Sandy,

I agree but you can remove the ‘expense’ from that statement. From the support I see here and how quickly the first crowdfunding went, I don’t think it would take long to build up the coffers.

Completely unrelated but Aussie Pilots finally seem to have had enough, I’m referring to the fantastic work the Network Aviation guys are doing.

Until CASA have to answer in court Glen will constantly be on the back foot. Glen I think what you have done is fantastic, meticulous and on point. However you go to the doc when ya sick, ya go to a lawyer when well ya need lawerying!

We are behind you.

Letter to Carina Garland MP Chisholm-DRAFT ONLY 1 of 2
 

Draft removed and posted #2925 and #2926

2 of 2
 

Draft Correspondence removed and reposted #2925 and #2926

Legalities
 

Glen, I’m sure there’s loads of us glad to see you on the march again and this time talking about legal action.

I also think that waiting again for MPs to help will not achieve the goal of justice for you and your family. You have given all of them ample opportunity over and over again. We all see that a fair deal for you is sorely lacking and that glaring blot on the operations of CASA needs to be expunged.

Those of us that have contributed to your legal fighting fund will certainly be very gratified if and when you decide that this is your only recourse that has a likelihood of success. Unfortunately as the years roll on inflation is taking its toll, but still if you start a legal action I believe your fund will be turbo charged.

Follow up to correspondence Post #2915
 

26/02/24

Ombudsman reference 2019-713834

My reference Pprune #2923

To the Commonwealth Ombudsman office.

On 16/01/24 I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office regarding gross technical errors that had developed within the Ombudsman investigation, and impact on my family’s ability to pursue this matter.

It seems entirely reasonable that where gross misunderstandings have developed within the Ombudsman Office, that the Ombudsman Office would be compelled to address those issues and publicly correct those errors where they have developed.

I am firmly of the belief that these misunderstandings may have developed based on false and misleading information provided to the Ombudsman investigation.

I understand that the Ombudsman Office is firmly of the view that they have not been misled, although surprisingly in correspondence I received under FOI, it is immediately obvious that in fact the Ombudsman Office has previously identified that CASA had been somewhat obstructing the process and providing information that may have hindered any investigation rather than assist the investigation with CASAs best endeavours and truthfulness.

That correspondence was sent to you on 16/01/24, and almost 6 weeks later remains unacknowledged.

To be frank, I am of the view that the Ombudsman is fully aware of these gross technical errors, but has chosen to afford the Agency, being CASA, a higher level of “protection” than the public would expect of the Ombudsman’s Office.

The purpose of the correspondence was to correct a fundamental error, of which there are many.

The Ombudsman correspondence received by me indicates that there was more than one flying school, when that is incorrect. This is not a matter of contention, and CASA will be able to promptly clarify that for your Office.

If the Ombudsman maintains that there was more than one flying school which there most clearly was not, and I bought the error to the attention of the Office, it is concerning that the Ombudsman Office would be reluctant to address this fact.

I have very clearly expressed my preference that the Ombudsman withdraw the report in its entirety.

As you are aware, I made multiple requests of your Office to have the matter completely withdrawn, once I became aware that these errors had developed, based on false and misleading information.

Despite my request, the Ombudsman Office elected to proceed with the examination.

If the Ombudsman refuses to withdraw the report, then it seems entirely reasonable that the Ombudsman address those errors, rather than afford the Agency the level of protection that it has to date.

For clarity, there were no other flying schools. There was only ever one CASA approved flying school, and that error by the Ombudsman is easily corrected.

An Approval for an Entity to deliver flying training is referred to as a Part 141 or Part 142 School.

The purpose of the correspondence 6 weeks ago was to correct this gross misunderstanding and ask that the Ombudsman identify which Entities held a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

CASA issues these Approvals after a very complex, lengthy, and expensive process, and there can be no doubt that it is very clear to CASA which Entities hold a Part 141 or Part 142 Approval.

I am concerned because this matter could be completely clarified with a single telephone call, and it concerns me that after 6 weeks, I have not heard back from the Ombudsman Office.

The purpose of this correspondence is to follow up on that correspondence that I sent to your Office over 6 weeks ago. I know my Father has also been pursuing information from the Ombudsman Office and after 6 months he is still pursuing that matter.

The Ombudsman Office has obviously struggled with this matter in its entirety, and some statements made by that Office leave me in no doubt that there is a significant level of confusion within the Office, which has led to gross technical errors.

My request was quite simple and straight forward, I asked the Ombudsman Office to identify if there were any other flying schools or any other Entity apart from mine, holding the required CASA Approvals.

The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated that it accepts CASA Statements at face value and does not pursue evidence when it is clearly and readily available.

In order to operate as a Part 141 or 142 Flight Training Organisation, that Entity would require.

· A CASA approved Exposition.

· It would have Key personnel, such as a CASA approved Head of operations, safety Manager, and a CASA approved CEO.

· A CASA issued certificate.

· Correspondence between that Organisation and CASA on operational matters etc

The point being that these are black and white matters. The only CASA approved school was APTA, there were no others. When the ombudsman refers to the other Organisations approvals and Authorisations that is quite astounding, as there are none.

This entire investigation has limped along for over 5 years, and the entire process has been mentally exhausting, and pushed me to the very limit.

I am therefore calling on the Ombudsman to respond in a timely manner, and with good intent rather than frustrate processes.

Can the Ombudsman Office please clarify and correct its error and confirm to me that they are fully aware that there was only one Authorisation, that being APTAs, and that no other Entity was a flying school and therefore obviously could not operate a flying school.

Thankyou for your prompt attention to this matter. Could I request that the Ombudsman Office outline the procedure for me to have technical errors addressed.

Respectfully.
Glen Buckley

Glen,

You are building great background for the litigator that will take this through and help you.

You need to find that person now, work out who you are chasing and go hard.

You are noble in your attempts to see common sense, however you are fighting a government. Go hard and go now mate.

Submission to Office of Carina Garland 1 of 2
 

27/02/24

Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm,

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

You will be fully conversant with my matter.

· CASA Senior Executives being involved in the deliberately providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation with the intention to affect the outcome of an investigation.

· An allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Affairs.

I attended your Office at 4PM on 26/02/24 to submit correspondence to your Office on this matter.

A Member of your staff attended to me. I introduced myself and requested that I receive a signed acknowledgement of that submission.

Your staff member was initially willing to oblige and requested the nature of the submission.

I explained that it was of a sensitive nature, and I provided the briefest of overviews.

The staff member appreciated that it was of a substantive nature and consulted with a colleague.

I was advised that your Office would not accept the document.

I explained that I was not expecting them to ‘accept” the document as necessarily true and correct, but I am requesting that they retain the copy from an affected lifelong resident of the Electorate.

They steadfastly refused.

Up until this stage I had made no recording but advised that I would film myself leaving the document, as I did.

At this stage the staff moved to the rear of the office to be out of my view.

