- Welcome to AntiPolygraph.org Message Board.
A forum for free and open discussion of polygraph-related topics
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- May 07, 2016, 11:19 PMI would question the inconclusive results, and some DI results from ANYONE at Woods and Associates.
Demand charts every time. If they don't want to give up the charts, refuse to retest and hire a lawyer. Show the lawyer the video. And call it like it is, you don't want to use a firm that is at worst corrupt, at best incompetent; when you look at the facts in these videos
Demand charts every time. If they don't want to give up the charts, refuse to retest and hire a lawyer. Show the lawyer the video. And call it like it is, you don't want to use a firm that is at worst corrupt, at best incompetent; when you look at the facts in these videos
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- May 07, 2016, 11:16 PMQuoteI'm afraid this issue is still happening you have offenders who are willing to go thru treatment as required but the polygraphs situation is bias towards the offender where you have a list given to you by the court and your therapist and probation officer only wants you to go to Woods who give you some different reasons for you no passing every time you take a test even though deep down you know it's not true so yes we need to unite to stop this bias and unfair treatment against probationers who just want to do their probation in peace
Here is the truth about why this is. NOTE: The evidence provided, is evidence provided by Wood's own lawyer, and the lawyer of what might be your provider. So when they day I am lying, and they will, let me know. Or better yet, show them the video they have probably have already seen, and tell them to look at the documents I hold up. They may find them familiar
Anyway, here they are. Please watch them all the way through. Please learn the truth. This is why there are so many inconclusive, if he still played that stunt.
If he does, ask for charts if he does. Because as you will see, Woods and associates have a wee problem with getting their crap right. I mean come on, who has a 45% inconclusive rate? That means almost half the time, they can't tell if someone is telling the truth or not.
Just as I suspected, Tarrant County still loves a firm that can't tell truth or deception half the time. Way to have high standards CSCD.
Ya know what is even more sad? Clayton Wood, one of the examiners responsible for this 45% inconclusive rate, is the President of the Texas Association of Polygraph Examiners
part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QF-hc2Qdy7g&index=9&list=PLfdmQbJ2BVYROwsBSdkO9eZDhyVvccFnc
part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pUZLgljwZ4&list=PLfdmQbJ2BVYROwsBSdkO9eZDhyVvccFnc&index=10
This is the truth, from their own lawyers. They can't deny it. CSCD and your provider, are sending you to an examiners whose skills are, questionable, when you look at the facts in the videos
Posted by Dan Mangan
- Mar 09, 2016, 08:19 PMBilly, speaking as a certified PCSOT examiner and full member of the American Polygraph Association, a reasonable course of action would be to have a contested exam reviewed by an independent polygraph examiner.
In the event that the original examiner refuses to release the complete polygraph test file, the exam in question should be considered null and void.
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
In the event that the original examiner refuses to release the complete polygraph test file, the exam in question should be considered null and void.
Please feel free to contact me for further information.
Posted by Billy
- Mar 09, 2016, 04:37 PMI'm afraid this issue is still happening you have offenders who are willing to go thru treatment as required but the polygraphs situation is bias towards the offender where you have a list given to you by the court and your therapist and probation officer only wants you to go to Woods who give you some different reasons for you no passing every time you take a test even though deep down you know it's not true so yes we need to unite to stop this bias and unfair treatment against probationers who just want to do their probation in peace
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 30, 2015, 10:48 PMOnly thing TAPE would succeed in doing there is proving to me and the world that a whole group of Big Bad Texans are afraid of being exposed by one Yankee Masshole. That is funny as hell to me. A group that insist that the truth is important to them, yet they are afraid of the truth and the one, lone, Masshole exposing the truth.
That has actually always been amusing to me. This whole group of "Texans" who insist they are being victimized by one lone Yankee. Doesn't that get your Texas citizenship revoked?
Think about it. They say they have done nothing wrong and that I am lying. They have avoided using their own product that they are telling the truth, where as I was eager to do so and under harsh consequences are failure. The Texans run.
I have told them that if I am lying, sue me. Presidents of larger polygraph associations say this is an issue to be handled in the courts. I agreed, so I restated my accusations, If I am lying, they have totally new causes of action that are only a couple months old. The Texans run.
I make an agreement with them that pretty much concedes to all their demands and I drop all I demands save one; reciprocity. We shake on it, I keep my word in good faith; until the Texans thrown their handshake and word away and run. If these people are examples of good Texans, then I guess Texans are not people of their word or men of honor. That is what I take from their example.
If they change their bylaws, just for little ole me;nothing like admitting that I am a professional threat to them and that their only option left open to them is siege warfare.
When all they have to do to end this is talk and end it. TAPE will never admit that this was done in october. They want to make me seem to be the unreasonable one. Fact is, Like I saved everything from 2008, I saved everything from the past year.
So I would be amused if they do pass a bylaw just for me. All it would do is further cement that I am right. I would be careful how I write it if I were them. It is a fine line between reasonable and antitrust given that TAPE, according to its own past newsletters, pretty much is JPCOT, which regulates the sex offender polygraph industry in Texas and does so illegally because they are not a regulatory agency.
That has actually always been amusing to me. This whole group of "Texans" who insist they are being victimized by one lone Yankee. Doesn't that get your Texas citizenship revoked?
Think about it. They say they have done nothing wrong and that I am lying. They have avoided using their own product that they are telling the truth, where as I was eager to do so and under harsh consequences are failure. The Texans run.
I have told them that if I am lying, sue me. Presidents of larger polygraph associations say this is an issue to be handled in the courts. I agreed, so I restated my accusations, If I am lying, they have totally new causes of action that are only a couple months old. The Texans run.
