I just have to comment on this thread.

I went into my poly a bit sleep deprived and a little nervous (I really wanted the job). I was completely honest and my polygraph soothsayer accused me of everything from being a john, to drug use, to actually turning my words around. 

I'm so disgusted and taken back by this I wouldnt accept employment with them even if they scrapped the poly and offered me the job tommorrow. This has to stop. That said i'm glad i'm not alone.

Hi George

I wanted to say you are doing a great public service.  It's incredible that tax money is still being financing these charlatans.  Looks like one of them took some exception to the truth - which is par for them.  Best of luck with it and can we please get government to stop paying these people?  Oracles with crystal balls would be more entertaining, cheaper and more effective. 

The argument that the polygraph prioritizes national security over individual liberty is a really central one in this debate.  However, this argument is not supported by the evidence. 

When the NAS Committee reviewed the scientific evidence on lie detection, they found no evidence that the polygraph (1) has a deterrent effect on possible spies, (2) has ever caught a spy, or (3)finds baseline truth much better than a coin toss.   

Rather, they found the polygraph is a national security threat, because (1) it gives these agencies a false sense of security, (2) it was historically used by the USG as a political loyalty test, and (3) its known abuses and limitations may keep some of the nation's best and brightest from seeking the positions where they are needed most.   

So if you want to prioritize national security over individual liberty, fine.  Look in my checking account.  Don't pretend you can look inside my heart.

I was thinking about this the other day.  You mentioned Bob Hanssen.  All of the past spies have made it that much harder for the federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to give any measure of respect, trust, credibility or fair treatment to both, the new job seekers and their present employees.  I was reading up on Aldrich Ames, Nada Prouty, Jonathan Pollard, Johnny Walker, Edwin Wilson, Edward Howard, James J. Smith, and a number of others that I haven't even touched upon.  All of these people were on the "inside" and seriously damaged the intelligence community.  Guess what?  Our government has a very long memory.  If you look at history, it is easy to see why we are now paying the price for the betrayal that these people have done.  As a result, our government assumes from the onset, that anyone is a threat to national security unless it can be proven through an intrusive vetting process that they are "clear" to be trusted.  Thinking about it, working on the inside in the intelligence community must be an environment filled with an air of paranoia, focused stress, intimidation, and a kind of "reserved" trust that is constantly being verified through a number of tools that are known exclusively to the counter-intelligence arms of these agencies.  I think prior to the actions of these spies, the government was much more trusting (at least to the people who work for them).  It is not that way anymore and many innocent people are "sacrificed" for the perceived "greater good" of preventing another incident of penetration by a well-placed mole.  I think it is unfortunate and sad and wrong.  Trust is a two-way street.  It is something that will never be able to be reversed unless the political will is there.  The intelligence community is too powerful, and financially secure to reverse this course.  One thing I can say is that from what I experienced and have seen, I will never stop speaking out about it.  The public has not heard it all yet, because no one has that big of a voice.

Penn and Teller did it BEST on Bullsh!t on Showtime.

-The FBI's Most Unwanted

And ANOTHER thing!!! While I was trying to get into the Bureau Bobby Hanssen was SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY to the RUSSIANS!!!!! They have the BRASS ONES to keep ME out!!

-The FBI's Most Unwanted

I took and PASSED every written exam for the FBI in 2000. In early 2001 I went downtown in NY City for the rest. I passed the interview and then flunked ONE question on the poly.

In High School I did smoke pot maybe 5-7 times. In college maybe another 7 times. The question is whether you smoked marijuana more than 15 times IN YOUR LIFE. Note that point.

They make you reconstruct your life ONLY from your 18th birthday NOT from the day you're born. If you count from my 18th birthday the number can NOT exceed 15 times IF that. They ran the test twice and bounced me out. I have been trapped in a job I HATE because of that for NINE years. I am NOT getting any younger.

HOW, without mortgaging the house to engage a lawyer can I go back and fight this? I am now an ABA-certified paralegal and can't get work doing THAT because I still haven't got a 4 year degree. I am less than 11 months from graduating possibly cum lauded or even magna cum laude with a dual degree in legal studies and criminal justice.

I have MORE qualifications than before and I want IN!!!!!

