posted 03-13-2008 10:21 PM            

All by my lonesome I took it upon myself to call each of the four computer polygraph manufacturers a week ago. In a two hour period, each of them committed to me (that if the other three companies would) that they would No Longer sell to PEOA members / and Grogan. I think that they wanted to know that they were not going to lose a sale if they committed, and otherwise some had stated they cut off Grogan two years ago.

posted 03-14-2008 09:23 AM         

I had the displeasure to initially become acquainted with the profession through Grogan. However, shortly thereafter I realized that he was a fraud, and went to an APA school. Since then I have developed a real distain for the guy. He is a fraud and a hypocrite. He has done a peer (and I use the term loosely) review of an exam I conducted. He criticized my work not on the accuracy of the chart interpretation but rather the use of question “Did you/ Have you ever….” he never said the charts were inaccurate.

He claims that he completed a polygraph school, but states, on his site, that polygraph schools are worthless and dishonest. Then, he wants you to buy his book.

I am glad to hear that you have contacted the manufactures, and steps are taken to stop his unethical practice.

posted 03-14-2008 11:36 AM            

The best way of combating the likes of him is probably to raise our own standards. Then wait for an opportunity. If he's smart, and careful, or learns from experience, then we'll have to wait a long time for an opportunity. If not he'll take care of himself eventually.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-14-2008 12:24 PM            

The only thing I see in that report that is unethical......IS EVERYTHING.

What a putz.

I am leaving this afternoon to go out of town for the weekend to get the new house ready as the previous owner apparently trashed the place. He remarked that we took advantage of him in this aweful housing market just before leaving for California to UCLA to teach theater. Beware Ted, middle aged,lonely angry gay man coming your way.

Got to...gasp....leave the ...groan...computer...arg...gasp...behind.

posted 03-17-2008 02:39 PM            

I am sorry to report that despite my receiving verbal agreements from each of the four computer polygraph manufacturers (Three domestic / One Canadian) to not sell to John Grogan / mail order Groganites / and PEOA; each failed to deliver a written representation of that as asked for. Further, one of the four set out to call the others and undo this arrangement claiming to them that it was simply my personal vendetta against Grogan. Please note, I have never met John Grogan or spoken with him on the phone. I have only once emailed him asking him to stipulate that the person of my same name (There are two of us in APA) have his middle initial put there as to differentiate that I am not a member of PEOA; as I have taken heat for my name being there. The other person of my same name is in Georgia, and a retired CID Army member.

I believe that each of us needs to reach out to EVERY examiner we know, and no matter which system they are on, to write to their own, and the other three manufacturers, to request the protection of our profession. I have indicated to no less than two of the manufactuers that I would be posting this in this forum for you review and consideration.

THANKS,

posted 03-18-2008 08:35 AM            

Have a good day - All!

posted 03-18-2008 10:57 AM            

He's an alley-cat, who'll aggressively claw his way to the top of any heap of stuff which he decides is his.

I don't think its the role of the equipment vendors to solve the Grogan problem for us.

It would be great if he and his imprint-lings had no further access to polygraph technology, but any committment to withhold sales from him actually does nothing (i.e., nada, zippo, zilch, zero) to indemnify any of the equipment vendors from any upstream liability. Its simply the wrong argument. Furthermore, there may be more serious problems or liability with equipment vendors engaging in a brokered conspiracy to restrain someone's involvement in legal business activity.

I don't like Grogan any more than anyone else. I continue to get his email, only so that I can stay tuned in to his activity. I suppose I could do that even after opting out.

After finally listening to the Leykis radio show, I find it interesting how fluidly and easily he makes up stuff and says things about question validity, blind scoring, antique equipment, and the APA as a small and ineffective group of a couple of people in Tennessee. Grogan communicates in sound-bites, with very little, if any, actual regard for the conceptual accuracy of the constructs he discusses. Words are convenient for him. It was evident in the face of challenge that he doesn't think well on his feet, and that he succeeds by hiding behind authoritative postures and authoritative allusions. Grogan is without substance. His willingness to make stuff up, is evidenced by the graphic on his website, which now describes himself as the "most televised examiner in the world." He'll probably take care of himself for us someday. In the meantime, depending on his verbal facility, he might be a successful manipulator (read: can artist). I don't think the problem is upstream liability. In my view the problem is the credibility damage to the polygraph profession, caused by his aggressive marketing, crappy work, and lack of professionalism. I predict that if Grogan were suddenly blown out of the water in the polygraph field, he'll simply move into selling information on how to try to beat the test.

Grogan, at present, appears to have a cash machine, with referral fees from half a dozen requests daily. Its still the old mechanics referral scheme (let us refer you to a reputable mechanic). I wish I had thought of that.

Problems associated with his web-empire are annoyances only.

