WhistleblowerSupporter

Should Boeing's CEO Be Fired? That indeed is one of the critical questions.

Someone sent this in tonight.  I post it here for all to read.  It is a pity no one will start in on their business practices.  GFS

 

Should Boeing’s CEO Be Fired?

 

http://defense.aol.com/2011/08/08/should-boeings-ceo-be-fired/

 

More on General Jim Jones, Resigning National Security Advisor

This just arrived from another reader.  Thank you.  I post it here to provide elaboration and some interesting comments. The link to the original article is at the bottom, after the comments.   -GFS

 

 

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Jones' Legacy: Adult Supervision Or A General Marginalized?

By James Kitfield

NationalJournal.com

 

President Obama's announcement Friday that national security adviser James Jones would leave his post by the end of the month, to be replaced by senior deputy Thomas Donilon, signaled the end of an important chapter in the Obama presidency. Most importantly, Jones oversaw development of last year's Afghan strategy and troop "surge." He also helped manage a full national security docket that included a tricky withdrawal of forces from Iraq; a looming showdown with Iran; a reset in relations with Russia; tensions with China, North Korea, and Pakistan; a stalled Middle East peace process; and near-constant reports of terrorist plots aimed at the United States.

 

The question this week is whether Jones's legacy will ultimately be viewed as positive or negative. As a former four-star general, Marine Corps commandant, and supreme commander of NATO, did Jones smoothly manage relations between the White House and the U.S. military in a time of war and crisis? Did he supply the "adult supervision" of Obama's close coterie of political aides that some saw as his most important role? How successful was Jones in coaxing coordinated action out of the many agencies involved in national security? Was he a valued confidant of the president, or marginalized by lower-ranking deputies, as some news reports have claimed?

 

Finally, how might national security policy and execution change under Tom Donilon, if at all? Can Donilon work closely with Defense Secretary Robert Gates after the two clashed so famously over Afghan policy, especially as a critical period in the Afghan war approaches with Gen. David Petraeus's December review? Will Donilon's close relationship with Vice President Joe Biden, another skeptic of the Afghan surge, create a block within the White House that favors an early exit from Afghanistan next July? In short, what, if anything, is signified by this change in the critical NSA job?

 

 

 

 

Responses October 12, 2010-

 

·        What's a Donilon?

By Col. W. Patrick Lang

I have heard his name and that of McDonough whispered in circles critical of President Obama. The whispering has been more or less continuous. "Political." "Militarily ignorant." "Brash." etc. I have no idea what this man is about, except that he supposedly talked too much for General Jones' taste. I suspect that would not be difficult to do. Also, he apparently favored a smaller, more focused approach in Afghanistan, one devoid of messianism and nation state creation. If that is so, than his promotion can be seen as a search by Obama for a more balanced group of subordinates.

Yes. It is true. Petraeus is Obama's subordinate and serves at the president's pleasure. Woodward writes that Powell told Obama that "there are other generals." Woodward is always right, so, one can only say that this was a profound piece of advice and one that Petraeus might be glad of at some point.

This is a bit like Kremlinology in the bad old days, and a similar speculation is reflected in the comments here thus far.

Bottom Line: Who knows what this means? Only Bob Woodward knows.

 

·       Good luck, Mr. Donilon.

By Paul Sullivan

Professor of Economics, National Defense University

General Jones is a great American, was a superior general, and was a leader of leaders. What happened behind the closed doors of the NSC may not be known for decades and it is not for me to speculate. However, it does seem to me that political savvy has been replaced by strategic savvy and gravitas. The NSA should be focused on strategy for the sake of the national security and national interests of the country, not just for the President and party. I wish Mr. Donilon well. He will need a lot of luck and excellent staffing and leadership to handle the many crises and challenges this country faces. I truly hope he sees the very big pictures out there in this fluid and dangerous world. I also hope he sees the great opportunities this country has for doing good and building up our reputation in the world. We can be tough, but we can also be smart.

 

 

·        JONES to DONILON to OBAMA

By Michael Brenner

Professor of International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh

The essential job of the National Security Advisor is to act as custodian of the policy process - to ensure its procedural integrity. Responsible decisions depend on coherent deliberations that are intellectually honest. Honesty in a careful vetting of information, in making explicit premises and assumptions, in laying out all reasonable alternatives along with their benefit/cost/risks. To do this formidable job effectively, the NSA ideally should combine intelligence, knowledgeable understanding of foreign policy issues and also a measure of dispassion. For advancing his own views can jeopardize his main function. The other key is a good working relationship with the president whom he serves. The president must see the need to have a custodian, and then must pick some one he trusts. Otherwise, who holds the post is of secondary importance. The Bush the Elder/Scowcroft relationship stands as one model for an effective partnership.

Perhaps the NSA's most delicate assignment is protecting the president from himself. That means two things. First, to curb impulsiv...

·        The essential job of the National Security Advisor is to act as custodian of the policy process - to ensure its procedural integrity. Responsible decisions depend on coherent deliberations that are intellectually honest. Honesty in a careful vetting of information, in making explicit premises and assumptions, in laying out all reasonable alternatives along with their benefit/cost/risks. To do this formidable job effectively, the NSA ideally should combine intelligence, knowledgeable understanding of foreign policy issues and also a measure of dispassion. For advancing his own views can jeopardize his main function. The other key is a good working relationship with the president whom he serves. The president must see the need to have a custodian, and then must pick some one he trusts. Otherwise, who holds the post is of secondary importance. The Bush the Elder/Scowcroft relationship stands as one model for an effective partnership.

