As mentioned on the blog, it appears at least one federal agency may think so. A report (5.4 mb PDF) by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit on substantive admissions obtained opens with a paragraph about 10 applicants who received instruction in polygraph countermeasures:


Quote:

1. During the conduct of a precedence [sic] setting criminal investigation known as Operation [redacted], ten applicants for law enforcement positions within CBP were identified as receiving sophisticated polygraph Countermeasure training in an effort to defeat the polygraph requirement. None of the CBP applicants were successful, but others involved in the conspiracy were [redacted]. The Insider Threat caused by the physiological and psychological polygraph countermeasures employed against other agencies has been investigated by CBP-IA with assistance from affected agencies. This investigation provides proof of the necessity and effectiveness of the Anti-Border Corruption Act, and revelation of the previously unknown vulnerabilities of the hiring process.

To my knowledge, there has been no press coverage of any such criminal investigation heretofore. I would be interested in any informed commentary any of our readers could provide.

I cannot imagine a statute that would be violated by what a person thinks or does during a polygraph.

Even if they attempted to write new law, I can't imagine how one would phrase such a law so that it could be enforced. 

CBP refuses to answer whether they think it is a crime to provide or receive polygraph countermeasure training. See the update to the blog post:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/04/04/u-s-customs-and-border-protection-reveals-criminal-investigation-into-polygraph-countermeasure-training/

I think CBP would have been justified in redacting the name of the polygraph countermeasure operation (I'll call it "Operation X") only if the operation were still ongoing at the time CBP document was released. The metadata in the PDF file released by the Center for Investigative Reporting indicates that it was created on 31 January 2013. If that date is correct, it follows that CBP redacted the document no later than that. So Operation X may have still been active at the beginning of February 2013.

The fact that no arrests have been announced as a result of the "precedent setting" Operation X suggests that either:

1) Operation X was wound down without any criminal charges having been brought

or

2) Operation X is still ongoing and release of the CBP document unintentionally disclosed it's existence.

Admissions to polygraph countermeasures are quite rare. The CBP report cites only seven such admissions for the period from 2008-2012. These admissions (at paras. 208-214 of the CBP report) do not appear to be connected with Operation X.

By contrast, Operation X has allegedly identified ten CBP applicants who received polygraph countermeasure training and, it would seem, an undisclosed number of applicants or employees of other agencies. No admissions are alleged. This is rather extraordinary, and it suggests to me that the information may be derived from electronic eavesdropping.

Polygraph community countermeasure documentation received by AntiPolygraph.org (which we will be posting shortly) indicates that there are two primary sources of information about countermeasures that concern the polygraph community: AntiPolygraph.org and Doug Williams' Polygraph.com. Communications with either site may be the subject of a court-ordered wiretap.

Gee, George, I thought you said CMs can't be detected???

To the suckers who paid $1,000+ (presumably to Doug Williams):  you got what you paid for!

Quickfix,

No polygrapher has ever demonstrated any ability to detect the kinds of countermeasures outlined in The Lie Behind the Lie Detector, and the CBP admissions summary doesn't suggest that countermeasures were "detected," unless you're naive enough to believe that the seven who admitted using countermeasures are the only instances (out of some 11,149 CBP polygraph examinations conducted from 2008-2012) where countermeasures were employed. Documentation soon to be published on AntiPolygraph.org indicates that the polygraph community has no coherent methodology for detecting such countermeasures. Stay tuned.

No offense, George, but you're the naive one here.  The report you attached clearly demonstrates our ability to detect CMs.  You can rationalize the contents of that report any way you want, but one of those caught clearly stated the CMs were used after researching your website.

I can also assure you that far more than 7 have been caught in past years.  You just don't know about it. 

Quickfix,

"Detection" means identification at better-than-chance levels of accuracy. The seven countermeasure confessions do not (and cannot) demonstrate that CBP polygraph examiners are able to detect countermeasures. This is so because we do not (and cannot) know:

• what percentage of examinees employed countermeasures;
  
• what percentage of those who employed countermeasures were "determined" by CBP to have employed countermeasures;
  
• what percentage of those who were "determined" by CBP to have used countermeasures actually did so.
  

It's a great irony that polygraph operators assert that they can detect countermeasures, while simultaneously exhibiting extreme paranoia whenever anyone wants to learn about them. I think CBP are smart enough to know that obtaining knowledge is not a crime; while their "investigation" may be real, its main purpose is to instill fear into future applicants.

Doug Williams,

Can I ask if you have perceived any kind of harrassment or privacy violations in the course of running your business? I hope you are prepared to bring a lawsuit against anyone who crosses the line.

It seems that accusations of countermeasure use are quite common.  It also seems unlikely that a majority of people who take polygraphs are, in fact, skilled at countermeasures. 

If I polygraph 100 people, and accuse 75 of them of using countermeasures, and five of them admit to using countermeasures, can I accurately claim that I can detect countermeasures?  I would think not.

If 100 people were polygraphed, and, say, 10 of them used countermeasures, and the polygraph operator accused 7 or 8 people and each of them were among the group using countermeasures, that would indicate their ability to detect countermeasures.

If, in the same controlled experiment, the polygraph operators accused 70 out of 100 of using countermeasures, and 7 or 8 of those accused were in fact using countermeasures, that seems more like a version of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Should I go into the field of polygraph or psychics?

polytime wrote on Apr 7^th, 2013 at 5:28pm:

Should I go into the field of polygraph or psychics?

Good question. Both involve the art of cold reading. The most successful psychics rake in more money than the most successful polygraph operators, though.

The most successful psychics rake in more money than the most successful polygraph operators, though.

Good point and article!

The actual name of "Operation X" is "Operation Lie Busters." More to follow.

As noted on the blog, the very name "Operation Lie Busters" seems to confirm that polygraph countermeasures are not peripheral to this criminal investigation, but central to it. It appears that being unable to detect polygraph countermeasures, the U.S. government is seeking to criminalize the teaching or learning of them. Feel safer now?

As also noted on the blog, the head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit and a second CBP polygraph operator are scheduled to give a three-hour presentation on Operation Lie Busters on 3 June 2013 before a private polygraph organization. I think the public should also be allowed to know the details of this "precedent setting" operation. Don't you?

Criminalize the teaching or learning of polygraph countermeasures? I'd love to see a draft of the proposed law. It seems quite obvious, that the government doesn't have any new technical advancement ideas on how to improve 100+year polygraph-type antiquated technology, to allow the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to conduct a re-evaluation that shows a dramatic improvement in reliability and accuracy. Hence, because the polygraph has not improved at all in that last 100+ years and there are no available advancement in technology to even consider beginning development on specific countermeasure tools and applications, then I guess the government just decided, let's draft a law that criminalizes the mere practice of trying to beat a system that doesn't provide definitive enough results to tell a lie from the truth.! LOL!!

Maybe we should just go back to the Chinese way of putting handfuls of rice in people's mouths. ;D

I've already posted about this here, but to follow up in this thread, on Friday 16 August 2013, McClatchy published a blockbuster report by Marisa Taylor and Cleve R. Wootsen, Jr. about Operation Lie Busters:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/16/199590/seeing-threats-feds-target-instructors.html

The operation targeted Doug Williams, who has not been arrested but who may remain under investigation and Chad Dixon, who has accepted a plea arrangement and faces possible jail time (prosecutors are seeking a two-year sentence).

Operation Lie Busters may also have targeted me. In May of this year, I received a suspicious e-mail that seems like an attempt to set me up on a charge of material support to terrorism.

I'll be happy to discuss this with any journalist interested in further reporting.

Trying to make an example by prosecuting a little league coach will eventually backfire on them. The Genie is out of the bottle, there is no turning back.

Didn't "coach" cop a plea?

pailryder wrote on Aug 18^th, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Didn't "coach" cop a plea?

Even more demonstrative of my point; they are going after an amateur, who was able to be scared into a plea bargain. Steam rolling over an ant will have little effect on the eventual outcome.

I guess we have different definitions of an amateur.  When one advertises one's services and collects money for said service, to me that is a professional.  If he is truly an amateur, who trained him?

I sincerely hope the Feds do not make any attempt to prosecute Doug Williams.

However, if the Department of Justice is stupid enough to indict Doug, I hope he, or someone, has the deep pockets required in order to mount a credible defense.

meangino

It doesn't take deep pockets if one knows civil rights statutes. There's no bases in fact for the DOJ to force this issue. It's a scare tactic that scared one dude in to pleading guilty. He's weak. I'm sure Doug is very capable of defending himself.

According to a recent Fox News article, Doug Williams has been ARRESTED!

The article says both Doug Williams, and another anti-polygraph advocate Chad Dixon, both "agreed to meet with clients for a fee who they thought were connected to drug trafficking or were correction officers who had received sexual favors from an underage girl. But the potential polygraph students were really undercover agents".

Is this true Doug?  Did they arrest you?  When and where did this happen?  Are these allegations true? 

This government is getting out of control!  Polygraphs don't work.  Learning about polygraphs and countermeasures is as much of a crime as learning about magic and how the tricks work.  I know how magic tricks are done.  So does that mean when the government starts using magic and deception in some "interests of national security", that I'll be a criminal?  This has got to stop!

I would like for Doug Williams, George Maschke, and others to have a big national television show where they expose every detail about the government polygraphs and how they work.  Show everyone how to beat them.  Make polygraphers cry because they can't get any confessions out of any  more subjects and there whole "magic show is ruined".  The whole USA will be educated on how to beat the machine, and more and more people will beat the CIA, FBI, NSA, Border Patrol, etc. polygraphs.  Make it useless.  Put polygraphers out of a job.

