- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 18, 2004, 08:43 AMToday I received by registered mail a letter from Los Angeles Chief of Police William J. Bratton withholding the documentation that I requested under the California Public Records Act on 19 April. The text of this letter follows:
Note that Chief Bratton's letter provide no explanation of why he believes that "the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential."
I will be exploring avenues of appealing Chief Bratton's decision to withhold the requested information. In the mean time, anyone who can provide any further documentation regarding the allegations against the LAPD Polygraph Unit supervisor is invited to contact AntiPolygraph.org.
Quote
May 4, 2004
George W. Maschke
Hart Nibbrigkade 22
2597 XV The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear Mr. Maschke:
California Public Records Act Request
This correspondence is prepared in response to your correspondence to the Los Angeles Police Department (the Department) dated April 19, 2004 which sets forth a request, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (the Act), for a copy of an audit and any associated documentation, prepared by Terry Carter, comparing reports sent by the Department's Scientific Investigation Division, Polygraph Unit to the Department's Personnel Division, Administrative Investigations Section.
The Department is cognizant of its responsibilities under the Act. It recognizes that the statutory scheme was enacted in order to maximize citizen access to the workings of government. However, the Act does not mandate disclosure of all documents within the government's possession. Rather, by specific exemption and reference to other statutes, the Act recognizes that there are boundaries where the public's right to access must be balanced against such weighty considerations as the right of privacy, a right of constitutional dimension under California Constitution, Article 1, Section 1. The law also exempts from disclosure records that are privileged or confidential or otherwise exempt under either express provisions of the Act or pursuant to applicable Federal or State law, per California Government Code Sections 6254(b); 6254(c); 6254(f); 6254(k); and 6255.
The Department has conducted a search for the audit described in your request. The audit is exempt from disclosure under Sections 6254(k) and 6255 of the Government Code. Section 6254(k) exempts records that are exempt from disclosure under federal or state law, including, but not limited to provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. Evidence Code Section 1040 declares an official information privilege for information acquired in confidence by a public agency when the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential. Similarly, the Department asserts Section 6255 of the Government Code based on this same need to retain confidentiality of said documents.
We appreciate this opportunity to assist you. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Management Analyst David Lee at Discovery Section, at (213) 978-2152.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. BRATTON
Chief of Police
[signed]
STUART A. MAISLIN, Commander
Commanding Officer
Risk Management Group
Note that Chief Bratton's letter provide no explanation of why he believes that "the public interest in disclosing the information is outweighed by the public interest in keeping the information confidential."
I will be exploring avenues of appealing Chief Bratton's decision to withhold the requested information. In the mean time, anyone who can provide any further documentation regarding the allegations against the LAPD Polygraph Unit supervisor is invited to contact AntiPolygraph.org.
Posted by orolan
- May 10, 2004, 12:11 PMQuoteDoes anybody know if the American Polygraph Association is investigating this guy or simply waiting for somebody else to do it?Neither. My experience with the APA is that they care nothing about ethics.
QuoteOrtiz is listed as the program chairNot a big deal, considering the same organization thought so highly of the good "Doctor" Gelb that they made him their president for a term or two.
Posted by tufasnails
- May 07, 2004, 06:32 PMOf course its ironic, they APA undoubtedly don't know what they have! Perhaps one of the informed observers in the LAPD polygraph department should enlighten them. Or maybe some other insider. Some professional organizations only investigate ethics violations if reported by another member of the same organization. Perhaps these people are non members. At some point, people have to step from the shadows of veiled accusations and stand up for what they believe. Our nation was founded on the courage of men who had such strength of character that they would sacrifice their personal comfort for the greater good. What have we become? Stand up and take a position! Be heard!
Posted by Anonymous
- May 03, 2004, 04:09 PMDoes anybody know if the American Polygraph Association is investigating this guy or simply waiting for somebody else to do it? I notice that on the APA site page dealing with their upcoming seminar, Ortiz is listed as the program chair just before a listing of the agenda which begins with "..."Integrity and Leadership" is our contant goal and our 2004 seminar topics will include issues on Ethics & Procedures and Provisions..." Does anybody see any irony to this?? lol
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 30, 2004, 11:44 AMHopefully those whistleblower(s) (presumably holding position within or near the LAPD polygraph structure) who have provided the information that led to this thread and the recently reported new investigative thrust will take heart in the results of the Connecticut whistleblower whose circumstances were reported today on the Antipolygraph.org home page. As was the case in Connecticut, those in LA who believe themselves to have been treated in like manner should consider all their various options to include legal redress. I suspect that there is much to be learned from this individual (and her attorney) who has apparently prevailed against stonewalling and cover-up surrounding polygraph practice.
