.

The only reference at all, that Glen Buckley has “stalked” or ‘assaulted” any CASA employee is that scurrilous and cowardly allegation that Mr Shane Carmody PSM made in that most formal of settings, being before the Senators at the RRAT Committee

Unfortunately, the harm is not caused so much by the initial allegation by Mr Carmody, but rather by CASAs steadfast refusal to correct that false allegation, with the knowledge it is highly probable that it is a false allegation.

You will be familiar with the background to, and the use of the word. ‘Gaslighting’. From my personal experience, that is a tactic that CASA has consistently utilised in its engagement with me on this matter.

No CASA employee was “stalked” by me, and no CASA Employee was “assaulted” by me.

I am addressing this “gaslighting” very directly in this correspondence.

I am currently in dispute with CASA in an ongoing and substantive unrelated matter. It would suit CASAs agenda to present me as a person who would stalk and assault CASA Employees.

CASA made and has maintained this allegation for several years. Eventually, I begin to question myself. Industry peers, friends and acquaintances still refer to it. Many with good intention, some suggest that I make an apology for stalking and assaulting, others suggest I “let it go”. It breaks my heart when on occasion my wife even queries it. Its constantly around and it has created a seed of doubt in everyone.

I want prompt attention to this question/complaint. It is very simple and very direct.

There are only two options to the two questions that I will put to you. My complaint is that CASA have enough knowledge of this matter to know that on the balance of probabilities, no CASA employee was ever “stalked” or “assaulted” by me, and by continuing to propagate this falsehood they cause continuing harm.

I put this complaint directly to you as the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

If no CASA Employee is alleging that I stalked or assaulted them, then quite simply how can I have stalked or assaulted anybody.

To bring an end to the “gaslighting” and maintain my mental health and provide me the opportunity to somewhat restore my reputation, it is essential that only a one-word response be provided to each of these two questions.

A one worded response is all I need to know. It brings immediate clarity, and brings a high level of transparency, it avoids the opportunity to gaslight, and goes someway to immediately restoring my reputation and relieving the stress associated with that.

A resistance to providing a single word response would be concerning.

The two questions that I put to you are.

1. Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “assaulted” by Glen Buckley?

2. Has any CASA Employee ever alleged that they were “stalked” by Glen Buckley?

I am not seeking any well-crafted wordy responses, or any inferences. Both crimes are clearly defined, and if you are in any doubt, please ensure you have an understanding of the definitions as of the allegations as made by Mr Carmody, and propagated by CASA on a continuing basis, prior to responding.

I am seeking only a yes or no response as that is the only credible response that needs be put forward.

If I become aware that the CASA CEO has made an allegation that I stalked or assaulted a CASA Employee, my first question would naturally be.

Why do you say that? Has a CASA Employee or Employees made an allegation that I stalked them, or that I assaulted them?”

The single word response to that question determines where the discussion continues from there or it goes no further.

If the response is,

· “Yes.” A CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “stalked” them.

and/or

· “Yes, a CASA Employee or Employees do allege that you “assaulted” them.

Then the matter must rightfully proceed.

If however, in fact no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “stalked” them and no CASA Employee has made an allegation that I “assaulted” them, then that discussion surely would proceed no further.

If no allegation has been made, that allegation cannot possibly proceed nor have any validity., and I question how it could arise in such a formal setting and suggest that it would not have been raised had Mr Carmody not been protected by Parliamentary Privilege. As previously stated, a most cowardly approach in my view, and most especially because CASA refuse to approach the police on a matter that most certainly should have police involvement, had it really occurred.

I can see absolutely no reason that you cannot immediately attend to this, as you already have all the information at hand, and already know the answer.

As the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner this is a matter that you already have an Expert knowledge on. The information you require is information you already have accessed. If you claim that this is not correct, I will not challenge you, other than to state that you have almost immediate access to the answer, and I hope that you can respond in timeframes that I can reasonably expect, if “good intent” is prevailing.