I made repeated requests simply to submit the document to my Local MP.

As I was not being attended to, I left the office, On my exit, I left a copy of that document at your front door, and my quite reasonable expectation is that your staff retrieved that document.

I am sending an original copy of the document to you below.

I look forward to your considered response.

For the record. At all times I remained respectful towards your staff, and I am sure that they will concur that at no stage did they feel threatened or unsafe. The only occasion that I was compelled to raise my voice, was when your staff moved out of my eyesight, but at no stage was I agitated. I did not dwell unnecessarily within your lobby for any longer than required, and I left the area once I realised that you would not accept that document. I did try to re-enter the Office to leave that copy, but the door was locked. I tried to call the office to advise them, but they hung up the phone on me.

Overall, a very concerning experience from a constituent who has been impacted, and is simply seeking the assistance of their Local MP.

If your staff believe that they felt unsafe at any time, or if my conduct was not professional and respectful, I ask that you bring that to my immediate attention.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

The correspondence submitted yesterday follows, and as you refuse to meet with me or accept any documentation from me, you have compelled me to reach out to Independent MPs of other Electorates, although I will ensure you remain fully up to date and will include your Office in such correspondence.





· Original Copy presented to the Office of Carina Garland, MP Chisholm on 26/02/24.

· Email sent to Carina Garland MP Chisholm, and other listed recipients 27/02/24.





26/02/2023



Dear Dr. Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.

Other pertinent recipients:

Member MP

· Mr Adam Bandt MP

· Mr Stephen Bates MP

· Mr Max Chandler-Mather MP

· Mr Russell Broadbent MP

· Ms. Kate Chaney MP

· Ms. Zoe Daniel MP

· Hon Andrew Gee

· Dr Helen Haines MP

· Ms. Dai Le MP

· Dr. Monique Ryan MP

· Dr Sophie Scamps MP

· Ms. Allegra Spender MP

· Ms. Zali Steggall OAM MP

· Ms. Kylea Tink MP

· Mr. Andrew Wilkie MP

· Senator David Pocock

· Senator Lidia Thorpe

· Senator David Van

· Senator Pauline Hanson

· Senator Jacqui Lambie

· Senator Nick McKim

· Senator David Willmer

· Senator Janet Rice

· Senator Malcolm Roberts

· Senator Tammy Tyrell

· Senator David van

· Senator Larissa Waters

· Senator Peter Whish-Wilson





My name is Glen Buckley, a 59-year resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. An Electorate that four generations of my family have lived in.

As my Local MP, Ms Garland you have an expert knowledge of my matter, as I have kept you fully updated since you won the Seat of Chisholm at the last election. I have also met with you, as has my wife, and on more than one occasion. I have kept you constantly updated by email since those meetings.

I have previously extended multiple invitations to continue to make myself fully available to meet with you at your local Electorate Office in Chisholm, or in your Canberra Office, as best suits you, at any time you feel you require an update. It is crucial that you remain fully informed, as you have been to date, and that you can in turn, ensure Minister King remains fully informed, as presumably Minister King has been to date.

I acknowledge that the CASA Board is also required to keep Minister King informed and I make that assumption based on CASAs own Statement of Intent, where it states:

“CASA will promptly alert Minister King and the Secretary of the Department of any event or issue that may materially impact CASAs operations. CASA will also advise Minister King of any submissions, major media releases or speeches and other information which the Government is accountable to the Parliament.”

My allegations are substantive. If I was found to be making these statements in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I fully understand that I would potentially be subject to criminal, and/or civil action.

As you are fully aware my allegations of

· Providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation, by senior members of the CASA Executive and

· Misfeasance in public office against CASAs second most senior, and the longest serving member of the CASA Executive Management, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Manager for Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs,

are allegations that are substantial and no doubt the CASA Board would be compelled to ensure the Minister is fully briefed.

My intention is to attract media attention to this matter and that should further compel you to ensure that you remain fully conversant with the matter as you are and ensure that relevant persons are kept fully up to date. I have included some media outlets in this email. I have taken this action because the actions of your Office leave me with concerns that there is an attempt to cover up this matter.

These allegations of misconduct cannot continue to be “swept under the carpet”, and I have a reasonable expectation that Minister King is aware that those two allegations exist and has been kept fully informed by the CASA Board, and by your Office. This is a matter that I will continue to pursue, with widespread support of the General Aviation Industry.

You will be aware of two Pilot forums being Aunty Pru and Pprune. The latter has had over 1.000.000 views and thousands of comments. I understand that the Aunty Pru site also regularly updates your office on mine and other aviation matters.

For that reason, and as a lifelong resident of your Electorate, may I request of you as a Constituent, that your Office ensure that Minister King is aware of, and has been provided a copy of this correspondence by your Office.

My previous correspondence to Minister King on these allegations has not been responded to by her Office, therefore I am seeking a confirmation specifically from your Office, that Minister King is personally aware and has considered this correspondence. I do not require any response from Minister King at this stage, other than confirmation from your Office that it has been provided to her and bought personally to her attention, as the Minister responsible for CASA.

If for any reason your Office is unwilling and/or unable to facilitate that request, could you please clearly advise me of such.

I recently received further documents obtained under Freedom of Information (FOI), and those documents leave me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to that Commonwealth Ombudsman Investigation.

The provision of false and misleading information has been provided by Dr Jonathan Aleck the CASA Executive Manager of Legal International and Regulatory Affairs and I have increasing concerns that false and misleading information may have also been provided by the Office of the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC), although the heavily redacted nature of the documents makes that difficult to confirm at this stage.

If the Office of the CASA ICC has not provided false and misleading information, that Office has as a minimum, facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation, and had an awareness that false and misleading information was being provided.

Recent documentation obtained by me under FOI, has raised concerns that the CEO of CASA has also been complicit in the provision of false and misleading information. specifically with regards to how long I had been operating in the CASA approved structure that I was operating with.

On this specific point regarding the involvement of the CASA CEO, and her knowledge of the provision of false and misleading information, I will address that topic after receiving further documentation under FOI. A specific allegation against the CEO of CASA is not the purpose of this correspondence but will be addressed at the appropriate time, and as always, you will be provided with a copy of that correspondence.

I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office will maintain the position that CASA has not provided false and misleading information.

The point of false and misleading information is, that it is not recognised as false and misleading information. The task of the provider of false and misleading information is made easier if the recipient requires a low threshold of evidence or chooses not to seek evidence when it is readily available.

This low threshold of evidence also highlights again deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office that reaffirm the same findings as the Robodebt Inquiry, and these are significant matters, that cannot continue to be ignored i.e. accepting information at “face value” rather than seeking supporting evidence when it is clearly available.

Of perhaps more concern is the Ombudsman’s Office considered avoidance to seek evidence that may bring harm to the Government Agency, even when that evidence is abundant and readily available.

