Donna.Taylor wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 1:55am:


Alrighty, Donna I have put much thought into this response. Let's all note here that she called me out.

It sounds like you might be trying to save your business from someone
like me entering into the market.

I was told by David Kilpatrick that "the probationer is handed a list
of approved polygraph examiners and the probationer may choose from thatlist".  Then, I found out that I was lied to by the people who aresupposed to be watching over the criminals. When I call their integrityto the plate, I am somehow made the bad guy.  Nice.  I guess integritymeans nothing to you either. Or does integrity only mean something to you when it benefits you?

My product will take the business away all on its own.  I have been in
this area for a few years; therefore I am far from new.  I have run
tests for people on the defendant list in the past. They know I gave a
fair and valid polygraph exam, not "utility tests". 

I did write letters of introduction to these therapists before I found
out there was even a "Tarrant County List", which the Government Code does not authorize them to create.  Tarrant County CSCD is not a licensing agency with rule making authority, yet it wants to act like
one.  So this kind of spoils your point that I didn't do enough.  Nice
try though.

I learned what I had to do to get a polygraph examiners license.  I
busted my ass to make it happen.  I did it on my own money.  I took the time off from work losing income.  I came home and started my
internship.  During my internship, I sought out my PCSOT training with
what is thought of as the best private polygraph school in the country,
The Backster School.  While doing my internship and taking my PCSOT
training, I was collaborating with my ex-wife on a very well written
article that was published in a SMU Law Review on the subject of
polygraph in future admissibility in trade secrete litigation. I doubt
that most of the examiners in this area were involved in the writing of
an article that may further polygraph and its application in other
areas of the law within the first two years of their career.  But ecause I am not Holden or Wood or in their little circle, this hardly gets a second look where as if it had been someone from their offices, it would have resulted in polygraph examiner of the year.  Most of you will more than likely never read the work that my ex busted her ass over with me helping to further polygraph for the better.  Oops there I go again.  I forgot that you were trying to make me out to be the bad guy. It is time for me to get back into character for you.  OK.  I'm ready for my close up.

Nothing was handed to me.  I am still paying for everything.  Unlike
others that went to polygraph school on the taxpayer's dime, while
receiving a salary, their CEU's are paid for by tax dollars as are
their instruments in many cases.  What the taxpayers don't know is that these "police polygraph examiners" run private tests on the side, many times getting paid in cash.  Cash that, as a taxpayer, I am curious if that money is ever reported to the IRS.  I know.  Cops never steal. Cops are never involved in corruption.  All cops are citizens with sterling reputations who never ever break the law and are always around to help a little baby kittens out of the tree. Yea and I am the first Irish Pope.

They are making thousands on the side while you, the taxpayer flip the
bill.  I have never heard of one red penny go back to the government
treasury to reimburse the public for the privilege of going to that
polygraph school and having it funded by the department while paying
their salary for one less cop that is on the job to protect the
community from the threats of the day. Da dada daaaaaa.

I busted my ass and continue to bust my ass while others have it handed to them.  And when I step forward to grab my piece of the American Dream? "Sorry, you can work as hard as you want, but if you don't have enough to have your business survive until people retire or die, you don't stand a chance".  I don't think so.  There are no longer signs that say "Irish need not apply".  I'll work damn hard to be a success.

But I won't take a back seat to someone that had it all handed to them.
Not when my work is just as good as theirs and in some cases better.  I have seen some of these guys charts, and I can tell you I have seen
better charts from four week LDO's. 

I have run over 1,000 polygraph examinations total.  Many times I was
the "go to guy" on tests that I was told Holden and Company screwed up. Many of the people on the defendant list have had me run tests for them in the past.  I have even run tests for them recently because the
offenders got my direct mailings and made a choice to use an
independent polygraph examiner.  It is funny how these therapists are happy to use my DI results and the confessions that accompany them.  But when a test goes NDI, my polygraph is deemed flawed and the probationer is forced to take another exam with the examiner that is not of the probationer's choice until the desired result is achieved. It sounds like polygraph result shopping to me, which is what everyone says that they are afraid the probationer will do.  So it's do as I say not as I do.  That is goodleading by example.