The purpose of this complaint is to bring immediate clarity to this matter and deny CASA the opportunity to mislead. As the allegations weren’t made against you, you may not fully appreciate the impact that they have, and particularly because of the most formal of settings that those allegations were made.

To be frank, I have felt very much on the receiving end of a determined and sustained effort to effectively “gaslight” me, and cause me trauma, as the ongoing matter does. For reasons of my own health and sanity, I must insist that this complaint is almost immediately responded to, as it so easily be attended to.

It requires only two words in response to my most reasonable questions. I am seeking only a “yes" or a "no" to those questions.

I hope that you can respect the "intent" of my question. I am trying to ascertain if these allegations even exist. That is an allegation of stalking or an allegation of assault. Two different crimes requiring a response to each of those two allegations.

Respectfully
Glen Buckley

Stalking and assault allegation.
 

I think we’d like to know if this could be a matter of libel. One for a legal opinion because help from CASA is about as likely reversing the earth’s rotation by wishing it so.

Let’s dissect this statement.

“It is essential that I exhaust…”

No, it’s not “essential”. It’s a choice you are consciously making. You are CHOOSING to continue on a path that has rendered NOTHING for many, many years. These unfruitful, repetitive and long letters are not a path you are forced to take - it’s one you’re choosing.

“so I can demonstrate my absolute and total commitment”

Look, I’m no psychologist. But you’ve made comments like this in the past. And it makes me think there’s something deeper here. Who must you “demonstrate” your incorruptibility to?

Is it yourself? Is it your wife? Is it the people you were employing at the time? There’s something much more
going on under the surface.

Please don’t take this post the wrong way. I (and everyone else here) want justice to be served. But you really need to ask yourself some of these hard questions.

IMHO (and nearly everyone else here) - you need to engage a professional.

And in the event that even a professional can’t get you any compensation, that’s still a good outcome - at least you’ll have closure and can get on with the rest of your life.

On average, we get about 80 laps around the sun. How many more are you going to waste on this, just to demonstrate you’re right?

That didn't age well.

Well said Slippery.

Glen we are all behind you and will continue to be. Just look at the gofundme when it gets pushed. The minute you have legal counsel actively engaged and a REAL fight to CASA it will go up faster than an empty rocket ship.

You’ve said April 2, this is fantastic, a hard date.

I feel your pain and anger in the long letters, unfortunately those reading them don’t give a flying fcuk! Look at the CASA offer of compensation, what a joke.

Go hard bud, reap the rewards of an out of court settlement with a shut up notice attached, flick the money around to those you feel you must.

Above all it will give you closure one way or the other, life is to live mate. I hope these words are encouraging as they are meant.

Thankyou. Sincerely Thankyou
 

Folks, Im sitting here at pancake parlor waiting for a mate to join me, so Im going to type away until he gets here.

Ill hit the post but button as he limps in, and it may be somewhat unedited.

Sincerely I feel your frustration. What started out as a simple filling by the dentist has turned into major maxillofacial surgery.

Slippery Pete. A well intentioned and much appreciated ally. To be honest it is very much about my wife, my kids, my parents, the staff. the businesses, the students, the customers, the Suppliers, others impacted, and those that will continue to be in the future. Altruistic. No. its much more than that. I have failed to convey the depth of the conviction. My wife and I have been through a lot, too much, and so totally unnecessary.

I did not expect that this could ever have happened.
I did expect that if it occurred, CASA would act in a well intentioned manner and promptly resolve it.
I expected that if they did not the CASA ICC would step up to the plate.
I did not expect that the ICC would be such a failed process.
I then expected that the Ombudsman would be the next step.
I did not expect that the deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office would be so gross.
I then expected my Local MP would engage with me.
I did not expect that the Minister would direct my MP not to engage or assist me.

Honestly, in my mind is as simple as an SOP. It's the procedure. It's the next item on a lengthy drawn-out checklist. Im just following it. If the first item doesn't achieve the result, you go the second, and through the somewhat lengthy checklist. At this stage that's it. There is a checklist for this situation. I'm following it. Im not jumping ahead because one of those items will result in a safe landing. I would be foolish to bypass one item or procedure knowing that there is no imperative to do so. I trust the checklist.

