Add Poll
Options: Text Color Split Pie
days and minutes. Leave it blank if you don't want to set it now.

Please type the characters that appear in the image. The characters must be typed in the same order, and they are case-sensitive.
Open Preview Preview

You can resize the textbox by dragging the right or bottom border.
Insert Hyperlink Insert FTP Link Insert Image Insert E-mail Insert Media Insert Table Insert Table Row Insert Table Column Insert Horizontal Rule Insert Teletype Insert Code Insert Quote Edited Superscript Subscript Insert List /me - my name Insert Marquee Insert Timestamp No Parse
Bold Italicized Underline Insert Strikethrough Highlight
Change Text Color
Insert Preformatted Text Left Align Centered Right Align

Max 200000 characters. Remaining characters:
Text size: pt
More Smilies
View All Smilies
Collapse additional features Collapse/Expand additional features Smiley Wink Cheesy Grin Angry Sad Shocked Cool Huh Roll Eyes Tongue Embarrassed Lips Sealed Undecided Kiss Cry
Attachments More Attachments Allowed file types: txt doc docx ics psd pdf bmp jpe jpg jpeg gif png swf zip rar tar gz 7z odt ods mp3 mp4 wav avi mov 3gp html maff pgp gpg
Maximum Attachment size: 500000 KB
Attachment 1:
Topic Summary - Displaying 25 post(s).
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: May 18th, 2004 at 12:43pm
  Mark & Quote
Today I received by registered mail a letter from Los Angeles Chief of Police William J. Bratton withholding the documentation that I requested under the California Public Records Act on 19 April. The text of this letter follows:


May 4, 2004

George W. Maschke
Hart Nibbrigkade 22
2597 XV The Hague
The Netherlands

Dear Mr. Maschke:

California Public Records Act Request

This correspondence is prepared in response to your correspondence to the Los Angeles Police Department (the Department) dated April 19, 2004 which sets forth a request, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (the Act), for a copy of an audit and any associated documentation, prepared by Terry Carter, comparing reports sent by the Department's Scientific Investigation Division, Polygraph Unit to the Department's Personnel Division, Administrative Investigations Section.

The Department is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Act. It recognizes that the statutory scheme was enacted in order to maximize citizen access to the workings of government. However, the Act does not mandate disclosure of all documents within the government's possession. Rather, by specific exemption and reference to other statutes, the Act recognizes that there are boundaries where the public's right to access must be balanced against such weighty considerations as the right of privacy, a right of constitutional dimension under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. The law also exempts from disclosure records that are privileged or confidential or otherwise exempt under either express provisions of the Act or pursuant to applicable Federal or State law, per California Government Code Sections 6254(b); 6254(c); 6254(f); 6254(k); and 6255.

The Department has conducted a search for the audit described in your request. The audit is exempt from disclosure under Sections 6254(k) and 6255 of the Government Code. Section 6254(k) exempts records that are exempt from disclosure under federal or state law, including, but not limited to provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. Evidence Code Section 1040 declares an official information privilege for information acquired in confidence by a public agency when the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential. Similarly, the Department asserts Section 6255 of the Government Code based on this same need to retain confidentiality of said documents.

We appreciate this opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Management Analyst David Lee at Discovery Section, at (213) 978-2152.

Very truly yours,

Chief of Police

Commanding Officer
Risk Management Group

Note that Chief Bratton's letter provide no explanation of why he believes that "the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential."

I will be exploring avenues of appealing Chief Bratton's decision to withhold the requested information. In the mean time, anyone who can provide any further documentation regarding the allegations against the LAPD Polygraph Unit supervisor is invited to contact
Posted by: orolan
Posted on: May 10th, 2004 at 4:11pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Does anybody know if the American Polygraph Association is investigating this guy or simply waiting for somebody else to do it?

Neither. My experience with the APA is that they care nothing about ethics.

