Updated: Today was to be the case setting hearing for the retrial of me on unfounded charges by Boeing's King County Prosecutor.

However, the Senior Deputy Prosecutor, Scott Peterson, hurt himself over the weekend, so the county asked for a week's delay, which my attorney and I did not object to. The hearing is now set for next week, Monday, May 5th.

Hopefully Senior Deputy Prosecutor Peterson didn't hurt himself like he did last time--by committing a class B felony. I believe a class B felony is a much more serious a crime than the class C felony I am accused of.

Senior Deputy Prosecutor Peterson hurt himself last time (in 2004) just after he committed the class B felony of assault with a deadly weapon on a defenseless woman by ramming his car repeatedly into her while she was standing in a parking space. He hurt himself just after committing that crime against the defenseless woman when he "impacted" the forearm of the woman's boyfriend who came to her aid and block tackling him to the ground.

So, hopefully the other innocent citizens around Senior Deputy Prosecutor Peterson when he hurt himself this time were not also being assaulted as the noted woman, Danatte Griffin, was, and they did not sustain any injuries.

To find out the character of the prosecutors I'm up against in this county you can view the news story by clicking this link:

http://www.kirotv.com/video/3532554/index.html?taf=sea


Here are some notable frames of the KIRO 7 Broadcast on the flagrant "caste based" bias in Seattle's and King County's prosecutions of the people who try to protect victims when their assaulters are powerful and/or rich:



KIRO 7 News Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne



Victim Danatte Griffin, whom King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson Repeatedly assaulted with his vehicle.



King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson, who repeatedly assaulted Ms. Griffin with his vehicle after he saw her in his way, standing between two vehicles that he wanted to wedge in between in order to park. Watch out non-elite of King County! If you thought a member of the elite wouldn't hit you or run you over just to get to a parking space, you were wrong! And if you thought the member of the elite would get prosecuted for running you over intentionally while parking you would be dead wrong!




The weapon King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson used to hit Ms. Griffin with repeatedly



The injuries King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson inflicted on Ms. Griffin during his assault. If her boyfriend had abused her and left such nasty bruises he would have been jailed and prosecuted. However, a stranger to Ms. Griffin, King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson, battered her intentionally with his vehicle, so his crime was never actually investigated, much less prosecuted. Mr. Peterson didn't even spend a second in jail for this assault. However, her boyfriend, who tried to protect her from Mr. Peterson, was prosecuted for his "bumping into" such a powerful person as King County Senior Deputy Prosector Scott Peterson. Class warfare is only allowed one way in King County--The rich and powerful can do anything they want to do to the common citizen here, while the common citizen will be prosecuted for even trying to defend against such assaults.

This pretty much proves the opposite of justice that is in place in the King County Prosecutor's office when the powerful assault an innocent citizen, or assault citizens trying to save many lives from being assaulted and/or killed by knowingly defective, largely uninspected and unapproved "vehicles" (commercial airplanes), as in my case.

When such citizens are assaulted by those perpetrators, the King County Prosecutor's office doesn't protect the victims of those crimes, whether they are innocent bystander citizens or whistleblowers trying to save lives placed at risk for greater profits--It instead prosecutes the victims or anyone coming to the aid of the victims, as in King County, the Prosecutor's office seems to always purposefully ignore the vastly greater crimes of the powerful and/or wealthy, and instead prosecutes the victims of those criminal actors in order to maintain the powerful and/or wealthy perpetrator's status, protecting them from accountability for their crimes by going on "offense" legally for those powerful interests by prosecuting the victims or anyone that comes to the victims aid on fabricated charges.

Don't believe me? View the news story at the above link. Senior Deputy Prosecutor Peterson's felonious actions were never actually investigated, much less prosecuted. However, the boyfriend protecting the one he loved was prosecuted for doing so.

In my case, I am being tried again on what the King County Prosecutor's office knows (unless you believe their actions are driven by legal ignorance and incompetence, which I don't) are false charges after the first attempt at convicting me on those false charges rightly failed. However I am not really the victim even though I'm being prosecuted on false charges. Just as the boyfriend was prosecuted for trying to protect his girlfriend from Mr. Peterson's road rage attack with his car on a pedestrian, I am being prosecuted for trying to protect the flying public from fraud that has already cost people many injuries and/or their lives. The flying public is therefor the victim, in my case.