I don't know how else to express it. When we all walk away from it because the adherence to the recommended procedure was followed. When those passengers walk across the apron towards the apron and every one of them (family, staff, students, suppliers, friends) is oblivious and doesn't even know the pilots name, I would sleep easy.
If the outcome was less pleasant, because i decided to skip item 7 on the checklist for no good reason, it would be an uneasy night.

I am understanding how poorly I've communicated the importance of the process in my mind. I am beginning to think that I may have some undiagnosed issue with this, nevertheless it is the process.

I am somewhat blind in that determination, and in some weird way the failure opf each of those processes is eye opening while at the same time heart breaking, and it makes me only more determined to make sure that i thoroughly attend to that checklist.

When that lengthy checklist is exhausted, that the time for correlation, and drawing on that to apply lateral approaches such as media, politicians, whilst applying pressure from all sides.

In my mind, that's how it works. Still perhaps naively, I am running that checklist in order to the end.

Global Aviator, as with Slippery Pete, I appreciate the well-intentioned comments. No offence is ever taken. I appreciate you are the people that are pulling me aside at the BBQ for a quiet word.

A get a bigger lift from a well-intentioned not what i want to hear post rather than silence on here. So please understand that.

Regarding not engaging with CASA, i feel I need to clarify that.
I understand that CASA is not well intentioned and that there is absolutely no intent whatsoever to act with good intent. That checklist item is fully ticked off.

The allegations of stalking and assault require further CASA engagement in my mind.

The APTA issues do not. With the exception FOI requests and information gathering, by necessity I will need to make contact with CASA.

I am hoping to get another post out today that may further indicate the direction that this path is taking.

I believe that withy less CASA involvement this matter will now proceed more promptly. Please standby.

Cheers. Glen

The check list
 

Glen you have put the case for your convictions and method very well. I admire your attempt to have the government people to own up to their obligations. But as your situation evolved, and in conjunction with the whole dysfunctional administration of aviation, then comes into question whether the ‘checklist’ is fit for purpose?

Having heard the former long serving Premier of Victoria Henry Bolte declaring that the Ombudsman concept was wrong in principle, by detracting from the duties of MPs, and latterly coming to realise how right he was, so too the wrongful separation of aviation administration out of the Westminster traditional Department and away from Ministerial responsibility.

It would be daunting to take a case to the courts but our courts are the final line of appeal, and where facts matter, and assessments are made to hold corporations and individuals to account.

But whatever direction you take be assured of continuing support, wellbeing is the most important factor. Good luck with your dental work.

Ill submit the checklist for "continuous improvement" on a successful landing, it's definitely not fit for purpose, and I feel that at the end of the surgery I am confident I will have a smile like Jack from MAFS. What a lovely set of teeth.

The. Checklist
 

Glen, the problem with using "the checklist", in my opinion, is that it assumes that the other party is following the same process, with a view to an equitable result at the end. Unfortunately, I don't think that is the case. Their checklist goes something like- ignore, deny, ignore some more, stall, wear the complainant down (rinse, repeat).
​​
Was it Albert Einstein who promulgated the definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over, but hoping for a different result? This is not meant to insult you, as I believe you are far from insanity, but I think you still believe in a time of gentlemen's agreements, where both parties wanted the same, equal result. I think you are an honourable man, fighting some dishonourable organisations.

Good luck in whatever way you proceed.

I’m glad you’ve taken my post for what it was - an attempt to help, not to criticise 👍

Know that we are all behind you.

A lot of these analogies (such as the checklist analogy) can be seen very differently by different people.

My analogy of your situation as a checklist would be that you’ve done the whole checklist for “engine restart” 8 times over, and rather than just accept you are going to have to do an inevitable dead stick landing, you keep repeating the same checklist hoping the answer will suddenly appear.

