But again, for now they are here to stay and at least down here being expanded.  So my question here is, would you rather have someone doing it that is fair, unbiased and doesn't play the inconclusive game; or would you rather have people running these test that can't follow their own bylaws, will lie, libel and slander their own kind and most of all abuse the INC call?

Again, numbers speak for themselves

UPDATE

I know I promised a video entitled "WHAT IS JPCOT AND WHO ARE THEY," and I have not been ignoring that promise.

However, documentation has just recently come into my possession that has put the finalizing of that on hold till the end of the month when I go to South Texas and confirm the veracity of said documentation from the confidential source.

If this document is verified, it will blow the issue of JPCOT out of the water and identify recent committee members.  I am actually kind of excited about this because, if this document proves to be true, it will be the first verifiable proof of the existence of a JPCOT Committee in the State of Texas after TAPE and its Lawyers denied the existence of during the lawsuit in 2008.  To see it on paper is one thing, I want to see the actual email on a computer screen before I commit to this document because of the people involved.  

In accordance to the agreement made between me and the source of this information; if it turns out that what I have is as indisputable and undeniable as the gentleman claims, I will update the video accordingly, and the source will remain confidential.  

If I cannot verify the document, I will update here accordingly and expose the person who tried to pass off inaccurate information for the purposes of full disclosure and fairness.

Thank you for your Patience

Joe McCarthy wrote on May 20^th, 2015 at 12:57am:

Patience you mean...Freudian slip?

Ex Member wrote on May 20^th, 2015 at 1:24am:



No no no no

That is the approved polygraph examiners JPCOT list.

I am talking about a committee, people who make decisions on behalf of JPCOT.  I held out in my lawsuit that TAPE had a hand in rule making for JPCOT, and if a trial had happened, two TAPE newsletters were going to be admitted into evidence that in 2005, TAPE met to discuss changes in the JPCOT guidelines and therefore, TAPE was JPCOT.  See attached document

If I remember my responses and discovery correctly, TAPE denied that there was even a JPCOT committee after 1998.  

If this document is correct, it shows the existence of a JPCOT committee.  This would mean the existence of two polygraph rule making authorities in Texas.  The TDLR, which had to take over licensing and regulating the Texas Polygraph Industry because the Board of Polygraph Examiners could no longer be trusted to make decisions that put the State of Texas over their own personal conflicts of interest.

https://www.sunset.texas.gov/public/uploads/files/reports/Polygraph%20Examiners%...

See bottom of key findings

Then another Committee with the ability to make rules that may have a direct tie back to The Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners as it appears, on this presently unverified document, that one of the members of this "Committee" is a current sitting officer of TAPE, and was at the time of the production of said document, and was an officer of TAPE at the time my lawsuit was pending.  

So, if I can verify the authenticity of this document, and I can find pleadings of TAPE denying the existence of a JPCOT Committee, TAPE might be having some questions to answer.  

Follow me now?

There are other possible implications to this, but I will save that for if/when I have verify this document. 

Yes, I follow you now Joe. You've presented so much info recently, it may be a good idea to put it all into a cliff notes version so readers can see what your real beef is.

Ok, I am kinda glad I took my time with this.  

There is much going on right now down here that is just plain interesting to me.  

Before I start, I know this post is long; and I am sorry.  Rest assured everything in this post has a reason for being here.  Doing it this way beats making multiple posts.  So again, please forgive the lone post, but there is a reason for it.  Cliff Notes Version of seven years of abuse and bullshit is not easy.

Anyway,  my beef, which I think I have made clear in the past is both simple and complicated.  The principals are so simple; right and wrong.  The Devil is in the details.  Belive me, I wish I could simplify this, but nothing is ever simple when polygraph is involved and when you threaten the status quo or the fiefdom like markets, there are people in the industry who live to make things more complicated.

There’s only one thing that the general polygraph community  (outside the State of Texas) and myself find each other being basically the same page.  I have been told, up and down the ladder; “this is an issue best handled by the courts.”  This is the beef that I have and the general polygraph community has about this situation; or so I’ve been told.  

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THIS!  

