THOUSAND OAKS FINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL IN AN AEROSPACE COMPANY FIRED FOR WHISTLEBLOWING

On or about March 2, 2011, Plaintiff's supervisor, Supervisor in Financial Department, the Director of Finance told Plaintiff he was doing a great job when giving him a review. March 14, 2011, Plaintiff told Supervisor in Financial Department that he thought there was a potential violation of what Plaintiff referred to as the Federal Truth in Negotiations laws and False Claims Act. Plaintiff told Supervisor in Financial Department he thought that Death Benefit insurance was being improperly claimed to be $446,000.00 a month when it was $315,000 a month and it was a cost plus contract with the Federal Government so the cost was being improperly reported and/or inflated where in turn Defendant was earning a greater profit than reported. Plaintiff asked the employee who had prepared this journal entry, to see the journal entry to trace this issue. Discussions about this issue were never resolved, it was never explained why so much was being reported as a cost, and it was never stated that this wrongful charge would be stopped. Plaintiff is informed and believes that he stopped speaking to Supervisor in Financial Department about this issue by April. However, before discussions ended, Supervisor in Financial Department did the following to indicate he did not appreciate Plaintiff raising this issue: 1) Supervisor in Financial Department told Plaintiff "You found another issue. Maybe you should be doing your work;" 2) The afternoon of March 14, 2011 after Plaintiff raised this issue in the morning, Supervisor in Financial Department brought human resources in and told Plaintiff that the company would see how he was doing in 90 days. After March 14, 2011 the Vice-President of Finance stopped being cordial to Plaintiff and regularly communicating with him. Throughout March Plaintiff continued to pursue these issues with Supervisor in Financial Department, mentioned False Claims Act liability on March 15, 2011 to Supervisor in Financial Department, but the issue was never resolved.

During April of 2011 Plaintiff refused to sign a certification on a different government contract than the one previously mentioned. The certification stated that the cost pricing was accurate. Defendant had not run new cost data for this contract. There was no way to accurately certify the costs of this contract at the time Plaintiff was being asked to sign the certification because a sweep had not been run and it was unknown what the actual costs were opposed to mere estimates when the contract started. Plaintiff informed Supervisor in Financial Department of these facts and said he could not sign the certification without Defendant actually running the figures on what the costs had been by looking at actual costs or purchase orders. This was the last certification Defendant asked Plaintiff to sign.

On or about April 18, 2011, Finance Department VP told Plaintiff to allocate expenses on government contracts in a manner that he told Supervisor in Financial Department was a violation of the False Claims Act, FARS, and CAS because he would be falsely charging contracts for expenses not incurred. In the end, Plaintiff felt that Supervisor in Financial Department was threatening Plaintiff that he would lose his job if he did not do what Schroeder asked Plaintiff to do.

On or about April 28, 2011 Supervisor in Financial Department announced he was going to manipulate costs and profit on a government contract by reclassifying financial data to undermine the profit Defendant was earning on this contract. Plaintiff told Supervisor in Financial Department that this was false, but Supervisor in Financial Department did not reply.

On or about May 10, 2011, Supervisor in Financial Department decided that he would manipulate data that would go into a shareholder report to offset $1,000,000 more in profit than had been forecast because if he did not do so shareholders would believe Defendant did not know how to forecast profits and this would effect their stock price. Plaintiff asked Supervisor in Financial Department whether he had run this by Vice-President of Finance.

Throughout July of 2011, in respect to another government cost plus contract Supervisor in Financial Department and Vice-President of Finance decided that they would manipulate accounting figures to make it appear that the contract had less profit than it did. Work for another contract was billed to this particular contract and various things were done to make profits look between 18-20% because if the true 40% profit figure were known it would be beyond what the government would have allowed. After hearing this discussion, Plaintiff asked Supervisor in Financial Department if he was going to simply tell the government profit was at the estimated level when the contract was taken, and if he did that it would not be in full compliance with the customer. Plaintiff stated that he thought this violated a Federal law pertinent to government contracting (Truth in Negotiations Act) and truthful disclosures and statements to the government.

In addition to what is alleged above, Plaintiff also objected to other practices that he reasonably believed were suspicious or illegal, and informed management of the same. On or about October 8, 2011, Plaintiff notified Supervisor in Financial Department of an issue on a government contract that Plaintiff felt was double dipping. Plaintiff noticed lease costs in a line item. Supervisor in Financial Department told Plaintiff that was to cover the cost of repairing equipment after training. Plaintiff told Supervisor in Financial Department that he felt this was a violation of The False Claims Act and Truth in Negotiations Act. These charges were being charged elsewhere as overhead. Plaintiff also notified Vice-President of Finance of this discovery.

Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated for pretextual reasons and that the real reason for his termination of employment was due to the public policy complaints that form the wrongful termination cause of action and are alleged in Paragraphs 7-13 of the whistleblowing lawsuit. Basically, Plaintiff let Supervisor in Financial Department and Schroeder know that he felt they were continuously submitting false and inaccurate financial data to the government that constituted false statements. In addition to what is alleged in Paragraphs 7-13 of the whistleblower lawsuit there are other instances in which Plaintiff raised these issues with Supervisor in Financial Department and Vice-President of Finance. Both of them made statements indicating that they were annoyed that Plaintiff raised these issues, and they eventually snubbed Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges Defendant to this cause of action terminated the Plaintiff in violation of public policy by terminating the Plaintiff for making complaints about what he reasonably believed violated the law, and does violate the law according to the following statutes that affect society at large:

a. terminating the Plaintiff because Plaintiff complained of conduct violating California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 concerning Defendant by engaging in unfair, false, and deceptive trade practices;
b. California Civil Code Sections 1572, 1709-1710 for making false representations to the Federal Government about financial information that had to be reported in government contracts Defendant had;
c. 10 U.S.C. 2306 sets forth a statutory scheme concerning cost plus contracts with the armed fores. This statute sets forth limits as to profit which Defendant exceeded and sought to fraudulently report to the armed forces that they did not. 41 U.S.C. 254 also deals with cost plus contracts with the Federal Government and prohibits the types of costs Defendant attempted to pass through that were actually profit;
d. 41 U.S.C. 254b which is part of the Truth in Negotiations Act and relates to cost or pricing data. Overall, this statute requires that price and cost data be accurate and truthfully reported to the Federal Government;
e. 41 U.S.C. 256 prohibits and allows a penalty to be imposed for the submission of indirect costs, or the burying of indirect ousts in a manner violating a FAR principle. The actions Defendant took as alleged in the general allegations whereby costs were improperly reported violated this statute;
f. 10 U.S.C. 2306(a) requires cost and pricing data for armed service contracts to be properly reported and adhere to government guidelines and statutory law. This section is referred to as the Truth in Negotiations Act. This section required Defendant to submit truthful and accurate cost reporting data to the Armed forces which Plaintiff complained Defendant either failed to do so, or was in jeopardy of failing to do so by providing inaccurate or manipulated financial data;
g. 10 U.S.C. 2324 prescribes that an Armed Forces contractor shall receive a penalty for submitting a cost that is not allowable under a cost principle, or violates a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR);
h. 15 U.S.C. 7241 prohibiting corporations traded on a public exchange from causing financial reports to contain untrue statements, misleading statements, omitted material information;
i. 15 U.S.C. 7262 which requires management of publicly traded corporations to have adequate internal control and procedures so that their financial information is properly reported to the public. Overall, Defendant had a culture against proper financial controls and audits, but specifically submitted facts and data in violation of 15 U.S.C. 7241 and 7262 in an attempt to make their original profit forecasts appear reliable;
j. 31 U.S.C. 3729, et. seq. also known as the Federal False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001 known as the Federal Fraud and False Statement Act, 18 U.S.C. 287 also known as the false, fictitious or fraudulent claims act, 18 U.S.C. 1519 by doing that which is alleged in the general allegations with the exception of the misleading $1,000,000 profit shift issue to make Defendant's forecast look reliable;
k. California Labor Code Section 1102.5(c) prohibiting relation or termination for refusing to work in statutorily prohibited work environments.

WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE RESULTS: $139,000 SETTLEMENT IN 2014 DOLLARS

HARDCORE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE

Plaintiff was a fifty four year old Veteran who held NTD Level III certification in Nondestructive Testing, had approximately 18 years experience in Aerospace Quality Control, and completed hundreds of hours worth of training in quality control management, inspection planning, and quality engineering. Besides his 18 years worth of experience in quality control, Plaintiff had 11 additional years of experience in government contract specifications.

Following a federal false claim suit that devastated a Los Angeles based company named Lawrence Labs, on or about mid 1992, Defendant sent the Federal Aviation Administration a letter stating that they were guilty of some of the same conduct that AEROSPACE ENGINEERING was guilty of. Boeing Aircraft was apprised of said Defendant's letter to the F.A.A. Boeing Aircraft then sent back all bolts in stock that said Defendant had manufactured and Boeing asked said Defendant to retest these bolts.

