context_title
context_text
|
Topic Summary - Displaying 3 post(s). |
Posted by: mike_C.
Posted on: Jun 29th, 2005 at 10:05am
|
Mark & Quote Quote
|
|
Good work, George. Help spread the (lack of) love regarding polygraph testing. Hopefully, the San Bernardino County board of supervisors will know their rights and will refuse to submit to any polygraph testing, just out of sheer personal knowlege alone, that this crap is never introduced as evidence in any US court.
Mike_C.
|
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 23rd, 2005 at 9:59pm
|
Mark & Quote
|
Press-Enterprise reporter Imran Ghori, in an article in today's edition titled "Memo-leak inquiry begins to take shape" writes, among other things: Quote:Supervisor Paul Biane called on his colleagues Tuesday to take polygraph tests and volunteered himself and his staff members to submit to questioning.
District attorney's spokeswoman Susan Mickey said the lawyer heading the investigation has not determined whether polygraph tests would be helpful.
"We are going to do a thorough investigation and not be influenced by anyone from the outside," Mickey said. "This will be conducted just like any other investigation."
Postmus and Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Gary Ovitt all said they would make themselves and their staffs available for lie-detector tests.
Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, whom Biane has accused of leaking the document, said he would take the test if other supervisors did and if the investigation was expanded to look into whether settlement talks occurred outside closed session, in violation of state law.
Mickey said polygraph tests are not admissible in court and the DA's office cannot compel anyone to take one.
And while the supervisors volunteered their employees to take polygraph tests, a lawyer who specializes in labor law said it would be up to the individuals to decide whether they wanted to take the test.
The California labor code specifically states that private employers cannot require employees or job applicants to take lie-detector tests, said Jim Stoneman, a Claremont lawyer. A 1986 California Supreme Court case extended those rights to public employees, he said.
That protection also would apply to at-will political appointees, such as a county supervisor's staff, Stoneman said.
"They cannot be terminated for refusing to give up a lawful right that is theirs, such as a right to privacy," he said.
|
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Jun 22nd, 2005 at 11:05am
|
Mark & Quote
|
San Bernardino County, California Supervisor Paul Biane has called on his fellow supervisors to submit to lie detector "tests" to determine who leaked a confidential memo to two newspapers. See: I have sent the following e-mail to each of San Bernardino's five supervisors, and cc'd the district attorney: Quote:Dear San Bernardino County Supervisors: Supervisor Biane has publicly suggested that you should submit to polygraph tests regarding a leaked memo. Before agreeing to any such "testing," you should be aware that polygraphy has no scientific basis. Instead, it depends on trickery and the examinee's ignorance of the testing procedure, which has an inherent bias against truthful persons. On the other hand, liars can easily pass the polygraph using simple countermeasures that polygraphers cannot reliably detect. Given these shortcomings, reliance on the polygraph is unlikely to resolve the issue at hand and could instead lead to investigatorial misdirection. Documented information on polygraph validity, procedure, and countermeasures is available in AntiPolygraph.org's free e-book, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, which may be downloaded as a 1 mb PDF file here: http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org Fax/Voice Mail: +1 206 338-4466 PGP Public Key: 2012AAF6 AOL Messenger: GeorgeMaschke Skype (Secure Internet Phone/Text Chat): georgemaschke |
