- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Oct 20, 2009, 02:44 PMMagnus,
Indeed, the suit seems to be at an end. According to the L.A. Superior Court website, no future hearings are scheduled, and it appears that the case has been dropped. The last three filings in this case are:
Indeed, the suit seems to be at an end. According to the L.A. Superior Court website, no future hearings are scheduled, and it appears that the case has been dropped. The last three filings in this case are:
Quote09/02/2009 Memorandum of Costs ($365.00 costs entered 10/1/09 memo to scan unit no court file 10/1/09 )
Filed by Defendant
08/25/2009 Request and Entry of Dismissal (without Prejudice- Defendant Joseph Paolella )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
08/24/2009 Partial Dismissal (with Prejudice) (John Trimarco, aka Jack Timarco, an individual and Jack Trimarco and Associates Polygraph Investigations, Inc. )
Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff/Petitioner
Posted by Magnus
- Oct 17, 2009, 12:13 PMI picked up second hand that on the day of the scheduled trial, Mr. Grogan dropped the civil law suit. He is still advertising his voice stress machine. If I were to burp while taking one of these voice stress tests, would they be able to tell me if the burp was truthful?
Posted by ecordy75
- Oct 16, 2009, 10:03 PMQuote from: SanchoPanza on Nov 03, 2008, 07:16 AM
Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood detected that he was lying on one exam and cheating on another. They can articulate their reasons. Their jobs and careers were not at stake. I see no motivation for them to lie about their conclusions.
If Dr. Maschke lied on his exams he would certainly have motivation to deny it.
Sancho Panza
False: what you said.
True: these agents have every motivation to lie, in order to defend their mental insanity about some crazy magical machine that can tell lies from truth and to defend their high-salaried freeloading "jobs".
(Job does not equal work.)
Since the TruthAboutGrogan.org site is now down, not clear what any of this had to do with Dr Maschke, since he was not party to any of this litigation.
Also, what objective proof is there that Dr. Mashcke "lied"?
Was there some sort of test, for example, in which a ball was or was not placed under a cup by Dr. Mashcke, then he was asked whether it was there or not, then the cup was immediately removed?
On an entirely unrelated matter: you do know about Maschke's Theorem in group representations, right?
(I assume that is a different Maschke!)
Posted by Magnus
- Sep 11, 2009, 09:58 AMAny information on what happened to this case? Personal interest. A coworker's wife got ripped off by Mr. Grogan. She should have known better, but she got sucked into an "over the phone voice stress analyzer" test.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Aug 23, 2009, 01:47 AMAccording to the Los Angeles Superior Court website, the jury trial in Grogan v. Paolella et al. (Case Number BC391778), which had previously been scheduled to begin on Wednesday, 26 August 2009, has been pushed back a week to Wednesday, 2 September 2009:
QuoteFuture Hearings
08/26/2009 at 08:30 am in department 18 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference
09/02/2009 at 09:30 am in department 18 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (7-9 Day estimate)
Posted by George W. Maschke
- May 28, 2009, 02:07 AMPolygraph operators John Grogan and Ralph Hilliard have reached a settlement in Grogan v. Paolella, et al. As part of the agreement, Hilliard has taken down his website, TruthAboutGrogan.org. Those visiting the site are now greeted by the following notice:
The site had included, among other things, complaints about Grogan from former customers, an article critical of his appearance in a pornographic video, and California Department of Consumer Affairs documentation of a complaint that in 2002 resulted in the revocation of Mr. Grogan's private investigator license, private patrol operator license, baton permit, and firearm permit as well as an order to pay $21,800 for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services's investigation and prosecution costs.
An archive of TruthAboutGrogan.org as it appeared around the time it was taken down is attached as a 13.8 mb .zip file.
QuoteIf you were looking for the website truthaboutgrogan.org, it has reluctantly been removed as part of a settlement agreement. As it turns out, telling the truth and free speech aren't actually free and I could no longer afford to defend it on my own. The canned, meaningless, legal-eze below is all I can say for now about the contents of the settlement agreement. I sincerely thank all of you who gave your support. If you need to reach me, you can send an email to detector@polygraphplace.com. Ralph Hilliard.
"The Parties to the Lawsuit filed by Mr. Grogan against Ralph Hilliard and others as entitled Grogan vs. Paollela et. al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC391778 ("Lawsuit") has been settled by and between Mr. Grogan, Mr. Hilliard and Mr. Hilliard's Company, Wordnet Solutions, Inc. for an undisclosed amount and that no party in any way admits liability or wrongdoing of any sort and the parties have agreed to settle to avoid the cost and inconvenience of litigation and such settlement shall not constitute an admission of liability by any party".