Well I don't sell results.  I sell fair and independent polygraph
examinations.  It is the "established businesses" in this area that
doesn't like the idea that someone has come into their market that
might just be an actual threat.

If you don't think so, then ask yourself this.  If they are still just
that darn good, then why are they afraid to compete with me in a free
market that was clearly CSCD policy?  Why is everyone so afraid of me? If they are not afraid that I'll take business away from them, then
they won't mind doing business in a free market.  If they are so much better than I am, have great prices, and good customer service for all, then examinees will be breaking down their doors, even in a free market.  If the free market that I was told existed goes into place and all their examinees that have been going to them because they had no choice would turn their backs on Wood, Holden and their companies and start coming through my doors.  This would cut into Clayton's and the Holden boys entitlements.  They'll actually have to earn reputations instead of riding on daddy's coat tails.  It would cut into all the other's retirements and cut into repaying Eric Holden's IRS tax lien. Oops did I say that with my outside voice? Silly me.

You have this backwards.  I am not airing my dirty laundry.  I am
exposing the dirty sheets that they have been leaving in the lines for
years. You just seem to have a problem looking at a situation and
seeing judging it from an unbiased prospective.  You made that clear when you mentioned what good buddies you are with Eric Holden and what a nice and sweet men he is. This tells me one of three things:

1.  You interned under him and therefore you feel beholden to him;
2.   Maybe there is a deeper relationship; or
3.   You are his wife.

I know this probably offended you or someone else, but I could care less as you clearly didn't care about assuming to much abot me. And given Mr. Holden's past behavior, you are no stranger to being offended.

I guess you are also saying that they are more established, offer a
fair price, have more examiners, are more experienced, claim to spend time with examinees pre-test and post-test, claim to be fair, and claim to treat examinees like human beings.  While it may be true that they are more established, have more examiners on staff, and most of those examiners are more experienced than I am, the rest is in serious doubt. You should know that probationers are talking and their stories are matching up.

One of these big firms doesn't know it yet, but there is a rat among
them.  I know more than you think I know.  I have Holden's employee
manual here.  It makes for good reading. Would you like a copy? I'd be happy to PDF it for you.  Maybe George wants a copy.  Hold on.

Hey George, ya want a copy of Eric Holden's employee manual?

Clearly you weren't at the first two hearings.  Allow me to fill you in
as I am sure Mr. Holden has lied to you because he wasn't even man
enough to show is face.  On the subject of not showing faces, Mr.
Holden, along with everyone that works for him, refused to receive
service and intentionally avoided service, which is against the law.
Apparently, his receptionist, who was rude to the process server, was
served by Court ordered substitute of service.  He is such a brave and
good man that he hid from a pile of papers.  This is a man that I would
want to lead my enemies into battle.  He must be French.

Anyway, Kilpatrick, at the beginning of his testimony said under oath
that there were no polygraph examiner and therapists that engaged in
exclusive relationships with therapists. After a wee bit more grilling
from the Judge, he admitted that he knew a few therapists that
practiced in exclusive relationships and when probationers were told to choose their therapists, the probationer was not told that choosing that particular therapist would mean that the therapist would dictate which polygraph examiner he/she used.  It sounds corrupt to me.  I can see
why
that wouldn't sound corrupt to you.  Maybe you are probably one of the
people benefiting from this sweet deal.

In one of his emails, Kilpatrick said that the "strange symbiotic
relationships" between examiners and therapists had to come to an end. When we started following up with him, then he started backing off that strong definitive statement.  But that was after he started addressing the issue with the therapists.  Huh?  There is a strong definitive statement before addressing the statement, then backing off and taking the side of the "strange symbiotic relationship" after addressing the issue with the therapists.  Well, it doesn't take a polygraph examiner to see through that.