Are you completing required steps on a checklist here, or are you just delaying accepting the inevitable - that a different solution is required for this problem?

Good luck mate.

Repeat advice
 

Glen,

From time to time, I read your posts and I empathise, but you are spinning your wheels on wet grass.
I gave earlier advice, and just now looked back, and note that it was about 4 1/2 years ago on 18 Oct 2019.

It said:

" I once had a major disagreement with someone. I tried to negotiate but was continually ignored. I had to get my lawyer to sue him, which then resulted in a court date. Only then did he negotiate...."

Simple advice, and given by many......but IMO the only way you will get justice in a reasonable time frame.

Good luck
Seabreeze

CASA response to Post #2944
 

For those that are following, in Post #2944, I made some requests regarding the allegation of stalking and assault as alleged by Mr Carmody and propagated by Ms Spence.

I asked for clear clarification if any CASA staff member had ever alleged that I stalked or assaulted them. I received this response from Mr hanton the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

"Good morning Glen

I acknowledge receipt of your email, seeking advice as to whether any CASA officer has ever alleged they were “stalked” or “assaulted” by you. You’ve said you want an immediate response limited to the use of those two words. Based on the documents available to me at this time, as far as I am aware the answers to your questions are:

1.No
2. No

Thanks

Jonathan":

Well that was like pulling teeth finally getting there.

A letter to CPM Reviews
 

Dear Dom Sheil, Senior Reviewer, CPM Reviews Pty Ltd

My name is Glen Buckley.

I am writing to you as you were the appointed investigator from CPM Reviews. You made a determination that supported the false allegations of ‘stalking and assault” that were made against me by CASA.

I am the person that is refuting the allegation made by Mr Shane Carmody PSM before the Senate Committee that I Glen Buckley had “stalked and assaulted CASA Employees”.

A “false and misleading” allegation made for no other reason than to cause me harm.

I was involved in an ongoing dispute with CASA, on an unrelated matter, that did not relate to the safety of aviation.

It would suit CASAs agenda if in fact I had “stalked and assaulted” CASA Employees, because of the impact on my reputation, and the ability to “water down” my credibility in the other matter, as it has.

Mr Carmody PSM was aware of this other matter, and that is the reason that he chose to cause reputational harm to me. There is no other reason that he would make that initial allegation of stalking and assaulting CASA Employees against me, using such a cowardly approach i.e. protection of Parliamentary Privilege.

Mr Carmody PSM chose to initiate such substantive allegations in such a formal setting as a Senate Committee, where I have no recourse. As I have stated the conduct of a coward.

Mr Carmody PSM was fully aware that he was misleading the Senators. This subject is part of a much wider matter in the General Aviation industry, as you may or may not be aware.

There is a high level of awareness of this matter within the Office of Minister King being the Minister responsible for CASA, and specifically with the Minister herself, I have ensured that is the case through constant communication.

Since those allegations were made, I have made multiple respectful requests of CASA to correct the record and confirm that no CASA Employee alleges that I have ever either stalked or assaulted them. Quite simply, I am calling on Ms Spence simply to be honest, as the Public would expect of her in her Role as the CEO of the Nations aviation safety regulator, CASA.

The CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence would also be fully aware that on the balance of probabilities, I never committed either of those most serious criminal acts. In fact, I feel confident that she is “fully aware” the allegations are false. She has decided to propagate a falsehood and would be aware that she is doing so.

I had absolutely no idea that an allegation of stalking and assault had ever been alleged, until Mr Carmody PSM raised those allegations before the Senate Committee. Mr Carmody PSMs successor, Ms Spence, was later able to specify the location and date that one of the stalking and assault offences are alleged to have occurred.

It is Ms Spences continual refusal to correct the record that causes ongoing harm to me, and I am merely trying to bring clarity and truth to this matter.