So which crime was greater? Senior Deputy Prosecutor Peterson getting angry at an innocent pedestrian and repeatedly hitting her with his car? Or the "crime" of the boyfriend pushing Deputy Prosecutor Peterson to the ground with his forearm in defense of his already injured girlfriend who was under attack by Mr. Peterson?

Or is the greater crime a King County Prosecutor's office that ensures that victims or their protectors are always charged on fabricated charges when the wealthy and powerful assault them, especially if it is one of their own elite that is the perpetrator, and/or one of their campaign contributors?

You had better hope that King County Executive Ron Sims doesn't come up to you on the sidewalk (if you are in King County and are out for a walk) and shoot you in cold blood, for if you survived, you'd be charged for spitting blood on the sidewalk and Sims would go free, unless the prosecutor's office discriminates based on race as well as caste in its prosecutions. (Of course, this is a hypothetical example only, and as far as I know King County Executive Ron Sims is a model citizen who would never even think of doing such a thing, nor do I think he rests any easier with the knowledge that he might get away with any crime he wanted to commit with the King County Prosecutor's office in its current biased against justice state.)

I have a court date Wednesday for a case setting hearing for the next trial Boeing and their "pocket prosecutor" will attempt to win against me after their last trial on these obviously fabricated charges failed miserably in a mistrial. Every juror--each of whom knew more about the law and facts of the case than everyone but a very few other interested parties--told the prosecutor to not retry the case. They didn't want another jury to go through what they did--being forced to decide whether or not to convict someone per a vague law obviously meant to apply against computer hackers, and not meant to be used as it was being used--for retaliation purposes against whistleblowers like me.

The Project on Government Oversoght released this Press Release on the subject:

http://www.pogo.org/p/government/ga-080 ... lower.html

POGO--Project On Government Oversight

Alert

April 28, 2008

Criminal Charges Against Boeing Whistleblower Set Dangerous Precedent: Jurors Disagreed on Earlier Charges Resulting in a Mistrial


For Immediate Release
Contact: Nick Schwellenbach (202) 347-1122

This weekend POGO learned that former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman is facing a second round of criminal charges for his whistle-blowing to the press. King County prosecutors will announce a new trial date on April 30th, 2008 according to an email from Senior Deputy Prosecutor Scott Peterson to Eastman's public defender, Ramona Brandes.

"The charges against Eastman are a message to all potential whistle-blowers at Boeing," said Nick Schwellenbach, an investigator at POGO. "The message from Boeing is clear: We'll try to send you to jail if you disclose information to the press.”

Eastman was discovered accessing and downloading internal Boeing information, some of which he shared with reporters at the Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Eastman's disclosures to the press mostly concerned quality assurance and inspection problems he perceived while working at Boeing, though many of the articles he sparked related to increasing outsourcing of Boeing's production.

After conferring with Boeing, the King County prosecutor's office last month pursued criminal charges against Eastman for "computer trespass," a charge normally used against hackers, not whistle-blowers. The first trial resulted in a hung jury because some of the jurors believed Eastman's activities were whistle-blowing and should not result in criminal prosecution. The judge in that case told jurors not to consider whistle-blower laws.

Several lawyers have told POGO that the Eastman case is part of a disturbing trend of whistle-blowers increasingly facing criminal prosecution. The First Amendment right of free speech is a typical and powerful defense in these cases. Although a company can often legally terminate an employee, it considered extreme for a government prosecutor to attempt to jail a whistle-blower for his activities.

Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.
# # #

After some long standing personal distractions from the effort I embarked on in September/October 2003 to seek reforms at the FAA as the primary means to end the fraud I had witnessed at my former employer, I am now free to pursue those reforms again.

My former efforts failed when the FAA and my former employer decided they did not want to end that fraud unless they were forced to do so. As they were so powerful, they did not foresee even Congress ever stepping up and trying to interfere with their relationship—a relationship that made FAA oversight of my employer purposely just a charade compared to the unbiased oversight required by the law.

This renegade agency of the U.S. government has recently been proven wrong, however, and newly effective oversight committees in Congress have begun to start to look into the depths of FAA corruption in place today. This corruption subjugates the FAA’s only mission of protecting the safety of the flying public and our military personnel who fly on commercial airplane platforms to the short term bottom line interests of the CEOs of the companies they are supposed to impartially monitor.