In the email that called the relationships between therapists and
examiners "strange and symbiotic", he also mentioned that this issue
mayneed to be settled in Court.  Let's not go pointing fingers at me about filing suit.  It was never in my mind until Kilpatrick said that was an option.  Be fair here and place that blame square on the shoulders thatit belongs.

I doubt you'll be able to do that though.  You seem to want to make me out to be the evil monster here.  It looks like that is not working so
well for you.

My attorney and I tried like hell to settle this before we filed.  I
even begged the president of TAPE to help. He said he couldn't help and that if what I said was happening, it was wrong and I should stand up for myself.  This is what I am doing.

When I did press action David Harris called me, while I was represented by counsel, which by the way, is a BIG NO NO!  But I guess working for the Attorney General makes someone exempt from some rules.  Wow, you know what that sounds like? Corruption! Lets move on up now and discuss Mr. Harris' conversation.  I was told that he was a reasonable person. That was his first lie, as he has not even made any attempt to try to resolve the issue.  Well, other than threatening me monetarily and saying that he could do anything he wanted because he represented the Attorney General's Office and Tarrant County CSCD could take my name off the approved providers list because I filed action and there was nothing that could be done about it. Mr. Harris has never denied that he said that.   He then told me that he didn't want to have to file a complaint with the State Bar.  That sounds like an attempt to scare me using his position and saying that if I didn't stop this that I would be taken off the list. Scare tactics from corruption or terrorism.  It sounds like someone trying to scare me into submission to achieve a political agenda to me.  He continues to use this tactic, which just makes me dig in even further and prepare for a long battle.

Let's move on with the corruption. A therapist has had a "polygraph
fund" where probationers have paid up to $25 a month on top of their
therapy fees.  When the probationer is ready to take a polygraph, the
therapist makes the appointment, and then pays the examiner out of this "polygraph fund".  When a probationer asks for an accounting of themoney that he has been giving to this therapist, the probationer is
told that he would be kicked out of the group for being uncooperative.  If there was no hanky panky going on, then what is the big secret?  That by itself is suspicious.  Add that to the fact that they won't produce financial documents that are protected by injunction along with any emails, letters, recording and other comments for the one year preceding the hearings.  But, they expect me to pony up the same documents theyrefuse to produce. Well, that is just plain transparent.  I wonder where some of that money was going? Guess I'll know soon enough.

Funny how the therapist with the biggest case load is someone who usedto be a probation officer with Tarrant County CSCD.  Now, come on, tell me that is not obvious, or at least has an appearance of impropriety. Or are you just like the rest of the one sided people on this message board.

The Judge asked for a show of hands on how many therapists and
polygraph examiners engaged in exclusive relationships.  You would be amazed how any hands went up.  All while the top caption of the "approved polygraph examiners list" clearly read "the probationer can go to a polygraph examiner of his choice".  It sounds like corruption and deceptive practices to me.  But maybe I learned a different version of English than you did.

You make it seem like I am the only one.  I have news for ya.  I will
not be on the plaintiff's list alone much longer. Everyone may be in
for a shock real soon.  Someone with a lot of credibility might be stepping up to the plate soon. 

Oh I could go on and will at another time, but for now I think I have
made my point. The transcripts of the hearings will also clear up some
misconceptions that you have and are trying to spread for people you
think are your friends. Just a word to the wise, don't think they won't
stab you in the back if they feel you are a threat to their wallets.

You respect him? Well isn't that understanding. You respect a man that
has been accused of receiving $1,500.00 from an elderly woman to assess her mentally disabled son for a polygraph while he was in jail and then never showing up for the polygraph.  Yes taking advantage of an elderlywoman on a fixed income and her mentally disabled son is something that we should all respect and encourage. I am glad you cleared that up for me. 

You respect a man that was told not to return to the DPS Polygraph
School because he can't keep his hands to himself, his ego in check,
and his mouth shut at the right moments. OK.  Respecting sustained
allegations of sexual harassment..... Check!

