Ye olde refrain
 

“All in together, this fine weather.”

Correspondence to ICC from posts #2944 and #2955
 

In post #2944 I sent a request to CASA to clearly identify if any CASA Employee alleges that I stalked or assaulted by them.
In post #2955 CASA clearly identifies that no such allegation exists.
This is my follow up to ascertain how long CASA has known that no such allegation exists.

Dear Mr Hanton,


Thankyou for finally truthfully confirming that no CASA Staff Member has ever made an allegation that I had either "stalked" them or that I had "assaulted" them, despite Mr Shane Carmody PSM, raising those specific allegations me,directly to the Senators before the Senate RRAT Committee on 20/11/20.

I am avoiding any unnecessary contact with CASA just at the moment, as I feel CASA has clearly demonstrated that there is no good intent, at all towards me.

I have made allegations that Ms. Pip Spence the CASA CEO, Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, and potentially your Office have provided false and misleading information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation on a matter that is separate to this matter, and your response leaves me with no doubt that CASA has a propensity to provide false and misleading information in the most "formal" environments.

That is demonstrated by this reversal. Whilst it is many years too late, I acknowledge it. Thank you. I appreciate that it must have been difficult, but you have directly and promptly addressed my question and clarified the truth. I never "stalked" or "assaulted" any CASA employee, as I maintained throughout those years. That certainly cleared it up once and for all in my wife's mind, and brings to an end the "gaslighting" I hope.

I feel that I am entitled to one final question on this matter, to bring full closure, and permit me to move on. This question is potentially very significant, as you will appreciate.


The allegation that I stalked and assaulted CASA Employees was first raised on 20/11/20 before the Senators by CASA.

I made multiple well documented requests of CASA to withdraw those harmful and substantial false allegations, the first of those was within 24 hours of the false and misleading allegations being made.

Considering how long this matter has dragged on unnecessarily, and caused so much associated harm, and with both yourself and Ms Spence, the CASA CEO having such a thorough knowledge of this topic.

On the balance of probabilities both you and Ms Spence would have, and should have, been fully aware that in fact it was impossible for me to have stalked and assaulted any CASA Employee because most bizarrely, no allegation actually even exists

This is something that CASA has known since those allegations were first raised. As you know, I am firmly of the opinion that CASA was specifically targeting me, to bring harm to me based on existing acrimony. I believe that an attempt to prolong resolution of this matter has been engineered from the highest levels within CASA Senior Management, and potentially to your Office.

Specifically, can CASA identify the date that.

1. The office of the ICC, and specifically Mr Jonathan Hanton first became fully aware that in fact no allegation of either stalking or assault was ever made against Glen Buckley by any CASA Employee.
2. The CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence first became fully aware that in fact no allegation of either stalking or assault was ever made against Glen Buckley by any CASA Employee.

My initial thoughts are that both yourself and Ms Spence may have been fully aware for a significantly protracted period of time that truthfully, and you both were fully aware that no allegation of either stalking or allegation of assaulting CASa employees even existed, and that on the balance of probabilities you would have known that truthfully no CASA Employee was ever stalked or assaulted,by me and you each chose not to act, which in turn caused continuing harm.

To give me peace of mind, my hope is that you will advise me that this is fresh information that you have only just uncovered, and that each of you had no prior knowledge that no allegation had ever been made by any CASA employee that they were either stalked or assaulted by me, but I fear that is not the case.

I am trying to very clearly ascertain if both Ms Spence the CASA CEO, and the Office of the CASA ICC have only very recently become aware that no CASA Employee was ever stalked or assaulted by me, and no such allegation was ever made by any CASA Employee, or if that is knowledge that you already held.

I would like to confirm whether you have accessed any new information, and this is therefore a "new" discovery of information, or is it "old" information. Effectively I am asking you to clearly identify when you first "discovered '' that on the balance of probabilities I neiujerr stalked or assaulted any CASA Employee because in fact there was no evidence at all to support those serious allegations and no allegation was ever made..

Please note that I have included the Office of Mr Broadbent, and Ms Dai Le in this correspondence. I am not asking for any involvement from their respective Offices, although I feel it pertinent, as there has previously been some correspondence with their respective offices on these matters.

Thank You Mr Hanton, I am very appreciative of your prompt timelines for responses.. As with my previous request, this is information that you already hold, so my assumption is that you will address it promptly.

Please include the Office of Minister King in your response to this correspondence.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

Follow up to Post #2932 to my Local MP-Carina Garland
 

18/03/24

To Dr Carina Garland MP for the Electorate of Chisholm.


On 28/02/24, I attended your Office and left a document for you. To ensure you received that correspondence I also emailed it through to your Office on the same day.

As you are aware, I have been a lifelong resident of the Electorate, and I sought your assistance on matters of misconduct within CASA. I understand that for reasons that I am waiting on an explanation for, you were directed, not to assist me with this matter, by Minister King.


Despite that direction from Minister King, I reached out to you because you are my Local MP, and that is your very purpose.

In this correspondence I am only asking that you advise me whether or not you are willing and able to attend to that relatively straightforward task regarding forwarding that correspondence to the following recipients.

1. To forward the correspondence on to the relevant person within the Office of the Attorney General.
2. to forward the correspondence for the direct attention of Minister King
3. To forward the correspondence to the Office of the PM for assessment as to the requirement for him to have some knowledge and awareness of this matter.

I acknowledge that the direction from Minister King may prevent you from facilitating my request, but I feel I am entitled to know whether you have been able to facilitate my reasonable request.

