[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 16/02/26

glenb

Follow up to allegation against CASA CEO

As the bruising on the forehead, appeared to be subsiding, I'm up against the wall again and gently banging my head against that wall. In Pprune post #3064 I posted a copy of the correspondence I sent to the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the CASA CEO being complicit in the provision of false and misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. Not surprisingly, i have heard nothing at all, not even an acknowledgement. Am I being ignored or is something going on in the background. Due to the nature of the correspondence, it cannot go unresponded to, so presumably a well considered response is on its way. Below is the follow up correspondence. As a side note, recall that I have changed direction, and the matter is not presently about the closure of my flying school but ONLY about CASA leadership providing false n ad misleading information to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and the CASA CEOs complicit involvement in that. FOI requests have left me in no doubt whatsoever, and I eagerly await the opportunity to clearly proive, that by drawing on the abundance of witnesses.



15/12/2025

To the relevant person within the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office

On December 1st 2025, I sent correspondence (my reference Pprune post #3064) through this email address for the attention of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Iain Anderson. As 14 days have passed, and I have not had an acknowledgement of that substantive correspondence< i am now seeking a confirmation of receipt by Mr Anderson.

Can the Ombudsman Office confirm that my allegation against the CASA CEO Ms Pip Spence of facilitating disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation has been received by Mr Anderson, the Commonwealth Ombudsman. At this stage I am not seeking a detailed response, other than a confirmation that the correspondence has been received by him.

In that correspondence I was calling on the investigation to identify the "specific nature" of my flying school that was different to all other flying schools. The Ombudsman investigation referred to the supposed "specific nature", although the specific nature has not been identified to me, and is no doubt something that the investigation identified, and I am making the reasonable request that the Ombudsman identify its findings to me.

It particularly important that the distinct nature of my business is identified because as you will be aware I maintain that no such feature exists, that the CASA CEO is fully aware of that and chooses to conceal the truth to cover up the misconduct of Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs in closing only my flying school.

The Robodebt investigation identified that on occasion the Ombudsman Office works with the Agency before releasing its findings. In the detailed response from the Ombudsman Office that I anticipate, can I respectfully request it be identified to me if the Ombudsman Office has collaborated with CASA in that response, or if it is "the Ombudsman's own work."

Because my allegation is that CASA leadership has provided disinformation to cover up misconduct within CASA, it is relevant and important that I receive clarification on this matter as to any CASA involvement in your response.

At this stage, my assumption is that the Ombudsman Office would not need to be calling on assistance from CASA, so I do need this clarified.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

22/12/25

To Whom it may concern. Please accept my third request for the Ombudsman office to acknowledge receipt of my previous correspondence. At this stage I am not necessarily seeking a detailed response but seeking a confirmation of receipt only.

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

---

21/12/25

Quick update.

Firstly, I appreciate the sentiments and ongoing support. Safe travels to all over the Christmas season.

It has now been a number of weeks without an acknowledgement of the correspondence I sent to Mr Anderson the Commonwealth Ombudsman ( Post #3064). I have sent a second request in a subsequent post (Post #3078), and with no acknowledgement. This morning I have sent a thirds request.

Last bit of info. This morning I have emailed Ian Cook, a Victorian who had his business closed down in a targetted action. He engaged lawyers and the matter was prominent in Victoria. I have asked his lawyers details, with a view to requesting a meeting with them, as soon as practical in the New Year.

I am fully satisfied that I have an overwhelming body of irrefutable evidence, and an abundance of highly qualified witnesses that will expose the lack of integrity, and the dishonesty of

Ms Spence- CEO of CASA
Mr Hanton the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner
Mr Aleck, the CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs

incidentally, I didn't get a Christmas card off any of them.

Cheers all

---

Appendix A Attached. (my reference Pprune Post #44)

CASA FOI REQUEST F25/36751

Introduction

Please accept my request for further attempts to locate the document that I am seeking. Let me pre-empt this correspondence by clarifying the following.

I am fully satisfied that senior CASA Employees are taking steps to frustrate access to the document due to its potential relevance in demonstrating corruption at senior executive levels within the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), including the CASA CEO, Ms Pip Spence.

This correspondence does not suggest that the CASA Employee serving as the Freedom of Information Officer within the Legal Services Branch has been involved in any actions impeding access to the document.

