As most of you probably know, late last week I entered into an agreement with the King County Prosecutor's Office. If I cooperate per the agreement, the reduced charges listed in the agreement will be dismissed in January.
I especially liked the Seattle Times article. The headline acknowledged my status as a whistleblower, and they went through the step (unknown to me until the article broke) of getting some 340 emails between Boeing and the King County Prosecutor's office that showed just how badly Boeing wanted to make an example of me by an all-out effort to ensure my conviction.
If the reporting is correct, King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg and others in the office came to their senses and resisted Boeing's extreme pressure to retry me so they would get another shot at shooting the messenger of their own fraudulent activities (me).
However, inexplicably, Senior Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson defied his superior's wants and pressed for a second trial if I did not accept the continuance for dismissal which my attorney and I originally wrote and offered to the prosecutor's office, but was rewritten by Peterson and/or Boeing to the point where I did not want to accept it.
Perhaps later the reason Mr. Peterson defied his boss and pursued a second trial will become known. At this point I can think of only two possibilities (or some combination of both). Firstly, he was miffed that I exposed his own escape (with the help of friendly non-investigators that deferred to his position and power) from class B felony charges (a more serious felony than I was accused of) for his ramming a woman several times with his car because she was standing in a public parking spot he wanted, even over her dead body. And/or, the second reason, which would be that Boeing either pressured or "incentivized" him into defying his boss and having him continue to move toward a second trial of me.
So, this may be simply the effort to entrap me and do away with my jury trial rights that I noted in my previous blog, but I accepted it on the off chance it wasn't. Apparently compromised U.S. Attorney Carl Blackstone's threat of federal charges against me (if I did not accept the badly rewritten agreement) being nullified by a letter from him stating they would not try me if I took the agreement made the decision to sign it more compelling, although both Peterson and Blackstone quite well may have been bluffing about trying me again.
Blackstone is no stranger to withholding evidence required to be disclosed from defendants, just like Mr. Peterson. He withheld evidence from a defendant in a federal trial, and was admonished for it by a federal judge. Even though an appeals court reversed the monetary damages for his misconduct, the misconduct charge by the judge was not reversed. Federal prosecutors apparently have immunity if they engage in such misconduct as Mr. Blackstone was found to have engaged in. It defies common sense, but there is much in our federal and state justice systems that are anything but fair or balanced.
I will continue my whistleblowing undeterred, just as I have done despite Boeing's and the prosecutor's transparent attempts to interfere with such and discredit me.
The agreement does have an exemption to allow my whistleblowing on the Boeing frauds I witnessed and uncovered to continue, whereas, before the exemption, the agreement could be construed to silence such whistleblowing.
Most predictably, both Marc Boman of Perkins Coie and U.S. Attorney Carl Blackstone now deny the way events actually happened--they deny Boman used his friendship with Blackstone to have him threaten me with federal charges. This proves, I believe, that Boman's and Blackstone's actions were unethical if not illegal. Why would they deny facts gained from unimpeachable sources otherwise? Their denial does indicate one thing, however--that their lack of ethics as noted in my last blog is the real deal, as people in their line of work (with the possible exception of Boman's) are not supposed to thusly lie.
This may indeed be a figurative "deal with the devil," but I thought it was in my best interest even when considering the lack of integrity of the parties on the other side behind it. Neither the prosecutor or Boeing Management are the devil. However, I hope you get my point. I call it so after a cartoon I saw long ago, with a guy sitting in a chair in front of a corporation CEO's desk. Behind the desk was seated the devil himself. And the devil/CEO in the cartoon said to the man who had just met him for the first time and was sitting agog in front of him, "who did you think was running this company?"
The Last Inspector