I make an agreement with them that pretty much concedes to all their demands and I drop all I demands save one; reciprocity. We shake on it, I keep my word in good faith; until the Texans thrown their handshake and word away and run. If these people are examples of good Texans, then I guess Texans are not people of their word or men of honor. That is what I take from their example.
If they change their bylaws, just for little ole me;nothing like admitting that I am a professional threat to them and that their only option left open to them is siege warfare.
When all they have to do to end this is talk and end it. TAPE will never admit that this was done in october. They want to make me seem to be the unreasonable one. Fact is, Like I saved everything from 2008, I saved everything from the past year.
So I would be amused if they do pass a bylaw just for me. All it would do is further cement that I am right. I would be careful how I write it if I were them. It is a fine line between reasonable and antitrust given that TAPE, according to its own past newsletters, pretty much is JPCOT, which regulates the sex offender polygraph industry in Texas and does so illegally because they are not a regulatory agency.
Posted by George W. Maschke
- Jun 30, 2015, 02:24 AMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Jun 29, 2015, 04:18 PMI will also be amused to see if they change their bylaws just to try to keep me out.
I suspect that's precisely what will happen. I recall that in the aftermath of the Marston Polygraph Academy scandal, which came to light through an anonymous report and was substantiated through investigation but swept under the rug, the American Polygraph Association's response was to change its by-laws to preclude any future ethics investigation based on an anonymous report (APA Bylaws, Sec. 13.1.1.1).
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 29, 2015, 04:18 PMTalk about battening down the hatches. Rumors are bouncing all over down here, including but not lilted to finding a way to have me arrested if I go to TAPE conference for CEU's later in the year. Given the fact that most of them are cops or ex-cops, I have a hard time discounting this rumor as silliness.
The one rumor I haven't heard, and the one thing that has not been done is; not one person has either sued or threatened to sue me yet. I have heard a rumor or two that people talked to lawyers; and no doubt those lawyers told people they have no cases because they have to prove what I am saying is a lie, and everything out there is proven though their own documentations or court documents.
Now, when I heard the rumor (note, it's a rumor) that they would try to find a way to have me arrested; I have to admit, I laughed my balls off. Because if the rumor is true, this is the best they have. If the rumor is true, all they can think of to do is to trim up some charges on me because that is all they are left with.
If what I am hearing is indeed true, how pathetic are they? This is the best they can do, this is the best they have.
Maybe I might show up to TAPE just to see if they have the balls to do it.
They have been trying to keep me from meetings by saying I am not a member. Here you can see John Rios saying that I couldn't go in last year in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds
Of course he was lying, as it turns out, looking at the bylaws, I did have a right to be in there.
MEETINGS
1. The seminars of this Association shall be held semi-annually at a place selected at each semi-annual seminar.
2. The place of the seminar shall be determined by a majority vote of all members present and voting. If more than two places are nominated, the place receiving the smallest number of voted on the first ballot shall be dropped from consideration and the balloting continued until one place, of two remaining, has received a majority of all votes cast and the place of the next seminar be determined thereby.
3. In order to attend a semi-annual or any meeting of the Association a member of any class membership shall be in good standing.
4. Elected officials of other polygraph organizations may be invited to attend the business meeting of the Association at the discretion and invitation of the President. Non-Examiners or other Polygraph Examiners may attend a seminar for all activities excluding the business meeting of the Association.
Here is the link to their bylaws
http://www.texaspolygraph.org/ByLaws.htm
So it seems John lied on two more points in that video
1, that I was not allowed in the conference because it is for "members only and nonmembers are only allowed by invitations"
2, that the only thing he cares about is what is in those bylaws.
Wow, it seems john either lies a lot, or what he doesn't know could just about fill up a phone book.
So which is it John, were you mistaken or were you lying.
I got money that he never give an answer.
So yea, I think I may attend this year, even if I do fear that Ms. Hubbard might become violent or attempt to instigate a confrontation. We all know how TAPE and Maria love ambushes and confrontations. What do ya bet, someone will try to pick a fight. I can tell ya it won't be me. All I want to do is get my needed CEU's. In and out, done. Why should I have to spend more money to keep my license than if I simply go to a CEU class? What gives TAPE the right to make me spend more money than I have to, just to keep my license?
If I were a betting man, I would bet that Hubbard, or someone at her direction will try to instigate something. I'll tell ya this, if someone thinks I will instigate anything, they will be in for a long day.
I will be amused to see if they follow their bylaws, or do they fancy themselves as the gatekeepers of the polygraph industry.
John Rios says he follows his bylaws, so this should not be a problem.
I will also be amused to see if they change their bylaws just to try to keep me out. It has also occurred to me, if John had just followed the bylaws, none of this would be happening over the past year. Just thought I should point that out too.
Here is just another example that TAPE doesn't gate about their own bylaws.
As a matter of fact, John Rios, broke his own bylaws last year by keeping me out of the meeting. I wonder if I filed a complaint, would he be censured for breaking them? Would an ethics committee even be empaled? Hmmmmm
Anyway
Not a one of them have come here to defend themselves or tell me I am wrong; and they were so vocal in 2008. I guess it's hard to say I am wrong when I can prove everything I am saying with their own documents.
Not a one of them is man or woman enough to talk to me directly. None of them have made any effort to stop this in a reasonable manner.
Not a one of them has taken this issue to court, given the fact that I have laid a lot out and if I was slandering, libeling or defaming them, they would have clear new causes of action.
One a single polygraph examiner, has come here, under a real or fake name to defend their heroes. I guess it is pretty hard to poke holes in the truth.
