I haven't covered much about my own personal situation for trying in vain to protect the public. My failure, of course, is not for lack of trying. Both Boeing and the FAA blocked my attempts at ending their symbiotic corruption.

Anyway, I'm still unemployed after over a year being kicked out on the streets by Boeing because I was attempting to bring them to justice. I have applied at many jobs, however I appear to be blacklisted from my occupation. Surprising? No. Not much surprises me anymore, especially when it come to what Boeing and its government agencies do.

I am not very legally savvy, but it has been a year and a couple weeks since I was arrested at the dishonest request of Boeing. With a three year statute of limitations on any supposed crimes I committed in trying to protect public safety, I guess I have a little less than two years until the cloud Boeing has placed over me as retaliation is lifted as far as potential criminal charges go.

Frankly, I don't expect I will ever be charged with any crime as a result of my arguably false arrest at Boeing's request. Over a year has passed, and even though technically almost two years remain in which I can be charged, there are several reasons to doubt any charges will ultimately be filed as Boeing retaliatorily wishes.

First, any case against me would not be a complex case requiring as much time as has elapsed since my arrest. The prosecutor's office themselves thought so, only sealing the records stating the reasoning for my arrest and my possesions being searched for six months, which they stated would be more than adequate. Even though they extended the seal by submitting, questionably, the same arguments to the judge (which had to have changed over the six months) for doing so that were originally presented after the six months expired, I don't think that indicates their steadfast adherence to Boeing's wishes that the book be thrown at me for daring to expose the crimes of Boeing's elite.

To charge me after all of this time, although possible, would show that the prosecutor's office is beholden to this pressure from Boeing, and is looking much harder than they thought they would be looking for a reason to charge me in order to please Boeing management. Of course, all of this time may have elapsed because they want to ensure they legally "burn me at the stake" per Boeing's request by charging me with as many charges as they possibly can for my whistleblowing and attempted public lifesaving activities, thereby pleasing Boeing as much as they possibly can, but I don't think the public would want that, and ultimately the wheels of justice turn to protect the public as I was doing, and do not turn to protect corruption at corporations, no matter what their size.

That's enough about this line of thought for today.

This item should be very interesting, however, to you:

Showing that Boeing did in fact want to persecute me by prosecuting me, I learned that Boeing had caught someone doing the same thing that I was allegedly doing--leaking stories to the press. This person had been leaking information about Boeing's competiton sensitive and highly secret plans for their moving production lines in Renton to the press.

What did Boeing do to this "leaker," as they essentially did the sae thing as I allegedly did, except without any possible motive of protecting public lives? Boeing gave them five days off without pay! Nope. No arrest. No termination. Just a leisurely five day unpaid vacation and they were back at work.

What did I get for the same alledged offense when Boeing knew I was trying to protect public and military lives by doing what I did? They had me falsely arrested by never telling the police about my whistleblower status. They indefinately suspended me, then the V.P. of BCA's H.R. department approved my termination. They have been attempting to have me charged for a crime since, with some difficulty for obvious reasons.

So, I think you'll agree with me that I've just proved Boeing's actions against me were intentionally unjust, and just retaliation for my daring to expose the real crimes of their management that I later reported to them, and who they promptly promoted and are still protecting with the full resources of the Boeing Company. It is my opinion they did so so the noted management would not tell what they knew about Boeing's conduct to authorities, and instead would side against me, and truth.

Thank God for the ACLU. I know some will disagree because the ACLU takes unpopular stands sometimes in its zealous defense of our liberties. But With government agencies and some corporations routinely breaking the law, it seems it is up to organizations such as the ACLU to protect us from those abuses, instead of the government agencies that were set up to do so, but aren't, or in some cases, like the FAA as noted on this site, are doing the opposite of their manadated duties to protect us.

A quote from a 5/31/07 Chicago Sun-Times story ( http://www.suntimes.com/business/408190 ... 31.article ) on the Boeing Torture Flight Allegations (with my comments on the story in parenthesis):

"ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said Jeppesen (Boeing subsidary) could not have been ignorant of the purpose of CIA flights. (Seems like a big "Duh" to me).