If Minister King's position on this matter is unchanged, and you have been prevented from distributing it, could you please advise me. As almost three weeks have passed, I hope you can respond promptly.

Respectfully

Glen Buckley

Ombudsman Office- follow up to follow up (#2915 and
 

To the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.

I am writing to you regarding Matter Reference 2019-713834.

On January 16th I wrote to the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office requesting that they correct a gross technical error that has developed during the 5 year investigation. ( My reference Pprune 2915).

That request remains totally unacknowledged despite over 2 months passing.

On February 26th, I sent follow up correspondence that also went unacknowledged. (my reference Pprune #2923). As over 3 weeks have passed, please accept this as a follow up to the follow up.

At this stage, I am only seeking a brief acknowledgement that my previous correspondence has been received by the Ombudsman Office.

I am wanting to progress my matter and I have asked the Ombudsman's Office to withdraw its Findings that were based on false and misleading information. If the Ombudsman Office refuses to withdraw the Findings as is my preference, it is essential that the Ombudsman address gross technical errors where they have developed. Without these matters clearly resolved it prevents me from seeking justice on these matters.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

The Gloves are off!
 

I have sent the following correspondence this morning. Please be assured that going forward the "gloves are fully off". 20/03/24

To the CASA Board

I am submitting a formal allegation against four CASA Employees. The Board has a detailed understanding of this matter, and my reasonable expectation is that they will respond, and take action.

The Board has remained silent for too long on these substantive matters.

I am fully satisfied that this matter has the potential to impact aviation safety.

I am fully satisfied that I have widespread industry support with regards to this matter.

I believe that this is a substantial matter and that there is a deliberate effort from within the Office of Minister King to suppress that matter. I make that statement on the basis that Minister King established contact with my Local MP for Chisholm, Dr Carina Garland and directed her that she was not to assist me in this matter. My Local MP has since refused to assist me on this matter, as directed by Minister King.

My specific allegation is that.

1. The CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence has deliberately facilitated the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation for the purpose of affecting the findings of the Ombudsman investigation, and covering up potential misconduct of a CASA Employee. That Employee being Mr Jonathan Aleck.



2. The CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs, Mr Jonathan Aleck is the CASA Employee that provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation to cover up his misconduct. I also make an allegation of Misfeasance in Public Office against Mr Aleck, and have prepared substantial documentation in support of these allegations.



3. The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner, Mr Jonathan Hanton was aware that false and misleading information was being provided, but chose not to act, and is therefore complicit in the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation with the knowledge that it would deny me justice.



4. CASA Flight operations Inspector David Edwards made a false statement to CASA that I shoved him in the foyer of the CASA Building.

I am seeking very clear direction from the Board on how to proceed with this matter. I am not satisfied that The Ombudsman’s Office can determine that it has been misled, so I am seeking an independent investigation. The Ombudsman Office has demonstrated an aversion to seeking evidence where substantive evidence is readily available, and most especially in situations where seeking that evidence could bring harm to the Agency, CASA

To ensure clarity on this matter. My very strong preference is that this matter be referred to the AFP or similar Body for investigation.

If the CASA Board and Minister King are unwilling or unable to initiate such action, I will very clearly be left with no option but to pursue litigation. As the CASA Board and Minister King are fully aware, I have gone to extraordinary lengths to avoid litigation, as it indicates that no “good intent “remains. From my perspective, it is my very last option, but one that I will vigorously pursue if necessitated by a failure of both the Board and Minister to act.

Please be assured that if I have not received a response over the next 14 days, I will go out to industry seeking their support, and initiate contact with the ACT Law Society seeking a meeting and guidance.

If I have not received a comprehensive response within 14 days, I will also write directly to the Office of the PM outlining the matter to ensure that he has both an awareness of the matter and an awareness of the involvement of Minister King in this matter. I will advise him that Dr, Carina Garland the Member for Chisholm has been fully briefed, and could be considered the Subject Matter Expert (SME) within his Government .

The allegations are substantive and considering the seniority of the personnel involved and the nature of the Government Department that employs them, these allegations cannot be swept under the carpet, they must be thoroughly investigated. Most especially considering the potential impact to the safety of aviation if these individuals were found to have provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, as I know they have.

Whilst it shouldn’t be necessary, I feel it is. I draw your attention to

· CASAs Regulatory Philosophy https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...ory-philosophy



· and to the Functions of the Board. https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/who...RoleoftheBoard



· and the Ministers Statement of Expectations https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2023L00920/latest/text

in preparing the Boards considered response, and please ensure that Minister King is included in that response.

Please understand that I do not make these allegations lightly. I am fully satisfied that I now have enough evidence and witnesses that I can proceed promptly on this matter.

I have no doubt that the four CASA Employees that I make these allegations against should welcome a comprehensive examination of this matter, as it would provide them the opportunity to prove their innocence if that was the case.

I am also fully aware that by going public with such substantive allegations, I am subject to litigation if I were found to be making these allegations in a vindictive or vexatious manner. An AFP investigation would expose such matters and provide the CASA employees with recourse against me, assuming such an investigation found that it was I that was providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Because I am satisfied that there is an attempt to suppress this matter, and because of the substantive role of CASA, and the Seniority of the CASA Employees involved, I have distributed this correspondence to other relevant persons and organisations.

I am hoping that this correspondence will finally force the Board to act and ensure good governance in accordance with the obligations placed on the Board, and to ensure the safety of aviation.

Finally, let me emphasise that this correspondence is me formally raising these allegations directly to the Board and for the attention of Minister King, who I expect will be involved in the CASA response or have awareness of it before it is sent to me.

