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

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 related discussions the jury was considering at the point they were asking it was known, which cannot be known except to 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.

The jury was then brought out for the judge to give the answer to as well as to dismiss them for the weekend, 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, as Sci-Fi fans like me will know from where the term originated, from my perspective, "something wonderful" happened. 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 brought 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 procede to decide the case, it just might lend some more credibility to my testimony in some juror's minds that may have not have believed my testimony on the corruption of the FAA that negated any true investigation of Boeing's massive noncompliances with its Production and Type Certificates that I 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 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 CSPAN 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. 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, but I believe my call was dropped somewhere in my description of the charges (I was on my cell phone, which gets pretty bad reception in my neighborhood). Unfortunately I did not mention my name, and I don't know if they did before I was put on. If so, it was likely just my first name. Maybe not a good idea, but perhaps some people in Washington, D.C. 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 life or death-like efforts in my prior whistleblowing on this FAA/Boeing fraud. Of course it did mean life or death to countless people that I succeeded at exposing the still ongoing fraud between the FAA and Boeing management, but that was not even allowed to be considered in my trial for just the few errors I made along that trek that they could twist the law around and in doing so hope to both retaliate against me in a cruel way for my past whistleblowing, as well as end my efforts to get the FAA's fraud ended by the DOT OIG and make me much less a threat to that ongoing fraud if I did contact such authorities.

I just came from a hearing about 30 minutes ago (its 11:54 AM PST) as I am writing this) that almost ended this trial in my favor, if that is defined as not being convicted.

About 10:23 AM the jury sent a note to the judge stating that, "9 jurors have concerns that statements made by juror #11 during deliberations and ongoing behavior are not allowing us to move toward a consensus. We have reached an impasse in moving forward. 11 jurors are asking the judge to advise us on our next steps."

My attorney, me, the prosecutor, and the judge and court personnel assembled in the courtroom at 10:53 AM to handled the matter. The judge then said another question had been received about five minutes before:

"A juror wants to know if a juror may substitute the following language for element #2?

"That the defendant was not given "justification to act" (with the words in quotes circled and the word "authorize" the substitute word pointing to that circle) to "retrieve data from" with the words in quotes circled and the word "access" the substitute word pointing to that circle) the computer system or electronic database."

The judge then said she thought that the court could give the jury no further instructions when the jury indicated it was at an impasse.

At about 11 AM the judge, my attorney, and the prosecutor came to an agreement on how to procede. A response was sent to the jury approved by all parties that told them the answer to the second question was (paraphrasing) that "you have been given the law of the case. If this answer gives you the answer to the first question you submitted, then continue deliberating. Otherwise notify the bailiff if you are still at an impasse."

The judge and prosecutor then retired to their offices. Me and my attorney stayed in court as she thought the answer from the jury would be known in a few minutes. She was right. about five minutes later the jury told the Bailiff they were still at an impasse as noted in their first question. When the prosecutor got back into the courtroom about 11:19 AM, all parties thought there was a mistrial and that only the formalities of dismissing the jury remained. The judge had instructed both sides how she was going to handle dismissing the jury by thanking them personally in the jury room without either the prosecutor or my attorney present, and where they should stand in case a juror or jurors wanted to talk with them after she dismissed them.

But first the jury was brought out to put their impasse on the record before they could be excused to go home. When they were seated, the judge asked the presiding juror if the jury was at an impasse. He stood and said that he thought they were, and that any further deliberations he thought would be fruitless. Then the judge asked the jury as a whole if they agreed with the presiding juror that they were at impasse and that further deliberations would be fruitless. Two jurors then raised their hands! Each in turn stood up and told the judge that they thought that further deliberations could cause them to reach consensus. One of the two was juror #11, the juror that 9 other jurors had asked for guidance in dealing with from the judge because of statements he made and "ongoing behavior" did not allow them to go forward.

The judge then released them to the jury room to continue deliberations! The judge (I believe), my attorney, and the prosecutor were surprised at the turn of events.

Both my attorney and the prosecutor talked with each other and agreed they had never seen such a thing before (a juror or jurors disagreeing that the jury was at impasse in such a situation)!

The deliberations of day 4 continue. The fact that it is Friday may be weighing on some juror's minds.

Today is almost the end of day three of deliberations, and I’m liking this jury more and more as time goes on. Not one that considers myself important as opposed to the way the King County Deputy Prosecutor tried to falsely portray me to the jury, their careful deliberations seem to indicate that they at least place some value on my fate.

This morning the question from the jury that I blogged about yesterday was put on the record, along with my attorney’s objection to the extra term “no” that could indicate which way the judge wanted this whole thing to go. When juries are in deliberations, they are supposed to be left alone if at all possible, so that nothing the prosecutor, judge, or my attorney does sways their deliberations in any way. To that end, responses to jury’s questions are supposed to be as bland as possible, telling the jury what they can consider (usually just repeating the relevant part of the jury instructions) as opposed to what they can’t. But the judge wanted apparently to get her editorial comment on the specific issue anyway.

Then the judge, out of the blue, brought up the extensive coverage of problems at the FAA, and said that she wanted to take the extraordinary step of bringing the jury out in order to tell them what to ignore on the news and related jury instructions. This showed even more bias, I believe, in the proactive way she is censoring what the jury can see outside the courtroom. I highly doubt she would have done the same thing if the news was all glowing reports on how the FAA and Boeing were so great and how safe airline travel was this week.

Andrea James, an angel of a reporter for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer—the only reporter with the judgment to give the trial the coverage it deserves—wrote an article on this morning’s happenings that is only on their website at the moment, but I think will be in their paper tomorrow:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... man04.html

Jurors told not to consider whistle-blowing laws
Last updated April 3, 2008 11:18 a.m. PT
By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER
A King County Superior Court judge told jurors who are deliberating the fate of Gerald Eastman, a former Boeing quality assurance inspector, that whistle-blowing laws should not be considered.
Jurors continued into their third day of deliberations Thursday. They had asked the judge the day before, "May we consider whistle-blowing laws as they pertain to this case?"
Judge Monica Benton told them that they couldn't consider other laws, nor do outside research.
Eastman faces 16 felony counts of computer trespass, after having downloaded Boeing documents and providing some of them to a Seattle Times reporter.
He said he did so to highlight corruption at Boeing and a shoddy inspection process for new planes. The King County prosecutor has charged that some of the resulting articles had nothing to do with airplane safety.
Defense attorney Ramona Brandes told the judge on Thursday morning, "I felt the court's instruction went beyond what was necessary."
Judge Benton also raised concerns to the attorneys about national news regarding "inflammatory discussion about airline safety."
While the jury deliberates in Seattle, a Congressional hearing in Washington, D.C., has revealed that the Federal Aviation Administration looked the other way even after inspectors found cracks in Southwest Airlines planes. When FAA inspectors complained about the safety problems, they were threatened with dismissal, according to a report Thursday by the New York Times.
Delta, American Airlines and United Airlines have recently grounded scores of Boeing planes. U.S. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who has charged that the FAA has a "culture of coziness" with the carriers it regulates, leads the hearing.
Benton brought jurors into the courtroom to again remind them not to consider outside evidence or information when deliberating the case. The jurors are not allowed to read or watch any media reports regarding Eastman or Boeing.
Eastman said he felt somewhat vindicated by the national reports about poor FAA oversight. One of his complaints as a Boeing employee and after his arrest was that the FAA overlooked faulty inspections at Boeing.
While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing's airplane inspection process.
"With everything that's going on, you'd think somebody would be interested that the same thing is going on at Boeing," Eastman said. "It's nice it's coming out now -- no matter what happens to me."
© 1998-2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

End of article.

This is a great article because it finally touches upon the important issues my trial raises—not my own fate, but what Boeing and the King County Prosecutor’s office do to whistleblowers that let any of Boeing’s numerous skeletons of law breaking out of the closet, and more importantly, it calls attention to the fact I had long been laboring to get the correct level of attention on so it could be ended at long last for the safety of the public—that Boeing and the FAA are engaging in fraud in a similar but more pervasive and serious way than the FAA has engaged in with airlines, including the relationships in the news today, as well as the one between Alaska Airlines management and the FAA just prior to the tragic and avoidable (if the FAA had done their jobs of oversight and had actually investigated reports of serious noncompliances bordering on fraud in Alaska Airlines' maintenance operations) crash of Alaska Airlines flight 261.

"Inflammatory discussion about airline safety." "Inflammatory"? "Discussion"? That is how Judge Benton opined today in court on the serious news of intentionally lax FAA oversight and the much greater danger it undeniably placed airline passengers in. True, this FAA management fraud with the airlines in the news today would be quite inflammatory if an airliner crashed because of it—just not in the way she apparently meant the word. And the mere fact the news is reporting it doesn’t make it a “discussion.” Such “discussions” are only allowed in the editorial pages of the news, not the news itself. You had better hope that you don’t get a judge like this if you are also accused of a crime you didn’t commit. But I'm told the whole court system in King County is tilted against the defendant, so the judge in this case is apparently just doing what other judges here do--only more in earnest. If judges begin to expicitly follow the law and as a consequence rule in a defendant's favor, negating months or years of police work and work by the prosecution, then the powerful Police Guilds will line up in opposition to that judge at the next election, getting them replaced. Not an incentive by far for judges to be fair in this county.