AntiPolygraph.org has recevied the following note through an anonymous remailer:

My sibling works at LAPD Polygraph. We always talk about our jobs and the difficulties we face. There has been several (Three?) ongoing complaints against the LAPD Polygraph Supervisor that were just closed out.

Polygraphers discovered last year that the supervisor changed their report of findings without their consultation or consent.  There are literally dozens of reports like this.

If a polygrapher found a person to be No Deception, the supervisor changed it to Deception Indicated or vice versa, or to No Opinion, all without their knowledge.  In one instance, the supervisor forged a polygraphers signature on a report of findings.  This happened with new recruits and internal officers who take polygraphs for specialized jobs such as narcotics or anti-terrorist positions.  The investigators of the allegations noted that many of the changed reports were for females.  The commanders held a meeting this past Monday with the Polygraph Staff and said that the Supervisor was fully exonerated for all the accusations.  In other words, nothing wrong ever happened in the eyes of LAPD management.  My sibling told me that the entire polygraph staff is upset because the facts are there in black and white, on paper.  LAPD management is using a technicality to cover this whole thing up.  Because there is no polygraph unit manual in place, forging of someone else's signature and changing reports was allowed.  Also, during the investigation, the supervisor was not removed from the polygraph unit.  He was allowed to stay in the unit and continue conducting polygraph tests.  Had this been an officer or any other person working in the LAPD, they would have been removed from office immediately and not been allowed to work.  Even the LAPD police officer manual does not spell out that officers shall not change reports of other officers or forge other officer's names.  It's a given.  This is disgusting and just as bad as Rampart.  The polygraph stopped many good candidates from becoming officers.  I think the this supervisor and the managers who are covering up for him are shameful.  While I believe that the polygraph can be a good tool for the police, dishonest people doing polygraphs is outrageous.  I encourage you to spread the word about this massive coverup.  I am sure it has affected many lives.  I feel so sorry for my sibling who has to put up with this supervisor and his managers.

The allegations contained in the e-mail cited above are very serious if true.

I called the LAPD's Media Relations Office at (213) 485-3586 and spoke with a Mr. Villarreal, who was not familiar with the allegations. Upon his suggestion, I e-mailed background information and questions to him at wwwpress@lapd.lacity.org:


Quote:

Dear Mr. Villarreal, Pursuant to our phone conversation, I'm e-mailing you background regarding my inquiry. I'm a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website concerned with polygraph issues. Today, we received a report that the head of the LAPD's polygraph unit changed the results of personnel polygraph examinations without consulting with, informing, or seeking the permission of, those who performed the polygraph examinations. The text of the report we received is posted on-line here: http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=Policy;action=display;num=1081980240 My questions to you are: 1) Who is the head of the LAPD Polygraph Unit? 2) Did the head of the LAPD Polygraph Unit forge signatures and change polygraph reports? 3) Who made the determination to fully exonerate the head of the Polygraph Unit? 4) How can LAPD applicants whose applications were rejected (and officers whose assignments to specialized units were rejected) based on their having allegedly failed their polygraph examinations discover whether their exams are among those allegedly falsified by the head of the Polygraph Unit? Any other clarifications you could provide regarding these allegations would also be welcome. Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org PS: A copy of this e-mail will be posted in the message thread linked above.

In September 2003, AntiPolygraph.org received an anonymous tip from a caller regarding the investigation of the supervisor of the LAPD polygraph unit. AntiPolygraph.org did not make this information public at the time because it could not be corroborated.

The anonymous caller left the following voice mail message for AntiPolygraph.org on 15 September 2003:


Quote:

Yes. A hot tip. Roy Ortiz, LAPD, supervisor in charge, he's under investigation by Internal Affairs for changing polygraph reports.

