St. Paul,

Why is Joe such a big threat, you ask?

Watch the videos Joe has made available. He maps out the whole thing.

Joe's polygraph challenge was a gutsy move, but the refusal of his detractors to resolve things that way is what really speaks volumes. 

Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com

Here's an interesting question.

Are these people more upset that Joe blew all this open, or are they more upset that it's the truth?

Wow, how Joe had this stuff and never used it against people is beyond me.  He must be getting soft in his old age.

Anywho

I think I found the exact time this got very personal to Joe.  Of course he can correct me if I am wrong.  I don't know the players in this clip.  Maybe when Joe is ready he'll clue us into some names.   

What I am curious about is the guy that called him a baby, does he still have knee caps?  There is no way he let that slide.   

One thing is clear, the taunting started from the beginning. I also hear two times where Joe offered solutions to these people to stop their lawyers fees.   

When going back to the posts of this time, you can see where Joe makes the first polygraph challenge.  When he says this "whole thing can be solved in two hours" he is clearly restating the challenge to their faces.  Funny how no one jumped at that chance.  Room full of polygraph examiners and not a one brave enough to test him?  Seriously?

The second time is when he said recognition of some list, and the whole thing would stop.   

Two totally free options and one goat banging hick outright says, not going to happen.   

At what point to these people start taking responsibility for their decisions?

And that guy putting him on the spot like that.  I am honestly shocked that didn't end with Joe laying him out.  He must really like that guy or someone was there holding his chain.  WOW I can totally see why the whole family was told to stay out of it.  Wow

Thinking someone needs a trip home to reconnect with his roots and send him back to TCB.   

This video has just pissed me off.  Watching him take their shit was uncomfortable.  The way he was before he left Boston, these people should be counting their blessings.  Wow

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.  The guy in front appears in another video talking about something that even made me uncomfortable.  Need to talk to Joe before I put that one up.  Seriously, it's awkward.  Then there was a birth day surprise for one of them.  Need to talk to Joe about that one too.  What I can say is she must have been from the noon shift and she had to have been seriously stoned and a face that would scatter a leper colony.  Looks like a different place though so it must have been a different convention.

Anyway, if he gives the go ahead, you'll see those soon.

Quote:


I don't know this guy personally, but I don't understand his rhetoric.  He never really says what he is upset about other than someone sent him a private message that was derogatory and potentially threatening.  He's the one who publicly posted it.  Obviously, it was from a hideous person (in my opinion) but why post it?  What would it accomplish if the Association made a public statement about a private message that was sent to Joe even if the person who apparently sent it was on the Board of Directors of the Association?  I also understand that this person fled the country when he was fired and an embezzlement investigation was started.  Why would the Association want to have anything to do with that person as well?  I don't believe he is even a member anymore.  If Joe was so upset about it, why didn’t he file a Grievance with the Association instead of just demand that they do something?  He doesn’t seem to understand how to follow procedures.

I am not a polygraph examiner and I was not a party in the lawsuit, but I've followed the lawsuit and I didn't understand why he brought all of the polygraph examiners into a lawsuit.  And isn't that barratry for his wife, who was an owner of the polygraph company with Joe, to file a lawsuit (litigation for the purpose of harassment or profit).  Since she is now disbarred due to the multiple grievances filed against her, I guess she wasn't really a very good lawyer (in my opinion).  She also had a felony theft case filed against her.  It is public record, you can look it up.  To be fair, it was dismissed after she made restitution and served a deferred adjudication probation.  Now if I was Joe, I would have left that last sentence off.

Obviously I haven't seen the paperwork that Joe sent to you, but you have only heard one side of the story.  I know that the Association that he sued probably doesn't want him to be a part of their organization -- who could blame them?  I know that the polygraph examiners and therapists that he sued don't want to have anything to do with him – who could blame them?  He had “free legal” and they had to pay out the nose for attorneys to represent them.  From what I understand many of the polygraph examiners he sued didn’t even know who he was before the lawsuit was filed.  Even though he would have you believe that everyone knew exactly who he was and they were afraid of his polygraph prowess (in my opinion).

