nopolycop

I go to the University Law library because it makes me look intellectual. Ha. Really, I go there because I can have 3 or 4 volumes in front of me at a time for immediate reference. I have laidlaw and most of the other links including all Appeal courts and the U.S. Supct. BTW - I see a lot of full fledge lawyers there doing the same thing that I am doing and have had some interesting conversation with them which I also consider reasearch. Have gained a lot of courtroom jurisprudence knowledge from them. However, a few have been extremely arrogant.

Twoblock wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 2:58pm:


Twoblock:

Legal research has by passed the county law library and is now in the electronic age.  Most states have a free link to all their state appellate cases, and for federal cases, www.findlaw.com is a pretty good resource.   

The interesting thing about federal (or state)  due process cases is that all one has to do is make a cogent argument that a government action is unfair.  If the court buys it, then the government has violated your constitutional rights to due process.  This is where Croddy was headed, but never got there, because the court ruled that because the plaintiffs were not already government employees, they had no right to fair treatment from the government, because they had no constitutinally protected employment/property rights.  As far as my request, probably not worth the time, but I will PM you with some additional information if you want to dabble a little.

nopolycop

My area of law research has been primarily in mining law and secondarily ADA. The ADA came about when my sister was kept overly doped up in a nursing home so as to present no problem and less care to the staff. Half of the patients there was in the same condition.

The mining law activity had nothing to do with employment. Some Due Process cases there but I can't remember them now.

The ADA, however, is loaded with Due Process violations. I remember a U.S. SpCt case "Tennessee v. Lane". Lane is a paraplegic who couldn't get to his court appointment because the courthouse was not wheel chair accessable. Ruling for Lane.

I have no experience in state cases, but I have spent days on end in law libraries researching federal law. From just one case you can grab hundreds of other citings. There are such cases in every Appeals Court District. It is endless and exciting. Although I will probably never be involved in another case, I still occasionally visit the law library just trying keep my mind in as good a shape as the rest of my body. Boy, that's a harder job.

Next week I will check my files and see if I can come with something of interest to you and if I do, I will PM you. Right now I am in the process of refining some placer gold to sell it.

Twoblock wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 5:23pm:


TwoBlock:

After this thread was resurrected, I saw the above phrase.  Have you done any extensive research regarding due process and pre-employment polygraphs?  From what I have seen in my research, most of the cases centered around the right to privacy issue regarding the questions on the polygraph, and were decided before the NAS study and US v. Scheffer.   

The notion that an arbitrary and capricious test could be used to offer government employment has not been looked at, as far as I can tell, but I fully admit I haven't done a complete caselaw search, just a local state search and federal district and supreme courts.  Your thoughts?

Anyone else who can advance this line of inquiry, please feel free to add to the discussion.

Baldylocks66 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2008 at 1:08am:


Baldy-

Least you be misled, please understand no one here is trying to convince the other person of their correctness.  All the posting here is an attempt to convince the non-posting guests who read this forum daily of their positions.  Typically, the anti-poly crowd uses examples of "failed" polygraphs where the individual was actually telling the truth, (called a false positive) along with questioning the methods and intent of the polygraph community.  

The pro-poly community uses misdirection and unscientific studies, (with a healty dose of techno-babble thrown in for good measure) to try to impress the readers with their scientific methodology to prove the polygraph works, (while at the same time admitting that mistakes occur).  You will notice the vocal polygraphists here avoid the direct questions and try to emotionalize the issues.

For example, Donna Taylor, from the Utah Polygraph Association recently posted that 70% of the police applicants she recently tested "passed" the polygraph, but when asked by me how many of those passed by using countermeasures, she avoided the question, because if she would have answered honestly, she should have to admit that she has no clue is any or all of these 70% successful applicants used countermeasures.  Whew...

Sancho and Kaisho my GOD your hands must be so tired form typing. You two should call each other.

Kaisho, You don't have to prove anything here.  But based on the nature of some of the claims you made it was not unreasonable that you were asked to provided some support even if only circumstancial that your claims had some basis in fact. As long as you continue to accuse police officers, prosecutors and judges of committing specific crimes without some offer of proof you may expect your unsupported contention to continue to receive response. 

BTW as long as people are being murdered, and children are being molested or victimized by pornographers and lives are being destroyed by domestic abuse yes IMHO stealing a projector with a possible 4yr penalty is a "Small Fry Felony"

I suspect that if your claims about your case were known by the people you are accusing there is a strong possibility you could be hiring an attorney again. If someone were to perhaps file a slander action against you in order to prevail you might be asked to PROVE the truth of your comments and if you are unable to do so your situation might only get worse not better. 