Oh, by the way, I took polygraphs and I'll tell you the best countermeasures is the mental thoughts one.  Breathing changes may be detected with the tubes around your chest, and tongue biting may be seen if you screw it up.  Best bet is to use mental thoughts.  Nobody, and no machine, can read your mind.  Never have, never will.

Actually, this is going to come back and haunt the feds. What they actually accomplished is a godsend to future instructors of countermeasures. Simply have a lawyer draw up a terms of service affidavit to be signed by the student stipulating that they will will not use polygraph countermeasures to obstruct an agency procedure nor use them to cover up an unreported felony.

Also, this policy also simply verifies that countermeasures are effective. As soon as the intitial gloating is over, they'll find that they are pissing in the wind.

Marisa Taylor's recent article about Operation Lie Busters has been receiving a lot of attention, including this Techdirt article (which has also been posted to Reddit, where it has generated considerable commentary):

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130820/00514824248/federal-official-declares-that-anyone-who-speaks-out-against-lie-detector-tests-should-be-criminally-investigated.shtml

Now, the title is sensationalistic. The head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection polygraph unit, John Schwartz, didn't suggest that "anyone" who speaks out against lie detector tests should be criminally investigated. But his remark at the American Association of Police Polygraphists' annual seminar on 3 June of this year that those who "protest the loudest and the longest are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on" suggests that Operation Lie Busters' targets were selected (and entrapped) in retaliation for their criticism of polygraphy.

I think that Schwartz's remark will be of value to the defense in any additional criminal cases that may stem from Operation Lie Busters.

On Friday, 30 August 2013, Marisa Taylor of McClatchy published a new article in her ongoing investigative series on federal polygraph policy:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200876/feds-want-prison-time-in-unprecedented.html

The article concerns the case of Chad Dixon of Indiana, who has accepted a plea arrangement and faces sentencing. McClatchy has also published two pleadings in connection with an upcoming sentencing hearing. The first is by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and the second is by Dixon's counsel, Nina Ginsburg:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200859/chad-dixon-sentencing-filing.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200860/chad-dixon-defense-attorney-filing.html

In arguing for a longer sentence, the government filing implicitly concedes that polygraph countermeasures work.

On Saturday, 31 August, the Washington Post also published an article about the Dixon case. Doug Williams and I are among those interviewed for it:

www.washingtonpost.com/local/indiana-man-accused-of-teaching-people-to-beat-lie-detector-tests-faces-prison-time/2013/08/31/a7cbe74a-08ea-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html

Reader comments on both the McClatchy and Washington Post articles run overwhelmingly against the government's position in this case.

Also on Saturday, a commentary I posted to Slashdot made the front page:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/31/1151254/feds-seek-prison-for-man-who-taught-how-to-beat-a-polygraph

As a result of that article and numerous mentions on social media, AntiPolygraph.org had the busiest day in our 13-year history in terms of data transferred. The number of people who downloaded The Lie Behind the Lie Detector yesterday alone exceeds the <100 people trained by Chad Dixon by at least an order of magnitude.

In what has come to be known as the "Streisand Effect," the government's attempt to suppress knowledge of polygraph countermeasures is having the opposite effect of spreading it.

Update: The Lie Behind the Lie Detector was downloaded about 15,000 times on Saturday and by mid-day Sunday (server time) had been downloaded about 8,000 times.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 7:04am:

On Friday, 30 August 2013, Marisa Taylor of McClatchy published a new article in her ongoing investigative series on federal polygraph policy: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200876/feds-want-prison-time-in-unprecedented.html The article concerns the case of Chad Dixon of Indiana, who has accepted a plea arrangement and faces sentencing. McClatchy has also published two pleadings in connection with an upcoming sentencing hearing. The first is by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia and the second is by Dixon's counsel, Nina Ginsburg: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200859/chad-dixon-sentencing-filing.html http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/30/200860/chad-dixon-defense-attorney-filing.html In arguing for a longer sentence, the government filing implicitly concedes that polygraph countermeasures work. On Saturday, 31 August, the Washington Post also published an article about the Dixon case. Doug Williams and I are among those interviewed for it: [url=www.washingtonpost.com/local/indiana-man-accused-of-teaching-people-to-beat-lie-detector-tests-faces-prison-time/2013/08/31/a7cbe74a-08ea-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html[/url]]www.washingtonpost.com/local/indiana-man-accused-of-teaching-people-to-beat-lie-detector-tests-faces-prison-time/2013/08/31/a7cbe74a-08ea-11e3-9941-6711ed662e71_story.html[/url] Reader comments on both the McClatchy and Washington Post articles run overwhelmingly against the government's position in this case. Also on Saturday, a commentary I posted to Slashdot made the front page: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/08/31/1151254/feds-seek-prison-for-man-who-taught-how-to-beat-a-polygraph As a result of that article and numerous mentions on social media, AntiPolygraph.org had the busiest day in our 13-year history in terms of data transferred. The number of people who downloaded The Lie Behind the Lie Detector yesterday alone exceeds the <100 people trained by Chad Dixon by at least an order of magnitude. In what has come to be known as the "Streisand Effect," the government's attempt to suppress knowledge of polygraph countermeasures is having the opposite effect of spreading it. Update: The Lie Behind the Lie Detector was downloaded about 15,000 times on Saturday and by mid-day Sunday (server time) had been downloaded about 8,000 times.

KUDOS to you George!  Now, I challenge everyone who downloaded George's book to donate at least one dollar!

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 7:04am:

Update: The Lie Behind the Lie Detector was downloaded about 15,000 times on Saturday and by mid-day Sunday (server time) had been downloaded about 8,000 times.

As soon as I heard of this, I knew it would backfire on them. The antipolygraph community owes a debt of gratitude to the Customs and Border Protection Polygraph Unit for advancing our cause more than we could ever have imagined.

Ex Member wrote on Sep 1^st, 2013 at 6:13pm:

As soon as I heard of this, I knew it would backfire on them. The antipolygraph community owes a debt of gratitude to the Customs and Border Protection Polygraph Unit for advancing our cause more than we could ever have imagined.

I nominate Special Agent John R. Schwartz, head of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs Credibility Assessment Division, as Antipolygraph Person of the Year.

A number of court filings in U.S. v. Chad Dixon have become available through PACER. I've purchased them all and have posted them here:

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

Sentencing in the case is scheduled for 9 AM this Friday, 6 September 2013.

After reading these findings what is your take on this? Do you think he should be prosecuted?

wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 4:48am:

After reading these findings what is your take on this? Do you think he should be prosecuted?

It seems to me that the government has overreached in its prosecution of Chad Dixon, fabricating a crime to pin on him where there had been no prior evidence of any crime. He was targeted for prosecution, and a trap set, because the feds are vexed that people are learning how to pass the polygraph (which is not a crime).

In short, I think a zealous prosecutor overcharged to compel a plea agreement in a case that would have been very risky at trial. Public reaction to the Dixon prosecution has been overwhelmingly against the government. I don't think this has been wise or judicious use of investigative resources or taxpayer dollars, and I think that no public good will come from Chad Dixon's incarceration.

Fox 25 investigative reporter Phil Cross reports on polygraph policy and the federal government's efforts to target for prosecution those who teach others how to pass a polygraph. In preparing these reports, Cross spoke with Doug Williams and retired FBI special agent and polygraph examiner Bill Brown:

http://www.okcfox.com/story/23320312/lie-detector-questioned-as-federal-spending-soars

http://www.okcfox.com/story/23320427/polygraph-crusader-under-federal-investigation

Judge Liam O'Grady today sentenced Chad Dixon to eight months in prison for teaching people how to pass a polygraph "test":

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201372/coach-in-polygraph-trial-sentenced.html

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the prosecution of Chad Dixon was unwarranted and has serious implications for free speech rights. It should be noted that our government's misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy, and it's unwillingness to come to terms with its vulnerability to simple, undetectable countermeasures, has caused, and continues to cause, much greater harm to national security and public safety than anything Chad Dixon ever did.

George W. Maschke wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 6:34pm:

Judge Liam O'Grady today sentenced Chad Dixon to eight months in prison for teaching people how to pass a polygraph "test": http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201372/coach-in-polygraph-trial-sentenced.html As I mentioned earlier, I think that the prosecution of Chad Dixon was unwarranted and has serious implications for free speech rights. It should be noted that our government's misplaced reliance on the pseudoscience of polygraphy, and it's unwillingness to come to terms with its vulnerability to simple, undetectable countermeasures, has caused, and continues to cause, much greater harm to national security and public safety than anything Chad Dixon ever did.

Right George, and here is a link to the Washington Post for another story about this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/eight-months-in-prison-for-man-who-taught-sex-offenders-aspiring-agents-to-trick-lie-detectors/2013/09/06/6da0afa8-16f3-11e3-a2ec-b47e45e6f8ef_story.html

I love what the judge who sentenced Dixon, Judge O'Grady, said in the last part of the article.

The McClatchy news organization reported last month that Dixon’s case was part of a broader federal effort to discourage possible criminals and spies from getting government jobs using polygraph countermeasures. The case also reignited a national debate on the accuracy of polygraph testing — a debate that played out in court Friday, when O’Grady seemed to deride the accuracy of the tests.

“They’re very useful tools,” O’Grady said, “until you turn the machine on.”

The DOJ's press releases on the sentencing of Chad Dixon, which ironically seems to have been first published online by the DoD IG, all but admits that polygraph countermeasures are effective:

http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/IGInformationReleases/IndianaManSentenced_20130906.pdf

It is clear from the relatively light sentence and the judge's comments that he knew this was a dirty case. IMHO what sank Mr. Dixon was the planting of the egregious details (sex offenders allegedly hiding crimes, drug smuggling into jails etc.) and then becoming a party to the "cover up."

