Report Details Limitations Faced By Federal Inspectors General
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 29, 2008; A17

Inspectors general appointed to uncover waste, fraud and misconduct in federal agencies often lead underfunded and poorly staffed units and are not as independent as the public has been led to believe, according to a study released yesterday by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO).
The study noted that more than half the 64 inspectors general are not appointed by the president or subject to Senate confirmation hearings. They are appointed by agency heads who in many cases control the watchdogs' budgets and have on occasion retaliated against them over unfavorable reports by cutting funding or denying promotions to staff members, the report said.
"The inescapable conclusion is that an IG who lacks independence is an impostor -- even calling such an office 'Inspector General' confuses the press and public and can create pitfalls for potential whistleblowers," the nonprofit advocacy group concluded.
The current system was created by the Inspector General Act of 1978, which Congress passed in an effort to place controls on government agencies after the Watergate and other scandals.
A 2006 report to the president showed that audits by inspectors general resulted in potential savings of nearly $10 billion and that financial recoveries from investigations netted another $7 billion. Investigations also led to 6,500 indictments or charges, 950 civil actions and more than 7,000 suspensions and debarments.
Jane Lee, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees the watchdog system, said the POGO report proves that "IGs are as effective today as they have ever been." She said that, contrary to POGO's report, the IGs "help identify and eliminate waste" and that, since the start of the Bush administration, "there is more transparency and public reporting about what is working and not."
But the report said the inspectors general lack the tools for independence that would give their investigations more bite. It includes a survey of inspectors general: 30 appointed by the president and 34 appointed by the heads, generally, of smaller agencies.
Inspectors general appointed by the president for agencies such as the Agriculture and State departments reported having staffs that include hundreds of auditors, investigators and other personnel, as well as a staff attorney for legal matters.
But respondents at smaller agencies reported having much smaller staffs, and few had an independent legal counsel. The one at the Election Assistance Commission has a single staff member. Those at the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the International Trade Commission have two each, greatly limiting their ability to launch and complete audits or investigations.
The report highlighted the hostility inspectors general sometimes face. When then-Smithsonian Institution Inspector General Debra S. Ritt refused to end an audit of high-ranking officials, for example, her budget was cut, and she resigned, according to the report.
Paul Brachfeld, inspector general for the National Archives, praised the study. He said his staff of 18, which includes three investigators, is not big enough to monitor an agency that has 3,000 employees, 30 facilities, and treasure troves of historic and classified documents.
"You can't be the sheriff of Mayberry with three criminal investigators," Brachfeld said. Inspectors general "are independent in intent, but there are pressures that fall upon you that make it difficult. I still receive an evaluation from the head of the agency. Sometimes at risk to yourself, you have to reach out for support outside the agency," he said.
POGO recommends the creation of a council of inspectors general so they could share staffs and independent lawyers. The group suggests setting fixed terms for inspectors general and providing their offices with budgets in which expenditures would not require the approval of agency heads. The group also says inspectors general should be prohibited from accepting cash awards and bonuses, but that their pay should be raised.
Legislation pending in the House and the Senate calls for remedies favored by the advocacy group. Separate bills in the House and the Senate would create a slate of qualified candidates who could be called upon when positions open, to ensure that vacancies are filled by people with accounting, auditing, investigation and management skills.

Boeing leaks 'for the greater good,' Eastman said
Ex-worker says he meant no harm
By ANDREA JAMES
P-I REPORTER

Without a doubt, Gerald Eastman violated Boeing company policy when he spoke with reporters. A King County Superior Court jury will decide if he also violated the law.
Eastman, accused of 16 counts of computer trespass, testified Monday that he had met with Seattle Times reporter Dominic Gates, and had shown him portions of documents that Boeing views as sensitive. But the quality assurance inspector said he did so only to highlight what he calls corruption at Boeing.
Boeing searched for three years to root out the source of numerous newspaper articles citing internal Boeing documents. The company's investigation culminated with Eastman's arrest in May 2006.
Each count against Eastman corresponds with a document that charging papers say was the basis for a Seattle Times article.
Senior deputy prosecutor Scott Peterson on Monday called his big gun witness: Former 787 program chief Mike Bair.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes' senior leadership team is so cautious about information leaks that it meets in a room without exterior windows, Bair said. The room is also swept for recording devices, and wireless technology is not allowed.
"We were nervous that somebody could intercept it in the parking lot," Bair said.
Bair said that the leaks to The Seattle Times were so disturbing that Boeing considered a polygraph test of its leadership team.
"Initially, we thought the source of the leaks had to be one of the 10 or 12 people on the leadership team, or the two or three support people in meetings during conversations," Bair said.
But management scrapped the polygraph idea when it "decided that would look bad when that leaked out," Bair said.
"Everyone knows we live in a duopoly with a competitor that is heavily subsidized by the French, German and U.K. governments," Bair told the jury. "And every day is intensely competitive with Airbus."
Boeing investigators questioned those privy to the information, and checked phone and e-mail records, Bair said.
Among the files confiscated from Eastman's home computer, the biggest "heart-stopper" concerned airplane concessions, Bair said.
Concessions are the closely guarded difference between the list price of an airplane and what Boeing actually charges customers.
"This is as close to the jewels you can get in terms of sensitive information," Bair told the jury.
If an airline buys a jet and then finds out that its competitor paid millions less for the same plane, "We'd have a social problem with that customer," Bair said.
On cross-examination, Bair admitted that the concession data never appeared in any media reports.
Eastman later testified that he did not give concession information to The Times, "because it was my intention not to hurt Boeing in any way or release any info that would hurt Boeing."
Eastman told the jury that he needed to access Boeing documents to expose that the Chicago-based company did not do a thorough job of inspecting planes in production.
While working as a quality assurance inspector in Tukwila, he wrote to Boeing management, the Federal Aviation Administration and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell about what he viewed as fraud in Boeing's airplane production.
Eastman said he was building up a relationship with Gates to prepare him for a larger story on inspections.
"I was serving the greater good and Boeing, trying to stop what Boeing was doing," Eastman said on cross-examination. "The public's lives were at stake. They may not be strangers like the jury here, but they were still people's lives and I care about them."
During a three-year relationship with Gates, Eastman said, "I was very judicious in giving only stuff that would not damage the company."
One of the jurors upon seeing Bair remembered that he used to work for him. Bair still works at Boeing, but is no longer 787 program chief.
The juror works on the 787 program, and has worked as a finance estimator who helped prepare the type of long-range business planning documents that Eastman is accused of leaking.
Judge Monica Benton excused the juror and sent him home, leaving 13 jurors including one alternate.
Jurors were let out early Monday because one juror had a self-inflicted injury involving scissors.
Closing arguments are set for Tuesday.
COMPUTER TRESPASS
Under state law, felony computer trespass is the act of accessing a computer system or database without authorization and with the intent to commit a crime.
In the case of former Boeing employee Gerald Eastman, he is accused of accessing proprietary Boeing files with the intent of theft.
P-I reporter Andrea James can be reached at 206-448-8124 or andreajames@seattlepi.com.

Seattle PI Reader Comments from 4-1-08

“What do you think?”
#400747

Posted by sweetpea123 at 4/1/08 12:30 a.m.
I don't think going to the press over and over again is the way that a whistleblower is generally considered trustworthy.

This guy had ample opportunity to present his findings to the legal community and ethics at the state level.

They will probably nail him to the wall.

#400776

Posted by homegirl at 4/1/08 3:58 a.m.
Just a sour grapes employee. There are lots of them at Boeing!

#400787

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 5:07 a.m.
Oh dear.... the jury was let go early because one of the jurors had a self-inflicted wound from scissors... How will this play in Eastman's sentencing? LOL! What a useless bit of information…

I hope Eastman does time behind bars… the arrogance, “Greater Good.”


Posted by crcgust at 4/1/08 8:03 a.m.
J from Kent - I hope you are not a Bush supporter because the comment "Greater Good" is a pat stand-by for our current government.

#401002

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 9:13 a.m.
crcgust....

lol no, the "greater good" statement is what Eastman is claiming for his 'guidance' as to why he stole documents and company info from Boeing.

I WAS a Bush supporter, then I went to Iraq for a year with the national Guard, and saw first hand the fraud, waste and abuse going on over there…. I will be voting for a Democrat this year….

#401051

Posted by Lloth at 4/1/08 10:12 a.m.
Doing domething illegal for the "greater good" seems to be the new rage these days. This article seems to be the same as Jim McDermott's article, which strangely enough, we cannot comment on in which he says "...I am proud of my role in defense of the First Amendment."

There are very few times where violating the law (or rules as may be applicable) is trumped by the greater good and this example is not one, nor is Mr. McDermott's

#401092

Posted by handsome at 4/1/08 10:39 a.m.
From what I have heard and read I believe that the jury has to assess and determine criminal intent - in their deliberations. I cannot believe there was any criminal intent - going on here. I hope that the jury dismisses the charges; and that Mr. Eastman can get on with his life. Boeing has already sent a very strong message to their employees that they will not tolerate leaking info to the press. I get a kick out of all of the leaks that are characterized as "not for attribution" - in our nation's newspapers. If you want to see a scary movie - that deals with this topic - rent and watch - "The Insider". It's about a scientist that testifies against the tobacco industry - and the price to be paid by an individual - that decides to become a whistleblower against a powerful employer/industry group - terrifying movie; and based on a true story.

#401156

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 11:31 a.m.
Let’s not forget, our “vigilante hero” was reportedly willing to stay silent for the right price from Boeing…

#401196

Posted by TATSCO at 4/1/08 12:02 p.m.
Re BOEING PRICES. In some instances having different prices for different buyers is illegal. In this case citing Eastman as "leaking this when he didn't is a good example of the HUBRIS practiced by this company.

The company demonstrated they felt thry were ABOVE THE LAW when they tried to push the first Tanker Deal thru. This resulted in folks going to jail (how much proof do some folks need.

Whistleblower isn't an easy task (I haven't been one but I do write about a lot of bad managers and products in the aerospace industry.

Re disgruntled folks at Boeing. I arrived in Seattle in late 1949 and one of the first things I learned was how the Airplane Company treated their employees -- often poorly. Perhaps the company should look in the mirror rather than out into the parking lot? What causes Paranoia?

JIM (Often a Boeing customer -- never an employee)

#401215

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 12:21 p.m.
TATSCO,
RE prices... it would seem different prices for different customers isn't illegal with this situation- commercial airplanes. Whenever we read about another customer putting pen to paper on a contract, the story ends with a quote similar to:

“List prices for the planes add up to $4.5 billion, but buyers typically negotiate big discounts on large orders.” (courtesy of the SeattlePI http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/343402_boeing14.html)

So if it were truly illegal, I think the feds would be on Boeing by now.

The guy was stealing info from his employer and leaking it to the news… If he truly thought he was doing a greater good, again, why was he willing to keep silent for a price? Whistle Blower? No way… I think he was trying to strong-arm the company into a little hush money. I happen to work in the area where he was arrested… he isn’t missed.

#401264

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 1:04 p.m.
Things are not going well for many whistleblowers. Gerald Eastman is a good example. His trial in King County Courts is more of a railroad ride to a lynching than a trial. King County Prosecutor's Office appears to me to be entirely too connected to The Boeing Company, and the Judge has narrowed the scope of the trial as to eliminate looking at the big picture including what Mr. Eastman, as a whistleblower, did to resolve safety inspection violations and a big risk to the American public. He went through the complaint process of his company, and then went to FAA, which has been thoroughly corrupted for some time. Mr. Eastman did not know that it appears and went there in good faith, believing FAA would uphold the law and federal regulations in it’s oversight role. They did not. Then Mr. Eastman went to Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) and fared no better, as they also are having significant problems as are many federal oversight, investigative and oversight agencies this past 8 years. It appears the Judge may also go along with Boeing's attempt to refuse to acknowledge Mr. Eastman is indeed a whistleblower and has a right to whistleblower protections. Also, the Judge appears to be going along with Boeing refusing to respect Sarbanes-Oxley. This is an absolutely unacceptable miscarriage of Justice.

Please, help derail this train, as this so called trial is a travesty and an insult to the trust of the American public in their justice system.

Some of you commenting here are either not very well informed about the whole story, all sides, or are writing in as good sheep for your employer, The Boeing Company.

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

#401269

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 1:07 p.m.
again, why was he willing to keep silent for a price?

#401277

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 1:15 p.m.
J from Kent, you need to read the whole story. You've got a good deal of it wrong! (Unless you are one of the Boeing managers or attorneys, then I suppose you are looking out after your own best interests.) Also, I know from accurate sources there are many open investigations concerning the Boeing Company right now which are in many many three and four letter acronym oversite, investigative, and law enforcement agencies. You don't know this apparently, because this sort of thing generally does not get into the paper unless a whistleblower sends it in.

And folks, Mr. Eastman's attempts to get wrongdoing exposed, rectified and dealt with responsibly is not about politics. The Boeing Company, the FAA and DOT OIG were all about politics though when Mr. Eastman was attempting to get the problems solved. Political appointees and their concern for political loyalty over safety and what is right for the American public are what they appear to be about.

#401290

Posted by J from Kent at 4/1/08 1:28 p.m.
WBR Supporer
are you inside the company? I don't hink I have it that wrong....

#401370

Posted by Leelaw at 4/1/08 2:56 p.m.
@ WBR Supporer

How does Sarbox apply to Mr. Eastman's case and/or provide him with an affirmative defense for his actions?

#401404

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 3:33 p.m.
J from Kent,

I am not inside the company, but have a number of very good sources, well placed. The statements by the company regarding pay offs were misrepresented seemingly by the company to discredit Mr. Eastman and tar him with the label of "common criminal" rather than the whistleblower he is, according to what I have learned about the progression of events and motivations.

Think about it. If they can deny Sarbanes-Oxley requirements which govern whistleblower situations, successfully define Mr. Eastman as a criminal, not a whistleblower, and control the scope of the trial, so that the full picture is not shown, they can finally deep six him, and move on gleefully.

It is a sorry mess. I feel what the company is doing is huge embarassment to everyone. It is too bad we cannot feel proud of this once based in Seattle, now basted elsewhere company.

#401416

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 3:51 p.m.
Sarbanes-Oxley had been ammended, or added to with Whistleblower protections enhanced some years ago. These apply to the air/transportation industry, fed. workers and others. Although the protections are not sufficient, they do contain some of the prohibited personnel practices allegedly policed by the OSC and MSPB. also there are requirements for transparency to a certain degree, and that information cannot be withheld from a whistleblower or other such as investigator etc. By Boeing denying that any of this applies, and trying to narrow the scope of the issue for trial, if they are successful in pulling that off, they deprive Mr. Eastman, the whistleblower, of what few protections he legally has afforded to him by the United States government.
Report violation
#401424

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 3:56 p.m.
Oh, also earlier on, it was reported in one of the recent articles in the PI/Times that The Boeing Company was refusing to release information needed by Mr. Eastman's attorney in order to prepare his defense.

Apparently Boeing, with the help of King County, had appropriated all of Mr. Eastman's paperwork and evidence when he was first temporarily arrested a couple of years ago, leaving him with nothing to present in his defense at this trial which did not occur until they pressed charges some years later. The company refused to release the information and hurried the trial along, at least that is how it appears to me.
Report violation
#401446

Posted by WBR Supporer at 4/1/08 4:21 p.m.
I see from a story posted on http://whistleblowersupporter.typepad.com
titled "OSHA Sues Company for Firing Suspected Whistleblower.

The U.S. Dept. of Labor filed suit against Brocon Petroleum, Inc and its President, Richard Kohler. OSHA filed on behalf of an employee who was terminated in violation of the whistleblower provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.

The point is that the complaint was that the defendants (company)terminated the employee in retaliation for the employee engaging in a protected activity, (whistleblowing). OSHA processed this case and required the company to reinstate the employee to the same or a substantially equivalent position of employment and to pay back wages or other employment benefits. The company refused and defied OSHA's ruling.

OSHA's Lois Ricca Jr. the New York regional administrator, is quoted as saying "Employees should be free to exercise their rights under the law without fear of termination or retaliation by their employers."

The article further states that OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of the OSH Act and 15 other statutes protecting employees who report violations of various trucking, airline, nuclear power, pipeline, environmental, rail, and securities laws. Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights, including fact sheets, is available online at:

http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html

May be a few other whistleblowers, such as maybe Mr. Eastman, should consult with OSHA.

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.
-------