I am waiting for these so called lawsuits I was threatened with last year.
All the big polygraph associations said this was an issue to be handled by the courts and I agree; here I am waiting. I guess what I am saying and exposing can't be lies, otherwise, why would they not make a court silence me? Because they know they can't prove that I'm lying.
The one rumor I haven't heard, and the one thing that has not been done is; not one person has either sued or threatened to sue me yet. I have heard a rumor or two that people talked to lawyers; and no doubt those lawyers told people they have no cases because they have to prove what I am saying is a lie, and everything out there is proven though their own documentations or court documents.
Now, when I heard the rumor (note, it's a rumor) that they would try to find a way to have me arrested; I have to admit, I laughed my balls off. Because if the rumor is true, this is the best they have. If the rumor is true, all they can think of to do is to trim up some charges on me because that is all they are left with.
If what I am hearing is indeed true, how pathetic are they? This is the best they can do, this is the best they have.
Maybe I might show up to TAPE just to see if they have the balls to do it.
They have been trying to keep me from meetings by saying I am not a member. Here you can see John Rios saying that I couldn't go in last year in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYN2jbH0Ds
Of course he was lying, as it turns out, looking at the bylaws, I did have a right to be in there.
MEETINGS
1. The seminars of this Association shall be held semi-annually at a place selected at each semi-annual seminar.
2. The place of the seminar shall be determined by a majority vote of all members present and voting. If more than two places are nominated, the place receiving the smallest number of voted on the first ballot shall be dropped from consideration and the balloting continued until one place, of two remaining, has received a majority of all votes cast and the place of the next seminar be determined thereby.
3. In order to attend a semi-annual or any meeting of the Association a member of any class membership shall be in good standing.
4. Elected officials of other polygraph organizations may be invited to attend the business meeting of the Association at the discretion and invitation of the President. Non-Examiners or other Polygraph Examiners may attend a seminar for all activities excluding the business meeting of the Association.
Here is the link to their bylaws
http://www.texaspolygraph.org/ByLaws.htm
So it seems John lied on two more points in that video
1, that I was not allowed in the conference because it is for "members only and nonmembers are only allowed by invitations"
2, that the only thing he cares about is what is in those bylaws.
Wow, it seems john either lies a lot, or what he doesn't know could just about fill up a phone book.
So which is it John, were you mistaken or were you lying.
I got money that he never give an answer.
So yea, I think I may attend this year, even if I do fear that Ms. Hubbard might become violent or attempt to instigate a confrontation. We all know how TAPE and Maria love ambushes and confrontations. What do ya bet, someone will try to pick a fight. I can tell ya it won't be me. All I want to do is get my needed CEU's. In and out, done. Why should I have to spend more money to keep my license than if I simply go to a CEU class? What gives TAPE the right to make me spend more money than I have to, just to keep my license?
If I were a betting man, I would bet that Hubbard, or someone at her direction will try to instigate something. I'll tell ya this, if someone thinks I will instigate anything, they will be in for a long day.
I will be amused to see if they follow their bylaws, or do they fancy themselves as the gatekeepers of the polygraph industry.
John Rios says he follows his bylaws, so this should not be a problem.
I will also be amused to see if they change their bylaws just to try to keep me out. It has also occurred to me, if John had just followed the bylaws, none of this would be happening over the past year. Just thought I should point that out too.
Here is just another example that TAPE doesn't gate about their own bylaws.
As a matter of fact, John Rios, broke his own bylaws last year by keeping me out of the meeting. I wonder if I filed a complaint, would he be censured for breaking them? Would an ethics committee even be empaled? Hmmmmm
Anyway
Not a one of them have come here to defend themselves or tell me I am wrong; and they were so vocal in 2008. I guess it's hard to say I am wrong when I can prove everything I am saying with their own documents.
Not a one of them is man or woman enough to talk to me directly. None of them have made any effort to stop this in a reasonable manner.
Not a one of them has taken this issue to court, given the fact that I have laid a lot out and if I was slandering, libeling or defaming them, they would have clear new causes of action.
One a single polygraph examiner, has come here, under a real or fake name to defend their heroes. I guess it is pretty hard to poke holes in the truth.
I am waiting for these so called lawsuits I was threatened with last year.
All the big polygraph associations said this was an issue to be handled by the courts and I agree; here I am waiting. I guess what I am saying and exposing can't be lies, otherwise, why would they not make a court silence me? Because they know they can't prove that I'm lying.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 26, 2015, 02:30 PMIt was brought to my attention that I uploaded duplicate documents in an earlier post. My apologies and it had been corrected. Sorry for any confusion.
I will also attach the same attachments to this one as well
Anyway, on the road to pick up some fresh documents. I do so enjoy coffee
I will also attach the same attachments to this one as well
Anyway, on the road to pick up some fresh documents. I do so enjoy coffee
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 26, 2015, 01:54 AMJust think people, these are the "credible" people that are running the Texas Polygraph Industry right now; cheaters, liars, racists.
Yup Texas' best, right? God, let's hope not.
Yup Texas' best, right? God, let's hope not.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 26, 2015, 01:50 AMOh yea, Hey Maria, look what else I found while I was digging away... Well just a sample of what I found anyway. So much more interesting things to dig through and look at.
Apparently, at one point you felt the same way about TAPE that I did. Now how about that folks? Or were you just lying and playing Mark the same way you lied and played me?
It is nice to see you confirm that you have a violent side. And you have no problem with, how did you put it "someone would lose some teeth.... HA HA" for mouthing off to you. Funny, everyone thinks I am the violent one. As it turns out, the mentally unstable violent one is you, and by your own admission, in your own email.