It is possible to give countermeasure training to someone without knowing a single detail about their intentions or past history. Not quarantining himself from the details was his downfall.

Arkhangelsk

What sank Mr. Dixon was the fact that he was guilty and admitted it!  The fiction that cm's are for use by the truthful has been exposed.   

It also exposes the fiction that CMs can't be detected.  See the attached Washington Post article for Saturday 7 Sept

---

Quickfix,

The Washington Post article you cite does not document any ability of the polygraph community to detect countermeasures. All it shows is that an applicant accused of using countermeasures confessed.

In 2012, CBP accused 6% of applicants polygraphed of using countermeasures. Even if those 6% were selected at random from among those polygraphed, without reference to the charts, it's likely that some of those accused would indeed have used countermeasures, and some of these might make admissions when interrogated.

It seems to me that the existence of Operation Lie Busters is evidence against any claimed ability of the polygraph community to detect countermeasures. If countermeasures were indeed detectable, there would be no need to go after Chad Dixon or Doug Williams. Countermeasure training wouldn't matter. Those who use countermeasures would be detected.

The government's keen interest in obtaining Dixon's and Williams' business records, in addition to the acknowledgement by the government that some of those trained by Dixon went on to pass their polygraphs, does not suggest that the government is confident in its ability to detect countermeasures. It suggests the opposite.

Spin it any way you want, George.  People used CMs, people got caught, people confessed.  CMs are detectable.

pailryder wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

What sank Mr. Dixon was the fact that he was guilty and admitted it!

Had he isolated himself from the egregious details, he would not have been prosecuted.

quickfix wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 2:56pm:

Spin it any way you want, George.People used CMs, people got caught, people confessed.CMs are detectable.

Quickfix, are you finally stepping up to the countermeasure challenge?

pailryder wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

The fiction that cm's are for use by the truthful has been exposed.

Your point is valid; I admit that countermeasures could be used by some with nefarious intentions. 

Ex Member wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

pailryder wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44am: The fiction that cm's are for use by the truthful has been exposed.  Your point is valid; I admit that countermeasures could be used by some with nefarious intentions.

The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.

In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.

But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense! 

And in honor of PAILFACE, here are some more of those emoticons you love so much....

:) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8-) :-? ::) :P  :-[ :-X :-/ :-* :'(

Dear Mr. Williams,

The rumors of your demise have been  greatly exaggerated (Gee, did someone like Mark Twain say that already?).

An awful trickbag that this sticky-wicket has been caught in. Admit that countermeasures exist and by default, admit that the test can be beaten. Try to claim that "countermeasures" can be detected seems counterproductive in the fact that using them would be useless and need no defense or mention.

The failure ratio of new applicants is approaching 70% for applications requiring clearances with letters.  My goodness, we are throwing away seven out of ten applicants without even starting a background check.

The Emperor does not have to worry about not having any clothes because there are not people to witness and watch the parade!

The only reason that this is not a problem is because the government is not hiring at this point.

The trust in our government is at an all time low. The blind trust placed in a polygraph examination is being questioned.  The charade is difficult to justify.

Wow, hard to think that the agencies still have such blind trust in this gizmo.  I guess we need more security breaches to prove that the polygraph will not prevent the next leak.

Regards.

Posters to this forum who try to present a reasoned argument, supported by evidence or at least testimony, only to face what purport to be responses but are in fact mere argument-like noises, must wonder what overall effect is on the hearts and minds of lurkers and casual readers.

George, Doug, Arkhangelsk, Sergeant1107: be not discouraged. As a neutral and somewhat disinterested observer, I must say that I find the arguments by Arkhangelsk and the points raised by Sergeant1107 to be reasonable and credible, while the unsupported assertions by quickfix and pailryder are bald and unconvincing blather.

-AuntyAgony.

Aunty Agony

Please cite a specific post where I made unsupported assertions.

Ex Member wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Quickfix, are you finally stepping up to the countermeasure challenge?

Arkhangelsk:  no professional examiner would take this "challenge" seriously;  it would be nothing more than a carny sideshow;  it doesn't meet the criteria for a valid exam.  There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge". 

quickfix wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

Ex Member wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 3:08pm: Quickfix, are you finally stepping up to the countermeasure challenge?  Arkhangelsk:  no professional examiner would take this "challenge" seriously;  it would be nothing more than a carny sideshow;  it doesn't meet the criteria for a valid exam.  There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge".

The whole concept of the polygraph being used as a "lie detector" is "nothing more than a carny sideshow"!  This is an excerpt from my book, FROM COP TO CRUSADER:  THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF "LIE DETECTION".

"I had studied the history of the men who created this insidious machine known as a "lie detector"; John Larson and Leonarde Keeler. Both of these men also suffered as a direct result of their association with and use of the so-called lie detector. John Larson, a serious scholar with a PhD in science, is credited with being the inventor of the “lie detector". He spent many years trying to prove
that the polygraph was scientifically valid as a method to detect deception. He was unsuccessful in doing that; and as a result, at the end of his life he went mad and fell into a deep state of despair.

Just before he died, Larson is quoted as saying, “Beyond my expectation, thru uncontrollable factors, this scientific investigation became for practical purposes a Frankenstein’s monster, which I have spent over forty years in combating.” Leonarde Keeler, Larson’s protégé, and self proclaimed inventor of the first polygraph machine was later despised by Larson because he considered Keeler to be a shameless self promoter who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow. Larson, who did not want to the polygraph to be widely used until he had tested it and proved that it was scientifically valid and reliable, was troubled by Keeler’s unsupported claims that the polygraph could detect deception. In fact, near the end of his life, Larson was writing a book that he claimed would expose Keeler as a thief and a liar who had stolen the ideas of others, and put his name on a polygraph machine that he had not created. He planned to expose Keeler as con man who had turned the polygraph into a carnival sideshow, and a shameless self promoter who promoted his Keeler polygraph machine on “cheese-cake type news interviews”."

quickfix wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 1:48pm:

There is no crime under investigation, no applicant pending employment, so there are no consequences for the outcome of such a "challenge".

Such is the case for all studies accomplished in polygraph research. You are tap dancing Quickfix; if you can indeed detect countermeasures, prove it and put us in our place once and for all.

pailryder wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 10:44am:

What sank Mr. Dixon was the fact that he was guilty and admitted it!

Pailryder, here is an example of your argument-like noise. It was a total dismissal of my previous point without any kind of counter-argument; it was sophomoric.

Arkhangelsk




Ex Member wrote on Sep 7^th, 2013 at 3:52am:

It is possible to give countermeasure training to someone without knowing a single detail about their intentions or past history. Not quarantining himself from the details was his downfall

I agree with your point.  If Mr Dixon had maintained deniability, he could have helped many more drug smugglers and child molesters without facing criminal charges.

pailryder wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 11:07am:

If Mr Dixon had maintained deniability, he could have helped many more drug smugglers and child molesters without facing criminal charges.

This is pure emotional speculation. A similar assertion could be made that if a sex offender feels confident that he will not be falsely accused of being a liar, he would be more positive about his treatment. Also, are drug smugglers really lining up to infiltrate the CBP? If the polygraph is indeed the panacea for crime, why not use it in all cases? Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all?

Ex Member wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all?

Bite your tongue!

-AuntyAgony.

Aunty Agony wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Arkhangelsk wrote on Yesterday at 3:13pm: Heck, maybe the NSA could just polygraph us all? Bite your tongue! -AuntyAgony.

But then again, could they really know who is using countermeasures? Oh my, such a vexing conundrum it is...   8-)

Arkhangelsk


Ex Member wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 3:13pm:

are drug smugglers really lining up to infiltrate the CBP

Yes, Arkhangelsk.  Groups with members inside an institution often instruct outside friends, relatives, baby moms, or anyone looking to make a quick buck, to apply for any work, correctional, janitorial, food service, medical, anything to get a pipe line in and out and a leg up on the other gangs.

No one thinks of polygraph as a panacea to stop all crime, but over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used.

PAILFACE says: "No one thinks of polygraph as a panacea to stop all crime, but over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used."

If that isn't a prime example of doublespeak, I've never seen it!  What does this mean? "over time it has proven to be an effective tool when properly used".  I can see that the polygraph is an "effective tool", if by "tool" you mean a psychological billy club that will coerce a person into confessing.  But how can something that is proven to be less than 50% accurate be "properly used"?

Oh, I almost forgot your favorite part!  I know how you love your emoticons PAILFACE - here you go little buddy...
:-? ::) :P

I think judges should be polygraphed every five years regarding bribes, corruption and malfeasance.  If they flunk, disbar them.

All of the publicly available court documents associated with the Dixon case, including the 6 September sentencing hearing, are now available here:

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

Curiously, the docket sheet (attached) indicates that a secret filing (Doc. No. 21) was made shortly before the sentencing hearing. There is no indication of what party made the submission or what it's about. It is described only as "Sealed Document."

In addition, a filing was made on the day of sentencing (Doc. 24) that is not available to the public, but only to the "Applicable Party."

Any ideas what these filings might be?

It seems to me that there may be newsworthy details of the Dixon case that are being withheld from the public. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who could shed light on this.

---

I mentioned in an earlier post that in May of this year, I was the target of an attempted entrapment. Marisa Taylor mentions this toward the end of her 16 August 2013 article, "Seeing threats, feds target instructors of polygraph-beating methods."

