I regret to report that Doug Williams has been indicted. The U.S. Department of Justice announced the news this afternoon:
Quotehttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraph-indicted-allegedly-training-customers-lir-during-federally-administered
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, November 14, 2014
Owner of 'Polygraph.com' Indicted for Allegedly Training Customers to Lie During Federally Administered Polygraph Examinations
A former Oklahoma City law enforcement officer and owner of "Polygraph.com" (http://www.polygraph.com) has been indicted on obstruction of justice and mail fraud charges for allegedly training customers to lie and conceal crimes during polygraph examinations.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Acting Assistant Commissioner Mark Morgan of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and Special Agent in Charge James E. Finch of the FBI's Oklahoma City Field Office made the announcement.
Douglas Williams, 69, of Norman, Oklahoma, was charged in a five-count indictment in the Western District of Oklahoma with mail fraud and obstruction. According to allegations in the indictment, Williams, the owner and operator of "Polygraph.com," marketed his training services to people appearing for polygraph examinations before federal law enforcement agencies, federal intelligence agencies, and state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as people required to take polygraph examinations under the terms of their parole or probation.
The indictment further alleges that Williams trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation. Williams is also alleged to have trained a second individual posing as an applicant seeking federal employment to lie and conceal crimes in a pre-employment polygraph examination. Williams, who was paid for both training sessions, is alleged to have instructed the individuals to deny having received his polygraph training.
The charges contained in an indictment are merely accusations, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
The investigation is being investigated by U.S. Custom and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and the FBI's Oklahoma City Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Mark Angehr and Brian K. Kidd of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section.
14-1272
I believe this case has serious First Amendment implications. A silver lining to this dark cloud is that it cannot help but to bring much-needed scrutiny to polygraph policy.
I have a feeling this is not going to be a Chad Dixon-like slam dunk. The trial should bring many things to light. My guess is Doug will win.
What wonderful news. A conviction and some serious prison time would be even better news!
The indictment of Doug Williams is a de facto admission by the U.S. government that polygraph countermeasures work.
As Doug would say: BULLSHIT. It's a de facto statement that what he does is a crime, just like Chad Dixon committed the same crime!
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 05:48 PMA conviction and some serious prison time would be even better news!
That is the key word "conviction"--it hasn't happened yet, and my guess is it won't. There will be more than Doug Williams on trial this time--it will be interesting indeed.
What a shame. I have a feeling that George Maschke is next. Once the case gets prepared, the feds will flag George with TSA and just wait until George's next return to the U.S., then arrest him as soon as he arrives at some U.S. airport.
:(
QuoteWhat a shame. I have a feeling that George Maschke is next. Once the case gets prepared, the feds will flag George with TSA and just wait until George's next return to the U.S., then arrest him as soon as he arrives at some U.S. airport.
:(
My next return to the U.S. is a week from today, on Friday 21 November at 5:13 EST, when I'll be landing at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 14, 2014, 06:03 PMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 05:48 PMA conviction and some serious prison time would be even better news!
That is the key word "conviction"--it hasn't happened yet, and my guess is it won't. There will be more than Doug Williams on trial this time--it will be interesting indeed.
Wasn't it you who said the same thing about Chad Dixon? Or was it George?
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 14, 2014, 06:09 PMQuoteWhat a shame. I have a feeling that George Maschke is next. Once the case gets prepared, the feds will flag George with TSA and just wait until George's next return to the U.S., then arrest him as soon as he arrives at some U.S. airport.
:(
My next return to the U.S. is a week from today, on Friday 21 November at 5:13 EST, when I'll be landing at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
We'll be waiting for you!
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 06:09 PMWasn't it you who said the same thing about Chad Dixon?Or was it George?
Dixon made a plea deal. I think he would have won had he went to trial.
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 06:09 PMQuote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 14, 2014, 06:03 PMQuote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 05:48 PMA conviction and some serious prison time would be even better news!
That is the key word "conviction"--it hasn't happened yet, and my guess is it won't. There will be more than Doug Williams on trial this time--it will be interesting indeed.
Wasn't it you who said the same thing about Chad Dixon? Or was it George?
quickfix,
You'll recall that Chad Dixon didn't stand trial. He entered a plea agreement with prosecutors. It's interesting that proceedings against Doug Williams are going forward in Oklahoma rather than the Eastern District of Virginia, which was the venue for proceedings in the Dixon case.
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 06:11 PMWe'll be waiting for you!
So you are now on the record for making threats against George.