You say you want to leave this alone and not post anymore but somehow you can't resist the urge to give it one more try.  Like I said Checkers, Marbles, or Mumbelty Peg I am willing and ready. If you want me to leave you alone maybe you should complain to the person whi started this thread and see if he will help you. Maybe you should message the board administrator and see if he concludes that I have violated any of the forum rules. Maybe you should seek a support group to help you let this go. I suggest On and On Anon. 

Sancho Panza

P.S. I also read the information about John Jardine IV. His life was not an easy one and his death was a genuine tragedy. Today the training that officers and EMTs receive in dealing with excited delirium cases would probably have worked just as well with Mr. Jardines violent epileptic episodes and increased the liklihood of him arriving at the hospital alive. I did note that it was a cop who suggested removing the handcuffs in the ambulance and that he was over ruled by the EMTs . The Jardine family did not name a single Police Officer, Attorney, or Judge in their suit. 
S.P

SanchoPanza

Re: your last para. 

But it sometimes happens. About 2% of Fedaral District Courts cases makes it through the respective Circuit Courts of appeal. But very few Writs of Certiorari are accepted bt the U.S. Sup.Ct. Most can be denied or remanded base on previous cases. Few are argued.

On the other hand, I have read cases where state Circuit Court Judges are made to look very foolish by the federal system and I bet you have too.

Twoblock,  a pre-sentence report is prepared post-conviction, generally by a probation/parole officer to assist the judge in deciding what a persons sentence might be after and only after they have been found guilty. Pre-sentence reports must be ordered by the court and if a judge ordered a pre-sentence report before an official finding of guilty he would be overturned in a heartbeat.  Based on all sorts of mitigating factors. A convicted person might be sentenced to prison, the county jail, or a probation period and includes besides mitigating factors and sentence recomendations, a short list of conditions that a probaitoner must agree to as a condition of release. for example people found guilty of DUI might be sentences to AA meetings and things like that. The defense has an absolute right to be heard and contest the pre-sentence report before sentence is imposed. A judge is not bound by any recomendation that appears in a pre-sentence report unless the crime results in a mandatory minimum sentence.

If you are familiar with the federal courts you already know how reluctant judges are to make any descision they think might be overturned, mostly I suspect because they hate to look foolish in front of their peers. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza

A clarification: I'm not here to judge guilt or inocence because I know nothing about the case. However, isn't a pre-sentence report for the purpose of helping the judge in deciding the case? If the failed polygraph report was included in the pre-sentence report, the judge certainly saw it. Can we say, without a doubt, that the judge didn't consider the failed poly? I can't. His first lawyer was a dud and at fault no matter what the appellate court thinks. He was remiss in not hammering the passed poly. What can $40 ph buy you in an appointed lawyer?

All I know, and I can't pinpoint cases for you, about the ones being declared innocent and released is what I read in the papers and hear on TV. But, as I remember, most were shoddily prosecuted an defended.

In reality, and as you've probably observed, maybe I shouldn't debate state cases because my realm of interest has been at the federal level because of my envolvement in mining which has mostly been on federal lands. There is a vast difference between state and federal laws. I'm not a lawyer, but I do fight my own cases pro-se. Fairly successful at it. Even though I am retired now, I still, occasionally, study federal law just in case-----. Besides I enjoy the research.

Has anyone here heard of the Innocence Project?

So far, over 200 people have been exonerated of heinous crimes because of this organization's efforts.

If anyone here believes there was NO top-to-bottom (or, rather bottom-to-top) conspiracy in ALL of those cases, then that is a very naive opinion.

Over 200 people convicted of crimes they did not commit...hmmm, I would be willing to bet that in some of those cases, there was a conspiracy.

Also, did anyone read about the Milwaukee cops who are going to federal prison for beating  someone badly? This after they were acquitted on State charges.

Surely, noconspiracy there, huh?

Sheesh, why do I feel I have to be the one who has to point out the world is a mean, ugly place where those that are in authority are just as capable as those who are not of deceit, trickery and conspiracy?

Please let this be the last thing I say about my case...to date, there was no response to the fact that Det. Lyman told me if I passed a polygraph, he would look elsewhere.  I took a polygraph and passed it, yet he continued to press his case.  If Det. Lyman had stayed true to his word, I would not be a felon.

Now...no more, please.  It is upsetting to me.

At what point was his failed polygraph allowed into evidence? If you carefully review his posts he offers nothing more than an opinion that the judge saw his results before finding him guilty. 

Kaisho only said that he thought it must have been given to the judge in chambers because he could not believe he could have been otherwise convicted. He doesn't know that it is just the only explanation he says he can think of. 

He also said Polygraph information appeared in his pre-sentence report which is not subject to the rules of evidence. If his passed polygraph was not argued at his sentencing his lawyer is to blame as I believe Kaisho is because I have never heard of a sentencing hearing where the defendant was not allowed to speak on his own behalf. 