As I write, corrupt heads of FAA departments attempt to isolate the “damage” that can be done by this unforeseen round of Congressional oversight to the continuance of the same sort of corruption they know is rife throughout their management. They go to Congress and on TV news shows and lie to them as well as the public that the FAA/airline corruption was an isolated incident, not reflecting in any way on the rest of the FAA.

Nothing could be further from the truth, however, as I and multiple others have unfortunately come to know over the years. And the FAA has proven this by their intentional inaction innumerable times over the years in doing their critical jobs when powerful interests in the companies they are supposed to oversee wanted them to do the opposite.

The first casualties in the name of current Congressional reforms of the FAA should be those very highly placed FAA managers that lied to us so egregiously and so transparently. They did so in order to protect their and other complicit FAA manager’s arses from indictment for their crimes, and to preserve to the greatest degree possible the corruption ongoing in other parts of the agency. Some of that corruption yet to be investigated by Congress is that which has been documented in detail on my website for quite some time.

Nick Sabatini is one agency department head that must be brought to justice and/or ousted. He was instrumental in ensuring my reporting of crimes by my former employer (per my duty per 14CFR13.1) to him and FAA administrators did not result in any actual investigation of those crimes. He also ensured in doing so that the corruption at his arm of the FAA and my former employer that conspired to violate rather than adhere to FAA regulations could continue unabated.

Being a former attorney, I believe, Nick Sabatini should know the illegality of his and his department’s actions. That’s what makes his stubborn insistence on protecting this FAA/industry corruption even more indicative of the need that he be removed ASAP.

Of course, one official’s replacement will not restore an agency rife with corrupt management that insist on doing the opposite of their mandate. It is hard to see that any management in that arm of the agency has been untainted by this endemic and decades old corruption.

Some of the FAA management that, in addition to Sabatini, were “hands on” in throttling the “investigation” of my report to ensure its “death” so that the corruption documented within it could continue have moved on. However, I trust that most of them will ultimately not escape the justice that threatens the corrupt management of the FAA today.

Some of the FAA managers involved in ensuring my report was in fact not investigated have retired. Some have even died. Some have been promoted. I trust that all except those that have died since their exploits will ultimately face justice soon. Retirement especially should be no shield for accountability for past crimes committed while with the agency. Neither should be being promoted for that wrongdoing.

It is up to us to ensure that these FAA managers do not succeed in maintaining the cover for their corrupt activities on behalf of industry and their own personal interests they have been so proactively trying to protect. We need to write to Congress and tell them of the true extent of FAA corruption we are aware of to ensure all corrupt FAA management is brought to justice.

To that end, any ASI that cooperates with a Congressional and/or FBI investigation of the actions of their management should be given immunity for any crimes against the public they were forced to commit by that management as a matter of course. This will encourage knowledgeable people of FAA management corruption to come forward that would be reluctant to otherwise.

And, such ASIs or other non-management personnel should be given prime consideration for newly opened up management jobs at the FAA once the corrupt management is removed, albeit only after all have come forward so as to not have some indict their management for the wrong reasons.

I would strongly urge anyone (such as the ASIs) to come forward now even absent a formal announcement of immunity from Congressional committees, as there is no doubt, I believe, that they will receive such immunity as the other ASIs that have come forward have gotten.

It is critical that the first few ASIs or other FAA personnel come forward in the Transport Airplane Directorate so that the others less inclined to do so can begin to come forward as well. Once enough good people have thusly left the “FAA ship” and are willing to testify against it, the corrupt FAA management left in it can go down with that “ship”. And then the agency can be reborn, working per its mandate of public safety and not against it as it has so consistently done in the past.

And such ASIs and other FAA personnel thinking about coming forward should do so for another reason. They will not have made “mistakes” others have made in their desperate attempts at ending their management’s fraud as they have not come forward before. They won’t have a track record to be “cherry picked” in retaliatory efforts against them, as such efforts to bring the true criminals to justice have been used against others who would not be deterred in coming forward to protect the lives of the public when FAA management would not.

