Late yesterday, the jury submitted another question to the judge. The judge, her staff, my attorney, me, and the prosecutor convened to discuss how it should be answered.
The question was a three part one, (paraphrasing) "What, if anything, is the difference between the following:
"database" and "data base."
(another similar question about the term "database" I will enter when I get to my notes).
"database" and "data."
There was some disbelief and amusement by both sides and perhaps even the judge. But I don't think the question itself could be opined upon unless the context of the question as related to the specific point and the related discussions the jury was considering at the point they were asking were known, which cannot be known except for the jury itself.
All agreed on a response for the jury by the judge, which was just essentially to give the response to read the jury instructions and that they had been given all the evidence and law with which to deliberate with.
As it was well after the customary 4 PM quitting time for the court, the jury was brought out and given the answer, as well as the standard and "custom" for the particular trial admonitions on what not to do until they started again Monday.
When one juror realized they had to show up again Monday, she yelled the word "fuck" under her breath while making an emphasizing head movement in addition to the unambiguous "read my lips" version of the word.
Then, from my perspective, "something wonderful" happened (Sci-Fi fans like me will know the gravity of those words).
Judging by the last few weeks in the courtroom and the judge's actions there, some of which are noted in previous blogs, it was unintentionally worded "in my favor" to the jury, but at this point I will take all such things that may help me be cleared of these obviously retaliatory and undeserved charges that were brought about by Boeing and their prosecutor, no matter how few their number or minor they are.
The judge gave the usual admonition to the jury to not do any research on their own and to avoid any news about the trial or Boeing, but she added new news for them to avoid. She added to those prohibitions, "any news about airlines, and any news about any investigation of the FAA by Congress."
Fantastic, it was! I was told later that one of the jurors seemed to react extremely surprised at that point, her body language in effect stating, "there's an investigation by Congress of the FAA? Wow, I didn't know that!" As I was told later, if any juror didn't know the FAA was being investigated by Congress, they did after that admonition from the judge.
While the fact that there is a Congressional investigation of the FAA is not something that affects the jury's instructions on how to proceed to decide the case, it just might lend some more credibility to my testimony in some juror's minds that may have not believed my testimony on the corruption of the FAA. That corruption negated any true investigation of Boeing's massive noncompliances with its Production and Type Certificates that I have reported all of the way up the corrupt management ranks of the FAA, and which they could not investigate without exposing their own ongoing complicity in that corruption.
I was the only witness in my defense, so it is somewhat important that the truth of my testimony be corroborated, although it was corroborated in a few of the pieces in evidence--my letter to Doug Bain, former Chief Counsel of the Boeing Company that the prosecutor and Boeing used only tiny portions of (out of context) in order to try to show the jury I was only trying to get money from Boeing to keep quiet about their corruption (which is easily debunked by someone reading more than the two small passages they read at trial), and my statement to the police.
The jury was then dismissed, and will reconvene on Monday at 9 AM.
I think some jurors have seen the truth in this case, and were not swayed immediately to the wrong decision by the intentional misinformation and sheer positions of power of the prosecutor and Boeing during the trial. I would be surprised if they would vote to convict me after all of this deliberation time, but I don't venture to predict which way they are leaning or what their decision ultimately will be.
I got up early this morning and was flipping channels on the TV when I came across a call in show on C-SPAN discussing the hearings last week about FAA corruption in oversight of the airlines. Not being neutral on the issue, obviously, I tried to call in to give my 2 cents on the issue--that it was not limited to just the FAA's oversight of the airlines.
Amazingly, I managed to get through during the twenty minute "open line" time at the end of the segment (you can hear my call starting at the 5:50 mark in the linked video). I managed to get in the fact that the same thing was occurring between the FAA and Boeing, and some of the history of my battle to end that corruption. The host asked me what Boeing and the King County Prosecutor had charged me with when I brought that up. However, I was cut off in mid-answer due to time limits on calls I guess. Unfortunately I did not get a chance to mention my name during the call, so few people watching could probably research my case on the net. Sadly, if you listen to the call, it's obvious that I was never meant for public speaking, a thing I guess that you must learn if you become a whistleblower.