The allegation relates only to the CEO of CASA, and two other Senior executives at CASA.

Timeline to date

11/12/25 I submit FOI request for the initial correspondence sent by CASA to my customers. CASA Reference: F25/36751. My reference Pprune #3073.

12/12/25 CASA requests 7-day extension due Christmas Shutdown

14/12/25 I reject the request due to the ease with which that document could be retrieved. My reference Pprune #3077

12/01/26 CASA advised the document does not exist or cannot be located.

The nature of the document that I am seeking.

On October 23, 2018, I received correspondence from CASA indicating that a CASA employee had determined my twelve-year business was now suddenly considered unlawful and would likely be closed by CASA, in as little as 7 days.

At the same time, or shortly thereafter, CASA sent written notifications to all of my clients stating that my flying school was operating unlawfully and that they might face prosecution if they continued as customers of mine. I am specifically seeking that initial notification sent by CASA to my clients, as it is the primary formal document communicating this determination. The disappearance of such an important document is concerning, as it effectively initiated the entire proceeding. It is probably the single most significant document in the entire matter because it contains CASAs allegation against my flying school.

This summary reflects my recollection of the contents of the letter.

Why am I seeking this document

I am seeking this document as evidence to support my allegation that three senior executives of CASA have provided disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation, and specifically the allegation that the CEO of CASA, Ms Pip Spence has been complicit in that misconduct.

Clarification as to whether this document exists or not

In the response from CASA seeking this most significant document, CASA states that the document either

1. does not exist

or

2. could not be located.

It is evident that the document exists, and straightforward reasoning indicates it should be readily locatable. Clarification from CASA regarding which scenario applies is essential. I have personally reviewed the document in question, and as outlined below, it should be accessible and retrievable by CASA. Current circumstances suggest that access to the document is being impeded, and it appears CASA has not exercised its best efforts to locate it. Therefore, I am submitting an additional request. Should CASA be unable to produce the document, this will form part of my initial report to the AFP, and I would request the AFP's assistance in locating the document given its importance to this matter and the ease with which it can be found if sincere efforts are being made. The significant nature of that document, its significant implications and obvious substantial input from the CASA Legal department make it suspicious that such a substantive document cannot be located.

The existence or not of the document I am seeking

Consideration One- I have personally sighted the document

In this case I know that the document exists, because I have previously seen, held, and reviewed that document.

Consideration Two-It was CASA who advised my customers, therefore CASA logically must hold a copy of that significant correspondence.

On October 23, 2018, CASA notified me of the almost immediate threat of closure to my flying school. My management team and I chose not to contact our clients immediately, opting instead to arrange a meeting with CASA to clarify the basis for the reversal of my CASA approval. Nevertheless, clients soon reached out to me in an understandably concerned manner after receiving correspondence from CASA.

It was CASA that initiated that contact, so it is highly probable the document exists.

I believe CASA is being deliberately misleading and withholding access to crucial information. My request is specific: I am seeking the very first written communication CASA sent to my customers regarding the upcoming closure of my school. It seems unreasonable for CASA to claim that they cannot locate this most significant document.

If such correspondence does not exist, it would suggest that from the moment I was informed on October 23rd, 2018 (refer to Appendix A) until the school's closure by CASA at midnight on June 30th, 2019, CASA made no contact at all with any of my customers, which clearly is not true.

In there was any written communication at all from CASA to my customers, there must, by its very nature, be the first or initial contact irrespective if contact was made only once or on multiple occasions. The document I am seeking is that initial contact. Because the customers are not flying schools, CASA would not normally interact with them, so the amount of documents would be limited.

Should CASA assert that no customer contact ever occurred, I expect them to state it explicitly. Such a position would be highly misleading, and I need clear notification if CASA claims there was no communication made directly with my customers, and without my knowledge. In essence, CASA appears to be indicating that no initial contact was made; therefore, logically, no follow-up could have happened. As mentioned earlier, this claim defies common sense, and many witnesses could confirm this point to the AFP.

If CASA concedes that they did establish contact with my customers, without my knowledge, then it is that first communication after I was notified on October 23rd 2018.

Consideration Three- The significance of the document makes it suspicious that it would disappear.

Furthermore, I request that the formal nature and significance of this document be acknowledged. This correspondence served as the initial legal notice from CASA to my customers regarding the forthcoming closure of my flying school and outlines possible legal implications for their continued patronage. As one of the most important communications CASA may send to any Entity, it would be expected to appear as the primary entry in records concerning my school's closure.

