Troll,

The policy you referred to in DoDI 5210.91 is on page 11, paragraph g. It also goes on to say, "except as provided in sections 6 and 7 of Enclosure 4," which is on page 22.

Section 6 addresses personnel who refuse to take or complete a polygraph examination and are in positions designated as requiring a PSS polygraph examination as part of determining initial eligibility for access, assignment, or detail. In other words, if they refuse to comply, they "may be denied access, assignment, or detail."

Section 7 deals with DoD-affiliated personnel who are unable to resolve all relevant questions. This is what happened to me. According to the regulation, "if, after reviewing the examination results, the requesting agency determines that they raise a significant question relevant to the individual’s eligibility for a security clearance or continued access, the individual shall be given an opportunity to undergo additional examination." It goes on to say that they may initiate a Counter-Intelligence Investigation – which in my case they did – twice. Additionally, it says that the Head of the relevant DoD Component may temporarily suspend and individual’s access to controlled information and deny the individual assignment or detail that is contingent on such access, based upon a written finding that, considering the results of the examination and the extreme sensitivity of the classified information involved, access under the circumstances poses an unacceptable risk to the national security. Such temporary suspension of access may not form the part of any basis for an adverse administrative action or an adverse personnel action. There never was any written finding of any wrongdoing. Both investigations were summarily closed due to lack of any evidence of wrongdoing on my part.

As you've probably already read in my thread, I was interrogated with the polygraph FOUR times from March 2011 to June 2012. As I said before, I was never accused of any wrongdoing, nor was I ever accused of using countermeasures.

I have also spoken to many people in the IC, and no one has ever heard of anyone losing their access, employment, assignment, or detail based solely on their inability to "successfully complete" the polygraph. One close friend of mine has a coworker who's "failed" nine times!

So, in a sense, you are correct that once you’re in, you’re in. No one ever gets punished for failing the polygraph – at least that’s the way it’s supposed to happen. Apparently, they skirt the rules whenever they want to, and no one can, or will, do anything about it. My goal is to expose this type of abuse. I spent 34 years with a TS/SCI working in the Air Force Electronic Security Command, Air Intelligence Agency, US Central Command, US Special Operations Command, and Defense Intelligence Agency. I never had a single security related incident. Not one. If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone.

Interestingly, during the investigation of my EEOC complaint, DIA provided a list of 12 DIA employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions solely as a result of their inability to successfully complete the PCA.

Then in discovery for my hearing, I asked for a complete list of DIA employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions as a result of not being able to successfully complete the PCA. Their answer? “No DIA employee has ever been subjected to adverse administrative actions solely as a result…” They changed the wording. Then they provided a list of 21 other employees who had been subjected to unfavorable administrative actions for seemingly not “passing” the PCA.

The bottom line is that the polygraph requirement is fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption. If you can’t be punished for “failing” it, why do they make tens of thousands of employees submit to it every year?

Quote:


This litigation was covered on the blog last year. See Charlatan v. Charlatan: NITV Sues E. Gary Baker.

This appears to me to be a vexatious lawsuit brought by NITV in a quest for leverage in its efforts to avoid paying its judgment debt to Baker.

This Topic has been moved to CVSA and other Voice Stress Analysis Applications by Administrator

ALLEGED NATIONAL SECURITY CRIMES!

Everyone on this website seems to have overlooked the big 2021 story about VSA. Alleged national security crimes will be on trial in a
local Florida court room soon. It appears the entire VSA industry is imploding with law suits - just as the APA leadership predicted
several years ago. It is well known the Federal Polygraph community has been following this case closely. During previous civil cases
involving the illegal export of restricted technologies multiple federal agancies had their national security experts in attendance
to watch the proceedings. One can imagine the Feds will be waiting with criminal arrest warrants regardless of the outcome of this
civil case. The details outlined in this civil case, if they are factual, involve crimial activities such as conspiracy,
money laundering, tax evasion and the knowing illegal export of controled technologies worldwide. The law suit is attached for further
analysis and comment.

Again, thanks for the excellent job you do keeping this information about this on-going litigation supplied on a timely basis.  Most everyone I have read on this thread figured out that Charlie & Co. would be engaging in hiding assets and if opposing counsel keeps digging, I betcha they will find two sets of books aside from the multiple LLCs.  Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if criminal charges eventually arise and maybe even a RICO action.
Charlie really screwed himself by flaunting a "highly successful renaissance man lifestyle" while having at least one helicopter, collector guitars, expensive photography equipment, etc.  But now he is claiming to be broke.
I've seen so many Charlie like characters in my life generally, and specifically in my criminal justice career.  Basically, Charlie is a one trick pony.  He can bullshit, and I will give credit where credit is due,  exceptionally well.  However, he apparently cannot reason abstractly, a faith that eventually befalls most bullshit artists.  Which means the gig will end eventually.
The number one danger to criminals for instance, is other criminals.  AP has done an exceptionally job exposing the lie industry charlatans, but the lie industry derail each other better than us people whom seek honesty in the CJ system could ever do.  I believe that the fake Ukraine study NITV promotes was debunked by APA, and Gary appears to be putting a major ass whuppin' on Charlie & Co.   Even if Charlie wins, he will still be out of a heap of money from having to pay his attorneys.  Mr. Fleck appears to be good at hiding, but he will reappear when his payday arrives.
Back when I was a newly minted PO, I got very upset on a case I prepared went south at trial.  A more experienced PO told me that not to worry, that the "street" will take care of that criminal.  Interesting that we see another charlatan taking out Charlie.