For clarity, my very strong preference is that this matter have the involvement of a substantiver body such as the AFP.

With the access i have to witnesses and documents, I am confident that the AFP will be able to make a rapid assessment of this matter, and I suggest the easiest initial matter to address would be the allegation by CASA Flight Operations Inspector in the foyer of the CASA Lobby, that I shoved him with some force, and that I assaulted him which is a blatant lie.

An assessment of that matter would be quick and efficient and begin to unravel this matter in its entirety. If I am found to be not acting in the public interest, and being untruthful, then I too should be held fully accountable, and that is why I believe this is a matter for the AFP, and not a contracted investigation such as CPM Reviews who CASA have utilised previously to "engineer" desired results.

Respectfully Glen Buckley

They won't even blink on reading this letter. Not until the court date is set and they receive a summons. Best of luck Glen. Go hard!

They wont even blink!
 

Malcolm I completely agree. There is no doubt that litigation is CASAs preferred option, and I concur that they probably even have a bit of a snigger and an "inside joke" about me. Of that I have no doubt.

My hope is that it will at least force the Board to very formally clarify exactly where CASA stands, and its that response that will trigger my next step. Its important that i now ensure i have "CASAs" response. The Board has been stunningly silent on this matter, and it clearly demonstrates the impotence of the CASA Board.

That CASA response will most likely be followed by correspondence that bypasses Minister King, as I feel that she has enough knowledge of this matter, and has chosen to "cover it up". I will write to the PM direct;y with a petition calling for an investigation into the conduct of the staff I have named.

I will go out to industry seeking signatures and I will be active in the Electorate of Chisholm. Realistically a relatively small number of signatures should do the job. I will submit that to Dr Carina Garland. If she refuses to accept it, I will approach all Independent Ministers and requesting that they accept it.

I may be on the wrong path but as stated it has little to do with CASA going forward although a number of FOI requests are coming, which will be very revealing, i believe.

CASA had demonstrated a propensity to be willing to provide false and misleading information, and recent FOI requests have left me in no doubt about that.

I may be naive, but if I write to the PM raising those allegations and copy in every Member of Parliament, I feel he will be compelled to act. Seriously how could the PM ignore such substantial allegations aginst the Senior executive of CASA, and most especially if he receives a petition calling for an investigation by the AFP into the conduct of those CASA personnel.

Surely they could not tremain in their respective roles, and they would have to removed from operational duty, remaining on full pay, pending the outcome of the investigation.

I believe that litigation will be forced within the next couple of weeks. Hoping for a hungry lawyer, and I just want to make sure I can feed him or her all the information that hungry lawyer needs.

CASA Board re. Mr Aleck
 

Removal of Mr Aleck from Decision Making on my matter



22/03/24


To the CASA Board.


May I respectfully request a specific response to this correspondence only and no other issues, to maintain clarity on this matter.

Please note I have included Minister King and my Local Mp, Dr. Carina Garland in this correspondence, to ensure they remain fully aware of this topic.

I have raised allegations with the CASA Board that three CASA Employees have been responsible for providing and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman's investigation. The most substantive of allegations.

As the most serious of allegations are against Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs, I feel this matter must be clearly addressed by the Board to ensure fair processes.

As you are aware, as a result of the way CASA handled this matter, I spent a period of time in hospital, and I had to hand over "authority" to my father who assisted me during that period, including some FOI requests.

Those documents that he received during my absence were highly redacted, although they left me in no doubt at all that CASA has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Shortly I intend to reapply to CASA to obtain a "less redacted" version of those documents, as I believe that will provide the final pieces of evidence I require to fully satisfy myself that CASA has provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

Should that application be rejected, I understand there is an appeals process.

The concern that I have is that the FOI Department is the Department of Mr Aleck, the very CASA Employee that I have raised allegations against. As he is the Executive Manager of that Department and the ultimate decision maker for that Department, it could be argued that he may use the power of his position to influence the level of redcation in order to cover up his misconduct, as I believe has happened to date.

That only makes my task more difficult, and denies me procedural fairness, as you will understand.

I have made this request of CASA before but it has been ignored, and I feel compelled to make it again.

Could you confirm for me that Mr Jonathan Aleck will not have any involvement in any FOI requests made by me to support my allegations against him of misconduct.

I specifically request again that Mr Aleck have no involvement in decision making on FOI requests that I make to substantiate my allegation of misconduct against him.

I would be satisfied if the Board were to accept responsibility for these responsibilities rather than Mr Aleck.

Alternatively, the Board has most likely identified this risk and the conflict of interest, and put in place suitable checks and balances. If so, could you advise me of those, so that I can satisfy myself that fair processes are in place.

Respectfully. Glen Buckley

Yes, you are being naive.

MPs frequently get letters from members of the community alleging some sort of conspiracy. I'd expect the PM would receive even more.

Most of these claims are refuted outright or ignored after a simple enquiry to the Minister or Department concerned, if it even goes that far.

I said on this topic a long time ago that you've clearly been labelled by those you're writing to and those that you're alleging have wronged you as a nut, a sort of fixated person.

Whilst I (like many other of your supporters) can see the anguish of your plight, it is also so incredibly frustrating to see you persisting with writing these long and rambling letters.

They're not helping your case at all, if anything they're harming it. I'd expect that a solicitor would advise you to cease all direct communications - yet you keep going.

The GoFundMe raised a substantial amount of money that could and should have been used for proper legal advice and litigation. At least that's my view.

It's been over five years. Don't you want closure?

Hello MagnumPI, you have said exactly what myself and I am guessing the majority of the readers on this site are actually thinking.