Under FOI in have obtained heavily redacted documents although if I may quote from correspondence between the Ombudsman and the CEO of CASA where the Ombudsman Office has scratched the surface at least of identifying that CASA is not being as forthcoming as they are obligated to be, and I quote from that correspondence where the Ombudsman Office states.

“while CASA has not denied its knowledge of Mr Buckleys arrangements for APTA, we feel it has been reluctant to acknowledge the extent of its knowledge of the model to the Office, including that other Operators may have been using a similar model……had CASA been more forthcoming in acknowledging to the Office the more permissive stance it seemed to have taken in allowing Operators to share their Authorisations prior to October 2018, it would have allowed the Office a better understanding of the situation.”

Whilst the Ombudsman Office appears to have almost let that slip by with a rather “wet lettuce” approach which is concerning, it does further indicate that Mr Jonathan Aleck, his direct senior being the CASA CEO, and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have let things “slip” through to the Ombudsman that perhaps were not truthful.

In fact, this presents one of my major challenges and another reason that I am reaching out to make a final request for your assistance.

If the Ombudsman has identified that CASA Employees have apparently misled or as the Ombudsman politely puts it, been ‘reluctant”, and “not forthcoming” in providing information to the Ombudsman Office, it is likely that behaviour would be replicated in a Court of Law, therefore preventing me from seeking justice.

CASA would be obligated, as it is, to conduct itself as a model litigant. I should not need to prove things to be true that the CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner and the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs know to be true.

As you are aware, I have past CASA Employees from senior positions within CASA that have approached me, and offered to come forward and expose this matter, simply by “telling the truth”. It is significant. The matter attends to serious misconduct at the highest levels within CASA, and potentially to the Office of the CEO.

It also potentially involves your Office and the Office of Minister King, although the purpose of this correspondence is not to formally make those allegations at this stage, and I await your response, and an upcoming FOI request before I proceed.

For the record I must state that I made two ex CASA employees available to meet with you. “Witnesses’ who would both be Australia’s most qualified ex CASA Employees to address this matter and bring almost immediate truth and clarity to this matter. Both your Office and the Ombudsman are unwilling to accept that offer. You will appreciate my concern that “other forces are at play” here.

I am now seeking the appropriate forum, to initially introduce at least those two past CASA Employee’s to assist in exposing this matter. Please be assured that I have access to a significant number of past CASA employees, that have offered to make themselves available. Not for the purposes of causing mischief, but to try and bring about improvement and good governance to CASA. These are significant matters, that cannot continue to be covered up.

I will use this opportunity to provide a brief chronology regarding your involvement as my Local MP and the Member for Chisholm to date.

· Prior to the last Election, I met you, and you gave me your personal assurance, if you were to win the Seat of Chisholm from the Liberal incumbent that you would assist me and my family in my allegation of “misfeasance in public office” against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory affairs, and the allegation that CASA was “providing false and misleading information” to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation



· Based on your assurances, in the lead up to the election, I was very active with the assistance of members of the Electorate of Chisholm. I distributed many thousands of leaflets in the Electorate calling for a change of representation to yourself. It was not a Liberal/Labor argument, but rather I was calling for a move towards integrity in Government, and at the time, I felt the Labor Party, and you personally, best represented that. A decision that I obviously regret now,



· You went on to win the Seat of Chisholm on 21/05/22.



· Over the next 6 months I made multiple requests of your Office asking you to meet the commitment that you gave me prior to the Election and meet with my family. Those multiple requests went unanswered by your Office.



· On 16/11/22, after multiple requests and visits to your Office over the 6 months trying to secure an appointment with you, I finally obtained a meeting with you, and at that meeting occurred on 16/11/22, you led my wife and I to believe that you would actively investigate this matter and help us as residents of your Electorate.



· I waited 4 months, without hearing anything at all from you. It became apparent that my matter was not high on your agenda, and presumably you had more important matters to attend to. I sent a follow up email to ascertain if there had been any developments with regards to your offer to assist me in my most serious of allegations of misfeasance in public office and providing false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation.



· On 28/03/.23, I received correspondence from your Office which simply and dismissively read.



“Hi Glen, Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. As agreed, we have raised your case directly with Minister Kings Office and they have advised that we are unable to assist further with this matter. I’m sorry we don’t have better news.”

That dismissive response from you as my MP was heart breaking. You were well aware of the impact that this matter had on three generations of my family, all residents of your Electorate, as well as businesses and employees that were dependent on me. You were aware that my wife and I had lost absolutely everything including our family home

Eventually after the enormous toll that Mr Alecks actions and decisions had on me and my family, I fell into a deep depression, made an attempt on my own life, very shortly after receiving your dismissive correspondence and ended up in a psychiatric hospital.

The impact of Mr Alecks actions and decisions was targeted, it was personal, and it was entirely unnecessary. Entirely.

You were aware that I was firmly of the view that Mr Jonathan Aleck had acted with targeted malice towards me, and caused significant harm, you were aware of the substantive nature of my allegations,

Whilst I don’t believe that my 6 decades in the Electorate entitles me to any higher level of assistance than any other Constituent. My family believes we were entitled to at least your best endeavours, which we clearly feel have not been met, and I am forced to question your willingness and ability to assist your Constituents, in matters that they are entitled to your assistance with.

As a Constituent of your Electorate, you have completely failed me, and my family, and to be frank, I question your genuine commitment to your constituents, and your reversal of position leads me to question your integrity.

I am compelled to move forward on this matter because it involves misconduct at the highest levels within the Executive Management of CASA. A most significant and important Government Department. I am not the only one raising allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, but as with mine, all attempts are generally covered up by CASA.

I continue to make myself available to meet with you face to face and update you on any aspects to ensure you can remain fully abreast of this matter.

I know that a person with some exposure to the world of politics, Mr Sandy Reith wrote to you encouraging you to personally make yourself aware of the “salient features of this case”, and a copy of that correspondence that was sent to you follows.

“Dear Dr. Carina Garland,


In regard to your officer Jarrod Panther’s reply on your behalf to Glen Buckley, I request that you personally make yourself familiar with the salient features of his case.

I support Glen’s pursuit of justice, he has had wrong treatment at the hands of CASA and its disgraceful treatment of him must be redressed.

It is the duty of a Parliamentary representative to pursue the claim of a constituent. Otherwise, why have single member constituent representatives? This is a fundamental element of our democratic system.

I vigorously implore you to look again at an obvious injustice that has been perpetrated against Glen Buckley and his well-crafted flying training organisation which assisted smaller flying schools and aero clubs to maintain their flying training abilities in the face of a new and far more complex environment of rules, compared to regulations and procedures than pertained in the past (and nothing like the workable system that applies in the USA).

Without the involvement of MPs who are willing to step up and truly represent their constituents at an individual level we deny the basis of single member representatives and responsible government.

Kind regards, and always ready to engage or answer your questions.

