(Please look at my "advertisement" soliciting a lawyer in my previous blog if you are a lawyer or know of one that might be interested. And on to today's blog):
I admit that I could be considered a biased party in comments on the charges against me, but I will strive for objectivity anyway, even if whomever put together the charging document against me didn't. Such is the stuff of integrity--acting with integrity when others do not. That may seem a bit of an odd statement if you don't know about my long quest to protect your safety when flying and you've only read what little is out there in the press currently about me and you judged me accordingly, but my website has most of the info you need to judge what really motivates me.
My motivation wasn't extortion as the county wants you to believe. Such a motive even Senior Boeing Management would even have to refute, as when they contacted me in 2002 after I contacted them, they tacitly admitted that that was not the case. I told them to ignore anything in the letter that I sent them that dealt with my own legal rights if they even thought such a thing by my attempting to protect my legal rights in the letter. Protecting my legal rights was only a small part of the letter in any event, as I made it clear my overriding concern was that Boeing end the fraud I witnessed every day in Quality Assurance at BCA.
What makes the concept of extortion even more preposterous is the fact that at that point, in my first of two letters to Boeing's Chief Counsel in 2002, I did not know that Boeing Headquarters knew about or participated in the noted fraud I reported to them. Indeed, I hoped they knew nothing about it, and therefore would investigate it and end it when the FAA chose not to. Although I never was or will be an extortionist, there was no reason anyone with that bent could have used at that point to extort money from Boeing. Boeing Headquarters management had done nothing wrong at that point, and was innocent, I dearly hoped, of any complicity in the fraud I saw in the lower echelons of management at Boeing that I was reporting to Boeing Headquarters in the letter. This whole subject of extortion is distasteful to me to even write about. I don't know why they chose to even attach that word to anything I did in the charging papers. I had thought that in this day and age only the guilty told mistruths in sworn documents--not the prosecutors. I guess this low hanging mistruth will be covered in trial should it come to that, and when disproved, will damage their credibility as it should.
Dan Satterberg, the acting King County Prosecutor who brought these charges against me after Norm Maleng's death, shows some political savvy in doing so. Even though the charges should have never been brought if even a minimal review of the case was performed, the integrity of the charges is not the point, I believe. Mr. Satterburg is in a heated contest as the Republican candidate in November's election for King County Prosecutor to serve out the remainder of Norm Maleng's term. Mr. Satterberg is obviously in a tough battle because, even though you would swear Norm Maleng and Mr. Satterberg were twins effectively joined at the hip by perusing his campaign web site, and Norm seems to be posthumously campaigning for Mr. Satterberg by all of the pictures of them smiling together on the web site--similar to what Lloyd Bentsen said to Dan Quayle during a famous debate--he is no Norm Maleng. He will have to run under his own name on the ballot as a Republican in a Democratic County. Norm Maleng was respected in the county despite his being a Republican--not because he was one. Republicans today don't poll as well today as they used to. So, I think Mr. Satterberg has an uphill battle, which I think is why they are so aggressively going after early endorsements to lock up as many as possible before other candidates get around to asking for them.
There is another component even more important than endorsements--and that is campaign cash. And that is where Mr. Satterberg's brilliance seems to shine at least briefly in these highly questionable charges. By bringing these charges Mr. Satterberg ensures his campaign will be well funded, indeed. Surely, Boeing will fill his campaign coffers and offer any other assistance his campaign needs as a result. While I saw no Boeing endorsements offhand on Mr. Sattersberg's campaign site yet, I did see many from one of Boeing's chief legal firms, if not the largest legal firm Boeing works with--Perkins Coie. Savvy campaign fundraising indeed. When you are campaigning in a county that is overwhelmingly Democratic, a huge campaign chest is likely your only hope in order to launch a large media campaign to convince Democratic voters to vote for you even though you aren't of their party. And convincing them you are just like Norm Maleng may be a tough sell, indeed, when there are already so many apparent differences.
But back to the subject this blog is titled for--the question that we all should be wondering about the answer to given recent events--Why can't you, the public, get justice? Why are large corporations able to ask for it and our public servants serve their interests even in highly questionable circumstances, but they refuse to serve our interests in bringing corporate criminals to justice? Why is the public unable to get clear evidence of corporate fraud investigated and prosecuted, while corporations seem to get everything they want, right or wrong? Why can corporations demand and get what they see as "justice," when the public is denied justice themselves? Interesting questions to ponder.
Enough about the politicization and changes in the prosecutors office post Maleng. Look to my site soon if you want a better place to put your money if you are looking for justice to be done--keeping people trying to protect your safety and security out of prison--yes, Gerald Eastman's (The Last Inspector's) Legal Defense Fund will debut here as soon as I can figure out how to do it. Check back often for a chance to contribute to a worthy cause--your safety and security. Of course, any money you contribute will only be used for my legal defense from these frivolous charges.
Today's Daily Report Quote:
This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report. (Continued from previous day's quote. These quotes should explain more why I dubbed myself "The Last Inspector". Another item the FAA chose to ignore, at your peril.):
This just in (this is being added on 4/21/02 between the above and below paragraphs): While I had been recently substituting for (name) on 777 EBUs (Engine Build Ups) while he was on a work related trip, I wrote a shakedown NCR, (number), on the POS (position) 1 L/N (number) (engine vendor) EBU. It was a 26 item NCR, a lot of which was poorly installed wire bundles. Two of the items were on power feeder wires riding each other (items 12 and 20). But the most worrisome item was number 11, in which the core side of the power feeder W/B (wire bundle) was riding the metal tube portion of a vendor hose. The POS 2 EBU had some clearance. This item should have been obvious to any inspector who used a mirror to inspect. Unfortunately, some prefer to inspect with just a coffee cup in their hands. The EBU traveled with the noted items open. I suspect this discrepancy exists on many of the (engine vendor) 777 EBUs we have delivered. Please check into it.
A comment in response to other comments on this blog entry:
The crash you wrote of is not due to any rollerstamping that I know of, although your sarcasm is noted. I believe it was an Airbus A320 that crashed, and I have no knowledge of rollerstamping going on at Airbus, however I have more than eyewitness evidence of rollerstamping going on across the Boeing enterprise. I was forced myself to rollerstamp to some extent, and harassed by my Boeing QA Management when I wouldn't rollerstamp as much as they wanted me to do. I can therefore offer some expertise as far as how this fraud affects accidents of Boeing aircraft, but not Airbus aircraft. I haven't been contacted by any airbus mechanics or inspectors who witnessed similar fraud there. Anyway, keep an open mind, and don't be so quick to take even your own employer's side. Weigh the evidence, eliminate your bias, then make the most objective decision you can as to which side of an issue to support. I can support what I witnessed in detail as noted on my website. Boeing just makes cryptic statements in the press when this issue is brought up stating "we have processes in place to address those kind of issues." What they slyly and intentionally don't tell you is the fact that those processes don't work and are the opposite of objective. Read the "Boeing Ethics" page on my site for more.