However, at this time, I cannot file a libel and slander suit, as the statute of limitations laws have run out on all the clear actions on my end.  If I filed a lawsuit, I’d be doing so in violation of the law and therefore, the suit would be considered a frivolous lawsuit.  Also, all the actions which have been taken recently in regard to libel and slandering me through the spread of current incidents of misinformation, people have been hiding where the information came from. As such I cannot directly attach it to the other side with 100% certainty at this point in time.  

This is the difference between truthful and untruthful people.  Truthful people have no problems with being attached to what they say or what they do.  Untruthful people like distancing themselves from the lies they tell; and if someone calls them on their lies, they offer no clear explanation or evidence and simply try to drown out the truth with noise because they have little else to work with.  

So, this being said, if there is to be a chance of the issue being settled in court, the other side would have to file against me. 

If they’re so insistent that I’m defaming them, this should not be a problem.  So, every time I get on AP, I make clear and provable accusations that I can prove to be true.  When I do state opinion, I do my best preface it as opinion.  

Now, having said this; I can prove that Maria’s a liar and a cheat.  She’s a charlatan who sells a product, that her actions show, she has no faith in to clear her own name or use in her own life.  These are facts evidenced by her past behaviors.    

This woman is just a really bad person, in my opinion, with no moral character or sense of decency. She is a liar, a backstabber, and everything she says should be examined for the truth in my opinion.   I would suggest that no one take anything that woman says at face value; fact check everything.

This is how she and the people around her from TAPE work, and I base this off the past.  Once she gets it in her mind that she has a vendetta, she will say or write anything to carry that vendetta out to the fullest; weather true or not.  Bottom line, if you don't benefit her or stroke her ego, you are of no use to her and you are nothing more than someone to sell down the river if doing so would be more beneficial. 

This is just a warning to people you don't know any better.

If you watch and videos all the way though, (yes I know they are long) and look at the supporting documentation, it is pretty clear that Ms. Hubbard lacks credibility and will manipulate facts to get what she wants.  Sorry but the evidence doesn’t lie.  

When she is called out on her lies, the only weapon she and the rest of the TAPE leadership have are finger pointing, lies, and exaggeration with no facts to back them up.  That is how these people work.  Basically if you scream your lies loud enough, lies become the truth.  That is their plan of attack.

Honestly, I don’t know how she has any credibility left anywhere.   If she will lie on an ethics complaint to a president of a polygraph association, if she will lie to an ethics committee or to a tribunal (I assume she stuck to her story), what is to stop her from lying in a court, or on some paper work?  

It makes sense, if you will lie just to hurt someone to achieve a vendetta, you will lie to hurt anyone if you think it has some benefit.  Isn’t this something that is a core belief in polygraph?  

If she doesn’t like what I said, take me to court.  Prove I am lying.  I wish her and her co-plaintiffs the best of luck.  After all, the private polygraph associations have said this is an issue that needs to be handled by the courts; I have just handed to her and to TAPE and all parties’ involved fresh causes of action.  

So, I suggest Maria and TAPE leadership to stop trying to drag people who want nothing to do with the Texas fight into the Texas fight.  I also wish that associations would stay out of it unless they want to mediate an end.  If you can’t be part of the solution, don’t be a part of the problem.   Don’t say it’s an issue to be handled in the court and then take up the fight for yourselves.

If the private polygraph associations TRULY believe this should be handled in the courts (which is the advice I have been given), then I would hope they would advise Ms. Holden…. I mean Hubbard…. to do the same rather than drag them into this.  At this point, the private polygraph associations insist they want nothing to do with this; we will see if that is true when Maria files her next bullshit complaint about this post.

Basically, if they don’t file suit against me, the issue must not be important enough to want to clear their name publicly and get satisfaction, so why should a private association take the complaint seriously?  Just tell them the same thing I been told, “this is an issue to be handled by the courts.” Then don’t get involved dragging whatever organization into the court battle.   I want to keep this in Texas if I can.

Fact is, I have BEGGED the private associations to mediate this.  Either they refuse to handle this fairly behind closed doors or they say they have no jurisdiction.  SO, where else am I to go?  I have no other recourse.  AP is the last place I can go and be heard.  