The real answers to the Grogan problem probably have more to do with raising our own standards of science and professionalism so that he stands out like the charlatan that he is. Don't hold your breaths for licensing solutions. More immediate solutions will be available as our own association continues to clarify effective standards of practice, based on professionalism and science.

The other thing that will help is to continue to expose Grogan whenever possible. Jack Trimarco was outstanding. Ralph's Grogan expose was terrific. We should create permanent links and pages for all the Google-bots and Yahoo-bots to record.

So, while we're busy whining about how he's pissing in our pool, lets try to be really clear and articulate about what exactly the problem is. It does no good to pressure instrument vendors to solve problems which are not their own, and it accomplishes nothing to object to legal business activity.

.02

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-18-2008 11:44 AM            

in the name of professional examiner's controlling the destiny of the polygraph profession, not manufacturers; please advise this board which of the four manufacturers attempted to prevent a boycott or embargo against the (reported) criminal, disgraced and unethical, John Grogan. Apparently in the name of profit.

The last time I checked, the automobile manufacturers don't tell the consumer what we want; beer producers don't tell us what we want to drink, therefore, manufacturers of polygraph should not be telling us what we want in an ethical manufacturer. We, the users, should be telling them what we want from them.

That is, ethical, professional support. If we can't find it, I suppose some of us should look elswhere. What's next, Polygraph in a Box supported and sold by one of "the four"...?

Thanks,

Jim

posted 03-18-2008 11:52 AM            

I believe you are entirely too kind and civil regarding the Grogan issue. It is not a "Legal Business Activity" to defraud the public. Further, it is only logical that those who feed Grogan are a part of the problem, and my efforts were to get them to have a domestic policy in regard to what constitutes an ethical sale of their equipment. It begs the question about how many tests had Grogan performed where someone was falsely accused as he can't run a chart, hand score a chart, or the computer algorithms can not work with his data collected. If you only watched the youtube.com video of him doing a live polygraph on the air, you would see that there is no place for this guy in our profession. I take credit for naming him the polygraph parasite, which was picked up by Ralph in his expose on Grogan. It is a name he has earned as parasites don't produce anything on their own, rather they suck life sustanence from a host. In regard to Grogan, I do not intend to be a gracious host. While your suggestion that we simply raise our standards is a fine one when looked at in it's micro effect on us; the perception of this profession is derived from the lowest common denominator experience out there. Grogan represents that lowest common denominator, his Groganites are spreading, and perhaps it is only those of us in the private sector feelingit at this point; as law enforcement and government examiners are not directly effected.

posted 03-18-2008 01:54 PM            

How about that research we base some of what we do on? Did you know some of our best research was produced through tests run by people who haven't been to polygraph school? Instead, they went to grad school and studied far-and-above what we got in polygraph school. My point is that there is no easy way to determine who does what "correctly" without having real standards in place, which gets back to Ray's issues.

How do the manufacturers decide who's qualified to own one of their instruments? Do they have pre-sales interviews? I know at least one of the companies has asked Grogan not to call anymore, but that's their prerogative.

But think about it: The APA list of accredited schools isn't identical to the AAPP's list of approved schools. How many meet ASTM (and therefore NPA's) standards?

I don't need to be licensed to by electrical, HVAC (or whatever), or even medical products here. As a matter of fact, I've found that I save a lot of money if I bypass the licensed people and get what I need directly - no questions asked, so I'm not sure that's a valid argument. Maybe in some places, but not here anyhow.

If the manufactures are worried about liability - and I think that's a bit of a stretch - they could always add language to all they sell stating that it should only be used by properly trained people, etc, etc, etc.

In any event, maybe the associations could trade advertising for member discounts / incentives or something like that to encourage people to attend recognized schools. I'm not saying that's the answer, but I think we need to think beyond banning instruments for the simple reason that it's not going to work. Remember DACA has been trying to keep the examiner's handbook hush hush for years, but George has been getting his copies while the ink is still wet on the originals at DACA (until recently).

Heck, we sold old revolvers to police officers for a short time, on the agreement that they would not be transferred - until we found one on a guy under arrest. (Now, we melt them.)

Grogan probably has the funds to buy lab grade equipment and outdo all of us. He'll get instruments one way or the other - as will his "students." It may well be our manufactures who are the only links to these people and have the means to open dialogs and set them straight.

posted 03-18-2008 02:16 PM            

I did however say that Pat's idea had traction as a larger component to the cold war against posers.

Imagine this dialogue on the next radio interview with Grogey;

DJ; So, tell me about the APA.

Grogey; They are a toothless little group in Tennessee really, a bunch of poor examiners in awe of my modern gifts and big bucks.

DJ; cool. Let's take a caller...caller?

Caller; yeah, uh, I was just wondering why the 4 polygraph instrument companies refuse to sell you or your associates polygraph instruments, despite taking a serious financial loss, and doing so without any pressure from the APA or any other organization.