You respect a man that, from what I understand, was given an advisory letter by a licensing agency for holding himself out to be a LPC on an expired license. You respect a man that had held himself out to be a  PhD in California, but for some reason fails to list it on his credentials on his own website. You would think he would list it there. Maybe that is why you mention the name Holden at the Backster School and most of the people will tell you that he is not well respected or liked in California. Wow, you are an understanding woman. I'm impressed.

Personally, I am concerned. I have come into possession of a transcriptof a course that Mr. Holden was the speaker at for an APA seminar.  Itdoesn't sound like he is confident when he says:

"Dr. (indiscernible) from Minnesota testified that there is, in his
judgment, a 40 percent false positive error rating in the tests the way
they're done and because of the procedures that were being employed.  We countered that; we happened to win.  But most of it has to do with whatthe perceived utility is.  But as more and more people bring these issues up, and more and more courts address it, and more and more adversaries to polygraphs testify these tests that you're trying to act on violate the principles of practice on a validating polygraph test, we're going to lose.  And if we lose this, we're going to be in big trouble. [1]"

This is someone that isn't even confident in his own profession.

Now let's talk fairness. During the same class the transcript says he
stated:

"So when I testified, I testified, the judge said -- (indiscernible)
all are friends of mine -- and the judge said -- I'll never forget this
(indiscernible) very nice little soft-shoe dance she's been doing up
here for the last hour.  "Could I ask you a question?"  I said, "Yes,
ma'am."  She said, "Would you mind just answering the questions and
laying it out (indiscernible)."  I said, "I would."   She said, "You believe the two tests that he failed comport with the standards and principles and practices of (indiscernible) for PSCOT?" "Yes, I do.  Yes, I do."  "Do you believe in the accuracy of that  test?"
"Yes."  "Do you believe the ones he passed?"  (Inaudible) I said, "No,
Ido not."  "Do you believe the ones he passed showed non-deception was correct?"  "No, I do not."  "Was it valid?"  "I don't believe so."
"Thank you very much.  You're dismissed."

Wow, I hope I didn't read that wrong.  Let me take a look at that last
paragraph again......Clearly says that he believed in the accuracy of
the test. But when he was asked if he believed the results of the NDI
tests he said no. Or at least that is his story.  I am trying to
understand this.  He said he believes in the accuracy of the test, but
on the other hand, he didn't believe that the NDI decision was correct
or valid? I wonder if those were tests he ran?  It sounds like he's
fair to me. 

Let's look at what he said after that shall we?

"Before I got to the door, she revoked him and gave him 40 years, over an opinion of a polygraph test.  That is an important issue, because when it gets down to it, in the final analysis, when you're forming an opinion of DI or NDI, it's what you did to get that opinion that's  going to make the difference in the perception that it was valid or it was
not. "

Wow 40 years! Mr. Holden, according to this transcript that was taken
from an audio recording of that class, was bragging about sending a man back to prison for 40 year on a test that was originally scored as NDI. All because he manipulated the perception of what was done to get to an opinion. I am right now trying to find out who the person was to perform a follow-up test on this man who got 40 years on an NDI test in which Mr. Holden said he believed in the accuracy.

"By the way, I apologize to you now, especially the youth of this
group, because I started in polygraph in 1973 full time.  I started my career as a psychologist with the prison system in Texas about seven years,five years on the men's maximum security prison, one year on the women's prison, my last year on death row.  At that point I (indiscernible) had plenty of it, went into private practice.  And I've been in polygraph ever since, since 1973. [2]"

In the paragraph above we have Mr. Holden holding himself out to be a
psychologist. Last time I checked one had to have a PhD and a license
to be held out as a psychologist. If he can not offer up a PhD from an
accredited school and a license to practice psychology, then I guess he
would be lying to the young polygraph examiners in the APA. But, hey
he's Eric Holden! A good man doesn't lie and has tried to make PCSOT
fair for the examinee.

Oh yea about fairness. Let's take a look at another quote from this
transcript.