As to the general polygraph community who are flipping out that I came back here.  It is the general leadership and their attitude that I should just lay down and take it over making waves that forced me here because there is no other recourse available to have my grievances heard fairly and evidence presented that there is a clear problem in Texas; a problem that goes right to the top of the Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners.  If you don’t like that I have come here, look at all the times I tried to handle this privately.  Remember how the issues I wanted to address fell on mostly deaf ears, or worse yet ignored over one word.  Look back at all the times I warned that this was the next logical step for me.  Then, look at the inactions or the way my grievances were marginalized and outright ignored.  Then look in the mirror and take some responsibility.  

better yet, look at the deal that was made between me and TAPE in October 2014.  A deal that TAPE went back on in 24 hours.  I wonder how much Maria had to do with nixing that deal?  No I don't. I already know.

Any accusations that this is where I wanted to go all along are bullshit.  Any accusations that I stir the pot are made out of ignorance or an outright fabrication if you look at the history between 2009 and 2014.  Anyone who says I did not make every effort to avoid coming back to AP, make yourselves known to me at APA so I can look you in the eye and call you a liar.  I don’t care who you are, how long you been in the business, what you have done for polygraph in the past.  A lie is a lie. If you are willing to lie and you are important, that importance should be re-examined.  If you lie and you have been in this business for a long time, you need to be reminded what we do.  Lastly, you may have done important stuff in the last, but lying to yourself or others does not create a positive example for the next generations of examiners to live up to.

Everything I have posted up to this point has been for the benefit of giving them new causes of action against me if I am lying.  If this is something that needs to be handled in court, I am literally handing you people a written invitation.  What more do you want, an embossed invitation?  

All they have to prove is that I am lying.  Of course they could have done that with polygraph anywhere from 2008 to the start of this new year; but that ship has sailed and it's made for great marketing.

Here this will explain it better

What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1      A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2      The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3      If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4      Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
•      Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
•      Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
•      Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
•      Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.
An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted.

http://www.texaslegalweb.com/index.php?page=article&id=93

If this is the only way I can be heard fairly and have the opportunity to clear my own name against the defamation, slander and libel that Hubbard, Holden, Parker, TAPE et al have engaged in since 2009 that have damaged me, I will fight that fight.  

Moreover, I've been told that it is easier and less costly to defend this kind of an action than it is to prosecute.  Hell after the jury is done finding in my favor, TAPE may have to dissolve and other examiners will be broke after paying my legal bills and damages.

I promise I'll take it to trial.  Even if the case is dropped by the plaintiffs side, I will not drop my counterclaim.  I will make TAPE and the examiners involved prove up their case.  Bottom line, if they file, I promise there will be a trial.  I will let a jury decide who is lying and telling the truth.  I office in Dallas County and live in Collin; pick which jurisdiction you want to do it. there will be no motions of summery judgment, let’s take it to trial and let a jury decide.  Talk is cheap, it’s post time.

I also see this as a public service.  The Texas Public needs to know what kind of people are running an industry that is entrusted in protecting Texas’s children from convicted sex offenders.  Sex offenders need to also know whom they are giving their money to also.  Are the people being tested getting a 100% fair, independent, and unbiased test?  IS that not our DUTY and obligation? To give fair independent and unbiased tests.  How can me demanding that be a bad thing?

By coming here I'm creating a public data base and repository of information that I have no control of.  Once it is here, here it will stay forever.  Kinda makes some people regret not taking me more serious privately huh?  

I know this is working already as I been informed that lawyers are asking for charts more and there is a movement to more carefully scrutinize what we do in Texas.  

I'll admit it, I been teaching lawyers on both sides of the fence how to score charts.  So I think both sides will be watching us examiners much more closely.  Sorry Richard, I guess the days of your mass inconclusive rates will be coming to a permanent end.  Sucks to be you huh?

Thinking of expanding this class to other areas.  NOTE:  I WILL NEVER TEACH A CLASS ON PERFORMANCE OF COUNTERMEASURES.  I BELIEVE IN POLYGRAPH AND LOVE WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING.  Don't mistake my dislike for a lot of the people in the business and their behavior for a weakening in my strong and unwavering belief in the product.  For me, I believe in the product I sell, even if I have given up on the people.  

Personally, I think everyone in the Tarrant County system should be demanding charts from Wood's and Associates given their past history with a large inconclusive rate.  Charts should be reviewed, past present and future to be sure history hasn't or won't repeat itself.    