Twoblock, here is a man who claims a degree in "criminology" which should give him some education as to how the criminal justice system works and what his rights are. He is also represented by at least two attorneys who should be familiar with the system. According to his account of the appellate decision the apellate court thought his first attorney did an OK job because his claim of inneffective assistance of counsel was rejected. 

I have yet to see a single false incarceration case where the proven  "conspiracy" ran all the way from the detective to the apellate court and included the defense attorneys. Please point me towards one, I think it would make interesting reading. 

There is no failure of discovery here because TheKaisho and his attornys already knew the reults of both polygraph examinations.  The kaisho did not claim that any admissable evidence was withheld only that it was rejected. His third post held what he considered to be exculpatory claims. If discovery was withheld he probably wouldn't have most of that information. 
 
Sancho Panza

Twoblock, JP and Donna Taylor,

Thank you for the props, people.  

For an obvious reason, I will address my response to the entire board.

Yes, you all only have my word that things happened the way I say they did.  Short of having a mini-trial in person, how am I supposed to give you something else?

However, I have no motivation to lie to any of you.  Does anyone believe that I would sit here and type this just to type it?  I may not have much of a life, but I do have one.

And I do have a right to my opinion as to why I got convicted.  I never meant anyone to believe that the polygraph results were the only reason I was convicted, but I am certain as I can be that the polygraph played some role, when it should not have played any role.  I can say with a straight face that as my polygraph results were in my pre-sentence report, then someone down at the Courthouse, other than the Prosecutor, had to have known them.  Proof of that failure was enclosed with the report.  I am holding it in my hands right now.

Some people keep backhanding me by saying I have to offer PROOF of my allegations.  Hmmm, in this arena, I do not know how to do that.

Should I snail mail everyone a copy of the police reports, the trial transcript, the briefs for my appeal and let you decide?  Hmm, if I could afford it, I might. 

Also, for a reason that I cannot and do not wish to go into here, there was something else going on with my family at the time that was and is still very painful for me to discuss.  I do not wish to expose it because I have seen how some people will use what I said as yet another knife to carve me up and I cannot handle it emotionally.   

However, in order to avoid being overly cryptic (which some will also use to their advantage) I will throw you all a bone so that you can stop thinking about my motivations. 

Type Jardine death at ASU into Google.  The articles you will find there is about my brother, John, who died at Arizona State University in 1999.  The litigation that followed took 6 years.  My parents settled with the University but they lost their suit against the City of Tempe in late 2005; long after my conviction and exactly, almost to the day, the Appellate Court refused my appeal.  

During all of that time, I learned much about the legal system, much I found disturbing and unfair; to both sides of an issue, I might add.  I received quite an education on qualified Immunity and just how hard it sue to sue city hall.  If it were as simple as some believe, everyone would be doing it.  

I also found out how far some people are willing to go to protect themselves and their secure jobs.  

Few here can truly appreciate the depths that some people will go to deny culpability for what they did.  

It was against this backdrop that I met Det. Lyman, a campus police officer.  It was against all my physical health problems, my depression and my concerns for what my family was going through (and had yet to go through) when I met Det. Lyman in January, 2003.  

I am begging you all, have some respect, please, do not try to engage me about the law suit or its consequence for my family.  I do not wish to talk about it in detail.  I have wrote what I wrote simply because I want others to appreciate where I was at in my head and heart then and why I found it so hard to trust anyone, especially a campus police officer.  

By the way, my family paid for the trial lawyer, the state paid for the appellate one.  

To other readers, and not in direct response to Sancho:

I never said the polygrapher had to manipulate the results. One can only make that particular assumption if the pseudo-science of polygraphy can really separate Truth from Deception; which it cannot do.  

Perhaps I actually did "fail it," does that, in and of itself, mean I stole anything?  With an error rate of 10%-15%, I would hardly call that conclusive. Did I say anywhere in my post, that the examiner himself shared the results with anyone other than the prosecutor?    

Still no mention of the first polygraph I took over this matter, which I passed. Does that mean I did not steal it?  I guess only Deceptive results count in some worlds.

Like I said, polygraphy, is a subjective load of crap increasingly being fed to a more unsafe and scared society as one of the only tools that can protect people from the potential wolves in their midst.  

One of the things that bothers me the most and should bother everyone, pro and con alike is the dramatic resurgence of any technology from 9/11 to today.  We should do all we can to avoid becomong too dependent on anything; especially something that, if one believes it is a science, has an error rate of 10%-15%.

Obliviously, some people do not know where I am from, really.  This place is not a bastion of liberal democracy, but an ultra-conservative and monied mini-bible belt.  Believe me, they know how to "get things done" around here, if they feel the need.

