posted 07-24-2005 04:37 PM
I will apologize in advance for this long- winded item. In all fairness I would like to learn if there was a disposition in the Ciralsky case I mention.
I had not previously accessed the (antipolygraph.org) website. Once there I noted their Polygraph Litigation section with the following paragraph:
Recent polygraph litigation provides vivid documentation of polygraph abuse. If you have documents from polygraph-related litigation that you think should be included on this page, contact AntiPolygraph.org.
I thought it would be interesting to review a recent case identifying vivid documentation of polygraph abuse. I chose to review the first case that was listed (Ciralsky v. CIA et al) in the litigation section:
Ciralsky v. CIA et al. filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Former CIA laywer Adam J. Ciralsky was fired after "failing" an allegedly rigged CIA polygraph "test." This complaint documents CIA polygraph abuse and ethno-religious profiling.
No disposition was listed; I then contacted the website stating the following:
I took a brief look at the above referenced case as it is listed first on your website. Case #02-5306, US District Court, DC. Have you listed the disposition of this case anywhere on your site? If the answer is yes, where is the disposition listed. If the case disposition has not been listed, why not?
I received the following response:
Unfortunately, we have no further information regarding the disposition of this case.
George W. Maschke
Fax/Voice Mail: +1 206 338-4466
PGP Public Key: 2012AAF6
AOL Messenger: GeorgeMaschke
Skype (Secure Internet Phone/Text Chat): georgemaschke
I may be wrong but I have a strong belief this case was ultimately dismissed and the information I list here supports this belief. If anyone knows of the actual disposition I'd like to know.
During a review of this case reported in Google (Ciralsky vs CIA), polygraph is not specifically mentioned in the Ciralsky case summary - stating:
1. This civil action concerns outrageous, constitutionally repugnant, and ultra vires counterintelligence ("CI") and security investigations and disciplinary processes conducted against the plaintiff Adam J. Ciralsky by officials of the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA" or the "Agency") and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI" or the "Bureau"). Mr. Ciralsky as unjustly singled out for investigation and subsequently interrogated, harassed, surveilled and terminated from employment with the CIA solely because he is a Jew and he practices the Jewish religion.
From what I could determine polygraph was referred to in paragraph #24 of 367 numbered paragraphs and in #5 of the section titled Prayer For Relief. The involved polygraph examiner was not referred to by true name (or) "John Doe"(or)polygraph examiner if their identity could not be disclosed. The Chief of the CIA Counterintelligence Center was a defendant but listed as "John Doe". I expected to see the examiner identified as a defendant!
24. In the course of what the CIA euphemistically calls "security and CI processing", Ciralsky was:
c. subjected to polygraph examinations which Agency security officials -- at defendant Tenet's direction -- intentionally rigged; and
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5. subjecting Ciralsky to multiple coercive and unlawful polygraph examinations and counterespionage interrogations in which the polygraphers and investigators consistently ignored his favorable polygraph results and background investigations as well as other central evidence and facts in an attempt to match him with the CIA's and FBI's unlawful and anti-Semitic CI profile;
US Court of Appeals, DC, during 1-04 remanded case to District Court, found no abuse of discretion by the District Court for findings consistent with this opinion.
There are 119 pages & 367 numbered paragraphs and subsections. On 2-27-01 this case was dismissed as it was not "short and plain" as (required), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It was refiled 3-20-01 and again dismissed as it was still too long. Appealed to US Crt of Appeals, DC, citing abuse of discretion. During 1-04 the Court of Appeals remanded this case to District Court deciding to "leave the choice entirely in the hands of the District Court, which may either choose to confirm the death knell of this action or else allow the case to proceed".
(Two lawyers, Ciralsky & his counsel and they still couldn't get it right). Too much information and none to support the polygraph abuse allegation.
Are personnel at the antipolygraph website unable to locate a disposition that may have been filed since January 2004 or do they choose not to look? The information I was able to locate could have been added in condensed format?
I have not taken the time to locate the final disposition but I have difficulty believing the District Court continued this case.
Ciralsky has too much information in an attempt to support his case (termination) and antipolygraph appears to have no information to substantiate their claim of "vivid documentation of polygraph abuse."