Anyone who has a business understands that there are many hard hours put in and no one hands you work, you have to earn it.  At the time he filed the lawsuit, he had been an examiner for just a few years.  Many of the examiners he sued had ten times as much experience as he had, not to mention experience as police officers, etc.  Ask him what he expected to get out of the lawsuit?  He really never has said what he expected to gain by filing a lawsuit against a bunch of therapists and polygraph examiners.  No doubt they were very angry at him and filed countersuits for harassment.  I’d be a little bit angry too if someone filed a lawsuit on me out of the blue.  I think most people would probably agree with me (in my opinion).  I noted one place where he blamed his attorney for not filing timely paperwork and said she wasn’t a very good lawyer.  Of course, remember that this same attorney was his wife and a co-owner of the business.   

As far as the numbers and percentages he likes to quote from 2008, that’s old news, and who really cares?  I’m not saying that sex offenders or anyone else required to take a polygraph doesn’t deserve a fair shake.  They most certainly do.  But who appointed Joe as the spokesman for them?  If they don’t feel like they got a fair shake, then maybe they should file a lawsuit – Oh, yeah, they don’t all have “free legal” do they?  

What about his current attorney wife?  Oh yeah, did he mention that he is divorced from the 2008 attorney and is married to another one?  I’m sure someone will provide him with a link to this post and he will start spouting all sorts of nonsense, which I certainly won’t respond to because what purpose would it serve for me to respond?  I haven’t said anything that isn’t the truth, right?  You can check my facts.  I assure you that I have fact checked everything I’ve written.

IN MY OPINION, Joe probably doesn’t really have what it takes to be a good polygraph examiner and that’s why he doesn’t have a lot of business.  That’s why he likes to get on this site and make all sorts of wild accusations that he claims to have evidence of, but never really lays out what his grievance is exactly, except one person sent him derogatory and threatening private messages and the association that he sued doesn’t want him to come to any of their meetings or seminars – because sex offenders might just believe what he spouts and call him up for a polygraph.  That is unless I have missed something ...

And this business about everyone taking polygraphs -- that's just ridiculous!  Polygraph examiners taking polygraphs?  Really, and what are they supposed to take polygraph about?  He never really says, does he?  You can correct me if I'm wrong, but if you believe what you are saying, then you would pass a polygraph right?  What if I truly believed I was abducted by aliens, could I pass a polygraph on that?  Well, I have no doubt that Joe believes what he is saying, even if I don't understand what it is he's trying to say.  Does anyone not believe that a hideous person sent him a derogatory and threatening email?  Nope, I believe that.  Does anyone not believe that an association that he sued doesn't want him to be a part of the association or get any benefit from the association?  Nope, I believe that too.  Does anyone believe that the polygraph examiners and therapists he sued don't like him?  Nope, I believe that too.  So what exactly would he take a polygraph over that would cause him to give up his license if he failed?    And what exactly would he expect the polygraph examiners that he has challenged to take a polygraph over that they might fail?  I don't see how a polygraph examination would benefit anyone in this scenario, so why would anyone in their right mind take him seriously?

Nope.  Just an observer.  I will not post on a string where Joe has posted.  St Paul was kind enough to post on this string.   I have no desire to debate someone who so clearly has no clue (in my opinion).  I don't believe there was one word in my post defending the Texans.

Dan Mangan wrote on Jul 15^th, 2015 at 12:44pm:


Mr. Mangan --

I am a researcher and writer.  I researched each and every one of my statements.  They were not written to impugn anyone's character -- unlike the numerous posts by Joe.  So I can only assume that you were referring to his impugning rather than mine.  If you (or anyone of you) have the knowledge and ability, you could easily find the corroboration for them.   

I am "morbidly curious" as well as to what made you think that posting on an ANTIpolygraph website would aid in your election as an officer of an association whose purpose is "providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field" and which includes among its goals -- "Encouraging and supporting research, training and education to benefit members of the Association as well as those who support its purpose and by providing a forum for the presentation and exchange of information derived from such research, training and education."   

I assure you that there were no red herrings in my post.  It contained either verifiable fact or my opinion.

Well good luck to you.  I'm not a polygraph examiner nor obviously a member of APA.  I've been watching this site since 2008 and I don't have the same perception of it as apparently you and 28% of voting APA members.  I've said my piece and will probably go silent for another seven years or so unless something causes me to feel the need to comment further.