I have not engaged lawyers, legal action against CASA is an option that I am considering and being encouraged to pursue with widespread industry support. I will be deciding on that matter over coming weeks. The industry has established a GoFundMe page to assist me in pursuing this matter in its entirety, and I intend to use part of those funds to pursue this matter through to a determination or a retraction and apology for the false allegations.

In the interim, I must however continue to try and clear my reputation as you will appreciate, and by the best-intentioned methods that are available to me, and preferably by methods that avoid the unnecessary combative approach of litigation.

I will be frank. I believe that the Senior Executive of CASA have adopted a tactic of gaslighting me. A term that you will be familiar with. I also allege that they have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Specifically, I have named the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence as being the person responsible for the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

I have also publicly named Dr. Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs as the CASA Employee that provided the false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman,

and I have named Mr Jonathan Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner as being complicit in facilitating the provision of that false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office and covering up misconduct.

CASA engaging a private firm to “investigate” the matter, could potentially be another way to further validate the allegations, and effectively deflect responsibility away from CASA to an “arms reach’ private firm that has been engaged by CASA.

It is an effective risk mitigation strategy that affords the Agency an unusually high level of protection, as I believe has happened here. It brings “credibility” when in fact credibility may not exist.

I believe that CASA have engaged CPM reviews for that very purpose of gaslighting me, and to “validate” or effectively “cover up” that misconduct within CASA, rather than approach the Australian Federal Police as they should on such a serious matter. i.e. stalking and assault.

I firmly believe that an allegation of stalking and assault of Government employees by members of the public is a Police matter, and not a matter to be dealt with by a contracted organisation such as CPM Reviews.

My very strong preference has always been that if Ms Spence refuses to correct the false allegations, then she is compelled to refer the matter to the AFP, not to a contracted private firm such as CPM Reviews, with all due respect to your firm.

I have been calling on CASA to make these allegations to the Police and let them flow through the due processes, rather than perpetuate falsehoods whilst giving me no opportunity to defend myself. An opportunity that I still implore CASA to pursue if the CEO Ms Spence refuses to retract the false allegations. The promptest resolution of this matter is best determined by the AFP in my opinion, and the Minister will be compelled to refer the matter to the AFP. I will shortly be sending correspondence to my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland, and Minister King on this very matter, imploring them to refer the matter to the Police.

Because CASA is fully aware that the allegations are false and misleading, they steadfastly refused to report the matter to the Police, and instead chose to engage a Private Company, in this case being CPM Reviews to conduct the investigation. That is my firmly held view, and there really can be no other plausible explanation, that CASA would not have approached the police on these most serious criminal matters.

I have no doubt, CASA choose not to make this a police matter because they would be highly concerned about the outcome of that matter, as it would potentially expose the CASA Flight Operations Inspectors, David Edwards and Owen Richards to accountability, and most likely expose members of CASAs Senior Executive to misconduct.

Interestingly, my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland was directed by Minister King not to assist me with this matter, despite me being a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm for six decades.

My Local MP, Dr. Carina Garland

· Will not permit me access to her Office.

· Will not take telephone calls from me.

· Will not take written submissions delivered to her Office.

· Will not facilitate meetings.

· Will not respond to emails.

Effectively, my Local MP has completely shut me down, and steadfastly refuses to assist me as a resident of her Electorate based on a direction by Minister King. I do acknowledge that my task is substantial, and most particularly so if that “coverup” extends through to the Office of Minister King, as I believe it may.

I have not sent this correspondence to the Office of Minister King or anybody within CASA. I thought I best leave it to your Organisation to determine the necessity or not of communicating this correspondence to the appropriate persons within those respective Organisations. I feel it may be prudent because I believe that the CPM Reviews investigation will become increasingly significant going forward, and most especially as my intention is to gain media attention to highlight the misconduct within CASA.

I apologise for the rather lengthy preamble, but I feel it important that I set the background.

The purpose of this letter.

I have never stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee. Ever!

My strong preference is that this matter be referred to the AFP for a thorough investigation. I will shortly be calling on Minister King to refer it to the AFP for investigation.

