An appearance of bias is almost as damning as “smoking gun” proof of such bias, especially for those in public office and on the King County Superior Court bench.

As noted in prior blogs, much more than the appearance of bias is at work in Dan Satterberg’s King County Prosecutor’s Office, in that he has sold all rights to the management of certain cases like mine that have great value to thusly sell to the highest dollar campaign contributors with the most dirty hands (in my case, Boeing and Boeing’s outside law firm, Perkins Coie, were the purchasers of said rights).

But, even to the jaded (like me) to news of new avenues of corruption in our government and industry, it never ceases to amaze me every time I see such brazen corruption first hand, as I did in just the latest miscarriage of justice in my case that happened one week ago, on Tuesday, the 27th of January.

The fact the participants were mostly the same, even though I was before a different King County Superior Court judge that day, mostly explains the miscarriage of justice in itself. I did have hopes that being before a different King County Superior Court judge would result in the first ruling in my case that appeared unbiased, or that was in my favor, for that matter. My hopes were dashed, however, when the King County Superior Court judge I was before quickly proved that she was the same as the others that have came before in my case. You can always hope for justice in King County Superior Court. You have virtually no chance of receiving it there, but at least you can always hope that a new judge in your case is not biased toward the prosecutor and other moneyed interests like Boeing that are before the court opposing you. But, in her defense, she was just maintaining the bias of all King County Superior Court Judges that have handled this case.

Of course, as you will see, this hearing last week broke no new news about bias in the King County Prosecutor’s Office and King County Superior Court. Only the circumstances of the injustice that resulted changed. All of the injustice before in my case was abetted rather than contradicted by the judge’s ruling that day.

The hearing last week was set many months ago, in July, 2008, when I signed a "Continuance for Dismissal" at the time under undue and perhaps illegal pressure from Marc A. Boman’s buddy, US Attorney Carl Blackstone. Boman had called in a personal favor from his friend Blackstone, and Blackstone acceded to that unethical if not illegal request. Boman is Boeing’s outside counsel they selected from Perkins Coie per Boeing’s long standing retainer with Perkins Coie to proactively protect the white collar criminals at Boeing by covering up any evidence of their wrongdoing so that they never have to face any consequences whatsoever for their crimes, while Boeing and Perkins Coie persecute whistleblowers that made the “mistake” of trying to blow the whistle on their management’s criminal activities. Blackstone would later backpedal when I blogged about his unethical if not illegal act to perform federal prosecutions purely per his powerful buddies’ request, rather than any facts related to the merits of the case itself. Blackstone admitted he made a mistake in doing so, but seemed to really be trying to “fall on his sword” in doing so so as to protect his buddy Boman from any implication when Boman had already been rightly implicated in pressuring Blackstone to threaten to file charges against me that had no merit in and of themselves.

You have to wonder what kind of leverage Boman has on Blackstone to get Blackstone to lie both coming and going (in the original threat to prosecute me, which he never planned to carry through on, as it was a threat solely made at the request of a powerful friend independent of the facts of the case, and in lying that Boman wasn’t involved) concerning my case. You would think that it would have to be some other “leverage” than a mere friendship that thusly blinded Blackstone to all ethics and laws that applied to his own conduct in the affair. It seems that it instead would have to be much more in the arena of what Boman knows about his buddy Blackstone—knowledge that Boman perhaps gained through that “friendship” or by other means at Boman’s disposal. Of course, only Boman and Blackstone may know of exactly what kind of sordid information Boman holds over Blackstone, unless Boman told his partners at Perkins Coie the nature of how he planned to pressure Blackstone to do something that Blackstone himself said had very little chance of happening had Boman not pressured him to make the noted threat against me that resulted in me giving up my rights during the now expired agreement, in effect making me “lie down with the devil” (Boeing and their “mirrored in lack of ethics” counsel and paid prosecutor) during the length of the expired agreement.

The “Continuance for Dismissal” stated January 27th of this year was the date on which I would return to court for the court to decide if I had complied with the agreement or I had not. The prosecutor was supposed to ask the judge to dismiss the charges against me if I had kept to the agreement over the last six months and cooperated with them and Boeing per the terms of the agreement. If that happened, as I expected it would the morning of the hearing as I had done everything asked of me and more, the charges against me would be dropped as of January 30th, 2009 at the latest, the expiration date of the agreement.