The site had included, among other things, complaints about Grogan from former customers, an article critical of his appearance in a pornographic video, and California Department of Consumer Affairs documentation of a complaint that in 2002 resulted in the revocation of Mr. Grogan's private investigator license, private patrol operator license, baton permit, and firearm permit as well as an order to pay $21,800 for the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services's investigation and prosecution costs.
An archive of TruthAboutGrogan.org as it appeared around the time it was taken down is attached as a 13.8 mb .zip file.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 19, 2008, 11:37 PMRegarding the status of Grogan v. Paolella et al., according to the Los Angeles Superior Court website, the following hearings are presently scheduled:
QuoteFuture Hearings
04/23/2009 at 08:30 am in department 18 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Conference-Post Mediation Status
08/14/2009 at 08:30 am in department 18 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Final Status Conference
08/26/2009 at 09:30 am in department 18 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Jury Trial (7-9 Day estimate)
Posted by Sergeant1107
- Nov 19, 2008, 10:59 PMQuote from: 1A33223E33560 on Nov 19, 2008, 07:36 PMHopefully this lawsuit turns into Jarndyce and Jarndyce; let those sons of perdition bleed each other of their blood money for a change.
What a bleak reference...
Posted by Lethe
- Nov 19, 2008, 07:36 PMHopefully this lawsuit turns into Jarndyce and Jarndyce; let those sons of perdition bleed each other of their blood money for a change.
That said (and I'm sure the literary reference will be lost on all polygraphers*), these sorts of suits are good. They force the polygraphers to put their cards on the table while under legal penalties for lying. Information is good, unless you're a polygrapher: like mold, they can only survive in the dark, damp recesses where light can't reach.
This suit is great. Hopefully it's litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (one can only hope there's a federal issue in there somewhere). But George is probably right: this could be settled very quickly if the polygraphers really do have faith in the polygraph and all agree to take one. That none of them are lining up to do so demonstrates that they don't really believe the crap that spews forth from their vile mouths.
* Well, Sancho Panza appears to have read one book, but (1) he's been banned and (2) it's not the book the literary reference alluded to comes from.
That said (and I'm sure the literary reference will be lost on all polygraphers*), these sorts of suits are good. They force the polygraphers to put their cards on the table while under legal penalties for lying. Information is good, unless you're a polygrapher: like mold, they can only survive in the dark, damp recesses where light can't reach.
This suit is great. Hopefully it's litigated all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (one can only hope there's a federal issue in there somewhere). But George is probably right: this could be settled very quickly if the polygraphers really do have faith in the polygraph and all agree to take one. That none of them are lining up to do so demonstrates that they don't really believe the crap that spews forth from their vile mouths.
* Well, Sancho Panza appears to have read one book, but (1) he's been banned and (2) it's not the book the literary reference alluded to comes from.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 04, 2008, 09:17 AMSancho Panza has indeed been banned following repeated violations of AntiPolygraph.org's posting policy.
Posted by pailryder
- Nov 04, 2008, 09:11 AMDr Maschke
Is it true you have decided to ban Sancho Panza from this board?
Is it true you have decided to ban Sancho Panza from this board?
Posted by getrealalready
- Nov 03, 2008, 04:33 PMS.P.,
You write:
You're half right--your writing is simple minded. You apparently have enough sense to know to be embarrassed over your initial statement which led to this exchange and my critique. I'm not too embarrassed for you to not raise them again. They are:
(1) Your statement:
(2) My response:
You write:
Quote from: SanchoPanza on Nov 03, 2008, 10:46 AMGetreal, I'm not simple minded I just have to write that way sometimes so you can understand
Sancho Panza
You're half right--your writing is simple minded. You apparently have enough sense to know to be embarrassed over your initial statement which led to this exchange and my critique. I'm not too embarrassed for you to not raise them again. They are:
(1) Your statement:
Quote"...I see no motivation for them to lie about their conclusions....
(2) My response:
Quote
S.P.,
How can you possibly be so simple minded? Of course, Trimarco and Youngblood would not require motivation to lie about their conclusions. It is not necessary to impugn their motives. They were simply using a "test" which produces random error and has no diagnostic validity. Get real already!
Posted by T.M. Cullen
- Nov 03, 2008, 01:07 PMSancho,
Are you going to "put your money where your mouth is", regarding the Zimbardo quote? You viciously attacked me claiming I had placed a fictitious quote from Dr. Zimbardo in my signature. That really hurts!