I have today posted a detailed account of that entrapment attempt, which may be of interest:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2013/11/03/an-attempted-entrapment/

George, the ISP for that IP Address is Tarinnet. Perhaps they have an abuse program in place where you could file a complaint or at least ask for details, maybe a small gratuity would loosen some tongues.

http://www.tarinnet.info/

Muzafaira Street, Erbil, Iraq
Telephone: 0750-4183060

Just to let folks know, I used information from Doug Williams (though I never personally saw Doug) and from George Maschke's TLBTLD and I was able to LIE AND BEAT MY POLYGRAPH.  That's right.  I used the mental countermeasures where I would do arithmetic in my head (or think about an exciting sports event, or some good dirty porn) to generate responses on the questions that were not relevant.  Simple.  I was also very calm and respectful and told the polygrapher that I had no intent of using countermeasures and that I had nothing to hide.  I didn't even crack under their silly interrogation procedure.

I used CMs and passed, and got hired.  This was for a 3-letter agency.  I was not caught in any of these Operation Lie Buster stings or anything.  I know many other people who have lied and used CMs and passed as well.  We joke about the whole process and the pussies who fall for it and start telling all of their business, things the polygrapher would have never found out about in the first place. The fact is, mental countermeasures are not detectable because you can't read someone's brain. lol.  You may be able to detect breathing anomalies by the pneumatic tubes on the machine, or tongue biting if you watch closely, or butt-squeezing with the seat sensor that is now used....but mental countermeasures work great and are undetectable. 

Thank you Doug and George.

By the way George, since you are only the "Co-Founder" of this site, who is/are the other Co-Founder(s)?  I never hear their named mentioned around these parks, what has become of them?  And who is Gino J. Scalabrini, the other author on TLBTLD?

poly beater,

Thanks for sharing your polygraph experience. I note that you posted the same text in another thread (which we discourage), where I have responded to your question.

On 4 November 2013, Chad Dixon reported to the minimum security federal prison camp at Marion, Illinois to begin serving an eight-month sentence for teaching polygraph countermeasures. He can receive letters at:

Chad Dixon, 81406-083
U.S. Penitentiary
P.O. Box 1000
Marion, Illinois 62959

Sorry about that George.  The other thread is where I wanted to post, and thanks for replying there.  I wasn't able to delete my post here in this thread.  Actually, you can delete my above post in this thread (along with your reply to it, and this post as well, so there are no duplicates).

No worries! We can let existing posts stand as they are.

George and Doug,

I read about this "lie detector" list from MCClatchy newspaper. The best way to deal with this is to emphasize the fact that thousands and thousands of people have already accessed ways to ensure a true reading on the poly.
George -- about how many people would you say have downloaded your book from this site?
Doug -- same question, how many have bought your book? I saw your comment on the McClatchy newspaper web page that you entered it into the public/congressional record back in the 1980s, so tens of thousands of people have read it. How many have bought it from your webpage?

Keep at it. I think the American public is starting to realize that the polygraph is not true science.

Terence441,
I'm curious to know your reason for wanting such specific numbers?

If say 1,000,000 people have read you all's books, I figure it makes any kind of government sharing of people that just bought a book look even sillier.

Terence11/Terence441,

I am curious to know those number as well, but don't expect George or Doug to tell you.  With the recent crack down on anti-polygraph teachings by the government, George and Doug are probably skeptical about anyone who contacts them now possibly being an undercover pro-polygraph law enforcement person or some federal agent trying to trap them or get some more intel.  Everyone is a suspect now, even  you and I.  The best thing you can do is continue to spread the anti-poly message, how the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation tool fishing for confessions, that it can be easily beaten, and it is pure junk science. 

George is safe for now because he lives overseas and this site is hosted on some foreign server.  But I bet the minute George buys a plane ticket to the U.S., he will be flagged in some system and set up to be arrested on some bogus charge as soon as he touches down in the U.S..

It's getting dangerous out there.  The polygraph is being exposed and those who expose it are considered a "threat" to national security.  More intrusive government oversight that does more harm than good.  Step lightly everyone, and God speed...

wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 1:24am:

Terence11/Terence441, I am curious to know those number as well, but don't expect George or Doug to tell you.  With the recent crack down on anti-polygraph teachings by the government, George and Doug are probably skeptical about anyone who contacts them now possibly being an undercover pro-polygraph law enforcement person or some federal agent trying to trap them or get some more intel.  Everyone is a suspect now, even  you and I.  The best thing you can do is continue to spread the anti-poly message, how the polygraph is nothing more than an interrogation tool fishing for confessions, that it can be easily beaten, and it is pure junk science.

I don't mind answering Terence's question, as best I can. We don't have cumulative download statistics (and we regularly delete our server logs), but in a typical week, The Lie Behind the Lie Detector is downloaded about 1,000 times. At times, as with the news of Operation Lie Busters, the download rate becomes much higher. Throughout all editions of the book, we've kept the file size small enough that it could be placed on a diskette (no longer a concern) or sent as an e-mail attachment. The book is also available on Scribd.com (where it has over 70,000 views), and via BitTorrent. It's also mirrored on numerous websites. Considering that it has been available (in various editions) for more than 13 years, I think we can conservatively estimate that The Lie Behind the Lie Detector has been downloaded or shared at least 500,000 times and quite possibly more than a million.


Quote:

George is safe for now because he lives overseas and this site is hosted on some foreign server.  But I bet the minute George buys a plane ticket to the U.S., he will be flagged in some system and set up to be arrested on some bogus charge as soon as he touches down in the U.S..

We'll be learning the answer to that question soon.


Quote:

It's getting dangerous out there.  The polygraph is being exposed and those who expose it are considered a "threat" to national security.  More intrusive government oversight that does more harm than good.  Step lightly everyone, and God speed...

The true threat to national security where polygraphy is concerned is our continued misplaced reliance on this pseudoscience.

wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 1:24am:

George is safe for now because he lives overseas and this site is hosted on some foreign server.  But I bet the minute George buys a plane ticket to the U.S., he will be flagged in some system and set up to be arrested on some bogus charge as soon as he touches down in the U.S..

So...that didn't happen. Today I flew from Amsterdam to Houston, where the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs Credibility Assessment Division is headquartered, and encountered no hassles at all.

:)

George W. Maschke wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 5:05am:

So...that didn't happen. Today I flew from Amsterdam to Houston, where the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs Credibility Assessment Division is headquartered, and encountered no hassles at all. :)

Good to hear, George!

Happy holidays, George! 

I am glad to hear that, to date, our government has not interfered with your travel plans and/or other related activities.  I hope and trust that that will continue to be the case. 

In view of your complete mastery of and articulate discussion of the subject of polygraphy and the environment upon which this topic is played out, I can not imagine those with an opposing point of view wanting to match wits with you in a public setting—which would be the likely outcome of such interference…

Twoblock,

Since the passing of Jack La Lanne, I have been looking for role model a bit older than I to motivate me with regard to physical fitness.  It sounds as though your exploits in the gym make you a serious candidate for such.

On a separate subject, I notice that you seem to connect polygraphy with political party association/affiliation.  I suspect that my anti-polygraph (anti-lie detection) bona fides would be intact from your observation of my posts over the years, but, at the risk of changing that, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this one point. 

Having followed politics since before the time of the assassination of a president that we mark this week and polygraphy for the last three decades, I can say with sadness that I have not noticed a whit of difference between the two major parties with regard to the practice of lie detection—polygraphy has more or less existed/continued if not flourished under all occupants of the office over the last several decades—regardless of which party controlled the White House.

The only difference I see with regard to polygraphy is not in the policies of Democrats or Republicans but in the views of bureaucrats vs. scientists.  Unfortunately we have not yet had the Oval Office occupied by a member of the latter group with a relevant knowledge base…

Drew Richardson wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 7:36pm:

Happy holidays, George!  I am glad to hear that, to date, our government has not interfered with your travel plans and/or other related activities.  I hope and trust that that will continue to be the case.  In view of your complete mastery of and articulate discussion of the subject of polygraphy and the environment upon which this topic is played out, I can not imagine those with an opposing point of view wanting to match wits with you in a public setting—which would be the likely outcome of such interference… Twoblock, Since the passing of Jack La Lanne, I have been looking for role model a bit older than I to motivate me with regard to physical fitness.  It sounds as though your exploits in the gym make you a serious candidate for such. On a separate subject, I notice that you seem to connect polygraphy with political party association/affiliation.  I suspect that my anti-polygraph (anti-lie detection) bona fides would be intact from your observation of my posts over the years, but, at the risk of changing that, I’m afraid I have to disagree with you on this one point.  Having followed politics since before the time of the assassination of a president that we mark this week and polygraphy for the last three decades, I can say with sadness that I have not noticed a whit of difference between the two major parties with regard to the practice of lie detection—polygraphy has more or less existed/continued if not flourished under all occupants of the office over the last several decades—regardless of which party controlled the White House. The only difference I see with regard to polygraphy is not in the policies of Democrats or Republicans but in the views of bureaucrats vs. scientists.  Unfortunately we have not yet had the Oval Office occupied by a member of the latter group with a relevant knowledge base…

Drew - your "anti-polygraph bona fides" are, (and shall always remain) intact.  But I must disagree with you about political parties having an impact on whether the President is pro or anti polygraph.  I well remember in the eighties when I was fighting to get the EPPA passed, the Democrats were much more helpful than the Republicans.  In fact, we had to get a 2/3 majority in the Senate so as to assure that we could overcome Reagan's threatened veto of the bill.

And Twoblock, I think the fact that the use of the polygraph by the feds is more widespread now than ever before is not because a Democrat is in the Oval office, but because the power drunk bureaucrats, particularly polygraph operators, are out of control - they are not being properly supervised and think they can do anything they please under the guise of protecting national security.  The worst thing that ever happened to our constitutional rights and our liberty was the enactment of the "Patriot" Act, and the establishment of Homeland "Security". 