I am fully satisfied that CASA utilised a contracted firm such as CPM Reviews, rather than the Australian Federal Police to ascertain whether I had stalked or assaulted any CASA Employees to increase the likelihood of a favourable outcome for CASA and cover up misconduct within CASA.

The CPM review is substantially flawed. When I make that Statement, please be assured that I have utilised an Australian Subject Matter Expert on this subject i.e. investigations.

Currently this individual with the very highest levels of expertise in these matters, is in a very senior position within the employ of the Government, although that will likely change over coming months, as they retire, that person would become readily available to address the gross deficiencies in investigative methods in the Report.

That person assures me that it is unlikely I would need to utilise those persons services because ‘the deficiencies in investigative techniques are so substantially flawed that the most basic of assessments will identify that, and any person with experience in investigations will promptly pull it completely apart’.

By contracting a firm, such as CPM Reviews rather than utilising the AFP, it is more likely that CASA would achieve an “engineered” outcome that would give credibility to the scurrilous allegations, and effectively reinforce the entire process of gaslighting me. I believe that CASA was seeking a “reverse engineered process.’ I believe that CASA obtained their required result by engaging CPM Reviews. Had CASA approached the AFP on the matter of stalking and assault, I am fully satisfied that an entirely different outcome would have occurred, as well as a different process.

I must acknowledge that the conditions and parameters of the investigation were set by CASA when your firm was contracted, and you did not have the parameters available to you to conduct a robust examination.

As pointed out to me by the individual assisting me. “it was also somewhat incumbent upon CPM reviews not to accept the work, if they had concerns as to its legitimacy, and concerns should have been immediately obvious to any truly independent investigator once the parameters of that investigation were set, particularly the “advice” not to make contact withy me.

It was pointed out to me by this Expert that there would most likely been several discussions in the background on this topic via means other than email such about the parameters and that we will never know what was said in those discussions, “off the record”.

I note that you were “advised” not to engage with me as part of the “investigation”. I note that you accepted CASAs advice, and you did not engage with me, a course of events that would not have transpired if the AFP or similar Body were involved in the investigation, I am assured of that by the Expert.

The reasons that I am calling on CPM Reviews to withdraw their report is because I intend to pursue this matter through to a proper investigation by the AFP. I also intend to seek media attention to this matter, and I have included other recipients in this correspondence.

I acknowledge that CPM Reviews was engaged for a very specific purpose and that the words ‘stalking’ and “assault” were not used. Your investigation centred around whether CASA Flight Operations Inspector Mr David Edwards made a false and misleading statement, when he alleges, he was shoved by me to an extent where he had to reposition himself to maintain balance, and you found that in fact Mr Edwards was being truthful, it therefore did happen, and that supports the preferred narrative of CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence.

Your findings are highly relevant to this matter,

I am advised by a SME on investigations that the direction not to engage with both parties in such a substantive allegation does not meet the validity of any investigation.



I am advised by the SME that a qualified individual reviewing the parameters set by CASA would be concerned and it would raise a significant red flag that what is being sought is a reverse engineered result.

I am advised by the SME that such directions would only occur in an investigation that has been engaged for reasons other than a robust investigation, and one where the relationship is of a commercial nature, rather than where an investigative agency was involved.

The SME on investigations advises that the most standout deficiency in the investigation is the complete failure to place significant weighting on statements made immediately after the incident compared to Statements made over a longer passage of time where there is more opportunity to collude. These two statements are staggering in their divergence.

One of the stalking and assaulting incidents is said to have occurred in the CASA foyer as Ms Pip Spence alleges, there were two CASA Employees present.

In documents obtained by me under FOI, one CASA Employee claims that he was stalked and assaulted by me and that I allegedly assaulted him in the foyer of the CASA building. The second CASA Employee completely makes no references at all to any stalking or assault whatsoever when he makes his report immediately after. It is just not feasible that such a situation could occur.

I note significantly, that now the second CASA employee does state that he did witness me assault the first CASA Employee, although that is after an extended passage of time.

