Breeze:

You wrote:

Quote:


This is inexcusable ignorance from a law enforcement officer.  If this were a court case, the accused would be required to produce: ZERO.  In case you don't know this, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime.  The accused may sit there in silence, if he so chooses, and still be found not guilty if the prosecution fails to prove the case.

In this mini-prosecution you have going here against George, you have produced zero evidence against him, just unsupported, unsubstantiated accusations.  Don't you have higher standards of proof than that?  Why don't you quote the portion of his NAS testimony where you believe he made some damaging admission.  If you have done so already, could you please recite it again?

And if this were a court case, the 6th Amendment allows the accused to confront witnesses against him.  Your "sources" would have to come out of the woodwork and withstand cross-examination.  Somehow I doubt they would fare very well.

Skeptic
Good one!
I guess it will be a long 2 years eh?
Hi again Mark.  Thanks for the tips, but you see I already know that this is no prosecution, and rules of evidence do not apply. It is my opinion, freely expressed on this "free" site. (much like the comments made about me, sort of goes with the territory)
If you find my comments and questions inappropriate, boorish or judgemental than use those terms. The fact that others have the same information that I do, and have stated so here, should show you that it is not just a product of my imagination.  I am merely curious when I see George make such a vigorious defense of his virtue, when called.
To your point, would you consider the use of pre-trial interviews, record requests and subpoena orders as compelling, even for the innocent?
Your right though, the guilty can just sit back and say nothing waiting for the case to be proved.  This is wise.  I asked specifically about the clearance issue because this is something I can check rather quickly, and he most definitely has left out significant detail.  I think this bears most directly on the work that is being done here on this site.  The platform is predicated on innocent victims relating frightfull tales of abuse at the hands of barely educated polygraphers.  If George was to accept some responsibility for what happened to him during his failed employment attempt,( like having something to explain) this would not play well.
Hey, at least you just called me ignorant and not a used car salesman!

Breeze,

I have seen nothing remotely derogatory against George.  The fact that he makes a vigorous defense of his virtue does not necessarily tell us anything about his virtue; it's the content of his defense that counts.  And on that score, I would have to say that he has eviscerated his accuser(s) (I'm not aware of anyone but you; am I missing someone?).

Really though, George need not defend himself.  This site is not about George's personnel record.  It's about the polygraph.  His arguments have been vindicated by the NAS study.  Even if he were a pathological liar, he is still right about the invalidity of the polygraph.

Good point about producing evidence, though I believe it's limited to physical evidence (hair samples, blood, fingerprints et al).  I do not believe it extends to testimony, as that would violate the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.  In any event, as you acknowledge, the prosecution still has to prove the case; the accused need not disprove it.

As far as your comments being inappropriate, boorish, or judgmental, boorish probably works best.  Are you just trying to rile George?  Do you honestly believe he is at fault for being deemed "deceptive" on the polygraph?  In the larger scheme of things, does it even matter?  I guess your harping on his record, and making unsupported allegations, also strikes me as mean spirited and untrustworthy.

There seems to be a general theme here among some pro-polygraph people that we are just a bunch of whiners who are disgruntled at having been denied federal employment (I don't fit this category) and just refuse to take any responsibility for our failures.  I read this theme in your comments.

But this viewpoint is an evasion of responsiblity itself.  Lumping everyone in there is intellectually lazy.  Here's an analogy you might like: it's like the leftists who blame everything on American imperialism and foreign policy, including 9/11.  No matter what happens on the international scene, it can be traced back to that.  Same with some of the pro-polygraph people: never mind the NAS study, the problem is with the disgruntled liars.

Mark
Im glad you chose to respond, I actually like the way you make your arguements, with only occasional name calling (itself an unfounded generalization, as I am being accused of)
Its clear we move in different circles, but I can assure you that there are questions about George's record.  But you may be right, It matters little to me personally and is certainly not a quest.  A check of recent posts will show that he for some reason, brought it back to the front which caused my latest exchange.  I do not believe I had spoke on that topic for quite a while.
To answer your question in the most direct way possible, yes I do believe he has left out detail, and is partly responsible for his failures.
Its funny you speak of untrustworthiness.  That was my original thought about the advice given when I logged on here.  A site that could give comfort to criminals is beneath contempt in my view.  I am prepared to admit that you and fair chance were most certainly treated unfairly.  I think thats wrong, but not exceptional.  It could just as easily occurred in a background check where an enemy or ex-spouse created a doubt.
I think the cyber warriors here will be more comfortable preaching to the choir, without any dissenting views so I will minimize future involvement.

breeze,

i've read through several of your posts-- you seem to rail at the unfairness of the psych exams time and time again. what were you accused of? did you psch interviewer make you cry or something?