QuoteOnce the case gets prepared, the feds will flag George with TSA and just wait until George's next return to the U.S., then arrest him as soon as he arrives at some U.S. airport.
Your gloating may be premature. The outcome of Doug's conviction and punishment may be your desire, but you should ponder the flip side: a full public hearing on polygraphy and its abuses and an acquittal followed up by malicious prosecution lawsuits. As I said, it will be interesting.
No threats, just want to be there to greet him! And Chad Dixon copped a plea because he knew he was going to be convicted and wanted a shorter sentence. I'm not sure what your point is, Oklahoma or Virginia, it was still a federal case.
We'll try to arrange your cell to be next to Doug's.
Marisa Taylor of the McClatchy Washington Bureau has an article about Doug Williams' indictment here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/14/246957_in-leak-crackdown-ex-cop-indicted.html
If George Maschke goes away (or dies), then who will run Antipolygraph.org?
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 06:18 PMNo threats, just want to be there to greet him! And Chad Dixon copped a plea because he knew he was going to be convicted and wanted a shorter sentence. I'm not sure what your point is, Oklahoma or Virginia, it was still a federal case.
We'll try to arrange your cell to be next to Doug's.
Of what crime do believe me to be guilty?
The same one Chad Dixon was convicted of.
Quote from: quickfix on Nov 14, 2014, 06:23 PMThe same one Chad Dixon was convicted of.
Setting yourself up for a defamation suit quickfix? Looks like you just may be on the docket as well.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Nov 14, 2014, 06:24 PMQuoteIf George Maschke goes away (or dies), then who will run Antipolygraph.org?
Thanks for posting this, it shows me you're a clown instead of someone whose input is worthy of reading.
It was a serious question. I have an anti-polygraph stance just like George. I like this site. I'm seriously wondering if there is a back-up administrator or moderator on here. If the feds take away Doug and George, there will be no more anti-polygraph websites. This site would get filled with spam and/or hacked, that that would be the end of it.
George, do you have someone designated as a backup to run this site if you are no longer able to do so?
Hey Arkhangelsk: you gotta find me first!!! BTW, I don't want any harm to come to George, but the Watcher did ask a valid question: what does happen to this website if George is, say, incapacitated?
QuoteGeorge, do you have someone designated as a backup to run this site if you are no longer able to do so?
If there are any volunteers who are familiar with web site administration, I'd be interested in hearing from you, preferably by secure means.
Sorry Watcher, I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I take back the clown remark.
Quickfix, it's simply a matter of doing a trace or ping on your IP address.
Spewing out immature remarks is diverse from falsely accusing someone of committing federal crimes...think before you post.
ping away buddy! I can cloak myself in the First Amendment too.
The trial will definitely set some kind of precedence one way or the other; even if convicted, he will probably appeal.
Here are articles on the indictment of Doug Williams from Ars Technica and Mashable, respectively:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/polygraph-com-owner-accused-of-training-customers-to-beat-the-polygraph/
http://mashable.com/2014/11/14/polygraph-dot-com-doug-williams/
I read the indictment; it's very shoddy work. They were able to convince the grand jury, but I think Doug will prevail at trial--I hope he doesn't plead.
Ars Technica has some great reader comments (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/polygraph-com-owner-accused-of-training-customers-to-beat-the-polygraph/) on the news of Doug Williams' indictment. Here are some samples:
Modern Major General Thanatos writes:
QuoteI'm not sure what is more asinine, using polygraphs as an employment requisite or preventing people from talking about how to beat polygraphs.
to which dfjdejulio replies:
QuoteReminds one of the anticircumvention measures in the DMCA, doesn't it?
"Yes, we know that this copy protection is horrible and easy to defeat, but if you provide tools that, among their other uses, can be used to circumvent it, you are now breaking the law."
feldon30 writes:
QuoteHow the fuck is this a crime? Is this North Korea?
adipose writes:
QuoteThe polygraph is used as a scare tactic more than anything. Reassuring people that it can be beaten is the first step away from that fear. That can't be allowed!
Evan E writes:
QuoteThis reminds me of a story Feynman used to tell (it's in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman). He figured out how to get into many of the safes at the Los Alamos project - some he could actually pick, and others it was easy to guess the combinations (since it was a bunch of physicists, pi or e being a combination was common). He brought this to the attention of the military admins in charge, and their responses was to issue a memo essentially saying "Do not let Prof. Feynman near any of the safes".
If you're relying on a test that can be defeated this easily (and often registers false positives just because people are nervous while taking the test), the problem is with your test, not with the testees.
