After NITV lost a demation lawsuit brought by competitor Elwood Gary Baker, Humble began running substantially the same business under the rubric of “NITV Federal Services, LLC.”
NITV, LLC never paid its judgment debt to Baker, and litigation by Baker in an attempt to collect on that debt is pending. Humble’s bankruptcy filing appears to be a naked attempt to stiff his creditors.
Humble lists $761,443.09 in unsecured claims against NITV, LLC. Apart from the quarter million dollar judgment debt to Baker, Humble also reports owing $329,076.19 in attorney fees to Brinkley Morgan of Fort Lauderdale and $139,266.90 in attorney fees to Seiden, Alder, et al. of Boca Raton. Humble also reports a $43,100 debt to himself for money loaned to NITV, LLC to pay attorney fees.
Effective September 1, 2021, Polygraph Examiners are no longer required to be licensed by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR).
Texas House Bill 1560, passed during the 87th Regular Legislative Session (2021), ended licensure for Polygraph Examiners. TDLR will stop accepting new and renewal license applications effective immediately.
A currently valid license will not expire until September 1, 2021.
Other states with no polygraph licensing requirement include California and New York.
In the 29th episode of his true crime Light ‘Em Up podcast, host Phillip L. Rizzo speaks with AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke. Topics discussed include Maschke’s personal experience with the polygraph, the scientific shortcomings of polygraphy, polygraph policy, and countermeasures.
After forming a relationship with a woman named Amanda for five months, Perkins took on the responsibilty of looking after her 15 month old daughter Carolina Rose Dodd.
Tragically on Aug. 22, 2018 Carolina’s mother later found the girl unresponsive and face down. The infant was later confirmed dead, according to WITN.
On 14 November 2018, Perkins appeared on The Steve Wilkos Show where he initially refused to take a lie detector test. He was seen storming off stage and past lie detector expert Daniel Ribacoff’s office. Wilkos pursues him as Perkins demands not to be filmed as he smokes a cigarette outside. After being persuaded to come inside, he still refused to take the lie detector test to prove his innocence.
He yawns and fails to communicate with Steve – who later describes him as a “snake.”
It’s only after Perkins’ girlfriend threatens to break up with him that he agrees to take the test.
He is asked: “Did you witness anyone causing Amanda’s 15 month old daughter’s death?” and “Did you intentionally cause Amanda’s 15 month old daughter’s death?”
He passed both questions – much to the shock of the audience.
A Clemmons man smothered his girlfriend’s 15-month-old daughter to death with a pillow because she would not stop crying after she was burned by the man’s cigarette, a Forsyth County prosecutor said in court Thursday.
Dressed in an orange jail jumpsuit, Jesse Wayne Perkins, stood in front of Judge David Hall of Forsyth Superior Court on Thursday morning and pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in the August 2018 death of the toddler, Carolina Rose Dodd.
The plea saved Perkins from a possible sentence of death if the case had gone to trial and a jury had convicted him of first-degree murder. Forsyth County prosecutors had declared last year that they would pursue the death penalty. The only other sentence for a first-degree murder conviction is life in prison without the possibility of parole.
That’s exactly what Hall sentenced Perkins to after his guilty plea to murder and several unrelated charges, including attempted possession of controlled substances while incarcerated at the Forsyth County Jail awaiting trial. The other charges were consolidated into the murder charge.
Perkins, his girlfriend, Amanda Vanzant, and her daughter, Carolina, lived together in the apartment. Perkins is not the child’s biological father.
Both Vanzant and Perkins initially denied involvement in the child’s death. But Perkins later told investigators that he was caring for Carolina while Vanzant was at work. When Vanzant came home, Carolina was in her Pack-n-Play and Perkins told Vanzant that Carolina was asleep.
Vanzant took a nap. When she woke up, she went to check on Carolina and found the toddler cold and unresponsive.
Perkins told investigators that he was watching movies and smoking a cigarette. Carolina walked into the cigarette and got a burn on her chest and started crying.
Perkins said he tried to calm the toddler but she wouldn’t be quiet. That’s when he said he snapped and grabbed a pillow and smothered her. According to an autopsy report, he placed Carolina facedown in the Pack-n-Play at 10:30 a.m. on Aug. 22, 2018. Perkins said Vanzant was in no way involved in her daughter’s death.