The caller left a more detailed message on 25 September 2003:


Quote:

Yes. There is a big tip here. I called last week. Mr. Roy Ortiz from the LAPD polygraph unit is under investigation for changing polygraph test results. This is very big within the LAPD. You are missing a big opportunity. He is the head supervisor in charge, and he's being investigated. I took a test there last year with the LAPD, and he told me that my breathing was all screwed up, and they told me that I was possibly using countermeasures. Mr. Roy Ortiz is being very dishonest in his own unit giving tests.

wrote on Apr 15^th, 2004 at 10:56am:

In September 2003, AntiPolygraph.org received an anonymous tip from a caller regarding the investigation of the supervisor of the LAPD polygraph unit. AntiPolygraph.org did not make this information public at the time because it could not be corroborated. The anonymous caller left the following voice mail message for AntiPolygraph.org on 15 September 2003: The caller left a more detailed message on 25 September 2003:

OH MY, George is wearing his ADMINISTATOR hat with the 5 stars.  Look out LAPD, George is on the case!  Never mind that he is in the Netherlands, he is hot on the trail of corruption in LA. ::)

ISBS,

You write:


Quote:

...Look out LAPD, George is on the case!  Never mind that he is in the Netherlands, he is hot on the trail of corruption in LA....

The relevant issue is not what and why George can do from afar, but, if the allegations discussed are shown to be true, why those in your community, geographically and otherwise better able to investigate and root out such things, have to date failed to do so.

wrote on Apr 15^th, 2004 at 10:56am:

In September 2003, AntiPolygraph.org received an anonymous tip from a caller regarding the investigation of the supervisor of the LAPD polygraph unit. AntiPolygraph.org did not make this information public at the time because it could not be corroborated. The anonymous caller left the following voice mail message for AntiPolygraph.org on 15 September 2003: The caller left a more detailed message on 25 September 2003:

Wow, this jagoff (who failed is polygraph) sure seems credible to me.
It must be true!

Hugh.

Funny, the only thing you can point out to bring the caller's credibility into question is the fact that he/she failed a polygraph exam.

Do you really think that's going to sway anyone here?  Did you forget what message board you were posting on?

AntiPolygraph.org has received another e-mail, titled "LAPD Polygraph Supervisor is a Liar," through an anonymous remailer:


Quote:

> > This is despicable.  An LAPD polygrapher who lies.  This person has affected lives of many employees and potentially lost (or gotten) jobs for police officer candidates.  LAPD has not changed. > > One year ago this month, the first of several internal personnel complaints were filed against LAPD Polygraph Unit Supervisor Roy Ortiz. Allegations were that Ortiz changed the results of dozens of polygraph tests of potential police officer candidates, and officers who were required to submit to a polygraph to land a specialized position such as narcotics, vice, or anti-terrorist.  In at least one instance, Ortiz was accused of forging another examiner's name to a report of findings in which he changed the results of the test.  Other allegations included insubordination for participating in polygraph unit business, retaliation against employees who are involved in the complaints, and numerous counts of inappropriate conduct with other LAPD employees. > > Civilian commander of Scientific Investigation Division, Steve Johnson, with the knowledge and approval of his chain of command, allowed Ortiz to remain in the Polygraph Unit to conduct tests while he was under investigation, a deviation from LAPD's routine of removing an employee from an assignment while an investigation is active.  Ortiz was allowed to conduct polygraph tests and participate in polygraph related decisions of his employees. > > Johnson and civilian commander Nancy Gennusa met with Polygraph Unit employees last Monday to announce that the complaints were completed and adjudicated.  The adjudication, decided by Johnson, called for full exoneration of Ortiz.  Johnson used the loophole that there was no official Polygraph Unit Manual in place at the time Ortiz changed the reports, therefore Ortiz could not be held accountable for his actions.  Also, Johnson and Gennusa insist that Ortiz was never given an official direct order to not involve himself with polygraph business. > > Oddly enough, solid proof that Ortiz had changed reports, and testimony by other polygraph employees support that the allegations is available.  There is no mention in the LAPD Manual for sworn officers specifically stating that they shall not forge police reports either.  Also, if a supervisor orally gives an officer an order, that order is taken as a direct order. There is no other protocol. > > The civilian mid-level manager Terry Carter, who filed the initial personnel complaint with Internal Affairs last April, was transferred in September 2003 to another assignment, Supplies.  Johnson and Gennusa cited that the transfer was due to "operational needs".  Carter, who was seven months pregnant at the time of the transfer, has been on maternity leave since November and is yet to return to work.  Upon the transfer, Carter filed a complaint for retaliation. > ...