Any advice? Any advocacy groups who might help?

- The FBI's Most Unwanted

Anyone can come on as a guest, "Fed-up!"

Why don't you register and let us really hammer you?

George, 

If you're wondering why the hostility, need look no further than identifiying someone on one of your posts.

Still pathetic.

Always someone elses fault hey George?  Have you ever actually failed at anything in your life or are you just a perpetual victim from other people holding you back?

Tron

He passed his polygraph... 

FBI AGENT ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE CRIMINAL CASE OF MAN MARRIED TO HIS MISTRESS

A 10-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was arrested in Phoenix this morning after being named yesterday in an 18-count indictment that accuses him of having an improper sexual relationship with the wife of a man he investigated in two separate matters.

Joe L. Gordwin, 39, of Phoenix, was taken into custody without incident at the FBI Office in Phoenix. Gordwin is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Phoenix.

Gordwin has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of this matter.

According to the indictment, Gordwin engaged in an “improper intimate relationship” with the wife of a man he was investigating, in violation of federal law and FBI rules. The indictment alleges that he concealed the improper relationship from the FBI to preserve his position at the FBI, and that he also concealed the relationship from the Scottsdale Police Department and the Maricopa County District Attorney’s Office, which were investigating and prosecuting the woman’s husband. Gordwin allegedly sought a favorable plea agreement for his mistress’ husband in connection with a 2005 robbery that Gordwin helped investigate for the purpose of convincing the husband not to disclose Gordwin’s improper relationship with the woman.

The indictment specifically charges Gordwin with six counts of “honest services” wire fraud, five counts of making false statements to the FBI and seven counts of witness tampering. These charges carry a maximum statutory penalty of 285 years in federal prison.

The indictment outlines a scheme to defraud the FBI and the citizens of the United States that began in 2002 after Gordwin arrested a man identified in the indictment as B.M. as part of a gang investigation. After the arrest, Gordwin met B.M.’s wife and allegedly began having an affair with her. In early 2003, after discussing B.M.’s case with B.M.’s wife, Gordwin contacted Maricopa County prosecutors and suggested that an appropriate sentence in B.M.’s case was one year to 18 months in custody. B.M. was subsequently sentenced to 18 months.

Approximately two years later, in early 2005, Gordwin began providing Scottsdale Police with information about B.M., and Gordwin joined an investigation that led to B.M.’s arrest after an armed robbery of a Radio Shack. B.M.’s stepson was also arrested at this time.

In January 2005, Gordwin contacted an FBI confidential information (CI) and asked if he could identify the CI as the source of information given to authorities who were investigating B.M. The indictment alleges that Gordwin did so in an effort to conceal his ongoing relationship with B.M.’s wife, who was the true source of the information about B.M. and his criminal activities.

In the summer of 2005, Gordwin attempted to help his mistress’ son, who also had been arrested in relation to the Radio Shack robbery and was in custody, by using the CI to help find a fugitive, whose arrest the son could take credit for, according to the indictment. At this time, Gordwin allegedly disclosed information about the CI to his mistress and facilitated a meeting between the CI and his mistress. The fugitive was arrested that summer, and Gordwin contacted a Maricopa County prosecutor to discuss a plea deal for the son. In the fall of 2005, the son pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.

In October 2005, after being rebuffed by prosecutors who did not want to give a favorable plea deal to B.M., Gordwin allegedly became worried that B.M. would disclose Gordwin’s ongoing relationship with B.M.’s former wife. At this point, Gordwin made partial admissions about the relationship to his supervisor. When speaking to his supervisor, Gordwin minimized the extent of the relationship, according to the indictment. Even after being ordered to stop seeing the woman, Gordwin allegedly met with her twice, on both occasions asking her to lie to investigators.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

The case against Gordwin was investigated by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, which was assigned the matter after the United States Attorney’s Office in Phoenix was recused.

According to the FBI, we are a nation of perverts, child abusers, pedophiles, pot smokers, and terrorists.
To the letter...

FBI AGENT ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE CRIMINAL CASE OF MAN MARRIED TO HIS MISTRESS

A 10-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was arrested in Phoenix this morning after being named yesterday in an 18-count indictment that accuses him of having an improper sexual relationship with the wife of a man he investigated in two separate matters.