Both Jesse Wayne Perkins and Amanda Vanzant passed polygraph “tests” administered for the show. The episode title, “A 15-Month-Old Died: What Do You Have to Hide?” is ironic because clearly, the Steve Wilkos Show itself now has something to hide. Not long after Christine Kalio’s critical reporting for TheThings was published on 19 August 2021, the Steve Wilkos Show deleted its video of the episode from YouTube.
Nonetheless, AntiPolygraph.org has found a 10-minute portion of the episode on YouTube and is mirroring it here for public discussion purposes in the event that YouTube receives a takedown notice:
Are Afghan interpreters who risked their lives to help U.S. forces now being consigned to death because of a flawed test?
“They just told me, ‘you failed the polygraph test,'” Afghan interpreter Omid Mahmoodi said.
Many tell Newsy they’ve been denied Special Immigrant Visas after failing the required polygraph.
“The use of the polygraph has been very helpful, but it’s unfair many times” Tom Mauriello, Former Chief of Polygraph at the Department of Defense said.
This all comes as the U.S. troop withdrawal in Afghanistan is almost complete and the Taliban is gaining ground.
All the reason, Mauriello says, a polygraph shouldn’t make-or-break an interpreter’s chances of coming to the U.S.
“Should the government be using it? Yes,” Mauriello said. “But they should be using it as a tool, among other things, so if they’re not successful on a polygraph test, but they’ve done an extensive background investigation and there’s no reason to have any concerns or problem, they should weigh those two things and then decide whether a person should have access or be approved for whatever they’re being evaluated for.”
Ingber also spoke with AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke about the policy of denying visas to Afghans who served with U.S. forces based on polygraph results:
“It is, in fact, a cop-invented pseudoscience,” former Intelligence Officer George Maschke said. “The claim that polygraph has no scientific basis is supported by the National Academy of Sciences, which conducted an exhaustive review of the scientific evidence on polygraphs and in its 2002 report ‘The Polygraph and Lie Detection’ expressly recommended against polygraph screening by federal agencies.”
Polygraphs aren’t admissible evidence in most courtrooms. The major exception is New Mexico. So why are they being used here?
“I feel it’s unconscionable that the United states government is denying evacuation to Afghans who served honorably with our forces simply because they failed a polygraph test,” Maschke continued. “And I think it would be appropriate for President Biden to take executive action to reverse that policy immediately.”
In a report published online on Tuesday, 27 July 2021, Newsy In the Loop presenter Christian Bryant asked national security reporter Sasha Ingber about the plight of Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants who have been rejected because they failed a polygraph:
Bryant: You know, one of the things that we’ve talked about is the fact that, you know, we’re going to see some arrivals at Fort Lee, but there are some people who’ve applied and already been denied because of—because they failed a polygraph. What can you tell us about the Afghan interpreters who have already failed this polygraph test. I mean, what can you tell us about that hurdle for some of these interpreters and their families?
Ingber: Well, I spoke with the former chief of polygraph at the Defense Department, and it was a fascinating conversation because he seemed to cast some doubt on the, the weight and gravity of the polygraph as being the way to determine whether or not an Afghan should come to the country. If you don’t get through the polygraph test, then your visa application is denied. And he says that it should be one piece in a mosaic, essentially, that helps to determine whether or not you should be allowed to come here, that a security check, looking at your background, should also weigh heavily into that decision, that cultural clashes, and even who your polygrapher is, can affect how you do on that test, Christian.
While Ingber did not state the name of the former DoD polygraph chief with whom she spoke, we commend him for his candor and hope that he will continue to speak out about this urgent policy matter.
The entire In the Loop report, which begins with discussion of the evacuation of some Afghans to Fort Lee, Virginia, may be viewed here (14 MB MP4 file).
The lives of Afghans who served honorably with U.S. forces but were denied visas simply because they failed a polygraph “test” are in imminent danger with the United States completing its withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of August 2021 and the Taliban gaining control over increasingly large parts of the country.
In a report presented by foreign correspondent Anna Coren, CNN chronicles the plight of Afghan linguists who served with United States forces but have been denied Special Immigrant Visas. Both interpreters showcased in the video report were fired because they failed pseudoscientific polygraph “tests.”
The following is an excerpt from the written article accompanying the video report:
Abdul Rashid Shirzad…served for five years as a linguist working alongside America’s military elite, translating for US Special Forces.
He showed CNN photographs of his time on missions in the Kejran Valley in Uruzgan province working with the US Navy’s SEAL Team 10. But according to Shirzad, his service has now amounted to a death sentence. The US government rejected his Special Immigrant Visa, and he said that’s made him a target for the Taliban.