If you are reading this and are a part of that 45% in 2008, I would consult an attorney who specializes in DTPA.  Sorry 45% inconclusive rate on a test that boasts 89 to 94% accuracy and reliability?  Come on, do you buy that?  Never mind, clearly you did.  What’s sad is because this happened over two years ago, the records have probably already been destroyed.  I would love to know if mass inconclusive rates are still happening, but I doubt you’d get accurate numbers out of anyone because we are not mandated to keep track of that kinda thing under the law.

Also, did you know that Erick Jay Holden, Rick Holden (I am assuming this is Eric Sr), Clayton Wood and Robert Young have been enjoined from being in the presence of certain children?  (I can prove this though official court documentation) More on that later.  Seems interesting that people who claim to be protecting children are enjoined from being around a couple of them in the child’s best interests.  Hmmmmmmmmm.  One can only speculate as to why, but I doubt anyone will give me or anyone else an honest answer given their history of lies and secretive nature.  

Oh what a tangled web, huh Clayton, Eric and Jay?

Hey Clayton, does the wife know you been enjoined from having an “intimate or dating relationship” with Maria, around her children between the hours of 9pm and 8 am?  Well, I guess she knows now huh?  

Again, it’s not defamation if it is the truth, and this is a TRO, signed by a Judge.  Maybe you should explain what that intimate nature is given that you are not a family member of the Hubbard’s.  Don’t like what I said Clayton? Well to quote you form the TAPE conference in Fort Worth in 2008, “cry baby.”  I think your wife may want to start asking questions about what was so “intimate” about your relationship with Maria.

She can always call me for a copy of the order....... naaaaa better yet, I'll just cut out the middleman and attach it to the post.  That's me, Mr. Helpful.  I wonder Clayton, if your wife asks you to take a polygraph to prove no funny business, my polygraph chair is waiting for ya.  Hell, I won't even charge for the test.  I may very well be the only way she will get a fair test as everyone else can say whatever you want them to and she would probably never know the difference.  Naaaaaaaaa, you would run from the test just has you have in the past.

Now a lot of people will say I have gone too far; I disagree.  These are people who have shown me no quarter in the past, why should I extend that same courtesy?  I give what I get.  

This is the choice they made boys and girls.  This war, at this time last year was private. Maria made the choice to escalate this to the next level.  I was nice and quite publically until this time last year, the choice to escalate was yours Maria.  You kicked a sleeping dog and the rest of you decided to join in thinking I would be too scared to fight back.

How is that working for you now?  How any of you don’t see Maria as the liability that she is, well, it’s shocking to me; especially you Clayton.  Maria's totally a liability to you at this point one would think.  I doubt your wife would be comfortable with you being around her now.  

How people don’t see that there are some integrity issues here with Jay, Rick, Clayton, Maria and whoever this other guy is, is puzzling.  Am I the only one that sees an integrity issue with Maria and Clayton, both married people, and both on the TAPE executive committee, being attached to one another in a publicly filed document as having an “intimate” relationship?  Wait, weren’t Maria and Clayton both officers in TAPE while my ethics complaint was being investigated, heard and voted on behind my back?  Hmmmmmmmm the plot thickens.  Not to mention that Jay was doing the hunka chunka with Maria at the same time.  Wow, depending on how one looks at this document, one can easily speculate that Maria has been plucked more time than a Texas Bluebonnet in spring from within TAPE alone.  Oh what a tangled web.  

Now, given Rick’s previous history (https://antipolygraph.org/documents/holden-sexual-harassment.shtml) women from within the industry, well one can only speculate as to the intimate relationship there? Not making any accusations, just asking questions based on the TRO.  Everyone can make their own speculations.  But Rick, I am sure your wife may want to ask you what kind of "intimate" or dating relationship you had with her.  Did she know you were enjoined from being in the presence of children in those children's best interests?  Hmmmmmmmmmm

Personally, at this point, I am shocked no one has told Maria to knock it off with her little vendetta and hope the dog goes back to sleep. 