It was perhaps not a good idea, but perhaps some people in Washington, D.C. that the show is geared for got the message. There are other ways for me to get the news of the similar but more pervasive fraud between Boeing and the FAA to the correct people in the other Washington, but the power of my message has been sabotaged intentionally by Boeing and the King County Prosecutor in order to punish me as well as silence me as much as possible for my my whistleblowing on FAA/Boeing fraud.
Of course, it does mean life or death to countless people that I succeed at exposing the still ongoing fraud between the FAA and Boeing Management, but that was not allowed to be considered in my trial because of the few errors I made along that trek. They would twist the law around those errors and, in doing so, they hope to both retaliate against me in a cruel way for my whistleblowing, as well as end my efforts to get the FAA's fraud ended by the DOT OIG (by making me much less a threat to that ongoing fraud when I contact such authorities).
This blog entry evoked some very interesting and some very important (to the public) comments, which follow:
A reply to another comment on this blog entry by anonymous:
Your argument makes no sense.
1) How do you know Eastman is the "only" inspector that made or make these charges? Have you not read to see how they treat whistleblowers at Boeing? No one may have went to the extent that Eastman did in writing his Senators, the FAA, all ranks of Boeing management, and the DOT/ OIG. I think it is pertinent to note that a small bit of vindication has appeared for Eastman with the FAA Inspector Whistleblowers coming forward and testifying in Congress this week, this is corruption and Eastman tried to report it.
2) "Hide" under the whistleblower umbrella? So anyone who is an informant or reports crimes, corruption, malfeasance and public trust issues "hides" under a whistleblower umbrella? So criminals are right and witnesses and reportants are wrong to have their jobs taken away from them and to be charged with crimes? Not sure of what world you want to live in but I think we need to protect whistleblowers and not declare them as "hiding" when they try to protect those of us in the public. I suppose you think all the FAA Inspectors should be fired and prosecuted for going to Congress and reporting all the information they gave to the Committee, the Press and the Public?
I think Eastman just needs a literate jury to find the simple facts of the case are that he was an Authorized User on the Boeing systems. That he did not have any intent of committing a crime and did not break into anything to gain access to any information. Additionally, most information was and is public arena information pertinent to shareholders and the public. This isn't a referendum on if the company is right or not to fire him, this is a trial to see if he broke the law as to Computer Trespass and I don't think anyone is paying attention to the fact that he did not break the law and that this trial is nothing short of again trying to intimidate other employees and whistleblowers from coming forward, much to your first point....why haven't other whistleblowers come forward or do their jobs like they should.....all Boeing needs to say is look at what we did to Gerald Eastman!
Be objective. Boeing has had a bad track record with ethics and compliance, to excuse that and blame the "little guy" is dangerous. Remember Darleen Druyun and Mike Sears CFO of Boeing? Boeing paid fines and jailed Druyun and Sears and CEO Condit resigned. Remember the EELV Violations of stolen Lockheed Martin documents leading to (I believe) a 615 million dollar fine? Numerous export violations and penalties have been found and paid to the DOJ (i.e. QRS-11 military chip to China in 737 planes).
Does the fact that Boeing pays off these penalties with their deep pockets and PAC monies and other political and lobbying payoffs mean they're clean? Does it mean that Eastman is wrong and should go to jail even after they've already fired him, taken away his livelihood and defamed his character?
A comment from William on this blog post:
You have totally misinterpreted my point(s). If, as Eastman has claimed that fraud, corruption, and unperformed mandatory airworthiness inspections of aircraft assembly is as rampant as Eastman claims, I guarantee that a myriad of other personnel (inspectors, mechanics, managers, as well as FAA folks) would be voicing their concerns.
Eastman's letters to our Senators did result in the FAA substantiated numerous findings against Boeing that have since been satisfactory corrected.