Matt Bieneman writes:
QuoteWhen will the people who are selling the polygraph machines & training courses to the government be prosecuted for fraud as well? Their actions are much more obviously fraudulent. The not only cost the government money, but they are seriously endangering national security because the government relies on these machines to screen people for security clearances, rather than spending the money on some kind of meaningful security checks. The polygraph tests are only capable of stopping rank amateurs, and then with no better accuracy than a coin flip. The real spies are guaranteed to pass the test because they are prepared for it.
adamrussell writes:
QuoteFrom Geo Orwell's 1984:
"The thing that he was about to do was to open a diary. This was not illegal (nothing was illegal, since there were no longer any laws), but if detected it was reasonably certain that it would be punished by death, or at least by twenty-five years in a forced-labour camp."
This is not about diaries - its about rule of law. Without laws you can be arrested for just doing something they dont want you doing. It seems like lately courts have started bending laws to make sure that anyone that is doing something "against common decency" he can be arrested for it. Its a slippery slope that leads to a nightmare.
It's significant, I think that the only "crimes" that the government alleges against Doug Williams are those it conceived, funded, and staged-managed. And this is so despite the fact that the U.S. government has a list of nearly 5,000 of his customers and had well over a year to investigate those customers.
I think this is a pretty clear case of the U.S. government abusing its investigatory and prosecutorial powers to stifle speech it dislikes. See the post (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/11/15/doug-williams-indicted-for-teaching-how-to-pass-a-polygraph-test/) about Doug's indictment on the AntiPolygraph.org News blog.
I also note that in the "criminal cover sheet" attached to the indictment (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-indictment.pdf) (2.6 mb PDF), the government recommends that Doug be subject to an unsecured bond in the amount of $10,000. So there is no attempt to keep him in pre-trial detention.
A post (http://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/11/15/1934202/former-police-officer-indicted-for-teaching-how-to-pass-a-polygraph-test) I wrote for Slashdot.org made the front page yesterday, and there is a lengthy comments section.
In addition, the Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/polygraph-com-owner-accused-of-training-customers-to-beat-the-polygraph/) mentioned above has been posted to Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/2mfa01/us_indicts_website_owner_for_training_customers/), where there is also a comments section.
Reader opinion seems to be running strongly against the government's actions in this case.
A question that I think needs to be asked and answered in connection with U.S. v. Doug Williams is: what other attempts did the government make to ensnare him? Did he reject any attempts, and if so, did the government continue with additional attempts?
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 16, 2014, 12:09 PMA question that I think needs to be asked and answered in connection with U.S. v. Doug Williams is: what other attempts did the government make to ensnare him? Did he reject any attempts, and if so, did the government continue with additional attempts?
Come now, George, surely you don't expect the prosecution to provide any and all evidence, culpatory and exculpatory, as required by law? If they give Doug a fair trial, they can't convict him.
Expect the government to do everything in its power, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, to influence the outcome of this trial. At this point, the White House desperately needs the conviction, to evade exposure as a bunch of incompetent wankers.
I have an idea why the Department of Justice may have chosen to charge Doug Williams in the Western District of Oklahoma rather than in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Chad Dixon was prosecuted: public relations.
If the trial were held in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC, it would have been very convenient for many news agencies to cover the trial closely, because they have major bureaus there, close to the national center of power. Oklahoma City is a sleepy backwater by comparison.
Reader comments on the indictment of Doug Williams on the Wall Street Journal's legal blog are running heavily against the government's action (and against polygraphy):
http://linkis.com/on.wsj.com/qPgpo
At an arraignment (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/11/19/trial-date-set-in-u-s-v-doug-williams/) hearing yesterday, a trial date of 13 January 2015 was set. Key case documents will be posted to AntiPolygraph.org's Polygraph Litigation (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#doug-williams) page as they are published by the court.
On PhysicsForum.com, user "nsaspook" has initiated a relevant thread on the question, Why should it be illegal to show how to beat the polygraph test (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-should-it-be-illegal-to-show-how-to-beat-the-polygraph-test.782832/)?
QuoteWhat a shame. I have a feeling that George Maschke is next. Once the case gets prepared, the feds will flag George with TSA and just wait until George's next return to the U.S., then arrest him as soon as he arrives at some U.S. airport.
:(
So...that didn't happen.