Every time there is a new letter it just prolongs the agony of a result and further cements the way that any Minister or Department would look at this matter.

It really has to stop and be handled by legal people, there is no way you can fight this fight yourself and win, at the moment there just waiting for you to commit suicide or give up and then the problem goes away. Use the money that has been pledged and allow the fight to be taken over for you by professionals who will just get the job done.

Sorry, rant over but it is just so frustrating to know that using the correct people this would have been over years ago

I agree with the two previous poster’s. Unfortunately, but with great respect, I have stopped reading your incredibly long pieces of text as my attention span is not that good on something I feel has been repeated on a number of occasions. For you however Glen, it may be cathartic to do that & if that is the case, then disregard what I said.

Just the same, it seems to me the longer this drags on, the less likely you will receive justice in the way you deem appropriate. The way things are going, Jonathon Aleck, the CEO & others will be long retired by the time this gets to crunch time & by then, your case will be somewhat of a distant memory to the CASA machine in the months/years ahead.

To you & your long suffering family, this matter is rightly of the utmost importance. To our Federal politicians however, I would regretfully say your matter is of little significance to them, largely because there’s no votes in it - & that applies to Labor & the LNP alike in my view.

Many posters here Glen have suggested that the time has come (& long gone) for you to commence taking a full on legal assault on CASA. You have a lot of supporters - but I’m sensing a degree of fatigue in that support due to the slow & seemingly counterproductive approach you are taking.

Bite the bullet Glen & get that legal action happening…

Just my 2 Lire’s worth…

"The Gloves are off!"

Glen, no they arent. You are persisting with an approach doomed to fail.
Everyone is yelling at you to take the legal approach using experts who can get a conclusion to this. That is your only option to a resolution. Get on with it.

yeah, me too. And every new letter makes it easier for what happened to be ignored. I donated to Glen’s cause like so many of us did, but nothing came of it. Just letter after letter after letter after letter. Come on Glen, get after them

April 2nd is not far away which is the date you said we would see the next step.

I’ve refrained from commenting until now however every poster is saying the same thing.

You have our support, use it.

long-term lurker here. I have signed up just now to metaphorically shake you into action, Glen. the time is nigh. you still have the room but there is reader fatigue. life is short

Reply from Ombudsman to Post #2915
 

Post #2915 page 146 Request for clarification sent to Ombudsman requesting clarification of significant misunderstanding.
Post #2923 page 147 Follow up 5 weeks later requesting response.
Post 3 2962 page 149 Follow to the follow up after more than 2 months with no response.

The response from the Ombudsman received below. Dear Mr Buckley,



I am providing you an update of your complaint, reference number is 2024-102179.



Your complaint has been referred to Emma Cotterill, Senior Assistant Ombudsman – Investigations.



Emma will provide you a response by Monday, 25 March 2024.



We thank you for your patience.



Kind Regards,

Patrick

Reply from Board to Post # 2963 and #2966
 

In Post #2963 i formally raised allegations of misconduct with the CASA Board.

In Post #2966 I made a request, as I have done repeatedly throughout this matter to have Mr aleck removed from involvement. FOI requests leave me in no doubt that there has been a very high level of involvement in this matter. Once again in an attempt to bring integrity to processes.

Below is confirmation that the correspondence has been forwarded to the Board.


to me, [email protected], [email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif Fri, 22 Mar, 14:26 (2 days ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL

Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your correspondence dated 20 March 2024, and the follow-up email received today dated 22 March 2024.



Both of your enquiries have progressed to the Chair of the Board and I hope to provide a response to you shortly.



Best regards



Colin

FOI requests Post #2943 Response from CASA
 

In Post #2943 I made an FOI request.

At my meeting with the CASA board Chair and CEO, it was revealed to me for the first time after 5 years that CASA action was in part, based on complaints that CASA had received from other Parties.

These allegations had NEVER been raised with me and I had no awareness at all until that time. My assumption is that CASA has most likely shared that information with the Ombudsman Office to lead the Ombudsman up a particular "path".

I am interested to see the nature of the complaints. It will be interesting to note if they are genuine concerns or perhaps something malicious. I very much embrace the process of confidential reporting, although CASA must have some filtration procedure. As an absolute minimum, if someone makes allegations to CASA, i should have the knowledge that they exist and the opportunity to address those concerns, prior to CASA making a decision. Anyway. they will arrive shortly as you can see from the correspondence below. My applications had not been acknowledged for two weeks, and I was concerned that it may be a delaying tactic on the 30 day counter. The correspondence assures me that those documents should arrive imminently."CASA Ref: F24/8101



Dear Mr Buckley,


Apologies for the delay in sending you an acknowledgement on your request(s) as I have been away being unwell. Please find below the acknowledgement for your request made on 3 March 2024. Your second request made on 4 March 2024, will be acknowledged in a separate email.

I refer to your email of 3 March 2024 whereby you requested access to the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act):



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 acknowledge receipt of your request under the FOI Act. CASA received your request on 3 March 2024 and the 30-day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision by COB Wednesday 3 April 2024. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if CASA needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. Should the timeframe be extended, you will be notified by CASA with the new due date. Your above request has been assigned the reference number F24/8101, please use this reference number in future correspondence relating to your above request.

You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge. CASA’s practice is to release documents in pdf format transmitted via email to your nominated email address. Please advise if you wish a different communication method – additional charges may apply.



When CASA has made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.



Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at: [email protected]


Once again, I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your request.


Kind regards,



XXX XXXX

Freedom of Information Officer

Legal Advisory and Drafting

Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division

FOI request applications
 

I realised that i had not posted this FOI request on here, or at least a quick scan did not reveal it.