"And what we learned as we got into post conviction testing was that
post conviction testing, as opposed to what we've always historically
known in pre conviction testing, post conviction testing has a new set
of rules.  And those rules caused us to have to go back to the drawing
board, because if we don't, we find that we have a problem where we
have a good deal of utility, but flip-of-a-coin accuracy in opinions." [3]
 

Ouch! He is right we do need to go back to the drawing board. God I
hopeno one hands him the chalk. When back at the drawing board, we need to address ethics, restrictive trade practices, a ban on creating monopolies, and antitrust laws.

"And polygraph -- I testified once that polygraph is so strong as a science that if done even moderately well, it's going to work better than testifying.  So we will get a lot of information even if we're wrong in our opinions."  [4]

Well even is an opinion is wrong at least we got some information
right? Um, wait a minute. If there is a possibility that the final opinion is wrong, how does one validate that the information obtained is accurate information? Huh? Well I guess its right because Eric Holden "the polygraph guru" says it is.  And if anyone questions it, then they are blackballed, demonized and ridiculed.  You know kind of what you are failing to do right now.  I guess your little speech and hero worshipwould have sounded great if I didn't have all of this documentation toback up my story. Oh don't worry there is more.

Anyway let me move on to the final Eric Holden quote of the day. This
is taken from a transcript from an APA seminar which Eric Holden was thespeaker for this session. Mr. Holden, according to the transcript said

"If we can't make a post-conviction test comply with each and every one of those standardized questions and principles of a valid polygraph, we shouldn't be doing this unless we are willing to admit that the test we conduct is for utility purposes only, and not for accuracy of a professional opinion. Then we can take liberty with the testing rules; then we can take liberties with the standards and principles of practice.  Otherwise, wecannot, if we're not willing to say, "This is a utility test."  And I think examiners around the country, if you run a test, and youdon't believe that you defend each and every aspect of that test, then(indiscernible) mark it in the file, "This test was conducted for purposes of utility."  And therefore, you are given the latitude of not having to defend that this is everything met the standards of avalidated test.   

And I will promise you right now that 90 percent -- 80 to 90 percent of
PCSOT tests that you're conducting fall into the category of utility
tests, and not a test of diagnostic accuracy.  "

Oh so that is what a utility test is? OK, I get it now.  So, if an
examiner wants to take "liberty" with the testing rules and the
standards and principals of practice, than all one would have to do is
mark on the file. "This test was conducted for purposes of utility."
Examiners will be given "latitude" in defending the standards and
validity of the polygraph examination.  I do hope I interpreted that
correctly?  He sounds fair. You are right that he is trying to improve
PCSOT standards.  I am still trying to figure out if he is trying to
improve standards to benefit Eric Holden or the industry. 

Many of the other examiners have warned me about Eric Holden over the years, saying that Eric was only out for Eric.  I defended him up until a few months ago after I realized that they were right.  I have a news flash for you.  I know that no one has had the sand to say this, so I will.  Not many people in the polygraph industry really like Eric. They are just afraid of him.  Most examiners agree that Eric is a shameless self promoter.  Maybe that is why he did not come to Court. Because I am playing his game, only I have more resources than he had and a lawyer as half owner of Fenian.
Maybe you could have called me to get all the facts before you put your fingers on your little keyboard in an effort to discredit me.  Lucky
for me that I expected this because my posting was designed to weed you people out.  Thanks for being nothing if not predictable.  Can I ask
you what kind of positive feeling you got for trying to belittle me like
this?  I mean let's think about this.  You come to this forum and
makinga bad attempt at belittling me.  What is in it for you to do that?  Did that make you feel good? Are you doing it to help save your interest in a monopolistic closed market?  Or are you just that easy to manipulate that Eric Holden would offer you up just to try to see how much information I have?  What was in it for you?