Sandy Reith”



The point of mentioning that correspondence is that it reinforces the fact that you that you have received correspondence on this matter from a third Party, and my hope is that you heeded that advice rather than facilitate a cover up of the matter, and that you have ensured you are fully aware of the “salient features” of this case.

Whilst I do not wish to be unnecessarily combative it is essential that I remain upfront, avoid blindsiding anyone, and ensure that there are clear expectations going forward.

Whilst I do appreciate that as a new MP, your capabilities will be somewhat limited, and I think your Offices response to me, is indicative of that, but I do have a reasonable expectation that you will act with integrity and work with your best endeavours to support Constituents of the Electorate of Chisholm, and most especially because of the very marginal nature of that Seat, and the significant harm caused to one of your Constituents,

My specific requests of your Office, and you personally as my Labor MP for the Chisholm Electorate, and as a Member of the Labor Party, therefore purportedly highly motivated to achieve the highest standards of ethics and integrity, are as follows.

2 of 2
 

Request One for a response from my MP, Dr. Carina Garland-

Why was the matter not fully resolved in a matter of hours, for what reason was it still unresolved after 8 months.

I maintain that this entire issue with CASA could have been fully resolved in less than 4 hours, if CASA employee, Mr Jonathan Aleck had intended for that to be so.

I am simply seeking an explanation as to why that did not occur.

There is no doubt that Mr Aleck deliberately frustrated resolution of the issue unnecessarily and there is an overwhelming body of evidence to support that. That evidence was obtained by me under FOI.

This matter in its entirety is about “intent’”, and very specifically about the “intent” of Mr Aleck.

The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs deliberately placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that caused enormous commercial and reputational harm. He was not compelled to make those decisions.

Less harmful, safer, and more effective actions and decisions were available to him. He clearly did not follow CASAs own stipulated procedures when taking that action, and at no stage did I have any appeal process available to me.

His actions and decisions were based on existing acrimony between us.

Why couldn’t it be resolved on the spot in one meeting that would last less than 4 hours? A truthful answer to that will promptly bring this entire matter to a head,

As you are aware, with no prior notification CASA placed crippling trading restrictions on my business that cost me and my family more than $10,000 per week initially, and as the months increased that figure rose to approximately $20,000 per week. These remained in place for 8 months until CASA determined that the Business would not be permitted to continue operating in the structure it had adopted for the previous decade. Importantly, Mr Aleck targeted my business specifically, and not others.

All personnel operating under the CASA issued Authorisation now had to Employees of the same Company that held the CASA Authorisation. A most bizarre and unique requirement that has never been placed on any other person’s business, in the aviation industry ever. There is absolutely no legislation that suggests this requirement.

The CASA CEO, the Executive Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory services is fully aware of that, as is the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner.

The result of having these trading restrictions being imposed for a staggering 8 months with no resolution caused significant commercial and reputational harm, not only to me and my family, but also to other Businesses, Employees, Suppliers, Customers and Students.

I am fully satisfied that a Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Services deliberately prolonged resolution of a solution, to bring harm to me and my business, based on existing acrimony between us.

The only “issue” was that CASA wanted to change a paragraph or two in my commercial agreements with my customers. A most bizarre requirement, as CASA never previously had involvement in the commercial aspects of business and focussed on safety and compliance. Nevertheless, I was willing to comply. It was simply a process of retyping some new terminology based on clear and concise guidance on Mr alecks personal requirements.

This entire matter could have been fully resolved within 4 hours at any time before CASA took the action that it did. I believe that Mr Jonathan Aleck placed targeted requirements on me, and me only, and deliberately prolonged resolution of what was a matter that could have been easily resolved and that is in effect the crux of the matter. It is really a matter of “intent: and a powerful employee of CASA using his power to cause commercial and reputational harm to me personally, which in turn, significantly impacted on my health and welfare. It was targeted and it was directed specifically at me. There must be an explanation as to why this simple matter could not be resolved in a matter of a few hours. Considering all the totally unnecessary harm caused, surely my family and I are entitled to that explanation. If CASA is unwilling or unable to address that matter, it is a reasonable request of my MP that they seek that for me.

An explanation provided to you by Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, and understood by you, will help me to understand Mr Alecks actions and decisions. It is imperative that the explanation is signed off by the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence because it is CASAs explanation that I am seeking.

I am however asking that you also satisfy yourself with that explanation if it is forthcoming.

I believe it is highly unlikely that Ms Spence will be able to provide a plausible explanation, as to why a well-intentioned meeting of less than 4 hours could not have had this entire matter finalised to CASAs full satisfaction.

If a plausible explanation could be offered, then that may provide a defence/explanation for Mr Alecks actions and decisions, and it would provide him the opportunity to explain his position and why he felt compelled to make those actions and decisions.

If CASA could provide a plausible explanation, then that would compel me to stop making these public allegations about Mr Aleck, and even potentially provide him some recourse.

Assuming that Mr Aleck has nothing to hide, he would welcome an investigation into his conduct.

My very strong preference is that this is a matter for the Australian Federal Police, or a similar investigative agent or appointee who is not in the employ of CASA. They are the most serious of allegations. Mr aleck is entitled to that process, as, and I have no doubt that he would encourage it.

The Ombudsman office is not the Body to deal with the matter. Issues addressed in the Robodebt Inquiry continue to plague that Body, and its investigative ability is ineffective.

If you feel for some reason that you are not presently equipped to respond to my correspondence, which would concern me, can I actively encourage you to formulate your Offices response, and draw on CASA or the Ombudsman as you require, but ultimately what I am seeking from my Local MP is an explanation as to why so much harm was caused to him and his family, when it was so completely and easily avoidable, and I am asking that my MP obtain that for me, because CASA refuse to address this key issue.

I assume that you would be able to address that issue, as that has been the central theme of my position. i.e., that Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs took actions and made decisions that he was not compelled to make, and that he chose the more harmful option when a significantly less harmful option, more effective and safer option was available to him was fully available to him by way of a single well intentioned meeting.

I feel that I need to be perfectly frank here. I believe that you as my Local MP have acted against the interests of one of your Constituents, and therefore your explanation is crucial in determining how I proceed.

On this matter, and because of the harm caused, and so completely unnecessarily, and that there is no reason that this entire matter could have been fully resolved in a matter of a few hours, and it is an allegation of misconduct at the very highest levels of CASA, I must continue to pursue this matter.

Before doing so, I need to fully satisfy myself that I have exhausted all other options available to me, including seeking the assistance of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. It is essential that if this matter gets to Court, I can clearly demonstrate that I have made all reasonable attempts including attempting to have my parliamentary representative take up my case.

If you as my Local MP could provide a plain English explanation in writing as to why this matter could not be resolved in a matter of hours then it would confirm to me that you have considered this matter and that the stance you have adopted i.e. refusing to assist a Constituent in his allegations of misconduct against emplyees of CASA,is a considered one.

My question to you is this.