Dr. Richardson,

Hit the gym with me and I'll have you in as good a shape as me in no time.

To both you and Doug,

Sorry I misled you about politics and the polygraph. I didn't mean to say that Republicans was not responsible for keeping the polygraph in tact. Both parties are.

During my 50 plus years of political activism, I have made no distinction in my attack on and exposure of government and corporate corruption. They do wrong and I find out about it, I'm on their butts. A few years ago I caused the closure of a large government contractor. As an ultra-conservative, the RINOs, RNC and RNSC have blocked my emails because I'm on them for supporting Obama's communist agenda. Those politicians will bite the dust next year if I can effect their ouster in any way.

I was told early this year by a political aid that "I am surprised that you're still alive". My response was "The communist in Korea then Columbia tried to take me out and I'm still here". The Columbia episode was as late as 1983 when I was down there prospecting a possible gold property.

I don't mean to come across as a "bad ass". I love life as well as the next person and have had a good one so far but I hate corruption in any form. I refuse to roll over, play dead and get dirt thrown in my face. My motto has always been BRING IT ON. If you whip my butt, you're not getting a virgin.

Drew Richardson wrote on Nov 24^th, 2013 at 7:36pm:

Happy holidays, George! I am glad to hear that, to date, our government has not interfered with your travel plans and/or other related activities.I hope and trust that that will continue to be the case. In view of your complete mastery of and articulate discussion of the subject of polygraphy and the environment upon which this topic is played out, I can not imagine those with an opposing point of view wanting to match wits with you in a public setting—which would be the likely outcome of such interference…

Thanks, Drew! It's good to be back in the USA, and I wish you (and all) a happy Thanksgiving Day.

:)

Doug Williams, who was targeted in Operation Lie Busters and remains in legal jeopardy, has this week gone public with the story of federal agents' February 2013 attempted entrapment and raid on his home and office. Details are to be found in a new edition of his book, From Cop to Crusader: The Story of My Fight Against the Dangerous Myth of Lie Detection. I have posted a synopsis here.

Doug,

I just purchased your book on Amazon. I took a moment to read the reviews. I have a challenge to everyone: look at this review and try to guess which entity from the polygraph forum wrote it:

"The advice given by this former disgruntled examiner is pitiful. No wonder that it costs only $0.99! The information (like the author) is years out of date on countermeasure use. The author also seems to take credit for single-handedly ending the use of polygraph in the U.S. Far from the truth, particularly in the federal government. His "techniques" are very likely going to get you caught, or cost you a job opportunity. Caveat emptor!"

My guess it's the same one who called Pailryder a "dimensionless character in need of testosterone replacement therapy."

Ex Member wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:00pm:

Doug, I just purchased your book on Amazon. I took a moment to read the reviews. I have a challenge to everyone: look at this review and try to guess which entity from the polygraph forum wrote it: "The advice given by this former disgruntled examiner is pitiful. No wonder that it costs only $0.99! The information (like the author) is years out of date on countermeasure use. The author also seems to take credit for single-handedly ending the use of polygraph in the U.S. Far from the truth, particularly in the federal government. His "techniques" are very likely going to get you caught, or cost you a job opportunity. Caveat emptor!" My guess it's the same one who called Pailryder a "dimensionless character in need of testosterone replacement therapy."

Ark:  Thanks for purchasing the book - I hope you enjoy it.  And I think you probably nailed the source of that review.  But so many polygraphers hate me for telling the truth about the "lie detector" that I couldn't possibly narrow it down to just one - my enemies in the polygraph profession are legion!  As George Orwell said, "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."

I note that it was one year ago today that federal agents, led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Special Agent Fred C. Ball, Jr., raided Doug Williams' home and office, seizing customer records that became the basis for a federal polygraph watch list. Williams has not been charged with any crime.

George W. Maschke wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:56am:

I note that it was one year ago today that federal agents, led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Special Agent Fred C. Ball, Jr., raided Doug Williams' home and office, seizing customer records that became the basis for a federal polygraph watch list. Williams has not been charged with any crime.

That was a sad day - the day when my faith in the integrity of agents of US government was shaken to the core.  Not only did they violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but they blatantly violated my Constitutional rights.  That date marks the loss of my 1st & 4th Amendment rights and proves to me that we are now living in a police state. 

It is frightening when you consider that at the urging of one vindictive government polygraph operator, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, the CBP, the US Secret Service, the FBI, and many other government agencies would form an armed task force and raid my office and my home; that they could hold me against my will for hours, terrorize my wife and me, search my office and my home, and seize all of my computers, my polygraph instruments and every scrap of information that was of any interest to them.  What is even more depressing and troubling is the fact that I was powerless to stop them, and that I have no recourse, no way to call them to account for their blatant violation of my Constitutional rights.

You can read a sample chapter dealing with this here: http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?from-cop-to-crusader And you can get the whole sordid story in my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER:  THE STORY OF MY FIGHT AGAINST THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF LIE DETECTION.  It is available in paperback on Amazon, and in ebook format on www.polygraph.com and at Kindle & Nook.

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 2:08pm:

That was a sad day - the day when my faith in the integrity of agents of US government was shaken to the core.Not only did they violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but they blatantly violated my Constitutional rights.That date marks the loss of my 1st & 4th Amendment rights and proves to me that we are now living in a police state.

Why don't you move to North Korea or Iran? And it didn't seem to repress your 1st Amendment rights to publish your bullshit book and DVD.

quickfix wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:41pm:

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 2:08pm: That was a sad day - the day when my faith in the integrity of agents of US government was shaken to the core.Not only did they violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but they blatantly violated my Constitutional rights.That date marks the loss of my 1st & 4th Amendment rights and proves to me that we are now living in a police state. Why don't you move to North Korea or Iran? And it didn't seem to repress your 1st Amendment rights to publish your bullshit book and DVD.

Reporters without Borders reports that our 1st Amendment rights are disappearing:

"After a year of attacks on whistleblowers and digital journalists and revelations about mass surveillance, the United States plunged 13 spots in the group’s global press freedom rankings to number 46.


Citing the Justice Department’s aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers, including its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records, the authors write that “freedom of information is too often sacrificed to an overly broad and abusive interpretation of national security needs, marking a disturbing retreat from democratic practices."

But rather than protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, Quickfix says that those of us who protest against oppression need to move. That's about what I would expect to hear from an authoritarian thug like you Quickfix.  But let me suggest that you would be more comfortable in an oppressive regime like North Korea or Iran - you would certainly be able to use your insidious Orwellian instrument of torture more freely there.  Perhaps you and all your polygraph buddies should move instead. 

quickfix wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 6:41pm:

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 2:08pm: That was a sad day - the day when my faith in the integrity of agents of US government was shaken to the core.Not only did they violate their oath to protect and defend the Constitution, but they blatantly violated my Constitutional rights.That date marks the loss of my 1st & 4th Amendment rights and proves to me that we are now living in a police state. Why don't you move to North Korea or Iran? And it didn't seem to repress your 1st Amendment rights to publish your bullshit book and DVD.

Quickfix,

It seems to me that federal law enforcement agents targeted Doug Williams for a criminal investigation because they didn't like the way he was exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech. Do you disagree? Do you not find what happened to him troubling?

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 9:47pm:

But let me suggest that you would be more comfortable in an oppressive regime like North Korea or Iran - you would certainly be able to use your insidious Orwellian instrument of torture more freely there.Perhaps you and all your polygraph buddies should move instead.

George, I like it here just fine, so I think my buddies and I will stay put.

I'm all for free speech, and I don't think anything is wrong in investigating someone suspected of helping an unqualified applicant or a convicted sex offender "pass" their polygraph.  As I have said before, if your wife or daughter were raped or murdered, and the perpetrator passed a polygraph exam after "training" with Doug Williams, you might think differently.  Food for thought.

quickfix,

It sure seems to me that Doug Williams was targeted for criminal investigation precisely because of his exercise of his right to free speech. Speech that John Schwartz and Fred Ball, Jr. didn't like. But telling people how to pass a polygraph test is clearly First Amendment protected speech.

I'm glad to know you're all for free speech. In this respect, I think that Noam Chomsky's observation is apposite: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

quickfix wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:31pm:

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:47pm: But let me suggest that you would be more comfortable in an oppressive regime like North Korea or Iran - you would certainly be able to use your insidious Orwellian instrument of torture more freely there.Perhaps you and all your polygraph buddies should move instead. George, I like it here just fine, so I think my buddies and I will stay put. I'm all for free speech, and I don't think anything is wrong in investigating someone suspected of helping an unqualified applicant or a convicted sex offender "pass" their polygraph.  As I have said before, if your wife or daughter were raped or murdered, and the perpetrator passed a polygraph exam after "training" with Doug Williams, you might think differently.  Food for thought.

Describing my training as teaching "countermeasures" so liars can pass the polygraph "test" is the same thing as describing the polygraph as a "lie detector"!  Both descriptions are PURE, UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT!  The word "countermeasures" can only be used to describe polygraph chart manipulation by the subject of a polygraph "test" when two conditions are met: 1) The polygraph "test" must be proven to be 100% accurate and reliable as a "lie detector", and 2) the person is attempting to deliberately lie.  There is never a case where BOTH of these conditions are met.  In other words, you could only claim "countermeasures" are being used to thwart the polygraph operator's ability to detect deception IF the polygraph is able to detect deception accurately 100% of the time and that that deception would be detected were it not for the use of "countermeasures" by a person intent on being deceptive.  But, since many people know that just telling the truth only works half the time - i.e. the US Supreme Court, and the NAS report, among others, saying it is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - then a prudent person would try to mitigate the very strong probability of being falsely branded as a liar by learning how to produce a "truthful" chart.  That would not be using "countermeasures" - that would be using common sense!