''Either they knew or reasonably should have known that they were facilitating a torture program,'' he said. (Ditto. The Boeing manager in the Board meeting as noted in the New Yorker article certainly seems to have made the connection. Funny (or not so funny) thought. Boeing used to have a startup called "Connexion by Boeing" that has shut down or is in the process of doing so. It's purpose was to provide broadband services to airline passengers. However, since it is/has been shutting down, the name is freed up for other use. Wouldn't it be a good name for the "torture flights" for the government by Boeing subsidary Jeppeson? Instead of the (rightly) ominous sounding "torture flights" default name, as they apparently have not named this service as they didn't expect it to go public, they could just re-use the Connexions by Boeing moniker for them. Then they could make up nice glossy brochures with the branding for their customers for this service with hooded and shackled suspected terrorists boarding and deplaning aircraft, on their way to being tortured until they admit they are terrorists (of course, that part is the customer's business, I guess it wouldn't be mentioned in the brochures. Maybe "Torture Connexion by Boeing" wouldn't be kosher from a P.R. or liability standpoint should the public get hold of one of these hypothetical brochures. Anyway, this situation deosn't lend itself to comedy, as I've just proven.)

Companies ''are not allowed to have their head in the sand and take money from the CIA to fly people, hooded and shackled, to foreign countries to be tortured,'' Wizner said.

The lawsuit charges that Jeppesen knowingly provided direct flight services to the CIA that enabled the clandestine transportation of the men to secret overseas locations. The ACLU claims the men were tortured there and subjected to other ''forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment'' (Hey, I know intimately that kind of treatment from my years at Boeing where I was harassed and retaliated against for doing my job, albeit mostly not in a physical way as perhaps these men were) under the agency's ''extraordinary rendition'' program.

The CIA will not be named in the lawsuit; Wizner said the executive branch has evoked a state secrets defense in similar lawsuits. The Bush administration has insisted it receives guarantees from countries receiving terror suspects that prisoners will not be tortured. (Can you believe that last part?--Me neither. If the government promised they wouldn't torture them, then why the hell were they flown over there at all on private jets? Seems like a waste of tax dollars to me. We could have interrogated them here if, as the Bush Administration says, they weren't treated more harshly over there. If that's true, maybe they weren't "torture flights" at all, but were just little vacations from their harsh interrogations here because we felt for them and wanted to give them middle eastern all expenses paid vacations to refresh them for further interrogations. I guess that's one thing you can infer if you believe what the administration said.)

End of article quote


I guess that's enough terror news for today.

I just learned that the harassment and retaliation I experienced frequently at Boeing for near a decade just because I tried to do my critical job of inspecting the construction of Boeing aircraft instead of just rollerstamping jobs off without inspecting the work was perhaps not the worst Boeing could have done to me. It seems that Boeing has been taking people to locations where they were tortured! Although the harassment and retaliation I experienced at Boeing's hands seemed like torture, I don't think it was worse than what the people experienced that Boeing took to torture. Here is a link to the story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ion31.html

The line that is most ominous from the Seattle Times story is this one:

"(Jane) Mayer (in an article she wrote in the New Yorker magazine) wrote that a former Jeppesen (a Boeing subsidary) employee told her he heard a senior company official say at a board meeting: "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights — you know, the torture flights. Let's face it, some of these flights end up that way."

So, if Boeing wants to give you a free ride on a plane, you might want to think twice or more about it. Although Boeing breaks the law at will in its factories in the U.S. as noted on this site, there are more protection of your rights here in the U.S. than you'd have on one of these "torture flights" Boeing did/does for a price.

This brings new meaning to that Boeing commercial I heard twice today on TV -- "We know why we're here." That senior Boeing official in the board meeting as noted in the news story sure seemed to know what he was doing there---"We do all of the...torture flights." Somehow I don't think you'll see Boeing working that service they provide into their "Why we're here" commercials, with the senior Boeing manager noted in the article stating at the end of the commercial, "That's why we're here."

You'll also notice in the linked article that Both the government and Boeing conveniently hide behind supposed confidentiality policies so they won't have to admit to any of it or talk about it at all.

It would be one thing if Boeing transported these people to destinations and they knew nothing about the horrors that the presumed guilty people had done to them after the flight. But the article shows Boeing was fully aware of what they were facilitating for a price. So much for Boeing ethics. If I was still a Boeing employee, I couldn't wait to see if they added that scenario to the annual ethics training: "If you were performing a contract transporting people and it came to your attention you and your client were violating the Constitution and perhaps other laws of the land by doing so, and that you were delivering the people to be tortured outside the bounds of law, what would be the ethical thing to do?--pick either A, B, C, D, or E." Just as in the case of the commercial, I would guess you would never see that in the training.

