The United States Secret Service again refuses to release the polygraph recording in a Different Polygraph Court Case.

An article in clearance jobs from Attorney Sean M. Bigley where a Secret Service polygraph examinee was also repeatedly accused of being a drug addict and a liar, and the examiner threatened to “waterboard” the examinee if she doesn’t come clean with "whatever else she’s hiding."

The Secret Service is again refusing to release the recording of the polygraph that would corroborate the polygraph examinee’s accusations.

Attorney Sean M. Bigley encourages those with similar experiences to immediately contact the Office of Inspector General.  In this instance however, the Office of Inspector General has done nothing and has failed to respond to the inquiries of United States Senator Chris Van Hollen and FOIA requests, which has the hallmarks of being complicit in a coverup.

https://news.clearancejobs.com/2018/01/21/background-investigator-threatens-wate...

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained the attached two lightly redacted documents connected with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) action documented earlier in this message thread:

1. The complainant's 34-page "Response to United States Secret Service (USSS) Opposition for Reconsideration of Appeal #[redacted] Affirming a Decision for Summary Judgment to the United States Secret Service Without a Hearing" ("Response") dated 22 February 2021.

We are informed that the complainant, acting pro se, emailed this Response to the Secret Service's legal counsel, Steven Giballa, on 22 February 2021 and FedExed it to the EEOC on 23 February 2021.

2. The EEOC's 4-page "Decision on Request for Consideration" ("Decision") dated 23 February 2021, denying the complainant's request.

The complainant hypothesizes that the Secret Service's counsel, upon receiving the complainant's email on the 22nd of February, may have had an ex parte communication with the EEOC that resulted in the EEOC issuing its Decision the very next day, the 23rd of February, before the complainant's response had reached the EEOC.

Indeed, when the complainant's Response did reach the EEOC some time later, apparently after having been held up in a mail screening process (the FedEx packet bears a magenta Department of Homeland Security tape on one side), the EEOC refused to take delivery of it and sent it back unopened.

Photos of the Response as received by the complainant are attached.

AntiPolygraph.org has obtained a redacted copy of the 3-page affidavit of a senior employee of the Lafayette Instrument Company attesting, among other things, that "The Lafayette Polygraph Software contains two mechanisms to allow the examiner to monitor the audio recordings and avoid failures."

The U.S. Secret Service claims (implausibly, in our view) that due to an equipment malfunction, the audio recording of the polygraph examination at issue in this message thread was almost wholly inaudible.

This affidavit supports the conclusion that if there was indeed an equipment malfunction, the polygraph examiner, in this case U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger, should have been aware of it as it occurred.

The circumstances surrounding this polygraph examination remain the subject of an as-yet-uncompleted Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General investigation.

We have obtained a redacted copy of a 2-page affidavit provided by U.S. Secret Service Special Agent Ellen Ripperger regarding the polygraph examination that was at issue in a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and that remains relevant to an ongoing Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) investigation.

Regarding the polygraph examination at issue, the recording of which, as provided by the U.S. Secret Service, was almost entirely incomprehensible, Ripperger under penalty of perjury affirmed, among other things:

Quote:


In order for paras. 7, 8, and 9 to be true, both the Lafayette software's "Warn on low audio" failsafe and the audio bar indicator mentioned in the Lafayette Instrument Company's affidavit must have failed. This beggars belief.

AntiPolygraph.org understands that the DHS OIG, in a meeting with attorney Thomas Gagliardo, admitted it sent the audio files of this exam out for forensic examination. If that forensic analysis did not suggest tampering, then why was this investigation not closed immediately? Indeed, it seemingly remains open in perpetuity.