On or about October of 1992, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was audited by the F.A.A. During the Plaintiff's initial interview with said Defendant, Defendant employee told the Plaintiff that he and others would be brought into said Defendant to clean up and set lawful standards at said Defendant so that said Defendant would not lose F.A.A. certification upon the follow-up F.A.A. audit. On or about June of 1993, the F.A.A. reaudited said Defendant.

On or about mid February of 1993, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, interviewed with Plaintiff, AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWING EMPLOYEE. During this interview, said Defendant informed the Plaintiff that Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC.;

a. was in trouble because of sloppy Material Review Board (hereinafter "MRB") practices and less than adequate NDT (Non-Destructive Testing) procedures (the maintaining of proper MRB practices is mandated by Section 21 of the Federal Aviation Regulations which are codified as 14 C.F.R. 21, et. seq.);
b. had not performed all the tests required by Boeing on a variety of bolts which had been shipped to Boeing over the last five years, and that pursuant to an agreement that said Defendant made with Boeing, all bolts in the inventory at Boeing were to be shipped back to said Defendant for retesting;
c. General Electric had informed said Defendant that they were now going to require said Defendant to obtain Third Party Accreditation from NADCAP (National Aerospace and Defense Contractors Accreditation Program, a division of the Performance Review Institute), a private, metallurgical certifying organization, for all processes including NDT (non-destructive testing), the Laboratory at said Defendant, and the Quality Plan required by NADCAP to fit the conformity of MIL-Q-9858A;
d. the F.A.A. informed Boeing and General Electric of their audit of said Defendant's findings and required both Boeing and General Electric to conduct additional Quality audits of said Defendant;
e. Boeing had found numerous nonconformances throughout said Defendants's NDT, MRB, and Metallurgical testing facilities and had revoked said Defendant's D9000 approval. Without D9000 approval, said Defendant could not manufacture, ship, or receive any new orders from Boeing and Boeing Vought because Boeing required this type of approval pursuant to their contract specifications which had to be in conformity with MIL SPECIFICATION MIL-Q-9858A due to government contracts requirements and Federal Aviation Administration Regulations;
f. General Electric had conducted an audit and found several problems in said Defendant's M.R.B. and N.T.D. area;
g. said Defendant's senior quality control engineer, Joe Tucker, was in his seventies, had been falsely certifying NTD tests and thereby creating problems with the F.A.A. that are described in Paragraphs 16 above of this aerospace whistleblowing lawsuit, and caused said Defendant to lose their D9000 approval, and the Plaintiff would be hired to ameliorate and solve the problems described above, and institute procedures so that these problems would not happen again.

Upon becoming employed by Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC., the Plaintiff became aware that said Defendant's CEO, Director of Engineering, Director of Purchasing, Manager of Quality, Laboratory Manager, and NDT supervisor had been laid off and replaced as a result of the October 1993 F.A.A. audit and the F.A.A.'s recommendation that Boeing, Boeing Vought, and G.E. audit Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. In a conversation with Defendant, PATRICK CORLESS, an individual, the Plaintiff learned that these persons were replaced with new employees, including the Plaintiff, because Boeing had approved and recommended the hiring of these new employees and conditionally given Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. reinstatement of D9000 approval.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes that a significant amount of said Defendant's business, and a significant amount of the fraud and false claims complained of throughout this complaint, affected the below corporations which were military and government contractors, and which all named Defendants reasonably knew Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was selling parts to:

a. Boeing Vought;
b. Boeing Seattle;
c. Martin Marietta;
d. Pratt Witney;
e. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Corporation;
f. Fairchild;
g. "the F-18 Project;"
h. Bell Helicopters.

On or about late, May of 1993, approximately three months after the Plaintiff began employment with Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, the Plaintiff came to realize that Defendants, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G and BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, both individuals, and each of them, were refusing to approve the scrapping of two years worth of rejected parts. In order to get their D9000 approval back from Boeing and Boeing Vought, and in order to comply with applicable laws as to the other government contractors specified in Paragraph 20 of this aerospace whistleblowing lawsuit, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was supposed to scrap these parts. Instead of scrapping these parts, the Plaintiff believes that they were sold to the customers described in Paragraph 20 of whistleblower’s lengthy complaint written by Employment Lawyer, Karl Gerber, as well as other customers the Plaintiff is not aware of, but which the Plaintiff believes some of which are government contractors. At this time, the Plaintiff believed that under MIL SPECIFICATION MIL-Q-9858A and Boeing and Boeing Vought's contracts with said Defendant, the scrapping of these parts was supposed to take place within 24 hours. The Plaintiff is also informed and believes that the MRB area at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, INC. was holding scraped parts that were supposed to be destroyed approximately two years before late May of 1993.