Perhaps the NSA's most delicate assignment is protecting the president from himself. That means two things. First, to curb impulsive action - whether it emerges from personality, pet ideas, or a combination. This is of little concern in the Obama White House since Obama has no fixed ideas in the foreign policy realm and, in any case, is an ultra cautious person. Second, there is the obligation to protect the President's thinking from being captured by powerful persons, cliques or dogmas. Obama's instinctive respect for all established forces has made him singularly vulnerable to capture. Indeed, on Afghanistan he fell victim to the Pentagon phalanx of Gates, Petraeus, Mullen and McChrystal who imposed their mindset on him in last year's review. The graphic account offered by Bob Woodward shows that General James Jones lacked the force of personality and/or privileged access to Obama to prevent that from happening - even if he was so inclined. There is no sign, for example, that he advised Obama to make use of Ambassador (General) Karl Eikenberry's deep seated skepticism about our purposes in Afghanistan by forcing the quartet of military hawks to address his challenge directly. Similarly, Jones has not steered the President off the suicidal diplomatic course of groveling before Bibi Netanyahu in ways that have cut the ground from under the United States' standing in the region. On this matter, the powerful forces are the Israel lobby and its tribunes inside the White House - Emanuel, Ross, Axelrod - along with Biden and Hillary Clinton.

When set in this context, the transition from Jones to Donilon is unlikely to change anything of paramount importance. Thomas Donilon is not an ideas man at a time when a fresh strategic perspective is the sine qua non for breaking from our self destructive behavior pattern on Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine and in the pervasive 'war on terror' generally. True, he evidently shares Biden's qualms about forging blindly ahead in AfPak. We should bear in mind, though, that the latter's disagreement with the decision to escalate was mainly tactical. He preferred to keep our force levels constant while ratcheting up attacks on high value targets on both sides of the Durand line. Biden's readiness to abandon the pretense of building a popular, democratic and competent regime in Kabul still left in place the critical judgment that we have vital interests at stake that we must persevere in pursuing indefinitely. Were Donilon's promotion to reinforce that line, so much the better - relatively speaking. But the only way out of the quagmire requires a critical rethink of the fundamentals. At the end of the day, only the President can provide the impetus to insist upon such a root-and-branch review. Only the President has the power to impose it on his stiff necked Generals and Admirals, on Robert Gates - their godfather, on his equally hawkish Secretary of State, and on his own unheroic self.

One last point. A serious liability of this administration's foreign policy is its utter disregard for the thinking and concerns of those in the region with whom they are dealing. Moreover, we compound the mistake by routinely underestimating their intelligence and will. The latest demonstration of this obtuseness is the grave error in assuming that we could force down the throat of the Pakistani leadership our unilateral expansion of attacks in North Waziristan and adjacent districts. This in direct contravention of existing accords as to the grids restricting such air strikes and as to requisite consultation, as Gareth Porter has reported. We are learning the hard way - once again - that you don't mess with someone like General Kayani. Rather than his telling a fawning journalist how tough he is, Kayani acted and acted decisively. 150 fuel trucks ablaze punctuated an offer we could not refuse, i.e. return to the status quo ante or we tighten our chokehold on your vital supply route. The supra-text, too, was unmistakeable:- and, by the way, keep in mind that we have far more at stake here than you doand we intend to shape the outcome. So long as David Petraeus is allowed to call the shots with his legend on the line, and other senior administration officials are off on their own ego trips, these costly miscalculations will recur. That is true whether it's Jones, Donilon or whoever at the NSA desk.

·        A Mixed Bag Going Forward

By Joseph J. Collins

Professor, National War College

The departure of General Jones as National Security Adviser marks the departure of serious military experience from the top rungs of the White House leadership. It also marks the advent of a more unified Obama NSC team inside the White House. Jones added gravitas to the unknowns that Obama brought to the top posts at NSC. He also was well known internationally. Secy Clinton no longer has to worry about NSC officials doing high level diplomacy. That option does not exist.

The policy effects of this change are, of course, unknown. It may make for an improvement, but it also may make for a tougher task for Gates and Mullen on defense issues. It may well lead to a faster decision cycle in the White House, but they will now be more prone to groupthink. Clearly, this change is likely to favor deeper and faster cuts in our troop strength in Afghanistan. While Jones did not always favor the Pentagon approach, he ensured that they had their day in court. Donilon, according to Woodward, is a Biden ally and the VP's approach to Afghanistan may well win out in July 2011. In any case, requests for more time or more troops for Afghanistan will be dead on arrival, if any of them were to make it to the NSC staff. Next time, it may be the civilians who try to limit the President's options.

 

 

·        The Brown Shoes Problem

By Ron Marks

Senior Fellow, George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute

The late comedian George Gobel once told a story about how he felt like a pair of brown shoes in a room full of tuxedos. That, most sadly, is the story of Jim Jones as the Obama NSC advisor.

First of all, let’s make it clear; Jim Jones was a fine general. He ran his commands well, was respected and liked. And, also let’s face it; you don’t get to be a four star general without some form of political prowess. However, I think Jones was outgunned and outmatched in his Advisor position from day one. It is a different game at the White House.

The role of the national security advisor is a combination of bartender/psychiatrist to the President and he must be a savvy political insider. At their best, like Sandy Berger, Henry Kissinger or Brent Scowcroft, a National Security Advisor must have the ear of their boss. The President must trust them, their judgment and their expertise. They must also navigate the deep waters of politics in Washington’s foreign policy community.

 

 

Link to original article: 

 

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2010/10/jones-legacy-adult-supervision.php?rss=1

 

 

James (Jim) Jones Steps Down as National Security Advisor

A reader sent this to me this evening.  I had heard that something had happened to Jones, but was on the road and could not check for myself today.  Hmmmm.   Exile or Revolving Door Next?  Thank you wonderful reader!

-GFS

 

 

G. Florence,

 

Stepping down, or stepping back to Boeing?  

 

Ex Boeing Employee

 

 

General James Jones to Step Down as National Security Adviser

Friday 08 October 2010

by: Steven Thomma  |  McClatchy Newspapers | Report

 

Washington - President Barack Obama will announce today that retired Gen. James Jones will step down as the president's National Security Adviser and will be replaced by his deputy, Thomas Donilon, according to two officials with knowledge of the decision who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because it hadn't been made public.

Obama will make the announcement at 1 pm in the White House Rose Garden.

Jones departure is expected to be effective in two weeks, a source said.

 

 

 

Comments from Truthout Readers:

»

Read between the lines when

Fri, 10/08/2010 - 16:32 — Anonymous (not verified)

 

Read between the lines when you go to explore who this man is and try to understand why he's been fired - and he has been fired. Look for what is not said, ask why the steps in his career took place. Look for the dog that didn't bark...

Not to give my opinion and sully the picture for others, but there does seem to be some failure of consensus at the high levels of power - a failure of consensus with respect to method, or, possibly, policy.

Wanna bet that the next Big Event is a tar-baby ploy, something like the bay of pigs?

 

 

 

Link to original at Truthout: 

 

http://www.truth-out.org/general-james-jones-step-down-national-security-adviser64018

 

 

Robin Peterson v. Boeing/BISS Update: How do you serve a moving target?

I acquired an update from former BISS Employee, Robin Petersen about how the process is going in his suit against Boeing and their subsidiary, Boeing International Support Systems (BISS). 

It appears to be a case of Boeing playing a game of keep away with Mr. Petersen’s attorney and process server.  Boeing apparently is a bit out of sorts after they lost their hard push to get an Arizona judge to dismiss Mr. Petersen’s case recently.  They are back to pretending Boeing has nothing to do with BISS or any of its business practices. 

This would be very humorous except for the extreme hardship real people have gone through that the Boeing Company has caused, through the lack of responsible direction and management of their subsidiary, BISS.  I have posted a description of the legal document, the portion that is the Declaration of Process Server John Kizzire Regarding Efforts To Serve Defendant BISS.”   (The document would not copy for posting without many errors; my apologies for that.)

If anyone with knowledge of this area of concern with Boeing, or who has experience in successfully litigating against Boeing in similar cases, has any useful advice or information for Mr. Petersen, please comment or email to me at this site.  I will forward it to Mr. Petersen immediately.  Thank you.  GFS

 

Here is the overview as the proceedings appear to Boeing/BISS whistleblower, Rob Peterson:

 

‘Here is a copy of the "Affidavit" of our process server Mr. John Kizzire who attempted to serve BISS through the Boeing Plant in Mesa, Arizona.  One affidavit found in the BISS motion to dismiss ( Yvett B. Kumi, Boeing Company employee) states that "the only jurisdiction in which BISS is authorized to do business is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."  Therefore inferring that BISS is not allowed to do business here in the United States.   However, BISS has been involved and is already providing aircraft maintenance and support to the RSAF (Royal Saudi Air Force) for a number of Apache Helicopters they have had in that country for the past several years.  The Boeing Company / BISS, Alsalam Aircraft Company and the U.S. State Department are now involved in a new business deal that involves $60 billion dollars worth of aircraft and military sales to Saudi Arabia.   This includes sales of more Apache Helicopters to Saudi Arabia.  So I believe that business records will be found upon discovery that will show a connection to BISS and in fact these records will show BISS is doing business with the Boeing Operation out of Arizona.  I have evidence that already proves BISS in fact doing business in Oklahoma City, and St. Louis, MO.  The evidence shows that the BISS VP, Torbjorn Sjogren is located in St. Louis; that the BISS legal counsel is located in St. Louis; that the BISS Chief Program Manager is located in St. Louis; and that the Boeing Company and BISS are jointly involved recruiting of American citizens from their operations in Oklahoma.

 

Here is a link to arms sale:

http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/2010/08/20/20100820apache-helicopter-sale-boeing-mesa-arizona.html

 

Now the "Affidavit" I referred to in the beginning of the above paragraph and coming from our service processor, Mr. John Kizzire shows some interesting information.  It shows that "The Boeing Company" Attorney (Mr. Geoffrey Sturr) has purposely withheld information to cover up for BISS.  As anyone can plainly see that on page five (5) and page six (6) of John Kizzire's sworn affidavit that Mr. Sturr states that he can be of no assistant to the process server who is trying to do his job.  In fact the Boeing Attorney who is now representing BOTH THE BOEING COMPANY AND BISS states he knows of no one who can accept legal service for BISS.   

 

The question becomes how is it that the attorney who has been representing "The Boeing Company" in this legal matter for months and who has now taken over the duties as counsel for BISS does not know anyone or any corporate officers for BISS who could be served with the summons and complaint?   The answer to that question is that this Boeing attorney, at the time of Mr. Kizzire's contact on September 1, 2010, engaged in obstruction, unethical activity and maybe illegal activity by withholding this legal information from this service processor.   This is proven by the fact that THE BOEING COMPANY/BISS attorney stated only a few days later in his pleading to the court on September 17, 2010 that BISS was amenable to service in Saudi Arabia and then provided an address in which to serve BISS.  I suggest that this attorney Mr. Geoffery Sturr who represents both the Boeing Company and BISS also knew of BISS Corporate Officers located in St. Louis, Missouri who could have been served with the summons and complaint.’

 

Here is the description of process server, John Kizzire’s, experience while trying to lawfully serve papers to Boeing Subsidiary, BISS.  I have summarized the longer document. -GFS

 

 

Mr. Kizzire, an Arizona licensed process server tried to  serve copies of a summons and complaint in the lawsuit of Petersen  v. The Boeing Company and their subsidiary, Boeing International Support Systems Company, Saudi Arabia Limited.

 Since Boeing was not very forthcoming with their business information so it was reasonably easy to find out where to serve the correct people, Mr. Kizzire searched the records and databases of all of the following:Arizona Corporation Commission and Arizona Secretary of StateDelaware Division of CorporationsWashington State Secretary of StateIllinois Secretary of StateMinistry of Commerce and Industry – Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Records are not available online, and do not appear to be readily available to the general public, by any means.  PACER federal court records for previous cases, in which BISS is named, to discover an agent or officer for service of process.  No other cases were found to have been filed naming BISS.

 

Mr. Kizzire then attempted service on two local Boeing executives for service on BISS through Boeing.   He attempted to serve Boeing at 5000 E. McDowell Rd, Mesa, AZ.  The Security Supervisor, Larry Sindle, stated he would not permit Mr. Kizzire on the grounds even though the server had court and state issued identification.  He passed the buck and told Mr. Kizzire he needed to contact Chuck Pfeister at (480) 891-0639.

 

 Kizzire was told that Pfeister is in charge of all of security for Boeing, Mesa, AZ. Kizzire called Pfeister, 9-2-10, got voice mail and left a message. 

 

About an hour later, he received a call from Judy Keledjian, (480) 891-7205, who said she is with the legal department of Boeing, Mesa, AZ.  She said Pfeister had asked her to return Kizzire’s call and that she could not authorize Kizzire’s delivery of to this location.  She deferred to the need to meet with her attorney to determine where and to whom Kizzire could deliver the legal papers. 

 

Keledjian did not call back.

 

A little less than an hour later, Kizzire received a call from Attorney, Geoffrey Sturr, of Osborn Meledon, Phoenix, Arizona.  Sturr said he was informed by the legal dept of Boeing, Mesa, of the problem.  He said that service on Boeing could be accomplished through their statutory agent.  Kizzire corrected that the service was not being attempted on Boeing, but on Boeing’s subsidiary, Boeing International Support Systems Company, Saudi Arabia Limited.   

 

Sturr was described as maintaining an abrupt, rude, and condescending manner throughout all of the communications on this matter.

 

Kizzire clarified that he was attempting to serve someone locally for Boeing in an attempt to accomplish service on Boeing International Support Systems (BISS) and that he (Kizzire) understood that service on two local executives for Boeing would suffice for service on BISS.  (Exactly what Boeing/BISS was trying to prevent.)  Sturr replied, “If the statutory agent had advised Kizzire of that information, they were mistaken.  Kizzire replied that the statutory agent did not advise him of anything.  He further stated that exhaustive efforts had been made to locate any persons authorized to accept service for BISS in Arizona, Illinois, Washington, Delaware, and Saudi Arabia, and that those attempts proved fruitless. 

 

Kizzare asked Sturr that as an attorney for Boeing, if he, Sturr, knew the persons authorized to accept service for BISS or if he knew any persons affiliated with BISS who might be able to confirm this requested information.   Sturr replied in a “rudely, abrupt manner,” “No.”  Kizzire stated that he had been given the name (by a switchboard operator at Mesa, AZ), of a law firm in Seattle that represents Boeing that Kizzire could contact, who would be able to confirm persons authorized to accept service for BISS. Sturr replied that Kizzire was probably referring to Perkins Coie, and that they would not be able to help him, Kizzire.  Sturr then stated “there is basically nobody who may be served for BISS in Arizona.”  Kizzire then asked that if Sturr could not provide the names, who could provide names of persons who may be authorized to accept service for or affiliated in any way with BISS.  He asked Sturr to refer him to the correct person.

 

 Sturr refused to help or assist in any way. Kizzire asked then if Sturr would at least be willing to check with someone else who may have any information about who may be contacted for BISS either in the United States or in Saudi Arabia.   Sturr replied he “would see what he could do.” When Kizzire tried to put a time frame on it and asked to receive the return call that same day, Sturr repeated “he would see what he could do.”    That ended the conversation between Sturr and Kizzire.

 

About 30 minutes later, Kizzire called Judy Keledjian at Boeing’s legal department, Mesa, Arizona.  Keledjian asked Kizzire if he had spoken with Geoffrey Sturr.  Kizzire affirmed that he had.  Keledjian then divulged that after Kizzire’s first phone call with Keledjian that morning, she had checked with her attorney in Mesa, Arizona, and he said he has nothing to do with Boeing International.  She then contacted her attorney in Saint Louis, and he recommended, “Geoff handle it.”   

 

About two hours after that last phone call with Geoffrey Sturr, Sturr called Kizzire back and stated he could not help him with any information nor could he direct Kizzire in discovering information about how to serve BISS in Saudi Arabia or the United States.  He stated all he knows is that BISS is a Saudi company.  

 

GFS's Comments:

BISS is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company (USA).  That is what Boeing has told and represented to the U.S. Government in their participation in the National Industrial Security Program. (NISP)  Anybody see a problem with the statements of Mr. Sturr?  Anyone see a problem with Boeing playing this game to try to prevent Petersen’s attorney and server from processing Petersen’s lawsuit as legally required? 

 

Boeing should be able to immediately identify the correct people so they may be served as provided for in U.S. law.  If they can’t, why can’t they?  This appears to me to be an attempt to either evade Justice and the U.S. legal system or to postpone it for purpose of evading Justice and possible penalties for the alleged criminal actions and activities of Boeing/BISS. 

 

I am wondering if Boeing is trying to prevent being served in order to manipulate the system, similarly to what is described in the another post, I found on POGO’s Website today,   “Secret Deals May Lead to Bailouts for Defense Contractor Misconduct.”  Put off being served until the DOD has put up the protection so no suit can be successfully filed or processed?  (Please read this post also posted today.)

 

Does anyone in the federal government, contracting oversight or management, have any helpful information for Robin Petersen regarding how his process server may overcome the keep away game that Boeing is playing to try to prevent his legal counsel from serving Boeing/BISS with suit paperwork?   Can any of you specifically help?  Please contact me if you can. 

GFS

The Utter Frustration of Washington State's Senate Race

 

Washington Senate Race Endorsements, MoveOn.Org and the Deaf Ears of Politicians to Whistleblowers

I got an email from MoveOn.Org last week. I am not sure how I got on their mailing list. In my blogs, I pretty much criticize everyone who I believe deserves it regardless of political party affiliation.

They were asking me who they should endorse in the Washington Senate Race (incumbent Senator Patty Murray (D) or challenger Dino Rossi (R)

They also left a space to write in a candidate. Then they left a space to write in explanatory comments. Against my better judgment, I wrote in a name in the write in slot and then explained why.

I explained that I had a problem with both the incumbent and the challenger. I clarified that the incumbent had a history of supporting her industrial campaign contributors and was willing to ignore her individual constituent's appeals to her for help when they were federal or industry employees being treated badly as whistleblowers, or threats to the corruption done by the employers. Her deafening silence has not endeared her to multiples people who've been standing up to the creeps pretty much on their own. She has been doing a lot of cheerleading for a particular very large defense contractor/aerospace corporation, despite their catalog of sins and continued mistreatment of their own employees and federal oversight employees. There is a very good reason she is known as the Senator from Boeing.

As far as her challenger, I explained that I considered him no better. He keeps whining and running for office, and his only lack is that he hasn't been in a position of power and authority so he can do exactly what Murray has been doing. So, there would be no difference; they are both disasters.

I explained that I had written in the name of my attorney, as I really found that despite commonly held views about attorneys and all the jokes, although I didn't always agree with my attorney politically, I found him to me much more ethical and honest than either of those candidates.

The next day, I got another email from Moveon.org, happily announcing they had endorsed Patty Murray who was going to help them stop all those corrupt corporations and contractors from continuing their campaign of fraud, waste, and abuse.  It went on and on beyond that.  After I got through shrieking and laughing myself out of my chair, I deleted it.  (It's still in the trash file, should I need to get it out and post it on the blogs with annotations.)

Presently more than disgusted with nearly everyone,

GFS

 *******

Response from The Last Inspector:    

LOL, G. Florence.

I know about intimately and agree with everything you wrote.

Murray did help me a tiny bit, albeit behind the scenes so as not to appear anti-Boeing.

The problem with most Democrats is they are too meek, albeit republicans are as meek in many ways (they have to be, as if they campaign honestly on what their agenda is, the vast majority of people will never vote for them).

If Murray and Democrats didn't always appear to be afraid of their own shadows on how they responded to every issue and just did what they wanted to do, they would be far more successful in the polls.

Being afraid to go up against the political power of an evil corporation like Boeing is illustrative of that.

Despite all of her bowing to Boeing, the evil management at the company stabbed her and all Boeing workers in the back by putting the second 787 line in SC.

That's what happens when you in essence make deals with devils like Boeing management.

However, despite their meekness in standing up to those forces more powerful than even a US senator, there still is no equivalency between Democrats and republicans, no matter how bad the Democrat is (except in the very few cases when the democrat actually acts like a republican when elected).

That is the falsehood that many spout out when their subconscious is desperately looking for reasons to justify voting for the other side.

Democrats are angels when compared to evil republicans, although there is never complete black and white, the following is as black and white as it gets:

Democrats are honest. Republicans are liars.

Democrats believe and legislate for what WJWD without wearing their Christianity on their sleeves. republicans believe and legislate for the opposite of what WJWD and then falsely proclaim themselves the "party of Christians and Jesus." They demonize Democrats, when it is actually themselves that are working for the head demon.

Democrats are the opposite of hypocrites; republicans are the worst hypocrites in existence. Just look at one issue--they impeached a president for lying about an affair, yet they now have several republicans in the Congress who have had affairs and even lied about them, yet their hypocritical supporters still support them, and few if any ask them to resign or ask for their impeachment (that would require not being a hypocrite).

Democrats work for the people, as the Constitution "wants," and only suck up to corporations because of our corrupt campaign finance system that gives corporations the key to politician's doors when citizens are shut out, and due to their meek natures (like Murray). Republicans work solely for corporations, and never for the people, only sucking up to the delusional and stupid people in the electorate around election time with lies and making up bogus wedge issues like the "Ground Zero Mosque," for they could never get elected if they campaigned honestly on their true beliefs. Like the devil, the only way they can convert souls is to deceive.

Democrats are the party of all sane true Christians. Republicans are the party of the American Taliban, who, like the Taliban, are doing the opposite of the "holy books" their faiths are based on. All those who fall victim to the false Christianity of the republicans will go to hell, if there is one. I am an agnostic, so I believe they can't go to a place that doesn't exist, but their sole legacy will be that they made the world hell while they were alive, whereas the democrats worked to make it a place more heaven-like and WWJD-like. If hell existed, and Jesus were alive, he would likely re-state that a republican's chance of getting into heaven is as likely as a 747 flying through the eye of a needle unscathed.   

 

So, albeit Murray has hurt this whistleblower through almost total inaction almost as deep as my wife when she betrayed me, even I may hold my nose and vote for her, especially if she pledges to break the "senator from corrupt Boeing management" mantra. A vote for anyone else is a vote for Rossi, who is the very definition of the evil that is today's republican party. In evilness, there is no comparison. As noted, Murray is an angel compared to Rossi. If he gets in, things will be 100 times worse for us whistleblowers.  

In all things perspective is needed. Anger can cloud our vision. In the long term, we need to fix the campaign finance system that republicans and the evil five on the Supreme Court back for selfish reasons, as giving more power to contribute to the powerful only enhances their goal of furthering our Plutocracy.

Once that is done, Democrats can be true Democrats, and stand up to the evils against the people like Boeing management. Rossi will always side with the evildoers.

Any republicans out there should get themselves exorcized. Anyone out there not under the influence like G Florence should regain their perspective before the election and get motivated. If you can't hold your nose and vote for Murray, work for any other Democrats out there like your country's and whistleblowers' fates depend on it, for it does.

Christian Republicans, and those "going toward the republican light (that leads to the opposite of heaven), repent now, while you can save yourselves from an earthly or unearthly hell that the republicans will attempt to bring back into existence if taking power again.

Gerry

BISS Whistleblower, Robin Petersen, on Boeing and CEO, Jim McNerney

I received this from Robin Petersen today describing his problems with Boeing taking responsibility for their subsidiary BISS.  GFS

*****

If you have the time I would suggest taking a moment to look at this C-Span link;

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/193687-1

  

I would also suggest that you start the C-Span video at 1:17 in which Mr. McNerney begins his testimony before the AFSC.

The Boeing Company CEO, Mr. James W. McNerney Jr. went on record before the Armed Forces Services Committee in August of 2006 following a Department of Justice investigation that proved that the Boeing Company had been involved in unethical and criminal wrongdoing.  Mr. McNerney, the new CEO of (14 months) stated in part that he would personally ensure that "The Boeing Company" would put the unethical past behind them, move forward, and operate under the highest standards of integrity and ethical business conduct.  Mr. McNerney stated that he would personally oversee the Boeing Ethics and Compliance Programs and hold those managers who failed to follow his leadership principles and ethics guidelines accountable. 

You should know that I contacted the Boeing Ethics Hotline in April of 2009 to express my concerns of unethical business practices, by people who represented themselves as "Boeing Managers."  I also contacted Mr. McNerney himself, via federal express letter from Saudi Arabia in June 2009 in which I identified a number of ethical violations; that I was injured; that his company had breached my contract for failure to pay me my salary; that I felt fraud was taking place; that there was a complete disregard for the safety and wellbeing of Boeing employees; and that my U.S. Passport had not been returned upon my request. 

Mr. McNerney never bothered to respond to this report of obvious ethics and criminal violations.  If leadership, ethics and integrity are to be achieved by example, I believe Mr. McNerney has failed in that responsibility.  

Thank you,

Robin P. Petersen (Rob)

BISS Whistleblower's Letter to Hillary Clinton

With Mr. Petersen's permission, I have posted the letter below that he wrote asking help from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, while he experienced unlawful detainment by BIS/Boeing in Saudi Arabia and was not allowed to leave to seek medical treatment in the United States.  Apparently there are a number of people, both U.S citizens and citizens of other nations, who have been experiencing such treatment.  This is an outrage.  Defininitive action must be taken by the U.S. government, concerning this unlawful behavior by Boeing/BISS and what appears to be an involved Saudi government.  Accepting employment with Boeing/BISS and working in the Middle East should not be tantamount to signing away one's rights and becoming a slave or political prisoner.    GFS

 

 

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

To all;

I have sent the following email to the U.S. State Department as they allow only seven days in which to respond to their email.

 

Rob

From: asu55rp@hotmail.com

To: usdeptstate@mailnj.custhelp.com

Subject: RE: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]

Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:04:54 +0000

Dear Sir/Madam;

 

Thank you for your email.  I am responding because you stated that I have seven (7) days to reopen this matter should I not feel it has been resolved.  I do not feel it has been properly resolved.  My point in this matter is that the Boeing Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems have engaged in U.S. Passport confiscation, false imprisonment, failure to provide for the safety and wellbeing of its employees and other fraudulent activities.  They have defrauded the Saudi Government through over billing (claiming to have more employees working for them than actual) and in providing substandard flight training and unsafe aircraft maintenance.  They are a U.S. Contactor and as such are required to meet certain ethical, professional and legal standards in accordance with the Technical Assistance Agreements established through our U.S. State Department.  They have not met those standards and should be held accountable for violating such agreements. 

 

I and others, including people from other nations were held against our will and were not allowed to return to our countries of origin when requests were made in writing to Boeing managers.  Many were forced to sign liability releases before being paid, having their passports returned, and being provided with an "Exit Visa" in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia.  Although, this information was reported first to the U.S. State Department in June of 2009, via the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (please find attached letter dated June 3, 2009) and then to the FBI in December of 2009 to my knowledge, no investigation has ever been initiated by either agency. 

 

You should know that I recently sent a letter to President Obama dated June 16, 2010 asking that he please have someone contact the Phoenix, FBI on my behalf to inquire as to why they did not initiate an investigation of some sort for what I believe are criminal violations of U.S. Law.

 

Thank you for taking the time to review this information and please reopen this investigation [Incident: 100604-000108].

 

Sincerely,

 

 

s/ Robin Petersen

 

> From: usdeptstate@mailnj.custhelp.com

> To: asu55rp@hotmail.com

> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:40:20 -0400

> Subject: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]

>

>

> Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support

> center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

>

> If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it

> within the next 7 days.

>

> Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

>

> Subject

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Boeing Company Violating Human Rights

>

>

> Discussion Thread

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Response (Support Agent) - 06/18/2010 10:40 AM

> Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all Americans -- into consideration.

>

> Secretary Clinton is committed to strengthening America’s national security, advancing the interest of the United States, and restoring America’s leadership position in the world.

>

> Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of State.

>

>

> Question Reference #100604-000108

> ---------------------------------------------------------------

> Category Level 1: Ask the State Department

> Date Created: 06/04/2010 12:06 PM

> Last Updated: 06/18/2010 10:40 AM

> Status: Solved

> [---001:001003:23410---]

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

Robin P. Petersen

Apartment NC8-10D

Saudi City, Jeddah

Saudi Arabia

Email ASU55RP@hotmail.com  Phone # 966 (0) 56 650-7815

  June 3, 2009

US State Department

The Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State

Washington DC

USA 

Subj:  Withholding of US Passports 

Dear Mrs. Clinton; 

I am writing you this letter to request your assistance.  I am a US Citizen / Retired Veteran and have been injured in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.   I need to return to the United States for medical care.   

Although I have requested the return of my US Passport, the managers of the Boeing International Support Systems / Alsalam Aircraft Company will not return the passport to me nor will they provide me with an exit visa to leave this country. 

I have enclosed a copy of a letter that was written to the Boeing C.E.O. dated June 2, 2009 for your review.  Please help me. 

Thank you, 
 

Robin P. Petersen 
 

Encl:  letter dated June 2, 2009 to the Boeing Company CEO

BISS (Boeing International Support Systems) Employee Files Suit Against Boeing

This story was sent to me as a comment related to the McNerney stories about Jim McNerney being placed in charge of Obama’s Export Council.  It was sent to me by the plaintiff, Robin Petersen, who has filed suit against Boeing.   I find this very disturbing that what Mr. Peterson was subjected to could even conceivably happen. I wish Mr. Petersen well and good luck with his legal proceedings. GFS

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

7:10 p.m. June 2:  This is real.  I found the court filing here:  http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Boeing+International+Support+Systems+Company%2C+Saudi+Arabia%2C+Limited

And Mr. Petersen’s attorney’s website here:  Kissandra Tysman

tysman@legaljustice.com

http://tysmanlawfirm.com/attorneys.htm

THE BOEING COMPANY AIDING AND ABETTING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA


The Boeing Company, a U.S. company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with corporate offices in Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri and its wholly owned subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems, Saudi Arabia (BISS) are reportedly engaged in the practice of passport confiscation, involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and fraudulent recruitment practices upon U.S. Citizens and Third Country National (TCN) workers. The Boeing Company may be held responsible for violations of U.S. Law and international law for "Aiding and Abetting" their subsidiary company, BISS which recruits employees out of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and is alleged to have confiscated passports from US Citizens and Third Country National workers in Saudi Arabia.

As reference, the U.S. State Department's 2009 report on "Human Trafficking" details the unconscionable and disturbing ongoing human rights violations that are presently taking place in the country of Saudi Arabia. A report authored by former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, (2006) identifies Saudi Arabia as a "Tier 3" country whose government does not fully comply with the minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to eliminate human rights violations in their country. The report further states that the United States employs a "zero tolerance" policy against human trafficking both domestically and abroad. A third report by the Department of Defense, OIG dated January 15, 2010, provides information relating to "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act," January 10, 2006 that gives the United States Government authorization to terminate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for "Trafficking in Persons" (TIP) related violations.

A lawsuit brought by Attorney Kissandra L. Tysman of the Tysman Law Firm, located in Mesa, Arizona was filed on May 7, 2010 in U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona against "The Boeing Company" and it wholly owned subsidiary BISS. The lawsuit alleges that her client Mr. Robin Petersen, a pilot and former U.S. Navy Commander who became injured overseas while employed by Boeing/BISS was not allowed to return to the United States for medical treatment in that he had his U.S. passport confiscated; was held against his will; and was not provided with an "Exit Visa" in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Petersen had made several written requests for the return of his passport to "The Boeing Company" Operations Manager, in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Shaun A. Ford, and also contacted Mr. W. James McNerney, Jr., "The Boeing Company" CEO by Federal Express letter, detailing the fraudulent activity, unethical business practices, and violations of human rights that he had observed and experienced while employed by Boeing/BISS. Mr. McNerney never responded to Mr. Petersen's concerns and request for help. The lawsuit also alleges that a number of other U.S. Veterans and Third Country National workers who were employed by Boeing/BISS in Saudi Arabia had their passports confiscated and were subject to inhumane treatment.

Mr. Petersen made several attempts to get help from the U.S. Consulate located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He was finally helped by a consulate security official in June 2009, who then ordered Boeing/BISS company officials to return Mr. Petersen's U.S. passport and provide him with the required "Exit Visa" in which to depart the country of Saudi Arabia. On June 8, 2009, and after six months without having the freedom to travel, Mr. Petersen was able to return to the United States to get the proper treatment he needed for his injury. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Arizona, May 7, 2010 (case # 2:2010CV00999 Petersen v Boeing) and lists the following causes of action:

Count 1, Confiscation of U.S. Passports
Count 2, Violations of RICO statutes
Count 3, False imprisonment
Count 4, Breach of Contract
Count 5, Fraud
Count 6, Intentional Inflection of emotional distress
Count 7, Failure to pay wages

Although this lawsuit has been filed in the United States, it is important to know that there is an effort on the part of several worldwide organizations to hold executives of companies such as Mr. McNerney, CEO of "The Boeing Company" criminally responsible for willfully aiding and abetting their business partners who engage in human rights violations.

Boeing's Reorganization and Creation of Subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems

Link to Original: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1024

 

 

Boeing Defense Unit Realigns for Growth, Expansion Into New Markets

|

ST. LOUIS, Jan. 7, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced organization and leadership changes within its Integrated Defense Systems unit that continue to reposition the company for growth in the current business environment. The realignment is effective immediately, and the unit will begin operating under a new name: Boeing Defense, Space & Security.

In announcing the changes, Boeing Defense, Space & Security President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the realignment is part of a continuing effort to successfully compete in a rapidly evolving global defense and security marketplace. Muilenburg said that reshaping the unit positions Boeing for further growth in new and adjacent markets while continuing to serve existing defense and space customers.

"Boeing anticipated flattening defense budgets and shifting customer priorities for the past few years and has been taking aggressive steps to position the company for profitable growth in a challenging economy," Muilenburg said. "In the past 18 months alone, we have acquired seven companies to enhance existing capabilities, expanded Boeing's services business, and created new divisions -- like Unmanned Airborne Systems -- to directly and rapidly respond to our customers' emerging priorities.

"With these latest strategic moves, we can extend our core programs even as we enhance Boeing-wide capabilities designed to capture business in promising markets in the United States and around the world, including cyber-security, energy, intelligence, C4ISR and logistics," Muilenburg said.

The scope of change in Boeing's business environment is further reflected in the decision to rename Integrated Defense Systems, a name the unit has carried since 2002, when the company consolidated its military aircraft and space businesses. Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a recognition that success in a highly competitive global arena will be determined by a company's ability to offer and deliver new capabilities, products and services to meet complex customer demands.

"As Boeing sustains and grows its core global defense business through solid execution, we are also playing a broader role in markets that go beyond Boeing's traditional strengths," Muilenburg said. "As we grow in these areas, it is important for us to send strong signals to our global customers that we are prepared to offer high-value Boeing solutions for all of their needs across defense, space and security domains."

While Boeing Defense, Space & Security will retain its current operating units -- Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA), Network and Space Systems (N&SS), and Global Services & Support (GS&S) -- the realignment consolidates some divisions and makes a number of leadership changes. Chief among the moves is consolidation of two divisions in N&SS: The Combat Systems division and the Command, Control & Communications (C3) Networks division will be unified as the new Network and Tactical Systems division.

Muilenburg also announced several key leadership assignments at the Boeing Defense, Space & Security level and throughout the business units that will help the company improve productivity, manage its cost structure and deliver on customer commitments:

• Rick Baily is named vice president, Engineering and Mission Assurance; prior to this, Baily was vice president/general manager of Combat Systems.
• Nan Bouchard is named vice president, Program Management; she previously served as vice president/general manager, C3 Networks.
• Dave Bowman is named BMA vice president/general manager, Global Mobility Systems and International Tankers; he previously served as vice president, Tanker Programs.
• Jean Chamberlin is named BMA vice president/general manager, U.S. Air Force Tanker Program; prior to this, she served as vice president, Global Mobility Systems.
• Steve Goo is named vice president, International Operations and Compliance; he adds international compliance to his responsibilities. He will oversee all BDS international legal entities in Australia, the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia.
• Bill Schnettgoecke is named vice president, Operations and Supplier Management; Schnettgoecke previously served in a deputy role to this position, and succeeds John Van Gels.
• Torbjorn Sjogren is named GS&S vice president of the Boeing International Support Systems and Alsalam Aircraft Co. subsidiaries in Saudi Arabia; previously, he served as GS&S vice president, International Support Systems.
• Charles Toups is named N&SS vice president/general manager of Network and Tactical Systems; he had served as vice president, Engineering and Mission Assurance.
• John Van Gels is named vice president, Strategic Planning for Operations and Supplier Management; he previously was vice president, Operations and Supplier Management.