Case-in-point: a local substitute teacher was acused of fondling an 11 year-old female student.  He was pulled from class, escorted off the grounds and was later arrested for his alleged crime.  Apparently, this girl's mother is a corrections officer at the local State Prison.  In order to avoid any "conflict of interest" the county prosecutor recused his office from prosecuting the guy.  Where to get another prosecutor?  Hmmmm, lets go to the county south of here (where I was convicted, BTW) and get one.  Okay.  Fine.  However, the Superintendant of the School District where this alleged assault happened is the BROTHER of the the prosecutor they imported.  No possible conflict of interest there, huh?  Do not tell me about where I live, I have seen and heard things.....

Lucky for that poor bastard that they jury was out 40 minutes and returned a verdict of not guilty.  However, that guy's teaching life is over now.  He will never be hired again, not here.  No way.  Is that fair? 

A small fry felony that could carry four years in prison...not so small fry, huh?

As I stated before, people would be amazed at the lengths they would go to to avoid culpability.  

Again, can we get back to the original question, which was why would a polygrapher care if a subject passed or failed?  

BTW, the Legos in my toy box are missing some pieces and it is only a real house of cards if you have been given the FULL DECK; which no one here has.  To provde every facet would take way too much effort and I am tired. 

And one last thing about my case....I feel I have to repeat myself over and over agian because someone here just is NOT getting it:

For the last time, I do not really care if you think me guilty or not.  I only wrote what I did to share MY EXPERIENCE with polygraphs and to say, based upon that experience and what I have read here concerning the experiences of others, that it really IS a psuedo-science, with little or no basis in fact.

It does not matter to me what anyone thinks, really.  I know I did not do anything to deserve this and no amount of invective or personal attack is going to change that.

Can we now forget about my case?  I would so love to do so....

Again, thank you TWOBLOCK, JP and Donna

Twoblock wrote on Dec 19^th, 2007 at 3:18pm:



Sometimes defense attornies will have their clients take a polygraph before allowing their client to take the exam with the prosecution.  Usually, polygraphs are only allowed if stipulated to by both parties before the examination is conducted.  Additionally, when defense attornies have their clients submit to polygraphs - most of the time - they don't have a police report with ALL of the facts.  This is probably why the first polygraph was not mentioned.

Also, as for a presentence report - Sancho is correct.   After a client is found guilty, a sentencing hearing is scheduled 30-45 days after so that a PSI (pre-sentence report) can be completed.  So information about a polygraph in a PSI would be after the fact.

Sir Ponzo,

You have demeaned the poor fellow Kaisho and dismissed his hardship as if it were nothing more than cold cabbage.

I wish that you are happy in your polygrapf dementia.

If I had a 'Be Nice' stick, I would hit you with it.

For all the pages that you wrote in defence of polygrapf. It is all wasted.

For polygrapf is as useful as tits on a cadillac.
(apologies to General Motors)

Respectfully,
JP

SanchoPanza

Appology accepted.

You are correct in most of your legal assessments. Ex-Parte communication was certanily ripe for appeal, Public Officials do not enjoy qualified immunity for illegal acts, his lawyer were duds , etc. However, have you heard of any detectives, prosecutors and judges being sanctioned for the illegal incarceration of the dozens that are now being released. As in this case, evidence was withheld from discovery and the courtroom process along with poor investigations. Based on what he said, it is easy to envision that Kaisho was the recipient of their wrath because he stood his ground.

I disagree with you about his Due Process being violated. Without going into great detail, I'll state one: The fact that his first passed poly was not allowed into evidence. His lawyer was at fault for not pushing it because the failed poly was.

Twoblock I stand corrected regarding your comment that he was poorly treated. You did agree that if he was treated as he said he was then he was poorly treated. I apologize. 

As to whether or not his due process was violated, No I really don't think it was, but we don't know for sure. He doesn't even know for sure. I think that if he had anything more than just a suspicion that his results were given to the judge, we would have heard about it. As a matter of fact he told us that it was just his opinion that is what happened. 

All we have is his word, not his word that it actually happened mind you, just his word that he thinks it must have happened because he thinks that the only way for him to have been convicted was if the judge had this information.  The only thing that he seems to hang his hat on there is the discussion of polygraph in his pre-sentence report. I don't think that pre-sentence reports are written pre-conviction so it isn't likely that the judge had this report before TheKaisho was found guilty. Post conviction, any inaccuracies in a pre-sentence report can be argued before sentence is imposed. 

On the possibility scale I find it easier to believe that he encountered a rude polygrapher than to believe that his results came before the judge, pre conviction. 