On or about May of 1993, Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, told the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would bankrupt Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. if the Plaintiff did not find a way of falsely reporting the test results of these scraped parts and then shipping rejected parts that had been in the MRB area since 1992. Despite this warning, the Plaintiff scrapped approximately $250,000.00 worth of non-conforming parts. Thereafter, a nine member corrective action board was established to oversee the scraping of all parts worth over $5,000.00. This board consisted of the following individuals, Plaintiff, AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWING EMPLOYEE, Defendants, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, EMPLOYEE NOT TO WHISTLE BLOW TO, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE #22, all individuals, and Donald Dunn and Steve Mehtan.

The Plaintiff is also informed that strain lines were found in most of Boeing's lot number BACB30LE. These parts were put into MRB, and Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, had told Boeing that the parts would be scraped pursuant to Boeing Vought's contract requiring the destruction of scraped parts within 24 hours of them being rendered scraped. This scraping policy was one of the reasons why Boeing gave Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. their conditional D9000 approval. During the later part of June of 1994, the Plaintiff made requests to Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, both individuals, and each of them, and Dan Copsey to scrap these parts. Defendant, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, an individual, instructed the Plaintiff not to scrap these parts. The Plaintiff told Defendant, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, an individual, that Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was violating MIL-Q-9858A, MIL-I-45208, the Quality Control Programs that were approved by the government and the customers described in Paragraph 20 of this aerospace whistleblowing lawsuit, and Federal Aviation Administration Regulations because these parts were being sent to G.E., McDonnell Douglas, and Boeing who were putting the parts into airplanes being sold to the United States.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, was convicted of a felony, many years ago, for falsely reporting the test results of aerospace parts sold to the United States Government and Military and as part of his probation, he was not allowed to certify that aerospace parts sold to the United States government passed certification tests. Due to said Defendant's probation, the Plaintiff is also informed and believes that Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, was not permitted to hold a position at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. where he could certify that aerospace parts sold to the United States Government passed inspection tests, nor could he be responsible for employees who worked in the MRB area. The Plaintiff complained to Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, about this belief on or about June of 1993, near the end of 1993, and approximately a week before he was terminated. The Plaintiff complained to Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE about this belief in June of 1993. Approximately three months before the Plaintiff was terminated and also on the day that the Plaintiff was terminated, the Plaintiff communicated this belief to Aeorspace Quality Official, Director of Personnel. To Aeorspace Quality Official and Defendants, TERRIBLE AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE and AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, both individuals, the Plaintiff said that he believed it was illegal and improper to be employing Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, in a capacity wherein he was allowed to certify that parts going to the United States passed inspection tests because this was a direct violation of the terms of his parole and/or probation.

Beginning in May of 1993, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, on almost a daily basis, attempted to make the Plaintiff falsely stamp and certify that parts going to the military contractors and civilian contractors specified in paragraph 20 of this aerospace whistleblowing lawsuit had passed inspection tests when they had in fact not. Many of these confrontations between the Plaintiff and Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, also took place before the corrective action board. During these confrontations, Defendants, ART COLLINS, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, both individuals, and each of them, would agree with Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE DOING ILLEGAL THINGS, an individual, that the Plaintiff should falsely certify that parts going to the United States Government, as well as parts going onto civilian aircraft, passed certification tests when they did not.

On or about, the first few months of the Plaintiff's employment at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, director of quality control, and one of the Plaintiff's supervisors, came to the Plaintiff and told him find a way to certify all parts because if the Plaintiff continued to reject parts, for not passing tests, and honestly reporting the test results, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, INC. would be put in financial jeopardy, and on or about June of 1994, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, repeated the these words to the Plaintiff.

On or about March of 1994, Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, asked the Plaintiff to come to his office. Said Defendant then requested that the Plaintiff sign off on G.E. parts going to the United States Government when they did not in fact pass inspection because they had linear cracks. Said Defendant told the Plaintiff that if he did not sign off on the parts, said Defendant would "kick the shit out of the Plaintiff." The Plaintiff tried to leave said Defendant's office at this point, and said Defendant pushed the Plaintiff down into the chair he had been sitting in, but was getting up from. It was not until Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUDSTER, an individual, came into the office that the Plaintiff was able to leave this office. NOTE: This is the hardest core aerospace whistleblowing allegation known of to this day!