Joe L. Gordwin, 39, of Phoenix, was taken into custody without incident at the FBI Office in Phoenix. Gordwin is expected to make his initial appearance this afternoon in United States District Court in Phoenix.

Gordwin has been placed on administrative leave pending resolution of this matter.

According to the indictment, Gordwin engaged in an “improper intimate relationship” with the wife of a man he was investigating, in violation of federal law and FBI rules. The indictment alleges that he concealed the improper relationship from the FBI to preserve his position at the FBI, and that he also concealed the relationship from the Scottsdale Police Department and the Maricopa County District Attorney’s Office, which were investigating and prosecuting the woman’s husband. Gordwin allegedly sought a favorable plea agreement for his mistress’ husband in connection with a 2005 robbery that Gordwin helped investigate for the purpose of convincing the husband not to disclose Gordwin’s improper relationship with the woman.

The indictment specifically charges Gordwin with six counts of “honest services” wire fraud, five counts of making false statements to the FBI and seven counts of witness tampering. These charges carry a maximum statutory penalty of 285 years in federal prison.

The indictment outlines a scheme to defraud the FBI and the citizens of the United States that began in 2002 after Gordwin arrested a man identified in the indictment as B.M. as part of a gang investigation. After the arrest, Gordwin met B.M.’s wife and allegedly began having an affair with her. In early 2003, after discussing B.M.’s case with B.M.’s wife, Gordwin contacted Maricopa County prosecutors and suggested that an appropriate sentence in B.M.’s case was one year to 18 months in custody. B.M. was subsequently sentenced to 18 months.

Approximately two years later, in early 2005, Gordwin began providing Scottsdale Police with information about B.M., and Gordwin joined an investigation that led to B.M.’s arrest after an armed robbery of a Radio Shack. B.M.’s stepson was also arrested at this time.

In January 2005, Gordwin contacted an FBI confidential information (CI) and asked if he could identify the CI as the source of information given to authorities who were investigating B.M. The indictment alleges that Gordwin did so in an effort to conceal his ongoing relationship with B.M.’s wife, who was the true source of the information about B.M. and his criminal activities.

In the summer of 2005, Gordwin attempted to help his mistress’ son, who also had been arrested in relation to the Radio Shack robbery and was in custody, by using the CI to help find a fugitive, whose arrest the son could take credit for, according to the indictment. At this time, Gordwin allegedly disclosed information about the CI to his mistress and facilitated a meeting between the CI and his mistress. The fugitive was arrested that summer, and Gordwin contacted a Maricopa County prosecutor to discuss a plea deal for the son. In the fall of 2005, the son pleaded guilty and was sentenced to probation.

In October 2005, after being rebuffed by prosecutors who did not want to give a favorable plea deal to B.M., Gordwin allegedly became worried that B.M. would disclose Gordwin’s ongoing relationship with B.M.’s former wife. At this point, Gordwin made partial admissions about the relationship to his supervisor. When speaking to his supervisor, Gordwin minimized the extent of the relationship, according to the indictment. Even after being ordered to stop seeing the woman, Gordwin allegedly met with her twice, on both occasions asking her to lie to investigators.

An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

The case against Gordwin was investigated by the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General. The case is being prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, which was assigned the matter after the United States Attorney’s Office in Phoenix was recused.

Barry_C wrote on Jan 4^th, 2008 at 1:53am:


While we cannot know what percentage of FBI applicants answer relevant questions untruthfully during their pre-employment polygraphs, because polygraph "testing" has no scientific basis (indeed, it hasn't been proven through peer-reviewed research to reliably differentiate between liars and truth-tellers at better-than-chance levels of accuracy under field conditions), it is reasonable to suppose that a significant portion of the roughly 50% of FBI applicants who fail the polygraph are false positives.

The original point of this post was that the FBI failure rate is nearly 50%.  How do we know if that is high - or perhaps even too low?

You label polygraphers as sadists and abusers then ask me to tell you that I am a polygrapher to give you the satisfaction of applying a label. If you must have a label for me, make one up. I do not intend to provide you one.