Regarding the significance of this request. CASAs stance is that throughout the decade that I operated they were not awre that i was utilising employees that were employees of other Entities. CASA advised that if I transferred all employees of all Entities to become Employees of the same Entity that held the AOC the entire matter would immediately be fully resolved.

Very clearly this is not supported by any industry precedent or legislation.

I maintain that CASA was always truthfully awre throughout the decade. The significance of this request is that it will clearly confirm that CASA was fully aware of the relationship and the recollection of this documentation is that it clearly indicates such. to me, Freedom
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
Thu, 21 Mar, 11:09 (3 days ago)
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gif
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1/images/cleardot.gifOFFICIAL



CASA Ref: F24/8102



Dear Mr Buckley,

Apologies for the delay in sending you an acknowledgement on your request(s) as I have been away being unwell. Please find below the acknowledgement for your request made on 4 March 2024.


I refer to your email of 3 March 2024 whereby you requested access to the following information under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act):



On approximately 27/07/17 an application was made for the addition of our APTA- AVIA base.

On approximately 05/10/17 an application was made for the addition of our APTA- LTF Base….

What I am seeking in this FOI request is the paperwork that would have been supplied to me once those bases were approved. That "certificate" or "approval: was created by CASA, and CASA provided us with those two documents, one for each APTA base.

I acknowledge receipt of your request under the FOI Act. CASA received your request on 3 March 2024 and the 30-day statutory period for processing your request commenced from the day after that date. You should therefore expect a decision by COB Thursday 4 April 2024. However, the period of 30 days may be extended if CASA needs to consult third parties or for other reasons. Should the timeframe be extended, you will be notified by CASA with the new due date. Your above request has been assigned the reference number F24/8102, please use this reference number in future correspondence relating to your above request.

You will be notified of any charges in relation to your request as soon as possible, before we process any requested documents or impose a final charge. CASA’s practice is to release documents in pdf format transmitted via email to your nominated email address. Please advise if you wish a different communication method – additional charges may apply.



When CASA has made a decision about your FOI request, we will send you a letter explaining our decision and your review and appeal rights.



Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at: [email protected]


Once again, I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your request.

Kind regards,



XXX XXXX

Freedom of Information Officer

Legal Advisory and Drafting

Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs Division
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

So the standard CASA response to an FOI request is a delay of at least 30 days and likely longer for no particular reason other than to delay and frustrate you. This is a f#cking waste of time. Go to court Glen! Your legal team will squeeze out the truth from the bastards!

It's like posts 2967 through to 2973 do not exist!

Regretfully, I'm sorry to say I'm no longer going to actively follow this thread. Having said that, I hope you do eventually obtain the justice (& compensation) you need...

He knows what he’s doing.
 

He’s just getting all his ducks in a row before the next step. We’re behind you GB!

No doubt we are behind him. But suggesting this pattern of scattergun, repetitive, rambling, irrelevant and nonsensical letters is part of some broader plan or strategy rather than a hindrance that harms Glen’s credibility to the benefit of CASA is insane and enabling.

MLE
 

I have put this on here, directed towards MLE, but it does apply to everyone that has followed this thread. Assuming that MLE has moved on as he siuggested I have also sent it as a PM.

MLE. First. Thank you for your support to date, and I understand that you are no doubt a "supporter" still, but a frustrated one. You are not alone.

The support from this forum has been exceptional, it really has. I know this sounds dramatic, but I would be in a far far darker place if it wasn't for Pprune and Aunty Pru. I chose to stay away from Facebook, Tik Tok etc. I wasn't trying to Grandstand or cause mischief. I turned immediately to Prune, and those initial responses, the empathy, and the support landed right on target. They buoyed me significantly.

If it wasn't for Pprune, CASA would have buried me years ago, and I have no doubt at all about that. The only weapon I have at my disposal was to see if there was widespread industry support out there. There was. Its been well intentioned, staunch, knowledgeable, and there can be no doubt that it has been invaluable to me.

I will give you only one of many dozens of examples. I can't locate the Post but it is in there somewhere.

CASAs own ICC found that CASA had known about APTA for a significant period of time. With everything going on the significance of that was lost on me at the time.

'After that ICC finding, the Ombudsman found that CASA didn't know about APTA.

How could the Ombudsman arrive at a finding that CASA didn't know about APTA if CASA had already found that in fact CASA did know about APTA.

The CASA ICC had found that CASA did know, so that should be the CASA narrative from that date. However, someone else from within CASA, and I have no doubt that it is Mr. Aleck has convinced the Ombudsman otherwise.

Very clearly someone is misleading the Ombudsman. One Organization cannot possibly have two contrasting narratives.

I believe that this point will become significant at a future date.

Anyway, I had overlooked the fact that CASAs own ICC had found that CASA did know.

Someone on here made a post about exactly that. Something that I had completely missed.

A second example is the background support and learned advice that I have received from here, or just the well-intentioned comments.

I am aware that my supporters are waning and becoming increasingly frustrated, and that many also contributed to the GoFund me Page for the very purpose of seeking legal assistance.

I used a portion of those funds to seek "guidance". I want to be a bit careful with I write here.

One of those initial meetings was with a very reputable firm.

At that stage had I have proceeded; it was very clear that my outlook was bleak. Had I proceeded, it is unlikely that I would have succeeded. This is a case at that time that would have cost me over $750,000. A staggering amount.

I stepped back, and withy the information I now had I knew what was important and the direction I needed to take. I also got some exceptional learned advice on here from one poster in particular.

