Magnus,

Indeed, the suit seems to be at an end. According to the L.A. Superior Court website, no future hearings are scheduled, and it appears that the case has been dropped. The last three filings in this case are:

Quote:

I picked up second hand that on the day of the scheduled trial, Mr. Grogan dropped the civil law suit.  He is still advertising his voice stress machine.  If I were to burp while taking one of these voice stress tests, would they be able to tell me if the burp was truthful?

SanchoPanza wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2008 at 12:16pm:


False: what you said.
True: these agents have every motivation to lie, in order to defend their mental insanity about some crazy magical machine that can tell lies from truth and to defend their high-salaried freeloading "jobs".
(Job does not equal work.)

Since the TruthAboutGrogan.org site is now down, not clear what any of this had to do with Dr Maschke, since he was not party to any of this litigation.

Also, what objective proof is there that Dr. Mashcke "lied"?
Was there some sort of test, for example, in which a ball was or was not placed under a cup by Dr. Mashcke, then he was asked whether it was there or not, then the cup was immediately removed?

On an entirely unrelated matter: you do know about Maschke's Theorem in group representations, right?
(I assume that is a different Maschke!) 

Any information on what happened to this case?  Personal interest.  A coworker's wife got ripped off by Mr. Grogan.  She should have known better, but she got sucked into an "over the phone voice stress analyzer" test.

According to the Los Angeles Superior Court website, the jury trial in Grogan v. Paolella et al. (Case Number BC391778), which had previously been scheduled to begin on Wednesday, 26 August 2009, has been pushed back a week to Wednesday, 2 September 2009:

Quote:

Polygraph operators John Grogan and Ralph Hilliard have reached a settlement in Grogan v. Paolella, et al. As part of the agreement, Hilliard has taken down his website, TruthAboutGrogan.org. Those visiting the site are now greeted by the following notice:

Quote:


The site had included, among other things, complaints about Grogan from former customers, an article critical of his appearance in a pornographic video, and California Department of Consumer Affairs documentation of a complaint that in 2002 resulted in the revocation of Mr. Grogan's private investigator license, private patrol operator license, baton permit, and firearm permit as well as an order to pay $21,800 for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services's investigation and prosecution costs.

An archive of TruthAboutGrogan.org as it appeared around the time it was taken down is attached as a 13.8 mb .zip file.

Regarding the status of Grogan v. Paolella et al., according to the Los Angeles Superior Court website, the following hearings are presently scheduled:

Quote:

Lethe wrote on Nov 20^th, 2008 at 12:36am:


What a bleak reference...

Hopefully this lawsuit turns into Jarndyce and Jarndyce; let those sons of perdition bleed each other of their blood money for a change.

That said (and I'm sure the literary reference will be lost on all polygraphers*), these sorts of suits are good.  They force the polygraphers to put their cards on the table while under legal penalties for lying.  Information is good, unless you're a polygrapher: like mold, they can only survive in the dark, damp recesses where light can't reach.  

This suit is great.  Hopefully it's litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (one can only hope there's a federal issue in there somewhere).  But George is probably right: this could be settled very quickly if the polygraphers really do have faith in the polygraph and all agree to take one.  That none of them are lining up to do so demonstrates that they don't really believe the crap that spews forth from their vile mouths.

* Well, Sancho Panza appears to have read one book, but (1) he's been banned and (2) it's not the book the literary reference alluded to comes from.

Sancho Panza has indeed been banned following repeated violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.

Dr Maschke

Is it true you have decided to ban Sancho Panza from this board?

S.P.,

You write:

SanchoPanza wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2008 at 3:46pm:


You're half right--your writing is simple minded.  You apparently have enough sense to know to be embarrassed over your initial statement which led to this exchange and my critique.  I'm not too embarrassed for you to not raise them again.  They are:

(1) Your statement:

Quote:


(2) My response:

Quote:

Sancho,

Are you going to "put your money where your mouth is", regarding the Zimbardo quote?  You viciously attacked me claiming I had placed a fictitious quote from Dr. Zimbardo in my signature.  That really hurts!

Incidently, the quote was:

"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between these states of arousal and lying."  (Referring to polygraphy)

To insinuate that I would use a fictitious quote in my posts is a scurrilous charge that will not go unchallenged!  It is an attack on me, my family and the "false positive" community.  

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!

Also, you have repeatedly called NG1 an "idiot".  Your repeated and dastardly verbal attacks of this nature against him is intolerable!  Being falsely accused of a crime he did not commit is bad enough, but to be forced to endure your venomous attacks has added insult to injury!

YOU OWE HIM AN APOLOGY!

TC

George, You do whatever you want to do it's your board.

Remember, YOUR assertions and your behavior is what puts your credibility into play in discussions about polygraph. 

You have ignored every single personal attack made against me by your boorish ill-informed yes men and yet chide me publicly for what you perceive to be the slightest infraction of some code of conduct that you evidently feel only applies to those who disagree with your point of view. 

If you will go back and review my posting history you will find that I initially confined my comments to civil discourse. You should also note that when attacks against me on this board began, YOU failed to act or even respond to my complaints even when I contacted you both privately and publicly. 