I do think that simply letting the dog go back to sleep may be the smart way to go. One has to wonder, what else does Joe know?  What other interesting documentation does Joe have like emails that show Maria as a member of the JPCOT committee and emails within that committee that have statements like, “I think we should keep dialogue  within our group.....”  Oh what the hell, I'll just attach that one document too, let otter people decide what to make of it. Who, how many, and how close are the informants who are talking to Joe?  Are they just informing on Maria or are there other players?  All answers in due time. The answers will be surprising and unlikely.  Rats ratting on rats, ya just got to love it.  There is always a rat.

So my suggestions to TAPE and to the other polygraph examiners who are pissed that the real truth is coming out, first look at Maria.  Everything over the past year in regard to the reestablishment of hostilities points back to her.  Then look at yourselves for playing along with her vendetta.  All I am doing is defending myself in the only way the polygraph community has left me.  Don’t kick a sleeping dog and not expect you’ll get bit. 

At one point I was quiet, she decided to be instigator from the first conference last year to recent.  You know I can be controlled when left alone.  It seems to me, the X factor here is the person who just won't let go of a vendetta.  Is it really a good idea to keep someone like this around and in a position of power?  Think about it.

Personally, I think the best thing to do is to give the dog a steak and let the dog go back to sleep.  But oh how Maria loves to kick.  

But for now, it is time the public know what kind of people are running the polygraph industry in Texas.  They are the kind of people who cover up threatening and racist emails from a member of their own Board of Directors.  People who refuse to follow their own bylaws.  The kind of people who have an interest in protecting one another and their messed up relationships they have with one another internally.  People who use lies, intimidation, treats of harm, sexually harassing and racist anonymous emails, false allegations, set up ethics committee investigations and fraud to silence a whistleblower.  Their actions, in my opinion, show them to be people of questionable character and little to no integrity.  At this point, Maria and those involved will play the victim.  Fact is they’re not victims; they’re bullies and manipulators on a level that far surpasses that of the very people they test.

They will claim that I am the bully, and I hope they do.  Making this claim would be to admit that this group of Big Bad Texans is being pushed around and picked on by one Yankee Masshole.  Wow, doesn’t that get your 
"Big Bad Texan Membership" Card taken away from you?  So go ahead, make that claim.  That one man is picking on all of you and that you are all victims of one Masshole in the middle of TEXAS.  Oh that would be awesome.  Talk about an ego boost.  One Masshole Yankee made a bunch of Texans scatter like roaches on Texas soil.  WOW!  I guess the truth is in fact a mighty weapon, and the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.  

Hey I have an idea, lets do this.  HONESTY GAME!!!!!! 

Is there any polygraph examiner on this message board (and I know there are a lot of you), that is willing to log in under your real name and admit that you have a 45% inconclusive rate or defend a 45% inconclusive rate?  Remember, log in under your REAL name.  Don’t be a coward and hide behind a screen name.  What about you Maria, I know you are obsessively checking this, defend the 45% inconclusive rate of Clayton’s company………  What about you Clayton, some of this 45% inconclusive of the 91% of Tarrant County Offenders are yours; defend it.  Anyone? Explain why 45% inconclusive of 91% of an entire market is acceptable?  

See, if I'm lying, there is another cause of action Clayton and Richard.  Call Ned, I’m sure he would love to have in on this.  I'll by the coffee and donuts.  I promise to be kinder and more reasonable this time Ned.  Well, at least till everyone else starts being difficult.  

I can’t wait for my day in court.  I feel pretty good with a jury with the evidence I have.  SO you feel good with the lies you guys have?

From 2009 to 2014, I have played by the status quo that TAPE, Hubbard, Holden, Parker, Sheppard, Ervin et al set.  TAPE and Ms. Hubbard made me realize last year that the status quo can be changed at any point they wish and that I was being held to their lies and vicious libel and slander at their will and pleasure.

NO MORE

I’m changing the status quo to the truth; and they HATE that.  So much so, that instead of letting the law handle this or resolving and fixing the problem behind closed doors, they will no doubt use internal, non public hearings where they have the advantage because 

1, The polygraph community lacks the courage to call the liars to the plate because to do so would mean they would have to admit that the golden children in polygraph are not so shinny.

2, The polygraph community would rather take the path of least resistance and silence me to ostracism than actually listen to me and look at the evidence.  After all, best way to silence the truth is to bury it instead of looking at it.  This was made very clear to me over the years

3, They can make up or change the rules to suit their own needs and no one will ever know because it happened outside the public eye and the internal system lacks transparency and public accountability.