“If they catch me they’re going to kill me, kill my kids and my wife too. It’s payback time for them you know,” he said.
The father of three said his contract with the US military was terminated in 2014 after he also failed a polygraph test. He had applied for his visa the year before.
But Shirzad’s letters of recommendation from SEAL commanders, seen by CNN, reflect a translator who went above and beyond duty. They describe him as a “valuable and necessary asset” who “braved enemy fire” and “undoubtedly saved the lives of Americans and Afghans alike.”
Shirzad said he was excited to work with the Americans, and became a lead liaison between US and Afghan Special Forces. One recommendation letter for the visa, from a US commander, described how Shirzad took part in 63 “high-risk direct action combat missions” and was “vital” to the success of his team’s operations. It detailed how he helped the recovery of a team member who was caught in a blast and left with life threatening injuries.
Shirzad said he has no idea what he did wrong and never received an explanation for his termination. His visa rejection letter from the US Embassy stated “lack of faithful and valuable service.”
The situation for the second interpreter showcased, Sohail Pardis, is more grim. Pardis worked as an interpreter for U.S. military contractor Mission Essential Personnel from 17 May 2011 until 18 August 2012 when, as CNN reports, he was terminated after failing a polygraph “test.” Pardis was subsequently denied a Special Immigrant Visa.
According to family members, on 12 May 2021, the Taliban stopped Pardis at a checkpoint, dragged him out of his car, and beheaded him. CNN showed a blurred copy of the following photograph, which we believe readers should see unedited:
CNN correspondent Anna Coren spoke with Pardis’ friend and fellow Special Immigrant Visa reject Abdulhaq Ayoubi and visited Pardis’ gravesite. The video report may be viewed here.
It is unconscionable that Special Immigrant Visas are being denied based on polygraph outcomes. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences completed a thorough review of the scientific evidence on polygraphs and advised that “[polygraph testing’s] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies.”
Steve Wilkos, who routinely uses lie detector tests on his eponymous television talk show, claimed in a 2016 Reddit “Ask Me Anything” thread that “[t]he lie detector tests are like 99% accurate.”
But more recently, Wilkos admitted in an interview with New York radio station WWPR’s nationally syndicated program, The Breakfast Club, that he would never take a lie detector test and that he beat one when he was younger.
Wilkos made the admission on air on Friday, 29 March 2019, in response to a question from Breakfast Club co-host Angela Lee, who asked, “How credible are lie detectors, because people are always saying they know how to beat it?”
Wilkos’s reply, and the ensuing conversation between Wilkos, Lee and The Breakfast Club’s other co-hosts, Charlamagne tha God and DJ Envy, are transcribed below:
Wilkos: Well, put it this way. My son did a school project, science project, right? So he did it on lie detector tests and he came in with my guy Dan Ribacoff and he did the, you know, test and stuff and they asked, and it was a hundred percent, you know what I mean? So like, would I ever take one? Hell no, I mean I would never take one!
Lee: What are you hiding? What are you hiding Steve?
Wilkos: It’s not that I’m hiding anything, but like, if it came like, were, you know, would you let anything in your life that’s important to you fall into the hands of a lie detector test–
Charlamagne tha God: Not if it’s not accurate.
Wilkos: That’s what I’m saying, like… I’ll say this. I did beat a lie detector test when I was younger. I had to take a lie detector test, and I lied on that thing.
Lee: What were you lying about?
Wilkos (laughing): I really don’t want to get into that right now.
Lee: We have to know this.
Charlamagne tha God: You said you lied, Steve.
Lee: You’re a habitual liar, Steve. (laughter)
Wilkos: After I have bleeding on the brain, I just got discharged [from the hospital], I don’t know, I… Who knows what I said? But, yeah, so I took a lie detector test and I beat it, you know, and…
DJ Envy: How did you beat it? ‘Cause they tell you like if you breathe normally?
Wilkos: So, I’ll tell you this. I was a young guy, and I was working somewhere, and something went down. I was not involved, but I knew what happened, okay? I knew what happened. So the company came in, they brought in a lie detector. So I came into work and they’re like, “Oh, you’re taking a lie detector test.”