So to all those people who believed Maria's "victim" act earlier this year, especially one person in particular, and you know who you are, here is the true colors of Maria Holden..... I mean Hubbard.
See, just what I said there; by mouthing off about her, I should be concerned that she will knock my teeth out. She already threatened me in front of a room full of polygraph examiners in January of this year. Anyway, not that I am worried anyway. I have been toe to toe with bigger and better.... Well, maybe not bigger; but better.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you Maria Hubbard. Potentially violent hot head and manipulator.
Her own words boys and girls.
Oh and for the record, Marria was 2005 Rookie of the year for TAPE, so I guess she was playing Mark. I hear when she accepted she said she was a "force to be reckoned with."
Well, Ms. Titanic, you have decided to go to war with Mr. Iceberg.
Well, Back to the Boxes for me.
To quote your Prince Charming Jay Holden, "adios my coconut."
NOTE; not a reference to her "Mexican American Heritage"
It's Jay Holden's pet name for her. Isn't it cute?
Cue sappy romantic music here
Apparently, at one point you felt the same way about TAPE that I did. Now how about that folks? Or were you just lying and playing Mark the same way you lied and played me?
It is nice to see you confirm that you have a violent side. And you have no problem with, how did you put it "someone would lose some teeth.... HA HA" for mouthing off to you. Funny, everyone thinks I am the violent one. As it turns out, the mentally unstable violent one is you, and by your own admission, in your own email.
So to all those people who believed Maria's "victim" act earlier this year, especially one person in particular, and you know who you are, here is the true colors of Maria Holden..... I mean Hubbard.
See, just what I said there; by mouthing off about her, I should be concerned that she will knock my teeth out. She already threatened me in front of a room full of polygraph examiners in January of this year. Anyway, not that I am worried anyway. I have been toe to toe with bigger and better.... Well, maybe not bigger; but better.
Ladies and gentleman, I give you Maria Hubbard. Potentially violent hot head and manipulator.
Her own words boys and girls.
Oh and for the record, Marria was 2005 Rookie of the year for TAPE, so I guess she was playing Mark. I hear when she accepted she said she was a "force to be reckoned with."
Well, Ms. Titanic, you have decided to go to war with Mr. Iceberg.
Well, Back to the Boxes for me.
To quote your Prince Charming Jay Holden, "adios my coconut."
NOTE; not a reference to her "Mexican American Heritage"
It's Jay Holden's pet name for her. Isn't it cute?
Cue sappy romantic music here
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 26, 2015, 01:18 AMYa know, it's amazing what ya find when digging though the old files that were given to me by an old friend years ago when I was going though the lawsuit. Back then, I must have thought these documents weren't very relevant pre lieguytoo.
But now they just seem to be another piece of the puzzle that independently verify what I am trying to warn the Texas Public about in regard to the powers that be having some issues with racism and sexism.
Now the documents sissy letter and sissy lawyer letter go together, as sissy letter refers to the lawyer letter. Because these two documents were in the same file, one can only assume they are both attached to her. I am trying to further authenticate that letter, but I haven't seen sissy literally in about 3 or 4 years. But again, given the source of the documents, one document refers to the other, and the fact they were both in the same file, this is good enough for me to feel confident enough to post. Authentication from sissy would just be icing on the cake.
ANYWAY, If you read the document, sissy letter, it is easy to see that the problems in Texas go waaaaaayyyy back and go right to the tippy top. It should be noted that Kelly Hendricks openly admits on his website that he is the Chairman of JPCOT. This letter makes pretty clear assertions that Mr. Hendricks was remove by then Governor Rick Perry for issues that revolve around sexual harassment and racist comments. I am trying to get more information about this; but from what I understand, the sexist comment was something like "how does it feel being the only pussy in the room with all the power." Would that be an accurate statement Kelly? (I tried to give you a chance to opt out Kelly. I followed my obligation. You had an opportunity to avert this).
I am still looking for exact information about the racist comment, but I think by now I have demonstrated that I have the ability to find it. Worry not, I will find it and when I do, I will post it if all this is still ongoing. Not a good time to be a man of the south and a racist guys. Just not a good time to be "that guy."
On this note, given the information posted here, I call on Kelly to do the right thing and step down from the JPCOT Committee, You know, the JPCOT Committee that TAPE's lawyers said didn't exist back in 2008. We'll get to that.
Anyway, Kelly, step down before I have the ability to confirm what is said in the attached document. I would also suggest that TAPE call for the resignation of Kelly Hendricks given that I have already posted documentation that TAPE controls JPCOT to some degree or the other.
Do the right thing Kelly
Now as we can clearly see, women and minorities seem to have a wee bit of a hard time in Texas. I am shocked that this is not a problem to the bigger associations; APA, AAPP etc etc. As these associations seem 100% content to either ignore what is happening in Texas, avoid it by claiming it has no power or jurisdiction, or condone it by looking the other way. One thing I have not seen or heard is any association CONDEMN these behaviors (racism, sexism, possible monopolistic practices)
I have been trying to tell you people on the higher level for years about this stuff and you have been ignoring me. Now we have a separate account, someone not attached to me in any way, saying pretty much the same thing. What do you people need to take a look at what is going on here in Texas, a burning cross?
If this is happening to other examiners, in outré own industry, what are the chances that race may play a role with pass or fail? It's a fair question. If they will engage in this behavior with examiners, they will engage in this behavior with truly no voice, the examinee.