Why do polygraph operators tell people not to research the polygraph before they take their test?  It is very simple - the only way they can intimidate people with the polygraph is to keep them ignorant about how it works.  When polygraph operators say I teach people "countermeasures" in order for them to "beat the test".  I simply say, that's bullshit, because polygraph operators routinely call truthful people liars - and my technique is the only way for honest, truthful people to protect themselves from being falsely accused of lying.  Go to the MEDIA page and watch the CBS 60 MINUTES investigative report I helped to produce and see the proof yourself - three out of three polygraph operators called three different truthful people liars on a crime that never even happened!  You may also enjoy watching me prove THE LIE DETECTOR IS BULLSHIT on Showtime's PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!

So, let me emphasize this - I DON'T TEACH SO-CALLED "COUNTERMEASURES" - I simply teach people how to ALWAYS PASS by knowing how to show a perfect "truthful" polygraph chart!  The word "countermeasures" is a word that has been misappropriated by polygraph examiners - it is used to describe what they say is a means to thwart their ability to detect deception.  But polygraph operators have always maintained that they can tell when a person is using these so-called "countermeasures".  If that is true, how can anyone use them "beat" the test?  But, for the sake of argument, let me ask a few more pertinent questions:  If people can indeed be taught to use "countermeasures" to "beat the test", wouldn't that prove the polygraph is not a "lie detector"?  Does the validity and reliability of the polygraph test demand that the subjects of the test must be ignorant about how it works?  If anyone could be taught how to produce and/or prevent a reaction on the polygraph at will, wouldn't that make the whole idea of a "lie detector" a fraud?   And wouldn't polygraph operators have to admit their little machine is actually just a sick joke - and that the polygraph instrument is simply a prop used by an interrogator to frighten people into making admissions and confessions?  And would it not be prudent for the government to quit wasting money on something that is nothing but a fraud and a con job?  The fact is the answer to all these questions is a resounding YES!

Polygraph operators do not want to debate the validity of the polygraph as a "lie detector" because they will lose.  And these con men certainly don't want to answer any of the questions I have posed!  They know they cannot prove the polygraph is valid and reliable as a "lie detector", and they know they can't justify their actions - so they just say that people who get my training are all lying and are only doing research on the polygraph in order to "beat the test".  Again, I say that is just BULLSHIT!  I have spent almost forty years proving that the "lie detector" is just a myth, and it is common knowledge that just telling the truth only works half the time, so people are smart enough to know that they must LEARN HOW TO PASS or they will be falsely accused of lying.  I don't teach any so-called "countermeasures"!  I don't teach people how to "beat" the test!  The fact is, people are getting my manual & video/DVD and my personal training because they are telling the truth and just want to make sure they pass - they know that just telling the truth doesn't work!  The methods I teach are very simple.  I just show people how to remain calm when answering a relevant question and how to produce a reaction when answering the control questions so as to always produce what the polygraph operators say is a "truthful chart".  I have a manual, entitled HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH, and a DVD that teaches people exactly how to do this - it is available in the STORE  page of my website www.polygraph.com. ; I also give practice polygraph tests on my own polygraph instrument to show them how well my technique works - for more information about this, go to the PERSONAL TRAINING page of my website.

I am the only licensed polygraph expert who has ever told the truth about the polygraph, and the truth is, the polygraph is not a "lie detector".  I have been telling the truth about the scam called lie detection for almost forty years now in hopes of destroying the dangerous myth of "lie detection".  Carl Sagan said, "If it can be destroyed by the truth, it deserves to be destroyed by the truth."  I was instrumental in destroying a large part of the polygraph industry by getting most polygraph testing outlawed in the private sector.  In 1988, with the passage of the EMPLOYEE POLYGRAPH PROTECTION ACT, administering polygraph tests actually became a federal crime!  Even the U.S. Supreme Court refused to admit polygraph results into evidence, and ironically it was the U.S. Justice Department who argued that the polygraph results were not reliable and should not be admitted into evidence!  I was a member of the Office of Technology Assessment, (an investigative arm of the U.S. Congress), studying the validity and reliability of the polygraph - our report basically said it was worthless as a "lie detector".   I also testified in the U.S. Congress in support of the EPPA.  Click here to read a transcript of my testimony: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015011381806;view=1up;seq=281 ; (My testimony begins on pg 275)  Here is an interesting piece of historical trivia:  When I testified in Congress, I put my manual, HOW TO STING THE POLYGRAPH into the Congressional Record, and the Senators and Representatives distributed more copies of my manual between 1984 and 1988 than anyone has ever distributed - including me! They sent them out by the tens of thousands in response to requests from constituents.  But, there were exclusions written into the law that allowed the government - local state and federal - to continue to use the polygraph. They attempt to justify these exclusions on the grounds that the government needs this tool to protect national security and the law enforcement officials need it to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system.  I have proved the polygraph is not a "lie detector" - the Congress, the Justice Department, the OTA, and all those with any scientific credibility agree with me - so there is no justification for the government to continue to use it on the pretext that it protects our national security or the integrity of the criminal justice system.

It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS to use the polygraph as "lie detector" - the theory of "lie detection" is nothing but junk science.  It is based on a faulty scientific premise. The polygraph operators have the audacity to say that there is such a thing as a "reaction indicative of deception", when I can prove that "lying reaction" is simply a nervous reaction commonly referred to as the fight or flight syndrome. In fact, the polygraph is nothing but a psychological billy club that is used to coerce a person into making admissions or confessions.  It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for government agencies to rely on the polygraph to "test" applicants, or to conduct any type of investigations relating to national security.  It is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for the criminal justice system to rely on an instrument that has been thoroughly discredited to determine whether or not a person is truthful or deceptive, or to use it to guide their investigations in any way - especially when the results cannot even be used as evidence in a court of law!  And it is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS for anyone to believe they will pass their polygraph "test" if they just tell the truth!  When you factor in all the damage done to people who are falsely branded as liars by these con men and their unconscionable conduct, this fraud of "lie detection" perpetrated by the polygraph industry should be a federal crime!  The protection provided to some people by the EPPA should be extended to protect everyone from this insidious Orwellian instrument of torture!  Shame on anyone who administers these "tests" - and shame on the government for continuing to allow this state sponsored sadism!

So, here we have this diabolical dichotomy - the government protects some people from polygraph abuse and perpetrates polygraph abuse on others!   The Congress outlaws the use of the polygraph in the private sector, (and distributes my manuals, teaching people how to pass their tests), the Justice Department argues that it should not be used as evidence in court, the Supreme Courts agrees and refuses to allow polygraph results into evidence, and the OTA issues a report saying all the scientific evidence proves it is not reliable - yet, after all this, many government agencies greatly expand the use of the polygraph to numbers never seen before in the history of the country! 

So what explains this schizophrenia in the government?  Why do they outlaw it in one area and expand it in another?   I'm afraid I know - I think President Nixon told us why the government uses it when he said, "I don't know anything about polygraphs, and I don't know how accurate they are, but I know they'll scare the hell out of people, and that's why I like to use them!"  That mentality regarding the polygraph is the very reason I do what I do!  I educate people about the polygraph so that the polygraph thugs can't use it to scare the hell out of them - and even worse, call them liars simply because they have a nervous reaction on a relevant question!  I teach people how to prove they are telling the truth because just telling the truth really only works about half the time!  A person will probably fail their polygraph test unless they are trained to show the polygraph examiner what he expects to see from a truthful person. I have been asked this question many times:  Can liars use this information to pass just as easily as truthful people?  The answer to that question is YES!  I have no control over who gets the information in my manual and video/DVD.  But let me make this perfectly clear - I assume that people come to me for personal training because they know that just telling the truth only works about half the time.   And, except for frivolous cases such as fidelity testing, or for demonstrations on television programs, speaking engagements and seminars, I will not knowingly teach a person to deliberately lie!   Besides, liars can pass easily whether they have been trained or not - history is full of people who have lied and passed polygraphs with no problem.  Aldridge Ames, the notorious spy, passed many polygraph exams - and he was an active spy when he took, (and passed) several polygraph tests!  Recently, the government said they need to use the polygraph in order "to stop the next Edward Snowden" and "prevent leaks by keeping employees honest".  This reasoning is absolutely absurd!  Snowden has said he got that job at NSA solely for the purpose of getting access to that information - information he planned from the outset to disclose - and he passed two polygraph tests knowing what he planned to do.  How is the use of the polygraph going to stop "the next Edward Snowden" when it didn't stop the first one?  As a matter of fact there has never been even one spy ever caught by the polygraph!  I have often demonstrated how simple it is to "beat the box" on national television programs.  It is true that anyone can use my techniques to pass their polygraph test regardless of whether they are nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what.  I have said that for over 40 years.  I say it in hopes that those who use this instrument will realize that it is not accurate or reliable as a "lie detector" and will quit using it!

