Eastman Update 3-28-08

BusinessFriday, March 28, 2008
Last updated 1:18 a.m. PT

Eastman says safety was only motive

Media contacts detailed at trial

By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

Boeing inspector Gerald Eastman told police detectives that he didn’t want money. And he didn’t want power over one of the world’s largest corporations. Acting as a lone employee, Eastman wanted to force The Boeing Co. and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure that new airplanes are fully inspected before taking flight.On Thursday, 46-year-old Eastman sat in King County Superior Court, where he is on trial on 16 felony counts of computer trespass. His new employer, Bothell-based Accra Manufacturing Inc., promptly fired him for a conflict of interest with one of its main customers, he said he was told.“It’s taken a great toll on me and my family,” Eastman said after the proceedings. “My marriage is on the rocks. I’ll probably have to sell my house now, just to get by.”Eastman says he is a whistle-blower who wanted to expose that Chicago-based Boeing did not do a thorough job of inspecting planes in production. During his time as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the FAA and even Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing’s airplane production. But, according to the prosecutor, he also took thousands of sensitive documents and provided The Seattle Times with information for exclusive articles on Boeing-related topics that had nothing to do with plane safety. After a 2006 investigation led to his arrest, two Seattle police detectives questioned Eastman about the Boeing files found on his home computer. The jury listened to a tape of that questioning Thursday, and Eastman tried to tell his story. For much of the recording, Eastman sighed heavily into the microphone and rambled from event to event as he relayed a disjointed tale of what he sees as years of crusading against corruption at Boeing.The detectives demanded to know if Eastman received money for the documents.“My intent has never been to make money on this at all,” Eastman told them, sounding defeated after nearly an hour of questioning. “I have no desire for power; I have no ego to speak of. Boeing knows exactly why I did what I did.”The detectives pointed out that Boeing and the FAA disagreed with most of Eastman’s complaints, and asked him why the supposed airplane defects weren’t making headlines and leading to crashes.“Does a defect necessarily mean that a plane falls out of the sky?” Eastman responded. “Maybe it means it turns over the ocean, or (inaudible) at an airport longer than it should.”Though the detectives asked him numerous times about contact with the media, Eastman would not confirm that he had ever spoken with a reporter. But Detective David Dunn from the U.S. Secret Service Electronic Crimes Task Force, in taped testimony played Thursday, said he’d found e-mails on Eastman’s computer that confirm contact with reporters. Dunn found seven pages of e-mails between Eastman and Times reporter Dominic Gates, and four pages of e-mails between Eastman and Seattle P-I reporter James Wallace. The e-mails were submitted as evidence Thursday.The reporter-source relationship between Gates and Eastman began around September 2003, with an e-mail.“Would any major outsourcing plans by BCAG (Boeing Commercial Airplanes group) be news to you?” Eastman wrote to the reporter. “If so, please contact me. I, of course, would have to be assured total anonymity.”In his response, Gates wrote, “As for confidentiality, I protect that absolutely. It’s part of the ethics of my job here.”In another e-mail, Gates told Eastman, “Let me urge you again to work with me to make this happen. You can do that by feeding me whatever you can to substantiate the information and by keeping it between us.”A couple of months later, P-I reporter Wallace thanked Eastman for help and wrote, “I had to confirm with other sources” information about how Boeing awarded work on 787 Dreamliner wings to Japanese companies. The P-I published a story Nov. 14, 2003, about that award.Dunn said he did not find attachments with any of the e-mails. The e-mails suggest that Gates and Eastman met at least once in person.The Times declined to comment Thursday. “We don’t discuss confidential sources,” said Times Executive Editor David Boardman.P-I Managing Editor David McCumber said the e-mails speak for themselves.The trial resumes Monday.

Eastman says safety was only motive
A former Boeing inspector, accused of computer trespass, told police he simply wanted to make sure Boeing airplanes were safe. But newly revealed e-mails show he provided information to media unrelated to safety.

What do you think?

#397960Posted by IanMost at 3/27/08 10:18 p.m.Boeing employees know that many things at the company are limited and that even casual discussion is prohibited. This guys sounds like one of many who love to talk to the media about internal issues and don’t realize that they are violating company policy. Its not just about whistle blowing. #398011Posted by Iblis at 3/27/08 11:41 p.m.I agree. I was almost with him, until he allegedly started sneaking out articles unrelated to his safety concerns… #398267Posted by NAYSAYING TROLL at 3/28/08 8:41 a.m.Boeing employees know that many things at the company are limitedThis fine man has stood up and revealed what he believes to be fraud. This act was against company policy, but was not criminal in nature. He was given authorization to the documents, so how could he be trespassing? Shame on this judge and prosecuter, this case should never have come to trial.Where is the public outcry for Boeing to reveal their inspection methods? Where is the investigation by the DOT?