A portion of those funds has been used to obtain some tweaking along the way.

A lot of the legwork that has been done, with at least half of it not on PPrune, I believe that I am very well prepared. The ping pong component is done and finished. The exact tactics that CASA used on me, would have been used on my legal team at significant expense. I have certainly learnt that CASA has a lot of "capability" when it comes to delaying tactics, as the industry is completely aware.

To may on here, what appears as a long rant in correspondence is in my mind something more than that. Most correspondence has multiple recipients from within and outside the industry, so i am trying to capture a wide variety of recipients, and at the same time "involve" parties that may prefer to not be "involved" such as my MP for Chisholm, Dr. Carina Garland, and also the Minister.

I'm ensuring that there can be no defense as to a lack of awareness.

Consider this. Minister King is fully aware that CASA now admits that in fact I did not stalk or assault any CASA Employee despite Shane Carmody PSMs false statement to the Senators that I had stalked and assaulted CASA staff. The Minister is aware of that and far more, yet chooses not to act, but rather to facilities misconduct. As this matter moves to the next stage the Ministers involvement and knowledge will become increasingly apparent.

Recently, I have begun to question myself about my chosen path, due to the withdrawal of support. But I truly reflected on it, and I'm satisfied with my decisions. Not all of them perfect admittedly, nevertheless they were my decisions and I'm responsible for them.

On a slightly deeper level, I sought some "professional" advice to discuss my real motivations and here is what i discovered.

I opened up my flying school with a good friend in 2005, and we both had a vision. A very passionate one. That business boomed from day one, and exceeded our expectations, in how much satisfaction it gave us. We never advertised and it grew on word of mouth. We maintained an industry leading level of safety and compliance, and no disrespect to any other school, but we attracted the very best instructional team at Moorabbin airport.

My "legacy" was going to be a flying school that was fondly remembered in the industry.

The business grew and the 'legacy" that i wanted to leave grew. I wanted to preserve regional flying schools that were going to discontinue operations.

The question was put to me. What was the single one thing that you wanted most.

I recounted the MFT opening party in 2006, which was probably one of the biggest parties that the Airport had ever seen. I wanted a similar thing when i retired. I wanted a large farewell where I could surround myself on my last day with all my past staff, students, suppliers etc. and look around and reflect on what a fortunate life I had. Quite sadly, it was almost exclusively about that farewell. Quite sad and self-centered really, but it was something actually much deeper than that. I had envisaged a night that would be one of the most significant in my life.

Instead of resolving this matter in a matter of hours as Aleck/CASA could have he/they chose a far more engineered and destructive path that was entirely unnecessary.

MLE, and others. Please be 100% assured that I will meet my deadline to pursue litigation.

What the legal firm will have is a client, who is extremely task focused, knowledgeable, and well prepared. There will be no unnecessary delays while we wait for significant FOI requests. The firm will be able to move forwards quickly and effectively.

CASA will find an adversary that they have not come up against before, and i will fully expose this.

I got forced out of the industry and had my family's life upended as a result of this.

The direction is about to change and change substantially. I have nothing to lose, and quite frankly. If I do go down, I will go down swinging.

MLE, can i ask that you return in early April to the forum.

My legacy has been somewhat altered, and i will settle for nothing less than bringing an end to the misconduct within CASA.

Thankyou sincerely, sipping the last bits of coffee, and heading out the door.

Cheers Glen

Im not sure if those are my posts at 1863 and 2078.

If they are, I regret them as I think you’re now on the right track going after the ICC for his total lack of integrity and corrupt conduct. You can’t trust a word that comes out of that snake’s mouth, I wonder what the purpose of those findings were as they can only have been to benefit CASA.

Deadlegdeadengine
 

Cheers for taking the next step from being a lurker to joining in order to make that post. Very much appreciated, and especially as I know I am losing many due to fatigue. Landed at a good time. Cheers

Ombudsman Response #2915,2923,2962
 

I know your weary folk but I do have a few more days on my own deadline. A few finishing touches.

In posts #2915,2923, and 2962 I made a request of the Ombudsman over several months. The response is below. Nothing new or exciting in it, but I am just posting it for reference. Cheers,.2019-713834 / 2024-102179

28 March 2024

Mr Glen Buckley

By email: [email protected]



Dear Mr Buckley



Your complaints about the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA)

I am writing in response to your emails of 16 January 2024 and 26 February 2024 regarding the Office’s handling of your complaint about CASA between 2019 and 2023.


While your emails are lengthy and cover several issues, I understand your main points

to be:

• you believe Office investigation staff understood there were flying schools other than APTA involved, which is incorrect.

• you are unhappy that, despite your requests to withdraw your complaint about CASA, the Office elected to continue with its investigation.

• you believe the Office’s conclusions regarding your complaint about CASA were based on false and misleading information.


To consider these issues, I reviewed all records associated with the investigation conducted by Mike and Mark, and the review conducted by Catherine.


Involvement of 'other' flying schools

In your emails, you asserted that correspondence provided to you by Office staff suggested those staff understood that the existence of flying schools other than APTA

was a factor in CASA's decision making. You pointed out that entities that wish to deliver flying training must hold relevant CASA approvals and asked the Office to identify

which other entities held these.



In my review of our records, I did not identify any statements by Office staff about approved flying schools other than APTA. I also did not identify any such statements in

CASA's responses to the Office's investigation.


Further, based on the records and correspondence on the investigation file, I am satisfied that Mike, Mark and Catherine understood that, across its members, APTA was

the only CASA approved flying school. The records reflect Office staff were aware that APTA's business model was premised on flying training being conducted from

members' bases under APTA's authorisation, being necessary because members did not hold their own approvals.