I'll tell you what is in it for me coming to a place that I assure you
were a last resort because my pleas for help was ignored both before
and after I filed.  No one was even willing to talk to me before or after I filed.  I did make attempts to the point that I went to the TAPE
president and begged him to intervene.  The only person who was willing to handle this quietly was me.  No one cared.  No one gave a rat's ass that I was told a set of rules but wasn't told the secret rules of the game.  How on its face it says free choice but when you crack the shell it's about who has the secret decoder ring to see the hidden rules.  No one told me that JPCOT meant nothing and that I also had to have a license from Tarrant County CSCD, Michael Strain, Ezio Leite, Lawrin Dean, Deborah Moore, and all the rest of Gilligan's Island.  None of the other examiners were willing to offer help in any manner.  When I came into this, my sponsor told me that "there was more than enough business to go around for everyone".  I found a county where a new guy had a chance because of a "free choice market".  It was all lies and crap. You all lied to me.  I was told that this was a business filled with people of integrity.  I found nothing but lies, rumor mongering, greed and back stabbing. 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  This is a basic tenant of war and the attorneys on the defense table have made it very clear that this is a war and there will be no negotiations.  At least here I can speak and someone will listen.  I can say that something is very wrong and needs to be changed or at the very least brought to what was on paper. Yes, I am coming to the rescue.  For all the new examiners that will want to strike out on their own to grab their slice of the American Dream in afair and free market place, there is room and you know it.  I welcome competition.  Offer a good product at a good price and give a fair polygraph, which is not based on "gut feelings" or "utility".  Treat EVERYONE with a degree of fairness and then let the examinee make the decision to have a smooth test or a bumpy test.  Holden and Wood will always have filled spots but when it takes two to four weeks to get someone in, I can't help but to think that is not good for the community as a whole or public safety.  I am willing to test on Saturdays and Sundays, at no extra charge, for examinees that don't want to take the time off from work during the week or test in odd hours from 6pm to midnight for the people who work 2nd or 3rd shift.  That is called marketing to my target audience.  The problem is that everyone has gotten so comfortable with guaranteed business from this or that person because you gave the results that they want when someone new comes in
offering a fair independent product at a better price.  The new guy
can't market because by Deborah Moore's own admission, she doesn't openwhat looks like junk mail.   

I was set up to fail.  Michael Strain said it best when he said that
"this is the way probation wants it".   I started charging $175.00 a
test.  Then because the Judge refused to give me the level playing
field that I was told I would have, I lowered it to $125.00 just to compete when I got home from burying my mother in Boston.  Now, therapists are putting up road blocks by being extra slow in getting me information needed to run polygraphs on their probationers who choose me and their lawyers are not advising them to stop intentionally diverting business away from me.  I am an approved examiner on the list.  The list clearly states that the probationer may choose from the list.  Sometimes, when the probationer chooses me, he is told by his therapist that he has to use Wood or Holden until the lawsuit is complete.  Therefore I have lowered my prices to $75.00 just for that group until June 2008.  My prices are so low that they are all making my case for me.  I'll let them figure out what that means.  Let's see if they can think out of  the box for a few minutes.  Personally I feel that they can't even open a box without instructions in front of them explaining the process of opening a box and the legal paper work needed to open said box. (This was sarcasm people, if you were offended I don't care deal with it.)

This brings me to the point about how nice the polygraph examiners and therapists are.  The day of the first court hearing, I found out my
mother suddenly died.  I was an emotional wreck.  I was defending my
right to do business in a free market and facing down the barrel of no
less than four lawyers that want nothing more than to "end this in a
half an hour". I was in a room of therapists and not one of them even
came up and offered any sympathy at all.  There are people on death row that probably get more care or sympathy when their mom dies.  One of the other examiners wanted to be dismissed for the day because he had to commute home to Louisiana.  Well isn't that nice? MY MOTHER IS BEING PUT INTO THE COLD BOSTON GROUND, but I am supposed to feel bad for someone who wants to beat traffic.  There was another guy was expecting a new baby in his family. AW that is so sweet.  I didn't even get to see my mother one more time before they closed the lid.  He gets to see that baby every day. Everyone wanted something and everyone had an excuse.
  I had a dead mother and not a one person other than one examiner cared. He approached me, said he was sorry and then continued to tell me how wrong I was to do this. Nice! Yes these are the "nice" people you defend.  The people that are incapable of feeling empathy or sympathy. Eric Holden was at the hospital in me and my ex-wife's room giving the Godfather Trilogy to watch and hear me announce what I was going to name my new son, but he didn't even have the class to send a card or even fax a letter of condolence.