You accepted that change of narrative where both CASA Employees had ample opportunity to collude. The newer “colluded” narrative being very different than the one made on the day.

The SME advised me that in their opinion an investigation by a qualified Government investigative authority i.e. a relevant police agency while not able to determine guilt would be satisfied that the matter needs to be pursued.

The SME suggested that the very concept of a Government Agency using public funds to pursue these matters using contracted businesses when there more cost effective (fee) Government agencies with expertise in these matters, such as a police Force, must in itself raise high levels of concern, and is not normal procedure.

Whilst I appreciate that CASA did not prohibit you from contacting me, there can be no doubt that you were “encouraged” by CASA not to engage with me, and you address that in your report.

This is where I see the “commercial imperative” overriding the procedural fairness, when CASA contract Companies such as CPM Reviews whose businesses are most likely highly dependent on ongoing work, from the Government.

Had this matter been handled by the Australian Federal Police would most certainly have contacted me. In fact, standard investigative procedures would mandate that as part of the procedure. My reasonable assumption is that any investigation would require at least some communication with me as the person that has made the complaint.

The substantive nature of the allegations requires that I be interviewed or at least contacted by some means throughout the investigation.



I refer again for emphasis to the “standout feature” that was overlooked in the contracted investigation is that the two statements by the two CASA Employees present at the alleged incident have provided such differing accounts.

One CASA employee stating that I shoved him forcefully enough that he was required to reposition his feet in order to maintain his balance.

The other CASA Employee who was present at the time states that I “went” to shove the CASA employee but stopped. He clearly indicates that I did not assault the first CASA employee.

I feel your investigation placed very little weighting or consideration on the significance of these two diverse witness statements. I acknowledge that years later the witness has changed his statement from one of “I went to shove…” To one of I did shove the CASA Employee.

Any robust investigation would have to acknowledge the credibility of those two differing statements and observe how over the passage of time that witness statement has changed substantially.

The SME expert advises that the use of emotive, childlike terminology such as “yelling” and screaming” rather than more adultlike terminology such as “elevated tone” or “agitated’ can indicate emotion and an attempt to create an image that may be somewhat exaggerated, and potentially a witness statement that cannot be fully relied upon, or at least needs to be verified if practical.

One of the alleged incidents of “stalking or assault”, and the one where I was “yelling and screaming” has been identified to me by Ms Pip Spence as having occurred directly under a security camera, and less than ten metres from a desk with three security personnel present, yet not one of them even noticed it, intervened, or even made a log of the event. Surely that must be concerning.

On the balance of probabilities, one would assume that CASA would have enthusiastically accessed that footage, or at least attempted to access that footage. No attempt was made. Had an Employee of CASA been stalked or assaulted in the Foyer of the CASA building with footage of that incident, it makes no sense that no attempt was made, unless of course it never truly occurred.

The SME confirms that had any Government employee been stalked or assaulted whilst in the course of their duties, the Agency would have a mandated and well documented process and would pursue those processes vigorously as part of their OHS obligations.

If my FOI request has yielded no reference to stalking or assault anywhere at all apart from Mr Carmody’s initial allegations, then I suggest, on the balance of probabilities it never occurred, as I already know.

Importantly I have done an FOI request on this topic, and no documents held by CASA even contain the words “stalking” or assault” as one would expect if it had of occurred. The Expert that I utilised was somewhat dumbfounded as to how an allegation could even exist if there is absolutely no record of it, as I am.

As the Expert pointed out, If I had of assaulted a CASA Employee and he felt that he or his colleague had been assaulted, then it is likely that the engagement would have ceased at that point rather than continue on. The fact that a conversation continued after the alleged stalking and assault incident and apparently continued for some time is a most unusual response to such an incident and would raise concerns according to the Expert.