The preparation of such a document likely required considerable input from the Legal Department. Given its importance, the absence of this document from the record is cause for serious concern.

This is the document sent by CASA to each of my customers first advising them that I am operating unlawfully, and that they could be subject to prosecution. Truthfully, such a document could not disappear, and could not possibly be hard to locate. It is the single most important document in this matter in its entirety.

Given that this was the initial document provided to my customers, it stands to reason that my customers first became aware of the matter through its distribution. Is CASA indicating that at no point did they communicate directly with my customers, without my prior knowledge? If CASA maintains that they have not sent any written correspondence or contacted my customers in any form, I would appreciate a clear statement confirming this position. However, if CASA acknowledges direct contact with my customers, it is reasonable to assume such communication may have included written documentation. Should you be unable to locate any such records, I need to be advised as this would be a significant turn of events.

Consideration Four- Mr Hanton, the CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner and a CASA Employee, may not be making his best endeavours to locate the document I am seeking

I particularly refer to the notification from CASA that the FOI Department used the CASA ICC, Mr Jonathan Hanton in assisting with locating that document.

CASA appears to be making a superficial effort to find the document, as noted in their correspondence referencing help from the CASA ICC. I allege that Mr Jonathan Hanton, the Industry Complaints Commissioner, is among three CASA employees who provided disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. Given Mr Hanton's potential conflict of interest regarding evidence against him, he may not be the best person to assist in this search. Assigning someone to locate evidence that could implicate them, is unconventional and unlikely to improve the chances of finding the document. More independent assistance from within CASA may be a more productive approach.

Consideration Five-The linking of the documents.

This entire matter originated with two documents sent by CASA.

One document sent to me as the flying school, and a second separate letter was sent to all my customers without my knowledge.

I hold the document that was sent to me, it is the document sent to my customers that I am seeking.

As these are the two documents that pre-empted the matter, and would have the same Author, it is concerning that the document cannot be located. Presumably these two documents would be filed together, referenced to each other. If you can identify the true author of the initial notification (Appendix A) you would quite possibly have the Author of the letter sent to my customers

CASA effectively adopted a two-prong approach contacting me, as the flying school, and separate but similar correspondence was sent to my customers. CASAs position is that they have only retained the initial communication with me, and not with my customers, which would be highly unusual.

Consideration Six- The document I am seeking would be the primary document in that file and positioned at the very front of that file.

Drawing on my 25 years industry experience, I am not aware of CASA closing any other flying school in Australia. To close a flying school is a most significant event for CASA. It is likely that CASA would hold a quite substantial file on the matter, and the expectation is that file an its associated documents would be somewhat “centralised” to one large file, rather than scattered randomly throughout CASA, and this document would have to be a very substantial document within that file, and as it was the initial correspondence, presumably if that file is chronological order, it would be at the very commencement of that file, certainly amongst the very initial correspondence, making it easily located.

It must be recognised that there are two Parties that CASA acted against. One being me, the other being my clients. Unless CASA now maintain a new position that they never contacted my clients it is obvious that such a substantial document must exist,

Some further suggestions in assisting you to locate the document.

Suggestion One-Contact the Author of the document

As stated earlier, I do not believe that Mr Hanton in the role of CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner is the most appropriate person to be assisting you. As the CASA Board is aware, Mr Hanton is one of the three CASA Employees that I know provided disinformation to a Commonwealth Ombudsman investigation. He may not be highly motivated to locate that document, to be used as evidence against himself.

To demonstrate my point that Mr Hanton may not be acting with his best endeavours, consider the following, and this requires reference to Appendix A.

The initial notification to me advising that my business is unlawful was signed by Mr David Jones of CASA, even though Mr Jones was not the author, had no understanding of the contents, and was not approved or qualified within CASA to author such correspondence, he had never met me, never met any of my staff, visited my premises, reviewed any of my policies or procedures, and on first phone contact with him, it was quite apparent he had absolutely no idea who I was, and in his own words, “I’m not all over the matter, I will have to speak to my team”

Mr Jones was certainly the “signatory”, but he was clearly not the Writer or Author of that document. CASA effectively used Mr David Jones, the signatory, as the “patsy” or “fall guy”, most likely to conceal the involvement of Mr Aleck who was the true Author.

