Will somebody please communicate to Mr. Buckley, in words of one or two syllables if necessary, the following message because I have tried and failed. Others may wish to comment as well.
in my opinion, Glen continues to gloss over this absolutely crucial matter that destroys CASA's position.
It is here: "CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, AND ME HAVING TO PAY FEES FOR THOSE CASA TASKS (my bold capitals)."
If this transaction(s) can be substantiated - that CASA has provided goods and services in connection with the operation of the APTA business model then, absent fraud, whatever Dr. Aleck may believe is moot. If Glen has a receipt or other evidence of this transaction then that is enough because it is axiomatic that a business or corporation (which is what CASA claims to be) does not accept money without providing something in return and somewhere in CASA's accounts there must be a line item relating to Buckleys payment and what it was for. The possibility that Dr. Aleck or another CASA employee didn't know about it is irrelevant. CASA took money! It must have known what it was for - the approval process of the APTA business model!
That now raises the question of what CASA's relationship is with anyone who pays it money. When CASA declared APTA unlawful, what happened to that money? Was it returned with a note ? "Sorry we can't take this cash"?
The existence of an itemised invoice from CASA should end this farce.
in my opinion, Glen continues to gloss over this absolutely crucial matter that destroys CASA's position.
It is here: "CASA approved via formal processes referred to as a Significant Change, the addition of other bases including, Melbourne Flight Training (my own school), Learn to Fly and AVIA. The latter two schools being Moorabbin flying schools not owned by me. The addition of these two additional bases occurred approximately two years before Mr Aleck claims CASA first became aware of the structure. This involved my business submitting manuals and procedures that were fully approved by CASA. It involved CASA visiting the sites to assess their suitability, AND ME HAVING TO PAY FEES FOR THOSE CASA TASKS (my bold capitals)."
If this transaction(s) can be substantiated - that CASA has provided goods and services in connection with the operation of the APTA business model then, absent fraud, whatever Dr. Aleck may believe is moot. If Glen has a receipt or other evidence of this transaction then that is enough because it is axiomatic that a business or corporation (which is what CASA claims to be) does not accept money without providing something in return and somewhere in CASA's accounts there must be a line item relating to Buckleys payment and what it was for. The possibility that Dr. Aleck or another CASA employee didn't know about it is irrelevant. CASA took money! It must have known what it was for - the approval process of the APTA business model!
That now raises the question of what CASA's relationship is with anyone who pays it money. When CASA declared APTA unlawful, what happened to that money? Was it returned with a note ? "Sorry we can't take this cash"?
The existence of an itemised invoice from CASA should end this farce.