Yesterday, Tuesday, was when the trial of me by misinformation began.
The day didn't start well, as a combination of me leaving later than usual and unbelievably heavy traffic when most people should have already been at work (no, the recession hasn't hit this area yet) resulted in me being over fifteen minutes late to court. Unlike other days when things didn't get under way until a half hour after the 9:00 AM starting time, they were waiting for me to arrive to get started.
I got admonished by the judge to be on time or there was the jail option to ensure I was there on time. I apologized to the judge for my tardiness. It's things like these that make you wonder whether "innocent until proven guilty" is really what is practiced in court.
At about 10:00 AM the jury was finalized--14 jurors with two of them unknowing alternates (so they will pay attention to the trial).
Then Scott Peterson, the Senior Deputy Attorney likely the next in line to the Republican dynasty of King County Prosecutors once Dan Satterberg dies or is removed from office for some other reason, began his opening statement full of mistruths.
He cast me as a "slow and methodical" worker, somehow inferring I wasn't doing my job well, when the opposite was true. Yes, I was slower than other inspectors who rollerstamped to a greater degree than I was forced to, but that is just the law of mature--it takes more time to do something and stamp the paperwork to indicate you did it than not doing the work and just stamping the paper off.
And for just doing my job to a minimal level not even close to the level of what inspectors were supposed to do per the FAA approved quality system I am branded as "slow and methodical." No doubt Boeing told him to say that to discredit me as some kind of incompetent worker when the opposite was true, and all of the good inspectors came to me to avail themselves of my expertise because they knew I knew how we were supposed to inspect as opposed to how our Leads and QA Management wanted us to inspect.
That really shows how twisted the justice system is and how far Boeing's "quality system" has devolved--when you don't join in wholeheartedly with the fraud of the rollerstamping inspectors who just pretend to inspect the airplane before they falsify paperwork stating they did, the Senior Deputy Prosecutor of the King County Fraud Department accuses you of being "slow and methodical" for not joining fully in that fraud. No wonder he and Dan Satterberg have totally ignored Boeing actually breaking the law multiple times, and have even gone on the offense for Boeing in trying to prevent any evidence of Boeing crimes from being discussed during the trial.
He also bald faced lied when he stated that I "spent several hours each day he should have been working navigating file shares." Wrong! I did my research for my report on Boeing/FAA fraud to the DOT OIG only when there absolutely wasn't any other work to do. More lies he apparently took straight from lying Boeing Management with no corroboration, who have a vested interest (keeping themselves from being on trial for felonies like me) in making me look as bad as possible at my job.
He also inferred that I was asking for money to keep quiet about Boeing's law breaking, which is also diametrically opposed to the truth. Apparently he misreads everything to mean what he wants it to mean, rather than what it plainly means to any unbiased person.
He then tried to trump up my computer knowledge level way beyond what it is. This was another lie in order to falsely convict me on Boeing's unwarranted charges. But the truth won't get him his unjust conviction, so he had to fabricate evidence to make me seem like an Edward Snowden.
In fact, any Boeing employee could access the exact same information I did with very minimal computer knowledge, including the same information that Alan Mulally's Leadership Team poured over every week behind closed doors in the Mount Saint Helens Conference Room at BCA Headquarters in Renton, Washington.
In fact, employees like me could see such information on any Boeing internal or external computer, well before Mulally or his Leadership Team even saw it. That is the truth. All an employee needed was the organization number they wanted to "surf" the files of for legitimate curiosity of company processes purposes (or for collecting the evidence of Boeing and FAA Management fraud purposes like me). That info is available to anyone in the Boeing employee directory on every computer. Then all any employee had to do was enter that organization number in the company intranet Shares Query System, which then would list the shares assigned to that Boeing organization. Then, all an employee had to do was to browse to that share on the network and click on it. If that folder didn't open you weren't authorized to see the contents of that share, and you went to another share of interest if you wanted to.
I was always doing this in my spare time, as I knew my corrupt QA Management couldn't Corrective Action Memo me to terminate me for not rollerstamping if I only read company related information in my free time at work between inspections. If I was a rollerstamping inspector, I could surf any non-company site on the internet and I would never get in trouble, as performing criminal acts for Boeing Management came with freedoms that employees that followed the FAA required Boeing Quality System weren't allowed.
When Boeing found out I was leaking some of the non-competition sensitive data that any other Boeing employee had access to to Dominic Gates of The Seattle Times in preparation for having them print "my story" (my story of Boeing/FAA fraud negating the quality and safety of Boeing airplanes), they got upset. Rightly so. The information I had given to Dominic in addition to "my story" could easily put some of them in prison. So they had to discredit me and put me in prison first to set an example for other employees tempted to tell on their frauds to the public and/or the relevant authorities.
Back to the day's happenings:
At about 11:00 AM my attorney, Ramona Brandes, began our opening statement. I think she did very well. At least she didn't lie about anything like the prosecutor did. She said I was not the most "succinct writer," which is perhaps an understatement. She made it clear that they were accusing me of "hacking" Boeing's computer system when I did nothing of the sort, and I had only accessed areas of the computer system I had permissions to access. She said I was no "white knight." Ain't that the truth. Although I wished I could save the public from the dangers to them from Boeing's fraudulent "quality assurance" activities, the public needed someone who gave more to it than I did, even though I did little else for a few years but try to go through all the proper channels to get Boeing and FAA fraud ended. I'm human. Perhaps if you were trying to protect the lives of the public from a megalith corporation you too might make some well meaning mistakes as well.