Well, immediately I like crumbled. I’m like “Oh my God!” you know? But like, so, they called in like three or four other people before me, and then when it came to me, I was already calmed down. So then when I got in there, the guy goes—I had my high school jacket on the thing—and he goes, “Oh, you go to Lane Tech?” I go “Yeah.” He goes, “Oh, I went there, too!” So right off the bat the guy’s putting me at ease, you know? And then I just went on. I lied, like basically I didn’t know—
Charlamagne tha God: You lied to that nice guy.
Wilkos: I lied, I lied because I didn’t want to be a rat.
Charlamagne tha God: No snitching!
Wilkos: Right. I didn’t want to be a rat, and I just didn’t—I really didn’t even want to be involved. And some of the dudes I would have to say about, they were scary guys, right?
Charlamagne tha God: Got you, got you.
Wilkos: I don’t want nothin’ to do with that.
Lee: Like the blue wall of silence thing?
Wilkos: Well, I wasn’t a cop. I was a high school… Cops don’t take lie detector tests. They—I never…
Lee: Really? They don’t have to do that?
Wilkos: I—no, I was on the job for twelve years. I never…
On 10 December 2019, nine months after Wilkos’s admission that he would never take a lie detector test, he accused Anca Pennington, a guest on his show, of having burned her infant daughter with cigarettes, because she had failed a lie detector “test” administered by the show’s polygraph operator, Daniel Ribacoff. In fact, no one had burned Pennington’s daughter: lesions that had appeared on the child’s leg turned out to be the result of a ringworm infection. The anguish of being falsely accused and publicly humiliated led to Pennington’s attempted suicide later the same day.
Viewers and potential guests of the Steve Wilkos Show should be aware that when it comes to lie detectors, Wilkos is unwilling to eat his own dogfood.
Steve Wilkos’ admission that he would never take a lie detector test may be viewed below:
At a meeting of the San Diego City Council’s Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee held on 16 June 2021, Captain Rudy Tai of the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) mentioned that the pre-employment polygraph screening process now includes questioning about hate crimes and racial bias. As part of a “Recruitment and Retention Update” Tai told the committee:
As far as our polygraph update, what we notice is we meet with our polygraphers—our polygraphers are in-house—we meet with them once a quarter, just to make sure that we’re all on the same page. As we see issues coming up nationwide, take for example we wanted to make sure we were capturing questions in the polygraph that have to do with hate incidents, hate crimes, any biases a person may have, any associations they may have—on social media—make sure we capture that within the polygraph process.
I do have a question about the one slide put—about the steps that go through—the polygraph test. I’m just curious what questions are asked on the polygraph test.
SDPD Lieutenant Steve Waldheim responded without actually disclosing precisely what questions are asked:
So, regarding the polygraph, they ask a plethora of questions. So, they actually break it down into four different categories, and they break it down into drugs, serious crimes, again what we added there was pertaining to any uh racial uh anything to that, that uh basically any bias, things like that, so they ask just about anything and everything on the polygraph. So they cover a lot. Usually it takes at least two hours to go over with a polygrapher, um, and they ask just about everything. And they reiterate, again, with our background detectives, we meet with them before, and we have pre-polygraph interview with the background detective. They go over all the questions, again, and they are getting asked on the pre-investigative questionnaire and the personal history statement. So we ask just about everything. And then they confirm that on the polygraph with them hooked up on the machine.
Councilmember Campillo responded:
Okay. Understood. I’m glad to hear that issues of the bias, it, whether they’re racial, social, gender, of all sorts, I, I, I’m glad to hear that. It’s a concern of mine, and we’ve be—know we want to continue to, to find and prevent folks who do have those sorts of biases from being able to be part of law enforcement just because of how much—how important the role is in criminal justice. I was gonna ask if—when we have a police officer transfer from a different department, from a different agency, maybe I should say, into SDPD, do they go through that same polygraph test as well?
To which Lt. Waldheim replied:
Yes sir, they do. They all go through the same polygraph. They all go through the same background investigation.
On 20 June 2021, AntiPolygraph.org co-founder George Maschke wrote to Councilmember Raul Campillo regarding the inadequacy of Lieutenant Steve Walheim’s reply and asked, among other things, whether he would support polygraph screening of applicants for employment with the San Diego city attorney’s office (his former employer):
Dear Councilmember Campillo,
I write for AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to polygraph policy reform. I listened with interest to the discussion of polygraph policy at last week’s meeting of the Public Safety and Livable Neighborhoods Committee and am preparing to publish an article that will quote your question about that.