The e-mail concluded with a list of people who could be contacted to corroborate the information provided. AntiPolygraph.org will contact these persons for verification. We will also share the contact information received with legitimate news agencies that may wish to investigate these allegations. (Send inquiries to info@antipolygraph.org or leave voicemail at  206-666-4271 206-984-4872.)

The following e-mail was also received through an anonymous remailer:

I read your posting today.  I am sure that any civilian answering the phone in Media Relations won't know anything about the investigation.  I can answer your questions:

1.  Polygraph Examiner IV Roy Ortiz is the officer in charge of the Polygraph Unit.
2. Yes, Ortiz changed reports of findings in dozens of cases without the consent of the polygraphers who conducted the actual tests.  In at least one case, Ortiz forged the signature of a civilian examiner without his knowledge, after he and the examiner had a disagreement on the final opinion of the exam.
3.  Police Administrator Steve Johnson, the civilian commanding officer of Scientific Investigation Division, which the Polygraph Unit is under, adjudicated the complaint and fully exonerated Ortiz.
4.  I don't know how to answer this one.  Formal inquiries with the Personnel Department, Police Commission, or Inspector General?  A huge crappity smacking lawsuit would work.  LAPD management was banking on the fact that we were all going to be good soldiers and let the internal process reveal the truth.  But since some genius decided to let Steve Johnson adjudicate it, along with his cripple boss, Nancy Gennusa, who are both in bed with Ortiz, it's over.  

For anyone who may be reading this message thread who would be in a position to know:

1) Why would the LAPD Polygraph Unit supervisor change the results of polygraph examinations?

2) Were these alleged changes made on the supervisor's own initiative, or did someone else ask or order him to change the results? If so, who?

Interesting how the person who is naming all these people at LAPD is hiding as an anonymous informant. WHO EVER YOU ARE ... You are willing to name all the individuals  you say are involved in a cover up, but you are too chicken to admit to who you are and what position you hold.

George...I respect your opinion, you have a right to free speech and the right to stand for what you believe but when it comes to accusations as severe as these I hope that you would make the individual who is so willing to name all these people admit to his or her true identity.

After all does one not have the right to confront their accuser ???

makemesick,

I would prefer that anyone making such serious allegations would do so using their real name. However, considering the reasonable fear of retaliation that whistleblowers face (a fear that would be buttressed by the alleged retaliation against Terry Carter), I think it is not hard to understand why a whistleblower might choose to remain anonmyous.

If anyone has information that rebuts the allegations made here, or that adds relevant context which may be missing, please feel free to post it.

AntiPolygraph.org has received the following e-mail through an anonymous remailer, under the subject header, "Re: LAPD Polygraph Supervisor is a Liar - more info":


Quote:

This is a BIG coverup by LAPD. Media Relations isn't going to help you.  Anyone "official" who talks to you is going to tell you that there was a formal complaint investigation investigated by Internal Affairs, and that Roy Ortiz was found to be fully exonerated.  What they are not going to tell you is that the person who adjudicated the complaint was Police Administrator Steve Johnson, who is a puppet to his boss, Nancy Gennusa.  All these people are civilians, not cops.  What they aren't also going to tell you is that the higher ups have known about this Roy Ortiz problem for years.  Gennusa's bosses' entire office was told that Ortiz was a bomb waiting to explode, multiple times, by multiple people, even an ex Captain.   Everyone in the LAPD Polygraph Unit has already seen the posting on your website.  You are not going to get answers, and their whole chain of command is already strategizing damage control in case this hits the news.  Johnson, Gennusa, Laura Johnson, and Chief Sharon Papa all knew about this.  There is documentation to prove that dozens of reports were changed.  The manager over Ortiz who filed the complaint against him also started an audit of all polygraph reports for just a six month period, but she was moved out of her job before she could complete it. Polygraph Examiner IV Roy Ortiz is the head of the polygraph unit. Ortiz did forge signatures of other polygraphers, changing opnions of reports without their knowledge. Police Administrator Steve Johnson fully exonerated Ortiz. Anyone who thinks they were rejected out of a job because of the polygraph should formally ask to get their file reopened through the LAPD Police Commission or Inspector General.

If anyone with access to documents regarding this case wishes to make them public, they may be faxed to AntiPolygraph.org at 206-666-4271 206-984-4872 206-600-5859 (which is also our voicemail number). Fax header information will be redacted from any such documents before they are made public.

George,

For the sake of conversation, if one assumes there to be some truth to the original allegations as well with the nature of the subsequent internal investigation of such allegations as reported by one or more whistleblowers, it would appear that the LAPD may not be capable of investigating itself.

Have you considered, in addition to sending this to various media outlets, further making official complaints with:

(1) The mayor's office

(2) The governor's office/state attorney general

(3) The FBI/U.S. Attorney General's office (the alleged offenses could well involve federal violations; i.e., civil rights violations of individual examinees)

(4) The ACLU and similar groups--this may well be a class actionable matter and one potentially involving government agencies as well as individuals if there in fact was an investigative cover-up and last but not least

(5) The American Polygraph Association and similar California Polygraph Associations.  These groups should formally be notified/put on notice (one or more of the individuals alleged to be involved may hold membership in one or more of these groups).  If the allegations prove to be true, it will be more than interesting to see how aggressively the matter is/has been/will be investigated by these associations.

The following message was received through an anonymous remailer under the subject header "LAPD.":


Quote:

Everyone is afraid of retaliation around this crappity smacking place. Hey, Roy Ortiz is an asshole to everyone. It's no big crappity smacking surprise that someone finally leaked it.  It's a surprise that it took so crappity smacking long.  Everyone is pissed off about the decision limp dick Johnson made. Johnson is so concerned about his Police Administrater job that he'll kiss anyone's ass to keep it and climb the ladder.  That's integrity!  I heard through the grapevine that there was an anonymous complaint from an outside party that went to the Chiefs office.  On a training convention for APA in Washington DC Ortiz was out in front of the White House and started yelling at the top of his voice "Hillary you thingy! Come out here! Hillary your a crappity smacking bitch"  The Secret Service came out and detained everyone.  People from APA told me that they were furious.  Ortiz did not reveal that he was an LAPD examiner.  He presented his Sheriff's ID instead. This anonymous complaint went to Johnson to handle and he did nothing about it.  He just trashed it.  But that's what the balless wonder does.  Let's be real. Nothing is going to happen.  This coverup goes all the way to the top.  The entire chain of command knows about this and choses to ignore the Ortiz problem.  Had this been an officer, the officer would have been removed immediately and dealt with appropriately.  These civilians don't have a crappity smacking clue how to manage, or how it works in this Department.

The APA is the American Polygraph Association. According to the APA website, Mr. Ortiz is a member of the board of directors, chair of the International Membership Liaison Committee, and also the Seminar Program Chair.