Incidently, the quote was:
"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between these states of arousal and lying." (Referring to polygraphy)
To insinuate that I would use a fictitious quote in my posts is a scurrilous charge that will not go unchallenged! It is an attack on me, my family and the "false positive" community.
I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!
Also, you have repeatedly called NG1 an "idiot". Your repeated and dastardly verbal attacks of this nature against him is intolerable! Being falsely accused of a crime he did not commit is bad enough, but to be forced to endure your venomous attacks has added insult to injury!
YOU OWE HIM AN APOLOGY!
TC
Are you going to "put your money where your mouth is", regarding the Zimbardo quote? You viciously attacked me claiming I had placed a fictitious quote from Dr. Zimbardo in my signature. That really hurts!
Incidently, the quote was:
"There is no direct and unequivocal connection between these states of arousal and lying." (Referring to polygraphy)
To insinuate that I would use a fictitious quote in my posts is a scurrilous charge that will not go unchallenged! It is an attack on me, my family and the "false positive" community.
I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!!
Also, you have repeatedly called NG1 an "idiot". Your repeated and dastardly verbal attacks of this nature against him is intolerable! Being falsely accused of a crime he did not commit is bad enough, but to be forced to endure your venomous attacks has added insult to injury!
YOU OWE HIM AN APOLOGY!
TC
Posted by SanchoPanza
- Nov 03, 2008, 12:44 PMGeorge, You do whatever you want to do it's your board.
Remember, YOUR assertions and your behavior is what puts your credibility into play in discussions about polygraph.
You have ignored every single personal attack made against me by your boorish ill-informed yes men and yet chide me publicly for what you perceive to be the slightest infraction of some code of conduct that you evidently feel only applies to those who disagree with your point of view.
If you will go back and review my posting history you will find that I initially confined my comments to civil discourse. You should also note that when attacks against me on this board began, YOU failed to act or even respond to my complaints even when I contacted you both privately and publicly.
Thus ignored, I determined I should be absolved of any consequences if I decided to respond in kind.
Right now I am the only person appearing regularly on this board to present an opposing point of view. Everyone else has written you off after 8 years of "nothing has changed" as ineffective and inconsequential, in your quest to alter the laws or substantly affect procedure regarding polygraph. I tend to agree with them on most of that. The only real difference is I care that the potential careers of people scared enough or foolish enough to follow your ill-conceived plan are being destroyed by your bad advice and immoral position that lying on a polygraph is justifiable because years ago you got your feelings hurt when you failed an exam.
If you grow tired of hearing my same old responses maybe all of you should just stop making the same old tired comments and asking the same silly questions.
Sancho Panza
Remember, YOUR assertions and your behavior is what puts your credibility into play in discussions about polygraph.
You have ignored every single personal attack made against me by your boorish ill-informed yes men and yet chide me publicly for what you perceive to be the slightest infraction of some code of conduct that you evidently feel only applies to those who disagree with your point of view.
If you will go back and review my posting history you will find that I initially confined my comments to civil discourse. You should also note that when attacks against me on this board began, YOU failed to act or even respond to my complaints even when I contacted you both privately and publicly.
Thus ignored, I determined I should be absolved of any consequences if I decided to respond in kind.
Right now I am the only person appearing regularly on this board to present an opposing point of view. Everyone else has written you off after 8 years of "nothing has changed" as ineffective and inconsequential, in your quest to alter the laws or substantly affect procedure regarding polygraph. I tend to agree with them on most of that. The only real difference is I care that the potential careers of people scared enough or foolish enough to follow your ill-conceived plan are being destroyed by your bad advice and immoral position that lying on a polygraph is justifiable because years ago you got your feelings hurt when you failed an exam.
If you grow tired of hearing my same old responses maybe all of you should just stop making the same old tired comments and asking the same silly questions.
Sancho Panza
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Nov 03, 2008, 11:14 AMSancho Panza,
Your initial post to this thread was little more than a barb at me:
If you wish to substantively address topics raised on these forums and engage in a civil exchange of views, your participation is welcome. But attempting to turn every thread into a personal attack on me (or any other poster) will no longer be tolerated.
Your initial post to this thread was little more than a barb at me:
QuoteTrimarco caught you. He'd probably catch Grogan too.
Now you deny you were caught at anything and I'll point out that there are at least 2 people who were present at your polygraphs who would probably disagree with you. etc. etc. etc.
Sancho Panza
If you wish to substantively address topics raised on these forums and engage in a civil exchange of views, your participation is welcome. But attempting to turn every thread into a personal attack on me (or any other poster) will no longer be tolerated.