Posted by Fred F.
- Apr 29, 2004, 01:49 PMGeorge,
It looks like you have opened a few peoples eyes to Mr. Ortiz's "actions". It is nice to see that former Chief Parks took the time to respond. Let's hope that he does indeed forward this matter to the Police Commission.
I am just wondering why Council member Dennis Zine hasn't responded. He is a former LE member.
I hope that the media will take this matter to heart as well.
Keep up the good work!
Fred F.
It looks like you have opened a few peoples eyes to Mr. Ortiz's "actions". It is nice to see that former Chief Parks took the time to respond. Let's hope that he does indeed forward this matter to the Police Commission.
I am just wondering why Council member Dennis Zine hasn't responded. He is a former LE member.
I hope that the media will take this matter to heart as well.
Keep up the good work!
Fred F.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2004, 06:52 PMAlso today, I received the following e-mail from Sergeant Reginal McCool of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group:
In a series of follow-up questions I e-mailed to him, Sergeant McCool clarified that the correspondence of mine that Internal Affairs received is the e-mail I sent to Chief Bratton (see reply #18 above), and that it "will be included in investigation CF No. 03-1542."
QuoteDate: 4/28/2004 11:20:11 -0700
From: "Reginald McCool" <26679@lapd.lacity.org>
To: <maschke@antipolygraph.org>
Subject: complaint invest
Dear Mr. George Maschke:
Internal Affairs Group (IAG) has received your correspondence regarding
the misconduct of Scientific Investigation Division, Polygraph Unit,
employee
Roy Ortiz. This complaint is in the review process and has already
been addressed and investigated under Complaint Form No. 03-1542.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please contact Sergeant
Reginald McCool, Serial No. 26679, Support Section, IAG, at (213)
473-6767
In a series of follow-up questions I e-mailed to him, Sergeant McCool clarified that the correspondence of mine that Internal Affairs received is the e-mail I sent to Chief Bratton (see reply #18 above), and that it "will be included in investigation CF No. 03-1542."
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Apr 28, 2004, 06:33 PMToday I received the following reply from L.A. City Council Member (and former LAPD Chief of Police) Bernard C. Parks, to whom I cc'd my e-mail to Chief Bratton:
QuoteDate: 4/28/2004 11:51:37 -0700
From: "Bernard Parks" <BParks@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG>
To: <maschke@antipolygraph.org>
CC: "Bernard Parks Jr" <BParksjr@COUNCIL.LACITY.ORG>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Misconduct and Cover-up in LAPD Scientific Investigation Unit Alleged
THANKS FOR THE INFO..I WILL FORWARD TO THE LA POLICE COMMISSION AND REQUEST A INVESTIGATION AND A RESPONSE TO YOU..
BERNARD C. PARKS
COUNCILMEMBER 8TH DISTRICT
LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL
200 N. SPRING ST. #460
LOS ANGELES CA. 90012
213-473-7008
213-485-7683 (FAX)
WWW.LACITY.ORG/COUNCIL/CD8
Posted by tufasnails
- Apr 23, 2004, 01:04 AMGet back on track and end the childish sniping!
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 21, 2004, 08:38 PMguest,
You commented:
And what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are YOU admitting that it is accurate only 50% of the time? I wouldn't call George's statement an "admission" - he's not a polygraph examiner and has nothing to admit to.
If you are actually agreeing with George's statement regarding a 50% accuracy rate, however, I ask you to explain to us all how leaving our nation's security up to a coin toss is a GOOD idea? Are you feeling okay?
You commented:
QuoteAnd your point is that you are concerned about the "credibility of the polygraph machine itself"? Even George admits it is accurate 50% of the time, and that is more than can be said of you.
And what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Are YOU admitting that it is accurate only 50% of the time? I wouldn't call George's statement an "admission" - he's not a polygraph examiner and has nothing to admit to.
If you are actually agreeing with George's statement regarding a 50% accuracy rate, however, I ask you to explain to us all how leaving our nation's security up to a coin toss is a GOOD idea? Are you feeling okay?
