Freed Alabama Ex-Governor Sees Politics in His Case
By Adam Nossiter
The New York Times

Saturday 29 March 2008

Montgomery, Alabama - Former Governor Don Siegelman of Alabama, released from prison today on bond in a bribery case, said he was as convinced as ever that politics played a leading role in his prosecution.

In a telephone interview shortly after he walked out of a federal prison in Oakdale, La., Mr. Siegelman said there had been "abuse of power" in his case, and repeatedly cited the influence of Karl Rove, the former White House political director.

"His fingerprints are smeared all over the case," Mr. Siegelman said, a day after a federal appeals court ordered him released on bond and said there were legitimate questions about his case.

Mr. Rove has strenuously denied any involvement in the conviction of the former governor, who was sentenced to serve seven years last June after being convicted in 2006. He could not immediately be reached for comment today.

Mr. Siegelman served nine months while his lawyers appealed a federal judge's refusal to release him on bond, pending the ex-governor's appeal of his conviction. That refusal was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on Thursday.

The former governor, a Democrat, said he would "press" to have Mr. Rove answer questions about his possible involvement in the case before Congress, which has already held a hearing on Mr. Siegelman. On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee signaled its intention to have Mr. Siegelman testify about the nature of his prosecution.

In June of 2006 he was convicted by a federal jury here of taking $500,000 from Richard M. Scrushy, the former chief executive of the HealthSouth corporation, in exchange for an appointment to the state hospital licensing board. The money was to retire a debt from Mr. Siegelman's campaign for a state lottery to pay for schools, and the ex-governor's lawyers have insisted that it was no more than a routine political contribution.

On the telephone outside the prison today, Mr. Siegelman said he had confidence that the federal appeals court, which will now consider his larger appeal, would agree with his view of the case - that he was convicted for a transaction that regularly takes place in American politics.

Otherwise, Mr. Siegelman said, "every governor and every president and every contributor might as well turn themselves in, because it's going to be open season on them."

His case has become a flash point for Democratic contentions that politics influenced decisions by the Justice Department, fueled by testimony from an Alabama campaign operative that suggested Mr. Rove may have had some involvement.

In Alabama, the Siegelman case has inflamed partisan passions, with Republicans insisting that Mr. Siegelman's term from 1998 to 2002 was deeply corrupted, and Democrats furious over what they depict as a years-long political witch-hunt.

Before his release earlier in the day, the ex-governor completed his prison chores for the day - mopping a barracks area - and waited for his wife and son to pick him up for the eight-hour drive to his home in Birmingham, Ala.

"It feels great to be out," Mr. Siegelman said. "I wish I could say it was over. But we're a long way from the end of this."

-------

Business
Friday, 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?
#397960

Posted 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.

#398011

Posted 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...

#398267

Posted by NAYSAYING TROLL at 3/28/08 8:41 a.m.
Boeing employees know that many things at the company are limited

This 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?

#398409

Posted 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."

#398934

Posted 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!!!!

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.
-------

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.

Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, went to court this week to fight for his freedom. It appears the Boeing Company is highly concerned about having this case be legitimately treated like the whistleblower case that it is. Whistleblowers have some rights; whistleblowers have laws and protections and are not to be subjected to retaliation and acts of retribution, which Mr. Eastman most clearly has had to endure.

The Boeing Company is trying to define Mr. Eastman as a common criminal rather than the whistleblower with laws and protections behind him that he has a right to expect will be respected. And Boeing has the influence to take the ridiculous and improbable and make it happen. A very cozy relationship between Boeing and the King County Prosecutor's Office appears to be making this case quite odiferous. So far the quickly appointed judge has disallowed all of the evidence and circumstances portraying the bigger picture and true motivation behind Mr. Eastman’s case, helping Boeing to trivialize and minimize it's importance for the good of the whole, and try to bury it (and Mr. Eastman) under a cloud of smog.

It appears the lead prosecutor may owe Boeing a great deal due to donations made to his election campaign funds. If true, this should be investigated as a BIG conflict of interest. Quid Pro Quo arrangements are not on the list of approved relationships between industry and government, particularly oversight and law enforcement.

The judge also ruled not to allow Sarbanes-Oxley protections as well, violating Mr. Eastman's rights, as a whistleblower. Boeing has listed tens of charges, hoping to make some stick. Insiders say that the company is using him as their BIG example to further terrify their own employees and dissuade them from talking to anyone, even government investigators who are trying to investigate various charges of wrong doing in any of the many open investigations being conducted by a number of three and four letter acronym agencies at this time.

There are reasons why a whistleblower might end up on Boeing's hit list. What if as a loyal employee you realize some things are going very wrong, so wrong in fact that the public's safety is at risk. What if you go up every level in your own corporate command chain trying to get the company to fix the problems and clean up their act but are met with disdain, hostility, and are ignored at best, and attacked and set up to be destroyed at worst. What if seeing there is no hope even at the highest levels in your company for justice and responsible action? Then you go to the government oversight agencies, like Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). What if they also turn a deaf ear and are so caught up in a corrupt and cozy relationship with your employer that there is no hope for justice and a resolution there either? Then you go to the FAA's oversight agency/watchdog, Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. And if you also encounter cover-ups and refusal to take serious matters seriously due to political contamination of the oversight process? (Recall the whole Attorney General mess recently and perpetually in the news?) Then you may resort in desperation to going to the media. Someone who works for a different defense contractor once told me that the only way to get them (the company) to take any kind of positive action to clean up corruption in their own nest was to embarrass the heck out of them.

It seems Boeing has a lot of influence, too much influence. Some quality investigation is warranted. And this railroad ride, the retaliation against Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman, must be stopped. If there is anyone still clean and with enough integrity left, they should be thoroughly investigating this, looking deeper into the business practices of The Boeing Company, and its relationships with government oversight agencies and it’s revolving door participants. And that is scrutiny The Boeing Company most certainly does not want.

Find out what is really going on by visiting Mr. Eastman's site: www.thelastinspector.com
And whistleblower support sites such as: http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com