Allegations of criminality by Boeing in deceased whistleblower complaint(wsws.org)
wsws.org
Allegations of criminality by Boeing in deceased whistleblower complaint
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/03/21/dbis-m21.html
37 comments
A former abusive supervisor insisted on MS Teams instead of email because she thought Teams was immune to discovery. That is common conduct.
It’s also absolutely wrong. All communications are discoverable even communications using private devices and services if it’s at all related to what’s being investigated. I know a lot of people use personal devices for corporate work that might involve litigation or investigation thinking it shields them. In fact it implicates them further and taints all their private communications as potentially relevant and discoverable, as well as those they communicate with. It’s a dumb as a stump thing to do.
> All communications are discoverable
Face to face, phone call, and video call are all not recorded, and so not discoverable.
Face to face, phone call, and video call are all not recorded, and so not discoverable.
At many places phone and videos are absolutely recorded, it depends on the industry. But generally when one says “communications” in the context of discoverability the implication is “humanly possibly to discover communications.”
> At many places phone and videos are absolutely recorded
do you have an example where this is the case? We're talking about internal company communications, right? Not customer facing quality assurance type recording.
do you have an example where this is the case? We're talking about internal company communications, right? Not customer facing quality assurance type recording.
Enron energy traders called power plants and asked them to shut down during high load times. They encouraged the plant personnel to fabricate the reason for shut down. This created an electricity shortage, which forced rolling blackouts. Energy prices shot up, making for massive profits for Enron. There were also headline stories about elderly people suffering without air conditioning. The Enron traders joked about this in their phone calls to one another.
Of course, we only know about this because their phone calls were recorded. If I recall correctly, none of the traders indicated that they were aware their calls were recorded.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-04-fi-enron...
https://www.npr.org/2006/01/31/5180594/enron-trader-tapes-av...
Of course, we only know about this because their phone calls were recorded. If I recall correctly, none of the traders indicated that they were aware their calls were recorded.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-04-fi-enron...
https://www.npr.org/2006/01/31/5180594/enron-trader-tapes-av...
In the finance industry this is required by regulation for many types of phone/video calls.
The Indian startup I work for (mentioning Indian because the higher-ups are Indian and it may be related to their culture - I don't know as we're based in the UK and the higher-ups are nice people I think) used to do this. Was asked to record Zoom meetings I had with a junior colleague for some reason (we were discussing implementation work). I think it's a more relaxed/trusted environment for them now.
That is still more or less voluntary manual recording, sprinkled with micro management vibes.
What's at stake here is systematic and transparent recording of all video and audio conversation.
Does it exist? Does ms teams for example has an enterprise feature available to record and archive everything without the meeting organizer activating the recording explicitly?
What's at stake here is systematic and transparent recording of all video and audio conversation.
Does it exist? Does ms teams for example has an enterprise feature available to record and archive everything without the meeting organizer activating the recording explicitly?
Many major banks will record all communications of people involved in trading (traders, sales, etc) whether internal or external.
E in e-mail stands for evidence ;)
John was one of us!
“XYZ still needs to learn the art of async (‘asynchronous’) communication to address and follow up on issues instead of using emphemeral F2F ('face to face') engagement to express process violations.”
“XYZ still needs to learn the art of async (‘asynchronous’) communication to address and follow up on issues instead of using emphemeral F2F ('face to face') engagement to express process violations.”
Working in the same industry[1], this[2] is almost always a red flag.
To the point where someone specifically asking for face to face - during a review of a flight critical system - will get eyebrows raised halfway to the outermost of Saturn's rings. Hell, if eyebrows aren't raised you should get serious gut trembles, aka what in the hell is going on here.
The fact someone put this in an official record . . a record that presumably other people looked at, and approved . . is . . honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here. The generous interpretation is that leadership doesn't have a good grip on what a flight critical system is, how it's classified, for whatever reason, so they feel like engineers are constantly overreacting. "They're always whining 'flight critical'! Wah wah wah flight critical this, flight critical that". The bad interpretation is that they know what it is, and they don't care. That might be where the specific adjective "criminal" comes into play.
[1] And I would assume in any other safety-critical industry
[2] I.e. refusal to enter durable record, i.e., signature, email, a ticketing system, a microphone you hid in your tie, etc. This is all specc'd to the wazoo, by the way . . for the suppliers, anyway. Here's the fun thing about Boeing and ISO: Boeing never certs to AS9100. Boeing (BCA specifically) never needs to pass a formal audit, because as far as the ISO/SAE steering is concerned, Boeing is AS9100. Boeing’s Alan Daniels headed both ISO9001 and AS9100 committees without ever working under a cert AS9100 system his entire life, or ever certifying Boeing in either. But they can fine their suppliers umptillion million dollars for using the wrong font on their AS9100-certified quality documents. Isn't that grand? Bonus: Boeing's prime seats at ISO and AS9100 lets them lean hard on the up and comers too cough SpaceX cough, to boot.
To the point where someone specifically asking for face to face - during a review of a flight critical system - will get eyebrows raised halfway to the outermost of Saturn's rings. Hell, if eyebrows aren't raised you should get serious gut trembles, aka what in the hell is going on here.
The fact someone put this in an official record . . a record that presumably other people looked at, and approved . . is . . honestly, I'm not sure what's going on here. The generous interpretation is that leadership doesn't have a good grip on what a flight critical system is, how it's classified, for whatever reason, so they feel like engineers are constantly overreacting. "They're always whining 'flight critical'! Wah wah wah flight critical this, flight critical that". The bad interpretation is that they know what it is, and they don't care. That might be where the specific adjective "criminal" comes into play.
[1] And I would assume in any other safety-critical industry
[2] I.e. refusal to enter durable record, i.e., signature, email, a ticketing system, a microphone you hid in your tie, etc. This is all specc'd to the wazoo, by the way . . for the suppliers, anyway. Here's the fun thing about Boeing and ISO: Boeing never certs to AS9100. Boeing (BCA specifically) never needs to pass a formal audit, because as far as the ISO/SAE steering is concerned, Boeing is AS9100. Boeing’s Alan Daniels headed both ISO9001 and AS9100 committees without ever working under a cert AS9100 system his entire life, or ever certifying Boeing in either. But they can fine their suppliers umptillion million dollars for using the wrong font on their AS9100-certified quality documents. Isn't that grand? Bonus: Boeing's prime seats at ISO and AS9100 lets them lean hard on the up and comers too cough SpaceX cough, to boot.
Why would police refuse to release security camera footage showing the witness in the parking lot? This looks extremely suspicious and is getting national attention. What's the reason not to promptly release dispositive evidence? If you show a video where he walks to his own car and shoots himself - that's pretty compelling.
It may be because it's an ongoing investigation. There's a big difference between "not now" and "never". If it's what you say it is, then it might be very definitive and graphic. Out of respect for the family they might choose not to.
“Out of respect for the family” would not past muster in a court of law. They’ll eventually be sued and lose on FOIA grounds if they don’t voluntarily release it.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c004.php
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t30c004.php
It’s pretty standard practice as I understood it to not release evidence in an investigation unless there’s a good reason to. The way I read it while the cause of death was declared there was still an investigation ongoing.
That's why I mentioned that this has national attention and looks extremely suspicious. Citizens are and should be concerned if a major company is murdering witnesses in the middle of their testimony - and doubly concerned if the government is doing a shoddy job investigating or holding the company accountable.
His family knows he's dead. If it's a clear cut suicide on video - then what's the conceivable reason to wait?
His family knows he's dead. If it's a clear cut suicide on video - then what's the conceivable reason to wait?
Don't worry, the footage will "get mysteriously erased by accident". Some poor IT schmuck will take the blame, etc, etc...
Just for funsies, let's assume foul play.
There's a happy way to look at it, and an unhappy way. The unhappy way is that whoever Epsteined him has enough juice/skill/perseverance to wipe the tapes between the moment of recording and a courtroom. The happy way is that the cops aren't releasing it because it looks an awful lot like a goddamn murder scene, with all sorts of weird details, 1) apparently the guy wasn't depressed, 2) packing bags - and leaving them behind - seems a bit peculiar on your way to shoot yourself, 3) that third-party nugget about "if something happens to me . .", and 4) a gazillion dollars and who knows what else worth of motive.
But things being what they are, the most likely scenario is that the poor guy was just too tired to keep cranking for nothing, wife's gone, only to head home to his ma like he's thirteen years old. Nothing to show for fifty something years of honest work and advocacy, so he punches his dance card. That doesn't fit, in my brain, because of how focused he's been on this, but people are fuckin' complicated, and shit sucks. There but for God go etc etc etc.
There's a happy way to look at it, and an unhappy way. The unhappy way is that whoever Epsteined him has enough juice/skill/perseverance to wipe the tapes between the moment of recording and a courtroom. The happy way is that the cops aren't releasing it because it looks an awful lot like a goddamn murder scene, with all sorts of weird details, 1) apparently the guy wasn't depressed, 2) packing bags - and leaving them behind - seems a bit peculiar on your way to shoot yourself, 3) that third-party nugget about "if something happens to me . .", and 4) a gazillion dollars and who knows what else worth of motive.
But things being what they are, the most likely scenario is that the poor guy was just too tired to keep cranking for nothing, wife's gone, only to head home to his ma like he's thirteen years old. Nothing to show for fifty something years of honest work and advocacy, so he punches his dance card. That doesn't fit, in my brain, because of how focused he's been on this, but people are fuckin' complicated, and shit sucks. There but for God go etc etc etc.
> so he punches his dance card.
Makes no logical sense before he'd even completely finished giving the deposition.
It was his golden ticket to stick it to the people who'd screwed him over.
Can't really see anyone passing up that opportunity. Then probably hanging around to watch it play out (for good or bad, etc). ;)
Makes no logical sense before he'd even completely finished giving the deposition.
It was his golden ticket to stick it to the people who'd screwed him over.
Can't really see anyone passing up that opportunity. Then probably hanging around to watch it play out (for good or bad, etc). ;)
Speaking personally, I agree a hundred percent. Putting myself in his shoes, I'd slow crawl over broken glass to see this through, just so I could flip 'em off with a grenade pin around my middle finger. And I do think that muckraking in this case would backfire, unless it was super duper bad.
Something else that just popped into my head. If there's federal criminal charges in the main B investigation - which I think there are now - this makes whatever happened here potential federal territory.But look at the timing: March 9 he dies, March 12 federal charges roll. So that's interesting. I don't want to go full tinfoil hat here - it's really tempting to do that, and the stuff he was testifying about was, on the surface, unrelated to the criminal charges - but the timing is extremely interesting.
Something else that just popped into my head. If there's federal criminal charges in the main B investigation - which I think there are now - this makes whatever happened here potential federal territory.But look at the timing: March 9 he dies, March 12 federal charges roll. So that's interesting. I don't want to go full tinfoil hat here - it's really tempting to do that, and the stuff he was testifying about was, on the surface, unrelated to the criminal charges - but the timing is extremely interesting.
Or maybe he received a phone call: "We know about <that> mistake you made <years> ago. / We will publish what you said on <that> ocasion about <gays / women rights / racism / other sensitive subject>."
That wouldn't destroy the man though. People say shit all the time.
It would have to be something much more damaging to his character like child abuse or something, and well cooked too. Even then, the timing is wrong. He'd wait and deliver his lawyer shot first, or cancel the case.
It would have to be something much more damaging to his character like child abuse or something, and well cooked too. Even then, the timing is wrong. He'd wait and deliver his lawyer shot first, or cancel the case.
For the same reason the cameras in the jail holding Epstein malfunctioned during the time of his death.
Here's a link to the actual document:
https://abcnews4.com/resources/pdf/504242d5-eb40-47bc-b8ea-b...
https://abcnews4.com/resources/pdf/504242d5-eb40-47bc-b8ea-b...
If I’m reading this right, depending on the severity of the offense, what he alleges has a maximum sentence of up to life in prison, or a fine up to $1M, per offense. [1]
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/38#:~:text=Go!-,1....
1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/38#:~:text=Go!-,1....
[laughs in regulatory capture]
> laughs in regulatory capture
Well, if the guy was murdered, and if the murder was related to the case it doesn't sound like they were merely laughing.
Well, if the guy was murdered, and if the murder was related to the case it doesn't sound like they were merely laughing.
You save the laughing for after the murdering, generally. It's traditional.
[deleted]
[deleted]
“John still needs to learn the art of F2F (‘face to face’) engagement to address and follow up on issues instead of using e-mail to express process violations.”