Posted by BlackJhack
- Apr 21, 2004, 07:51 PMI-Smell-BS,
Please do not take your anger out on those of us who post on this wonderful site. It is not our fault that you failed out of ITT Tech and the only low tech bull-shit job you could find afterwards was to be a polygraph examiner. All I am doing is studying and preparing for my upcoming "test" that I am being made to take. Let me assure you that I am going to pass my "test" with flying colors and will be a great cop. I would figure that in all of your "expert training", they would have taught you something other than going around and smelling shit, but it does kind of make sense. I would like to offer you a challenge. I can FedX you a box of my shit (large or small, it is up to you) and then you can smell it and let me know if I'm lying. Let me know if you want to take me up on the challenge
Please do not take your anger out on those of us who post on this wonderful site. It is not our fault that you failed out of ITT Tech and the only low tech bull-shit job you could find afterwards was to be a polygraph examiner. All I am doing is studying and preparing for my upcoming "test" that I am being made to take. Let me assure you that I am going to pass my "test" with flying colors and will be a great cop. I would figure that in all of your "expert training", they would have taught you something other than going around and smelling shit, but it does kind of make sense. I would like to offer you a challenge. I can FedX you a box of my shit (large or small, it is up to you) and then you can smell it and let me know if I'm lying. Let me know if you want to take me up on the challenge
Posted by guest
- Apr 21, 2004, 07:49 PMAnd your point is that you are concerned about the "credibility of the polygraph machine itself"? Even George admits it is accurate 50% of the time, and that is more than can be said of you.
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 21, 2004, 07:30 PMI-Smell-BS,
Yes, many people post under the name 'Anonymous.' And many people post under the name 'guest.' But the 'guest' that I refer to consistently provides 'guest@who.com' as an email address - the writing style (use of vulgarity, personal insults, refering to everyone as though they are women, the already mentioned 'Annie' nickname) is constant with each post.
As far as my sucky 'junior investigative reporter work,' I hold that I am correct and will put my so-called 'junior investigative reporter work' up against your polygraph any day. Let me provide some examples for you:
Here we have you (as guest) commenting on my posts to Twoblock https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=480.msg12114#msg12114'>
"I think his posts are very entertaining, (he really gets worked up and gets his panties in a wad over every little thing), and informative, (he draws on his vast experience of failing his polygraph tests)."
Here is another thread https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1699.msg12960#msg12960 where you (as I-Smell-BS), use the same stupid phrase to ridicule yet another person:
"It is so easy for me to get your panties in a wad and you are so very funny when you are mad"
Following so far? Keep in mind that you have unintentionally used the same fake email address domain 'who.com' when posting as I-Smell-BS (you used 'what@who.com' in this thread https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1694.msg12911#msg12911. You ask how can one tell since so many people post under 'guest'? Simple - you use the same fake email address everytime and your posts are easily identified as those of a sad, bitter asshole.
So here's the summary - when you post as 'guest,' you provide the fake address 'guest@who.com.' When you post as 'I-Smell-BS' in a lame attempt to convince everyone here that you aren't the only pathetic loser that has no justification for your obscene insults, you provide the fake email address 'bs@stinky.org.' However, as I-Smell-BS you provided in a single post 'what@who.com' as the fake address instead, which leads me to suspect you are the same people. I might add though, recently when posting as 'I-Smell-BS' you provide the email address as 'nobs@nobs.com.' Now is this a referral to those very same nobs belonging to your fellow examiners that you slobber on each and every night? You know, after your long, arousing discussions about how many people you've fucked in the ass that day with your super-cool souped up blood pressure monitors?
So how about answering some of the questions that have been asked now? Once again - your insults and ridiculous comments, lacking any coherence or content, only discredit the examiners that you are at least pretending to represent. Ultimately, you're detracting from the credibility of the polygraph machine itself.
Wouldn't you want to jump at the opportunity to rid the world of polygraph misinformation and set the record straight? Or is that what that Midas commercial featuring the polygraph and the nerdy examiner is for? I-Smell-BS, is that you!?!? 'Trust the Midas touch!'
Fucker.
Yes, many people post under the name 'Anonymous.' And many people post under the name 'guest.' But the 'guest' that I refer to consistently provides 'guest@who.com' as an email address - the writing style (use of vulgarity, personal insults, refering to everyone as though they are women, the already mentioned 'Annie' nickname) is constant with each post.
As far as my sucky 'junior investigative reporter work,' I hold that I am correct and will put my so-called 'junior investigative reporter work' up against your polygraph any day. Let me provide some examples for you:
Here we have you (as guest) commenting on my posts to Twoblock https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=480.msg12114#msg12114'>
"I think his posts are very entertaining, (he really gets worked up and gets his panties in a wad over every little thing), and informative, (he draws on his vast experience of failing his polygraph tests)."