Ms Garland, as my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, and as somebody who has had his and his family’s life completely decimated by the actions and decisions of Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.

As the impacted individual who is fully satisfied that this entire matter could have been completely avoided, and so easily.

Could you please provide me an explanation to why this entire matter could not be fully resolved in a matter of hours, what was so complicated?



Request Two of my MP Dr. Carina Garland of Minister Kings “involvement”

I came to you personally with a substantive allegation of misconduct by at least one senior CASA Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck, and potentially two other CASA employees.

Once I became aware that false and misleading information was being provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation by CASA, I approached your office, seeking your assistance, which you initially offered and then later reneged on.

Your change of position from one of offering to assist me, to a position of not being able to assist me, was because of a direction by Minister King, being the Minister responsible for CASA, the Organisation that is being investigated, as per the email above from your Office.

You will understand why I would be concerned that Minister Kings Office may be involved in a “cover up” of misconduct, or at least frustrating processes.

A constituent who has obviously had his life impacted by the matter approaches their MP for assistance, alleging that false and misleading information is being provided to an Ombudsman investigation.

The MP initiates the matter and contacts the Minister responsible for the Agency being investigated.

The Minister responsible for the Agency under investigation then directs that Local MP that the MP is unable to assist the Constituent and provides no further explanation.

I hope you can appreciate that I would perceive that there is potentially a cover up of this matter and it extends to both your office and the Ministers Office.

At our meeting I believe that I provided you with sufficient evidence of misconduct. On the balance of probabilities, with the information that you held, any reasonable person would have been suspicious that there may potentially be an element of misconduct, and you would have had an awareness that on the balance of probabilities, CASA had possibly provided false and misleading information.

If you were unable to determine who was telling the truth you would most certainly have been aware that there are two completely different narratives, and only one of those narratives can be the truthful one.

The point being that if you are aware that there are two completely different narratives being provided on matters that are black and white with a significant body of evidence readily available indicating that one is truthful and one is not, then by choosing not to pursue that matter it indicates a concerning level of apathy, if I was to use the most polite and respectful word that applies in such a situation.

A Constituent of your Electorate of Chisholm has had he and his family’s livelihood, business, mental health and life’s savings devastated by the actions and decisions of a single CASA employee, it is a simple request, that if ethics have prevailed in this matter, should be able to be clearly and concisely responded to.

I am seeking an explanation as to why you would be directed by the Minister, not to assist me with my allegations.

The very purpose of our system of Government is that our local Representative uses their best endeavours to assist and represent their Constituents.

I am concerned that Minister King would send you a direction that you cannot assist a constituent of your Electorate, and that causes me significant concern. Whilst I am not making an allegation specifically of an attempted “cover up’ of this matter, at this stage, I am fully satisfied that I am entitled to a “statement of reasons” as the person impacted as to why a Minister would send that direction to a Local MP seeking to pursue justice in a matter that has so obviously caused so much harm and trauma to a constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

To clarify this matter and ensure clear expectations regarding my second request

Part A, of this request. Could I respectfully request you confirm that Minister Kings position is unchanged, and that is, that her Office has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and therefore I need to approach other appropriate MPs and/or Senators that I have listed above and included in this correspondence.

Part B, If Minister King maintains the position that you are not able to render assistance to a family that lives within the electorate, could your Office please provide me with an explanation as to why you are unable to render that assistance. I would provide Minister Kings response to those other MPs and Senators to form part of their consideration as to whether they can render assistance to me and my family, and I feel that my family are entitled to that explanation.

Request Three- The identical structure was and continues to be permitted by CASA



CASA maintains that they never permitted the structure that I adopted in my business. I truthfully maintained that multiple organisations adopted that identical structure and that they continue to do so. There can only be one truthful answer. Either CASA always permitted it, and continues to do so 5 years later, or CASA never permitted it.

For clarity, I maintain that CASA always permitted and formally approved the exact same structure that I also utilised after a comprehensive CASA process, and I had been doing so for a decade. It was, and is common-place throughout the industry only after a CASA approval

For complete clarity on this matter. CASA always, and most significantly, continues to, permit Operators to adopt the structure that I adopted.

CASA has led the Ombudsman to form the view that the structure that I adopted was “new and unusual”.

I truthfully maintain that I had been operating in that same structure for a decade, with the only changes being those of “continuous improvement” programs or keeping fully up to date with all legislative changes.

Importantly many flight training operators in Australia adopted that same structure.

To you as my MP, I put this third request to you.

If I claim that I operated in the same structure for a decade, and that I adopted a structure that was completely normal throughout the flight training industry and continues to be.

And if CASAs position is that is not the case, CASA never permitted it

CASA steadfastly refuses to respond to my requests. I’m simply asking that you consult with CASA, and obtain a response to these questions.



Fourth request

I am making a formal request to you as my MP that you arrange a meeting between CASA and myself, and I would like you to attend that meeting.

I only ask that a Board Member of CASA also participate in that meeting, in an Observer status.

I would like Ms. Spence or her nominee to attend that meeting.

If you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that meeting, I will make that same request of the other listed MPs and Senators.

I invite you to bring any person you feel may add value to the meeting, and ideally that could be a Member of the AFP or some other nominee, independent of CASA and with some expertise in investigative matters and misconduct.

I would like you to attend that meeting to provide you the opportunity to bring yourself completely up to speed on this matter and ensure full transparency. A meeting of that nature will reduce timelines by many months and avoid the “ping pong” that is so often associated with these matters, as I have experienced to date.

In that Forum, I would raise my allegations, provide evidence, and provide phone access to two past CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, and high levels of expertise in this area.

At the conclusion of that meeting, I would seek your advice on the best path forward.

If no other options are available, I would seek a robust legal assessment of this matter utilising the funds from the Crowd Funding that the industry organised for me.

For that reason, I have also provided a copy of this correspondence to the Law institute of Victoria, asking them to provide me with some guidance on this matter. I am fully satrisfied that Senior Members of the CASA Executive have acted unlawfully and demonstrated misconduct. That misconduct is considered and deliberate.

The reasonable expectation of the Community, and particularly considering the Department that they are employed by, and the Senior positions that they hold is that an investigation would be conducted in short time frames, so as to minimise the impact on CASA and

Going forward.

As the Labor Party is the Party of “ethics”, my hope is that Minister King will change her position and permit you to assist me as a lifelong constituent of your Electorate, and with your best endeavours.

If, however, the Minister continues to direct you not to assist me in this matter, I will be compelled to continue pursuing this matter. I am not the first person to raise these allegations against Mr Jonathan Aleck, and many have offered to come forward and support my allegations.

Three generations of my family have been residents of the electorate. My intention is to commence a petition within the Electorate of Chisholm.

I will seek the signatures of 2000 constituents of your Electorate being the Seat of Chisholm. I have been an active member of the Community and believe that I can have significant “reach” within the Electorate. I am satisfied that I can promptly obtain 2000 signatures from within the Electorate of Chisholm.

