Quote:

So countermeasures do work? Imagine that.

William, do yourself a favor and lose the cliches.

What a singularly repulsive fellow.

To: Bill_Brown

That would be nice, but here is what happened the last time I tried to prove my innocence using the polygraph.

Remember, I was accused of sexually harassing potential employees of the Sheriff's Department way back in 1985. Eight month's after they were tested and the third day of a front page Lakeland Ledger Newspaper article about the Sheriff's hiring practives?

The first examination was administered in Orlando, FL by a firm called Les Levy & Associates.  They sent a report to the Sheriff calling my charts deceptive.  I asked for a re-test and was denied. (Sheriff paid)

Next, I went to a firm called Argenbright & Associates, Inc., Tampa, FL run then by, now, Florida Polygraph Association, vice president, private sector, Wade Moss.  He sent a report calling me deceptive, but to my face called me inconclusive. I told Wade Moss not to send a report anyone because Moss said it was inconclusive. (I paid)

Next, I flew to the University of Utah, Psychology  Department for testing by Dr. David Raskin and Dr. Charles Honts, both University professors and researchers for the Department of Defense.  After a battery of tests were administerd they called my test results truthful. (I paid for this test)

The University of Utah, polygraph report was forwarded to the Sheriff.  The Sheriff called me into the office and told me that he would not accept the truthful report by Dr. Raskin & Dr. Honts because I paid for the test myself. Great logic on the part of the Sheriff. Imagine that???

I was only tested by, at that time, the premier academic polygraph testing and research center in the world. Don't figure.

And you guys want me to submit to testing & diagnostics by whom???  Like I said before, Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

When I filed my lawsuits against Moss and Levy, we sent an investigator with a subpoena to get charts and score sheets. Even though, at that time, the State of Florida Licensed Polygraph Examiners and the administrative law clearly stated that all work product was to be saved for three (3) years, you guessed it, no charts were ever found to exist.

But that was probably my fault because I told Argenbright, Moss and Levy that Dr. Raskin was going to be called in and get a piece of their ass!!!  No wonder the charts disapeared.

I was, finally, cleared of all wrong doing after a five day administrative hearing in 1986 (See attached file).
Dr. William Yankee, former Director of Department of Defense, Polygraph Institute was called in by my attorney's to testify that I ran a good test on the women and followed professional rules of conduct. That accusation cost me $34,000.00 in attorney fees, and my license was suspended for eight months. Don't figure!!!

Thank you, State of Florida, for having such strict standards for polygraph examiner conduct.  I guess those standards only were applicable to me.  The incompetent examiners, Argenbright, Moss and Levy were never sanctioned or diciplined for destroying charts and sending false reports to the Sheriff.

Now, Law Enforcement and Florida Polygraph Association is all up in arms and want to re-instate licensing laws because of the complaints that are being made against me.  Why don't they see if the allegations are true, first.

Remember the term, Rush to Judgement?

William Mccallister

To: Bill_Brown

Since you know this to be true, tell me where polygraph examination results have been admitted in State court over the objections of prosecutors.

William McCallister

Quote:


Quote:


The dog hunts!  You should be familiar with cases in your state and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  According to the case below, you have a right to have polygraph admitted in Florida Courts under your circumstances.  Check with your attorney.  I come up with this "Stuff" when I watch Appellate Court Cases and US Supreme Court Cases.  

United States v. Piccinonna, 885 F.2d 1529 (11th Cir. 1989) 

Eleventh Circuit held that polygraph results are admissible (1) when the parties stipulate to admissibility in advance of the test; or (2) when the polygraph results are used to impeach or corroborate the testimony of a witness. In the latter circumstance, the party seeking to introduce the polygraph results must provide adequate notice to the opposing party; the opposing party must be given adequate opportunity to have its own polygraph expert administer a test covering substantially the same questions; and the evidence must be admissible under the rules governing corroboration or impeachment.

To: Bill_Brown

Can you give me a cite, so I can see this for myself?
A cite pertaining to Florida law, specifically.

To: Bill_Brown

Just as I thought, no case in Florida supports your position on this issue. It is, therefore, a moot point, right?

You made the claim, can't back it up and explain it away by telling me to do the research, right.