Robin Petersen Bests Goliath Boeing’s Corrupt Management in First Round of Petersen vs. Boeing Human Trafficking/RICO Case. And Read the Horror They Put Mr. Petersen and His Similarly Treated Veterans Through.
Extensively revised 9/19/10:
If you want to know how Boeing really views and treats U.S. veterans, read the horror they put Mr. Petersen and his similarly treated coworkers through. It's the exact opposite of how Boeing states they view U.S. veterans in their "That's Why We're Here" and other commercials
This is a follow up blog to my 6/6/10 blog about Robin Petersen’s epic quest for justice for himself and his similarly abused, illegally detained, and defrauded Boeing coworkers.
The suit alleges Robin Petersen, a pilot and former U.S. Navy Commander who became injured overseas while employed by Boeing/BISS, was not allowed to return to the United States for medical treatment because Boeing had confiscated his U.S. passport; he was held against his will in squalid and dangerous conditions; and he was not provided with an Exit Visa in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia when he requested one numerous times. Mr. Petersen had made several written requests for the return of his passport to The Boeing Company Operations Manager, in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Shaun A. Ford, and also contacted James McNerney, CEO of The Boeing Company by Federal Express letter, detailing the fraudulent activity, unethical business practices, and violations of human rights that he had observed and experienced while employed by Boeing/BISS. Mr. McNerney, true to current and recent past Boeing CEO form, never responded to Mr. Petersen's legitimate “Global Boeing” concerns about fraud he and others experienced with Boeing/BISS both domestically and in Saudi Arabia and ignored his urgent request for help to be rescued from his illegal detainment in Saudi Arabia so he could have his freedom back to return to the U.S. for competent medical treatment of a serious injury.
The lawsuit also alleges that a number of other U.S. Veterans and Third Country National workers who were employed by Boeing/BISS in Saudi Arabia also similarly had their passports confiscated and were subject to inhumane treatment.
The Great news in this ongoing suit is that Robin Petersen has won the first round of arguments in the case, winning a stingingly (for Boeing) and shortly worded decision totally rebuking Boeing’s specious, esoteric, and technicality laced arguments for dismissal of the case by Summary Judgment from astute United States Federal Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
In this decision, one entire half of Boeing Management (the lawyers) lost utterly. The other half of Boeing Management that were the ones that defrauded, abused, and illegally detained Mr. Petersen and his coworkers--the bean-counters--also lost as well in this round, as the lawyers in or working for the other half of Boeing Management failed to get Boeing’s highly fraudulent actions dismissed with their unbelievably (even for Boeing’s lawyers) specious arguments.
Since my 6/6/10 blog, the following events have taken place in this important case against some serious (but a minute percentage of) “Global Boeing’s” ongoing frauds:
6/14/10: The Boeing Company was formally served with the lawsuit.
6/16/10: Petersen writes to President Obama asking for help with getting the FBI to investigate Boeing’s actions against him and other fellow veterans and non-veterans similarly mistreated by Boeing in Saudi Arabia, apparently per Boeing’s arrogant and wrong belief that mistreating and holding veterans essentially hostage as involuntary unpaid servants overseas is allowed per Saudi Arabian custom and Law.
Boeing may be right that Saudi Arabian law and custom allows such human trafficking and illegal confiscation of passports to prevent mistreated workers from fleeing servitude. That may be exactly why they had their lawyers draw up papers that U.S. Veterans were forced to sign under duress once on Saudi Arabian soil with no way to get home without Boeing giving their passports back and paying for their transport back to the U.S. that said they were subject to draconian (to say the least) Saudi Arabian customs and law—the same customs and law that allowed fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 terrorists to train and conspire against the U.S. unfettered under Riyadh, Saudi Arabia born Osama Bin Laden, who was radicalized under the same radically conservative Muslim sectarian faith, Wahhabism, which is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Albeit Bin Laden’s Saudi citizenship was revoked in 1994 by King Fahd having his passport confiscated, it was not for his terrorism, it was because he criticized the king allowing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War.
Although Bin Laden deserved such action (and further action, obviously, as he was a terrorist) then, it does show how Saudi law and custom Boeing subjected U.S. veterans like Mr. Petersen to under duress is anathemic to everything U.S. citizens and our Constitution stand for. Any otherwise law abiding Saudi citizen--not just terrorists like Bin Laden--can be banished from the country and therefore become a person without a country for just criticizing the country’s leader.