For things to have happened the way that he thinks they did we would need a sinister polygrapher who violated the law by somehow manipulating the results of his test, A detective who violated the law, a prosecutor who violated the law, and a judge who violated the law regarding Ex-Parte communication during a trial AND ignored all of the exculpatory evidence at trial he claimed he had. 

Even if (note that I said if) he had encountered some sinister polygrapher willing to manipulate test results just because he didn't like him and a detective hell-bent on convicting him at any cost because Kaisho tried to stand his ground, he still would have to add a prosecutor and a judge willing to risk removal and/or prison in order to slam dunk a guy accused of stealing a projector. Seems to me like a lot of risk for small potatoes.

 ABSENT SOME OFFER OF PROOF it just doesn't pass the smell test. 
The Ex-Parte communication issue was ripe for appeal and would only have to be established by a preponderance of the evidence in order for him to obtain a new trial. But wait there is more. According to him his appeal was based on ineffective assistance of council so that is one bad attorney that he is paying. His appellate attorney won't take up the Ex-Parte issue which would be a wonderful issue if it were provable and this attorney also didn't smell blood in the water or money in the bank in the filing of a civil suit. Contrary to what he alluded to in his last post, Public Officials do not enjoy qualified immunity for illegal acts and are very open to civil action, so there were at least two incompetent attorneys he was paying. 

So in order for this part of his story to be true he would need
1. Sinister Polygrapher to manipulate Test results
2. Detective willing to break the law
3. Prosecutor willing to break the law
4. Judge willing to break the law
ALL WILLING TO RISK IT ALL TO HANG A GUY ON A SMALL FRY FELONY
PLUS
5. Incompetent Defense Attorney unwilling to expose the conspiracy at trial
6. Incompetent Appellate Attorney unwilling to expose the conspiracy at the appellate level and too stupid to see a big payday from a civil action. 

These aren't Lego’s that can be haphazardly stacked and still hold together this is more like a house of cards where if each and every one isn't precisely placed, the whole thing falls down. 

While I think that he BELIEVES he was screwed over by the system, I find it incredible that he would be able to get someone else to believe it based on the information he provided in his posts.  

Do you really think all of those people aligned against him? If so why?


Sancho Panza

SanchoPonza

You were the only person that would comment on his post, much less agree that he was poorly treated?? Evidently you missed my post where I agreed that he was poorly treated and advised him to file a Due Process appeal. Talk about unsupperted claim!

BTW - do you believe his due process was violated?

I am not the least surprised that you failed to ignore me.
Remember I was the first and only person here to state that your treatment, if it was as you described it,  was wrong

Sancho Panza

Hey, Sancho...

This will absolutely be my last post here.

See, how quickly you go for the jugular?  Right back to the case you went.  You, sir, are a disservice to your profession and I STILL have not read ONE answer you have given anyone here why you think polygraphers do not care if a person passes or fails a polygraph.  And you are also using the "because I said so" argument not realizing that in this particular arena, there is LITTLE other choice.

First, I did not fail to do anything.  Like I was out there defending myself?  Ever heard of a lawyer?  I have seen them, they have them in the phone book and guess what?  I hired a lemon, ok?

Second, I never appealed on the grounds of the polygraph.  Did I ever write that I did?  No.  My appellate lawyer appealed on the grounds in ineffective assistance of counsel.  I did not pick her choice.  I had little to do with her brief and I stayed the Hell out of her way while she did what she did.

Third, if you had half a wit, you should know that Appellate Courts do not "retry" the evidence in any case.  Unless there is some kind of extraordinary and particularly exculpatory evidence, an appeal is not a second chance for the appellant to have a second bite of the apple.  Again, I did not FAIL at anything, I did what I was supposed to do.

Fourth, if you are truly knowledgeable, you would know that filing a civil suit against any government agency is a pretty sticky wicket.  The authorities have "qualified immunity" and it is very, very hard to get past that, especially here in West Michigan.   

By the way, who said I tried to hire a lawyer for a civil suit?  Did I say I did or did not?  Nope.  Why would you say such a thing?  Perhaps Sancho is being a bit over protective for reasons he might not want all to know?  Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Fifth, I failed to file a complaint against the police polygrapher with the state licensing board it was solely because I was ignorant that such a body existed.  It really never occurred to me that a police officer would have to have a state license to be a polygraph examiner.  I wrongfully assumed that his badge and the fact he was a cop would be all he needed.  If I had known at the time I could even file a complaint, I would have.  However, I have had four major surgeries since July of 2003 and as I stated earlier, I was quite sick.  I had bigger fish to fry than this.

Sixth, the Appellate Courts do not determine your guilt.  As a learned person, you should know this, right?  Appellate courts only determine of your trial was fair.  

Seventh, it is the Circuit Court that determines guilt or innocence here, not the District Court.  District Court does arraignments, binds people over for trial in Circuit Court and it does traffic offenses.  Circuit Court is where the big boys play.  If you were as smart as you say you are, you would know that, too.  