That wouldn’t happen, however, as it turns out, as Boeing’s well paid King County Prosecutor decided I had to keep to every letter of the agreement they also had signed, but they did not have to comply with any of the agreement themselves.

My attorney and I had made sure that I had done everything and more that I was required to do per the agreement so that I would have the charges dismissed against me by January 30th..

However, Boeing decided to tell Satterberg that they wanted a 60 day extension of my fate. And even though there was no conceivable valid reason to ask for such a continuance, much less be granted it by the judge, Dan Satterberg had his prosecutor accede to Boeing’s obviously improper request anyway, just as Satterberg has consistently done with every improper if not outright illegal request of Boeing and Boeing’s outside counsel in my case.

But, there was an “impartial” judge there that would ensure that no such obvious travesty of justice in my case occurred, right? Nah. She did appear to be vertical in her chair and kept her eyes open during our arguments against this request for further injustice in my case, however she ruled as if we had made no arguments whatsoever, giving Satterberg and Boeing and Boeing’s outside counsel their requested extra 60 days to try to commit further injustices against me.

You’ve got to be wondering what Boeing’s argument was in the hearing for requesting the 60 days continuance, some 57 days past the expiration of the agreement (the prosecutor only was at the hearing to assist Boeing with their arguments before the judge).

Even though I know what it was, obviously, as I witnessed it firsthand, I still find it hard to believe myself, and even harder to believe that even the typically corrupt King County Superior Court judge at the hearing bought it. If typical, she bought it after being bought like Satterberg has been as I noted in prior blogs. Indeed, no money has to change hands in order for a public official to be bought. Like the FAA/Boeing corruption I was trying to expose that has cost lives, only the promise (overtly stated or otherwise) of a better job if they rule the right way is required to do so. Indeed, no overt action on the part of Boeing and their prosecutor is required in this area, as the judge may simply rule for Boeing hoping that they later financially reward her in some way for doing so, whether through campaign favors or otherwise. Perhaps if it was made clear that Boeing and Boeing’s outside counsel reserve such cash for bribing officials only as corrupted as Dan Satterberg is, I might receive one day a ruling that is not biased by the lollipops—I mean dollar signs—dancing in their heads every time Boeing is before them opposing me.

To give a bit of background, the arguments revolved around “up to two meetings, of up to eight hours each” that were allowed for in the agreement if Boeing chose to have them at all before the expiration date of the agreement. Boeing only scheduled one of the optional (for them) interviews, which I submitted to on 10/28/08. Boeing never made any attempts to schedule the other interview before the agreement expired on 1/30/09. Their arguments also revolved around a requirement in the agreement that I perform my best efforts to get the files back that I gave to the Seattle Times. I only had to make a good faith effort to get them back—their actual return was not a requirement in the agreement in any way.

My attorney and I had requested the files back from The Seattle Times (TST) on several occasions. That alone satisfied any possible view of that requirement in the agreement. TST originally refused to give them back, despite heavy pressure on TST to do so via Boeing and Boeing’s outside counsel’s usual scorched earth tactics that was levied against TST in addition to our requests. However, at some point not too far before the hearing, TST decided to change their minds, apparently deciding a legal fight against Boeing’s heavy handed pressure was not worth it, despite the fact that they were likely protected from having to give back the files through Washington State’s Shield Law that protects the press from powerful moneyed interests that seek to stifle the idea of a free press in this country, like Boeing extremely arrogantly does by persecuting press sources and the press themselves if articles are written that don’t match their PR department’s habitual lies about the true nature of Boeing. TST returned the files to my attorney the morning of the hearing, and my attorney and a courier from her office brought the returned files to the court and gave them to Boeing’s lap dog prosecutor, who was sitting next to Boeing’s attorney as usual that afternoon.

Unbelievably (except for those of you that know of entities as corrupt as Boeing and the King County Prosecutor’s Office are), Boeing argued through their puppet prosecutor that the 60 day continuance was needed because “they had only just received the files from The Seattle Times, they hadn’t had the opportunity to open the package that contained the files to verify their contents (not true, they just chose not to do so in the time the had to do so before the hearing), and they needed time to review the files before they could schedule the second interview allowed for in the agreement.”