Then, my last supervisor at Boeing took the stand. Even though I knew just how corrupt he was, I was happy that he did not seem to testify at all times to what they had scripted him to. A big deal was made about the two times out of thousands of writeups of discrepancies by me when he questioned whether they were just "flaws" and not "defects." QA professionals will laugh, but that is truly how far they had to dig to get negative stuff to testify about against me.
He said that I was "kind of a loner" which was a bogus comment. I got along very well with my coworkers, and joked and talked with them any chance I could. Of course, I did do more actual work than other inspectors who spent more time bullshitting than working, but that doesn't make me a "loner."
My former supervisor proved today what I knew was still the case--things are as bad in QA at Boeing as they ever were. Boeing still has not reformed their quality system into the minimal state where at least the Quality Supervisors, like my former boss testifying was, actually knew what their real job functions were in Quality.
He showed the same care less attitude about his real job duties that I witnessed in him and multiple other QA supervisors. He actually testified that he didn't check whether his inspectors were doing their jobs as he hadn't gotten enough complaints from customers to make him concerned enough to do so. Yep, the old rollerstamping quality system is still in full swing at Boeing, and QA supervisors are intentionally asleep at the wheel of their actual FAA required duties, which say nothing about how much product has to be pushed out of the door uninspected.
Then Marie T. Farrelly was called to testify by the prosecutor (she is the Boeing "fixer" that I blogged of earlier). I had only talked to her on the phone and emailed her before, and maybe saw one picture of her.
She was much tinier and more frail than I imagined. I had thought of her as a more robust, fighter type woman.
The prosecutor and her tried to use a few sentences out of a many page letter to Doug Bain, former Chief Counsel to Boeing, to try to show that I was threatening to go to the press with Boeing's QA fraud if I wasn't paid off. Nothing could be further from the truth, yet they knowingly tried to parlay that falsehhood to the jury.
On cross examination, my lawyer finally put the letter in context, and got Farrelly to admit that the letter really showed that I did not want to be paid off to "go away," and that I required that Boeing fix the items I reported to the FAA themselves, including corrupt Boeing QA Management, with me agreeing to testify if need be against such managers in court for Boeing at any time if they pressed charges against anyone as a result of their investigation. "He wanted to ensure his allegations were investigated," she admitted.
That was pretty much it for her, besides some talk about the bogus audit of just my work area she had done after my last conversation with her.
Then Anthony Maus came to the stand, a "Senior Manager of Corporate Security" who's comment in my 2006 interview with him that "Boeing is the most arrogant company on the face of the planet" is still one of my favorite quotes about Boeing.
I'll cover what he stated later. He takes the stand again today.
A comment on this blog entry from GFS:
Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, went to court this week to fight for his freedom. It appears the Boeing Company is highly concerned about having this case be legitimately treated like the whistleblower case that it is. Whistleblowers have some rights; whistleblowers have laws and protections and are not to be subjected to retaliation and acts of retribution, which Mr. Eastman most clearly has had to endure. The Boeing Company is trying to define Mr. Eastman as a common criminal rather than the whistleblower with laws and protections behind him that he has a right to expect will be respected. And Boeing has the influence to take the ridiculous and improbable and make it happen. A very cozy relationship between Boeing and the King County Prosecutor's Office appears to be making this case quite odoriferous. So far the quickly appointed judge has disallowed all of the evidence and circumstances portraying the bigger picture and true motivation behind Mr. Eastman’s case, helping Boeing to trivialize and minimize it's importance for the good of the whole, and try to bury it (and Mr. Eastman) under a cloud of smog.
It appears the lead prosecutor owes Boeing a great deal due to donations made to his election campaign funds. This should be investigated as a BIG conflict of interest. Quid Pro Quo arrangements are not on the list of approved relationships between industry and government, particularly oversight and law enforcement.
The judge also ruled not to allow Sarbanes-Oxley protections as well, violating Mr. Eastman's rights, as a whistleblower. Boeing has listed tens of charges, hoping to make some stick. Insiders say that the company is using him as their BIG example to further terrify their own employees and dissuade them from talking to anyone, even government investigators who are trying to investigate various charges of wrong doing in any of the many open investigations being conducted by a number of three and four letter acronym agencies at this time.
There are reasons why a whistleblower might end up on Boeing's hit list. What if as a loyal employee you realize some things are going very wrong, so wrong in fact that the public's safety is at risk. What if you go up every level in your own corporate command chain trying to get the company to fix the problems and clean up their act but are met with disdain, hostility, and are ignored at best, and attacked and set up to be destroyed at worst. What if seeing there is no hope even at the highest levels in your company for justice and responsible action? Then you go to the government oversight agencies, like Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). What if they also turn a deaf ear and are so caught up in a corrupt and cozy relationship with your employer that there is no hope for justice and a resolution there either? Then you go to the FAA's oversight agency/watchdog, Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. And if you also encounter cover-ups and refusal to take serious matters seriously due to political contamination of the oversight process? (Recall the whole Attorney General mess recently and perpetually in the news?) Then you may resort in desperation to going to the media. Someone who works for a different defense contractor once told me that the only way to get them (the company) to take any kind of positive action to clean up corruption in their own nest was to embarrass the heck out of them.
It seems Boeing has a lot of influence, too much influence. Some quality investigation is warranted. And this railroad ride, the retaliation against Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, must be stopped. If there is anyone still clean and with enough integrity left, they should be thoroughly investigating this, looking deeper into the business practices of The Boeing Company, and its relationships with government oversight agencies and it’s revolving door participants. And that is scrutiny The Boeing Company most certainly does not want.
Find out what is really going on by visiting Mr. Eastman's site:
And whistleblower support sites such as:
The Last Inspector