Ortiz is listed as the program chair

Not a big deal, considering the same organization thought so highly of the good "Doctor" Gelb that they made him their president for a term or two.
Posted by: tufasnails
Posted on: May 7th, 2004 at 10:32pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Of course its ironic, they APA undoubtedly don't know what they have!  Perhaps one of the informed observers in the LAPD polygraph department should enlighten them. Or maybe some other insider.  Some professional organizations only investigate ethics violations if reported by another member of the same organization.  Perhaps these people are non members.  At some point, people have to step from the shadows of veiled accusations and stand up for what they believe. Our nation was founded on the courage of men who had such strength of character that they would sacrifice their personal comfort for the greater good. What have we become?  Stand up and take a position! Be heard!
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: May 3rd, 2004 at 8:09pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Does anybody know if the American Polygraph Association is investigating this guy or simply waiting for somebody else to do it?  I notice that on the APA site page dealing with their upcoming seminar, Ortiz is listed as the program chair just before a listing of the agenda which begins with "..."Integrity and Leadership" is our contant goal and our 2004 seminar topics will include issues on Ethics & Procedures and Provisions..."  Does anybody see any irony to this?? lol
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Apr 30th, 2004 at 3:44pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Hopefully those whistleblower(s) (presumably holding position within or near the LAPD polygraph structure) who have provided the information that led to this thread and the recently reported new investigative thrust will take heart in the results of the Connecticut whistleblower whose circumstances were reported today on the home page.  As was the case in Connecticut, those in LA who believe themselves to have been treated in like manner should consider all their various options to include legal redress.  I suspect that there is much to be learned from this individual (and her attorney) who has apparently prevailed against stonewalling and cover-up surrounding polygraph practice.
Posted by: Fred F.
Posted on: Apr 29th, 2004 at 5:49pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

It looks like you have opened a few peoples eyes to Mr. Ortiz's "actions". It is nice to see that former Chief Parks took the time to respond. Let's hope that he does indeed forward this matter to the Police Commission.

I am just wondering why Council member Dennis Zine hasn't responded. He is a former LE member.

I hope that the media will take this matter to heart as well.

Keep up the good work!

Fred F.  Wink
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 28th, 2004 at 10:52pm
  Mark & Quote
Also today, I received the following e-mail from Sergeant Reginal McCool of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group:

Date: 4/28/2004 11:20:11 -0700
From: "Reginald McCool" <>
To: <>
Subject: complaint invest

Dear Mr. George Maschke:

Internal Affairs Group (IAG) has received your correspondence regarding
the misconduct of Scientific Investigation Division, Polygraph Unit,
Roy Ortiz.  This complaint is in the review process and has already
been addressed and investigated under Complaint Form No. 03-1542.   

If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Sergeant
Reginald McCool, Serial No. 26679, Support Section, IAG, at (213)

In a series of follow-up questions I e-mailed to him, Sergeant McCool clarified that the correspondence of mine that Internal Affairs received is the e-mail I sent to Chief Bratton (see reply #18 above), and that it "will be included in investigation  CF No. 03-1542."
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 28th, 2004 at 10:33pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Today I received the following reply from L.A. City Council Member (and former LAPD Chief of Police) Bernard C. Parks, to whom I cc'd my e-mail to Chief Bratton:

Date: 4/28/2004 11:51:37 -0700
From: "Bernard Parks" <BParks@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG>
To: <>
CC: "Bernard Parks Jr" <BParksjr@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Misconduct and Cover-up in LAPD Scientific Investigation Unit Alleged


200 N. SPRING ST. #460
213-485-7683 (FAX)

Posted by: tufasnails
Posted on: Apr 23rd, 2004 at 5:04am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Get back on track and end the childish sniping!
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Apr 22nd, 2004 at 12:38am
  Mark & QuoteQuote

You commented:

And your point is that you are concerned about the "credibility of the polygraph machine itself"?  Even George admits it is accurate 50% of the time, and that is more than can be said of you.

And what the crappity smack is that supposed to mean?  Are YOU admitting that it is accurate only 50% of the time?  I wouldn't call George's statement an "admission" - he's not a polygraph examiner and has nothing to admit to.

If you are actually agreeing with George's statement regarding a 50% accuracy rate, however, I ask you to explain to us all how leaving our nation's security up to a coin toss is a GOOD idea?  Are you feeling okay?
Posted by: BlackJhack
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 11:51pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Please do not take your anger out on those of us who post on this wonderful site. It is not our fault that you failed out of ITT Tech and the only low tech bull-shit job you could find afterwards was to be a polygraph examiner. All I am doing is studying and preparing for my upcoming "test" that I am being made to take. Let me assure you that I am going to pass my "test" with flying colors and will be a great cop. I would figure that in all of your "expert training", they would have taught you something other than going around and smelling shit, but it does kind of make sense. I would like to offer you a challenge. I can FedX you a box of my shit (large or small, it is up to you) and then you can smell it and let me know if I'm lying. Let me know if you want to take me up on the challenge Wink
Posted by: guest
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 11:49pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
And your point is that you are concerned about the "credibility of the polygraph machine itself"?  Even George admits it is accurate 50% of the time, and that is more than can be said of you.
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 11:30pm
  Mark & Quote

Yes, many people post under the name 'Anonymous.'  And many people post under the name 'guest.'  But the 'guest' that I refer to consistently provides '' as an email address - the writing style (use of vulgarity, personal insults, refering to everyone as though they are women, the already mentioned 'Annie' nickname) is constant with each post.   

