[Peetwo]

GlenB embuggerance update: 6/11/21

Via the AP email email chains -  

 
Dear Mr Buckley

I refer to your email of 3 November 2021 addressed to the Chair of the CASA Board, Mark Binskin AC and CASA’s Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety (CEO/DAS), Pip Spence PSM.  I have been asked to respond on their behalf.

At the outset, Mr Binskin and Ms Spence thank you for your congratulatory wishes, and both confirm their commitment to ensuring CASA performs its important regulatory and safety-related functions in a way that is supportive of the general aviation community.

The particular point of your email concerns a recording you say demonstrates that CASA has misled the Commonwealth Ombudsman in his investigation of your complaints about CASA.  The Chair and the CEO/DAS consider it more appropriate that you provide that recording directly to the Ombudsman, on the basis that it is the Ombudsman who will be in the best position to consider its bearing on his office’s investigation of your complaints.

Should you also wish to share the recording or a summary of its content with the Chair and the CEO/DAS that would be a matter for you.

Yours sincerely

Colin McLachlan

P2 note - A less than 2 day response from CASA would be considered 'light speed' from the
bureaucratese world underneath the Can'tberra pleasure dome...  

Next GlenB's response...  

6th November 2021

cc: Ombudsman

Dear Colin, (CASA Board Secretariat),

Thank you for facilitating a prompt response to my correspondence dated November 3rd, 2021

I am formally requesting that CASA initiates contact with the Ombudsman’s Office forthwith.

It is my belief that CASA is duty bound, if not compelled, to contact the Ombudsman’s Office as soon as practical, after it became aware that it had potentially mislead the Ombudsman’s Office or provided information that is at its best inaccurate.

There can be no doubt that CASA has misled the Ombudsman’s Office to believe “CASA only became aware of APTAs structure just prior to October 2018; this is blatantly not the case.

In fact, that representation is very far from the truth of the situation as I am alleging that CASA has deliberately or otherwise mislead the Ombudsman’s Office and will provide evidence of that.

There are two fundamental points in asserting that CASA has mislead the Ombudsman’s Office, and. whilst not limited to only these two items, they are most significant.

Firstly, CASAs previously maintained CASA did not become aware of APTAs structure until, just prior to October 2018. From a legal perspective, I appreciate the significance of that statement.  If it were the truth, it would work favourably for CASAs position in this matter. My assertion is that an employee / or employees of CASA were responsible for the provision of information to the Ombudsman that is clearly untruthful and was provided with the intention of misleading the Ombudsman on a number of issues. The purpose being to influence the outcome of the investigation.

Secondly, CASA maintain that they made a number of well-intentioned attempts to resolve this matter in good faith and finalise the wording for the contracts. Whereas I would strongly assert that CASA did not act in good faith, deliberately frustrating the matter; what is more to the point never actually had any intention of resolving this matter. I will provide and release the recording of the CASA personnel that I have mentioned previously.

Dealing with the first point only in this correspondence at this time, I will address the second matter at a later date.

The impact of CASA’s misconduct and misinformation has been significant, and quite frankly after having spent every waking moment of the last three years dealing with this trauma, I am well and truly over it. Far too much time and stress has been directly related to me refuting clearly untruthful information by CASA to no avail.

It seems entirely appropriate that CASA reach out to the Ombudsman’s Office and advise that after the receipt of this correspondence, they request the Ombudsman’s Office to place the investigation on hold. Such action will enable CASA to reassess its position and provide both the Ombudsman’s office and myself with CASAs position, hopefully this time reflecting the truth. CASA may choose however to maintain its “position” in that they were not aware of the structure of APTA until just prior to October 2018.

Please find attached supported samples of emails to and from CASA dating back 2 ½ years before they claim that they first became aware.

Sampling of the emails and the timeline from mid-2016 are attached; that is, before CASA claim they first became aware of APTAs structure. I have also attached a copy of the proposed contract that was supplied to Mr Graeme Crawford the CASA 2IC on October 7th, 2017,being 6 months after APTA was fully approved by CASA; interestingly, one year before CASA claim they first became aware of my structure.

Exhibit A: 20 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to the three CASA oversighting personnel. (2 ½ years before CASA claim that they became aware of APTA.

“Dear John,

As you are aware, I am in the process of putting together and alliance of flight training organisations, under an Industry leading group of professionals. My intention is to build a team that can communicate with CASA in an effective, professional and constructive manner.

I have now invested significantly in the proposal. If practical I would like the opportunity to meet with you in the CASA Office to outline my proposed course of action. I will be seeking significant guidance from CASA during this process. My intention is to “get it right”, the first time. I genuinely want to work as closely with CASA as your resources permit…………”

Exhibit B: 21 June 2016 => Response Email from CASA to Glen Buckley

This email is from CASA arranging the requested meeting

Exhibit C: 21 June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley finalising meeting late June 2016,

(that is 2 ½ years before CASA claim they first became aware of my businesses structure).

Exhibit D:  23rd June 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to CASA

This email has a 9-page document attached to it, that can leave absolutely no doubt in the readers mind as to the structure that is intended.

Exhibit E: 13th July 2016 => Email from Glen Buckley to three oversighting personnel within CASA.

This email advises CASA that I am obtaining some interest in this concept and requesting CASA time frames to add new Entities.

This attached the 2016 version of the proposed contract to Mr Crawford; it was provided as a courtesy in the interests of transparency. When CASA sent the initial notification years later in October 2018, they “overlooked” the fact that these contracts had been supplied on multiple occasions, and that can be clearly evidenced.

Exhibit F: 18th January 2017 => Meeting with Mr Graeme Crawford 2IC of CASA.

This is almost 1 ½ years before CASA claim they became aware of the structure.

The meeting occurred in Canberra on an unrelated matter. Interestingly, it was the CASA Executive, Mr Crawford who raised the subject of APTA; therefore, he was clearly aware of APTA existence at that time.

Conclusion

CASA has an obligation to act as a model litigant and whilst I certainly don’t intend to go through the charter here, I would like to highlight a sampling; however, Mr Jonathan Aleck will be fully aware of those obligations. The first of these being particularly salient in this matter.
   

• Not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Crown knows to be true.
  

   

• Act honestly and fairly
  

   

• Not causing unnecessary delay.
  

   

• Endeavouring to avoid litigation wherever possible.
  

   

• Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim
  

   

• Apologising where the Crown is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly,
  

The Court also traced the model litigant obligation back to the traditional relationship between the Crown and its subjects and noted that the Commonwealth and its agencies have no legitimate private interest in the performance of their functions and frequently also have greater access to resources than private litigants. For these reasons, the Court held that Australian Government Agencies and their legal representatives should act as moral exemplars when engaging with private litigants.

Trusting that you have the freedom to act with integrity in this matter and make good the wrong that CASA has perpetrated on myself and my family.

Yours Faithfully,

Glen Buckley

 
MTF...P2