Grogy; I uh, er um ...I think the instrument companies are....uh....jealous?

DJ That's all the time we have...

posted 03-18-2008 02:27 PM            

You might just encourage him to produce his own instruments, and then the jealous line would work. He could make one from Radio Shack, and the general public would never know the difference. All he'd have to do is put it in a nice box.

posted 03-18-2008 02:33 PM            

I also must correct you---in Maine, you must be a licensed (by the EPA) HVAC professional to buy most important components of your furnace and air conditioner (refridgerant, evaporators, high pressure lines etc) and so you and your buddy up the road might be breaking the law(s)---depending on what components you are buying. The laws do not include the very common (for your area) oil heaters. FYI, I happen to have an EPA certification----just to save money for personal reasons.

posted 03-18-2008 02:42 PM            

It is common in the psychology field, for publishers of test measures to require one to submit transcripts, licenses, and training certifications before one is allowed to purchase or use things like WAIS IQ tests, and MMPI type personality tests.

As far as the lawfulness of the Grogan's activities, terms like "fraud" and "defraud" are legal terms that require argument and proof. If it were really that simple, I suspect you'd have already alerted your state's attorney general.

FWIW: I too wish the instrument vendors would limit sales to Groganites, but not because of some fictitious solution to upstream liability.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-18-2008 03:06 PM            

Prescription Drug co's.
Psychometric testing co's
Can't own a DSM IV (diagnostic manual)without Master's degree.
You cannot buy an MRI. CT scan, or any other durable medical device that emits radiation, or high capacity magnetic waves.
Certain large scale "printers" and "minters" cannot be purchase without permit---fear of counterfit crimes
Industrial Electrical equipment co's
Over the counter ingrediants used in Meth retailers
Bulk chemicals---many even harmless
Nitrogen, ammonia---and other compound mfgs used to make Tim McVeigh'esque bombs
HVAC equipment
Automotive components like converters (platinum), R-134 refrigerents and components.
automatic weapons mfgrs

These come to mind

posted 03-18-2008 03:12 PM            

It would have greater impact for the APA to enact some assertive resolutions - like accepting fidelity referrals only from professionals, and declaring referral kickbacks to the "association" as unethical (this would never happen in medicine or psychology, or the APA).

Things like this can have the effect of clarifying the difference between a bottom-feeder and a professional.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-18-2008 03:14 PM            

Most of those examples are not in fact regulated by the mgf themselves, but by regulations surrounding the industries.

You can buy a DSM-IV-TR at Barnes & Noble...

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-18-2008 03:22 PM            

The other things emit dangerous chemicals, or radiation, explode, whatever. (You can buy some of that stuff in small amounts, and that's how you get around the EPA. Refrigerant is on the shelf at NAPA. You can't transport large amounts of gas either - unless you fill a truck with hundreds of five gallon containers.)

There's nothing dangerous about a polygraph instrument by itself. If you carry it that far, then pens and pencils could be on the list of potentially harmful instruments.

posted 03-18-2008 03:36 PM            

My point was simple. Some of us, as a profession are trying hard to implement standards (through the ASTM) but it is a long road to hoe...and, not everyone is on board, for many differing reasons; i,e, schools training, cost, income, beliefs from experience, etc.

Personally, I can't see anyone knowing that changes are forthcoming and given an opportunity to participate in helping mold those changes, say, nope! I'd rather sit at home and drink beer.. and guys, that came from me...

Since association standards are only applicable to members, the ASTM is the only way to effect the entire profession. Then, and only then, will we have a rule book to operate by (that is, if your not too cheap to buy in). BTW, someone above mentioned the DSM, and I don't recall it being "given away" with my diploma upon graduation from college. So, bottom line, we all need to get with it.

Further, and back to my point, no mfg'r should be in the business of selling polygraph instruments when they know the buyer is a criminal/BS artist.

So Pat, who was it? Who was it that put profit over what is right? If true, it would not be slander nor dishonest.

I'm just curious...and I won't tell anyone else...

Jim

posted 03-18-2008 03:53 PM            

Sackett, you have strong points about ASTM.

It does us no good to turn on ourselves with dramatic accusations about profit over what is right.

The reasons for lack of interest in this type of commitment are not as simple as we wish. I am of the opinion that NoLie's argument is itself flawed. If Grogan is in fact involved in defrauding the public, it will be an easy legal solution to the problem. But to suggest that a commitment among equipment mftrs somehow indemnifies them against liability is overly optimistic.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-18-2008 05:45 PM            

Yes, I have strong opinions about ASTM simply because it is the ONLY means we (collectively) have to establish standardization. Does anyone feel standardization is not the primary means in which we will achieve acceptability, not only in the profession, but in the eyes of the judiciary, scientifically and just as importantly, the public? Who here says we do not need standardization?
____________________________________________

My point on profit was simple. A manufacturer (according to Pat) who tried to stop an agreement to prevent a known criminal and other supporters of that criminal from obtaining polygraph equipment has no conviction to ethics anywhere above the profit margins. That kind of decision could only have been made due to a desire to sell their product to whomever they want and not be restricted, even by the very profession they supposedly support. And all in a quest to make money.