A number of structural changes complement these leadership moves:

• In BMA, the Weapons business becomes a division with a direct reporting relationship to BMA; it had been a subdivision of the BMA Global Strike Systems division.
• In N&SS, the Heath, Ohio, and Ogden, Utah, facilities will now report to the Missile Defense Systems division; previously, they reported to the N&SS C3 Networks division.
• GS&S operations in Australia will report to Jim O'Neill, vice president/general manager, Integrated Logistics division. Aviation Training International Ltd., a joint venture for Apache helicopter training with AgustaWestland in the United Kingdom, will report to Mark McGraw, vice president, Training Systems and Services division. Both entities previously reported to International Support Systems.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 70,000 employees worldwide.

# # #

Contact:

Daniel Beck
External Communications
Office: 703-414-6447
Mobile: 562-243-7082
daniel.c.beck@boeing.com

High Risk: Loss of Critical Technologies

A concerned citizen emailed me this a short time ago.  It appears that there are some who are trying to make things even less transparent.  The better to commit fraud, waste and abuse with I suspect.  I wonder if  James McNerney had anything to do with this?  This must be stopped.  GFS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) seriously needs to coordinate with the Department of State and the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.  If 75 FR 15388, March 29 2010 Public Notice 6931 is allowed to stand, this amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) will further damage and weaken any effective protection of technologies critical to United States national security interests and all the good work that GAO is trying to do under their “High Risk List” program.
 
There have been many instances were industry has offered too much information and technology to foreign governments and corporations during the solicitation and negotiation phases of the international contracting process.  Once the information and technology have been offered by a U.S. corporation it is almost impossible for the government to then intervene and withdraw that offer.  This appears to be yet one more effort by the Defense Trade Advisory Group’s (DTAG) industrial community members, and the Chairman of the President’s Export Advisory Council (Jim McNerney) to further weaken the export compliance process.
 
 
(  http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/FRN.html  )
 
U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls
Federal Register Notices    2010
75 FR 15388, March 29, 2010, Public Notice 6931.
Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Removing Requirement for Prior Approval for Certain Proposals to Foreign Persons Relating to Significant Military Equipment
The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to remove the requirements for prior approval or prior notification for certain proposals to foreign persons relating to significant military equipment at section 126.8 of the ITAR.
 
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 22 CFR Parts 124, 126, and 129, [Public Notice: 6931], RIN 1400–AC62, Amendment to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Removing Requirement for Prior Approval for Certain Proposals to Foreign Persons Relating to Significant Military Equipment
AGENCY: Department of State.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of State is amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to remove the requirements for prior approval or prior notification for certain proposals to foreign persons relating to significant military equipment at section 126.8 of the ITAR.
 
DATES: Effective Date: The Department of State will accept comments on this proposed rule until May 28, 2010.
 
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments within 60 days of the date of the publication by any of the following methods:
• E-mail:DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov with an appropriate subject line.
• Mail: Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, ATTN: Regulatory Change, Section
126.8, SA–1, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20522–0112.
• Persons with access to the Internet may also view this notice by going to the U.S. Government regulations.gov
Web site at http://regulations.gov/index.cfm.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Director Charles B. Shotwell, Office of Defense Trade Controls Policy, Department of State
Telephone (202)663–2803 or Fax (202) 261–8199; E-mail DDTCResponseTeam@state.gov. ATTN: Regulatory Change, Section 126.8.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Effective September 1, 1977, the Department of State amended the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) at 22 CFR 123.16, to require Department of State approval before a proposal or presentation is made that is designed to constitute the basis for a decision to purchase significant combat equipment, involving the export of an item on the U.S. Munitions List, valued at $7,000,000 or more for use by the armed forces of a foreign country (42 FR 41631, dated August 18, 1977). Also, 22 CFR 124.06, entitled ‘‘Approval of proposals for technical assistance and manufacturing license agreements,’’ was amended to require similar prior approval requirements with respect to proposals and presentations for technical assistance and manufacturing license agreements involving the production or assembly of significant combat equipment.  ‘‘Proposals to foreign persons relating to significant military equipment’’ became section 126.8 in a final rule effective January 1, 1985 (49 FR 47682, dated December 6, 1984). Section 126.8 did not require prior approval of the Department of State when the proposed sale was to the armed forces of a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Australia, Japan, or New Zealand, except with respect to manufacturing license agreements or technical assistance agreements.  A prior notification requirement, instead of prior approval, was added to section 126.8 in a final rule effective March 31, 1985 (50 FR 12787, dated April 1, 1985). Prior notification to the Department of State was required 30 days in advance of a proposal or presentation to any foreign person where such proposals or presentations concern equipment previously approved for export.  The current section 126.8 requires prior approval or prior notification for certain proposals and presentations to make a determination whether to purchase significant military equipment valued at $14,000,000 or more (other than a member of NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, or South Korea), or whether to enter into a manufacturing license agreement or technical assistance agreement for the production or assembly of significant military equipment, regardless of dollar value.  These types of proposals and presentations usually involve large dollar amounts. Before the defense industry undertakes the effort involved in formulating its proposals and presentations, if there is any doubt that the corresponding license application or proposed agreement would not be authorized by the Department of State, the industry may request an advisory opinion (See 22 CFR 126.9). The written advisory opinion, though not binding on the Department, helps inform the defense industry whether the Department would likely grant a license application or proposed agreement.  Currently, the time between submitting a license application or proposed agreement and obtaining a decision from the Department of State whether to authorize such transactions has been decreased sufficiently that requiring prior approval or prior notification for proposals is unnecessary and imposes an administrative burden on industry.