So I urge the public to write to Mr. Oberstar’s committee in particular, and for ASIs and other people with knowledge of past or ongoing FAA management corruption to contact that committee as well. I’ve learned over the years never to put your eggs in only one basket, so to speak, so writing to your Congressmen and/or using other avenues such as the FBI in concert with reporting to the committee may be useful as well.

But avoid at all costs reporting anything to the organization that would seem to be the most logical to do so, as I can vouch that that organization has been corrupted just as the FAA has been. Do not contact the DOT OIG Calvin Scovel’s office. To do so will result in no actual investigation of your report being done, and open you up to retaliation from the corrupt management in your agency. It is no accident the DOT OIG’s office keeps almost no records of its “investigations.” If it did so, it’s own culpability with protecting corrupt FAA management could be exposed. It is much easier for them to deny facts and claim incompetence rather than being exposed as a corrupt extension of the agency when they do so.

At least I’ve learned a few useful things over the years of my “pioneering” attempts at bring FAA/industry corruption to light, some of which are mentioned above.

Although it took some of us years to bring just part of FAA and industry corruption to light, now is the perfect time for those wanting to be on the right side of justice to come forward and do what’s right. Those that do so will have an immediate effect on reforming FAA management, and they will immunize themselves from reprisal as well when they do so.

Don’t let the flailing attempts of corrupt FAA managers trying to cover up and continue the corruption you’ve worked under for years win the day. Ensure in this perfect window that justice prevails, and you will be able in the near future to work for an FAA management that lets you find noncompliances and enforces the regulations, rather than just directing you to find “compliance,” when in fact the opposite exists. Now is the perfect time to comply with 14CFR13.1, as I knew I was also required to do, as well as comply with what your own conscience is telling you. No better time may come. You may be the first to report the corruption of your management, but there will be many others behind you that will follow your lead.

Gerald Eastman

As you know by now, the retaliatory trial of me by Boeing and the King County Prosecutor was ended in a mistrial. It was reported to be 10-2 to convict, but I was told that was not an accurate number as no official juror poll was ever taken, and if it was, more jurors would likely sway to my side.

I found the jury to be very pleasant and friendly on the whole after the trial. God knows they were having fun during the trial and deliberations inside the jury room, as their somewaht frequent and loud laughter was the only thing that could be heard from the room by anyone. I hope their having a good time thusly made up a bit for their heavy sacrifice of their time and some of their wages/salaries.

I think they know who was at fault for making them make those sacrifices, and I'm glad it wasn't me, but instead was the prosecutor trying to convict me of a law that didn't fit my actions and a prosecutor trying to send me to prison for the longest possible time using any method--even not justified as in my case--per Boeing's request that was to blame.

I was told to wait around the corner as most juries want to talk to the attorneys in the case and not the defendant, so I did, sitting there on a bench just around the corner. At least half the jury wished me well as they rounded the corner to the elevators and freedom to pursue their normal lives again. One said simply "hey," which I reciprocated. Several wished me good luck. One veteran even shook my hand and called me his hero--nothing could have meant more to me even though I've never considered myself as deserving that mantra, by far. Some jurors were silent or said other well wishes I could not decipher due to several talking at once--including that of the other juror who steadfastly and rightly stuck to her convictions that I had not broken the law. A few seemed like they wanted to avoid me, whether it was because they thought I was guilty or that they felt guilty themselves for their decision in the case.

I thank all jurors--not just the ones who would not go along with convicting me or did not wish me well as they left as so many did. They worked harder than they perhaps ever have in order to decide this complex case--five days of deliberations. Each should remember their sacrifice and honor in serving as long as they did, and for considering the issues so carefully. The jurors many kind words as they left meant much to me.

But special thanks go out to the two that would not let injustice be done--they are my personal heroes.

Even though the unofficial jury leanings were not in my favor, all the jrors told the prosecutor to not put another jury in the hard place they were put in. They all told him not to retry the case--even those "ten" who had felt they were forced to convict, apparently. A common theme was that the law was too vague, and needed to be rewritten before it would apply to cases such as mine.

So no the ball is in Boeing's and the prosecutor's court. They have two weeks to decide whether to repeat this thinly veiled attempt at whistleblower retaliation again, or not.

Right now I am not charged with anything, which is a relief.

Maybe the prosecutor's office will now go back and look at evidence they had long ignored, and had actually tried to deride in court--the evidence they have and I asked them to investigate of my own management's undeniable lawbreaking.