I can say John Rios doesn't care, he won't do anything about it, and I have video evidence that I presented the lieguytoo racist crap to him; still no TAPE condemnation. The Same condemnation Andy Shepard said in his grievance report said I would be entitled to. In fact, The TAPE Board actively covered it up, the same way they will try to sweep all this under the carpet. Because TAPE and JPCOT are accountable to no one. They will ignore it and hope it goes away, because they know no one will call them on it. Hey, it's worked before hasn't it?
Then there is the sexism. Rick Holden with the sexual harassment complaint. The implication in the TRO in the Hubbard divorce that Rick is involved in an "intimate relationship with Hubbard, the very same woman that, I think there is pretty solid proof that Jay Holden, his son, was doing the hunk chunk with.....eww. And now, another prominent member of tape, past president, respectable man in the community possibly having some sexual harassment issues. Then there is Clayton wood the Vice President of TAPE and his alleged inappropriate "intimate relationship" with the same woman as "team Holden."
Seriously, this is who the "experts" are in teaching sex offender polygraph. On some level it makes sense I guess. But with the rise of Female sex offenders in the market, it does make one wonder if sexism will get in the way of test results. After all, if women in the industry have been treated like this, how will they treat women who truly have no voice? Hmmmmmmmmm
Lastly, it is my understanding that Rick Holden will be making a presentation at APA on sex offender polygraph. SERIOUSLY? With everything out there that has been documented...... ugh never mind.... Maybe the ASPCA will let Michael Vick do a seminar on animal rescue or the Brady Center will have Ted Neugent do a speech on responsible gun control lmao
Ya know, it just shocks me that these people want all this stuff out there. They know I have the info or can get it, they know they can stop this in a few hours. Either they think no one will eventually listen, or they think I don't have the guts to take this as far as is needed to fix these problems in an industry that I love and care about more than they do. At the very least, I believe in polygraph more than any one of them; their silence and refusal to be test has proven that hands down.
But now they just seem to be another piece of the puzzle that independently verify what I am trying to warn the Texas Public about in regard to the powers that be having some issues with racism and sexism.
Now the documents sissy letter and sissy lawyer letter go together, as sissy letter refers to the lawyer letter. Because these two documents were in the same file, one can only assume they are both attached to her. I am trying to further authenticate that letter, but I haven't seen sissy literally in about 3 or 4 years. But again, given the source of the documents, one document refers to the other, and the fact they were both in the same file, this is good enough for me to feel confident enough to post. Authentication from sissy would just be icing on the cake.
ANYWAY, If you read the document, sissy letter, it is easy to see that the problems in Texas go waaaaaayyyy back and go right to the tippy top. It should be noted that Kelly Hendricks openly admits on his website that he is the Chairman of JPCOT. This letter makes pretty clear assertions that Mr. Hendricks was remove by then Governor Rick Perry for issues that revolve around sexual harassment and racist comments. I am trying to get more information about this; but from what I understand, the sexist comment was something like "how does it feel being the only pussy in the room with all the power." Would that be an accurate statement Kelly? (I tried to give you a chance to opt out Kelly. I followed my obligation. You had an opportunity to avert this).
I am still looking for exact information about the racist comment, but I think by now I have demonstrated that I have the ability to find it. Worry not, I will find it and when I do, I will post it if all this is still ongoing. Not a good time to be a man of the south and a racist guys. Just not a good time to be "that guy."
On this note, given the information posted here, I call on Kelly to do the right thing and step down from the JPCOT Committee, You know, the JPCOT Committee that TAPE's lawyers said didn't exist back in 2008. We'll get to that.
Anyway, Kelly, step down before I have the ability to confirm what is said in the attached document. I would also suggest that TAPE call for the resignation of Kelly Hendricks given that I have already posted documentation that TAPE controls JPCOT to some degree or the other.
Do the right thing Kelly
Now as we can clearly see, women and minorities seem to have a wee bit of a hard time in Texas. I am shocked that this is not a problem to the bigger associations; APA, AAPP etc etc. As these associations seem 100% content to either ignore what is happening in Texas, avoid it by claiming it has no power or jurisdiction, or condone it by looking the other way. One thing I have not seen or heard is any association CONDEMN these behaviors (racism, sexism, possible monopolistic practices)
I have been trying to tell you people on the higher level for years about this stuff and you have been ignoring me. Now we have a separate account, someone not attached to me in any way, saying pretty much the same thing. What do you people need to take a look at what is going on here in Texas, a burning cross?
If this is happening to other examiners, in outré own industry, what are the chances that race may play a role with pass or fail? It's a fair question. If they will engage in this behavior with examiners, they will engage in this behavior with truly no voice, the examinee.
I can say John Rios doesn't care, he won't do anything about it, and I have video evidence that I presented the lieguytoo racist crap to him; still no TAPE condemnation. The Same condemnation Andy Shepard said in his grievance report said I would be entitled to. In fact, The TAPE Board actively covered it up, the same way they will try to sweep all this under the carpet. Because TAPE and JPCOT are accountable to no one. They will ignore it and hope it goes away, because they know no one will call them on it. Hey, it's worked before hasn't it?
Then there is the sexism. Rick Holden with the sexual harassment complaint. The implication in the TRO in the Hubbard divorce that Rick is involved in an "intimate relationship with Hubbard, the very same woman that, I think there is pretty solid proof that Jay Holden, his son, was doing the hunk chunk with.....eww. And now, another prominent member of tape, past president, respectable man in the community possibly having some sexual harassment issues. Then there is Clayton wood the Vice President of TAPE and his alleged inappropriate "intimate relationship" with the same woman as "team Holden."