I would like to know how many errors their inspection records have. What is the percentage of missing or improperly stamped inspection records??? How many errors are there, just on the paperwork? -not including what has not been documented on the new 787, by suppliers as well as this company? (as was reported in the media)

Who is going to protect the flying public? #398409Posted by The Last Inspector at 3/28/08 10:36 a.m.Thanks, “Naysaying Troll.” I knew it was my duty to try and protect the public from the fraud I witnessed in Boeing QA placing so many lives at risk, so I did so to the best of my ability while others that should have also stood up to this fraud turned a blind eye to it, including the FAA, who in fact are enablers of it as opposed to doing their real jobs in an unbiased way of ensuring Boeing actually follows their required quality system and airplanes are indeed properly inspected before delivery to customers in order to protect public safety.The errors on the paperwork are not the issue. Boeing spends more time ensuring the paper looks like the airplanes were inspected than actually inspecting them, I believe. In fact, they have moved for the most part to electronic “paperwork” that ensures an inspector, under pressure from their QA management to get the product out of the door rather than actually inspecting it and documenting and getting reworked or repaired defects in the airplane components before they are delivered, rollerstamps in all the right locations before the job can be closed out. So the rollerstamping is not as evident as it once was by just looking at the “paperwork.” #398934Posted by handsome at 3/28/08 5:00 p.m.To The Last Inspector!!I feel that your heart is in the right place but I also feel for the pain that a major corporation can inflict on a lone employee.All you can do is tell the truth, defend yourself to the best of your ability.

Ultimately you have to get up in the morning and look at yourself.

Pulling for you emotionally. It took 10 years for me to get over a major fraud in a company that I worked for. I just burned the notebooks last year – that proved my case – but ultimaltely a company can inflict so much damage!!

Feel the pain brother!! Keep your chin up!!!! 

Alabama’s Former Governor Free on Appeal; Will Testify to Congress

Ex-Alabama Governor to Be Freed on Appeal
    The Associated Press    Friday 28 March 2008    Montgomery, Ala. – Former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman is not just getting to go home after spending nine months in federal prison. He’s also getting a chance to testify before Congress about possible political influence over his prosecution.    A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered Siegelman released pending the appeal of his corruption case, just hours after the House Judiciary Committee announced that it wants to hear his views when it probes claims of selective prosecution by the Justice Department.    The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling Thursday, said the former governor had raised “substantial questions of fact and law” in challenging his conviction.    The once-popular Democrat began serving a sentence of more than seven years last June on his conviction on six bribery-related counts and one obstruction count. Siegelman, 62, has been serving the sentence at a federal prison in Oakdale, La.    ”It’s a sweet day. He’s an innocent man and he’s been in prison for nine months,” said Siegelman’s attorney, Vince Kilborn.    Siegelman has maintained that certain Republicans targeted him after he was elected governor in 1998. The House committee has begun reviewing his case as part of a broader investigation into allegations of political meddling in federal prosecutions.    The committee hopes to hear from Siegelman in May. Committee Chairman John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, believes Siegelman “would have a lot to add to the committee’s investigation into selective prosecution,” committee spokeswoman Melanie Roussell said.    Federal prosecutors accused Siegelman of appointing then-HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy to a hospital regulatory board in exchange for Scrushy arranging $500,000 in contributions to Siegelman’s campaign for a statewide lottery.    Scrushy, who was tried along with Siegelman, also was convicted on bribery counts and is serving a sentence of nearly seven years. The 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, has ruled that the multimillionaire Birmingham businessman is a potential flight risk, but that Siegelman is not.    The court refused Thursday to reconsider an earlier ruling denying Scrushy’s request to be released on bond while his conviction is being appealed.    Scrushy attorney Art Leach said he is disappointed his client will have to remain in prison for at least another six months while the case is appealed.    ”I am extremely disappointed, particularly after they said in the Siegelman case that there are substantial issues on appeal,” Leach said.    Siegelman also was convicted of a separate obstruction of justice charge concerning $9,200 he received from a lobbyist to help with the purchase of a motorcycle. His attorneys have said it was a legitimate transaction.    Kilborn said that he and other attorneys were working to have Siegelman released from the Louisiana prison as soon as they can deliver a certified copy of the court’s order to prison officials. It was not immediately clear when that would occur.    U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller had refused to allow Siegelman to remain free on appeal while challenging his conviction. But the 11th Circuit said Thursday he met the legal standard to be freed in the “complex and protracted” case.    Chief prosecutor Louis Franklin said he was “very disappointed” by the ruling, but still expects the appellate court will rule against Siegelman’s appeal.    ”I don’t view this as a setback. The order is very short and concise and only deals with whether he is entitled to bond pending appeal,” Franklin said.    The appeals process had been delayed for months after the court reporter during the trial died and the transcript was not completed as it normally would have.  ——- 