Eastman, all along, should have focused his efforts/intentions on the things that were going on in his immediate area of work. Instead, he chose to spend countless hour(s) of "paid" company time surfing the Boeing web on a personal witch-hunt downloading thousands of documents that were unrelated to (any) whistle-blowing actions.
You did seem to "gloss over" the fact that Eastman was basically (stealing) money from his employer whilst he was on his fishing expedition. Eastman was (terminated) due to the numerous internal Boeing Co. rules that he chose to ignore and blatantly violate.
The King Co. prosecutor is the official that has deemed Eastman has run afoul of the law.
(If) they present a compelling enough argument, a jury of Eastman's peers will find him guilty. If not, Eastman is free to go. I am however curious as to if Eastman had his personal computers returned to him in working order?
He may have a right to file a claim against the S.P.D. for that.
A reply by anonymous:
Thanks for your clarifications but I still do not agree.
1) Why would anyone else come forward in reporting anything when they will face retaliation, negative performance reviews, no raises, reassignment, discrediting from management and staff and face being fired for raising any concerns? Additionally, it is always easier to not do one's job than to do it and get paid. Talk about stealing company money and risking the public safety, the other inspectors may not care if they're getting paid and management is happy with them not performing their inspections, it gets more planes off of the line and if there ever is a fault management simply blames the "little guy," the inspector. It's a no-win unless you have integrity that out-weighs your need for a livelihood such as a paycheck.
2) You are missing what Eastman is on trial for, he is accused of Computer Trespass. He was a Boeing authorized user of their systems, he did not have criminal intent and did not gain access through any hacking. Case closed, there is no crime and this is a farse of a trial to further instill fear and intimidation to anyone who would be a whistleblower to raise any red flags in the future, whether in the workplace or anywhere there may be corruption and crime.
Again, imagine you witness something afoul and report it only to then be fired from your job and arrested yourself? That's a scary world. Reminds me of Mussolini, he got all the trains to run on time in Italy lest you be killed. Fascism is very efficient to prevent any freedoms and if you like a particular result I guess that ends justify the means????
Good point on his computer and its contents. Talk about "witch-hunting," his personal computer taken when Boeing already has all the data as to what and where Eastman accessed in their systems. Mr. Eastman will have to answer and address that point.
You are way off base as "anonymous" has written. They make an excellent point. I reported to Boeing that numerous inspectors were intentionally not doing their jobs and surfing ebay all day per their management's direction, but did Boeing fire them for abuse of company time or fraud, or did they even investigate that? The answer is no, and there is a reason they didn't want to--it was fraud that they (in Boeing Management) condoned, and they thought it was saving Boeing huge amounts of money to let airplanes deliver without the required minimum levels of inspection.
Production flow, schedule, and cost were all they cared about, and they were willing to commit that fraud to reach their goals in that regard.
Actually the reverse is true--I always would peruse company-related information in my spare time at work, which was much less spare time than the rollerstamping inspectors had that didn't actually do the inspections correctly or at all before they bought them off stating they did--They were the ones abusing company time by surfing outside the intranet/network to ebay, day trading sites, playing freecell all day, etc. I had to look at only work-related info between inspections because my own and Manufacturing's Managements were trying to find some way to harass and get rid of me because I didn't join in their "reindeer games" of rollerstamping fraud and they therefor viewed me as a liability because I actually inspected the work before I bought it off and therefor wrote many more "pickups" and NCRs than inspectors who complied with management direction and didn't. They wanted to let those defects deliver to customers as they made the assumption that there was no defect or omission that could be made by shop in uninspected aircraft assemblies and installations that would make an airplane crash as opposed to just limping back to the airport, so looking for those defects and reworking or repairing them before delivery of the airplane was "non-value added." Plus, the company wanted to accept greater risk of a crash anyway in order to maximize profitability during a time of lower than usual numbers of crashes in the U.S.
You seem so informed about my case that it appears you may be one of those at Boeing working on ensuring my demise by any means possible, including the intentional misinformation you spew. Or you may be a former coworker or manager with a personal interest that I be found guilty despite all of the evidence that I'm not.