Seriously, this is who the "experts" are in teaching sex offender polygraph. On some level it makes sense I guess. But with the rise of Female sex offenders in the market, it does make one wonder if sexism will get in the way of test results. After all, if women in the industry have been treated like this, how will they treat women who truly have no voice? Hmmmmmmmmm
Lastly, it is my understanding that Rick Holden will be making a presentation at APA on sex offender polygraph. SERIOUSLY? With everything out there that has been documented...... ugh never mind.... Maybe the ASPCA will let Michael Vick do a seminar on animal rescue or the Brady Center will have Ted Neugent do a speech on responsible gun control lmao
Ya know, it just shocks me that these people want all this stuff out there. They know I have the info or can get it, they know they can stop this in a few hours. Either they think no one will eventually listen, or they think I don't have the guts to take this as far as is needed to fix these problems in an industry that I love and care about more than they do. At the very least, I believe in polygraph more than any one of them; their silence and refusal to be test has proven that hands down.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 10, 2015, 03:14 PMAnd evan, great post. Problem is, agencies don't have to follow APA policy she it comes to polygraph.
I do think the APA has made efforts to put policies in play which appear to protect the consumer. However, these policies are just guidelines and the APA, seems hesitant to address provable issues in the industry.
I want to be wrong and wish someone would tell me I'm wrong and why. I am just calling it like I see it. With all due respect.
I do think the APA has made efforts to put policies in play which appear to protect the consumer. However, these policies are just guidelines and the APA, seems hesitant to address provable issues in the industry.
I want to be wrong and wish someone would tell me I'm wrong and why. I am just calling it like I see it. With all due respect.
Posted by Joe McCarthy
- Jun 10, 2015, 03:06 PMIn all fairness, 2008, was my fault by coming here. Plain and simple. 2008 was nothing but anger that started from the fist day in that courtroom when some of the other examiners made it personal. Looking back at that, I think they were looking and poking me for a certain reaction, and I at a weak and fragile point in my life where I gave them the reaction they were looking for. Well, except the predictions that I would harm my self or others. I am sure there are people disappointed I didn't do that. Sick fucks as they are. Then, with the help of some of the minions on PP just kept pushing the buttons that frankly I let them push.
I have no one to blame for that but myself. They all egged me on, they all pushed the buttons; but it's a two way street, I shouldn't have let them get to me.
The first time I came here, ok, that is on my tab. Doesn't matter that I didn't know about PP, I came here, I have to own it, it is what it is, it happened.
Coming here this time, that is on the industries tab. I was pushed here, I even warned people it would come to this. No one cared. So, my hands are clean on this one. I am just here to tell the truth, and at the end, drop the mic and leave, boom. I will let the consumer decide.
Problem is, the people involved here are entirely self absorbed, entitled, and they think they are bulletproof. Some of them think they can put out a crappy product, like Mr. 45% & Co. and still get 91% of the business. Not because they earned it, but because they feel entitled to it.
The argument that the PP sycophants made that I was inexperienced and therefore may not be as good at their golden boys and girl are now irrelevant. I get more pretest confessions from what Parole Officers have told me. I have a lower inconclusive rate than at leafs one of the big boy firms around here. Finally, everyone that walks out of my room can never say they weren't treated fairly; regardless of the result.
Barry Cushman was right when he said on PP that "not all polygraph examiners are created equal." Some of us are better and that scares the examiners who have been around for a while and haven't had to hunt for their food; so to speak. If you go by Richard Wood's numbers, I am 35 times more the polygraph examiner than anyone in his worthless office. Fact, boom
I would put my work up against anyone at Holden's office, and never look back. Frankly I wouldn't even lower myself. Based on the recent evidence out, the Holdens' have some integrity issues to work out. But come of that will get worked out in a Walker County Courtroom, and I can't wait to watch that show go down.
I also call bullshit in stats argument that I should have handled it there or within the industry rather than come here. Well, I tried that and saw it wouldn't have mattered. The polygraph industry hides dirty laundry under the bed rather than took it in the washer.
The real test of the Integrity of the polygraph industry is if organizations play into Maria and TAPE's efforts to ostracize or blacklist me for exposing the corrupt and dirty system in Texas and the lack of desire to fix it. Because we know that is what Maria and TAPE will do; they are nothing if not predictable.
Come on, look at the things you say above.
Just follow me here I have a point
Here you are saying that everyone who takes a polygraph is a potential victim of a fraud. Or at least that is my take.
Here you are saying that polygraphs "best and brightest" are charlatans and snake oil sales men. You're calling them bean counters who cook the books to back up the ponzi scheme (lack of a better analogy at this time) that they sell as polygraph. lastly you are saying that they are perpetrating a fraud because their numbers are cooked to look better than what they might actually be.
That is what I take from those statements.
Now, assuming I'm correct; this is what you believe but have never really had a "smoking gun," so to speak. You have never had any real, clear and convincing evidence, beyond the your experience and what you have seen in the past. There has been nothing you can point to and say, "there, right there; there is the smoking gun. Here is the evidence, I have it in their own writing, they are busted."
Not once, to the best of my knowledge have they ever tried to kick you out of the APA or otherwise ostracize you. This makes sense, the things you say are of no threat to them because you have no smoking gun, so to speak. You may have a ball bat, but no gun. So there is no need to silence you. Anything you say, they feel they can shrug off.
I mean if Maria was truly concerned that the provable truth was damaging to the industry, how is speculation not damaging to the industry? Why has she never filed a complaint against you? Because you are not a threat to HER, the examiners "in her life" or TAPE. She doesn't care about the industry, she cares about herself and the money that flows to Clayton and Rick; her "buddies."