Failure to act on requests to withdraw

I acknowledge that on at least 2 occasions you asked Mark and Catherine to pause or cease their handling of your complaint about CASA. At those times you explained that the impacts of CASA’s decision on your business and finances were causing you significant distress and you no longer wished to engage with the Office about these or associated matters.

Under section 8(1) of the Ombudsman Act 1976, Ombudsman staff have broad discretion to investigate complaints in the way they think best. This means that while

staff may agree to cease their investigation when a complainant asks them, they are not required to do so. It is clear from the records and from their contacts with you that

Mark and Catherine believed the matters you raised with the Office were serious and complex and - given the time the Office had already invested and the serious impact

you said that CASA’s actions had on your business - warranted continued investigation.


I note that you continued to communicate with Mark and Catherine about the investigation after they declined your requests to withdraw your complaint.

I am satisfied this position was open to them in the circumstances and, as such, do not consider there is any basis for the Office to withdraw the conclusions that resulted from the investigation and subsequent review.



1 Under Part 141 or 142 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations.






1300 362 072 ombu
dsman.gov.au GPO Box 442, Canberra ACT 2601

Reliance on false and misleading information

In your emails, you claimed the Office's conclusions about your complaint were based on 'gross misunderstandings' that arose from CASA providing false and misleading

information. You called on the Office to ‘address and publicly correct’ its errors. Catherine was aware of your view that CASA misled the Office by providing incorrect

information and this was one of the focuses of her review. In her letters to you on 8 and 17 February 2023, Catherine advised:

Having considered the information provided to the Office by yourself and CASA during the investigation, I do not believe CASA has mislead our office, or sought

to withhold information from us.


Your most recent emails do not contain any information that would prompt me to

revisit Catherine's assessment of the truthfulness of CASA's responses. However, if you have further information or evidence on this point, I invite you to provide this to the

Office so we may consider it.



Conclusion

In the absence of additional information or evidence (as outlined above), I do not intend to take any further action on your recent emails. While I know you may be

dissatisfied with this outcome, I hope you will see that I have carefully considered the issues you raised.



If you would like to speak with me about this letter, please contact me at [email protected] so we can arrange a suitable date and time.


Yours sincerely



XXXXXXX

Senior Assistant Ombudsman

Investigations

What the F is a Senior Assistant Ombudsman? 🤣

Same as an FO.

SES band 1 officer, with two levels above them. In charge of a branch.

Board response to Post # 2963, 2966
 

Post # 2963 I formally raised allegations of misconduct with the Board
Post # 2966 I sought clarification that Mr Aleck was not involved in the process of FOI requests.
Post #2975 I received an acknowledgement from the Board that a response would be forthcoming.

That response is below. It came via Pip Spence. Cheers.

Dear Mr Buckley



The Chair of the CASA Board, Air Chief Marshal (Retd) Mark Binskin AC, has asked me to forward to you his response to your recent emails: (from Pip Spence)



Dear Mr Buckley



Thank you for your two emails dated 20 and 22 March 2024.



Firstly, as I have previously assured you, the Board has a detailed understanding of your case. Further, the Board is satisfied that there is no risk to aviation safety in relation to the specific matters you have raised.



You may remember that when Ms Spence and I hosted a meeting with you and your wife in Canberra, I confirmed the Board’s understanding of your situation and personally apologised on behalf of the Board, and CASA more broadly, for the manner in which CASA had communicated and engaged with you some years ago.



As an outcome of that meeting, we offered a without prejudice ex gratia payment for damages that may have been caused by a 2019 email to you and a full commitment from us that we would support you with an application for an Act of Grace payment through the Commonwealth Department of Finance. I note that you are yet to respond to either of those offers.



In regard to the Minister and Government, it is your prerogative to approach them directly. Should you choose to do this, we would provide all required information.



In respect of other details in your email, CASA has fully supported an independent investigation by the Industry Complaints Commissioner and two independent investigations by the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Should you have new information relevant to those independent investigations we will continue to fully support and cooperate with any new investigation by them.



Should you choose to raise any matter with the Australian Federal Police, we commit to fully support and cooperate with any enquiries they may decide to take.



Finally, I can assure you that, as you have been advised on several occasions, Dr Aleck no longer has involvement in any of the processes or matters relating to you or the allegations you have raised.



Yours sincerely



Mark

Glen,

April 2 is upon us………..

It’s time for gloves to come off!

Global Aviator
 

Global Aviator, you are correct. Standby.

I will put up any posts in the interim with minimal comment.

happy to hear this! 👍

Hey Glen, any updates on this? Wishing you the best.

Havick! Great to have you still there, bought a smile to my face as I sipped on first mouthful of coffee here at the pancake parlor.

A couple of comments while I'm here.

Please be assured everyone that I am commencing the process as i said I would. There is no doubt in my mind that CASA has forced my hand on this, and it is there preferred option.

A major hurdle to me will be those findings of the Ombudsman Office, and I am proceeding with some FOI requests.

A further hurdle is to find the right lawyer. I have spoken to one, but despite his expertise and experience in this topic, he was unable to pursue the matter as CASA is an existing client.

I have contacted the Victorian Law Society and their referral service which was of limited value. Almost appeared to generate 5 lawyers at random, with no substantive linking of experience and expertise, and i did speak to two of them.

