The public is now learning what I and numerous other people have known for untold years--there are few statements as oxymoronic as "Boeing Credibility".

During the announcement of the third delay of the 787 today, one of Boeing's executives stated that they knew Boeing's credibility was being tested. This executive's statement brings up the same question that comes to mind when you think about the still far from complete first 787 flight test airplane being tested--how do you test something that doesn't seem to exist? Yes the 787 first flight test airplane does exist in some stage of assembly Boeing won't credibly discuss, it would seem. However, as far as a flight test ready 787 aircraft goes, no such animal exists, just as Boeing's "credibility" doesn't seem to exist at this point to most.

Sure, Boeing does release true information from time to time. But the press is finding it more and more difficult it seems to tell the true bits of information from the Boeing "spin" that makes one take everything Boeing puts out these days with a bag full of salt.

Three times now Boeing has proven itself not credible, and that is just on the subject of the 787 program status. Take other Boeing statements made, such as the statement that nothing could slip through Boeing's multiple layered quality system (paraphrasing, of course), and you begin to see Boeing for what it is--as one Boeing Corporate Manager stated to me it was--the most arrogant company on the face of the planet.

Do arrogant companies have to tell the truth and/or even have to care whether or not they tell the truth to the public and their investors?--Of course not. Least of all the most arrogant company on the planet.

It's amazing that the press is now stating the truth about one aspect of the 787 program delays--that unprecedented outsourcing of historically Boeing performed work has backfired and been a cause of the delays of the program.

It's Boeing IAM and SPEEA union workers that are now working hard trying to save the company's bacon from this huge error on Boeing management's part driven by greed and a related one sided war on its part against its own union workforce.

Unions are only formed when a company's management won't treat its workers with the respect and fairness they deserve. Unfortunately. Boeing has not buried the hatchet when it comes to its own workforce, and many people at Boeing do nothing all day but try to decrease Boeing's "worker bee" population ala Scrooge's pre-epiphany cold hearted view of what should happen to those below his station in life.

As for the 787 program delays, who is to blame? Boeing says the suppliers are responsible because they aren't completing their work on time. This shows a naivet'e that you would think would be absent at such a huge corporation. However, even at mega-corporations like Boeing, the temptation to blame the other guy is too easy and convenient and hard to resist.

Of course, Boeing solely is to blame for every one of the three delays. They picked the suppliers. They monitored (or, it looks like at this point, didn't monitor) their supplier's performance. They had the responsibility to have backup plans in place to meet quality and schedule targets if any supplier failed to do so.

But Boeing blamed the other guy when the corporation Boeing stared at in the mirror was really to blame--yet another strike against its self-purported "credibility."

Boeing's credibility (to the extent it may have existed at one time) has already been tested through these delays and multiple other events, and it has failed those tests--or, perhaps, it was never demonstrated because it was never really there.

Those who know me know that I have credibility. Strange, isn't it, that the corporation accusing me has demonstrated numerous times now its lack of credibility, whereas mine remains intact. I think people will easily be able to judge the truthfulness and motives of Boeing for what they are if and when the time comes for them to do so.

It's been a long time. I wish all of you not involved in the fraud I witnessed at Boeing and the FAA a happy New Year. Lots more to write, but the rigors of daily life interrupt for now.

Gerry

AKA The Last Inspector.

Reminder: Please write to Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and your representatives in Congress today! Please see www.thelastinspector.com or my last post to this blog for details!


I wanted to start out by saying a heartfelt "thank you" to those of you who contributed to my Legal Defense Fund at BECU. Your benevolence will go a long way in covering costs for my representation in court. Even though I have a public defender I do have to pay for part of it. If any person who has contributed would wish to have more personal note from me you can email me when you contribute. I don't have any visibility who contributed. Thanks again for your generosity.


My blog today has alot to do with part of my July 29th, 2007 blog, "What is Wrong With the Legal System?," which can be found at the following link:


http://eastmans.web.aplus.net/pblog/ind ... 729-222028


It has to do with the portion of the blog dealing with lawyers I had had to deal with over the course of my quest to end the Boeing fraud documented on my web site, specifically (with the important points bolded):


"You would hope somewhere in this system there was somebody that followed the rules and did their jobs...A prosecutor's office. A company's legal department. A private legal firm. An attorney.


It seems finding people of integrity in the legal system is as slapdash as it was to find such people in my department when I was an inspector at Boeing. I was almost alone in being the one with enough integrity to do my job while being pressured not to do it by people without integrity.


Take the Boeing Legal department, for instance, which I tried to report fraud to on two occasions and who are assisting in my persecution now. They have many attorneys in house who presumably had to pass the bar and have to stay members of the bar to continue their profession.


Why weren't any of them kicked out of the bar association when they advised Boeing that the State Department had no authority to keep them from exporting militarily sensitive devices on aircraft to proscribed countries without an export license? It would seem like an open and shut case. The State Department prevailed over the Boeing legal department's wrong legal opinion that may have placed our country in danger. Boeing had to pay a $15 million dollar fine. But why weren't the attorneys who made that obviously incorrect decision fired or disbarred to keep them from making such huge "errors" in the future? Your guess may be as good as mine. There seems to be a lack of accountability in the profession. Or did Boeing's attorneys give the errant legal opinion and let the militarily sensitive technology on the airplanes deliver just because Boeing needed to deliver the airplanes to meet revenue and profit targets? That might explain both the highly questionable opinion by Boeing's attorneys and why Boeing deferred complying with State Department requests for Boeing to apply for export licenses before delivering such airplanes on multiple occasions. It also explains why such attorneys were not fired or debarred for incompetence. They were just doing their jobs. But that would have made them even better candidates for disbarrment, you would think.


