Drew Richardson wrote on May 6^th, 2015 at 11:36am:

Doug, You are quite welcome.  I hope the thoughts will be useful.  Let me now add briefly to them.  I hope to add another post later today/this evening regarding another central issue in your indictment, but for the minute and in continuation.... The government will argue that my notion of the witness being the polygraph charts and not the examinee is wrong (largely because it will suit its case to completely remove polygraphy from charges that stem from nothing but polygraphy, i.e., people did not come to you and pay you good money to tell them that they should say that they don't know you, BUT quite clearly to learn how to effectively manipulate polygraph charts.) Apart from this trial matter, the day-to-day operation for the government is to deny that the examinee is a trusted witness (otherwise there would be no need for lie detection).  The government treats the examinee/applicant as little more than a biased spokes person for himself/herself at the time of the polygraph examination and therefore the need for lie detection.  Clearly it is the squiggles on the polygraph chart that is the trusted witness in this phase of the applicant inquiry. This should be made quite clear to the presiding judge, and hopefully the judge will not allow the prosecution to confiscate this fact for its own trial purposes in the face of the reality of applicant investigation.

Thanks again Drew - this is indeed very helpful and I will forward it to my attorney.  I welcome anything else you may have to add...