The_Breeze wrote on Nov 7^th, 2002 at 6:18pm:


Breeze,

Can't argue about the enemy or ex-spouse doubt.  Seen it happen and it is not pretty.  Like Mark, I am just trying to clean things up alittle.  The polygraph pre-screening can be uglier than the divorce because at least you know why the divorce attitude is happening (does not justify the attacks but helps one to deal with negative emotions and outcome).

If you do not post for awhile, I have enjoyed the exchange.  Good health and good hunting!

Enjoy Life!

Mark
You and Fair Chance seem to be the only critics around this site both gainfully employed and having some integrity, so I wish you (both) good luck.  I just cannot see your view of eliminating polygraph, simply because it may have problems. I have already pointed out some of the people that would of been hired if we shared your view.  Not acceptable.
Gail (ill leave off the "the") I thought I was pointing out a hiring hurdle that was at least as fraught with error as polygraph, but you had the light from GM's picture in your eyes and may of missed it.  Had I cried on any of my several psychological exams (not a bad idea) I might be making money now! like alot of really useful ideas, yours came too late.  Besides, If I was doing something other than picking up human filth, I could never of met you or beech tree's and been humbled and humiliated by your blistering wit.
And skeptic, Im not quite sure how pointing out a silly post of no quality makes me culpable, but its your story to tell.  Frankly you have grown more hysterical lately and seem to be taking your preceived role here far too seriously.
And finally everyones's favorite, BT, I realize you got concerned when I said I would minimize my involvement. But in this very small and inconsequential corner of cyber space a posting a week should still be considered wasteful.  Still I will value your insightful law tips and lessons on police responsibility.  Your contributions to law enforcement have not gone unnoticed.
But why risk carpal tunnel or your manicure on someone so unworthy? why dont you re-gain that enlightened state where you had washed your hands of me? Will I ever be rid of your obtuse "I gotcha" observations?

"Instead, you demanded that I prove my innocence by posting my FBI HQ file and that I discuss my security clearance. My reply remains that "regarding security clearance matters, I have nothing to add to my remarks at the NAS meeting, and I see no compelling need to post Privacy Act information about myself to counter your completely unsubstantiated accusations against me." To date, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your libelous claim I was untruthful in my FBI application."


George,

I believe that The Breeze suggested that you post Privacy Act information concerning pre-employment documents related to your application with the FBI. Permit me if you will.

1) On the "Personal Statements" link of this site, there is a posting by "Captain Jones."  It is my understanding that this is you.  My appologies if I am wrong. Throughout your statement, we learned all about your exploits. How you attended the USAIC and the DLIFLC.  We are able too read with great envy the numerous Letters of Appreciation you received from the likes of William S. Sessions, Bruce Canaga, Louis Freeh, Bill Perry, and General Gordon Sullivan.  We learned about your work you did in NYC and in LA.

2) On your other web site, www.humnet.ucla.edu/people/maschke/

We learned much more about you.  Upon entering the site, we find another photo of you, the one with the dashing bolo tie. We learned that you attended and graduated from East Moriches Union Free School in 1978.  We learned that you then graduated from Westhampton Beach High School. You were in the Band, the Drama Club, and the French Club. You then obtained your undergraduate degree from UCLA and went on to work on your graduate degree.

We learned about your translation of Habib Levy's work and how you moved to The Hague, Netherlands where you worked for the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

You talk about your favorite platform, the Apple Macintosh and all the macros that you've written for Nisus Writer and WordPerfect.  Of course we can't forget all the translation work that you've done.

We get the honor of reading your copyrighted work such as the "Clintonic Verses" and your "Sundry Prose & Poetry." Heck, we even get to read all about your participation in the 3M marathon in Leiden on June 14, 1998.  "Hup George!" "Hup George!" This written account is also copyrighted.



Now, I am not a profiler, but I got to wonder why a guy who posts all these details about his life, won't put these silly accusations to rest. What was said during your FBI polygraph examination? Did you make damaging admissions? You see George, you love to see yourself in print, on the web. You love to tell us how intelligent you are - not directly, but by posting all of the boring details of your life. After all, East Moriches Union Free School? Your favorite platform? The Clintonic Verses?

Under Privacy Acts laws, former FBI SA Jack Trimarco can't give his side of the story, but one person can and that is you George! I feel that I can safely assume that you long ago filed for a copy of your FBI polygraph examination report and all the associated pre-employment documents.  What is one more document about your life posted on the these sites?

If I were interested in learning more about the polygraph and the authors of this site, I really would like to know the true motives of the individuals.  No one can deny that you are a highly intelligent person, but maybe you were outsmarted on the day of your polygraph examination and you gave that one disqualifying admission. I certainly don't know, but inquiring minds want to know!