A copy of that petition will be provided to you and distributed to those above listed Independent MPs and Senators and the constituents of their respective Electorates calling on that Representative to temporarily divert some of their resources from a matter that initially may not seem to affect that Electorate.

This is however significant matter of national interest, and aviation safety. My allegation is one of corruption within CASA.

That petition will be addressed to the listed Recipients, calling on them for assistance in this matter.

My preference being very clearly that my local MP pursue this matter with their best endeavours, but if they refuse to do so, you will appreciate that I am compelled to pursue other avenues.

Thank you for consideration of this matter. I apologise for the lengthy nature of the correspondence, but these are substantial matters, and they need to be comprehensively considered.

I look forward to a response earliest opportunity.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley and his family

(four generations of Chisholm constituents)

Brief update
 

Sitting here in Pancake Parlor, shortly heading off to work.

Thanks again to all for your support.

Please be assured that I am now completely and fully satisfied that there is no "good intent" at all within CASA on this matter.

I have not been naive, but i did need to fully satisfy myself and provide every reasonable opportunity for ethics, good governance, leadership and most importantly "good intent" to prevail.

This matter now has ceased in all interactions with CASA.

When I left the meeting with the Chair of the Board and the CASA CEO, and was on the flight back to Melbourne, my wife what my thoughts were on the individuals that we met with.

My response to my wife was "Ms Spence is a political animal." (note: it was not intended literally, but figuratively). The solution does not lie with Ms Spence. She knows how to operate in the political environment. The solution completely lies withe the Board Chair"

Like most, I consider myself a good judge of character. On that assessment of Ms. Spence, i stand by it.

I am extremely disappointed in the Board Chair. I need to depart for work but I will return to this topic tonight hopefully.

This matter has no direct CASA involvement. It is now purely a political matter, and for a brief period of time that will be my direction. That direction will be relatively short term, but that hand will be forced.

If required litigation will be my only option, although in the lead up to the election, i will remain active within the electorate. Very active.

Glen, I'm sure your intentions are pure but maybe you underestimate the extent of the rot in current Australian politics? It would appear Ms Spence is hardly the only "political animal" in this saga.

I happen to also be a resident of Chisholm and once worked in an office next door to Anna Burke - which was an eye-opening experience. In my experience Ms Garland, her entourage, associates and most of the pollies on your list are, unfortunately, only interested in feathering their nests for their own gain and representation of their constituents is the furtherest thing from their power-addled minds. If they aren't right now, they haven't been in parliament long enough!

If, as you suspect, your saga has turned political, you'll need to find someone willing to take on your cause - for their own political gain if necessary. Not an easy road, but hang in there!! :ok:

Go Political?
 

A legal challenge would concentrate minds and gain the publicity that might feed into political attention. This would then be a two pronged campaign.
And in case the discussions fall back to ‘its all the greedy politicians fault,’ just remember that most people are disconnected with their MPs, probably most wouldn’t even know their names. In a democracy the people are just as much part of government as the various elected reps and officialdom.

You went to the electoral office without a witness. Odd.

Why don't you sent the document via registered mail?

Did you sent it to all the Victorian Senators?

Missy
 

Regarding attending the office without a witness, I wasn't really too concerned. My assumption was that such an office would have high quality recording devices operating or at least activated as required. I had absolutely nothing to hide, so wasn't too concerned.

I have emailed a copy to the Office of ms garland and received an acknowledgement of receipt

Tomorrow mornings task is distributing it. Cheers. Glen

spondence to attorney general
 

28/02/24

Dear Carina Garland, MP for the Chisholm Electorate.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm. I appreciate that you are fully aware of my matter.

I do acknowledge that Minister King has directed you not to assist me in this matter, and from my personal experience as one of your Constituents in Chisholm, your adherence to the Ministers direction has been resolute. You have been a “loyal soldier”, I will say that. I am confident the Minister is aware of it and acknowledge it

Unfortunately, that comes at the expense of ethics and obligations, but “loyal: nevertheless.

A quality that no doubt will serve you well in your career.

This correspondence is directed to the Attorney General's Department, and I am seeking your assistance.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is promptly forwarded through to the appropriate and responsible person within the Attorney General's Department for consideration, and advice on the action I should now take.

· I am requesting that your Office ensure that this correspondence is provided to Minister King and that she is fully aware of the contents of this correspondence.

· I am also requesting that you provide a copy of this correspondence to the Department of the Prime Minister. While I am not asking that the PM be made aware of this matter. I do expect that the correspondence has been received by his Office and a decision maker has assessed whether there needs to be an awareness of this matter with the PM.

If because of that direction by Minister King, not to assist me, or you are unwilling or unable to facilitate that distribution request could you please advise me, and I will seek alternative means to establish contact on this significant matter with those relevant persons. At this stage I am solely dependent on your assistance, I have not made any other attempts to reach those recipients by other means.

I believe that my request as a resident is a fair and reasonable request of you as my Member of Parliament for the Electorate of Chisholm, despite that direction from Minister King not to assist me.

I require no other assistance from your Office at this stage, apart from the confirmation that you distributed the correspondence to

· Attorney general

· Minister King

· Department of the PM



Respectfully Glen Buckley

____________________________________________________________ _____________________________



28/02/2024

To Office of the Attorney General-

I have asked my Local MP for the Electorate of Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland to ensure that this correspondence is received by the appropriate person within the Office of the AG, of these substantive allegations.

My name is Glen Buckley, I operated a flight training organisation for over a decade with bases at various locations across Australia. I operated a business model that was completely standard industry practice, although in October 2018 CASA reversed its Approval, advised I was subject to prosecution, and placed crippling trading restrictions on my business only, and not others.

A more detailed explanation is not required now as it is not crucial to the purpose of this correspondence.

The matter was the subject of a five-year investigation by the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.

I need to ensure that I achieve absolute clarity on the allegation that I am making in this correspondence. The following CASA Employees,

· Ms Pip Spence the CEO of CASA

· Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs

· Mr Jonathan Hanton- CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner. (ICC)

Have each been directly responsible for, or been complicit in, the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation. The provision of that false and misleading information was deliberate and was intended to influence the outcome of that investigation and cover up an allegation of misfeasance in public office by Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International Regulatory Affairs

I am a resident of the Electorate of Chisholm, and my MP is Carina Garland.

Dr. Carina Garland has written to my family advising that the Minister responsible for CASA, Minister King has advised that my MP, Dr Carina Garland is not permitted to assist me in this matter, and she has advised me of such. To say that the conduct of my Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been suboptimal would be an understatement.

I am fully satisfied that there is an attempted cover up of this matter, and I feel it essential to bring it promptly to the office of the Attorney General’s Office being the office responsible for the Commonwealth Ombudsman, being the Department that is relevant to these allegations.