Thems da facts

I’m going to lay everything out, publically, document by document, fact by fact until they decide they want me to stop and they ask me nicely, and with hat in hand.  Or if what I present are lies, they can take the advice of national polygraph leaders and settle this out in court.  Personally, at this point, I hope they will want to settle this out in court; but I will leave the door open for private discussions.

Point by point, it lays out like this.

The Texas polygraph industry at its top and administration is corrupt at best and sick and twisted at worst.  There are people in positions and seats of power that lack moral character and integrity to run a business that is designed to verify the character and moral integrity of others (or lack thereof).

The polygraph industry in general is either incapable or unwilling to address or fix the root problem and is much more eager to make efforts to ignore, marginalize, or silence the whistle blower rather than examine and fix the real issue.  This must be fixed.  

There is no system in place to hold state organizations accountable or responsible when their own bylaws are ignored or tossed out the window.  There is no internal process in place to assure that ALL are given equal protect under industry bylaws and that said bylaws are followed in regard to giving those accused of ethics violations due process as it is spelled out in bylaws.  Again, it is easier to make up the rules as they go along or ignore bylaws, which were put in place to protect the accused as much as those making accusations.

They polygraph industry scoffs at the idea of using the very test it holds out to be anywhere from 89 to 94% accurate and reliable to settle issues within the industry before the issues get out of hand.  (something I have been asking for since 2008 and the other examiners involved have actively run away from)

If we are to be a credible and trusted industry, we need to do a better job of earning that trust and credibility.  

This industry (in Texas) must be free of the “gatekeeper” mentality, which has been SOP in Texas for years.  It is a mentality that got the Board of Polygraph Examiners taken away from us and put in the hands of TDLR.  Of this there can be no doubt as the Sunset Commission has clearly reported that that Board has made decisions that was in direct conflict with the people of Texas and in their own self benefit.  Even the Sunset Commission in Texas implied the Texas Polygraph Industry corrupt by documenting that decisions were made in the best interests of Board members over The People of Texas.  Sorry people, these are the facts.

The days of 45% inconclusive rates have to go, PERIOD.  Also, I feel it is in the best interests of the polygraph industry to investigate that 45% inconclusive rate and make sure that it is not an ongoing problem.  Sorry a 45% inconclusive rate is unacceptable by any scientific standard, especially when the community in general boasts a 89 to 98% accuracy and reliability rate.  If you disagree, log in under your own name and tell me why it’s acceptable if you are man or woman enough to do so.

Lying on or making material misstatements on an ethics committee complaint, or to an ethics committee, or to a tribunal should not be tolerated and should be punished by public reprimand.

An Ethics Committee lying on a report should be harshly condemned and the guilty party should be expelled from every Association for which that person has affiliation.  Zero Tolerance.

Any executive committee or board of director caught intentionally not following bylaws should be publically reprimanded and removed from office.  Zero Tolerance.

Sorry, polygraph leadership should be held to a higher standard, as they should know better.

Improper relationships within the industry should not be tolerated.  From what I see, there is some sick shit happening here in Texas, within the executive committee of TAPE.  This is evidenced in the TRO filed in Huntsville.  I just love how there is no denying court documents.  

We need to be an industry that should treat others on the level and our actions be square with the character our business is supposed to promote.

All I'm trying to do is inspire ethical conduct in the polygraph industry in the only way that they have left me to do so.  This is the game the Texas polygraph industry has laid out

I believe in the product I sell, so much that I bet my future on it.  Has any other examiner ever done that publically?  If you are an examiner, would you put your own career on the line with the very test you sell?  If so, log in under your real name and be man or woman enough to declare it publically like I have.  If you can’t or won’t, you have no place to judge me, and you need to examine why you would sell a product you don’t believe in to use yourself.  You should also consider you to be a thief, as every dollar you take, you are stealing from someone you consider a sucker.  Lastly, if you don’t believe in the product you sell enough to put your life on the line with it when the chips are down, then go look in the mirror and tell yourself “I am a failure and a charlatan.”  Because, in my opinion, that is what you are.   SHAME ON YOU.