On or about almost a daily basis from the time that the Plaintiff was hired until the time that he was fired, he was forced by Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, and USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, an individual, and each of them, to falsify documents, including non-conformance reports, to make it look as though all parts from each lot from the Boeing and Boeing Vought retest program had been returned to Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. and scraped when in fact half or more of some of these lots were already on aircraft that Boeing and Boeing Vought had manufactured. On or about April of 1994 and July of 1994, the Plaintiff told Defendant, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, an individual, that he would have no part of doing "this type of fraudulent and illegal behavior" and asked if said Defendant would inform Boeing of what had been going on rather than trying to deceive them. On or about November of 1993, the Plaintiff and said Defendant went to see Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE GS, an individual, about these falsifications, and between November of 1993 and July of 1994, the Plaintiff and Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUD ARTIST, an individual, went to see Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE GS, an individual, another time about this conduct. Finally, approximately two or three weeks before the Plaintiff was terminated, he and Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUD ARTIST, an individual, went to see Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE GS, an individual, about producing false certifications.

On or about July of 1994, the Plaintiff was told by Defendant, TORT CAUSING AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, that it was not his concern that none of the below rejected part numbers were scrapped despite the fact that they had failed tests: BABY30US7KAG16, BATCB3OUS5KAG12, BATTERYCB3OUS6KAG27, BACCUSBUS7K717, BADCB3COUSIN5K15, BACDB3OUSF7K820, BACTDB3DF0US6K22, BACB30USK13, BACBOUS6K17, BACB3OUS6K27, BACKB30UU7K19, BACINJURYB30US5K18, BADCOWORKERB30US5K18. In fact, parts number BACKB30US5K18 and BACHEB30US5K18 were sent to Boeing Vought.

Part Number 40791TIS1O901 were torque bolts manufactured for G.E. engines division in early 1994. This lot was rejected for manufacturing defects and scraped. In June of 1994, the parts were remanufactured and rejected by Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC.'S NTD lab due to cracks. On or about July 18, 1994, the Plaintiff was approached by Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual. Said Defendant was very angry with the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff had sent these parts back to the lab for a confirmation that they should all be rejected and scraped. Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, told the Plaintiff that he would send the parts to an outside lab called FRAUDULENT OUTSIDE TESTING ORGANIZATION who would falsely certify them. As a result of the Plaintiff's complaint about the obtaining of an illegal certification on these parts, and said Defendant's intention to get the parts falsely certified, Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, told the Plaintiff that his days were numbered at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. Once these parts were returned from the outside lab with falsified certifications, the Plaintiff impounded them in MRB. Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, both individuals, and each of them, became very angry at the Plaintiff. Defendant, FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, said that if the Plaintiff rejected these parts "somebody would pay with their job." In response, the Plaintiff told Defendant, FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual, that the lab had confirmed the Plaintiff's findings that the parts did not pass inspection, and the Plaintiff informed said Defendant that an outside lab called Active Mag was aware that they missed the cracks when they inspected the parts. Said Defendant then told the Plaintiff that he better find a way to "buy off on the parts." The Plaintiff also complained to his supervisor, Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUDSTER, an individual, about this incident with Defendant, FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, an individual.

On some four or five occasions, within the last two months of the Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC., the Plaintiff complained to Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUDSTER, an individual, that G.E. required 100% NDT inspection and only AQL (sample inspection) was being done, and this violated G.E. requirements and MIL STANDARD 105. The Plaintiff also complained to said Defendant that log books were falsified by inspectors at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. to show 100% inspection when in fact only AQLS were performed.

Between on or about June of 1993 and November 11, 1993, the Plaintiff was asked to investigate casting problems. During these investigations, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER, had falsified documents pertaining to part number VOTEB115091. When the Plaintiff informed Defendants, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, both individuals, and each of them, about these falsifications, said Defendants told the Plaintiff that the matter would be turned over to the company attorney (however, after the Plaintiff was terminated, on or about August of 1994, the Plaintiff met with Attorney FOR DEFENSE NOW A BETTER LAWYER, who informed the Plaintiff that this matter had not been investigated before). Defendants, EMPLOYEE NOT TO WHISTLE BLOW TO, an individual, called a meeting and informed Defendants, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, both individuals, and each of them, as well as the Plaintiff, that a different specification than the one the Plaintiff had used would allow the parts to be accepted by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff disagreed with applying the specification to the castings in question. Defendants, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, both individuals, and each of them, shipped the parts nonetheless. Before these parts were shipped, Defendant, EMPLOYEE NOT TO WHISTLE BLOW TO, an individual, had an altercation with the Plaintiff on or about October 12, 1993 in which said Defendant yelled at the Plaintiff and instructed him that he better use said Defendant's specification or said Defendant would fire the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the Plaintiff's request, a meeting was set up with Aeorspace Quality Official later that afternoon in which the Plaintiff informed Previously mentioned employee that said Defendant had threatened to fire the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff was under a lot of pressure to buy off bad castings. The Plaintiff then informed Mr. that he could not do what Defendants, EMPLOYEE NOT TO WHISTLE BLOW TO, FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, all individuals, and each of them, wanted the Plaintiff to do. In response to this meeting, Mr. Previously mentioned employee told the Plaintiff that Defendant, EMPLOYEE NOT TO WHISTLE BLOW TO, an individual, might not have the authority to fire the Plaintiff, but Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, did as if to imply that said Defendant would fire the Plaintiff to refusing to falsely certify castings that did not passed inspection tests.