But since when did attorneys stop advising comnpanies how to avoid legal problems by ensuring they complied with laws, and stop advising companies how to minimize the damage from any accidental breaking of the law, and start advising their companies how to break the law with impunity?


I saw that in the same Boeing legal department. They refused to end the fraud in quality assurance I reported to their chief counsel on two occasions, and instead seemed to pull out all the stops in ensuring that fraud was not ended, as a naive person like me (at the time) might have expected. Hell, the Chief Counsel of Boeing showed up at the doorstep of my work not to help end the fraud, but instead to decide how to dispose of me, who they viewed as the real problem. You would think any attorney involved in this covering up of this fraud and the resulting retaliation against me would be a prime candidate for disbarrment. But I have no knowledge of any of them being disbarred. To this day they labor to cover up the same fraud I reported to them over five years ago...Indeed, my prosecution is just one part of their plan to cover up the noted fraud.


But if private legal departments operate thusly, what about our prosecutors? Wouldn't those attorneys who work on our dime spot such fraud and the related efforts to cover it up by placing false reports to the police to get people trying to end it arrested and the information they were gathering for the relevant authorities confiscated? Nope. They apparently do what the Boeing legal department wants them to do, not what is in the interests of the public or public safety. They decide to participate in the cover up by attacking the messenger of the fraud. Of course, maybe it is not incomptence or corruption that caused our public attorneys to act against their professional ethics. Maybe Boeing's chief outside law firm contributing to the campaign of the prosecutor who faces his first election for King County Prosecutor in a few months played a part. I don't know if Boeing is helping his election directly yet, but they have certainly proven themselves arrogant enough to do so. Shouldn't these types of activities cause these prosecutors to get disbarred as well? It would seem so. I don't see the bar association condoning this type of behavior.


...I am just one insignificant "victim" of unethical public and private attorneys working together that should probably be disbarred for incomptence and/or corruption. There will be others, unless someone, like I did in my job as an inspector at Boeing, stands up and actually does their job with the required ethics."


End of blog excerpt.


What I wanted to relay today was some insight I have gotten into the answer for this conundrum: Attorneys protecting illegalities rather than representing their clients in order to prevent illegalities from occurring or to defend their clients after they have (wittingly or not) engaged in illegal activity. While researching this subject, I have found a startling answer by consulting definitive sources of legal information on the subject:


As it turns out, the behavior of attorneys I mentioned in the above examples that help their clients continue to engage in fraud in any way (covering it up, etc.) are not just doing their jobs as attorneys. Such attorneys are in fact considered accomplices in the fraud or crime they help ensure continues, rather than ensure it ends. Those among you who are legally savvy are probably saying "duh" right now, but this was news to me.


What does this mean? (Yeah, get ready for another "duh" moment.) Of course, it means that attorneys cannot legally act in the way I have witnessed them act. There is nothing that lets them do their jobs in that way. Such attorneys that cover up ongoing fraud or enable its continuance don't just need to be disbarred--they are as complicit themselves with those that commit the fraud they are protecting. They are criminals, not attorneys. Due to the lowly state of public opinion of attorneys you may not sense the significance of this. Some people think all lawyers are bad and even criminally so because they have been so demonized as a group. However, what I found out shows (in this one area of law) who the real attorneys who are criminals are, and why they are criminal accomplices rather than just counsel to criminals.


So, attorneys who protect such fraud should be disbarred and tried with those whose fraud they were protecting. The fact that this kind of behavior by attorneys seems so common (in the limited circle of public and private attorneys I have had to deal with) is even more disconcerting with the knowledge it is not only ABA rules they are breaking, but that they are breaking the law as well.


It is indeed a sad era in America when both public and private attorneys protect fraud that places so many lives at extra levels of risk of an unknown and random severity.

Reminder: Please write to Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and your representatives in Congress today! Please see www.thelastinspector.com or my last post to this blog for details!


Today is another post by other members of forums I have visited. You probably won't be able to read it directly from this blog,but if you click on it, it will open in a readable (uncompressed) form:




<cr>

They have also seen what I have seen at Boeing. I am not alone by far, I know. That is why I am being made an example of what happens to those who tell on Boeing.

Reminder: Please write to Henry Waxman's House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and your representatives in Congress today! Please see www.thelastinspector.com or my last post to this blog for details!

Today I wanted to start to spotlight some quite thoughtful writings by others on forums I have visited. You probably won't be able to read it directly from this blog,but if you click on it, it will open in a readable (uncompressed) form. Here is the first one:




I don't know who this person is, but at least they make some good points.

Sorry for the delay in posting. "Writer's block" is no stranger to me. I just wanted to point you over to my main web page, www.thelastinspector.com , so you can write in support of an investigation by Henry Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the FAA fraud that the DOT OIG inexplicably refused to perform. Other than to say that (my "read between the lines" extension of the comment in parenthesis) "the FAA has their own investigators (so we don't need to do our jobs to independently investigate agency misconduct)." Never mind that the OIG didn't even refer my case to the FAA's "investigators" for investigation.

This urgently needed investigation has still not started, thanks to the OIG's purposeful inaction and obfuscation, aping those same qualities in portions of the FAA they defer to.

With the OIG it was like hiring an exterminator to go under the house to see the vermin you had just seen under there and exterminate them, but they refused to do it because they were too scared to do their jobs.

What is needed now is for someone with real integrity and no ties to the FAA to do the job, and that is Mr. Waxman and his committee. He is a person with so much integrity he has to often drag some of his committee's members kicking and screaming down the path to perform their jobs of oversight when powerful interests are involved, as they are in this case.

So, go to my main web page and write today. The stakes for you and your loved ones couldn't be higher.