It’s Now Official: The Boeing/Satterberg Case Against Me Was Retaliation For My Reporting Boeing’s Crimes to (Boeing’s) FAA and “our” Government Officials.
As offices opened up on the morning of Tuesday, the 16th of May, 2006, just one day before I was falsely arrested and immediately before Nick Bauer (lead detective in the case), Scott Peterson (King County Deputy Prosecutor assigned to the case), and the Senior Manager of the Corporate Investigations Group of the Boeing Office of Internal Governance (the same Boeing manager whose statement/belief that “Boeing is the most arrogant company on the face of the planet” is memorialized on my website) walked to Superior Court Judge Eadie’s chambers to request a search/arrest warrant for me and my property, they, and one additional Boeing person, met in Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson’s office. There they colluded on how best to hang me out to dry for daring to try to bring Boeing’s criminal actions to an end and the criminals that were responsible for that criminal activity—the self-described “most arrogant management of any company on the face of the planet,” to justice.
Who was the extra Boeing person in that meeting, who functions as one of several Boeing regional “fixers” for some of the most difficult legal situations that Boeing’s doing business outside the boundaries of the law has gotten the company into over the years?
Even I was incredulous to learn the identity of that “Boeing fixer” at that crucial meeting in which the fate of me and my family’s future would be decided, and I am one who is perhaps one of the best informed (albeit, if only “self-schooled”) people on the subjects of Boeing management hypocrisy, arrogance, greed, and corruption, just to name a few.
Present at the meeting was the person whose presence on behalf of Boeing would most readily prove that Boeing Management’s attempts to get me falsely branded as a felon before I could succeed at getting them branded rightly as such was in fact a retaliatory action against me for my several attempts to get Boeing to begin to adhere to FAA rules and regulations to ensure the quality and safety of Boeing aircraft against the wishes of “working together in corruption” Boeing and FAA management.
Who was this person, who was Boeing’s top representative at the meeting? Even you, if you have been diligently perusing this site, will be surprised and appalled at the arrogantly obvious reason behind Boeing’s choice of who they would send to that meeting to ensure that I, the most reprehensible person imaginable to Boeing Management—a “do-gooder”--tasted the fate that would have been theirs if real justice was done.
And they would ensure at that meeting that I would suffer the fate they instead deserved by any means possible—including by lying to any degree necessary to reach their retaliatory goal, thereby setting my fate as a dark example of what would happen to any other Boeing employee who similarly dared to try to ensure that corrupt Boeing management and their valuable accomplices in government agencies were brought to justice. That is, efforts to bring them to justice for the serious crimes they committed in search of ever greater “value” to their bottom lines by only superficially appearing to follow the relevant rules and regulations that were enacted as the minimum necessary to ensure the quality and safety of Boeing aircraft, and thereby passing more and more risk intentionally off to the passengers and crew of Boeing aircraft.
This person was the same person in Boeing Legal that performed damage control for Boeing after each of the two times I contacted Boeing’s Chief Counsel to try to get Boeing to voluntarily end the fraud in quality assurance I witnessed daily on Boeing production lines, after my attempts to get their cohorts in FAA management to do their jobs of making sure Boeing built aircraft to the relevant quality and safety procedures and regulations failed. Boeing’s representative at the meeting at which my fate was decided was the last person I had talked to at Boeing before making plans to go public with the endemic Boeing and FAA management corruption I had witnessed.
She was the Boeing Legal attorney who I told in that last conversation that I was going to go public if Boeing didn’t do anything about the corruption in BCA Quality Assurance that I had reported to them. To that, she answered, “you gotta do what you gotta do.”
Her last words seemed to me to be Boeing Legal’s mantra—do anything you have to do to get Boeing off the hook for the consequences of its chosen illegal business practices (as in the quality assurance fraud I witnessed)—whether it was legal or not.
Her actions under the direction of Boeing’s Chief Counsel were to take whatever actions were necessary to ensure that the fraud I reported to them could continue, as Boeing reaped incalculable “value” to their bottom line by the rollerstamping of inspections off as done when they either weren’t done at all or were only partially done.
Their decision not to end the noted fraud likely wouldn’t have been any different now as the ethics of Boeing management is the same, but at that time Boeing was attempting to be profitable in the pre-recovery years after 9-11.