That is when I learned the caliber of humans I was dealing with.  I
dismissed a few people because they approached me with their situations that deserved some empathy. They were dealing with enough and didn't need this being added to the burden in their lives.  I had my lawyer nonsuit them so they could deal with their tragic family issues with a lighter heart.  It's funny how I am the one being made out to be the monster here, but the monsters are the very people that you defend.  Too bad I don't know who you really are so I could avoid keeping company with you, because birds of a feather...

I remember running tests for Ms. Moore in the past.  When I did perform tests for her I never heard of any dissatisfaction about my work.  She knew my name.  Joseph McCarthy is a hard name to forget.  I am willing to bet I am the only polygraph examiner in the county named Joseph McCarthy.  It would be hard to confuse me with someone else or say they have never heard of me.  I have been running tests for a few years.  She is THE reason I discovered this little scam when she made a choice to try taking presents from under my son's Christmas tree.  That was $175.00 less to make a Merry Christmas. I bet she had no problems putting presents under the tree.  But, maybe everyone else is entitled to put presents under their trees by intentionally pressuring someone else out of business and using a governmental agency to do their dirty
work because no one wants to take me on in a free market.


I do not know who you are.  Why do you care what professional
organization I belong to? What do they do for me anyway other than take my money and then charge me more money to take CEU's for a JPCOT certification that means nothing, all while doing their hardest to push me out of business along with the ring leaders Holden and Wood.  That is right.  Everyone who is a member of TAPE should take note.

TAPE is represented by the same lawyers that represent Holden and Wood. Funny thing is that no one knows how is paying this guy.  Are your membership dues going to pay for Holden's and Wood's defenses or at the very least cutting their costs at your expense?  It looks like yet more corruption.  Here is what is real scary to me about TAPE and their lawyer. 
   
You would think that the president of an association that is a
defendant in a legal action would be informed to consult in the hiring of an attorney.  Well there you go thinking again.  Don Ramsey didn't even know until I told him that TAPE was being represented by the same lawyers who represent Holden and Wood, which means that someone from the executive committee had to have hired the guy.  But who is on the defendant list and is also on the executive committee?  I believe that someone from Wood's office is on the executive committee. Wow.  It is another coincidence.  There have been a lot of them, haven't there?

I have a great idea. Trust me, this will make it easer to make a point
and have it stick.  I'm just trying to help which is more than what I
can say you are doing for me.  Next time you say there is no corruption or that there is no way anyone is on the take, maybe you should make sure that there are no appearances of impropriety that would make one believe or otherwise prove that there are issues.  I doubt that you'll take that advice, but at least I am giving you some.

As always, I am willing to talk.  Everyone else just wants to stand
firm when this whole thing can me worked out in two hours.  However, I am the one being unreasonable.  You guys are the ones that don't even believe in your own product enough to step up to the plate and let polygraph help solve this problem, but you are more than happy to put a possible truthful man away for 40 years using polygraph. 

Here is a simple rule.  Don't make anyone do something that you
wouldn't
do yourself.

Everyday, I will document this case and post documents of public record
either here in on a web site that I am still working in getting on
line.
As of today I am naming names, businesses, and actions. I am not going
to identify examinee's or discuss any detail of any polygraph as that
would be unethical. 

Next time, please get all the details before you start judging.  That
way, you can defend your judgments in an argument without looking
biased or bought.

I find it interesting that 20th anniversary year of EPPA. You know most
of the old timers say the same thing about EPPA. "Polygraph examiners did everything to make EPPA happen and we had no one to blame but ourselves". 