George, there are a lot of people who have visited your website and Doug's who have been saved a lot of money by your exposure of the truth. Are you aware of any way to donate money to Doug Williams' legal fees? This case isn't about him, it's about trying to stifle the truth. Every free person has a stake in this, we should all come together to fight it tooth and nail.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Nov 17, 2014, 05:52 AMI have an idea why the Department of Justice may have chosen to charge Doug Williams in the Western District of Oklahoma rather than in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Chad Dixon was prosecuted: public relations.
If the trial were held in Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC, it would have been very convenient for many news agencies to cover the trial closely, because they have major bureaus there, close to the national center of power. Oklahoma City is a sleepy backwater by comparison.
George, I'm sure the press has something to do with it... but the more likely reality is: This is an Obama initiative (operation lie busters) and it's being tried not so coincidentally in a court with an Obama appointed judge...
I personally don't think this case would stand a chance in a non-Obama jurisdiction. It's very deliberate if you ask me...
Just wondering out loud but..
Since ignorance of polygraphy is paramount to it's success.
Will the success of the fed's case -depend on juror ignorance of polygraphy?
i.e.... Will the feds allow an anti-poly juror (or at least someone who is "educated" enough to understand that it is a hoax) to be selected?
I would be very interested in hearing what the selection criteria is for a juror in this case.....
QuoteGeorge, there are a lot of people who have visited your website and Doug's who have been saved a lot of money by your exposure of the truth. Are you aware of any way to donate money to Doug Williams' legal fees? This case isn't about him, it's about trying to stifle the truth. Every free person has a stake in this, we should all come together to fight it tooth and nail.
Back to top
While there is no legal defense fund at this time, one way you can help is to purchase his books online (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_12?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=how+to+sting+the+polygraph&sprefix=how+to+sting%2Caps%2C181).
Quote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Dec 01, 2014, 11:58 PMGeorge, I'm sure the press has something to do with it... but the more likely realityis: This is an Obama initiative (operation lie busters) and it's being tried not so coincidentally in a court with an Obama appointed judge...
That explanation for the venue seems unlikely to me. For starters, the judge named in the Arraignment Minute Sheet (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-arraignment.pdf), Vicki Miles-LaGrange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicki_Miles-LaGrange), was not appointed to the federal bench by President Obama.
Moreover, I very much doubt that Operation Lie Busters is an "Obama initiative" in the sense that President Obama was in any way involved in its conception and execution. To date, I've seen no indication that the inspiration for Operation Lie Busters goes any higher than CBP Special Agents John R. Schwartz and Fred C. Ball, Jr. See Schwartz's description of Operation Lie Busters (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/01/25/cbp-polygraph-chief-john-r-schwartz-claims-sophisticated-countermeasures-can-be-routinely-identified/) in a letter nominating Ball for an American Polygraph Association award. (Incidentally, the award went to someone else.)
Quote from: 1st4th5thand6th on Dec 01, 2014, 11:58 PMI would be very interested in hearing what the selection criteria is for a juror in this case.....
I hope to be able to be present for the trial and to report publicly on all proceedings, including jury selection. If the government attempts to exclude jurors based on expressed skepticism of polygraphy, that would indeed be newsworthy.
Proceedings are scheduled to commence on 13 January 2015 at 9:00 AM in the Federal Court in Oklahoma City. If any readers might also be able to attend, I would be interested in coordinating with you. I'd very much like to meet and discuss polygraph matters with concerned individuals, and also hope that, in the event I'm unable to be present, someone else might be able to provide courtroom coverage that we could report as the trial unfolds.
If you have an Android or iOS device (phone or tablet), you can contact me securely via Surespot (https://surespot.me), a free, open source messaging app. Install it, create an account, and add me (georgemaschke) as a contact. Additional options for getting in touch are listed in my signature block below.
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 from 7-8 PM Eastern Standard Time, Tom Mauriello, a former chief of the NSA's polygraph office, will host a webcast titled "Polygraph - A truthful discussion about lie detection." Guests are to include Barry Cushman, a past president and current board member of the American Polygraph Association, and Mark Zaid (http://www.markzaid.com), a lawyer specializing in national security cases who represented polygraph victims in Croddy v. FBI (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#zaid):
http://forensiq-inc.com/media/the-forensicweek-com-show-webcast-every-thursday-700-pm-to-800-pm-est/
In a Facebook post about the upcoming webcast, Zaid states "We will definitely be discussing the recent indictment of Doug Williams for allegedly advising applicants to the federal government to lie to polygraphers." Zaid also notes that "audience members can participate and ask questions."