During the noted conversation, this unethical Boeing attorney asked me if I had any additional “safety of flight” noncompliances to report to her that I had not put in my reports in their possession. I was sure at the time that she asked me that only because Boeing could say they did if I did go public—not because she or Boeing cared about fixing such noncompliances at all. I was sure (and still am now) that it was just another intentionally ineffective “CYA” effort they felt they had to perform in case I did go to the media, just as was the “corporate internal audit” she had done of only my work area (even though it was clear in my report the fraud was company-wide) that focused almost exclusively on paperwork and other matters not related to the actual quality or safety of the jet engines and engine pylons we built up and mostly just pretended to fully inspect before delivery.
That this “Boeing fixer” of the most serious legal matters for Boeing in Washington—Boeing’s “home” area—asked for only “safety of flight” noncompliances was very telling even if Boeing had no intention of investigating and fixing those problems—it was proof that Boeing Legal (and Boeing itself) was not going to do anything at all to stop the majority of the fraud in QA contained in my report—the intentional rollerstamping of inspections off at Boeing rather than actually doing those inspections—unless (perhaps and only perhaps) such obvious fraud and noncompliance with the vast majority of the FAA required Boeing Quality System could be proven to be an immediate threat to the safety of flight of an airplane.
Never mind that the defects that such an intentionally noncompliant and ineffective quality system routinely allows to deliver to airline customers are of unknown severity by definition, and very well could be safety of flight issues, except that no one would find out about them unless they were found by accident by the airlines or the pieces of the aircraft were big enough to accurately determine that they had caused a particular crash.
So, what was an obviously unethical attorney (who only maintained a superficial cloak of an ethical nature as noted above with the pseudo corporate audit and pseudo seeming to be attending to the safety of flight aspects of my report) doing for Boeing at the noted meeting with the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, the detective, and the Boeing investigator for the case on May 16th , 2006? And why didn’t Boeing send someone else to make it less obvious Boeing was retaliating against me for my report to the FAA and letters to members of Congress? Inquiring minds should like to know.
But from this seat it is obvious—this “Boeing fixer” that ensured I was unsuccessful in ending the fraud ongoing in QA at Boeing was there to ensure payback was delivered personally by her on behalf on the Boeing Chief Counsel for being such a painful gnat on the corrupt backside of the corporation in trying to end one of their most “value adding” noncompliances with critical laws and regulations (to the flying public, and not to Boeing, obviously).
The question needs to be asked as to what specifically transpired in that meeting to ensure the wrong party was charged. What did Boeing’s “fixer” promise the Deputy Prosecutor and/or Satterberg himself? Funding and running a surefire (because of superior funding) campaign through one of Boeing’s chief outside law firms of which Boeing is a major if not the major financial supporter? Some other inducement, perhaps? What did she and the Senior Manager of Corporate Investigations for Boeing that proudly describes his company (and therefore, its management) as the most arrogant on the face of the planet do to ensure the wrong outcome desired? What lies did they tell during that and/or other meetings with the prosecutor’s office? Did they assure the prosecutor verbally that my well documented report of systemic Boeing fraud in quality assurance was a figment of my imagination? (The same report which was partially, albeit unwillingly, on the corrupt FAA’s part, proven by serious and systemic FAA findings as documented in FAA correspondence on my computer?)
If they did so, why would the Deputy Prosecutor and/or Satterberg take such representatives of a corporation, with multiple other publicly well known legal and ethical flaws in its highest management circles, at their word on such a serious matter that should have been a perfect situation for the Fraud Department of the Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and prosecute themselves?
Of course, such corruption of the Prosecutor’s Office may not exist. They may have been simply duped by Boeing and Boeing’s “fixer” into filing the charges purely in response to Boeing’s request to do so, dazzled by being asked to do so by such highly placed management at Boeing, as the law itself obviously doesn’t support such charges.
This is highly suspicious indeed. I believe the noted “Boeing fixer” “attorney” is also going to testify in court against me as well. It will be her chance to prevaricate in public just as I believe she did in that private meeting at which the decision to arrest me was made. It should be an interesting chance to ask her—the Boeing attorney most intimately involved with ensuring that the fraud in Boeing Quality Assurance management as detailed on my website could continue rather than end—some interesting and very relevant questions as to the true genesis of the charges against me. I guess I’ll have to jot down some relevant questions for her for use by my attorney.
This is truly a major revelation as to the true nature of the motive behind the charges against me, which are on their face more wholly manufactured than Boeing aircraft themselves, as I can attest.
Look for more blogs from me this week on other subjects I haven't covered as I should have that have ocurred of late.
The Last Inspector
The Last Inspector