Well, examiners should notice history repeating itself here.  You're
doing everything to make my case to a jury and they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Thank you

by the way is $50 too much? Ah ok I might go as low as $25, the more you keep pissing and moaning about it I may go lower. Eventionally money will talk with these guys.  Well off to see my wonderful friends at the TAPE meeting. happy reading Donna, um Ray, wonder woman, (snicker) dragon lady. Maybe we should call her the hurricane. Strong at first and then ends in disaster.

Joe:

That was quite a story about Eric Holden and your situation there.  But, first off, let me say I am sorry to hear about your Mother.  It sucks to loose your parents, (I know from experience).  Probably the biggest shocker is to come to grips with your own mortality.  The dreams are kind of nice though, like you are still in touch on a cosmic level.  Anyway, please accept my condolences.

Regarding your situation there, I applaud what you are doing.  And, while you might not enjoy doing pre-employment polygraph tests for LE, you consider contacting the small departments in the outlying towns and offering a good, honest pre-employment polygraph for a decent price.  I bet you would scare up some decent business, to keep you going until the SO stuff got sorted out.  BTW, you are in for a ride (regarding the lawsuit). 

You also might consider contacting the local defense bar and offering polygraph services for their clients.  There should be a local association of D-FTW defense attorneys.

Good luck.

Joe McCarthy wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2008 at 11:44pm:


No, no, no, you don't get to lay out any rules!  The polygrapher is God, and the machine is 95% accurate.  That is what the last guy said, just a few months ago when I sat in the big chair for my last one, which, BTW, he refused to give me when I layed out my own rules. 

Also, it is not improper for someone in an institutional setting like a prison counseler who has a masters degree to call themselves a psychologist, although I believe now "counseler" would be a better term.  I should know, I have a BA in psychology, and was looking at getting a masters at one time.

Quote:


They don't let anyone post anything negative about the polygraph, either.

The polygraph community is pretty closed-minded, super sensitive, and defensive.

How do you expect them to act toward someone they see as a "turn-coat"?

Quote:


IOW, you don't allow an open discussion about the polygraph, and don't want both sides of the argument presented.   

Suppose a recent "false positive" posted on your board looking for answers.  Specifically, why they failed the polygraph despite the fact they were telling the truth.

If someone posted what the NAS report had to say about the topic of "false positives", would you allow it?

Or do you feel the NAS was out to "discredit the polygraph"?

Quote:


What is wrong with presenting both sides of the argument, and letting people (e.g. those false positives looking for answers) make up their own minds?

Or is polygraphy some kind of "secret society" like free masonry, or something?

TC

nopolycop wrote on Apr 29^th, 2008 at 7:56pm:


n.p.c.,

I am anti-polygraph.org's biggest promoter (amungst polygraph examiners, that is!).  I want every examiner to visit these pages, read TLBTLD, see what you (people) are posting and writing about.  It will, in the end, make us better examiners.

Sackett

P.S.  the only way this site could or would have had an effect on polygraph would have been to stay underground.  Then, we as a profession would never have known your playbook.  But, as you would have it, it is all here to read.  Life is good for us, keep talking...  You're just pissed off we don't address your CM training and our techniques in catching and identifying them.

LieGuyToo wrote on Apr 30^th, 2008 at 10:23pm:



Half truths and lies. Ok Little Wood. I can see that is the game you want to play. It's all about who gets the last shot in any fight.

That is the answer to my challenge? You can do better than half truths and lies, can't you?

Tell them about TAPE? Do you mean your little ambush? The one you were chewed out about by Don and Ray for being the cheap shot artists you are?

Does the light on your practices really hurt that much? You have to resort to name calling half truths and lies. I can tell you why we'll fight to the end. Can you tell me why you will fight to the end? Other than you hate me for exposing you.

I can give you reasons why the suit will survive. Can you give me reasons why it will be dismissed? 

By the way you need to look up fraudulent you pinhead. I have clear causes of action which your desperation proves you're afraid of. 

This could all be done in a few hours; you are the one that wants to stretch this for months.