I encourage the office of the AG to reach out directly to Ms Spence, the CASA CEO, to seek assurances from her that she is confident that she can refute these substantive allegations, and that CASA has not provided false and misleading information to the Ombudsman investigation. Obviously, that must be the AGs first step. i.e. to confirm the CASA CEOs resoluteness as to the truthfulness of information provided by herself and her Executive team.

I wish to proceed with this matter. These allegations are substantive. I have substantial supporting evidence, and I have sought professional involvement in the formulation of documentation that attends directly to my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of legal, International and Regulatory Affairs That will be provided in due course.

In this correspondence, I am going to provide you with two sets of “Descriptors”.

One set of ‘descriptors”, is the clear truth and can be supported with an overwhelming body of evidence, including very senior ex CASA Employees. the other is false and misleading.

I am calling on you to present these two sets of descriptors to the investigating officer from within the Ombudsman’s Office

If the Ombudsman has formed the view that the “Group A descriptors” are the more accurate set of descriptors for the structure that I adopted in my Business, then I am fully satisfied that the Ombudsman has been misled by those individuals and must insist that this matter be pursued.

Group A Descriptors.

· A “new” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· An “unusual” organisational structure was adopted by Glen Buckley

· A “structure” that CASA had not dealt with before was adopted by Glen Buckley

Or,

Group B Descriptors

· Glen Buckley adopted a well “established” structure that had been completely standard industry practice for most medium to larger flying schools and approved by CASA on hundreds of occasions over many decades, as it was with his Organisation until October 2018.

· For over a decade Glen Buckley had adopted “completely normal” organisational structure that was commonplace throughout the industry but only after a formal CASA process. It fully complied with all legislation.

· Glen Buckley adopted an organisational structure that was, and importantly continues to be, a completely standard and CASA approved structure. This structure had been accepted and approved by CASA on literally hundreds of occasions over previous decades and continues to be.

This approach facilitates a prompt and efficient means by which an initial assessment can be made. It could effectively be determined of a single phone call between the two Agencies.

If the Ombudsman Office has formed the view that the Descriptors in “A” are more of an accurate representation of the situation, then I am fully satisfied that the named senior CASA Executives have deliberately provided misleading information to the Ombudsman Office, and they have successfully perverted or influenced that investigation.

This rather simplified initial approach will promptly verify the two diverse representations and leave no doubt at all that one Party is providing false and misleading information. This approach requires no technical background or understanding and is intended to very clearly and concisely identify that there are two very opposite “versions”. Somebody is being deceptive and should be held to account for that deceptiveness. In information obtained by me under FOI, the Ombudsman has clearly identified a tendency within CASA to be somewhat less than forthcoming, as would be expected when trying to cover up misconduct.

This really is a black and white matter that would be immediately resolved with a single phone call to someone with expertise on this matter within CASA. That person would have to be someone other than the three named individuals who have clearly and undeniably demonstrated a propensity to provide false and misleading information. Alternatively, I can make half a dozen ex CASA employees almost immediately available to you.

It is not a matter that should be unresolved after 5 years. The only way that this could remain unresolved is that the Ombudsman office is either unable to resolve this basic fact or is unwilling to resolve this basic fact.

I point out that throughout the five-year investigation the two narratives provided by myself, and CASA were so opposed to each other. It would have been immediately obvious at the onset of the investigation that one party was providing false and misleading information.

Turning a blind eye only encourages the continuation of such conduct. The Robodebt Inquiry identified these deficiencies within the Ombudsman Office, they continue, and must be addressed. i.e. accepting the Agencies “word” rather than seeking “evidence’

That is at least the starting point of an initial consideration. My intention is to follow up with shorter correspondence on several topics. In that correspondence you will simply need to ask the Ombudsman which of the descriptors more accurately represent the view that the Ombudsman has formed.

It is staggering that after 5 years the Ombudsman wrote to me advising that they were still unable to make a determination on this issue. A staggering inability. On one hand you have Glen Buckley advising that the structure I used was commonplace throughout the industry, and CASA advising that was not the case and they had never permitted it.

My allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs would depend very much on me being able to demonstrate that I was targeted by Mr Aleck.

An indicator of being targeted would be if Mr Aleck specifically targeted me. I appreciate the “convenience” that comes with the Ombudsman being unable to decide as to whether the structure I adopted was new and unusual, or if was completely standard CASA approved practice for over 30 years. With most medium to larger schools adopting the same structure.

It is however such a staggering inability, that one is compelled to consider that by avoiding a determination on this matter, a level of “protection” is being afforded to Mr Aleck that the public would not reasonably expect from the Ombudsman’s Office.

I also make the point that I have made Australia’s two leading Subject matter experts available to bring almost immediate clarity to this matter. Those two individuals are both ex-CASA Employees from the most senior of positions, who have offered to come forward and tell the truth on this matter.

The refusal by the Ombudsman to accept that offer only reinforces my view that Mr Aleck is being “protected”, and that the Ombudsman is pursuing the more “convenient” path.

I must make note at this stage that the Ombudsman Office has not sought evidence in situations where evidence is available and could potentially have brought harm to the agency and I will attend specifically to those allegations in similar manner in separate correspondence at a later stage. I have put signific work into this document and intend to have it finalised within 30 days.

For your further consideration, and considering that I had operated that Business with the same structure for over decade and Ms Spence claims that the structure was “new” or “unusual” which it most certainly was not, then Ms Spence should be able to clearly identify.

Specifically

1. What was it specifically that was “new” about the structure I adopted for over a decade?

2. What was it specifically that was “unusual” about the structure that I adopted for over a decade?

3. What date was it specifically that something changed in the structure after 2006,that made it become either “new” or unusual”?

These are three questions that CASA resolutely attends to, despite my best efforts.

The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the AG has established contact with the Ombudsman Office to identify if the named individuals have led the Ombudsman Office to form the view that the Group A descriptors are a more accurate representation from their investigation than the Group B descriptors.

“New” and “unusual” are both “descriptors” used by Ms Spence in correspondence with the Ombudsman Office, that I obtained under FOI, and those descriptors are false and have been used to mislead.

My business model was not new or unusual. It had existed for over a decade with the identical structure. That was a structure that was completely standard industry practice and continues to be to this day. I was targeted by Mr Aleck based on existing acrimony between us.

I appreciate the substantive native of that allegation i.e. misfeasance in public office but I absolutely stand by it, and I am fully prepared to be held fully accountable if it was found that my allegations were vindictive or vexatious.

Ms Spence, the CASA CEO should be able to clearly identify specifically what it is that was “new” about my business structure. I am totally unaware of what it was that was “new”. A failure to specifically identify what was new with reference to legislation or supporting evidence, must surely raise doubts ads to the integrity of Ms. Spence. CASA steadfastly refuses to identify this to me, despite my requests. I am using the word “new” because under FOI I have identified that Ms Spence uses and accepts that terminology in correspondence with the Ombudsman office The terminology “new” is clearly false and misleading.