I was not seeking to indemnify their actions or even condemn them. But, actions speak louder than words and decisions are always seated within the ethics and moral make-up of those making those decisions. I simply want to know who it was, for posterity sakes.
____________________________________________

Further, the solution to problems like Grogan is by far an easy one. He has been publicly attacked and discredited more than once, yet he survives. And, don't get me wrong, I am not even advocating destroying Grogan. I advocate outing unethical, immoral examiners who do the polygraph profession an injustice and prevent them from doing more harm.

For years, "hacks" and "chartrollers" have slipped from under the thumb of oversight and the radar of profesional associations, simply by avoidance, yet they too survive.
And who is to call them "hacks" or "chartrollers" in the first place? Unless you can identify their deficiency and lack of willingness to learn, grow and most importantly change, will we simply take them on one at time? Do you want to be trying to justify the examiner conducting sex offender testing in their own kitchen just because, that's where he always does them, etc...?

No Ray, this is NOT by any means any easy fix! But we have to start somewhere.

Over the past many decades, polygraph and polygraph examiners have had attitudes of entrenched training and indifference to other schools and associations. Call it what you want, it boils down to egos, money, profit, lack of minimal standards, etc.

I think it is time to start a long overdue change towards professionalizing what we do through standardization, education and enforced ethical professionalism. If not, we allow ourselves to be nothing more than a trade group who can't get their $h!t together, and it shows!

I don't see myself in that camp, do you?

Jim

posted 03-18-2008 06:08 PM            

I say bravo to any manufacturer that provides their albeit limited role in curtailing fraud, despotic business practices, and most of all----to make a small effort against the irrepairable damage that such crap tests does to the unsuspecting consumers. It is no different than IV Coach Lines not leasing buses to the KKK for road trip marches. A business does notneed a court of law to not do business with someone based on their business practices. We're not talking about Jim Crowe here, we're talking about "We have the right to refuse to do business with anyone at any time, for any reason."

This ain't a Supreme Court issue here folks.

posted 03-18-2008 07:00 PM            

We keep calling him a criminal, but to date, nobody has produced a single criminal complaint, let alone a conviction. (BTW, as far as civil liability goes, calling a person a criminal gets you pretty much straight to slander without having to pass go. Of course, truth is always a defense, but it's just that: a defense.)

But yes, time for another reality check. The APA has almost 3000 members; the AAPP, about 1000; ASTM, about 80: NPA, unknown. Of course, there's some overlap. However, we can't agree upon standards or control the likes of Grogan. Now I'm to believe we've overlooked such a simple solution: Four people are now responsible for seeing to it that he and his "trainees" can't get an instrument so that on an upcoming interview we can be lying in wait to ask why he can't buy one. Have I got that correct? And this all because (less than) a handful of us or so of us here have declared it to be the right thing to do.

I'm also to believe that one of our own - after all we've had leaks here - wouldn't buy for him, at a price of course?

How about that South American school we discussed back a ways? Should they be selling to them? They don't care about the APA, AAPP, ASTM, or any US alphabet soup.

As a member of ASTM, I think many more need to get on board, but let's face it, less than 5% of us even care to join and participate in that process. That's not saying much. I'd have to look, but the APA's model policy on pre-employment testing may be in conflict with ASTM. If so, who wins?

Again, if Grogan disappeared forever, I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep. I think he's tormenting our good men and women on the left coast, and he's a problem, but this oversimplified "solution" has the potential to result in rumors that are good for our manufacturers who really do give us a lot of support. We wouldn't be where we are without them.

posted 03-18-2008 08:24 PM            

sigh.

posted 03-18-2008 09:54 PM            

quote:

---

I was poised to photoshop his picture

---

posted 03-18-2008 10:16 PM            

I suggest you go Franz Kafka on him and metamorph him into the unsquishable cock-roach that he is. Of course, you'll still have to pose him confidently in front of all the i-love-me BS on his office wall.

r

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)

posted 03-19-2008 10:29 AM            

now that is funny! BTW, is that an "intent" question... LOL

posted 03-19-2008 12:25 PM         

I am surprised that you worded that question so poorly. It should read "Did you ever hurt anyone with either one of those things".

posted 03-19-2008 05:29 PM            

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."
--(Stanley Kubrick/Peter Sellers - Dr. Strangelove, 1964)