Whilst I very much appreciate that firms such as yours exist and are potentially required. It is incumbent on those firms that they maintain their credibility by ensuring transparent processes. I feel that when CASA advised you that you did not need to engage with me, to any well-intentioned investigator that would be an immediate “red flag”. One that could potentially be overlooked due to the commercial imperative of the relationship between the investigator and the Agency contracting the investiagtor. Whilst I am not specifically suggesting that occurred here, you will appreciate how it appears.

For clarity.

On reading this letter I can sense that it may appear somewhat more than assertive than I intend. Please be assured that is not my intention.

Specifically, Mr Alecks misconduct has bought significant harm to me and my family. My reputation has been decimated, and the truth is I hit absolute rock bottom and ended up in a psychiatric facility on the very cusp of taking my own life.

I am merely fighting with everything left available to me to resolve this matter.

I do feel that CPM reviews was somewhat “influenced” and should have engaged with me.

CPM reviews is not my enemy. I fully acknowledge that until this point in time, CPM reviews may not have had an awareness of the significance of the real purpose of the investigation, and its role in further gaslighting me.

I believe that CASA provided CPM a very selective set of criteria to achieve CASAs preferred outcome. I feel that CPM was “played” but also that CPM allowed itself to be “played” somewhat, and it’s reasonable to assume that the “commercial imperative” was a contributing factor.

To ensure clarity, and based on the knowledge that you now have of this matter, may I make a respectful request of CPM Reviews.

My preference is that CPM Reviews advise Minister King and CASA that with the wider knowledge that they now have of this matter, they are withdrawing their Findings.

I must also add, that at the time of receiving this correspondence you are now very much aware of my allegations, and with that knowledge going forward I can only strongly recommend that you seriously consider this as the best alternative. i.e. that you do not permit your Report to be utilised by CASA.

I am asking that CPM reviews request of CASA that that the investigation done by CPM Reviews, be withdrawn and not used in any way to bring harm to Glen Buckley until this matter has been referred to and considered by the AFP.

This will achieve several benefits.

It will afford me procedural fairness and allow me to progress the matter through correct channels being the AFP.

It will avoid there being two separate investigations. One being the CPM reviews investigation and the other being the AFP investigation. In the event that those investigations being the CPM Reviews investigation and an AFP investigation were different, it has the potential to bring harm to CPM reviews and the concept of Government Agencies using public funds to pursue such matters with Private firms when Police Forces are available, arguably more qualified, and arguably more cost effective.

It provides CPM Reviews the opportunity to have no further involvement in this matter and minimise any potential negative commercial impact or reputational harm.

I am confident the CPM Reviews “investigation” would be used to effectively further CASAs false allegations that I have stalked and assaulted CASA employees, and to effectively gaslight me.

Please be assured that I am well intentioned. This matter is a matter between CASA and myself, and I have clearly given CPM Reviews the option to completely remove themselves from this matter if they choose to do so and have no further involvement in this matter.

If I may, the ongoing nature of this matter over many years has taken a significant toll. I’m not mentally up to “email ping pong”.

If this is a matter that needs further engagement between CPM reviews and myself, I make myself readily available, but by way of a face to face well intentioned meeting or alternatively a phone conversation, but please, not by email ping pong.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

Reply from CPM Reviews to previous post
 

Dear Mr Buckley



I am responding to your email to Mr Sheil of 12 March 2024.



As you are aware, CPM Reviews was contracted by CASA to examine two written accounts of an interaction between yourself and two CASA staff in the foyer of CASA's Melbourne office. The matters examined were drawn from your correspondence with Mr Jonathan Hanton, Industry Complaints Commissioner, which inter alia detailed your complaint.



We stand by the recommendations contained in our report and the basis for them.



If, despite the report, it is your view that any CASA staff have acted inappropriately then you can of course take that up with the Authority.



Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXXX

Executive Director

My response to #2956 and #2957
 

Dear xxxxxxx (Executive Directror)


Thankyou for your prompt response. CASA has now advised me that in fact no allegation of stalking or assault exists, therefore I can proceed despite the findings of your investigation that was contracted to CPM Reviews by CASA.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley