Here is something new from the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog organization that has taken an interest in my case and related FAA and industry corruption. This is an op-ed that is in the Seattle Post intelligencer and on their website today:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/3 ... wer08.html

Last updated May 7, 2008 4:11 p.m. PT

Case implicates free speech

NICK SCHWELLENBACH
GUEST COLUMNIST

The King County Prosecutor's Office is pursuing a criminal case against a former Boeing employee with dangerous implications for whistle-blowers, the flying public and free speech rights.

After the first trial resulted in a hung jury a few weeks ago, King County prosecutors, will soon announce a second trial date for former Boeing quality assurance inspector Gerald Eastman. The prosecutors likely will charge Eastman with "computer trespass"-- a euphemism for Eastman's unauthorized whistle-blowing to the media, which is not an illegal act. Jurors in the first trial were conflicted about the judge's instructions not to consider the issue of whistle-blowing.

Most of Eastman's concerns related to the safety implications of what he considered poor quality assurance at Boeing. While Eastman clearly violated Boeing policy, the criminal charges against him raise serious issues, especially in regards to the First Amendment right of free speech.

In other words, it is one thing to fire a whistle-blower for breaking company policies, quite another to try to jail one for the act of whistle-blowing, which is protected by law.

"Bringing criminal charges in this type of case is a very extreme reaction. However, it is another example of the disturbing trend of punishing whistle-blowers with criminal prosecution," said Dave Colapinto, a partner with the whistle-blower law firm Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto, which runs the National Whistleblower Center.

Eastman is not alone in his concerns about quality control and accountability. In 2000, a Federal Aviation Administration special technical audit on Boeing's production and quality problems, found "in some cases, manufacturing planning was not adequate, requirements were not followed, inspections were not specific or personnel were not knowledgeable about requirements."

Eastman's whistle-blowing came from his belief that Boeing had not adequately resolved the issues found in this FAA audit. He perceived that the practice of "roller-stamping" was widespread. Roller-stamping is approving work as complete without performing a thorough check.

In addition, an internal January 2004 Boeing document titled "Status Report: Investigation of 'Dual Failures' " underscored Eastman's concern. It states, "There appears to be a systemic issue within BCA (Boeing Commercial Aircraft) involving parallel process breakdowns of mechanics and inspectors involved in assembling and inspecting aircraft, assemblies and parts."

The FAA also examined 55 issues at Boeing between 2002 and 2003 and found that "24 percent of these issues have involved instances where the mechanic and inspector created and accepted nonconforming conditions."

And, in February 2008, the Department of Transportation IG issued a report of all the major aerospace manufacturers, including Boeing, faulting them for their quality assurance systems for their suppliers.

The employment consequences for Eastman's breaking company policy have been severe. A second round of a dubious criminal prosecution threatens to ruin this man's life and further hurt his family. But the issue is greater than that.

Does a whistle-blower have a First Amendment right to inform the public in a manner that should be considered protected speech without being jailed? If Boeing and King County prosecutors get their way, the future for whistle-blowers and the public is grim.

Nick Schwellenbach is an investigator at the Project On Government Oversight (POGO; pogo.org), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that works with whistle-blowers.

Pretty humbling, indeed, that they did this, knowing that retaliation against whistleblowers is so widespread today and we are a numerous bunch to try to defend.

Here are my responses to the op-ed and other commenters as taken from the P-I's website:


Posted by WBR Supporer at 5/7/08 7:12 p.m.

Bravo Mr. Schwellenbach. This is why it is important. Too bad more Boeing employees don't take their ethical responsibilities as seriously.

Posted by big rr at 5/7/08 7:30 p.m.

I wonder why the P.I. eels this way? Could it be that they do not care how many laws are broken, just as long as they get a story.

Posted by Skimission at 5/7/08 8:22 p.m.

... and people still wonder why Boeing has a tough time getting contracts.

They simply can't or won't comply with good quality assurance basics.

HOPEFULLY they will close that place before lives are lost.

Posted by Hug-a-Liberal at 5/8/08 12:14 a.m.

If prosecutors "go after" whistle-blowers for any reason, they are doing the Devil's work. Just watch the movie "The Insider" to see how devilish their work can be.

Posted by The Last Inspector at 5/8/08 1:52 a.m.

I am humbled by this support from the well respected Washington, D.C. anti-government/industry corruption organization Project On Government Oversight.

Their research is well done. I remember that "dual failures" CYA attempt by Boeing and the FAA just after they knew I was preparing to go public. It was an effort to make it seem they were addressing the Boeing management sanctioned rollerstamping fraud that I reported to both the FAA and Boeing. When I went public, they would point to this "dual failures" observation by the FAA and Boeing's meetings on it and say they were addressing it, even though they really weren't. Time went on and they thought I was not going to go public with my story of Boeing.FAA corruption, so they dropped this "dual failures" charade of a "working together" team addressing the issue they knew Boeing and the FAA could not believably deny--rollerstamping--and settled back into their habitual fraudulent relationship that actually ensured rollerstamping could continue at Boeing with corrupt FAA management looking the other way instead of addressing it and ending it as was their true mandate.

The STA, or Special Technical Audit of 2000 also documented the rampant rollerstamping by inspectors at Boeing, however nothing was done as C/A per that audit to address it, especially after the FAA headquarters manager in charge of the audit jumped ship to a healthy salary boost in employ at Boeing. This was pre-Druyun, and Boeing executives, including BCA's CEO of the time, flew to meet this FAA Associate Administrator for Regulation & Certification shortly after the audit and came to an agreement with him. Subsequently, "reforms" per the the STA actually were used as a guise to gut BCA Quality Assurance that was already documented as ineffective per the STA simply for cost and flow benefits. The BCA Vice President for Quality position was eliminated. QA independence was compromised by having QA report to operations managers even more adverse to quality assurance at BCA than QA managers were themselves as noted in my report.

Corrupt FAA management just did what they do best through all of this--look the other way, hoping to cash in on positions in the same company the "regulated" after they've secured retirement checks from the FAA, like the noted FAA Associate Administrator for Regulation & Certification did.

Knowing this, it is no wonder that corrupt FAA and Boeing management chose to implement charades and cover-ups rather than reforms when I appealed to them for reform for the sake of the safety of the public. Few saw as I did what kind of defects were intentionally delivered to airline customers intentionally by both Boeing and the FAA's assurance that the rollerstamping they documented and witnessed continued, rather than ended. I saw those defects and ensured they were eliminated when I inspected the major airplane components that it was my true job to inspect. However, rollerstamping inspectors in large part never saw the defects they let deliver to customers as they didn't inspect the whole job, if any of it.

If you think rollerstamping at Boeing doesn't exist, ask Boeing and the FAA if it does or not. As they have documented it on at least the two noted occasions and did nothing but make it more widespread and therefore more dangerous to the public, they can't honestly say it isn't still in place today.

If you are concerned about such fraud that places everyone who fklies these planes at extra risk, write your congressperson and the Oberstar committee that handled the SW airlines/FAA fraud investigation and demand action that will ensure the airplane you fly on was actually adequately inspected when it was built, and the paperwork that purports to prove it was is no longer a lie.

Posted by vit at 5/8/08 3:52 a.m.

Any one that prosecutes a person who tells of public safty concerns should be voted out of office. This effects all of us, if we fly or not. Who wants an airplane to fall on a major city because of some flaw that was not caught at the factory? Who wants to pay the price to fly in a plane that might not make it safely to the other end of the run? Maybe the public official making the decision to charge this person should be fired.

Posted by amybettermen at 5/8/08 7:30 a.m.

This is fishy. The inspection criteria is set by quality policy. Rollerstamping can be done all the day long as long as it is a sufficient level of vigilance to assure quality finished goods. Boeing and the FAA set the inspection standard.

In the private sector - as opposed to government - there is a HUGE pool of trial attorneys just waiting to chase the ambulances from a Boeing crash to the courthouse to unpeel the onion of faulty quality control policy. Practicing inadequate quality control standards is a severly liable endeavor. The pennies saved in a fly-by inspection are dramatically outweighed by the millions of dollars paid out in class action settlements and wrongful death awards. Thank goodness.

And every lawsuit raises the price of the finished product: airplanes in this case. Drugs in another. Just ask the big pharma industry. Imagine a whole sector of private services delivery turned over to the oversight of the government - where class actions don't exist, and corrective action is virtually non-existent?: HillaryCare.

The people that should be shooting at nationalized healthcare asside from the delayed-unto-death patients is trial attorneys. No more suits against Merck, Anthem, etc. etc.

When is the last time you heard of the US government being sued for wrongful death because Hillary&Co wouldn't pay your hospital-, surgeon-, or drug bill? If you think Boeing isn't responsive to faulty quality control, what of the 'government' healthcare bureaucrats? No skin off their pensions. (If this reminding you for some strange reason of your kid's school teacher, don't flinch. Your kid dropping out or failing in public school is no skin of their teachers' pensions. Thank a public sector union for that disconnect.) At least at Boeing there IS a consequence.

Quality is established at the point of manufacture. If the quality control inspection standard is 100% inspection of completed operations/completed assemblies, Boeing can define the quality control point where ever they wish - so long as the 100% happens at some station. A QC Inspector's work instructions will define sub-assembly inspection points following their installation in larger systems.

Attorneys will be the first to acknowledge it is invaluable to work BOTH sides of the fence regarding setting and enforcing standards - be they legal or quality. THEY jump the fence all the time working first for the employer groups to defend worker's comp policy then working for the law firms that go after abusive employers, etc...so it is not really surprising to see an expert in 'inspection inspection' being hired away to a manufacturer.

Roller stamping in practice is okay, or not. If it is a level of vigilance sufficient to produce the target quality level, then it is fine. The quality policy determines; and just spewing to the media about the practice is not necessarily any news.

One thing this singing quality inspector fails to mention is that 100% inspection ITSELF produces inspection failures because of the human element. Machine 100% inspection does very well. Humans even when checking 100% of characteristics fail a small percentage of the time AT THEIR BEST. When inspectors are rushed or fatigued the errors rise dramatically, and they will stamp 100% inspected goods okay, when they in fact arent'.

A final debate not blanched by this is the reality that air travel customers are NOT willing to pay for 100% safe air travel. They couldn't begin to afford it. Neither can Boeing or the FAA and the United States, any more than we can assure 100% safe auto travel, etc.

Aircraft customers choose manufacturers based on past performance.
Boeing doesn't have much to worry about - even if they do rollerstamp inappropriately. Choose another airframe manufacturer and you can line up the ambulance chasers based on empirical evidence. PS - I don't own any Boeing stock. I do know a lot about quality control and systemic failure - which doesn't seem to exist here.

How a title editor confuses this with a free speech issue is laughable.

Posted by joexmd at 5/8/08 7:49 a.m.

Blame the whistleblower, government, and those damn trial lawyers. Why can't everyone listen to Bush and just let companies do whatever they want and let the consumers chose? Look how well that's been working the last 7 years. Whistleblowers must hate america.

Posted by NorthCountryBen at 5/8/08 9:08 a.m.

We need to thank joexmd foor our daily dose of "It's all Bush's fault. Thank him for spending the 10 seconds gathering no evidence and then bravely telling Seattle "It's all Bush's fault. Outside of the usual ignorance, joexmd manages to reach new heights of telling us all about Bush's failings in something that has nothing to do with him. Typical Seattle liberal. Failing the WASL is a "badge of honor". Then sticking their ignorance out in public as a career choice. I think joexmd really deserves degination as "Seattle Tool of the Day".

Posted by USAGYM08 at 5/8/08 9:29 a.m.

Did you notice this, big rr:

"The prosecutors likely will charge Eastman with "computer trespass"-- a euphemism for Eastman's unauthorized whistle-blowing to the media, which is not an illegal act. Jurors in the first trial were conflicted about the judge's instructions not to consider the issue of whistle-blowing."

In other words, without the whistleblower protection in place, it may look like a violation of law. But it's not.

Posted by The Last Inspector at 5/8/08 1:32 p.m.

"amybettermen" would do well to go into Boeing QA management. "Justifying" rollerstamping is what they do best. Actually, she is all wrong on the issue. Rollerstamping is never OK, and in fact it is not only illegal, it is fraud. It is a crime vastly more serious than the one Boeing had their prosecutor falsely charge me with. True, there are inspection levels that are required to be met at Boeing, but rollerstamping is a practice that ignores those standards totally in order to just get the paperwork stamped off so defects won't be found and documented, which would slow production flow down--a prime consideration in "lean manufacturing at Boeing." So, every rollerstamping episode makes a mockery of Boeing's legally required quality system. There is no second inspection of the same required detail that will catch defects intentionally missed the first time. There were shakedown inspections at one time which looked at areas briefly after final inspections were mostly complete, but those are rollerstamped also. In fact, in the area I worked--Propulsion Systems Division (which has now been moved into the factory areas and effectively doesn't exist anymore)--all the final inspections and most critical process inspections were rollerstamped. The no drawing, no production plan shakedown inspection was illegally substituted for the required 100% inspection of each job required. Some inspectors did those shakedown inspections of entire EBUs (Jet Engine Build-Ups) in seven minutes or much less. A real shakedown of suuch large and complex assemlies would take about an hour. But that would created a problem--a real and not rollerstamped shakedown inspection would find and document defects the seven minute or less pretend shakedown inspection of an entire jet engine or engine pylon intentionally missed. So, an inspector actually doing the shakedown inspection would have a bunch of defects they had found that required rework before the engine could be loaded in the shipping fixture and shipped. This took time, and drew the ire of mfg leads and QA management, especially if a defect was found that was so severe as to require an Engineering disposition before it could be fixed, which took even more time and added what corrupt QA management considered as simply unnecessary costs and production time to the build of that engine/pylon. So you can see what problems an ethical inspector who only insisted on doing just the shakedown inspection correctly would come up against. Actually doing the more detailed 100% final inspections correctly would be deadly to an inspector's career. QA management would find a way to fire such an inspector, even if they had to make up something.

So. wishful thinking aside, "amybettermen," rollerstamping does indeed place passenger lives at much greater risk than the regulatory limits and related quality system requirements allow. Boeing calls this fraud "accepting more business risk," even if it is not Boeing that is actually accepting the risk because of this fraud--it is airline passengers who obviously accept that greater risk so Boeing can reap more bottom line dollars by defrauding customers who thought they bought a fully inspected, conforming, and airworthy airplane. True, they paid for those inspections, but they were never done as required. The money Boeing saved by that rollerstamping goes directly to their bottom line, although I strongly believe some customers do know Boeing is doing this and they want their cut in a reduced airplane price, which is even more scary, I believe, than an unknowing customer.

Rollerstamping is a way of life at Boeing and the FAA knows it and intentionally looks the other way because it is good for their personal finances to do so, and they know what a true nightmare it would be for Boeing if they started to actually comply with their quality system. It would make the production bottlenecks of 1997 look tame by comparison. Much of the production flow gains from lean manufacturing that were enabled by rollerstamping would have to be reversed. Those dollars would be subtrated from the bottom line, which wouldn't look good for managers come merit bonus and stock option time. So you can see now why Boeing is so determined to continue this fraud, and destroy anyone who calls attention to it to try to get that fraud ended for the sake of the safety of the passengers and crew.

True, the pieces of most crashes are too small to know exactly what caused them, and most rollerstamping issues result in delays at the gate while issues are fixed, extra maintenance costs for airlines, air turnbacks and in flight shutdowns of engines and airplanes exploding on the tarmac and crash landings rather than crashes per se. Most biased people who are intimmately involved in this fraud or own Boeing stock say their isn't a problem because airplanes aren't falling out of the sky like rain. In reality, the regulations and your loved ones require much safer airliners than that. You can get more details of this fraud at my website, www.thelastinspector.com .

For all of you kind supporters out there, there is not much to report from yesterday's court appearance. I didn't even have to appear before the judge. There is a two week continuance until the next hearing, on May 19th. I conferred with my attorney after the hearing, but I can't obviously write about that here.

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