Mr Jones (the signatory) was neither qualified nor approved within CASA to Author such correspondence. The AFP need only seek a Yes or No response from the CASA CEO or Board Chair on this topic, as to whether or not Mr Jones had any involvement in the writing of that correspondence, or any understanding at all of what he was signing, and the AFP could simply ask him directly, to receive immediate clarity if the CASA CEO chooses to be deceptive.

Significantly, Mr Hanton, in his role as the CASA ICC, and the person “assisting” with the search is fully aware that Mr Jones was neither qualified nor approved to author such correspondence.

Furthermore, Mr Hanton, in his role as the CASA ICC is also fully aware that such correspondence as sent to me in Appendix A, and the document sent to my customers could originate from within only one Department within CASA, and that is Mr Alecks own Legal Department. Mr Aleck being the true Author of that document, although he utilised another CASA Employee to sign it.

The CASA ICC would be well aware that Mr Jones is not the true author.

The application of common-sense dictates that if Mr Hanton is aware that such a document as the one sent to me and my customers, can only originate from within CASAs Legal Department, any “well intentioned search” for such a document would originate with, or at least contain an approach to the Author Mr Aleck, who heads up that Legal Department.

The point being that Mr Hanton would be fully aware that any correspondence alleging regulatory breaches and the imminent closure of a flying school on a supposed breach of regulations, could ONLY be sent by the Legal department. Mr Hanton in his role as CASAs Industry Complaints Commissioner would be fully aware that a direct approach to the Author would be the most effective approach but chooses to avoid it. An approach he has used previously.

I welcome the opportunity to prove this with irrefutable evidence that I hold, Mr Hanton has been deceptive on several occasions, and I clearly hold the evidence, and If he believes that to be defamatory in any way I would embrace any forum to prove that, hence my desire to seek an AFP investigation.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, with the witnesses that are available, and the evidence I hold, the CASA Industry Complaints commissioner has been involved in misconduct.

I acknowledge that Mr Aleck will likely deny authorship, but it is not reasonable to believe that the Head of the Legal Department would have no knowledge or involvement in correspondence advising a school that it was being shut down by CASA. Simply by reading Appendix A any person would promptly identify the very “legal” nature of the terminology.

Even if Mr Aleck denied authorship of that correspondence, it would be likely that in his position, he would have an intimate knowledge of that document, after all it was an allegation identified by him personally that I was supposedly operating unlawfully.

It also not reasonable to believe that Mr Hanton was acting with good intent if no approach has been made to the Author. I recognise that the FOI Department has dedicated considerable resources over more than a month to locating this document, unfortunately without success. It is clear that significant time was invested in searching through numerous emails, and that CASA has committed substantial public resources to this effort, although the search does not appear to have yielded the desired result.

As an alternative, I recommend directly contacting the author of the document, as this may prove to be a more efficient and effective approach if the objective is to genuinely locate the document. This would seem to me to be the most practical approach, and in fact it would raise concerns if no attempt had been made to contact the author, as surely that would be a reasonable action to take, if the attempt to locate the document was sincere.

If Mr Hanton knows the author of the letter and is aware that they are still in the employ of CASA, and that they operate from within the same building as the ICC, that the ICC would be aware of this, and if no attempt has been made to contact the Author I am fully satisfied that any efforts made by Mr Hanton in his role as the CASA ICC are insincere, and not appropriate to his role.

Inclusion of the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in this correspondence

CASA informed a Senate committee that all relevant files had been handed over to the Ombudsman investigation. If CASA now claims they cannot locate a particular document, I recommend that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman initiate a search among the documents provided for the investigation.

Should CASA be unable to find the document, it raises concerns about whether all required files were actually provided to the Ombudsman. This is why I have included the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office in this further inquiry.

The Ombudsman Office could choose to conduct a brief investigation to verify if CASA truly submitted all necessary files or if certain important documents—such as the one I am seeking—were deliberately omitted. It is important to determine whether this specific document was part of the materials given to the investigation or if it was withheld. I suspect the CASA Cohort may have intentionally held back this key document, possibly along with others, to facilitate a misleading narrative to the investigators.

CASA has stated that it gave all documents to the Ombudsman investigation. I intend to ask the Commonwealth Ombudsman Office to locate the specific document in question. If the Ombudsman does not have it on file, that strongly suggests to me that CASA may have been selective about which documents were provided.