Eighth, I never made my opinion concerning why and how I was convicted be any kind of condition for relating to me on any level.  I have re-read my original post and I wrote that anyone may feel free to agree with me or not.  It is not necessary at all.  In fact, I feel that I have to try to get you to focus on the original purpose of my post; to share my experiences with polygraph examinations.   

You do not like or appreciate the way I related my experiences, fine.  But you are still not getting it and as a select few others have tried to tell you, you still are not getting it.  I, for one, am done trying to get you to see past your own deeply entrenched and seemingly irrational bias.

By the way, where is my "wild unsupported claim?"  If your talking solely about my opinion why I was convicted, that is my opinion backed by more facts of the case you know nothing of and I have not related them here.  Those facts coupled with what I KNOW to be true, have led me to that conclusion.  It is my opinion and I am entitled to it.  

However, as I have stated before, get back on track, will you?  My conviction is NOT central or integral to the argument about why polygraphers MAY care if a person is Truthful or Deceptive. Others have answered you in a more polite fashion than I have, I just served you some of the same crap you gave them.  It is apparent you did not like being treated that way very much because though you have responded to me, as of this wrting, others have stopped paying attention to you.

Ninth, I am a felon.  This is true.  On the record, I am a felon.  For those of you that are reading this late and did not get the memo yet, I am a felon!

Did I mention that I am a felon?

Now that my bona fides are out of the way, what of it? Does that make me unworthy of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  Does that make my arguments or my defense of myself any less effective? 

Personally, I think I have held my own.    

And, no, no Christmas card for you, sir.  But in the spirit of the Season, I sincerely wish you and yours a very Happy Holiday Season.

Now please.  I have asked you to leave me alone twice and I ask you nicely heed my wishes and do not reply to this.  

Just let it go, man.

If this were a battle of wits, your mistake was choosing to go to war with insufficient ammunition. 

For the salient points of my side of the debate I continuously provided supporting sources for my contention, while the strongest part to your arguments were supported with a feeble "because I said so" or with some type pf personal attack. 

You failed to convince the judge in the original case that you were innocent despite all of the BS you claim established reasonable doubt as to your guilt. You failed to mount a successful appeal or convince the appellate court that the judge in your original case received the results of your polygraph before your conviction. . You failed to file a formal complaint against the polygrapher, and you either failed to file a civil suit for relief or you were unable to convince an attorney to take up your civil case. You succeeded only in alienating the only person who would comment on your post, much less agree that you were poorly treated, a guy named Sancho Panza

You are just not very convincing. 

Considering that you lack the skill to mount a supported argument it is probably a good idea that you find a good hiding place. with the others here who don't like the way I argue. Gee willakers , do you really think you are going to somehow hurt my feelings by picking up your toys and going to the other side of the playground?  Anytime you feel like you have the chops to take me on just "Come on Down" checkers, marbles, or mumbelty-peg, I'll be ready, but you better be ready to be challenged any time you make another wild unsupported claim. 

Whatever you may think, You sir are an convicted felon and according to the district court AND the appellate courts, rightfully so, and you have failed to support your contention that polygraph had anything to do with it. 

By the way; does this mean I won’t be getting a Christmas card this year?

Sancho Panza

Hey, Sancho, 

Shows ya what ya know.  Better for you to have remained silent and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.  

Did I say I had my Criminology degree came FROM GVSU?  Did I say where I got that particular degree from at all?  Did I even relate to you what degree I was trying to get from GVSU?   

No, I did not.  You assume too much, then too little, all at your leisure and, so you believe, my expense.  

You also do not know what I was going to GVSU for, more or less my hopes and dreams which are now all in ashes because of ONE man's gross incompetence, blind assumptions and when his bluff was called, a fervent desire to cover his own derriere.

I was smart enough to terminate the interview.  I did not take a polygraph because they asked me to do so, I did it because the lawyer I hired (who was supposed to be far smarter than I am on these matters) told me I should.  I took what steps I could take.  If I cooperated, I did my best to make sure it was on my terms, not theirs.  Which brings me back to my opinion about how I was convicted.  Do you NOT understand?  Or are you way too intractable to see the implication I presented?

Also, I did all I could, but I was also quite sick at the time.  Due to my poor health, I had bigger fish to fry than this problem.  Since I knew I had not done anything wrong, I believed that the Truth would come out.  I used to have Faith in the CJ system.  I no longer have that Faith and frankly, bantering about with people who have your attitude does nothing to restore it.

In your earlier post, you stated that I was unable to convince anyone but myself of my innocence, but in fact, I did convince other people. 