The prosecutor used two people as witnesses for the prosecution that should arguably be faced with serious felony charges and professional misconduct if the prosecutor had actually considered all of the evidence before trial--not just the few parts of evidence they thought would make me look bad in court. I can't say if Mike Bair should join those two as well or not. Even though he never was in a line of management I reported to, they put him on the stand and he made the information in the press seem as damaging to the company as he could, charge by charge. Yet, on cross examination, he did tell the truth in that he could point to no actual damages the article had cost Boeing. I appreciated his candor. I have no knowledge he ever joined in the fraud I was trying to expose in QA management at Boeing, although my former QA Director at PSD at Boeing became head of QA for the 787 program, and I believe reported directly to him. That head of QA for the 787 I know is as guilty as sin when it comes to the fraud in QA management at Boeing I tried to expose. He personally had me removed from the production floor and put in an office job for many months because I insisted on actually doing my inspector job to some minimum compliance to the procedures and regulations.

Got to go. More to come.

Here is a blog entry from POGO, the Project on Government Oversight, suggesting hearings on the FAA/Boeing corruption I have proven, in addition to the FAA/Airline corruption Congress is currently investigating. There is also a link in the last paragraph that will take you to a POGO blog just about my case, and about just who is the habitual and serious "criminal" of the two sides in my trial. It looks like POGO did extensive research on that blog, as it seems to be the authoritative source on the web for all crimes Boeing. Here is the POGO Blog with a closing about my efforts to stop FAA/Boeing corruption:

Whistleblowers Front and Center at Tomorrow's FAA Hearing

Click here to be taken to POGO's blog.

FAA whistleblowers are going to be the stars of the show at tomorrow's marathon House transportation comittee hearing (pdf) on the cozy relationship between the FAA and major airlines.

Here is the hearing's first panel:

Mr. Charalambe ("Bobby") Boutris
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 737-700 Partial Program Manager for aircraft maintenance
Southwest Airlines (SWA) Certificate Management Office (CMO)


Mr. Douglas E. Peters
Aviation Safety Inspector and Boeing 757 Partial Program Manager
American Airlines Certification Unit, AMR CMO

Mr, Michael C. Mills
Assistant Manager, Dallas Fort Worth Flight Standards District Office (FSDO)


Mr. Paul E. Cotti
Supervisor, American Eagle Airworthiness Unit, AMR CMO

Mr. Robert A. Naccache
Ret, Assistant Manager, SWA CMO


Mr. Terry D. Lambert
Manager, Safety and Analysis Group, Flight Standards Division, FAA Southwest Region

According to the USA Today

Government officials have blocked enforcement
of safety rules at major airlines for years because they have a cozy
relationship with the companies, according to the testimony of U.S.
inspectors who will appear before Congress Thursday.

The testimony alleges for the first time that
inspectors have been pressured by Federal Aviation Administration
officials to change findings or to soft-pedal enforcement actions for
several of the nation's largest airlines, including Northwest, United
and Continental. The controversy over the FAA's oversight has so far
involved only Southwest Airlines.

The inspectors claim FAA officials were often
more concerned with airline profit margins than safety and made them
work under the specter of intimidation, according to the testimony,
provided to USA TODAY.

Thursday's hearing before the House
Transportation Committee was prompted by two whistle-blowers who
charged that their bosses at the FAA had prevented them from enforcing
serious safety matters at Southwest a year ago. The FAA issued a $10.2
million fine against Southwest last month for intentionally flying jets
that had not received critical inspections and acknowledged that its
inspectors had not acted properly. [emphasis added]

In other aviation safety oversight news, in Washington state, jurors continue to deliberate the fate of former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman. Eastman, after raising concerns about the safety risks of what he felt were lax inspections of planes, went to the press with internal Boeing information. Eastman's actions were discovered by Boeing investigators and is being prosecuted for stealing Boeing proprietary information. He states his motive was simply to bring to light safety concerns of public interest which were not being addressed. Given the recent Transportation Department Inspector General report which verifies that there are problems with Boeing and other major aerospace manufacturers' quality assurance systems, it might be worthwhile for the House transportation committee to take a look at Eastman's case and others as a possible subject matter for a future hearing. [emphasis added]

-- Nick Schwellenbach