A 30-page Pretrial Stipulation filed on 27 July 2021 lays out the issues that are to be argued and decided at trial in this case. This document is attached to this post.

The key point that appears to be at issue is whether NITV, LLC., against which the judgment in this case was originally issued, fraudulently transferred assets to avoid paying the judgment debt, and whether Charles Humble, his wife, Lourdes Irimia, and NITV Federal Services are liable for that.

A "Hearing on Defendants' Objections to Request for Production" is set for Tuesday, 3 August 20201 at 8:30 AM before Judge Ashley Zuckerman.

The hearing is to be held via Zoom, a videoconferencing service:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/94110438096?pwd=TjVsQ3ROYWZQcklZbjV3RkdRTUd5Zz09

Meeting ID: 94110438096
Password: 208540

+1 8778535257 US Toll-Free
+1 8884754499 US Toll-Free

Hey John M.  I delete my post after reading your reply.  As you posted here, I was referring to a few official policies and word of mouth.  I did not read your entire thread, just a few posts. From the Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 5210.91 policy, you quoted that the policy states that "No unfavorable administrative action (to include access, employment, assignment, and detail determinations) shall be taken solely on the basis of the results of the polygraph examination."  I could not find that statement in this copy of DODI 5210.91.  I did find a similar quote in an older 1984 versions of a DODD 5210.48 policy, but I'm not sure if that policy is antiquated and has changed or not.

I'm sure you have read this story.  It is similar to yours only "Logan (obvious alias)" was FBI and you were DIA.

Then there was John Dullahan who was fired from the DIA after failing three polygraphs, similar to your story.

I have spoken to many people in the IC that say once you are in, you are in, unless you do something egregious which is usually a felony conviction.  If you are under suspicion or arrested, you will get your clearance suspended but you still get full pay for unclassified work and you are not fired until you are convicted.  The IC employees that usually "fail" their periodic paragraphs suffer no disciplinary action.  I guess your story and others that make the news are a few of the cases where the employee does get severely penalized. 

Does anyone have any data on how many other IC employees are fired or severely disciplined solely on the basis of deceptive polygraph charts?

troll_of_truth wrote on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 12:14am:


Wanna make a bet?

troll_of_truth wrote on Jul 28^th, 2021 at 12:14am:


Why would they need to learn to beat the polygraph if "failing" it wouldn't result in disciplinary action?

As regular readers of AntiPolygraph.org know, the plight of Afghan interpreters who honorably served with U.S. forces, but whose applications for Special Immigrant Visas have been denied based on polygraph results, has been the issue that most concerns me in recent weeks. So I was very happy to see former NSA Polygraph Division Chief Tom Mauriello tell Newsy national security reporter Sasha Ingber that polygraphs should not be the decisive factor in such determinations:

https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2021/07/29/former-nsa-polygraph-division-chief-sa...

While Mauriello supports polygraph screening in general, his nuanced view about how polygraph results should be relied upon is welcome. (He expressed similar views at an International Spy Museum event this past February, though not in the context of visas for Afghan combat interpreters.)

I hope that other members of the polygraph community who feel that we should not deny visas to our Afghan interpreters based simply on polygraph results will similarly speak out on this urgent policy question. With our forces leaving Afghanistan by the end of August, time is quickly running out.

Thank you and your kind reader for the PDF.  Well, it looks like the war between the foe faux docs will be on-going.  Good. 
Charlie is really a piece of work claiming that Gary is too aggressive and greedy, especially after Charlie threatened to destroy the livelihood of Matt Vanderhoff, an IT consultant that wrote some software for Dektor, as well as threatened "sanctions" against AP.  Karma does exist at least in Charlie's case.  Really, Charlie could lose everything, and I would not be surprised to even see his 4th wife (whom appears young enough to be his grand daughter) jump ship.  I have zero mercy for someone that Charlie that has destroyed probably thousands or lives and has dented, or prevented so many criminal justice careers.
I'm thinking that Charlie may realize the gig is up, and he is going down, and wants to take Gary down to Hell with him by continuing to run up litigation expenses.
This comment should probably be in another heading, but one thing I find interesting is that in the VSA side of so-called lie detection, it is the manufacturers that attack each other (CVSA, DVSA, Dektor).  But on the polygraph side, it is the operators that attack each other, for example, the Dr. Phil polygraphists.