There is my beef

I am actually hoping that the industry will do the right thing and hear me out privately mediate and address the issues long before the next election and before things get way out of hand.  

Ya know, I wonder what ATSM has to say about huge inconclusive rates and a lack of examiner oversight, as well as the appearance of improprieties and a lack adherence to TAPE's own bylaws within it's leadership.  

Also I think ATSM needs to look into the blacklisting of people within our own industry over a simple feud between individuals and the blacklisting of whistle blowers for improper and unethical behavior within the industry.  

I say this because now I am sure that Ms. Holden...... I mean Hubbard, will do doubt make every effort to have me blacklisted within every association she can.  I am further concerned that other associations will play along with the blacklisting efforts over examining my grievances and finding a solution and resolution to restore the industry to an appearance of inspiring ethical conduct over covering up unethical conduct and vilifying the person bringing such conduct to light.  

I did my best to avoid having to air this here, but frankly, this is the only place where I know they are paying attention.  I know for a fact that polygraph leadership and the named parties are obsessively watching this thread.  Now people are watching to see what other lies come out of Huntsville.  I have been told by more than a few people, right here in Texas, that they can't wait to see this go to trial in Huntsville to see who far the rabbit hole goes with the weird relationships exposed in the TRO.

The reviews in my email are mixed, to some I am a villain (nothing new there), to others I am the person who is doing something others are simply too scared to do.  They have something to lose, as from what I understand, I have been told the mantra in TAPE is "don't turn up like Joe McCarthy"  

They say this clearly inferring how easy it was to ostracize me and get me to resign with either an act of fraud, or a Board of Directors vote in violation of the Association's bylaws; no one will give me the definitive truth as to what happened.

Let me explain.  I was told in an email, from then President Stuart Ervin, that, "the Board of Directors have determined this has merit, this matter will be brought up to membership vote and there is no provision in the bylaws for debate."

See page page 7 of attached TAPE emails

Also see attached page 9 of the TAPE bylaws where it clearly states

"Members may be censured by action if the majority of the Board of Directors.  The censure will be in a closed session in the presence of the majority of the Board of Directors, the Ethics Committee Chairman (Andy Shepherd)and the member against whom such actions is to be considered.  At least ten days prior to this closed session the ethics committee chairman shall request the attendance of that member by writing"

It should be noted that Mr. Shepherd either intentional failed to send out that notice, OR, was derelict in his duty to do so.  Andy seems to not be man enough to inform me of which happened, and seems to avoid taking responsibility for either or, as an unethical coward will do.  Come on over and look me in the eye and call me a liar to my face Andy.  

Funny how the Board of Directors voted on such an issue in direct violation of the Bylaws huh.  Who, I wonder was on that Board of Directors? Lets have a look, shall wee?

Gilbert Capuchina
John Rios
Marvin Nowell
Clayton Wood

Stuart Ervin became president
Jack St John became vice president 
Maria Holden.... I mean Hubbard. (I just can't seem to get that right)became Secretary 

Now, Lets take a look at these names.  It's an interesting list, is it not?

John Rios, sitting president who said in this video "all he knows is whats in the bylaws, I had nothing to do with this" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds

Well we now know, and the evidence shows......... this..... was a lie

Clayton Wood, a defendant in my 2008 lawsuit and can be heard in a video posted on a different string taunting me along side daddy acting like a brave man.  Guess it's easy to be brave in a mob who will protect you huh Clayton?  We also know that there are appearances of an improper relationship with Secretary maria Hubbard, who made it spear her plot to take out the "Irish Dumbass" with Jay Holden, who she was also having in improper relationship with.  Wow, one can speculate how she played her political game huh? 

Marvin Nowell, who was Secretary during the lawsuit and made it clear his discontent to me.

Man seems the cards were pretty much stacked huh?

Now, when I asked John Rios, Jack St. John and Mike Chimarys About the Board of Directors vote, ALL of them told me, while we spoke at the October 2014 conference,  so such vote occurred.  Well wait, lets go back to page 7 of the emails posted on this posting.

"the Board of Directors as determined that this has merit and requires a membership vote"

How I wonder could this have happened, when such a vote would be 

1, in direct violation of TAPE Bylaws
and
2, three respect members, and current officers of TAPE insist that this vote never happened

Curious huh?