By describing my training as "countermeasures" that people use in order to pass a polygraph as a form of cheating, or something used only by liars who are trying to "beat" the "lie detector", polygraph operators are asserting something as a fact that is absolutely false - something that all evidence proves is false; i.e. that the polygraph is accurate, reliable, and effective in detecting truth and detecting deception. All the scientific evidence available proves that the polygraph is none of those things. The polygraph is no more accurate than the toss of a coin - in other words it is only able to detect deception approximately 50% of the time. This also means that unless truthful people get prepared to pass the test, over 50% of the time the polygraph con men will brand them as liars just because they are nervous.  A sad irony is that often the people polygraph operators accuse people of using "countermeasures" are those who have no idea what that even means!  As a matter of fact, polygraph operators are now so paranoid that one of the questions frequently asked on the polygraph test itself is if the subject has read my manual.  Many of these unscrupulous jerks will fail or disqualify people just because they are suspected of the horrible Orwellian "thought crime" of educating themselves!  But trying to "catch" anyone who uses the information in my manual and video/DVD to pass their polygraph test is an exercise in futility on the part of the polygraph operator, because everyone who uses the Sting Technique will ALWAYS PASS - and the only thing the polygraph operator will see is a perfect, natural truthful chart!  As a matter of fact, the information in my manual is so effective, (and because the polygraph as a "lie detector" is so ineffective), the information in my manual and video/DVD is considered to be "contraband" - it is actually prohibited by Big Brother polygraphers in the government!  This proves that polygraph operators are today's version of the thugs employed by Orwell's Ministry of Truth! The thugs in the ministry spread a new language amongst the populace called Newspeak in which, for example, "truth" is understood to mean statements like 2 + 2 = 5 when the situation warrants – or in the case of the polygraph operators a nervous reaction ALWAYS indicates deception.  Polygraph operators, (and the agencies who employ them), are trying desperately to keep the myth of "lie detection" intact, and will do everything they can to punish anyone who exposes them for the frauds and conmen that they are!  Click here http://www.polygraph.com/index.php?from-cop-to-crusader to read an excerpt from the second edition of my book FROM COP TO CRUSADER and see how far the government will go to punish me for exposing the myth of "lie detection"!

blah blah blah quack quack quack cut and paste the same rhetoric.

Listening to you is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

quickfix wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 2:47pm:

blah blah blah quack quack quack cut and paste the same rhetoric. Listening to you is FOOLISH and DANGEROUS.

While you, on the other hand, elevate the conversation with your eloquent rebuttals to my "rhetoric".   ::)

Doug,

I think you have an excellent civil rights case. There's plenty of case law to back up your lawsuit. Go for it.

Twoblock wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 7:06pm:

Doug, I think you have an excellent civil rights case. There's plenty of case law to back up your lawsuit. Go for it.

Unfortunately justice is a commodity - you only get what you can pay for.  The DOJ has unlimited resources - I don't.

quickfix wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 10:31pm:

...if your wife or daughter were raped or murdered, and the perpetrator passed a polygraph exam after "training" with Doug Williams, you might think differently...

I would certainly be furious beyond mere words at the criminally incompetent LEOs who tried to rely on the polygraph instead of doing their jobs properly.

-Aunty Agony.

Aunty Agony wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 10:14pm:

quickfix wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:31pm: ...if your wife or daughter were raped or murdered, and the perpetrator passed a polygraph exam after "training" with Doug Williams, you might think differently... I would certainly be furious beyond mere words at the criminally incompetent LEOs who tried to rely on the polygraph instead of doing their jobs properly. -Aunty Agony.

You are absolutely right AA! 

And I might also note that Quickfix is the first polygraph operator to go on record and freely admit that a person could be "trained" to pass a polygraph test. 

That makes my case and proves the polygraph is not a "lie detector".  If a person can be trained to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and produce a "truthful" chart at will, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector".  Congratulations Quickfix for finally admitting something that polygraphers have always denied. 

Doug,

Study the 1st., 4th. and 14th. Amendments (those seem to cover your situation) and file it pro se. It costs $450.00 to file a lawsuit in federal court. I am in the process of doing a fed. suit for my grandson. His 1st., 4th., 8th. and 14th. Amendment rights were violated many times. This is a first for me in this realm so I have to burn midnight oil studying these statutes. I don't have to study any more for ADA and Sec. 504 Rehab. Act lawsuits. I know those by heart. Lawyers will tell you that it's almost an impossibility to win a 14th. Amendment Sec. 1983 lawsuit because of immunities. That's bunk when a 1983 is brought correctly. The only problem with a pro se lawsuit is that you don't get to argue your case in front of the fed. judge or a panel of three appellate judges. Only bar lawyers can do that. I would love to argue cases before a fed. judge.

Doug Williams wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 10:29pm:

You are absolutely right AA!And I might also note that Quickfix is the first polygraph operator to go on record and freely admit that a person could be "trained" to pass a polygraph test.That makes my case and proves the polygraph is not a "lie detector".If a person can be trained to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and produce a "truthful" chart at will, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is absolutely worthless as a "lie detector".Congratulations Quickfix for finally admitting something that polygraphers have always denied.

I was speaking hypothetically;  in reality, you couldn't teach a cow to fart, much less teach someone to produce "truthful tracings".

quickfix wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 6:20pm:

I was speaking hypothetically;in reality, you couldn't teach a cow to fart, much less teach someone to produce "truthful tracings".

The fact that John Schwartz and Fred Ball launched an ongoing effort to put Doug Williams in a cage is strong evidence that the federal polygraph community does not share this view.

James F. Tomsheck, who headed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs section, of which the polygraph unit behind Operation Lie Busters is a part, was removed from that position yesterday:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-border-patrol-internal-affairs-20140609-story.html

AntiPolygraph.org has learned that Tomsheck himself was once a polygraph operator and gave the commencement address at a July 2013 NCCA graduation ceremony:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/06/10/sacked-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-internal-affairs-chief-james-f-tomsheck-was-keynote-speaker-at-2013-ncca-graduation-ceremony/

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:52am:

James F. Tomsheck, who headed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs section, of which the polygraph unit behind Operation Lie Busters is a part, was removed from that position yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-border-patrol-internal-affairs-20140609-story.html AntiPolygraph.org has learned that Tomsheck himself was once a polygraph operator and gave the commencement address at a July 2013 NCCA graduation ceremony: https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/06/10/sacked-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-internal-affairs-chief-james-f-tomsheck-was-keynote-speaker-at-2013-ncca-graduation-ceremony/

James F. Tomsheck and the whole Internal Affairs Unit of the CBP should not only be investigated, they should be prosecuted!  This investigation should also include a very thorough investigation into the actions of Special Agent Douglas Robbins of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Internal Affairs, CBP Senior Special Agent Fred C. Ball, Jr. and CBP polygraph unit chief John R. Schwartz.  They all neglected their duty, choosing instead to mount a vicious and unlawful attack on me.   

Instead of "investigating individual cases of alleged wrongdoing" they put their emphasis "toward assisting other agencies, including the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security inspector general" - i.e. "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS".

During "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS", they spent thousands of man hours and untold amounts of money trying to persecute and intimidate me, (and others) for telling the truth about the waste, fraud and abuse in their polygraph unit.   Rather than do the job they were assigned to do (internal affairs investigations), they conducted an unscrupulous, unconstitutional attack on me!  Robbins himself told me that they had been investigating me for over three years!

Schwartz, one of the men behind "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS", said he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”  And so it was that James F. Tomsheck and his crew hatched a plan to "focus attention" on the one man who best fit this description, the man all polygraph operators have hated for almost forty years - one who helped put tens of thousands of them out of business in 1988 with the passage of the EPPA - yours truly, Douglas G Williams.

The "Schwartz" quoted there is John Schwartz, a Customs and Border Patrol official who is involved in the investigations. So, yeah, that's a federal government agent specifically claiming that he wants to focus his criminal investigatory power on those who speak out against polygraph testing (rather than do the job he was assigned to do - investigating allegations of wrong doing in his own agency).   

One blogger, commenting on the investigation of me, put it this way: "That sounds a hell of a lot like a police state, where federal agents publicly declare that they're going to use their criminal investigation powers to target people who oppose a program they support. Talk about chilling effects and a massive First Amendment violation.  To have a federal official, with investigatory power, who’s already involved in existing investigations flat out say that he wants to target those who speak out, is incredible. That's not the way our government is supposed to work."

This story goes much deeper than the "lack of diligence" in doing their job, and I hope there is an in-depth investigation.  These men all used (misused, and abused) the power of their office and violated my constitutional rights under color of law.  This is a story of how a group of pro-polygraph men, most of whom are polygraph operators, used their authority as federal agents in pursuit of a personal vendetta against me.  They should not only be investigated, they should be prosecuted!

Marisa Taylor and Franco Ordonez report for McClatchy that U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs (CBP-IA), the unit to which CBP's polygraph unit, which conceived "Operation Lie Busters," belongs, is under investigation "for falsifying documents, intentionally misplacing employee complaints and bungling misconduct reports as part of a coverup to mask its failure to curb employee wrongdoing."

McClatchy's reporting suggests endemic corruption at CBP-IA. Last October, Dennis Lindsay, who was the special agent in charge of the CBP-IA office in Houston, Texas, where the polygraph unit is headquartered, committed suicide for reasons that have not been determined.

McClatchy also notes that after former CBP-IA head James Thomsheck's ouster earlier this month, "the inspector general began interviewing officials who handled [Operation Lie Busters] as part of what is being described as an 'inspection.'"

