FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Danielle Brian or Beverley Lumpkin, 202-347-1122

POGO REVEALS INTERNAL OSC DOCUMENT
SHOWS BLOCH MISUSED OWN TASK FORCE

Washington, D.C. - An extraordinary document obtained by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) from inside the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) reveals that Special Counsel Scott Bloch created a special task force to investigate sensitive and high-profile matters and then ignored virtually every recommendation made by it. The document lends support to POGO’s theory that Bloch used the task force to launch an investigation of the White House, issuing demands for documents termed by his own task force as “overly broad,” to create the appearance of a conflict of interest with an ongoing investigation into allegations that Bloch himself had engaged in misconduct.

“With this deeply troubling new evidence of Bloch’s misuse of his office POGO now believes the President has more than ample cause to fire Bloch immediately, said Danielle Brian ,” Executive Director, POGO.

The 13-page memo from the task force, dated January 18, 2008, is entitled “Summary of Task Force Activities and Recommendations.” (http://pogoarchives.org/m/wi/osc-tf-summary-20080118.pdf) It reveals that Bloch countermanded virtually every recommendation made by his own team; if they recommended pursuing a matter, he ordered them to stop, and if they advised that they lacked either jurisdiction or evidence to proceed, he ordered them to go forward.

Here are some examples gleaned from the memo:

· Regarding the White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA), the task force examined allegations that 25 federal agencies had received political briefings that might have violated the Hatch Act, which bans the use of government resources to promote or oppose a political party or candidate. But as the investigators proceeded, sending requests for documents to the agencies and the White House, they received a stream of new directions from Bloch that kept expanding the focus of the inquiry. In the memo, the task force finally exclaimed: “{TF expressed concerns that this request is too broad and may exceed OSC’s jurisdiction} (Emphasis in original.) When the task force recommended ways to narrow the scope of the investigation, they were denied. When they drafted a subpoena to the Republican National Committee, Bloch ordered it be expanded to include ten new topics.

· At the time of the firings of U.S. Attorneys by the Justice Department, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias filed a complaint with OSC charging a Hatch Act violation. Bloch ordered the task force to broaden their probe to include all nine of the fired U.S. Attorneys. Amid Justice Department requests that OSC suspend its inquiry, and task force protestations that there was no evidence to support the theory of a Hatch Act violation – which only applies to Executive branch influence, and Iglesias had complained of interference from Members of Congress – Bloch refused to suspend his inquiry.

· After Justice Department officials testified before Congress about having considered job applicants’ political affiliations in hiring and promotion decisions, the task force recommended that “this case be opened immediately and that the [task force] investigate whether individuals at DOJ committeed any PPPs [prohibited personnel practices] when they took political affiliation into consideration when hiring and making other personnel decisions.” Prohibited personnel practices are within the clear jurisdiction of the OSC; nevertheless, Bloch nine days later directed the task force “not to open or investigate allegations concerning DOJ political hiring practices.” Four months later, the task force was permitted to open a file, but “no other activity or devotion of resources authorized at this time.”

In additional cases involving the possibility of politically-tainted prosecutions, a voter fraud case, and the concoction of a new case against former GSA Administrator Lurita Doan, and others, Bloch mostly contradicts the advice of his hand-picked task force.

POGO, along with the Government Accountability Project and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, has been calling for Bloch’s removal from office for more than three years. (http://www.pogo.org/p/government/OSCcompendium.html) In fact, the current federal investigation of Bloch’s alleged misconduct, which reached a significant new phase yesterday with the execution of search warrants at both his home and office, was launched in response to POGO’s and the other groups’ complaint.

###


Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an independent nonprofit which investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.

Go to Original

The Whistleblower's Unending Story
By Adam Geller
The Associated Press

Saturday 26 April 2008

Columbus, Ohio - The guest lecturer steps to the front of classroom 322 with a lesson plan, but not from any textbook.

Instead, Dave Welch comes with a story to tell, edgy and very personal. The names have been changed, he says, "to protect the guilty."

He directs students to the corporate financial forms projected on to a screen. Years ago, working at a small-town bank in the Virginia mountains, Welch combed through these figures and saw things that made him suspicious.

When he confronted the bank's president with his doubts, it cost him his job.

The story might have ended there. But this time - months after titanic scandals capsized Enron and WorldCom - things would be different.

There ought to be a law, Congress decided, protecting workers who expose what might be the next Enron. Who could've imagined the fight between the little bank and the fired accountant would become the new measure's most unlikely - and most strenuous - test?

More than 1,000 self-professed whistleblowers have come forward since.

The great majority have seen their cases rejected; about 160 settled before an initial ruling. Only six workers have won before a Labor Department judge - and the review board that hears appeals has not ruled in favor of a single whistleblower.

Now, Welch is ready to bring his story to a close. It's not easy, though, to conclude something that winds on without an ending.

"This is the message the courts are sending to whistleblowers," Welch says, the Tennessee in his voice taking on a chill. A new image beams on to the classroom screen - a pack of hunting dogs. In their midst is the prey, a nervous fox, head down low.

"When you're in deep trouble, keep your mouth shut and your eyes straight ahead."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six years ago, Americans embraced whistleblowers as a new kind of hero.

If only Sherron Watkins' warning had been heeded, Enron might have survived, some said. Then an auditor, Cynthia Cooper, exposed massive bookkeeping fraud at WorldCom.

The "year of the whistleblower," one magazine crowed.

In July 2002, President Bush signed a new law, known as Sarbanes-Oxley, requiring top executives to stand behind financial statements and work to prevent fraud and abuse.

But the law also spoke to corporate foot soldiers, offering whistleblower protection - albeit with loopholes.

From the start, though, that protection came into question. Hours after Bush signed, a spokeswoman said the administration believed it applied only to whistleblowers who talked to a Congressional committee pursuing an investigation.

"I don't see any room for interpretation here," responded one of the measure's authors, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "Our intent was plain, to protect corporate whistleblowers, period."

Months later, tensions flared inside Cardinal Bankshares Corp., a holding company for the local bank in one-stoplight Floyd, Va., population 432.

Welch, the chief financial officer, refused to sign financial statements, saying they overstated profits. He told bank president Leon Moore he suspected him of insider trading. Moore was furious when Welch compared his 53-employee bank to Enron. The bank's board fired Welch.

He turned to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which enforces whistleblower protection. An investigator determined the bank was not at fault.

But a federal administrative law judge saw it differently. The new law "was expressly enacted by Congress to foster the disclosure of corporate wrongdoing and to protect" the workers responsible, the judge wrote in early 2004, ruling the bank should reinstate Welch.

The decision made Welch the first worker protected by the new law. Now came the acid test: What was that protection worth?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's not much call for accountants in the small towns of the Blue Ridge, much less for one battling his former employer.

But Welch, attached to a 22-acre farm bought from his wife's grandparents, was determined to stay. He spent six months sending out resumes and going to job interviews.

Afterward, though, employers seemed to vanish "into a black hole not to be heard from again," he says.

With unemployment checks running out, Welch listened when a friend recommended a finance job at a hospital 3 1/2 hours away. He rented an apartment there, driving home on weekends.

The job was eliminated in cost-cutting a little more than a year later. But shortly before, the Labor Department judge ruled in Welch's favor. The couple, who stumbled on the decision while checking e-mail during a vacation, embraced in the hotel lobby.

But the bank - denying Welch's accusations and accusing him of insubordination and incompetence - would not give in.

"We determined through a thorough and fair investigation that there was no merit to Mr. Welch's complaints," the board wrote in the weekly Floyd Press. "We believe our decision was right then and we believe even more firmly now that our decision was correct."

The bank appealed, investing in a case it saw as setting a crucial precedent.

"We just said, look, we're not going to set back on this," Moore says. "We're going to fight it."

Moore says people came up at the bank's annual meeting and urged the company not to give in. He took his viewpoint on the road, speaking about the case to banking industry groups.

Meanwhile, Welch decided that to find work, the couple would have to move. He became convinced of his status as an exile when he ran into a former co-worker at the counter of the Floyd Pharmacy.

"She looked around to see if anybody was watching her," Welch recalls, "and she said, 'Excuse me, I can't talk to you,' and she walked away."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress sent a straightforward message to would-be whistleblowers.

A worker didn't have to be right. If the worker "reasonably believes" their company has broken securities law or harmed investors, and showed they'd been retaliated against for speaking up, that was enough.

But when the Labor judge ruled for Welch, the promise of resolution dissolved in a protracted tug-of-war.

The bank argued the ruling was not a "final" order. Taking Welch back was impossible. He'd already been replaced and reinstating him would severely disrupt life inside a small company where he was clearly not wanted.

Nearly 2 1/2 years after Welch was fired, the judge again ordered reinstatement and back pay. The company refused. The question of what to do bounced between Labor officials, federal court and the Administrative Review Board that has the Labor Department's final word.

Federal lawyers argued the bank had to take Welch back, even if temporarily.

In spring 2006, the ARB, too, ordered Cardinal to take Welch back on a temporary basis. The bank again refused.

In October 2006, four years after Welch's firing, a U.S. District Court judge in Roanoke, Va. declined to enforce reinstatement, while expressing concern.

"The delay in the administrative process has been inordinate," Judge Glen Conrad wrote.

By then, the accountant had long given up finding another job locally. Down to one paycheck, the Welches say they burned through $115,000 in investments. In late 2004, they sold the farm where they'd hoped to retire.

Meanwhile, debate grew over Congress' effort to protect whistleblowers.

Lawyers for companies say many corporate whistleblower cases failed because they are frivolous, brought by angry workers looking to settle a score.

In the few cases like Welch's that moved forward, the government has investigated carefully, determining that much of what workers allege is beyond the law's scope, said Michael Delikat, a New York attorney who represents employers in such cases.

Critics disagree. The Labor Department has been "defining more and more whistleblowers out of protection," said Richard Moberly, a University of Nebraska law professor who analyzed the outcomes of such cases.

Labor Department officials say they are administering the law as it was written.

"We're trying to apply things and understand them," said Nilgun Tolek, director of OSHA's whistleblower protection office.

The law, she says, applies to workers who report suspected wire fraud, bank fraud and other specific misconduct: "While some people may see that as reading the statute too narrowly, that is what the statute says."

The Labor Department's effectiveness is reflected, at least partly, in its brokering of settlements between workers and employers, officials say.

But critics note how few decisions favor workers. Through February, the government had ruled in 1,091 Sarbanes-Oxley cases, coming down on the side of workers just 17 times in initial rulings.

"The carefully targeted legislation that you've described is legislation that has failed to protect people," Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., said at a House hearing last year .

The promise to protect whistleblowers is falling well short of expectations, Moberly says.

The prime example, he says, is the odyssey of Dave Welch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without work, Welch went back to school. When Franklin University in Columbus, Ohio called about a job early last year, he said a prayer.

At the end of his interview, Welch was shown in to the office of Paul Otte, the school's president at the time.

Otte is a blunt-spoken long-ago Marine who sits on two corporate boards. He'd heard about Welch.

"Let me ask you," Otte said. "Did you refuse to certify (the bank's financial statements) or did you sign them and then blow the whistle?"

"I refused to sign," Welch said, unsure which was the right answer.

It was good enough for Otte, who'd just written an article preaching this message: "The greatest failures resulting from unchallenged authority have occurred when people reporting directly to the CEO lacked the courage to challenge their boss."

Last July - nearly five years after Cardinal fired Welch - the Labor Department's review board ruled in favor of the bank. As a trained accountant, Welch could not have "reasonably believed" that the financial reports he objected to were problematic, the board said.

The ruling came weeks before Welch started his new job, supervising introductory accounting classes.

He makes the rounds of classes, offering his experience as a window into the real-world choices students will be expected to make.

But he and the bank have continued battling.

Soon after the review board ruled, Welch appealed. The case is set to be heard by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va. in mid-May.

Both the accountant and the bank say they deserve to win. Both say that, whatever the court decides, the case may well continue.

Moore, the bank president, acknowledges Cardinal has spent heavily, but says it never considered settling. The stakes are too high to compromise.

"If you don't stand up for what you think's right, then you don't really need to be in this business," Moore says.

At least on that, the two men can agree.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Beverley Lumpkin, 202-347-1122

Pentagon IG’s Handling of Tenebaum Raises Troubling Questions
Serious Conflicts of Interest Deserve Review

Washington , DC . - The Project on Government Oversight has obtained a cache of documents from inside the Pentagon’s Inspector General’s Office that raises a variety of questions, troubling and even bizarre:
http://pogoarchives.org/m/go/ig/attachment-a.pdf http://pogoarchives.org/m/go/ig/attachment-b.pdf http://pogoarchives.org/m/go/ig/attachment-c.pdf
http://pogoarchives.org/m/go/ig/attachment-d.pdf

An ongoing major review of the Inspector General system undertaken by the Project On Government Oversight last fall strongly supports the absolute necessity for all IGs to have access to independent legal advice, free and clear of their agencies’ general counsels. (http://www.pogo.org/p/government/go-080228-ig.html) At present the only one of the 30 Presidentially-appointed IGs who lacks such unencumbered legal counsel is the DOD Inspector General. Legislation to amend and improve the IG law (S.2324), as well as the Senate Armed Services authorization bill, both address this situation and would require the DOD IG to retain his own counsel answerable only to him.

The case of Army engineer Dr. David Tenenbaum vividly illustrates why it is intolerable for the DOD IG not to have his own counsel. In a recent letter to key members of Congress, POGO brought the Tenenbaum case to their attention. (http://pogoarchives.org/m/go/ig/levin-letter-20080501.pdf)

In that letter, POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian said: "We believe there will always be a basic conflict of interest between the agency general counsel, whose job is to protect and defend the interests of the agency, and that of the inspector general, who must expose waste, fraud, abuse and other misconduct committed within that agency."

Among the several questions which need to be raised:

· Did anti-Semitism in an Army engineering office prevent the development of armor that could have protected the U.S. military in the field?

· Has an internal Defense Department Inspector General investigation been hijacked and its conclusions altered because of internal conflicts of interest?

· Does the general counsel to the Inspector General at DOD actually consider the IG his client, or is he instead beholden to the General Counsel of the Department, who has the best interests of the Secretary and the Department in mind?

Tenenbaum is a civilian mechanical engineer with the U.S. Army Tank Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) in Warren , Michigan , where he created a program designed to upgrade the armor on the Army’s light armor vehicles, including Humvees. In the early 1990s, some of his colleagues and supervisors suspected that he was a spy for Israel . Tenenbaum was suspended[], his security clearance revoked, and the FBI launched an investigation of him. But the U.S. Attorney’s Office closed the case without bringing any charges. Tenenbaum returned to TACOM, but not to his previous position. In fact, the Army not only restored Tenenbaum’s security clearance but it upgraded his clearance from secret to top secret. He then filed a religious discrimination lawsuit but the case was dismissed on the basis of “state secrets privilege”; the Army attorney who recommended the assertion of that privilege was Uldric L. Fiore, Jr.

In 2006, at the request of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), the Deputy IG for Investigations was asked to examine whether Tenenbaum had been treated unfairly and been discriminated against because of his religion. After an investigation, the finding reached was: “Mr. Tenenbaum experienced religious discrimination when his Judaism was weighed as a significant factor …”

The questionable conflicts of interest arose when the investigators’ findings had to be okayed by the IG’s general counsel. But lo and behold: the IG’s general counsel was one Uldric L. Fiore, Jr., who did not initially disclose his former involvement in the case. When it was discovered, he initially refused to recuse himself. Once he was recused, the legal “scrub” was assigned to his staff members, one of whom is Charles Beardall who had preceded Uldric Fiore as the Chief of the Army’s Litigation Division.

The documents received by POGO show that those staff members have now apparently decided to ditch the investigators’ original finding of discrimination. An internal email obtained by POGO says that at an upcoming “Tenenbaum meeting,” one of those staff members “will be spotlighted for a progress account of his re-tooling of the report based upon Army input and changing the discrimination finding.” [Emphasis added]

POGO has asked Members of Congress to intervene to ensure that the original findings will not be altered. Further, POGO urges that the pending legislative provisions requiring the DOD OIG to have an independent general counsel will be passed and signed into law.

###


Founded in 1981, the Project On Government Oversight is an independent nonprofit which investigates and exposes corruption and other misconduct in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.

From Very British Subjects:
Blog by Peter Troy
ptroy@fsbdial.co.uk

Thursday, October 20
Airbus whistleblower faces prison




By Ambrose Pritchard-Evans

Joseph Mangan thought he was doing Airbus a favour when he warned of a small but potentially lethal fault in the new A380 super-jumbo, the biggest and most costly passenger jet ever built.
.
Instead, Europe's aviation giant rubbished his claims, and now he faces ruin, a mass of legal problems, and - soon - an Austrian prison. Mr Mangan is counting the days at his Vienna flat across the street from Schonbrünn Palace, wondering whether the bailiffs or the police will knock first.
.
An American aerospace engineer, he has discovered that Austria offers scant protection to whistle blowers. Bankrupt, he is surviving with his wife and three children on gifts of food from fellow Baptists in Vienna.
.
Having failed to stump up a £100,000 fine for breaching a court gagging order, he now faces a year behind bars.
.
His troubles began in September 2004 when he contacted the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), claiming that the cabin pressure system in the A380 might not be safe, and that this had been concealed. Mr Mangan's message was not one that Europe wanted to hear, least of all from a garrulous American who jabbers aviation techno-babble at machine-gun speed.
.
TheA380 is the world's most ambitious aircraft, fruit of a joint effort by the French, Germans, British and Spanish. A double-decker giant, it can carry up to 856 passengers at 42,000 feet. "The symbol of what Europe can achieve," said French President Jacques Chirac as the aircraft completed its faultless maiden flight this April.
.
Airbus has overtaken Boeing, snatching 57per cent of the big jet market. It employs 52,000 staff, a fifth in Britain, where the wings are built. Not everybody is convinced that Airbus is wise to stake so much on a project loaded with new technologies.
.
The A380 uses glass laminates for the plane's fusilage, and questions have arisen as to whether the material might degrade under ultra-violet radiation. Airbus insists not. But any hint of hubris in one area spreads doubts about others, which is why Mr Mangan's saga is so unsettling.
.
His role in the A380 story is no more than a bit part. He was recruited from Kansas in September 2003 to take charge of the aerospace team at TTTech Computertechnik, an Austrian firm supplying Airbus components. He has accused the firm of "intentional non-compliance" with safety rules.
.
Public court documents in Vienna record his allegation that TTTech conspired to "keep certain information secret from the certifying authorities". Mr Mangan alleged "human lives could be in danger", according to the document - an injunction by a Vienna judge. TTTech denies the allegations, calling him a disgruntled ex-employee who never fitted into the team, and is now bent on revenge.
.
Mr Mangan claims a defect in the outflow valve control system could lead to an abrupt loss of cabin pressure, leaving passengers unconscious in as little as 20 seconds. "Normal oxygen masks don't work properly above 33,000 feet.
It would take two and half minutes to bring the aircraft down to the survival altitude of 25,000 feet. Pilots would have little time to act. In the worst case scenario, the plane could crash.
"The A380 uses a set of four identical valves that could all go wrong at the same time for the same reason. The typical jet has three different systems to eliminate such a risk," he claimed.
.
Glitches had arisen using the same operating system in February 2004 during a test in Phoenix for the Aermacchi fighter trainer, which he had helped to fix, he claimed.
.
There were 160 cases of emergency loss of cabin pressure in Europe last year. Investigators suspect it played a role in the crash of a Helios Boeing 737 flight over Greece in August, killing 121 people.
.
Airbus dismissed fears about the A380 as baseless. "We have examined this internally and found absolutely no reason to be concerned. The scenario made up by Mr Mangan does not exist," said spokesman David Voskuhl.
.
But officials at the air safety watchdog EASA said they took the concerns"extremely seriously". An EASA source said that the agency was "able to confirm certain statements by Mr Mangan". A probe - conducted by the French authorities for EASA - allegedly found that TTTech was "not in conformity" with safety rules and had failed to carry out the proper tests.
The key microchip was deemed "not acceptable". EASA instructed Airbus to sort out the problem before the final certification of the A380 next year. It is unclear whether this has now been done.
.
EASA has refused to comment publicly on the details of the dispute, prompting concerns at the European Parliament. Eva Lichtenberger, an Austrian Green MEP, wrote an "urgent" letter to the agency last month demanding "prompt and extensive information on the matter".
.
"We cannot leave questions open like this when it comes to aircraft safety," she said. "I have received no reply up to now.
Unless I have a proper reply by next week, I will launch a formal complaint with the European Commission," she told theTelegraph. Rüdiger Haas, a professor of aircraft manufacture at Karlsrühe University, said he "shared the reservations of Mangan" over the safety of the outflow valve controls.
"The system markedly deviates from previous specifications in aircraft construction," he told Germany's ARD television. Mr Mangan claimed that his employers were under intense pressure to meet deadlines. The A380 venture was already ¤1.5billion (£850m) over budget and six months behind schedule. He claimed it would have taken two years to carry out the proper certification.TTTech falsely classified its micro-chip as a simple "off-the-shelf" product already used in car valves in order to excempt it from elaborate testing rules, he claimed. This would breach both EU and US law on aircraft regulation.
.
"I refused to sign off on the test results, but TTTech went ahead anyway," he claimed. The key papers relate to the TTPOS operating system and were allegedly dated August 24 2004. Mr Mangan is concerned that his name may have been linked to certification, leaving him with legal liability. "That's why I have to stick it out here inVienna until my name is cleared, " he said.
.
French prosecutors tracked alleged negligence in the 2000 Concorde crash to an American mechanic, who now faces a manslaughter probe. Mr Mangan said within days of reporting the alleged abuse he was sacked.
.
TTTech filed both a civil and criminal defamation suit - possible under Austrian law - securing a gagging order on all details regarding the case. Mr Mangan refused to remain silent.
.
"They say I can't even talk to safety officials about a threat to safety. This violates my duty to the public. People could die on that plane if they don't fix the problem," he said.
.
TTTech is a spin-off from the University of Vienna, specializing in"time-triggered technology". The firm said it was forced to take action after Mr Mangan had inflicted "severe damage" to its reputation with wild allegations that he had so far been unable to substantiate. It admits to a routine software glitch, since corrected, but said an external audit found no trace of any abuses.
.
"What he is saying is simply not true. We checked the evidence and found nothing wrong," said the chief executive, Stefan Poledna. He said TTTech was never informed by EASA of any alleged non-compliance, and insisted that certification was an on-going "iterative process".
.
"This is all very strange. It was clear the certification bar had been raised after October 2004, and we had to do a lot of double-checking, but we've never been told that anything was fundamentally wrong," he said.
.
For now, the first A380 is carrying out daily test flights from its base in Toulouse, racking up 350 hours of flying time. The results are secret.
Next month the A380 will take off for its first test trip around the globe, stopping in Frankfurt, Singapore, and Sydney, before gearing up for passenger flights next year.
.
Airbus is clearly confident that the A380 issafe. It will now have to convince prospective buyers.
Posted by Peter Troy at 20.10.05

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/356600_eastman27.html

Boeing lays out case against ex-worker accused of media leaks
Ex-worker accused of media leaks
Last updated March 26, 2008 9:11 p.m. PT
By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER
Investigators for The Boeing Co. told a jury on Wednesday how they pieced together a relationship between a Seattle Times reporter and an ex-Boeing employee, a relationship that could land the former employee in prison.
Gerald Eastman is accused of 16 counts of computer trespass. If convicted, he could serve up to nearly five years in prison.
Anthony Maus, a senior manager for Boeing's investigations division, testified in King County Superior Court that his team examined leaks to Times aerospace reporter Dominic Gates, who wrote articles that relied on internal Boeing documents.
Maus said he has analyzed thousands of documents confiscated from Eastman's home computer. He showed jurors more than 100 PowerPoint slides that detailed which of those documents he believes Gates used for his articles.
The Times has said that it would not confirm whether Eastman was a source.
Each of the 16 charges against Eastman refers to documents that were the basis of up to 13 Times articles, according to testimony.
For example, Maus said that a Times article on Jan. 27, 2005, headlined "Bigger 747 gets a close look," is based on a PowerPoint presentation that belonged to then-Boeing Chief Executive Harry Stonecipher.
In another instance, The Times reported that 747 production would increase from one plane per month to 1.5 planes per month in mid-2005. That statement, according to Maus, correlates to a production schedule chart in another confidential Boeing document.
Maus also displayed Times newspaper graphics for the jury. One, which the jury analyzed, detailed a map of the globe to point out where different parts of the 787 Dreamliner were to be made.
A similar graphic appeared in internal Boeing documents found on Eastman's home computer.
Since Eastman's arrest in May 2006, no more articles have appeared in The Times that were attributed to top-level internal Boeing documents, Maus testified.
Eastman found the documents by looking through Boeing's internal share drives, some of which were not password-protected, according to testimony by Maus and Del Valerio, a Boeing computer forensics expert who investigates media leaks.
Boeing's internal network is one of the largest private networks in the world, with more than 200,000 users and 400,000 devices, Valerio said.
Users and groups within Boeing can create their own "file shares," which are like electronic filing cabinets and folders. Some file shares are restricted to certain users -- but some are open to everyone.
Public defender Ramona Brandes pointed out, through questioning Maus, that Boeing's computer systems allowed Eastman access.
"In fact, anybody who had access to the Boeing computer network could have accessed that file," Brandes asked, referring to a document that Maus said was leaked to The Times.
Maus responded, "Well, they would have had to know what they were looking for. There are 50,000 shares."
Brandes also asked if Maus ever saw Eastman tamper with programs or impersonate other users. Maus said, "No."
Over about two years, Eastman cataloged which parts of the network were restricted, and which were not. He also kept track of what types of documents could be found in the unrestricted file shares, according to testimony.
Many of the documents on Eastman's home computer were marked confidential.
Eastman's mother and sister attended part of Wednesday's proceedings.
Marc Boman, a partner at the Seattle law firm Perkins Coie, has been observing the trial. Boman handles internal investigations, according to his firm's Web site. Boeing is a Perkins Coie client.

P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.