Bush not upheld by Supreme Court

 Go to Original     Supreme Court Rules Bush Exceeded His Powers
    By David G. Savage
    The Los Angeles Times     Wednesday 26 March 2008 Saying he does not have “unilateral authority” to force states to comply with an international treaty, justices vote 6-3 to reject presidential order to reopen cases of foreign nationals.    Washington – The Supreme Court rebuffed President Bush on Tuesday for exceeding his powers under the law, ruling he does not have the “unilateral authority” to force state officials to comply with an international treaty.     The Constitution gives the president the power “to execute the laws, not make them,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Unless Congress passes a law to enforce a treaty, the president usually cannot do it on his own, he said.     The 6-3 decision was a rare defeat for Bush in the courts, and it came in an unusual case that combined international law, foreign treaties and the fate of foreign nationals condemned to die in Texas, California and several other states.     In a surprise move three years ago, Bush intervened on the side of the Mexican government and said Texas prosecutors should reopen the cases of Jose Medellin, a Houston murderer, and several others serving death sentences. Bush cited the Vienna Convention, which obliges signing countries to notify each other when one of their citizens is arrested and charged with a serious crime. Mexico said American prosecutors failed repeatedly to give notice when Mexican natives were charged with capital crimes.     In rejecting Bush’s order Tuesday, the high court, led by its conservatives, took the opportunity to make a strong statement on the limits of presidential power.     Roberts cited the “first principles” of America’s Constitution. “The president’s authority to act, as with the exercise of any governmental power, must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Roberts said. “[G]iven the absence of congressional legislation . . . the non-self- executing treaties at issue here did not expressly or impliedly vest the president with the unilateral authority to make them self-executing.     ”It should not be surprising,” Roberts added, “that our Constitution does not contemplate vesting such power in the Executive alone.”     The decision upholds Texas prosecutors and judges who refused to reopen the cases of the Mexican nationals on death row there. By implication, it also blocks a challenge on behalf of several dozen Mexican natives who are serving death sentences in California.     The three dissenters, led by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, took the view that treaties are part of American law once they are ratified by the Senate.     At the White House, Press Secretary Dana Perino said the decision was a defeat, but on a narrow issue. “We’re disappointed with the decision, but we’re going to accept it, and we’re going to be reviewing it in regards to the impacts that it may have,” she said.     Since 2001, Bush has claimed the power to run the war on terrorism without interference from Congress or the courts. He and his White House lawyers have said his powers as commander in chief of the armed forces allow him to act unilaterally to protect the nation’s security.     Citing this authority, he ordered the military to imprison “enemy combatants” without charges or hearings, and he told the National Security Agency to intercept international phone calls from suspected terrorists without seeking judicial warrants. He also has claimed the power to order harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists without oversight from Congress or the courts.     Civil libertarians have gone to court repeatedly to challenge Bush’s actions, but they have won few clear victories.     Four years ago, the high court said war did not give the president a “blank check,” but the justices stopped well short of forcing major changes at the military’s prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Another challenge to that prison is pending before the court.     Pepperdine law professor Douglas W. Kmiec said Tuesday’s opinion in Medellin vs. Texas may be “an epitaph for an administration that has sought to deploy all sorts of means of embellishing presidential authority.” Bush’s order was “clearly an executive overreach,” said Kmiec, a former Reagan administration lawyer, and he called Roberts’ opinion “a strong reaffirmation of the role of Congress in treaty making.”     But liberal advocates faulted the court for undercutting an international treaty.     ”The most disturbing aspect of this case is that Chief Justice Roberts is signaling that the United States can simply ignore its obligations under international treaties,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. “It’s a ruling that will further erode our standing in the world.”     Donald Donovan, a New York lawyer who represented Medellin, said the court should have stood behind Bush’s effort to enforce U.S. legal commitments. “Having given its word, the United States should have kept its word,” he said.     Mexico does not have the death penalty, and its officials said they could supply lawyers for those who were charged with capital crimes in the United States. When Mexico sued over the issue, the International Court of Justice in the Hague ruled in 2004 that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention. Its ruling named 51 Mexican nationals.     It was unclear how that ruling could be enforced. Bush, a former Texas governor, told Texas officials that they had to abide by the ruling of the International Court. He said he did so “pursuant to the authority vested in me as president by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”     Texas prosecutors balked and decided to fight Bush in court. In Tuesday’s opinion, Roberts concluded first that the Vienna Convention is not “binding federal law,” since Congress had not passed a law to enforce it. And in such cases, the president had no authority to force state or local officials to comply with the treaty or the ruling of the International Court.     Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined Roberts’ opinion. And Justice John Paul Stevens concurred in the result, saying the treaty at issue did not have the force of law in this country.