Approximately two months later, an inspector at Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, informed the Plaintiff that the specification being used was out of date, and pursuant to contract with Boeing, could not be used. The Plaintiff informed Defendant, AEROSPACE FRAUD ARTIST, an individual, of inspetor’s findings and said Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff then rejected these parts and sent them to MRB. The Plaintiff then insisted that the parts shipped out under the last order be recalled and Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual became very angry with the Plaintiff and said Defendant told the Plaintiff that he could lose his job if he continued to insist that parts be recalled. Defendants, AEROSPACE FRAUD ARTIST, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, both individuals, and each of them, told the Plaintiff that Boeing and Boeing Vought were not to be notified about the Plaintiff's intention to recall these parts, or the fact that the parts failed inspection tests.

The Plaintiff is informed and believes that, based upon tests that he ran, the parts from Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER were cracked before they were shipped to Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER, INC. The Plaintiff is also informed and believes that NDT penetrant and x-ray certifications from Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER were falsified to show a passing inspection at MQS.

Defendants, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, USELESS QUALITY CONTROL BOARD MEMBER, both individuals, and each of them, certified these parts from AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER and shipped them to Boeing, Boeing Vought, and the other distributors who the Plaintiff is informed and believes were selling to government contractors.

On or about June of 1994, the Plaintiff discovered that Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was still purchasing castings from Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER The castings purchased were part of the same lot that had caused Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER to falsify documentation in approximately November of 1993. The Plaintiff discovered that the company attorney had done nothing to correct this problem. The Plaintiff told Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, that Boeing should be notified that they were sold parts from Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE PARTS SUPPLIER that had not passed MQS inspection, and Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. had shipped them nonetheless. The Plaintiff also voiced his opinion that the new batch of BAD AEROSPACE SUPPLIER’S parts from this lot not be shipped because shipping the parts and falsifying documents in order to do so was illegal, the Plaintiff would not be party to this type of action, and the F.A.A. should be notified. Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, an individual, became very mad at the Plaintiff, told him to "shut his mouth and that he was done." The Plaintiff was terminated several days later.

On or about August 10, 1993, the Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER sent Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. certifications showing that all 52 parts out of a 52 part lot, MQS Control Number 6453822, Part Number VOTEB-01052, had passed inspection tests. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE PARTS SUPPLIER produced a false MQS certification showing that 52 out of 52 parts had passed inspection tests at MQS when the actual certification by MQS shows that 28 out of the 52 parts had been rejected. These falsifications violate MIL SPECIFICATION MIL-Q-9858A as well as Federal Aviation Regulation 21.3. MIL STANDARD 2175 required that for "C" class castings, 100% of the parts in the lot be inspected, and that if 25% of the lot failed, the whole lot would be rejected. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that these castings went to one of the military contractors listed in Paragraph 20 of Employment Lawyer, Karl Gerber’s long winded lawsuit complaint.

The Plaintiff is further informed that between the years 1989 and 1994, Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC. was falsifying their log books regarding the number of parts inspected. Basically, said Defendant was reporting to all of the government contractors described in Paragraph 20 of this aerospace whistleblowing lawsuit that they had inspected far more parts than said Defendant had staff to inspect. The Plaintiff bases this belief on the fact that said Defendant's log books showed that they inspected up to 50,000 parts some days when they only had enough inspectors to inspect 20,000-25,000 parts a day maximum. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that many parts were never inspected at all, and other parts were inspected so quickly that the inspectors could not possibly discover anything but a gross defect. The Plaintiff also bases this belief on the fact that a NADCAP auditor named SKEPTICAL AUDITOR had told the Plaintiff that he too wondered how said Defendant could be inspecting so many parts per day. The Plaintiff complained to Defendants, AEROSPACE FRAUD ARTIST, AEROSPACE EMPLOYEE G, both individuals, and each of them, approximately 20-25 times, until the day that the Plaintiff was terminated, about this fraudulent inspection and certification policy in violation of Federal Aviation Regulation 21.2.