You say you have a problem with polygraph, but in reviewing your posts you seem to really have a problem with the way you claim to have been treated by one or two polygraphers. You claim to have been strapped to a chair. I have never heard of that happening to anyone before.    This evening, I checked a couple of polygraph machine sites, Lafayette and Axiton They sell special chairs but they don't seem to come with straps to hold someone in place. Did you exaggerate?

Throughout your posts you say that you have been a Federal Employee for 22, 21, and 18 years and say that you have been in Law Enforcement for 17 years. That might be worthy of some clarification. 

You claim to want to keep others from being subjected to some sort of injustice, but what are you really doing towards that end. Did you file a Civil Service complaint? Did you contact your congressman? Did you write a strongly worded official memo to anyone with the authority to address your situation?

What are you doing here? The effort generated by persons opposed to polygraph on THIS SITE certainly doesn't have a very impressive record on changing the law. Instead they choose to try to turn your coworkers into liars while simultaneously providing information that they all but guarantee can be effectively used by child molesters to avoid the consequences of their actions. The founder of this site even co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity. I strongly object to the fact that he provides help to molesters and refuses to admit it while attempting to hide this insidious activity behind the first amendment. 

Did you come here to vent? You've done that. Why do you think you dug up a five year old post and called Fed-Up an idiot? How exactly will that help accomplish your goal of keeping others from being subjected to injustice?

IF you were treated poorly by a polygrapher, you need to address THAT issue which really doesn’t really have anything to do with polygraph as a whole. 

Sancho Panza

    I am willing to consider the other point of view on most issues and acknowledge that you make some valid points.  I agree that this website may increase the number of innocents failing the polygraph.  Talking to other employees who have failed the polygraph also seems to increase the liklihood that a person will fail.  Don't you think that if the test is that vulnerable to suggestion or information means that there is a problem?  If it was an accurate and valid method, just obtaining information shouldn't change the result for anyone.  Are you willing to consider the other point of view?  
     I don't feel that I have been nothing but screwed over by my employer.  I have been proud to serve my country for 22 years and want nothing more than to continue to do so.  I love my work and many of the people who I work with.  To suggest that I should leave my profession because of a gross injustice that I was perpetrated against me, doesn't make a lot of sense.  I could just walk away and keep my complaints to myself, but that would be the coward's way out.  I'm sure the abusers (polygraphers) would prefer that I just shut up and let them go on abusing decent law abiding government workers.       
    I want to keep others from being subjected to this sort of injustice.  Nothing in the world would ever change for the better if everyone just put their tail between their legs and skulked away.  I didn't do anything wrong.  I have served faithfully and put my life in jeapordy on several occasions for my job and I (and others) should not have to be subjected to verbal abuse.  
    The U.S. is wasting millions of dollars on a program that just doesn't protect our security.  In addition to causing a lot of good people a lot of pain, the polygraph isn't even effective for employment screaning.  Congress just wants to throw money at this program so they can say that something is being done.  
    Unfortunately many of the people who gravitate to the field of polygraphy are sadists who enjoy hurting others.  The things that occured during my second polygraph were inexcusable.  Murder suspects aren't interrogated as viciously as I was.  They actually have rights, federal workers have no rights.  No American should ever be subjected to that type of interrogation without probably cause.  I suppose you think the Bill of Rights is just a bunch of whining? 
    Maybe ploygraphers are under too much pressure to come up with something.  I don't know why anyone in the government would be willing to treat people the way they do.  I truly wouldn't be able to live with myself if I engaged in that kind of behavior.  
    Would you at least admit that you are a polygrapher?

stoppolyabusenow wrote on Dec 28^th, 2007 at 7:38pm:


Well Stop, I could explain to you why I think that this site provides aid and comfort to criminals and the enemies of our country. I could point out the founder co-wrote a book that repeatedly tells the reader it is OK to lie and deliberately conceal information as well as offering suggestions regarding ways and means to attempt conceal criminal activity.   
I could point out that the founder of this site ENCOURAGES opposing points of view or I could state  that he fails to give proper weight to recent information that seems to indicate that the procedures he teaches may cause innocents to fail polygraph tests, but you probably wouldn't read or even try to comprehend any of it. 

What I don't understand is why someone like you ,who feels that they have been so betrayed and screwed over by their employer would continue to work for them.  It really sounds a bit masochistic.