So, all of you legally savvy people should be rolling on the floor either laughing or crying at this point (ROTFLMAO or ROTFCMAO), knowing just how inane and totally devoid of logical much less legal argument that argument was. Even people that know little about the law can understand just how much a travesty of justice this was.

The lies in Boeing’s arguments are many, even though it was a very short one. I don’t pretend to capture them all here:

1. The second interview was never mandatory per the agreement, unless Boeing scheduled it before the agreement expired. Even though Boeing argued to the judge that they wanted to delay scheduling the second interview until an indefinite time after they had decided they were done reviewing the files returned to them, they made no efforts before, during, or after the hearing to do so before the requirement to have a second interview expired with the agreement on 1/30/09.

2. There was no requirement for us to actually get the files back from TST as we did. To use the fact we did something extra outside the requirements of the agreement and have that used against us is injustice, indeed.

3. Boeing already knew exactly what was on 17 of the 18 disks that were in the package returned to them, as during our cooperation with them several months prior we had been able to show them where folders with the exact copies of the files burnt on each disk were on my computer. Therefore, Boeing had several months already with which to review all of those files that they had had already. Only the files on disk 7 I did not know, as we had told them at the same time we led them to the locations of the other disk’s files on my computer. I had forgotten to save a folder with the contents of that disk before I gave it to TST. There were some printed pages I had given to TST in the package, but, per my recollection, I had not given TST very many such pages, as I had started using CDs for convenience purposes shortly after my quest to bring Boeing to justice by going to TST had begun. Eighteen CDs may seem like a lot of info, however, as I wrote, I chose CDs because I had them and they were thusly convenient—not because the contents of each disk required the capacity of a CD. Indeed, to my recollection, most CDs had fewer than a half dozen files on them on average, some of which were just Word files I wrote that explained the other files on the particular CD. So, to claim they needed 60 days with which to review a few files on one disk and a few printed pages is ludicrous. They could have done so in the time between the hearing and when they first got them, but chose not to. The reason for this lie of theirs? They likely wanted the sixty days for reasons other than the reasons they lied to the judge they needed it. Of course, lying to a judge is dangerous, except of course if you are Satterberg or Boeing, in which case such lying will be rewarded instead of punished as noted.

4. No one could possibly state truthfully that I had not complied with the agreement in any way, yet they inferred so anyway in their request in asking for more time to do an interview that they have not scheduled even up until today.

Obviously, the agreement expired on 1/30/09. I complied with any reasonable and unbiased interpretation of it. Boeing and the King County Prosecutor’s office chose not to comply with it. So now that the agreement has expired, things return to what they were before the agreement. I signed away my rights to a jury trial by signing the agreement. Now that the agreement is expired, my rights to a jury trial are restored, which can be looked at as a good thing, especially when they have demonstrated they never intended to comply with the agreement on their end. So, we’ll see if they want to try me again before the statute of limitations expires in the case, whenever that is.

Before the hearing, Vanessa Lee, Boeing Legal’s attorney who made all arguments at the hearing through her puppet prosecutor Scott Peterson (to Peterson’s defense, he was only acting as a puppet of Boeing because Dan Satterberg had directed him to do so) said to my attorney, “there is such a thing as professional courtesy” and “It really hurts to be accused of wanting to extend this” Lee was complaining that my attorney was “not showing her professional courtesy” by inferring Lee wanted to extend my case, which Lee had already indicated that she wanted to do and was going to request at the hearing. That would be a funny “joke” on Lee’s part, if it wasn’t such a serious lie. Let’s hope Vanessa Lee will soon be stripped of her license to practice law because of such malpractice and calling the kettle white, when it is so obviously black... On a much less serious note, Vanessa Lee is known by those close to her as "Lemons," which is a nickname of which the precise origin escapes me. But, to be fair, people that see me call me "Family Guy," although that is not my nickname (frankly, I don't myself see the resemblance, LOL).

As you can see, what actually happened was a complete travesty of justice, but fit well with all of the shenanigans that Boeing and the King County Prosecutor have pulled thusfar in the case.

Simply another unfortunate day in Dan Satterberg’s King County Kangaroo Superior Court.

So, I was in effect screwed yet again by this cabal of crooks. Being charged with a crime in King County is almost becoming a sign that you are actually following the law much too closely.