At that meeting, you expressed satisfaction with Lt. Steve Waldheim’s reply that the police department’s polygraph screening process includes questions about racial bias. However, Lt. Waldheim actually dodged your question with generalities. You had asked him what questions are asked on the polygraph test. He didn’t actually tell you what questions are asked.
AntiPolygraph.org published the precise questions asked on the SDPD pre-employment polygraph examination two years ago:
It appears that the question, “Have you ever committed any serious crime?” remains unchanged, with the exception that its scope, which is discussed with the subject during the pre-test phase, has been expanded to include hate crimes (which it previously did not). The following SDPD graphic shows the areas that were previously covered by this question:
A question not raised at last week’s meeting is whether SDPD should be relying on polygraph screening at all. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences completed a thorough review of the scientific evidence on polygraphs and found polygraph screening to be completely invalid and advised against its use by federal agencies.
You should also be aware that polygraphy is vulnerable to simple, effective countermeasures that anyone can learn and that polygraph operators cannot detect. You’ll find such countermeasures explained in Ch. 4 of our free book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector.
In view of polygraphy’s scientific shortcomings, do you support the SDPD’s reliance on it to screen applicants? If so, why?
And if you do support the SDPD’s use of polygraphs on applicants, would you also support a polygraph screening requirement for those seeking employment with the city attorney’s office? If not, why not?
I will be happy to address any questions you may have regarding the foregoing.
George W. Maschke, Ph.D. AntiPolygraph.org Tel/SMS: 1-202-810-2105 (Please use Signal Private Messenger or WhatsApp) Wire: @ap_org E-mail/iMessage/FaceTime: firstname.lastname@example.org Twitter: @ap_org
Councilmember Campillo did not resond to our inquiry.
At the same meeting, Council President Pro Tem Stephen Whitburn asked about attrition in the hiring process, in response to which Lt. Waldheim stated:
…a little over 50% fail the written exam, then 15% will fail the physical aspect, then when it comes to the PIQ, the pre-investigative questionnaire, we lose about half of them at that step, because then they’ll be disqualified for some reason or another… Then our polygraph examination, we lose about 50% on that aspect. However, even though we lose fifty percent, the majority of the failures actually have new disclosures, which then tells us that the polygraph test is doing its job, catching people in a lie.
The 50% pre-employment polygraph failure rate mentioned by Waldheim is not unusual among governmental agencies with a pre-employment polygraph screening requirement. Given that polygraphy has no scientific basis, it is inevitable that many honest applicants are being falsely branded as liars and wrongly disqualified from employment.
Waldheim’s claim that the majority of those who fail make “new disclosures” should not be uncritically accepted. Polygraph operators are typically rated on the basis of their confession rates after a failed “test.” They are thus incentivized both to seek admissions and to amplify their significance.
Waldheim’s use of the weasel words “new disclosures” suggests that not all such disclosures are necessarily admissions to having lied on the polygraph.
We happen to have the contract for the MTA police, the Metropolitan Transit Authority Police, so we do the polygraphs for pre-employment, where we search for what we call undetected crimes.
As previouslyreported by AntiPolygraph.org, Ribacoff’s company, International Investigative Group, is the defendant in current civil litigation credibly alleging billing fraud in the millions of dollars.
On 17 June 2021, AntiPolygraph.org submitted the following inquiry to Metropolitan Transit Authority media relations:
Is the MTA aware that the contractor who does pre-employment polygraph screening for the MTA Police Department (International Investigative Group) is the defendant in a civil lawsuit credibly alleging billing fraud in the millions of dollars? AntiPolygraph.org reported yesterday on the latest developments in this litigation:
We’re planning to report on the MTA having selected the fraud-tainted International Investigative Group (IIG) to screen police applicants and would like to know 1) when the MTA awarded this company its first contract to screen applicants, 2) when the current contract period ends, 3) whether MTA intends to cancel the current contract before it ends, 4) whether MTA intends to renew its contract with IIG, and 5) how many applicants have been polygraphed by IIG?
Any additional comment MTA may have on its dealings with IIG is also welcome.
MTA media relations neither responded to nor acknowledged this inquiry, which was submitted directly via their website.
A pre-employment polygraph examination conducted for the MTAPD in late 2020 by Daniel Ribacoff’s daughter, Lisa Ribacoff (a member of the American Polygraph Association’s board of directors), is at issue in a racial discrimination complaint currently pending before the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.