So to put it in simple terms: As long as you continue to provide the WHINE, I'll bring the cheese and crackers.

Sancho Panza

SanchoPanza wrote on Dec 27^th, 2007 at 6:52pm:


Yes, I'm quick.  It took me that long to calm down enough to respond.   

I didn't even bother to read the date.  I can't believe people have been on this site for 5 years, especially someone like you, who obviously wasn't screwed over by the polygraph.  I can kind of see why it would be hard for people who've been shafted by the polygraph to let it go, but what's your deal.  Why do you care?

stoppolyabusenow wrote on Dec 27^th, 2007 at 4:39pm:


Wow Stop!  There is nothing quite like the way you jump right in with a timely response.  Just 5 years later. Did it take you that long to figure out your "witty reply"?


Sancho Panza

Quote:

You're an idiot.  Why are you even on this website?  You must be a polygrapher trying to justify his existence.  I don't know how you guys sleep at night.  Your profession is a disgrace to America and our government.

Quote:


Well Sir,

You have failed miserably to convince anyone that is part of this debate.
Failed to convince them that the polygraph is nothing but a prop, and the
use of this prop is a gross violation of human rights.
I am very concerned that you have elevated the polygraph to the status
of a 'character detector'.  There is no such thing as the perfect person - ie
one that fits the model as required by the FBI et al. not even the people that
developed the 'required model' could satisfy their own requirements; of this
I am sure. 

My friend, As Lloyd's byline says, 'It has been counted and counted, weighed and
divided' - the polygraph is NOT a lie detector and it is not a character detector.

Well, I suppose people with a 'devil may care' attitude about their prospective employment might have a high polygraph pass rate though they may not turn out to be very conscientious employees.

Has anyone ever conducted a study of the pass rate for humans who are independently wealthy who apply for responsible but low paying government positions?   

Perhaps we could get Paris Hilton and her friends to apply for positions as FBI investigators.  If we don't learn anything, perhaps we could sell the movie rights...

Lloyd

Quote:


You are absolutely wrong.  The polygraph at the federal level is an absolute pre-requisite to beginning the background investigation.  The same applies for many local agencies.

Perhaps I'd be less bitter if I didn't pass polygraphs at different agencies asking the same questions.  So tell me am I a drug dealing foriegn spy as the FBI stated in their polygraph?  Or am I an upright honest person as other federal agencies stated after a different polygraph exam.

Dear Random Poster,

In regards to the FBI pre-screening polygraph "exam", you are 100% incorrect on your assumption that the exam is a supplement to the background check.  In almost all cases, the FBI will not even start the background check until the applicant "passes" the polygraph exam.

Very much a "Catch-22" situation.

Not all posters on this site are "whiners".  Most have been falsely accused by a government entity that they trust to give them "due process" not only under the law but in the spirit of the law.  They are shocked and appalled by the treatment that they receive at the hands of "justice".

Regards.

I’m with nonombre. I smell bitterness, resentment... obviously polygraphs can only be as good as the equipment used and the examiner's technique. Some universal testing procedure (a step-by-step guide outlining the types of questions/duration of test/interpretation of test/etc...) would defeat the purpose of the polygraph. I'm no expert, but Brandon Hall's argument (about the "degree turn from one exam to the other") is incomplete without clarification of the issue he was referring to; prior test performances are irrelevant, ESPECIALLY when you are interviewing with different agencies. For each agency & each respective test, can you provide a contextual basis for the issue you were questioned about? Definitions of deceit, from what i understand about polygraph analysis, and the subsequent physiological responses to particular questions depend on the context/line of interrogation posed by the examiners...
I may be wrong, but isn’t the polygraph test implemented in order to assist in verifying your background, serving as a compliment to your background check? for ex., If you lived with your friends (who had a few run-ins with the law for possession/distribution or something) in college, never got into any documented trouble yourself, a polygraph is the only real way to resolve slight discrepancies between the results of your Bck Check & agency suspicions of your possible criminal involvement (i.e., turning a blind eye to drug use in your house, etc)...besides serving as a general tool to weed out bad potential applicants, the polygraph -or even the mere threat of the polygraph- clarifies your character for those charged with evaluating your employability.