Ms Spence should be able to identify the specific change to my business structure and the date of that change. What was the change that suddenly made my business become “unusual” and leave me subject to prosecution? I am concerned that CASA refuses to identify this to me. In correspondence obtained by me under FOI, Ms Spence uses and accepts the terminology “unusual” for something that is not at all “unusual” and is in fact completely normal standard industry practice with CASA approval on every occasion. Ms Spence should clearly be able to identify the specific feature that made my Organisation “unusual”.

Any inability or reluctance to directly respond to those questions will clearly demonstrate the lack of “good intent”. They are the very basis that CASA used to force the closure of my business.

Thank you for your consideration of what is a most substantive allegation. If three CASA Executives were found to have provided false and misleading information to an Ombudsman investigation, it is a substantive matter, potentially with impacts on the safety of aviation.

Thankyou in anticipation of your careful consideration of these allegations. I hope that they will be considered with an approach of a better and safer aviation industry and that the AG Office has the willingness and ability to confront this matter.

If I can leave one final thought, should this matter proceed to litigation which appears to be CASAs preferred course of action. CASA will be compelled to act as a model litigant. One of those obligations upon CASA as a model litigant is that I should not be required to prove something that CASA already know to be true.

You will understand the difficulty that I have in proceeding with this matter if CASA chooses to mislead an Ombudsman investigation and is successful in that, it prevents me from seeking justice as it is likely that pattern would continue.

I am providing the link to a presentation I made on this matter to the Senate on 20/11/20 where I directly raised allegations of misfeasance in public office against Mr Aleck. The other named individuals departed CASA shortly after.


I also attach a link to Pprune being a discrete pilots forum. The link will take you to the front page, my topic Glen Buckley and small business V CASA can be promptly identified. You will note that there are well over 1,000,000 views and thousands of comments almost entirely supportive. A staggering level of support from industry on such a discrete forum.

https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...-questions-91/

I have also attached a link to the GoFund Me page that was established to support me. I have placed a pause on this pending the outcome of my current attempts to bring ethics and integrity to this matter. The “comments” attached to donations are revealing.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/glen-buckley-v-casa

I eagerly anticipate advise from the AG on how to proceed with this matter.

If I may leave the AG with one final consideration in support of my allegation of misfeasance in public office. Ms Spence should be able to provide a plausible answer as to why this matter could not have been fully resolved by a single meeting of less thah 4 hours. Why did it drag out for over 8 months with no resolution, and crippling trading restrictions in place for 8 months with the matter no further to resolution.

I have attached two articles from the Australian flying magazine that provide a good initial read. These are titled APTA before CASA action and APTA after CASA action

Respectfully



Glen Buckley

Distribution
 

A copy of the previous post has been sent to all Federal Greens MPs this morning, with this brief covering letter.

To Members of Parliament for the Greens,


":My name is Glen Buckley a Constituent of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have approached my MP for Chishiolm being Dr. Carina Garland, and her Office has advised that Minister King has directed her not to assist me in this matter. Her conduct leaves me in no doubt that there is an attempt to suppress my allegations, and that extends through to the Office of Minister King.

At this stage, I am not seeking any specific support or action from the Greens, but I do want to ensure that there is at least an awareness of this matter amongst Green and independent representatives.

Thankyou for accepting my correspondence. Respectfully Glen Buckley

Distribution
 

I have distributed the correspondence to all Independent MPs with this brief covering letter.

My name is Glen buckley, and I am a Constituent of Chisholm. My Local MP is Dr.Carina Garland of the ALP.


I am writing to each Independent Parliamentary Representative raising awareness of my substantive allegations of misconduct within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Those allegations are raised specifically against the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs. Mr Jonathan Aleck.

This has been a subject of a 5 year investigation by the Ombudsman Office. Recently I have obtained information under FOI that leaves me in no doubt that the Minister King and my Local MP Dr. Carina Garland have some level of involvement in this matter. My Local MP, Dr Carina Garland has been instructed by Minister King not to assist me on this matter. The Office of Dr Carina Garland refuses to accept any submissions from me on this matter, as a result of that direction from Minister King.

As a 4 generation family of Chisholm residents and as a 6 decade constituent myself, I am concerned that my Local MP would not assist a constituent.

While I am not seeking any specific involvement of your Office, I am wanting to ensure that there is at least an awareness amongst our Independent Representatives.


I will also be working diligently within the electorate to ensure fellow constituents are aware that my local MP has been directed by the Minister not to assist me, and those efforts will increase measurably in the lead up to the next election.

I will also be seeking media involvement.

The allegations extend into the Office of Minister King. Minister King's integrity has been recently questioned on Aviation related matters , and I too am questioning the Minister's integrity.

I have an abundance of evidence available to me,including senior ex CASA employees, and fully intend to see this matter through to a determination.

Below you will find my most recent correspondence on this matter.

Thankyou for your consideration.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

... and to Bob Katter
 

The Office of Hon. Bob Katter

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carina Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.


I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,


Respectfully

Glen Buckley

and to the Centre Alliance
 

The Office of Rebekha Sharkie MP,

I appreciate that this correspondence is landing far from home, nevertheless my allegations are significant.

My name is Glen Buckley, a lifelong resident of the Electorate of Chisholm.

I have made an allegation of misfeasance in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive ,Manager of Legal, international and Regulatory Affairs.

I am also making allegations that the CASA CEO Ms. Pip Spence and the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner have been complicit in provision of information that was intended to mislead an Ombudsman investigation.

I have approached my Local MP Dr Carinan Garland on this matter, however Minister King has sent a directive to the Office of Dr Carina Garland advising that my local MP is unable to assist me. I have concerns as to why a Minister would direct an MP not to assist a Constituent, nevertheless that action has been taken. As my MP will not meet with me, or assist me, the purpose of this correspondence is to ensure that there is at least an awareness within Parliament that these allegations have been made, and I have sent correspondence to the Attorney General on this matter.

If my allegations were found to be made in a vindictive or vexatious manner, I would expect to be held fully liable both Criminally and in Civil Action.

I am not calling on any involvement from your office, other than to be aware that I have raised these allegations, and brought them to the attention of my Local MP, Dr Carina Garland. Her office was directed by Minister King, not to assist me in this matter. I believe that there is an attempt to suppress my matter, potentially because of the seniority of the Personnel involved, and the nature of the Government Agency, being CASA.


I have attached some relevant correspondence that I hope you, or someone in your Office may have time to review.

Thankyou for your consideration,


Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Good luck with responses from Katter and Sharkie.
Some years ago when dealing with a serious issue with the Fort, the evil Dr and perjuring AWIs I met with Bob and handed over a packet of material re.
outcome…zip zilch. All he had done was hand it on to the perps to deal with.!!
File 13 no doubt.

Glen GO TO COURT! Stop this endless letter writing. It is a total waste of your time and mental energy.

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