Think about it, the only difference between most of what you say (we do disagree on some points), and what I say is, when I say the numbers don't seem to be adding up, I have evidence that there is a problem. When I bring it up to the "powers" they shrug it off, then when I bring it public because something needs to be done, attempts are made to silence me or discredit me in the industry. Damn the hard core evidence obtained from the examiners themselves. "THE TRUTH ISN'T THE TRUTH. OUR TRUTH IS THE TRUTH"
When you say there are funky and suspect relationships (cronyism) in the industry, it is laughed off. Because you have no evidence of impropriety that they can't say, "naaaa, he is taking this or that out of context." But I come along and prove with court documents that there are more than "strange and symbiotic" relationships going on, oooooo no, Joe is having a "falling down" decompression. Look out he is going to sling an AR15 on his back and kill off his "Texas oppressors" The sky is falling, the sky is falling. LMAO, that is still funny to me; what a bunch of chicken littles. I wonder if they're disappointed that I am not the person they predicted? I mean, come on, you'd think that would be a safe question to answer guys.
I'm not trying to say that you don't make valid points; you do. What I am saying is no one ever comes after you because they were never stupid enough to hand you the smoking guns you needed to show you are right about a few things.
In Texas, they were stupid enough to leave a trail, arrogant enough to think it would never surface, and MORONIC enough to not leave me alone when I was quiet and didn't feel backed into a corner in regard to my future.
Again, if I had been just left alone in my office, my little one man operation would never had been a threat to them again. They had me beaten down to a state of capitulation.
I was willing and even eager to capitulate in October of last year, agreeing to all their terms and asking for nothing more than reciprocity.
Wait till I have all that ready to publish. The true colors of John Rios, St. John and TAPE will be clear then. They are people and an organization that cannot be trusted to keep their word. I base this on history and the documentation I will release at my discretion at the right time.
Anyway, like I said, the retaliation will begin anywhere between now and January or February of next year. If I shoed up to TAPE for state approver CEU's I would be stopped before I even got in the door, or while their I will either be threatened, attacked or someone would attempt to coax me into a fight like Maria Hubbard tried to do in Vegas, coward that she is.
I have no one to blame for that but myself. They all egged me on, they all pushed the buttons; but it's a two way street, I shouldn't have let them get to me.
The first time I came here, ok, that is on my tab. Doesn't matter that I didn't know about PP, I came here, I have to own it, it is what it is, it happened.
Coming here this time, that is on the industries tab. I was pushed here, I even warned people it would come to this. No one cared. So, my hands are clean on this one. I am just here to tell the truth, and at the end, drop the mic and leave, boom. I will let the consumer decide.
Problem is, the people involved here are entirely self absorbed, entitled, and they think they are bulletproof. Some of them think they can put out a crappy product, like Mr. 45% & Co. and still get 91% of the business. Not because they earned it, but because they feel entitled to it.
The argument that the PP sycophants made that I was inexperienced and therefore may not be as good at their golden boys and girl are now irrelevant. I get more pretest confessions from what Parole Officers have told me. I have a lower inconclusive rate than at leafs one of the big boy firms around here. Finally, everyone that walks out of my room can never say they weren't treated fairly; regardless of the result.
Barry Cushman was right when he said on PP that "not all polygraph examiners are created equal." Some of us are better and that scares the examiners who have been around for a while and haven't had to hunt for their food; so to speak. If you go by Richard Wood's numbers, I am 35 times more the polygraph examiner than anyone in his worthless office. Fact, boom
I would put my work up against anyone at Holden's office, and never look back. Frankly I wouldn't even lower myself. Based on the recent evidence out, the Holdens' have some integrity issues to work out. But come of that will get worked out in a Walker County Courtroom, and I can't wait to watch that show go down.
I also call bullshit in stats argument that I should have handled it there or within the industry rather than come here. Well, I tried that and saw it wouldn't have mattered. The polygraph industry hides dirty laundry under the bed rather than took it in the washer.
The real test of the Integrity of the polygraph industry is if organizations play into Maria and TAPE's efforts to ostracize or blacklist me for exposing the corrupt and dirty system in Texas and the lack of desire to fix it. Because we know that is what Maria and TAPE will do; they are nothing if not predictable.
Come on, look at the things you say above.
Just follow me here I have a point
QuoteBut there's a hell of a lot of victimization that occurs in the polygraph field every day.
Here you are saying that everyone who takes a polygraph is a potential victim of a fraud. Or at least that is my take.
QuoteMeanwhile, polygraph's self-appointed intelligentsia --mainly the loyalist industry geeks, technocrats and statistical alchemists behind the public relations campaign promoting polygraph validity -- fortify their insular, make-believe world with claims that manage to escape vigorous scientific scrutiny, yet bamboozle a surprising number of people who outwardly appear smart enough to know better.
Here you are saying that polygraphs "best and brightest" are charlatans and snake oil sales men. You're calling them bean counters who cook the books to back up the ponzi scheme (lack of a better analogy at this time) that they sell as polygraph. lastly you are saying that they are perpetrating a fraud because their numbers are cooked to look better than what they might actually be.
That is what I take from those statements.
Now, assuming I'm correct; this is what you believe but have never really had a "smoking gun," so to speak. You have never had any real, clear and convincing evidence, beyond the your experience and what you have seen in the past. There has been nothing you can point to and say, "there, right there; there is the smoking gun. Here is the evidence, I have it in their own writing, they are busted."
Not once, to the best of my knowledge have they ever tried to kick you out of the APA or otherwise ostracize you. This makes sense, the things you say are of no threat to them because you have no smoking gun, so to speak. You may have a ball bat, but no gun. So there is no need to silence you. Anything you say, they feel they can shrug off.