So what more evidence do you need that Boeing enterprise wide is still a very ethically challenged company, and that profits still trump ethics and following laws? You have this new case, as well as the others I witnessed documented on this site.

I guess, after the above truth telling, Boeing may want to persecute me further by giving me such a free flight to "torture-ville." Now I understand more than ever why Boeing has tortured me over the years with threats to my job, my person, my pay, confinement away from my job, termination, threatened prosecution, etc. Druyun and Sears and the Lockheed data theft scandals were not an end to unethical if not illegal actions by Boeing as the above attests--they were just the mild beginnings of scandals to come.

If I was a deranged P.R. person, I might advise Boeing to go on the offensive with this, and try to convince the public Boeing did it because of extreme patriotism, helping the endless fight against terrorism. 28 percent of the public may believe it.

I expect Congress will strip the DOD and Boeing of their confidentiality protections so they can both testify to what happened in detail before a Congressional investigation into these troubling events.

Welcome. First time blogging. I guess we'll see how good I am at it, if it requires any real skill.

It has been an eventful month. First, a highly suspicious looking crash in Cameroon of a six-month old 737-800, with the chief suspect as told by the press being dual engine failure at low altitude. As you can see on my "Rollerstamping Crashes" page, I go into a little detail about these 737NG engines, and give my opinion about the cause of the crash. As you know, I have tried for years to reform both Boeing and the FAA, so, if the crash is because of the corruption documented on this site as I suspect, I will have failed in my efforts to save lives by getting reform before more people died because of the fraud documented on this site. Not a pleasant thought. Flying always has some level of risk apart from mechanical failure, but if it is something preventable like a Quality System failure at Boeing, that would make it all the more tragic than it already is.

Secondly, the 787 production line started up last week in Everett, thanks to me ( http://www.thelastinspector.com/55601.html ). I wonder if Boeing is still livid in that they blame me for 787 Final Assembly being in Everett, instead of their preferred site of a non-union state. We'll see. Anyway, I haven't received any correspondence from those workers on the 787 production line thanking me for their jobs, lol. Boeing is surely not happy that IAM workers are performing Boeing's small part of manufacturing the 787, but if they can't put up with the union I guess those LCFs will make it easy to pack up the production line and ship it to the non-union location they always wanted it in. There is little positive, however, in me supposedly getting 787 Final Assembly sited in Everett. There's not many jobs there doing the work because the vast majority of them were outsourced to non-union locations. I wonder if airliners have to have stickers like other things do if the are mostly manufactured in another country or manufacturer. The 787 is the first Boeing plane I believe that would risk having to have a "made in Japan" stencil on it due to the unprecedented level of outsourcing on the program. Maybe Japan is in the transport aircraft manufacturing industry as the builder of the majority of such an airplane now, as they wanted, just without the official designation as Boeing has enough pull I don't think they'll have to put a prominent "made in Japan" sticker on it, even if one is required.

As you know if you are no stranger to my website, I am very concerned about the viability of the 787 program. My Quality Director that had me confined to a desk job for the "crime" of trying to actually do my job inspecting critical aircraft components is now head of the 787 quality system. Need I say more about my trepidations about the quality, safety, and reliability of the 787? I wonder if inspectors have gotten in trouble if they find defects in the sections delivered from the 787 suppliers, like I used to get in trouble for doing when I worked where he was Quality Director. If you are one of the very few unfortunate inspectors on the program, please contact me with your experiences. Of course, the 787 is on a lengthily cycle right now. I don't expect inspectors there will really be under the gun to rollerstamp until the cycle gets closer to the three days advertised.

Another problem with the 787 program is that the same corrupt FAA is involved, likely delegating functions on the program to Boeing it should never have delegated. Less oversight of Boeing by a corrupt FAA on a critical new program. What possibly could go wrong in that scenario? Of course, I don't know how much has been delegated to Boeing with "self-oversight" on the program as I was removed from the position I could have monitored such highly questionable activities from. At least now that you have perused this site, after the FAA and Boeing management have their usual back slapping party when the FAA signs off on certification for the 787, you'll know not to invest too much confidence in that milestone than you otherwise would if you didn't know what you know now about how corrupt and biased against your interests the FAA has become.

I expect to have some big news on this site soon, so check back weekly or sooner, if you wish.

The Last Inspector,

Gerry