For those outside of Victoria, there is an interesting case here where a man called Andrew Cook owned a company called "i-cook" i believe. A government employee set him up, his business was closed, and it appears in hindsight that he was "done over". The matter continues, and he ran aginst Daniel Andrews in Mulgrave last election. Presumably his legal firm would have experience in similar matters. I contacted the law society again trying to seek the name of his legal firm, or his contact details, and they could help me with neither. I will; still pursue this path, as I would like to meet with and talk to Mr Cook. If anyone by any chance has any contact details< i would be appreciative. I don't Facebook and don't really know how to use it, and would far prefer to keep it that way.

Please be assured I will keep you updated.

A couple of considerations for anyone that gets in a protracted dispute with CASA and drawing on my my last 5 years.

CASA will drag it out, and i know that the consensus will be NO! You dragged it out. Ok. lets meet half way. Something I will say, and I still stand by is that in order to make this matter progress promptly much of the background work has been done, and the evidence and people are readily available to me.

CASA would not meet with me prior to the investigation being finalised, and legal advice was to wait for that Report, and it was foolish to proceed without it. That Ombudsman investigation could have and should have taken less than 5 months, for it still to limping along after 5 years demonstrates the impotence of that Government Department. Rather than make me angry it really saddens me because the failures of that department is unacceptable as its impacted on others as identified by the robodebt investigation, and not only me.

On FOI requests. CASA have 30 days to respond. They then have other options up their sleeve to gain an additional 30 days, creating a two month delay. It only needs to be utilised several times, and there goes a year. My advice to anybody that is making an FOI request is that they also include this wording as I do now in my requests. The common one is to say that the request involves third parties and they have to consult. This usually arrives on or just before the first 30 day expiry, and results in another 30 days. The truth is that on receipt of that initial request CASA already know that it involves 3rd Parties, yet they wait 30 days to advise you. My suggested text if you make a request. More for your records and as a demonstration of "intent" or lack of, I suggest

" in order to afford me natural justice and procedural fairness, may I respectfully request that immediately your Office becomes aware that this request involves third Parties and will require a 30 day extension, could you advise me as soon as practical after you become aware. Rather than wait to the end of the 30 day limit to advise me. I appreciate that you are entitled to utilise that extension, but I believe that its intended to provide more robust responses rather than be utilised to create unnecessary delays'

One other final point. You can push hard, and to be honest I must say I have been somewhat surprised. My strong preference would have been for CASA to initiate legal action, but they have steadfastly avoided it. I thought that at least Mr aleck would have had a go. If it had of been me on a $500,000 package for over two decades, and someone made statements about me, and if they weren't true, and my Employer would act on my behalf, I would tell em to jam their job, and i would go after them personally. Unless of course I was guilty.

Anyway folks, great to have you hanging in there still. Cheers. I am moving forward.

and another quick thought.
 

There is more than one narrative or topic here, and perhaps each requiring the services of a different law firm, and that is how I will proceed initially. Please don't be disappointed by my first legal update, and it will be brief, but, I have elected to go in first with a "jab" rather than the "punch". If you paid for a subscription, the fight will at least go more than one round. Based on the way i've managed timelines to date, it may prove to be the best value package out there!

Finally PPrune. Exceptional. I cant thank Pprune and Aunty Pru enough. PPrune had the option to shut this down at any time over the last five years. The silence has been encouraging. I own everything I say, and I'm prepared to be fully accountable for it. I do not want to drag Pprune into it. The responsibility bis mine. I assume that the experience levels behind PPrune have identified it as a public interest matter with implications to the safety of aviation as it is. Whatever the reasons its great to have these more discrete forums rather than the big brash ones. Cheers to those behind Pprune. (and Aunty Pru)

Hi Glen, if it's any help please contact the Aviation Law Association of Australia and New Zealand, they have members that would be quite happy to take on CASA:

Home | ALAANZ : Aviation Law Association of Australia & New Zealand - aviation ALAANZ about developing Association Zealand Aviation There

Walschaert valve
 

Thankyou for taking the time to make that suggestion. it has been accepted, and my first port of call. Cheers. Glen

A slight change of direction
 

On here going forward i've decided to hold off posting on the APTA/MFT subject. Things are moving. Slowly and requiring significant mental effort.

I will however continue to post on matters of CASA providing false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, which is its own topic.

Specifically I have alleged that Mr Jonathan Aleck has deliberately provided false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation for the purposes of covering up his own misconduct.

I acknowledge that the Ombudsman Office has found that Mr Aleck has not provided false and misleading information to them. By inference it is I that has provided false and misleading information, so it needs to be fully resolved.

I have sent this correspondence to the Ombudsman Office today, and copied in my local MP, Carina Garland and Minister King

To the relevant person within the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office.


I have been involved in a 5 year investigation into the closure of my business by CASA, by the Ombudsman Office.

A primary reason for that investigation taking 5 years is because false and misleading information has been provided to a Commonwealth Ombudsman Office investigation.

I seek no comment against that, and that is not the purpose of this correspondence.

I intend to pursue my allegation that Mr Jonathan Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs has provided grossly false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation.

He has done that deliberately, and has done so to cover up his misconduct.

I specifically do not want my allegation investigated by the Ombudsman Office, as it is that Body that has been successfully misled.

My preference is to approach the AFP on this matter, if that is an option.

The sole purpose of this correspondence is to seek clear and concise direction from the Ombudsman Office on the options available to me.

My Local MP, Dr, Carina Garland has been directed by Minister King, being the Minister responsible that she cannot assist me with this matter. That is not an option available to me, and regardless I am seeking a more formal forum. as stated with a strong preference for that body to be the AFP. I will await your guidance on this matter.

Thankyou for your consideration of my matter, and thank you in anticipation of your assistance. Glen Buckley