One point to be made is that you say employees who waste company time by not working and instead surfing the external net or intranet should be fired, yet you sit on your arse at Boeing during your posts earning double time (if hourly, or over-inflated salary +$6.50 if not) "working" on a Sunday. Are you going to turn yourself into your manager for doing so? Or are you going to just be a hypocrite?
And why do you care about my computers anyway, yet want me sent to prison?
Looks like you have some amends to be made if you do believe in God. For right now, you are working for His competition.
The Last Inspector
A vastly important comment by On_the_Inside_at_FAA:
The Last Inspector's observations are valid. Those within the FAA with firsthand knowledge have received written counseling from FAA Managers to "Your job is to find compliance, you will stop finding non-compliances."
Those on the inside of the FAA who have first-hand knowledge fear for loss of their jobs. However, the Congressional Investigation this week is giving new courage to those who wish to stand up for what is right.
Stay tuned. More to come.
That is great news to me, and the public at large. Perhaps the culture of silence is cracking throughout the system. Maybe Oberstar could grant immunity to any ASI volunteering to testify before his committee on the fraud in their chain of command above them. Then it would be just like rats trying to flee a sinking ship. The first crack has opened. Hopefully that will become a torrent, and then these corrupt FAA managers can then be made to "go down with their ship," and a brand new culture at the agency put in place that always should have existed, a brand new "ship," so to speak.
Please do all you can do to ensure the TAD's Boeing CMO ASI's have all the info they need on where to go to report fraud in their management before they get caught up in the dragnet, so to speak, that may be down the road, if justice is extended to the fraud in oversight at Boeing. I don't want good ASI's going down with the management that prevented them from actually doing their jobs.
I would be honored if you would relay what you know about the validity of what I've documented and witnessed to Oberstar or any other authority or media you can trust.
The Last Inspector
A comment from William, likely a Boeing manager who either knew me when I worked there at the Propulsion Systems Division or a manager trying to impugn me to keep the lid on the fraud in Boeing QA Management that I have reported to the government:
It would appear that Eastman alienated himself from his peers and co-workers such that he was labeled as a mal-content by his own manager. He was so intent on slowing down (harassing maybe) the production system that his manager moved/transferred him to the 747 line (slowest production rate).
Obviously this must have infuriated Eastman further. I've never read any articles from the Times or P.I. that were attributed to the "anonymous Boeing source" (Eastman) about airline safety, fraud, corruption, or false inspections, etc.........the only information Eastman was feeding them was about airplane production rates, site selection information on the 787, future airplane derivatives, etc.. (just Eastman's ill-fated attempt as a disgruntled employee at getting back at Boeing).
If even a very small percent of what Eastman claims is true, where are the smoking gun(s)????? If the volumes of ill-begotten documentation that Eastman was downloading substantiates his claims, why isn't this being made public?
Why have not the Times and P.I. reporters who Eastman was funneling all his data (all the while hiding under anonymity) came out to support/back Eastman's claims? A (good) defense attorney would have got something of this on the record and into the juries minds. If any of it were true. Even Eastman's self-proclaimed title: "The Last Inspector" is absurd. Does he really believe that since he was fired that the Boeing Quality system just went away? Also, why did Eastman propose to be (paid off) by Boeing? The next headline attributed to this long running soap opera will no doubt read: "FIRED DISGRUNTLED BOEING EMPLOYEE FOUND GUILTY."
The reply by anonymous:
Boeing and the Seattle PD will and could be investigating you now for revealing "sensitive information."
"...his manager moved/transferred him to the 747 line (slowest production rate)."
How do or would you know that the 747 line is the "slowest production rate?"
You and others have charged and convicted Eastman for releasing production rates and 787 sites as illegal. Seems pretty common knowledge if you know it and are releasing it too, right? If not, you've just released "sensitive information."
Beware, Boeing's Investigation group and Seattle PD may be coming after you now.
The Last Inspector