Lets look a wee deeper, shall we?

When we go back to the email; an email for which is undisputed by the way, it continues, "the only way the vote will not be taken would be if your membership was resigned."

SO my choice was clear; resign or face a kangaroo court.

Now there are two possibilities of what happened here.  Either Rios, St.John and Chimarys were selling Stuart down the river rather than admit that a vote took place in violation of the bylaws, or, my resignation was gained through an act of fraud perpetrated by Mr Ervin that Jack St. John was in on as he was in distribution of that email in the cc.  

Wow, interesting is it not.

SO, let me call Mr. Ervin, St, John and Rios out here.  Which is it?

Did the vote happen in intentional violation of TAPE Bylaw?

or

Did Mr Erivin and Mr. St John obtain my resignation though an act of fraud?  

Cue Jeopardy music now

What about you Clayton? Did the vote happen and you voted to hang me?  And did you vote to hang me out of revenge because I sued you and daddy, or did you vote to hang me for your girl?  My phone is on big man, better yet, stop by my office in Dallas and tell me to my face.  You can bring a friend, bring a couple if you want.... cry baby.

Did you guys really think this was not going to catch up to you?

Moreover, how does the industry excuse of reconcile the unethical activity of either fraud or intentionally and willfully tossing out the bylaws of an organization?

Wait, in order to keep tax exempt status, doesn't an organization have to adhere to it's bylaws?  Ahhhhhh never mind, maybe we will let the IRS decide that. A nice little letter will be going out to them in todays mail.  

I wonder how ATSM would feel about polygraph examiners intentionally committing fraud on any level or tossing their own rules.  I mean if they will fraud their own kind or break their own rules, who's to say they won't do the same on a test?  Ya know, like calling someone inconclusive when they may not be or not following standards that assure inconclusive results are rare?  

Hey, just tossing some questions out there.

I truly hope that the big Polygraph Associations don't feel that this is acceptable behavior.  Now no one can ignore the evidence, it's all out there.  I would hope the APA leadership would never condone a Polygraph Associtaion acting in this manner.

Bullying
Fraud
Lying
Intentionally and willfully violating it's own bylaws
Inappropriate relations within the leadership ranks or relationships that set an appearance of impropriety or conflict of interest.

Come on TAPE, defend yourselves.  Rios, Clayton, St John, Hubbard I call out guys out.  Defend these actions, you are all attached to them, directly and in some cases "intimately"

I am calling you all out, right here; you won't talk privately so here is the only place I can do so it seems.  Tell everyone where I am wrong.  Deny those emails.  Deny your own documents.  Rios, deny that is you on that video.  

I'm waiting

Maria, come on, you wanted a fight; the fight is here.  Defend yourself....... naaaaa you're too busy trying to figure out who the rats around you could be.  The answer is not as obvious as you would think and quite shocking.

What about you St. John?  You tried to act like the tough guy last October, now that you been caught in your lies, and one exposed, do I expose the others?  One of which is in that group of emails.

My phone is on people.  How far do we want to go with me?  Because I am at the point where the question is not about how far am I willing to go? The real quest is, do I possess the constitution, the depth of faith and character to take this as far as is needed?

Answer, I have little to lose

Come on, ya'll ain't scared of one harmless Yankee Masshole, are you?  Well, it seems the Masshole has the moral high ground right now.

Oh yea, one more thing for today.

John Rios is a detective for the New Braunfels PD.  Given what you see in evidence here and his proven lack of honesty in my youtube video, if you are a defense attorney on a case he has involvement with, I would seriously consider looking into everything he says; especially if your client is black.  

As president of TAPE, he condones racisim though the organization's continued lack of condemnation of racially charged emails sent by a board of directors member of TAPE.  He has been made aware of these emails and the origins of these emails.  He has also been made aware that a member of TAPE's ethics committee covered these actions up.  

I find his lack of condemnation of these actions as president of TAPE disturbing.  I further find his willingness to disregard organizational bylaws concerning from a public safety standpoint, because if he is willing to disregard the Bylaws of an organization for which he is the president, who is to say he won't disregard police procedure or worse yet, the civil rights of others knowing he will never be called to the matt on it?

You had a chance to do the right thing John, you blew it.