The webcast will take place via Google+ Hangouts and will be watchable here:
https://www.youtube.com/user/forensicweek
The above-mentioned webcast is live now here:
https://plus.google.com/107472082024601203216/posts
Last Thursday's webcast is now archived and may be viewed on demand here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4V9BFZOrzIk
I regret that the host didn't devote more time to the topic of the indictment of Doug Williams, discussion of which begins at 26:35. Mark Zaid expressed concern about it, including the possibility that an aggressive prosecutor might construe the kind of preparation that he (Zaid) provides to clients before a polygraph examination to be a crime, even though he never advises a client to employ polygraph countermeasures.
Barry Cushman's audio periodically faded out, and so it's not possible to hear his full remarks. He opines that it's not a crime to teach polygraph countermeasures and states that he is not concerned that the techniques Doug Williams teaches would help a liar pass the polygraph, yet Cushman seems to think that the indictment is just and proper (for reasons that remain unclear to me).
Barry, if you're reading this, I'd be interested to know more about your thinking in this regard. I'd also be interested to hear from any other members of the polygraph community what they think about this case.
I've been visiting Antipolygraph.org off and on for about 5 years. I have posted on this site before, always with different monikers and different IP addresses. Years ago I tried to get a cleared-job that required the poly, and I failed. I did in depth research on the materials presented here on Antipolygraph.org, and later took another poly for another cleared-job and I passed! I used mental countermeasures and knew what to expect from this stupid interrogation, and it worked like a charm. No confessions from me, and I was as calm as could be. All the while I was thinking of all the bad things I've done that I was never caught for and never told nobody about. In fact, as a mental countermeasure, no only did I do math in my head, but I also thought about the bad things I've done in the past to trigger reactions. No way would I ever tell the polygrapher these things. I know first hand that the whole process is just to get you to confess to something disqualifying. As I sit on my high security clearance, I look in the mirror each day and just wish I could spread the word to everyone to just keep your mouth shut and not tell the polygraphers anything. Keep your past transgressions to yourself, don't be scared thinking that the polygrapher will find out like he is Lord Almighty, and you'll be in a better position to pass.
I support freedom of speech. There is nothing wrong with teaching people how to beat the polygraph. I mean if the polygraph is so perfect, why is the governement suddenly scared of people learning how it works and how to beat it? The government is getting scared now because they know that these countermeasures work, and that criminals are using them to beat their polys that have do to with criminal charges, and others are using to beat polys to get jobs in national security areas where they might otherwise get rejected. The only reason Doug Williams is facing charges is because the undercover agents that put the sting on him specifically got him to agree to teach them how to beat the poly, after they told him that they were criminals or had malicious intentions. That is where Doug is screwed. George Maschke is still in the clear because he seems to have been careful not to do this. Throughout this website George has not taken a criminal confession from someone and still gave them polygraph beating tips. George has put the poly-beating information up for public use, and has made disclaimers that he does not condone criminals using the techniques to cheat the government or law enforcement, but rather he wants to prevent good honest people from being accused as liars and having their careers ruined, known as "false positives". With that disclaimer, George has "plausible deniability" if any of his website visitors used his methods for the wrong reasons, and it would be tough to make charges stick. Doug on the other hand, is in some hot water. Teaching polygraph beating techniques should not be a crime, and all teachers should just be sure to make sure their students agree not to use these skills for obstruction of justice, or whatever, and then they should be good to go.
Now you may be thinking that I am one of those bad people who shouldn't have passed the poly because I said I've done "bad things", but I assure you my dirty deeds have nothing to do with national security, or physically harming anyone. I just don't need the government all up in my business when I can come in and do my job and I am in no way a liability. That's all I'll say about that. Yes, I cheated the poly, have done many things that would disqualify me from my job if they knew about it, and still passed and got cleared. Ok, shame on me, but you know what, so what! I would like to give a hearty "fuck you" to any polygraphers and pro-poly people who are reading this. Law enforcement, polygraph associations, federal agents, government, fuck you all. I am one of the polygraph cheaters and beaters! In your face fuckers!
You are allowed to be fully informed of and prepare for job interviews, medical exams, academic tests, physical fitness tests, and more. Why not polygraphs? The machine is just a piece of junk that is there to scare you. You want to weed out bad candidates, just run the background checks. If they get through the background check and there is nothing negative in their file, then the candidate is good to go. Stop trying to squeeze info out of us with the poly. We are all learning how to beat it.