AntiPolygraph.org has received the following e-mail through an anonymous remailer:


Quote:

1) Why would the LAPD Polygraph Unit supervisor change the results of polygraph examinations? The supervisor reviews and quality controls the exams.  If he disagrees with the opinion of the examiner, they are supposed to discuss it and come to some agreement, but the supervisor is never to change a report without discussion or forge another examiner's signature on a report. 2) Were these alleged changes made on the supervisor's own initiative, or did someone else ask or order him to change the results? If so, who? We think he did it on his own.  Examiners give a hard copy of the report and a diskette or email to Ortiz to quality control.  Any changes would have to be kicked back to the examiner and the process is repeated.  Ortiz would email the reports to Backgrounds.  That audit that Carter was doing compared the signed reports in the polygraph files vs reports from Backgrounds.  For only six months there were pages of inconsistencies. I know that Carter began confirming a few before she was transferred. There's another theory that's been floating out there for years. Gennusa and Ortiz have been best buds since she hired him on as the polygraph supervisor.  Speculation is that he holds secrets about the Department and that's why these managers go through great lengths to protect him.  Why we dont know.  Ortiz embarased LAPD with his screwups like the Oscars, Rampart and a certain son of a city council member who is now a cop. Ortiz is strange. He's got major self-image and ego problems. Ask anyone at the Sheriff's (he was a deputy before he came to LAPD) and they'll tell you that he's an odd duck.

What is the disposition of the audit report that Carter was doing? If anyone reading this could provide a copy, it would be very helpful for documenting the allegations made here.

It appears that there is a major scandal involving the LAPD polygraph unit supervisor. The allegations which have been made here are more than specific enough to be verified or disproved. I think this case calls for the kind of scrutiny that only media attention can bring.

At this point, it might be best if the person or persons who have thus far contacted AntiPolygraph.org anonymously would contact the media about the alleged misconduct and cover-up. While it might be necessary to reveal your identity(ies) to the journalist(s) involved, it is common media practice to withhold the names of sources in such cases.

Of course, any further information may still be sent to AntiPolygraph.org.

Today, I sent the following e-mail to Los Angeles Chief of Police William J. Bratton:


Quote:

To: William J.Bratton - Los Angeles Chief of Police <brattonw@lapd.lacity.org>, <lapdonline@earthlink.net> From: "George W. Maschke" <maschke@antipolygraph.org> Subject: Misconduct and Cover-up in LAPD Scientific Investigation Unit Alleged Cc: Mayor James K.Hahn <MayorHahn@mayor.lacity.org>, Councilman Ed Reyes <reyes@council.lacity.org>, Councilwoman Wendy Greuel <greuel@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Dennis P.Zine <zine@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Tom LaBonge <labonge@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Jack Weiss <weiss@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Tony Cardenas <cardenas@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Alex Padilla <padilla@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Bernard Parks <parks@council.lacity.org>, Councilwoman Jan Perry <perry@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Martin Ludlow <ludlow@council.lacity.org>, Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski <miscikow@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Greig Smith <smith@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Eric Garcetti <garcetti@council.lacity.org>, Councilman Antonio Villaraigosa <villaraigosa@council.lacity.org>, Councilwoman Janice Hahn <hahn@council.lacity.org>, Sharon Papa <papashar@lapd.lacity.org>, Laura Johnson <johnsonl@lapd.lacity.org>, Nancy Gennusa <gennusan@lapd.lacity.org>, Steven Johnson <johnsons@lapd.lacity.org>, Los Angeles Police Protective League <leaguemail@lappl.org>, Los Angeles Times <metrodesk@latimes.com>, L.A.Daily News Newsroom <dnmetro@dailynews.com>, L.A.Independent <editor@laindependent.com>, Daily Bruin News Desk <news@media.ucla.edu>, UPN Channel 13 Newsdesk <upndesk@upn13.com>, NBC 4 News Editor <story@nbc4.tv>, KTTV Fox 11 <newsdesk@fox11la.com>, KCET <viewerservices@kcet.org>, KNX 1070 <comments@knx1070.com>, KFI AM 640 News Department <kfinewsdirector@kfi640.com>, KRLA News Talk 870 <krla@newstalk870krla.com>, KCRW <mail@kcrw.org>, KPCC <mail@kpcc.org>, Anthony Marquez - Associated Press <amarquez@ap.org> Dear Chief Bratton: I am writing concerning allegations of high-level misconduct within the Los Angeles Police Department that I believe require your personal and prompt attention. I am a co-founder of AntiPolygraph.org, a non-profit, public interest website dedicated to exposing and ending waste, fraud, and abuse associated with polygraph testing. AntiPolygraph.org has received credible reports that Mr. Roy Ortiz, the supervisor of the LAPD Scientific Investigation Unit's polygraph unit, falsified reports of polygraph examinations of LAPD applicants as well as those of current officers seeking assignment to specialized units such the Narcotics Division, Organized Crime and Vice Division, and the Anti-Terrorist Division. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr. Ortiz sent to the Personnel Division's Administrative Investigation Section (AIS), commonly referred to as "Backgrounds," polygraph reports that differed from the actual reports on file with the polygraph unit. These discrepancies were allegedly discovered in the course of an audit conducted by Terry Carter. The audit allegedly covered a six-month period and revealed numerous cases where reports sent by Mr. Ortiz to background investigators differed from those on file with the polygraph unit. It is also alleged that in at least one case, Mr. Ortiz forged the signature of an examiner in the polygraph unit following a disagreement over the results of a polygraph examination. It is further alleged that Terry Carter, the employee whose audit exposed the alleged misconduct, was removed from her position and re-assigned to the Supply Section before she could complete her audit. It is also alleged that upon completion of an Internal Affairs investigation, Police Administrator Steven Johnson, the SID commanding officer, exonerated Mr. Ortiz of all wrongdoing, despite solid proof of misconduct. It is alleged that Mr. Johnson "used the loophole that there was no official Polygraph Unit Manual in place at the time Ortiz changed the reports, therefore Ortiz could not be held accountable for his actions." It is further alleged that in addition to Mr. Johnson, Police Administrator Nancy Gennusa, Commanding Officer, Technical Services Group, Police Administrator Laura Johnson, Commanding Officer, Fiscal and Technical Services Bureau, and Assistant Chief Sharon Papa, Office of Support Services, were all aware of Mr. Ortiz's alleged misconduct. The text of the communications received is posted on the AntiPolygraph.org message board in a thread titled, LAPD Polygraph Cover-up? These allegations raise serious questions that demand answers, including, but not limited to: 1) Did Mr. Roy Ortiz in fact alter reports of polygraph examinations without the knowledge or consent of the polygraphers who administered them? 2) If Mr. Ortiz did indeed improperly alter such reports, what action has been taken to correct the personnel errors associated with that misconduct? 3) Have the applications of any LAPD applicants who passed the polygraph, but whose results were falsely reported as failing, been reinstated? If not, why not? 4) What action is to be taken in the case of any applicants who failed the polygraph, but whose results were reported by Mr. Ortiz as passing, and who have since been hired by the LAPD? 5) What is to be done regarding any currently serving officers who were granted or denied assignment to the Narcotics, Organized Crime and Vice, or Anti-Terrorist Divisions based on falsified polygraph reports? 6) What action has been taken to identify any other instances of improprer reporting of polygraph results (that is, those not included in the six-month audit that Terry Carter conducted)? If no such action has yet been taken, will you insure [sic] that it is? 7) Was there really an urgent need for Terry Carter's transfer to the Supply Section, or was this a case of retaliation against a whistleblower? Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org

My goodness -- looks like I stopped by just when things are heating up...

Skeptic

George, your letter should give the folks at LAPD a good laugh.  Get a life you puffed up self aggrandizing little prig!

I smell BS,

What are you babbling about?  If these allegations are found to be substantiated why would you not want this story to come to light?  What have you got to hide?  Are you fearing an inquiry might jeopardize your job?