You did not qualify that they had to be the "right" people according to your standards, of course.  You simply stated that I had not convinced anyone but myself.  When I told you that I have actually convinced others you then deemed them irrelevant.  No way for me to win that kind of circular logic and I am not going to even try  One cannot convince anyone of anything when they are in a spiral into the ground.

Hmmmmm, the JRB sounds to me something more akin to a jury, huh?  Aren't juries comprised of people that are just "regular people?" Am I taking too large a step when I state that it is maybe possible that you believe juries are full of ignorant people not trained to weigh evidence?  It is not too far a stretch that if I could convince three I could convince 6 or even 12, when in fact, in a jury trial, I would have had to only convince one.  I wish I had a jury trial. 

I have convinced others.  But according to you, those peoples' opinions are irrelevant because they were not judge or the prosecutor.  Their opinion may be irrelevant to you, but not to me and hopefully, not to others.

Also, you insinuate (like a good cop/polygrapher should) as if I am lying about everything.  I love the parts where you say things like "even if you could substantiate your claim" and how the JRB of Grand Valley State University is not comprised of individuals who were required to have any training in weighing evidence OR are bound by rules of evidence.  They were not competent, either, huh?  Got your digs in early, huh?  Must have eaten Wheaties this morning.

BTW, there was no "pre-sentence hearing," only a sentencing hearing and pre-sentence report   It was all typed up and signed before I ever arrived for sentencing.  

Not that any of that matters to you. I have only offered my opinion about how and why I believe I was convicted and I stated it was such.  

Still, the question has been asked and not answered:  Absent objective evidence (of which there was very little) how was I convicted of this crime beyond a reasonable doubt? 

As to my particular case, that was the last I am going to engage you on my guilt or innocence.  I truly do NOT care if you think I am guilty or not because as I said, you cannot take my Honor.   

Now, if you turn to the posts of other people, you will find that I am not the only one who has found you condescending, but I suppose that would be because we are mostly "uninformed" and are beneath your acknowledgement.  

As I said before, if you want validation of your point of view, go post on some pro-polygraph site where everyone will bow to your superior knowledge, ok?  

You also point out that I cannot substantiate any of my claims.  You try make it appear as if there is no basis in fact for any of what I have said.  Hmmm, in this format, how can I prove anything conclusively?  How can I even prove who I am?  How can I trust you are who you say you are?  Truth is, I cannot and neither can you.  

Ummm, have you noticed that this is a blog site, not a jury room or a interrogation cell?  In this particular format, how would you like me to substantiate my claims?  Should I scan all the documents I have into my computer and email or post them on a web page?  Should I make copies of everything I have and snail mail them to you?  

I have a feeling that even if I had the ability to do that, it still would not be enough for you.  

I love the way you use the anonymity of the Internet as both a shield and a sword to both defend against and then attack anyone who dares to challenge your beliefs.  Truth is, no one, not even you, can actually prove anything in this particular arena.    

BTW, nice try deflecting my attack on polygraphy as a science by attacking me and my case.  You did not answer any questions I presented concerning polygraph exams and the pseudo-science they have as their foundation.  You did not even address my answer to your near constant question as to WHY would a polygraph examiner care if someone is guilty or innocent.  I am pretty sure that I, and others here have given you enough reasons why we believe an examiner might care, yet you still refuse to acknowledge them. 

Similarly, you did not provide me or anyone else any proof that polygraphs are much better than reading tea leaves or gazing into a crystal ball.    

You only attacked supposed weaknesses in my defense of my innocence and attempted to use that to defend any criticisms I have of polygraphy as a science.  That, coupled with your backhanded treatment of others who have posted to this forum, you have exposed the psuedo-science you defend so rabidly for what it is; a fraud.   

I am going to take a page out of triple x's playbook and do my level best to ignore you. 

In another era, I would have liked to continue this battle of wits, but I am obviously going against an opponent who is armed with a false science.  

To that end, I no longer wish to have any contact with you.  

Please do not respond to any postings of mine and I will ignore yours.

Thank you very much.  Now go away, please.

Sergeant Triple X ], TwoBlock,

Gee whiz guys I sure am sorry that it makes you uncomfortable to be asked for substantiation in support of your positions. 

Sancho Panza

TheKaisho
OOO did I strike a nerve somewhere?  Sport?  “elitest windbag”  Seriously, such witty repartee.  The only thing that I will give you credit for is your somewhat RARE point of view. I don't know too many people who both POSSESS A DEGREE IN CRIMINOLOGY AND ARE A CONVICTED FELON. As to what you were about, well you started your posting about the way you were treated by a polygrapher. I agreed with you that if you were treated the way you said you were treated that something was wrong. 