I mean if Maria was truly concerned that the provable truth was damaging to the industry, how is speculation not damaging to the industry? Why has she never filed a complaint against you? Because you are not a threat to HER, the examiners "in her life" or TAPE. She doesn't care about the industry, she cares about herself and the money that flows to Clayton and Rick; her "buddies."
Think about it, the only difference between most of what you say (we do disagree on some points), and what I say is, when I say the numbers don't seem to be adding up, I have evidence that there is a problem. When I bring it up to the "powers" they shrug it off, then when I bring it public because something needs to be done, attempts are made to silence me or discredit me in the industry. Damn the hard core evidence obtained from the examiners themselves. "THE TRUTH ISN'T THE TRUTH. OUR TRUTH IS THE TRUTH"
When you say there are funky and suspect relationships (cronyism) in the industry, it is laughed off. Because you have no evidence of impropriety that they can't say, "naaaa, he is taking this or that out of context." But I come along and prove with court documents that there are more than "strange and symbiotic" relationships going on, oooooo no, Joe is having a "falling down" decompression. Look out he is going to sling an AR15 on his back and kill off his "Texas oppressors" The sky is falling, the sky is falling. LMAO, that is still funny to me; what a bunch of chicken littles. I wonder if they're disappointed that I am not the person they predicted? I mean, come on, you'd think that would be a safe question to answer guys.
I'm not trying to say that you don't make valid points; you do. What I am saying is no one ever comes after you because they were never stupid enough to hand you the smoking guns you needed to show you are right about a few things.
In Texas, they were stupid enough to leave a trail, arrogant enough to think it would never surface, and MORONIC enough to not leave me alone when I was quiet and didn't feel backed into a corner in regard to my future.
Again, if I had been just left alone in my office, my little one man operation would never had been a threat to them again. They had me beaten down to a state of capitulation.
I was willing and even eager to capitulate in October of last year, agreeing to all their terms and asking for nothing more than reciprocity.
Wait till I have all that ready to publish. The true colors of John Rios, St. John and TAPE will be clear then. They are people and an organization that cannot be trusted to keep their word. I base this on history and the documentation I will release at my discretion at the right time.
Anyway, like I said, the retaliation will begin anywhere between now and January or February of next year. If I shoed up to TAPE for state approver CEU's I would be stopped before I even got in the door, or while their I will either be threatened, attacked or someone would attempt to coax me into a fight like Maria Hubbard tried to do in Vegas, coward that she is.
Posted by Evan S
- Jun 10, 2015, 02:33 PMPlease google the following:
AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION - MODEL POLICY
The link is:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwiLu5jw3oXGAhXIGKwKHaRRAJQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polygraph.org%2Ffiles%2FModel_Policy_for_Law_Enforcement-Public_Services_Pre-Employment_Screening_Examinations.doc&ei=7X94VcuQIMixsAWko4GgCQ&usg=AFQjCNF0itWZeGNtF34-AP9-kpnDbD1m-Q
and you will find the following:
3.3 Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant.
AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION - MODEL POLICY
The link is:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAAahUKEwiLu5jw3oXGAhXIGKwKHaRRAJQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.polygraph.org%2Ffiles%2FModel_Policy_for_Law_Enforcement-Public_Services_Pre-Employment_Screening_Examinations.doc&ei=7X94VcuQIMixsAWko4GgCQ&usg=AFQjCNF0itWZeGNtF34-AP9-kpnDbD1m-Q
and you will find the following:
3.3 Polygraph test results should never be used as the sole basis for the selection or rejection of a law-enforcement or public-service applicant.
Posted by Wandersmann
- Jun 10, 2015, 01:36 PMI'm grateful that Joe and Dan are in the polygraph business. I wish that I had encountered guys like them during my tribulations. Please keep pushing guys. You seem to represent the best way forward.
To me, the best solution is not to make the polygraph the panacea of truth. If someone flunks the drug use question, for example, then put that part of their lives under a microscope. If nothing further is revealed in the BI, then DROP IT ! Today's powers to be say that it costs too much money to consider a man's (or woman's) hard earned reputation. I think our founding father's would have said, "spend the extra money and find some other way to save $" I also dispute the lame excuse that a focused BI would cost more money. As a former investigator I can also attest to the fact that it is next to impossible to ascertain how much money would actually be spent by going the extra mile. Government employee investigators and most contractors are salaried employees. I don't recall money ever being an issue on an investigation. No one ever said to me, "Good job, we've pretty much solved this case but now we must close it because we've spent too much money on it". That is, in essence, what happens when someone has completed all processing and then gets bumped from a job strictly because of the polygraph with no follow-up investigation.
To me, the best solution is not to make the polygraph the panacea of truth. If someone flunks the drug use question, for example, then put that part of their lives under a microscope. If nothing further is revealed in the BI, then DROP IT ! Today's powers to be say that it costs too much money to consider a man's (or woman's) hard earned reputation. I think our founding father's would have said, "spend the extra money and find some other way to save $" I also dispute the lame excuse that a focused BI would cost more money. As a former investigator I can also attest to the fact that it is next to impossible to ascertain how much money would actually be spent by going the extra mile. Government employee investigators and most contractors are salaried employees. I don't recall money ever being an issue on an investigation. No one ever said to me, "Good job, we've pretty much solved this case but now we must close it because we've spent too much money on it". That is, in essence, what happens when someone has completed all processing and then gets bumped from a job strictly because of the polygraph with no follow-up investigation.