This is equivalent to President Obama revoking the citizenship of all Americans who criticize him, and banishing them to outside the country. All Americans would not stand for that, even though much of that criticism is unfounded (the Birthers, etc.). We stand for the right to dissent, even with the most powerful, even if that dissent is obviously bogus and even highly objectionable to the average citizen.
Boeing/BISS wanted to subject Mr. Petersen and other U.S. veterans to Islamic religious based and draconian law, even though the Saudi king has absolute authority over all institutions and thus controls the kingdom's judicial body.
No wonder Boeing wants this case tried in Saudi courts. If anyone at Boeing has access to the king (which isn’t that much of a stretch, considering Boeing’s close military supplier relationship to the kingdom, and McNerney’s and other former Boeing officials’ inexplicably close relationship with the Obama Administration despite the company defrauding the government numerous times, and the outsourcing of thousands of jobs overseas), they could just make a request and get whatever ruling Boeing wanted in the case. How’s that for justice? That would be an injustice, obviously. If President Obama could pick up the phone and order Judge Silver how to rule on this case, people would be outraged.
And that just scratches the surface of the injustice that would be furthered by Boeing against Mr. Petersen and other abused veterans if Boeing got its way and Mr. Petersen and the others got thrown to the unjust Saudi court system.
Saudi Arabia is also one of the least free countries on the planet. Boeing wanting Veterans like Mr. Petersen who have protected our many freedoms with their lives to take their serious grievances before freedom adverse Saudi Arabia’s unjust and biased courts is a bridge too far. Boeing should be giving brave veterans like Mr. Petersen a fair day in a free and just US court, at a minimum, and should not be trying to throw them to the wolves of almost assuredly Boeing biased Saudi justice just for the obvious win that that would automatically give them in the suit.
Write to Boeing, your newspapers, senators, and President Obama. Ask that Boeing treats U.S. veterans like Mr. Petersen with the respect they deserve, and quits pushing for Mr. Petersen’s suit to be heard in Saudi Arabia instead of U.S. courts. Also, ask Boeing to rewrite their contracts with U.S. citizens so that they are treated by Boeing per U.S. legal standards, and are not illegally detained and treated like slaves as is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Tell Boeing and your politicians that some activities by Boeing to pad the bottom line are unacceptable, even if done outside the country, like engaging in human trafficking globally of any citizen, much less US citizen veterans like Mr. Petersen.
06/20/10: Petersen writes to the Department of Justice, notifying them Boeing’s ethics haven’t changed as promised by CEO McNerney’s testimony to Congress since the Sears/Druyun Tanker and EELV Scandals, and asking for an investigation and resulting criminal charges against Boeing.
06/23/10: Petersen gets a response from Arizona Senator and presidential candidate John McCain stating he has referred Mr. Petersen’s request for assistance to Arizona Senator Jon Kyl.
07/06/10: Boeing files its noted specious, esoteric, and technicality laced “The Boeing Company’s Motion to Dismiss” with Exhibits.
Asks for a court order dismissing all claims asserted against Boeing in the Complaint because, as Boeing states, "the Complaint does not allege facts establishing that Boeing has any liability for the alleged breach of Plaintiff’s employment contract with BISS or events in Saudi Arabia upon which Plaintiff’s statutory and tort claims are based" which is an untrue generalized statement of the highest order. Like in many Boeing responses to the numerous lawsuits against it because it often chooses to do business outside the law for the higher profits which that "ethic" entails (in this case, the forced and unpaid labor of skilled U.S. citizens, in this case Veteran Robin Petersen), their modus operandi is to deny everything, and admit nothing, no matter how damning the evidence is against them.
Attempts to get documentation entered into the record, alleging Mr. Petersen vouch's for its authenticity, when he doesn't, and then stating the court may disregard any evidence in Mr. Petersen's suit that contradict their interpretation of the Boeing provided documents (which contradicts their statement that Mr. Petersen does not dispute the authenticity of the documents) via the argument, "when the complaint refers to, but does not attach, a document central to the plaintiff’s claim, the authenticity of which is undisputed, a defendant may provide the court with a copy of that document, which the court may treat as part of the complaint...The court thus may assume that the contents of the document are true for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and disregard any conclusory allegations in the complaint that contradict the terms of the document."
Attempts further slight of hand Boeing obviously hoped Mr. Petersen and the judge on the case would overlook. On page 2, line 15 through 19, the Boeing Attorneys state:
"There are four documents referenced in Plaintiff's Complaint that are central to his claims, the authenticity of which is not disputed:
(1) a November 19, 2008 offer of employment that Plaintiff accepted on November 20, 2008 (referenced in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint), a complete and accurate copy of which is attached to this motion as Exhibit A."
