Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Twoblock
 - Feb 06, 2006, 02:53 PM
Persil_White

This discussion is meaningless since they will probably never take this any further. However, if I was filing for myself, I would start my search for a claim under "42 USC 1983". Civil Rights is large scope legislation and does cover abuse, including mental and physical abuse, in the workplace.

This is an antipolygraph website and not the place for Law Review. If SadderbutWiser wishes to continue with me she is instructed to do so by private email.
Posted by Twoblock
 - Feb 04, 2006, 04:14 PM
Persil_White

The venue for SadderbutWiser's case is in Federal Court. Not some state's Superior Court. Her claim involves a federal entity and besides constitutional violations should NEVER be filed in lower courts. Without extensively studying the case you cited, it appears to have grounds for appeal. Therefore, it doesn't sufficiently prove that SadderbutWiser's case is not actionable.
Posted by Johnn
 - Feb 02, 2006, 05:50 PM
Quote from: SadderbutWiser on Jan 31, 2006, 07:05 PMHe refused to do any reserach on how the poly works, etc. and went in and got blindsided.  I'm registering and posting here because he's so scared of getting "caught."  He came home in tears yesterday--not because he failed but because of the mental and emotional trauma he endured.

He is completely clean on all counts, but honest to a fault--with a very sensitive disposition.  They told him there were "problems" with many of his questions, and during the interrogation phase, he made a bunch of "admissions" of trivial stuff--nothing that should get him disqualified, but maybe stupid stuff--like "stealing" paper coasters at a bar, or something like that.  (He won't even tell me for fear of getting caught.)  He is, however, TOTALLY clean on all counts of anything serious.

He has to go back.  What the heck should he do now?  He's terrified, and he apparently made his "admissions" already.  They were brutal and inhumane.  Can he "opt out" of the interrogation phase next time, and still pass?

Sadder,
I'm very sorry that your husband has to go through this.  When I took my FBI polygraph,  I was initially accused of drug usage only.  That day, I came home in tears and I threw up of how sickening the accusation was.  When I took my second polygraph, they accused me of everything else under the sun, minus what my name is and that I sell drugs.  Every time I think about how I was treated, I feel very bad, but believe me, it gets better.
  
The worse part is that us victims have to talk about what happened for emotional and mental support, but there are very few people out there who can relate and who understand the falseness of the polygraph.  Some might even suspect that you are what the examiners accused you of.  It's a terrible thing, which is why sometimes it's better for us victims to keep our experiences to ourselves.   For this reason, I believe your post.   Your husband is suffering an emotional and mental trauma of being labeled deceptive by those he had faith in.
Posted by Persil_White
 - Feb 02, 2006, 12:34 PM
To anyone who's interested in pursuing an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of treatment during a polygrpah exam, read here: http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/42731/
I suspect a court in Virginia might find the same thing.

A better, though more difficult conceptually, approach would be to assert that the examiner's statements were defamatory and that repeating them to others after the test damaged the examinee.  For the law on defamation in Virginia, read here: http://johnsonandroche.lawoffice.com/DynamicContentPage.shtml?ss=fln-faq-question.xsl#slander
Posted by Persil_White
 - Feb 02, 2006, 12:06 PM
To George,

I don't know....something just does not smell right about this...it just seems so unlikely.  

To "Sadder",

The fact that you've chosen to make a groundless personal character attack when faced with a suggestion of fabrication only seems to validate my supposition.  
Posted by Twoblock
 - Feb 02, 2006, 11:20 AM
SadderbutWiser

I have a rather busy day today but to answer your question: pro se means that you act as your own lawyer.

I have studied federal law extensively in two areas, mining and ADA, but I am not a lawyer so I have to be careful to not give legal advice. Some where I have the link on how to file a complaint pro se. When I have the time to search for it, maybe tonight, I will send it to you.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Feb 02, 2006, 01:53 AM
Quote from: Persil_White on Feb 01, 2006, 05:23 PMWith all due respect, I suggest you're fabricating this entire scenario.

On what basis do you make this accusation?
Posted by SadderbutWiser
 - Feb 02, 2006, 01:38 AM
Hi, Twoblock!  I will have to do some research on this!  I had no idea this was even an option.  Thank you for sharing.  Please, tell me more!  I don't even know what "pro se" means!  (I'm uneducated in this arena--I admit!)

Persil--please, just go back to your favorite porn site, or whatever you do to spend the many lonely hours of your miserable existence.  It's obvious what you are.
Posted by Twoblock
 - Feb 01, 2006, 05:32 PM
SadderbutWiser

Here goes the broke record again. SUE THEM. Make them try to prove their false accusations. You would probably have to do it pro se because, apparently, most lawyers are afraid to take on these people. You might be able to find one who would surreptitiously do your complaint and you could file it as pro se. It cost $150 to file a complaint in federal court. Make sure that mental abuse is one of the claims. Make sure you state the claims. The defense always tries to say "They failed state a claim".

I will now await the normal responses of "this is not an actionable cause". I believe it is. There is one way to find out. FILE THE ACTION.
Posted by Persil_White
 - Feb 01, 2006, 05:23 PM
With all due respect, I suggest you're fabricating this entire scenario.
Posted by SadderbutWiser
 - Feb 01, 2006, 04:42 PM
Quote from: Twoblock on Jan 31, 2006, 07:43 PMSadderbutWiser

These people seem to wallow in the power they THINK they have. As a kid, they must have had their lunch money taken from them by a bully and now it's their turn to be the bully.

No kidding.  My husband, who is the most prudish, innocent kind of man was apparently accused of all manner of sexual perversion, or some such nonsense, and came home in tears.  They must have done something to brainwash him, because he kept muttering things about being "a bad man" and "a bad person."  And he's the sort of fellow who's absolutely embarrassed to the point of mortification if some sleazy ad pops up on the internet--definitely not a "bad man."  They're pervs there, and I hope that he either doesn't get the job, or he leaves pronto.  

They're B**stards.
Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Feb 01, 2006, 01:24 AM
Reports received from numerous CIA applicants suggest that it is quite common, indeed, apparently the norm, for CIA polygraphers to initially tell applicants they are "having problems," to badger them for admissions, and to re-schedule them for one or more follow-up sessions. So your husband's experience is not atypical.

For more about the CIA polygraph process, see the relevant public statements here:

http://antipolygraph.org/statements.shtml

See also The Lie Behind the Lie Detector:

http://antipolygraph.org/lie-behind-the-lie-detector.pdf

There are special notes for CIA applicants at pp. 92-94 and 155-56. The entirety of Chapter 3 will also be of interest.
Posted by SadderbutWiser
 - Feb 01, 2006, 01:04 AM
No, Persil, that's not it.

Do you have some reasoning behind your suggestions?  Please share.  Thank you.
Posted by Persil_White
 - Jan 31, 2006, 07:53 PM
You do not indicate what position he is interviewing for...it sounds like the Directorate of Operations.  Everyone "fails" and has to go back.  His best course of action is to respond truthfully, but not volunteer things.  He should hold his ground, be firm.
Posted by Twoblock
 - Jan 31, 2006, 07:43 PM
SadderbutWiser

I don't think an employment polygrapher has a constitutional right to brutally interrogate a prospective employee to the point where it creates mental and emotional trauma. These people seem to wallow in the power they THINK they have. As a kid, they must have had their lunch money taken from them by a bully and now it's their turn to be the bully. I would have him/her in federal court pronto.

I can't advise otherwise except who would want to work for an organization that's useless as tits on a boer hog.