For reference, the document in question is the initial correspondence from CASA to any of my customers after notifying me, as the flying school owner, that I was allegedly operating unlawfully.

The sincerity of the attempts to locate that document.

To assist in the prompt location of the required document, can I request that a more efficient and effective approach be adopted.

As Mr Aleck was the Author of that document, it would seem logical that any genuine approach would be made to the Author of the document. From my perspective by CASA not directly approaching the documents Author, it could be seen that there is little, or no genuine intent to locate that document. Unless some internal protocol within CASA prevents the FOI department approaching the CASA employee that wrote the document, my strong recommendation is that if no assistance has been sought of Mr Aleck, the Author, that would seem the most commonsense approach before any further decision are made.

For clarity. If the search did not include any attempt to approach the Author of the document, it certainly appears as though CASA may not be making their best endeavours. It is likely that Mr Aleck would be able to direct you immediately to the document you require, and it would be highly suspicious if he could not.

Quite clearly Mr Aleck has gone to significant effort to conceal his involvement. To try and minimise his involvement, Mr Aleck will likely try and deflect being the Author of that document, as he did in the case of using an unqualified person to sign the initial notification (Appendix A) that he wrote or was heavily involved in.

Further guidance to assist you in locating that document if Mr Aleck, the author, denies any knowledge

If an approach has been made to Mr Aleck in his role as the Head of the Legal department, and the Author of that document, and he denies any knowledge of CASA ever directly contacting my customers, then I offer some further suggestions to assist.

Suggestion One- utilise CASAs own generated customer list.

CASA sent the “primary” document (Appendix A) to me and that document is attached. That document indicates that CASA had identified my customers as the following.

1. Latrobe Valley Aero Club

2. Ballarat Aero Club

3. White star

4. Arc Aviation

5. Flight standards

6. Avia

7. Melbourne Flight Training

8. Sim Jet Training Systems

It is likely that the Entity name would appear somewhere in at least one piece of correspondence either in the email address of the recipient, and similarly it’s likely that the Entities name would be included in the body of that email, so a search of these would likely produce a result.

Suggestion Two- Look for common terminology

The document I am seeking is effectively the “partner” document to Appendix A

CASA sent Appendix A to me, as the flying school, and the ‘partner’ letter to my customers so presumably the regulatory allegations that Mr Aleck had supposedly identified would be replicated between the two documents, sent to me and my customers. That would assist in the search of “key words”

Considering that my customers advised me that CASA had sent them written correspondence before I had the opportunity to meet with CASA or clearly identify CASAs concerns, the date range would be very limited. It was a matter of days or possibly weeks, but certainly not months.

Suggestion Three-Contact the Author directly.

The signatory and the Author are two different people. Mr David Jones was the signatory to that letter, but he was neither qualified nor in a position to write such correspondence. There is no doubt at all that Mr Jones had almost no understanding of the letter that he had signed. For clarity, I am not disputing that Mr David Joneses put his signature on that initial notification, but I very clearly know that he did not write it, and if the AFP were to put the question to the CASA CEO Ms Spence, it would be impossible for her to misrepresent that Mr David Jones was the author, and if Ms Spence was to maintain that Mr David Jones had any knowledge of the content of that letter, I would suggest the AFP contact Mr David Jones directly to ensure prompt clarity.

To send such correspondence CASA procedures would mandate that the correspondence ius reviewed by Mr Alecks Legal Department, and to suggest that Mr Alecxk had no involvement is hard to accept.

Suggestion Four The timeline

I received the initial notification on October 23rd, 2018. Notably, CASA informed all my customers before I had an opportunity to meet with CASA or notify them personally. Based on my recollection, these notifications occurred very shortly after my own; therefore, I estimate that the process began within the first month following my notification. That limited date range should assist.

Suggestion Five- Locate the very first correspondence

CASA most definitely communicated with my customers in writing, and if CASA maintains that at no stage did, they ever contact my customers, then CASA is being deceptive. This is the initial notification that was sent to my customers by CASA. For clarity it is the very first communication.

If CASA maintains that at no stage did, they ever communicate with my customers, I need to be advised of that, although I don’t think CASA would attempt that level of deceptiveness, only because it could be so easily disproven by the abundance of witnesses amongst my customers.