Read the entire article here:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/06/20/231045/border-agencys-watchdog-under.html

Doug Williams wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 2:40pm:

George W. Maschke wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 7:52am: James F. Tomsheck, who headed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internal Affairs section, of which the polygraph unit behind Operation Lie Busters is a part, was removed from that position yesterday: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-border-patrol-internal-affairs-20140609-story.html AntiPolygraph.org has learned that Tomsheck himself was once a polygraph operator and gave the commencement address at a July 2013 NCCA graduation ceremony: https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/06/10/sacked-u-s-customs-and-border-protection-internal-affairs-chief-james-f-tomsheck-was-keynote-speaker-at-2013-ncca-graduation-ceremony/ James F. Tomsheck and the whole Internal Affairs Unit of the CBP should not only be investigated, they should be prosecuted!  This investigation should also include a very thorough investigation into the actions of Special Agent Douglas Robbins of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Office of Internal Affairs, CBP Senior Special Agent Fred C. Ball, Jr. and CBP polygraph unit chief John R. Schwartz.  They all neglected their duty, choosing instead to mount a vicious and unlawful attack on me.    Instead of "investigating individual cases of alleged wrongdoing" they put their emphasis "toward assisting other agencies, including the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security inspector general" - i.e. "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS". During "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS", they spent thousands of man hours and untold amounts of money trying to persecute and intimidate me, (and others) for telling the truth about the waste, fraud and abuse in their polygraph unit.   Rather than do the job they were assigned to do (internal affairs investigations), they conducted an unscrupulous, unconstitutional attack on me!  Robbins himself told me that they had been investigating me for over three years! Schwartz, one of the men behind "OPERATION LIE BUSTERS", said he thought that those who “protest the loudest and the longest” against polygraph testing “are the ones that I believe we need to focus our attention on.”  And so it was that James F. Tomsheck and his crew hatched a plan to "focus attention" on the one man who best fit this description, the man all polygraph operators have hated for almost forty years - one who helped put tens of thousands of them out of business in 1988 with the passage of the EPPA - yours truly, Douglas G Williams. The "Schwartz" quoted there is John Schwartz, a Customs and Border Patrol official who is involved in the investigations. So, yeah, that's a federal government agent specifically claiming that he wants to focus his criminal investigatory power on those who speak out against polygraph testing (rather than do the job he was assigned to do - investigating allegations of wrong doing in his own agency).    One blogger, commenting on the investigation of me, put it this way: "That sounds a hell of a lot like a police state, where federal agents publicly declare that they're going to use their criminal investigation powers to target people who oppose a program they support. Talk about chilling effects and a massive First Amendment violation.  To have a federal official, with investigatory power, who’s already involved in existing investigations flat out say that he wants to target those who speak out, is incredible. That's not the way our government is supposed to work." This story goes much deeper than the "lack of diligence" in doing their job, and I hope there is an in-depth investigation.  These men all used (misused, and abused) the power of their office and violated my constitutional rights under color of law.  This is a story of how a group of pro-polygraph men, most of whom are polygraph operators, used their authority as federal agents in pursuit of a personal vendetta against me.  They should not only be investigated, they should be prosecuted!

This article states: "Under Tomsheck, a former veteran Secret Service agent, the internal affairs division also became known for pursuing controversial criminal cases. At least one of them is now being scrutinized.

In that criminal inquiry, dubbed Operation Lie Busters, federal agents investigated instructors who claimed they can teach job applicants how to pass lie detector tests.

In the days after Tomsheck’s ouster, the inspector general began interviewing officials who handled the criminal investigation as part of what is being described as an “inspection.”

The criminal inquiry, which was reported by McClatchy last year, was aimed at discouraging criminals and spies from infiltrating the U.S. government by using the polygraph-beating techniques.

By attempting to prosecute the instructors, however, federal officials adopted a controversial legal stance that sharing such information should be treated as a crime.

The case sparked a debate over whether the federal government should be pursuing such instructors given questions about the reliability of lie detectors, which are not accepted by most courts as evidence against criminal defendants."

I would like to offer a few suggestions that would perhaps make this article more accurate. My editorial suggestions are in parenthesis: "Under Tomsheck, a former veteran Secret Service agent, (AND POLYGRAPH OPERATOR). the internal affairs division also became known for pursuing (A PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST DOUG WILLIAMS, A WELL KNOWN POLYGRAPH OPPONENT, AND ATTEMPTING TO IMPRISON HIM FOR HAVING THE AUDACITY TO EXERCISE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE ABUSE CAUSED BY THE POLYGRAPH, AND PROVING THE POLYGRAPH WAS NOT ACCURATE AS A "LIE DETECTOR", BUT WAS RATHER A PSYCHOLOGICAL BILLY CLUB USED TO FRIGHTEN AND INTIMIATE PEOPLE).

"The criminal inquiry, which was reported by McClatchy last year, was aimed" (AT SILENCING DOUG WILLIAMS BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE WHO PROTESTS THE LOUDEST AND LONGEST AGAINST POLYGRAPH TESTING).

"The case sparked a debate over whether the federal government should be pursuing" (CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST DOUG WILLIAMS AND VIOLATING HIS FIRST AND FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN FACT, THERE WAS NO "DEBATE" - RATHER THERE WAS OVERWHELMING AGREEMENT THAT THIS WAS A CLEAR CASE OF ABUSE OF POWER AND GOVERNMENTAL OVERREACH AS EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT ALL THOSE INVOLVED IN OPERATION LIE BUSTERS ARE NOW THEMSELVES UNDER INVESTIGATION AND MANY, INCLUDING JAMES F. THOMSHEK HIMSELF, HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THEIR POSITIONS).

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, Chad Dixon was released from the United States Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois after completing his 8-month sentence. Dixon is the only person to have been criminally charged in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's "Operation Lie Busters," an evidently still ongoing criminal investigation into people who teach others how to pass polygraph "tests."

I think that CBP and other federal agencies' targeting and entrapment of Dixon, as well as their raid on Doug Williams (who has not been charged with any crime), and possible entrapment attempt against me, has been a tremendous overreach and abuse of authority, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars and investigative resources.

---

This case is very interesting and opens up a real can of worms. First of all, I think Mr. Dixon was very foolish to allow himself to be a party to malfeasance, albeit a fake scenario. Had he taken a position of only teaching those who wish to avoid a false positive, he would have been on a firmer ethical footing. I wonder how far this precedent could go? If I were very adroit at bank robbery and chose to give instruction as to the best strategies and tactics, would I be committing a crime? Remember the martial arts teacher who gave instruction to the 9/11 terrorist?--he was not charged with a crime. But if he had known of his student's nefarious intentions, would it have been a crime then?--is the penal code based on what's in your head, like "hate crimes?" It's very convoluted and a difficult concept to untangle.

Last year, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the PowerPoint presentation that CBP polygraph chief John R. Schwartz gave at the American Association of Police Polygraphists' 2013 annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina.

CBP denied my request, apparently without even looking at the document, and also denied my appeal, though the reviewer evidently did make some actual investigation into the contents of the document. The correspondence associated with this request may be viewed here:

https://antipolygraph.org/foia.shtml#operation-lie-busters-powerpoint

It's noteworthy that according to the letter of denial, Operation Lie Busters remained an ongoing investigation as of 25 August 2014.

In addition, CBP seems to suggest that it is illegal to develop polygraph countermeasures where it states:


Quote:

Releasing the information in the presentation would provide a blueprint to CBP polygraph examiner strategies, reveal specific investigative techniques, and enable individuals to attempt to develop examination countermeasures thereby circumventing the law.

It should be noted, however, that there is no law prohibiting the development of polygraph countermeasures, or indeed the teaching or use of same.

George W. Maschke wrote on Oct 13^th, 2014 at 7:55am:

Last year, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the PowerPoint presentation that CBP polygraph chief John R. Schwartz gave at the American Association of Police Polygraphists' 2013 annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina. CBP denied my request, apparently without even looking at the document, and also denied my appeal, though the reviewer evidently did make some actual investigation into the contents of the document. The correspondence associated with this request may be viewed here: https://antipolygraph.org/foia.shtml#operation-lie-busters-powerpoint It's noteworthy that according to the letter of denial, Operation Lie Busters remained an ongoing investigation as of 25 August 2014. In addition, CBP seems to suggest that it is illegal to develop polygraph countermeasures where it states: Quote: Releasing the information in the presentation would provide a blueprint to CBP polygraph examiner strategies, reveal specific investigative techniques, and enable individuals to attempt to develop examination countermeasures thereby circumventing the law. It should be noted, however, that there is no law prohibiting the development of polygraph countermeasures, or indeed the teaching or use of same.

Oh the irony!  "Circumventing the law" indeed...  After much thought, I have come to what I consider to be the only logical conclusion that can be drawn as to why government agencies, (federal, state, & local) continue to use the polygraph even though all the scientific evidence proves it is worthless as a "lie detector".  I believe they are using the polygraph as a subterfuge to avoid complying with federal employment regulations!  What else explains the 65% "failure" rate for applicants who have already passed a very thorough background investigation?  These agencies can circumvent federal laws and discriminate against people, ask illegal questions, interrogate/terrorize them for hours, and use the polygraph as an excuse to deny employment to anyone they don't want to hire.  They can be totally subjective in their hiring and firing practices when they use the polygraph, because all they have to do is to say the applicant "failed" a polygraph test.  By simply saying the person has "failed" a polygraph test, government agencies can hire and fire people at will and then just blame it on the "failed" polygraph test.  There is no way anyone can appeal a hiring or firing decision that is based on a "failed" polygraph - and those who are denied employment or terminated have no recourse - they can't bring a lawsuit for discrimination or wrongful termination!  Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Quote:

Do I believe the government agencies who utilize the polygraph are this nefarious?  YES!  And it is tantamount to criminal negligence on the part of those charged with oversight of these government agencies to allow them to continue to use this so-called "lie detector testing"!

Yes, it seems quite hypocritical for the government to outlaw discrimination based on religion, race, sexual orientation etc... yet routinely discriminate in it's hiring processes against innocent, taxpaying, educated individuals who clearly and accurately understand that it's polygraph process is total bunk....