Thus ignored, I determined I should be absolved of any consequences if I decided to respond in kind. 

Right now I am the only person appearing regularly on this board to present an opposing point of view. Everyone else has written you off after 8 years of "nothing has changed" as ineffective and inconsequential, in your quest to alter the laws or substantly affect procedure regarding polygraph. I tend to agree with them on most of that. The only real difference is I care that the potential careers of people scared enough or foolish enough to follow your ill-conceived plan are being destroyed by your bad advice and immoral position that lying on a polygraph is justifiable because years ago you got your feelings hurt when you failed an exam. 

If you grow tired of hearing my same old responses maybe all of you should just stop making the same old tired comments and asking the same silly questions. 

Sancho Panza

Sancho Panza,

Your initial post to this thread was little more than a barb at me:

Quote:


If you wish to substantively address topics raised on these forums and engage in a civil exchange of views, your participation is welcome. But attempting to turn every thread into a personal attack on me (or any other poster) will no longer be tolerated.

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 2:31pm:

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 5:28pm:


My comments initially were made in response to the above questions that you posted. My subsequent comments were in response to challenges of my comments.

I ddn't change the subject YOU DID.  
You just can't seem to avoid some silly accusation anytime some calls attention to the fact that that you  promote lying and cheating as a justifiable behavior. 
Can you?

Sancho Panza

Getreal, I'm not simple minded I just have to write that way sometimes so you can understand

Sancho Panza

S.P.,

How can you possibly be so simple minded?  Of course, Trimarco and Youngblood would not require motivation to lie about their conclusions.  It is not necessary to impugn their motives.  They were simply using a "test" which produces random error and has no diagnostic validity.  Get real already!

Sancho Panza,

Do you have anything substantive to say regarding Grogan v. Paolella, et al.? It seems that your purpose (as ever) is to change the subject.

I agree.  George does know whether or not he told the truth. He may have told the truth or he may have lied.
He just claims he was telling the truth. 

Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood detected that he was lying on one exam and cheating on another. They can articulate their reasons. Their jobs and careers were not at stake. I see no motivation for them to lie about their conclusions.

If Dr. Maschke lied on his exams he would certainly have motivation to deny it.

Which brings one back to the question of credibility. I choose to believe the guys who DID NOT have a stake in the outcome of the exams or write a book that attempts to justify lying and cheating if they think it might help them get a job with the government.
 
Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2008 at 3:21pm:


George knows he was telling the truth.
Trimarco thinks George was lying.

That's a fundamental difference that polygraph supporters are not willing to acknowledge.  The test subject is the only one of the two who knows if the test is accurate or not.  But their opinion is the only one that is ignored when discussing the accuracy of the polygraph.

Well let's see here.  YOU think he was wrong. HE thinks he was right. 

So I'll have to make a judgement on who I choose to believe.

Since you literally "Wrote the book" that attempts to justify lying and cheating if one thinks it might help them get a job with the government, why should anyone believe you when you claim you didn't lie or cheat in an attempt to get a job with the government?  

I choose to believe the guy who DID NOT write the book that attempts to justify lying and cheating if they think it might help them get a job with the government. 

FBI policy indicates that you would have received a retest if upon review of your charts the reviewer had disagreed with Agent Trimarcos findings. All charts are reviewed. Thus it is reasonable to infer that Agent Trimarco analysis of your charts was confirmed. On your second polygraph, when the examiner discovered evidence of countermeasures I'm betting he had his analysis reviewed and confrimed by his supervisor as well.

It astounds me that you can promote lying and cheating as a justifiable behavior and still act offended when someone doesn't believe you.

Sancho Panza

Selected additional case documents, including filings by defendants Joseph Paolella, Jack Trimarco, and Ralph Hilliard, are now available here:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#grogan

A number of documents pertaining to Grogan v. Paolella, et al. have been posted by the plaintiff's attorney to the website JDSupra.com and may be reviewed here:

http://www.jdsupra.com/profile/adrianos_docs/

The most recent document, dated 24 October 2008, is a tentative ruling by Superior Court Judge Helen I. Bendix rejecting defendant Jack Trimarco's motion to strike the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

SanchoPanza wrote on Nov 1^st, 2008 at 7:28pm:


Yes. But he was wrong.

Quote:


As I also point out in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph," I was completely candid with Mr. Trimarco. He didn't "catch" me and he didn't "detect deception." His invalid test produced erroneous results.

Quote:


No. None of his findings were confirmed. Had it been "confirmed" that I had been "caught" lying when I (truthfully) denied that anyone had directed me to seek employment with the FBI, when I (again truthfully) denied having undisclosed contact with anyone from a non-U.S. intelligence service, and when I (yet again truthfully) denied having disclosed classified information to any unauthorized individuals, then one would expect to find me vacationing at the Grey Bars Hotel.

Quote:


Considering that Trimarco was dead wrong in my case, you chose a poor example. In any event, there is no evidence that he (or Paolella, or Hilliard) are any better than John Grogan is at the black art of polygraphic lie detection. Moreover, if this legal battle of the polygraphers is to be resolved by polygraphy, the polygrapher(s) performing the service shouldn't be parties to the case, don't you think?