An LAPD polygrapher altering results so that certain applicants can or can not get hired?  An LAPD polygrapher forging signatures?  How many applicants have been wrongly labelled deceptive by this man?  How many applicants with questionable pasts have been hired based on this fraudulant persons dealings?

This is appaling but not near surprizing considering some of the posts and tones from polygraphers on this board and the manner in which the polygraph is administered and performed.

I hate to say it but as the polygraph has yet to prove any scientific validity and is used soley as a prop, I would venture to say this sort of manipulation and altering of results runs rampant throughout police forces in the United States and Canada wide.

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?

wrote on Apr 17^th, 2004 at 10:04pm:

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?

wrote on Apr 17^th, 2004 at 10:04pm:

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.

George---CREDIBLE.  

Does that clear it up for you?  

Have a nice day.

Kona

Kona, I guess that means you don't think George is a "puffed up self aggrandizing little prig" either huh?

wrote on Apr 17^th, 2004 at 10:04pm:

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?

Guest,

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 AntiPolygraph.org. 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.

Today, I e-mailed the following California Public Record Act request to LAPD Public Information Director Mary E. Grady <gradym@lapd.lapdonline.org>:


Quote:

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 AntiPolygraph.org 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 AntiPolygraph.org 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 AntiPolygraph.org'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. Sincerely, George W. Maschke AntiPolygraph.org

This question is directed to the person(s) who contacted AntiPolygraph.org 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 AntiPolygraph.org, we will alert such individuals to this situation so that they may initiate appropriate administrative and/or legal action.

You have heard of the Drudge Report.  George's site should be called the Grudge Report.  ;)  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...... ::)

ISBS,

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)...

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. ;D

I-Smell-BS,

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 'guest@who.com' 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.

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. :-*

I-Smell-BS,

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 'guest@who.com' 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 http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=book;action=display;num=1015634410;start=20#20'>

"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 http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=lawsuit;action=display;num=1081264333;start=9#9 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 'who.com' when posting as I-Smell-BS (you used 'what@who.com' in this thread http://antipolygraph.org/cgi-bin/forums/YaBB.pl?board=share;action=display;num=1080770021;start=3#3.  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 'guest@who.com.'  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 'bs@stinky.org.'  However, as I-Smell-BS you provided in a single post 'what@who.com' 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 'nobs@nobs.com.'  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.

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.

I-Smell-BS,
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 ;)

guest,

You commented:


Quote:

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?

Get back on track and end the childish sniping!

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:


Quote:

Date: 4/28/2004 11:51:37 -0700 From: "Bernard Parks" <BParks@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG> To: <maschke@antipolygraph.org> CC: "Bernard Parks Jr" <BParksjr@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG> Subject: Re: Fwd: Misconduct and Cover-up in LAPD Scientific Investigation Unit Alleged THANKS FOR THE INFO..I WILL FORWARD TO THE LA POLICE COMMISSION AND REQUEST A INVESTIGATION AND A RESPONSE TO YOU.. BERNARD C. PARKS COUNCILMEMBER 8TH DISTRICT LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL 200 N. SPRING ST. #460 LOS ANGELES  CA. 90012 213-473-7008 213-485-7683 (FAX) WWW.LACITY.ORG/COUNCIL/CD8

Also today, I received the following e-mail from Sergeant Reginal McCool of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group:


Quote:

Date: 4/28/2004 11:20:11 -0700 From: "Reginald McCool" <26679@lapd.lacity.org> To: <maschke@antipolygraph.org> Subject: complaint invest Dear Mr. George Maschke: Internal Affairs Group (IAG) has received your correspondence regarding the misconduct of Scientific Investigation Division, Polygraph Unit, employee 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) 473-6767

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."

George,

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.  ;)

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 Antipolygraph.org 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.

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

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!

Quote:

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.


Quote:

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.

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:


Quote:

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, WILLIAM J. BRATTON Chief of Police [signed] STUART A. MAISLIN, Commander 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 AntiPolygraph.org.