However, the Boeing Attorney's did not present the Court with a complete and accurate copy of the Employment Agreement as stated in their Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Petersen and I believe that the Boeing Attorneys deliberately left off the last three pages of that document, and they did so in an effort to deceive the Court.
They deliberately left off the last three pages which includes the "Pre-Employment Processing Instructions and Employment Requirements" in which The Boeing Company uses the words "On becoming an Employee of The Boeing Company." This evidence, along with the un-cashed Boeing Company Check that is made out in Mr. Petersen's name, is proof beyond any preponderance of evidence requirements that a connection existed between The Boeing Company and Mr. Petersen, and that The Boeing Company played a major role in the fraud that was perpetrated upon Mr. Petersen and other Veterans as noted in the suit.
Mr. Petersen and I think that this evidence shows The Boeing Company's intent to hide the truth in this case.
Is this plainly deliberate act to deceive the Court allowed per standards of conduct for these Boeing attorneys? Enquiring minds should want to know.
The altered "document" was in fact an attempt to prove to the court that The Boeing Company had no connection to Mr. Petersen. Boeing apparently deliberately left off the last three pages of the document, on which is clearly stated, 'On becoming an employee of the Boeing Company you will be subject to Boeing's Intellectual Property and Confidentiality Agreement; You will be required to sign the Boeing Company Ethics Acknowledgement Form; You will sign a Boeing "Verification of Export Control Status" and you will be required to sign Boeing's "Code of Conduct."'
The noted Boeing Company's attempt to defraud the court in this matter by not submitting the entire eight page document is yet another example of The Boeing Company's arrogance and lack of ethics.
Mr. Petersen's proof of Boeing's deliberate act to defraud the Court was then submitted as "Exhibit #2" of his attorney's 08/09/10 Response to Boeing's Motion to Dismiss, and includes the "Pre-employment instructions / Employment Requirements" that clearly state "On becoming an employee of The Boeing Company," that Boeing deleted in a desperate attempt to deceive the court, by all appearances.
Of course, if Boeing Management refuses to do business ethically as noted elsewhere in this blog, I suppose it is much too much to expect them to behave ethically in their pleadings before any court--even a Federal Court such as in this case.
07/08/10: Petersen gets letter from Arizona senator Jon Kyl asking for paperwork needed to begin to help Mr. Petersen.
08/03/10: Boeing files its “The Boeing Company’s Motion For Summary Disposition of Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss.”
08/04/10: Petersen’s attorney files his “Response to Motion For Summary Disposition (dk. #19) and Motion For Extension of Time For Response.”
08/05/10: Boeing files its "The Boeing Company’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion For Summary Disposition of Boeing’s Motion to Dismiss."
08/09/10: Petersen’s attorney files his 'Response (Including Exhibits) to "The Boeing Company's Motion to Dismiss" (dkt. #19).’
08/19/10: Boeing files its “The Boeing Company’s Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss."
08/31/10: As noted above, United States Federal Judge Roslyn O. Silver rules against all of Boeing’s arguments to get out of responsibility for its actions, allowing trial to proceed.
09/03/10: Petersen has BISS served with the lawsuit. More on this action's resulting epic insight into Boeing Executive Management's misbehavior and almost comical (if it wasn’t such a serious breach of ethics in itself) avoidance of responsibility later in this blog, as I want to save the best for last.
Veteran Robin Petersen, in 1987, as a Navy Lieutenant:
Robin Petersen, late in his military career, as a Navy Commander:
A comment on this blog entry by GFS:
I am thinking about the intersection between your mantra that Boeing even called itself the most arrogant corporation in existence, and how they have treated their employees in their BISS subsidiary. I am also considering what the Supreme Court did when it endowed corporations with personhood and the ability to give campaign money without limit to corporate candidates. Heck, they can now run their own candidates, to represent their corporation instead of "we the people." This may be more honest than the way it works now, with candidates pretending to represent the people when they really are representing corporations, such as Boeing instead.
I really feel campaign refinance reform is the next step and desperately needed. That is the only way I can see at this time to re-level the playing field, that and having congress write law to reverse the corporate personhood fiasco.
I would encourage anyone who has an ability to help and support Robin Peterson and his coworkers, to contact him and make the offer. Our veterans deserve far better treatment than to be used and abused by the likes of Boeing and their corporate attorneys and managers!
The Last Inspector