Suggestion Six- If CASA communicated with any written correspondence at all to any of my customers

A search of CASA communications after October 23rd, 2018 (the initial notification) through until the closure of my business at midnight June 30th, 2019, of any one of those customers in any correspondence at all over that 8-month period would almost certainly produce some result. It would be suspicious if no communication at all was identified because that would falsely suggest that at no stage did CASA ever contact my customers directly and without my knowledge. It is the first contact made by CASA that I am seeking.

Suggestion Seven- You only need to find one email to only one customer.

It is likely that the identical correspondence was sent to all customers, so the request is to find only one of the letters that was sent to any customer.

Once any email communication at all is identified, it is almost a certainty that the communication “trail”: would lead back to that initial correspondence. By adopting this method, you would need to locate only one single piece of correspondence to any customer between October 2018 to July 2019, and trace that back to that initial correspondence from CASA that identifies the legal allegation that CASA has made. In that initial correspondence. I would be somewhat concerned if this had not already happened because if the obvious nature of the approach. It appears that approach may not have been adopted, because this would most certainly produce a result.

Specifically for the Attention of the MP for the Electorate of Chisholm

I have included your Office in my email, and my expectation remains the same. I am acting on the assumption that once I receive the acknowledgement of your Office that you have received correspondence from me that you have forwarded that on directly for the attention of Minister King. I continue to call on your Office to identify to me any correspondence that you have not bought to the direct attention of Minister King. I am proceeding on the basis that the Minister has been kept fully up to date by your Office, and once again I call on you to clearly identify any communication that you have not forwarded on directly for the attention of the Minister



Updated document search criteria


In order to expedite the process and increase the chances of obtaining the document that I am seeking I will adjust the search criteria as below.

On October 23rd, 2018, I received notification that CASA had suddenly determined that my flying school was operating unlawfully (Appendix A).

CASA identified my customers as

1. Ballarat Aero Club

2. Latrobe Valley Aero Club

3. Arc Aviation

4. Flight standards aviation

5. Avia aircraft

6. Melbourne Flight Training

7. Sim Jet Training Systems

I am submitting an updated request for the first and second pieces of communication that CASA made with any of my customers on any topic at all that could be somewhat related to their relationship with my business.

The date range is the first two pieces of communication made with any customer on any APTA related topic after October 23rd, 2018.

Thank you for your consideration, and efforts to date,

Respectfully, Glen Buckley

It goes on for more posts and then Sandy responds with this...

Sandy Reith

The costs

With respect Tee Em I think that on the contrary Glen’s persistence is to be admired. In reality he tried to maintain his staff and acted on principle. Personally to blame him for distress anywhere is to give CASA a free pass.

Yes he may have had other strategies but that is to make judgments that are subjective.

As for disturbing his supporters, again on the contrary, he is keeping alive the pressure on these out of control independent government bodies who are thriving in Can’tberra on inflated salaries, derived from ever increasing taxation.

Perhaps one day down the track some politicians will decide that these unaccountable bodies are wrong models of governance because they run against the Westminster principle of Ministerial responsibility.

And perhaps one day more voters will realise that our democracy is not set and forget, it needs to be improved.
We should all be contacting out federal MPs regularly with support for Glen.

---

&..


Slippery_Pete

Originally Posted by Sandy Reith

With respect Tee Em I think that on the contrary Glen’s persistence is to be admired.

There’s persistence. And then there’s the definition of insanity - trying the exact same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result. These years of letters to all and sundry have proven to be a monumental waste of time. They will continue to be so.

Here’s the rub - this will never be resolved, nor Glen vindicated as he so desperately wants - until he engages professional legal help.

It’s that simple.

We all want the very best for Glen. But it’s about time someone called a spade a spade.

---

&..

Sandy Reith

Judgment

“ It’s that simple.

We all want the very best for Glen. But it’s about time someone called a spade a spade.”

Nothing is that simple.

Time and again Glen has been urged to employ the legal fraternity to resolve the issue.
How does anyone other than Glen understand his financial and personal situation?

Just maybe we don’t actually know all the legal ins and outs or the details of advice that he’s had already.

I wonder how many of us have spoken to our MPs in person about supporting Glen? What’s happened to our once strong collective voice of AOPA?

And calling a spade a spade whose fault is that?

MTF...P2