As far as my sucky 'junior investigative reporter work,' I hold that I am correct and will put my so-called 'junior investigative reporter work' up against your polygraph any day.  Let me provide some examples for you:

Here we have you (as guest) commenting on my posts to Twoblock;action=display;num=10... 

"I think his posts are very entertaining, (he really gets worked up and gets his panties in a wad over every little thing), and informative, (he draws on his vast experience of failing his polygraph tests)."

Here is another thread;action=display;num... where you (as I-Smell-BS), use the same stupid phrase to ridicule yet another person:

"It is so easy for me to get your panties in a wad and you are so very funny when you are mad"

Following so far?  Keep in mind that you have unintentionally used the same fake email address domain '' when posting as I-Smell-BS (you used '' in this thread;action=display;num=1....  You ask how can one tell since so many people post under 'guest'?  Simple - you use the same fake email address everytime and your posts are easily identified as those of a sad, bitter asshole.

So here's the summary - when you post as 'guest,' you provide the fake address ''  When you post as 'I-Smell-BS' in a lame attempt to convince everyone here that you aren't the only pathetic loser that has no justification for your obscene insults, you provide the fake email address ''  However, as I-Smell-BS you provided in a single post '' as the fake address instead, which leads me to suspect you are the same people.  I might add though, recently when posting as 'I-Smell-BS' you provide the email address as ''  Now is this a referral to those very same nobs belonging to your fellow examiners that you slobber on each and every night?  You know, after your long, arousing discussions about how many people you've crappity smacked in the ass that day with your super-cool souped up blood pressure monitors?

So how about answering some of the questions that have been asked now?  Once again - your insults and ridiculous comments, lacking any coherence or content, only discredit the examiners that you are at least pretending to represent.  Ultimately, you're detracting from the credibility of the polygraph machine itself.

Wouldn't you want to jump at the opportunity to rid the world of polygraph misinformation and set the record straight?  Or is that what that Midas commercial featuring the polygraph and the nerdy examiner is for?  I-Smell-BS, is that you!?!?  'Trust the Midas touch!'

crappity smacker.
Posted by: I-Smell-BS
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 9:22pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Annie, (yes I have stolen this use of your nickname from someone), but which Anonymous are you?  As you or one of your clones has said, many people post under this name.  And as to your junior investigative reporter work - it sucks.  But it really doesn't matter what you think of me or who you think I am or how many different names you think I have posted under - you obviously have me confused with someone who gives a shit.  All I know for sure is that George and many of you on the "GRUDGE REPORT" exude a strong odor of bullshit and I cannot keep from noticing that. Kiss
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 9:09pm
  Mark & Quote

I have reviewed your last posts on the threads you felt worthy of your contribution.  I found an interesting (perhaps) unintentional point of interest.

It seems that you indicated '' as the email address for your post in a previous thread.  Coincidentally, the asshole who often posts under the name 'guest' uses that same fake email address.  What does that mean to me?  You and 'guest' are that same asshole.

Pretty sad.  You are so desperate to discredit posters here that you fake a 'recruitment' of pro-polygraphers posting here.  There are many similarities between 'guest' posts and 'I-Smell-BS' posts.  For example, calling Anonymous 'Annie.'  Check some recent posts from 'guest' and you'll see he/she does the same thing.

As someone mentioned earlier, all your posts do is discredit examiners and further the message and intent of this board.  But trying to make it look like other people actually share your views and values by faking posts?  That's right up there with the asshole examiner who actually posted from a Ft. Jackson network and gave himself away.  Why don't you take everyone's advice and actually contribute something to these discussions?

Seriously - most of the people here who wonder why they were falsely labeled as liars would really like to hear an explanation from an examiner as to why this happens and why it is tolerated.  You're only making your side look worse.
Posted by: I-Smell-BS
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 8:40pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Annie:  I'm glad to see you are keeping up with your reading assignment.  After all,  being the cub reporter for the "Grudge Report" is a lot of responsibility.  I will try to keep it simple for you. Grin
Posted by: Anonymous
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 8:35pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote

Review your last 10-20 posts and see if you can find anything of value in anything you have said.  Care to discuss polygraphy?  It would even be a pleasant change and surprise if you make some paltry effort at supporting polygraph practice (we appreciate the intellectual and factual challenges you face)...
Posted by: I-Smell-BS
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 7:55pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
You have heard of the Drudge Report.  George's site should be called the Grudge Report.  Wink  Breaking News.....  "I got my feelings hurt and now I hate all those mean old polygraph guys"  stay tuned for details of my terrible ordeal...... Roll Eyes
Posted by: Administrator
Posted on: Apr 21st, 2004 at 4:45pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
This question is directed to the person(s) who contacted regarding the falsification of polygraph reports: do you have the names and contact information of any individuals whose polygraph results were falsely reported to Backgrounds as "deception indicated?" If so, if you would privately provide this information to, we will alert such individuals to this situation so that they may initiate appropriate administrative and/or legal action.
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 19th, 2004 at 12:42pm
  Mark & Quote
Today, I e-mailed the following California Public Record Act request to LAPD Public Information Director Mary E. Grady <>:

[font=Georgia,Bookman,Times]Dear Ms. Grady:

This is a request under the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§6250-6258). I request that copies of the following documentation be provided to me:

An audit prepared by LAPD employee Terry Carter in 2003 comparing reports sent by the Scientific Investigation Unit's Polygraph Unit to the Personnel Division's Administrative Investigation Section (AIS), commonly referred to as "Backgrounds," during a six-month period, and any associated documentation.

It has been reported to that this audit revealed that in "dozens" of instances, reports sent by the Polygraph Unit Supervisor to Backgrounds differed from those on file with the Polygraph Unit. (See the message board discussion thread LAPD Polygraph Cover-up? for additional details.)

I understand that the documentation I have requested may contain personal information regarding those who submitted to polygraph examinations during the audit period, and I do not object to the redaction of such identifying information as names, social security, or driver license numbers. However, if the audit includes polygraph subjects' dates of birth, I request that such information not be redacted, as it may help individuals to determine whether their polygraph reports were among those allegedly falsified. I also request that any data regarding the sex of those polygraphed not be redacted, because it has been suggested that the alleged irregularities disproportionately affected female examinees.

Please mail the requested documentation to me at:

Hart Nibbrigkade 22
2597 XV The Hague
The Netherlands

or fax it to me at's fax number, 1-206-666-4271.

I am willing to pay copy costs arising from this request up to $25.00 consistent with CGC §6257. Please notify me if copy costs will exceed this amount.

In accordance with CGC §6256, I request a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it.


George W. Maschke
Posted by: George W. Maschke
Posted on: Apr 18th, 2004 at 9:50am
  Mark & Quote
I will have to agree with I-Smell-BS.  George's letter is a bit pretentious.  And George does tend to insert himself into situations where he really has no standing, and no real authority to speak.  After all, how much credibility does he get out of the fact that he has failed two polygraph exams?


Could you explain precisely what "standing" or "authority" you believe a citizen of the United States needs to report allegations of official corruption?

I would argue that anyone with knowledge of such alleged conduct has the right, and indeed perhaps a civic responsibility, to report it.

The fact that I "failed" two polygraph screening examinations -- a procedure that the National Academy of Sciences confirms has no scientific basis -- has no bearing on my credibility and is without relevance to the matter at hand. Moreover, the information that I have reported to Chief Bratton (and others cc'd) is not my own, but rather that which has been reported to Or perhaps you think I've made it all up?

The allegations that have been brought against Mr. Ortiz and those in his chain of command are quite specific, and it should be a relatively simple matter for those with oversight authority to ascertain whether or not they are true.
Posted by: guest
Posted on: Apr 18th, 2004 at 5:37am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
Kona, I guess that means you don't think George is a "puffed up self aggrandizing little prig" either huh?
Posted by: Kona
Posted on: Apr 18th, 2004 at 12:42am
  Mark & QuoteQuote
 After all, how much credibility does he get out of the fact that he has failed two polygraph exams?

Uh-oh, we've got a moron here.   

Here, I'll break it down for you.......

Polygraph---pseudo-scientific hogwash---NOT CREDIBLE.

"Failing" two pseudo-scientific polygraph exams---IRRELEVANT.


Does that clear it up for you?   

Have a nice day.

Posted by: anonymouse
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2004 at 10:52pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I will have to agree with I-Smell-BS.  George's letter is a bit pretentious.  And George does tend to insert himself into situations where he really has no standing, and no real authority to speak.  After all, how much credibility does he get out of the fact that he has failed two polygraph exams?

Hmmmm.... good question.... 

How much credibility does a forging, lying freakshow like Roy Ortiz have? 

Posted by: Guest
Posted on: Apr 17th, 2004 at 10:04pm
  Mark & QuoteQuote
I will have to agree with I-Smell-BS.  George's letter is a bit pretentious.  And George does tend to insert himself into situations where he really has no standing, and no real authority to speak.  After all, how much credibility does he get out of the fact that he has failed two polygraph exams?