Here is another thread https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1699.msg12960#msg12960 where you (as I-Smell-BS), use the same stupid phrase to ridicule yet another person:
"It is so easy for me to get your panties in a wad and you are so very funny when you are mad"
Following so far? Keep in mind that you have unintentionally used the same fake email address domain 'who.com' when posting as I-Smell-BS (you used 'what@who.com' in this thread https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=1694.msg12911#msg12911. You ask how can one tell since so many people post under 'guest'? Simple - you use the same fake email address everytime and your posts are easily identified as those of a sad, bitter asshole.
So here's the summary - when you post as 'guest,' you provide the fake address 'guest@who.com.' When you post as 'I-Smell-BS' in a lame attempt to convince everyone here that you aren't the only pathetic loser that has no justification for your obscene insults, you provide the fake email address 'bs@stinky.org.' However, as I-Smell-BS you provided in a single post 'what@who.com' as the fake address instead, which leads me to suspect you are the same people. I might add though, recently when posting as 'I-Smell-BS' you provide the email address as 'nobs@nobs.com.' Now is this a referral to those very same nobs belonging to your fellow examiners that you slobber on each and every night? You know, after your long, arousing discussions about how many people you've fucked in the ass that day with your super-cool souped up blood pressure monitors?
So how about answering some of the questions that have been asked now? Once again - your insults and ridiculous comments, lacking any coherence or content, only discredit the examiners that you are at least pretending to represent. Ultimately, you're detracting from the credibility of the polygraph machine itself.
Wouldn't you want to jump at the opportunity to rid the world of polygraph misinformation and set the record straight? Or is that what that Midas commercial featuring the polygraph and the nerdy examiner is for? I-Smell-BS, is that you!?!? 'Trust the Midas touch!'
Fucker.
Posted by I-Smell-BS
- Apr 21, 2004, 05:22 PMAnnie, (yes I have stolen this use of your nickname from someone), but which Anonymous are you? As you or one of your clones has said, many people post under this name. And as to your junior investigative reporter work - it sucks. But it really doesn't matter what you think of me or who you think I am or how many different names you think I have posted under - you obviously have me confused with someone who gives a shit. All I know for sure is that George and many of you on the "GRUDGE REPORT" exude a strong odor of bullshit and I cannot keep from noticing that. 
Posted by Anonymous
- Apr 21, 2004, 05:09 PMI-Smell-BS,
I have reviewed your last posts on the threads you felt worthy of your contribution. I found an interesting (perhaps) unintentional point of interest.
It seems that you indicated 'guest@who.com' as the email address for your post in a previous thread. Coincidentally, the asshole who often posts under the name 'guest' uses that same fake email address. What does that mean to me? You and 'guest' are that same asshole.
Pretty sad. You are so desperate to discredit posters here that you fake a 'recruitment' of pro-polygraphers posting here. There are many similarities between 'guest' posts and 'I-Smell-BS' posts. For example, calling Anonymous 'Annie.' Check some recent posts from 'guest' and you'll see he/she does the same thing.
As someone mentioned earlier, all your posts do is discredit examiners and further the message and intent of this board. But trying to make it look like other people actually share your views and values by faking posts? That's right up there with the asshole examiner who actually posted from a Ft. Jackson network and gave himself away. Why don't you take everyone's advice and actually contribute something to these discussions?
Seriously - most of the people here who wonder why they were falsely labeled as liars would really like to hear an explanation from an examiner as to why this happens and why it is tolerated. You're only making your side look worse.
I have reviewed your last posts on the threads you felt worthy of your contribution. I found an interesting (perhaps) unintentional point of interest.
It seems that you indicated 'guest@who.com' as the email address for your post in a previous thread. Coincidentally, the asshole who often posts under the name 'guest' uses that same fake email address. What does that mean to me? You and 'guest' are that same asshole.
Pretty sad. You are so desperate to discredit posters here that you fake a 'recruitment' of pro-polygraphers posting here. There are many similarities between 'guest' posts and 'I-Smell-BS' posts. For example, calling Anonymous 'Annie.' Check some recent posts from 'guest' and you'll see he/she does the same thing.
As someone mentioned earlier, all your posts do is discredit examiners and further the message and intent of this board. But trying to make it look like other people actually share your views and values by faking posts? That's right up there with the asshole examiner who actually posted from a Ft. Jackson network and gave himself away. Why don't you take everyone's advice and actually contribute something to these discussions?
Seriously - most of the people here who wonder why they were falsely labeled as liars would really like to hear an explanation from an examiner as to why this happens and why it is tolerated. You're only making your side look worse.