You then turned it into a rant about how you were wrongly convicted based upon your speculation that the results of your polygraph were reported to the judge ex-parte’. I think your words were “BTW, it is my opinion that I was convicted of this crime because the Detective and the Prosecutor told the judge (because polygraphs are inadmissible in Michigan they told him in his chambers, of course) that I failed the polygraph exam.  They deliberately witheld from him the fact that I passed an earlier one.” That appears to be a mere paranoid suspicion on your part since you have never offered any corroboration. You conclude that the appearance of your polygraph results in a pre-sentence report somehow prove your allegation of ex-parte communication when that report wasn’t prepared until after your conviction. In most jurisdictions the defendant is provided, through his attorney, a copy of the pre-sentence report so its contents can be argued at sentencing. The defendant is provided an opportunity to speak at sentencing. It would seem that the perfect time to argue your opposing polygraph results would have been at that hearing. Any reference to polygraph in your pre-sentence report would have established the relevance of your other polygraph. Pre-sentence hearings are not routinely subject to the same rules of evidence as trials. 

You have exhausted your appeals without having convinced the courts that you were wrongly convicted even though they had access to all of the evidence in the case, yet you seem determined to find someone here who will agree that you are innocent based solely upon your contention that you did not commit the crime. 

Unless you can prove that your polygraph test results were given to the judge before your were found guilty, they are irrelevant to your conviction as a matter of law.   

Familiar with Bushido?  Just a bit, if you knew me you would know just how important Gi, Yuu, Gin, Rei, Makato, Meiyo and Chuugi are in my life. If I may, I would encourage you to consider and reach understanding regarding the 12 laws of Karma. 

But, back to you. How is it that an educated person with a BA in Criminology lacked sufficient knowledge of the criminal justice system to terminate and interview, decline a polygraph,  persuade officers to leave his residence when they were intruding upon him without a warrant or take any other steps that would protect him or preserve his rights? How is it that you can have a degree in Criminology when according to the GVSU website the only related undergraduate degree program is for a BA or BS in Criminal Justice rather than Criminology  in fact according to their course catalog, either degree only require 3 hours of “criminology”.  How is it that an educated person with a BA in Criminology didn’t know how to file a complaint with the polygraph licensing board? Surely this other examiner you hired could have told you the process to file a complaint and have your case reviewed. 

Perhaps you may not be quite as sharp as you think you are. 

If everything you say about this one polygrapher is true and even if you could substantiate your claim with an administrative finding of the licensing board, a civil judgment or having your conviction overturned based on his illegal or improper actions, you cannot justify the indictment of all polygraphers based on the behavior of one. 

As to me knowing nothing about you, Hmm I know that you are now presumed to be guilty due to a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction, You no longer enjoy a presumption of innocence regarding this crime. I know that you have made claims about your case that you cannot substantiate. I know that, based on information at the CVSU Website,  you misrepresent your degree. I know that this “Judicial Review Board of Grand Valley State University” that you claim found you not responsible for the theft is actually comprised of a student, a faculty member, and a member of the administrative staff, selected from a pool, none of which are required to have any experience or training in weighing evidence or sitting on the board and are not bound by the rules of evidence. I know that their decision in no way even comes close to carrying the weight of a district court any more than does the opinion of your 3 “college educated and highly responsible friends.” I know that they do not have subpoena power to compel the police to present the evidence that would be presented at your criminal trial. I know that the “Judicial Review Board of Grand Valley State University” only deals with violations of the student conduct code and only addresses CRIMINAL matters in the context of conduct that ”would substantially threaten the ability of others to pursue their educational goals or would threaten to  substantially disrupt or interfere with:
1.      The rights of others. 
2.      University discipline, i.e., behavior in accordance with University rules of conduct.
3.      Normal University functions, or. 
4.      Order in the University community”.

Condescending is just your impression of my manner because I refuse to lower myself to name calling. As to gauche, perhaps you should look that up in your Funk and Wagnall. Calling you a drooling idiot would be gauche, and I would never do that becuase it shows a lack of common resect. Name calling seems to be your way of dealing with people who disagree with you.

As to your suffering, you are in complete control of that. You will continue to suffer as long as you allow yourself to suffer. 

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 18^th, 2007 at 12:13am:


Sir,
Your eloquence is deserving of respect.
Your viewpoint and support of polygrapf is sadly based on an evident association with the industry and or examiners at some level.

Having had extensif associations with examiners and polygrapf over many years, I am qualified to comment.

Examiners ultimately develop rodeo mentality. They need the fix of failing subjects, usually by extraction of some insignificant past behavior.

A good strong stick can achieve the same result.

The research and the statistik belching forth from the polygrapf industrie und the APA is hot air and smoke.

If we were in the 16th century today, polygrapf examiners would be thrown in barrels of oil and set alight for the witchcraft they practise.

Respectfully,
JP