On or about August 10, 1993, before machining the castings, MQS had rejected an entire lot of 125 castings from Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER which were identified as MQS Control Number 538SDFDF20 at Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER The Plaintiff called MQS and requested that they fax the Plaintiff a certification for these castings. The certification from MQS castings showed that 48 out of the 125 castings had been rejected at MAG inspection. Then, pursuant to the Plaintiff's request, Defendant, BAD AEROSPACE PARTS SUPPLIER and AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INCORPORATE created a false certification showing that all of the castings in this lot passed certification standards. MIL STANDARD 2175 required that for "C" class castings, 100% of the parts in the lot be inspected, and that if 25% of the lot failed, the whole lot would be rejected. This also violated Federal Aviation Administration Regulation 21.2.

On or about August 11, 1993, as a result of the discrepancies in testing described in Paragraph 39 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit, the Plaintiff asked employee at third quality company to obtain the last 10 orders that said Defendant inspected for Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER employee then informed the Plaintiff that another aerospace parts manufacturer had a previous problem with altered certifications from Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER employee also informed the Plaintiff that he was aware that other customers of Defendant, AEROSPACE PARTS MANUFACTURER were having problems wherein it appeared that said Defendant was falsifying the test results of their parts and falsely certifying them.

On or about July 29, 1994, the Plaintiff was terminated due to a pretextual reduction in force. The Plaintiff was then replaced with Lee IOcoco, the NTD Level III who had caused the initial problems with Boeing, and had been willing to freely certify parts.

Based upon the Plaintiff's training, experience, and knowledge of the aerospace industry, the Plaintiff is informed and believes that all of the parts that are complained of herein were "flight critical" parts meaning that they were bolts that held the landing gear of airplanes in tact as well as the engines of aircraft.

Under California law, no employee, whether they are an at-will employee, or an employee under a written or other employment contract, can be terminated for a reason that is in violation of a fundamental public policy. In recent years, the California court has interpreted a fundamental public policy to be any articulable constitutional or statutory provision that is concerned with a matter effecting society at large rather than a purely personal or proprietary interest of the employee or the employer. Moreover, the public policy must be fundamental, substantial, and well established at the time of discharge. Additionally, an employee's complaint about the employer's violation of a criminal statute, and then the employee's discharge after complaining, is a violation of public policy. Furthermore, it is a violation of public policy to terminate or retaliate against an employee by treating the employee differently than other similarly situated employees, or terminating an employee who has a reasonable belief that the employer, or one of the employer's supervisors, is violating a statute if the employee has complained to the employer about what the employee reasonably believes to be statutorily prohibited activity, or the employee refuses to comply with the employer's requests that the employee go along with the perceived statutory violation.

Plaintiff, AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWING EMPLOYEE, is informed, believes, and based thereon, alleges that all named Defendants to this cause of action, and each of them, terminated him in violation of public policy by terminating and retaliating against the Plaintiff because he complained of all named Defendants', and each of their, wrongful acts in violation of:

a. 31 U.S.C. 3729, et. seq. also known as the Federal False Claims Act by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely refusing to approve the scraping of rejected parts and then shipping the parts to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government, and falsely representing test results to customers known to be selling to the government;
b. 18 U.S.C. 1001, et. seq. also known as the federal fraud and false statement act by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely refusing to approve the scraping of rejected parts and then shipping the parts to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government, and falsely representing test results to these customers;
c. 18 U.S.C. 1031 (major fraud against the United States) by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely refusing to approve the scraping of rejected parts and then shipping the parts to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government, and falsely representing test results to these customers;
f. 18 U.S.C. 287 also known as the false, fictitious or fraudulent claims act, by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely refusing to approve the scraping of rejected parts and then shipping the parts to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government, and falsely representing the results of tests to their customers who were known sellers to the United States Government;
g. MIL SPECIFICATION MIL-Q-9858A by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and refusing to destroy scraped parts within 24 hours and then shipping them to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government;
h. Sections 1709 and 1710 of the California Civil Code by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and knowingly misrepresenting to their customers that they were scraping parts that did not pass inspection tests, and scrapping these parts within twenty four hours when they were selling their customers these rejected parts without telling them that they were rejected, and by falsely representing the results of tests;
i. 15 U.S.C.A. 45 by engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices that affect commerce by obtaining an unfair advantage over their competitors, by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely representing test results. Said Defendant's competitors were incurring business losses when they had to scrap defective parts and honestly communicate with their customers and participate in retest and rejection programs;>
j. California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et. seq. by engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts and practices that affect commerce by obtaining an unfair advantage over their competitors, by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and falsely representing test results. Said Defendant's competitors were incurring business losses when they had to scrap defective parts and honestly communicate with their customers and participate in retest and rejection programs;
k. 18 U.S.C. 1961 and 18 U.S.C.A. 1341 by conspiring with Defendant, SHOGUN PRECISION CASTINGS INC. to falsely represent to Defendant, AEROSPACE EMPLOYER INC.'S customers that the castings described in Paragraphs 34-37, and 39 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit had passed inspection tests when they had not, and sending these false reports, through the United States Mail, to said Defendant's customers;
l. MIL STANDARD I-45208 by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit and refusing to destroy scraped parts within 24 hours and then shipping them to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government;
m. Federal Aviation Regulation 14 C.F.R. 21, et. seq. and especially 21.2 by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 21-41 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit, falsely representing test results, and refusing to destroy scraped parts within 24 hours and then shipping them to known government contractors who were known to be selling the parts to the United States Government;
n. MIL STANDARD 105 by doing that which is alleged in Paragraph 31 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit;
o. MIL STANDARD 2175 by doing that which is alleged in Paragraphs 37 and 39 of this aerospace whistleblower lawsuit;
p. violating other MIL SPECIFICATIONS, Federal Aviation Regulations as well as state and federal laws that the effect the public at large, which will be fully disclosed before trial, and during discovery.

The Plaintiff alleges that all of the named Defendants, and each of them, violated articulable public policies affecting society at large by violating the statutes, described in Paragraph 47 of this aeorspace whistleblower lawsuit, in the manner in which the Plaintiff alleges that said Defendants did so in Paragraph 46 of his whistleblower complaint. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that said Defendants' violations of the above referred statutes affects society at large by:

a. refusing to scrap parts that they agreed to scrap and thereby committing fraud on their customers and the United States Government by shipping their customers "flight critical" parts that have the substantial possibility of causing seriously bodily injury or death if they malfunction;
b. refusing to properly represent test results to their customers and allowing their customers and the United States Government to use "flight critical parts" that did not pass inspection tests, and therefore have a significant possibility of malfunctioning and causing seriously bodily injury or death;
c. thrusting "flight critical parts" into the air that are lacking in quality and have the significant possibility of malfunctioning and causing serious bodily injury or death;
d. engaging in unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive trade practices which give the Defendants an unfair competitive advantage over their competitors who must pay the price of complying with the law, and as the result of said Defendant's unfair trade practices, said Defendants have caused the significant possibility of causing serious injury to the public by causing serious bodily injury or death if a non-conforming part malfunctions;
e. using the United States mails and wire systems to engage in a pattern of racketeering by falsely communicating test results and certifications for the purpose of defrauding said Defendant's customers, using parts that should be scraped, and ultimately defrauding the United States Government by allowing false claims and statements to be made to the United States Government;
f. committing major fraud on known suppliers to the United States Government, and ultimately committing major fraud upon the United States Government, when said Defendant knows that were it not for the United States Government's purchases, said Defendant would not be able to sell some of its parts at all, and would not be able to sell other parts in such quantity;
g. failing to obey the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations aimed at preventing flight disasters, and maintaining the high level of quality for which United States civilian airplanes and military airplanes are known for, which helps to preserve the national security of this nation.
AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWING CASE RESULT:

$186,000 SETTLEMENT IN 2014 DOLLARS, MONEY ALSO PAID BY FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE PARTS SUPPLIER

THOUSAND OAKS FINANCIAL PROFESSIONAL IN AN AEROSPACE COMPANY FIRED FOR WHISTLEBLOWING

WRONGFUL TERMINATION CASE RESULTS: $139,000 SETTLEMENT IN 2014 DOLLARS

HARDCORE SAN FERNANDO VALLEY AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWER CASE

AEROSPACE WHISTLEBLOWING CASE RESULT:

$186,000 SETTLEMENT IN 2014 DOLLARS, MONEY ALSO PAID BY FRAUDULENT AEROSPACE PARTS SUPPLIER