Two new filings in
U.S. v. Doug Williams are available for download from AntiPolygraph.org:
- Joint Statement of Discovery Conference (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-joint-statement-of-discovery-conference.pdf) held 2 December 2014, filed 8 December 2014;
- Plaintiff's Motion for a Protective Order (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-plaintiff-motion-for-protective-order.pdf) filed 8 December 2014. Requests that "a protective order be entered as to all discovery materials provided in this matter."
Two new filings in
U.S. v. Doug Williams are available for download from AntiPolygraph.org:
- Protective Order (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-protective-order.pdf) dated 19 December 2014 granting U.S. Department of Justice request for a protective order restricting distribution of discovery materials;
- Defendant's Motion for Continuance (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-defendant-motion-for-continuance.pdf) dated 24 December 2014. This request by Doug Williams' attorney, Stephen H. Buzin, seeks continuance of the trial date to the June 2015 docket.
Two new filings in
U.S. v. Doug Williams are available for download from AntiPolygraph.org:
- Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion for Continuance (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-plaintiff-reply-to-defendant-motion-for-continuance.pdf) dated 31 December 2014. Stating no objection to continuance but requesting trial date earlier than June 2015;
- Order (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-order-granting-continuance-to-april-2015-docket.pdf) dated 5 January 2015. Case is moved to the April 2015 docket.
Two new filings in
U.S. v. Doug Williams are available for download from AntiPolygraph.org:
- Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Continuance (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-defendant-unopposed-motion-for-continuance.pdf) dated 18 March 2015, requesting continuance to "the next 2015 trial docket," citing, among other things, the receipt on 2 March 2015 of an additional 425 pages of discovery material from the U.S. Government, and noting that on 16 March 2015, "counsel for Defendant was advised by counsel for the United States of America a third discovery disclosure would be produced in the coming weeks.";
- Order (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-order-granting-continuance-to-may-2015-docket.pdf) dated 25 March 2015. Case is moved to the May 2015 docket.
This is Gavin McInnis on the FOX NEWS CHANNEL program REDEYE talking about my upcoming trial – and the abuse of power by the government in charging me.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=4170436226001
Doug Williams' trial for teaching two undercover federal agents how to pass polygraph "tests" is scheduled to begin two weeks from today, on the morning of Tuesday, 12 May 2015.
I am planning to attend the trial and to post daily updates on developments to AntiPolygraph.org. While in Oklahoma City, I'll be happy to meet with any of our readers who may also be in town, and to speak on the record about polygraph matters with any journalists covering the trial.
Doug Williams will be interviewed today on The Scott Horton Show (http://scotthorton.org), which will be broadcast live online beginning at 12:00 PM Eastern time. I understand that Williams' interview is to begin at 13:30 Eastern:
http://scotthorton.org/listen/
Update: Here is a direct link to the livestream:
http://lrn.fm/listen/online/
Scott Horton's interview of Doug Williams is now available online and may be listened to here:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/04/30/43015-doug-williams/
On the night before the trial of Doug Williams for teaching two undercover agents how to pass a polygraph "test" I'll be at the Oklahoma Skeptics in the Pub meetup to talk about polygraphy and Operation Lie Busters (Monday, 11 May from 7-9 PM Central). All are welcome:
http://www.meetup.com/okskeptics/events/221268789/#event-comments-section
New documents were filed in
U.S. v. Doug Williams yesterday:
- United States' Proposed Jury Instructions (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-proposed-jury-instructions.pdf) (link fixed) dated 4 May 2015. Among other things, the prosecution wishes the judge to instruct the jury that "[a]n internal investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security into the possible commission of a federal offense" and "[a] pre-employment suitability determination and security background investigation conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection" qualify as official proceedings within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) (Witness Tampering).
- United States' Requested Voir Dire Questions (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-requested-voir-dire-questions.pdf) dated 4 May 2015. The prosecution wishes to identify (and presumably eliminate) any potential jurors who have taken a polygraph "test" before, or who have a family member who has done so, or who have concerns about the use of polygraph examinations.
- Trial Brief of United States (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-trial-brief-of-united-states.pdf) dated 4 May 2015. Prosecution seeks to exclude any evidence or argument regarding the reliability of polygraph examinations, entrapment, or the defendant's prior good acts or lack of a criminal record.
I am going to respond to this thread because it is sad to see George Maschke talking to himself. I listened to the Scott Horton interview, and I could not have said it better. Doug Williams is right on point with everything he said. Why are the prosecutors trying to suppress Doug's clean record, good deeds, and eliminate anyone from the jury that knows about the polygraph? The secret is getting out about this machine. The polygraph is garbage. I first took it and failed because I was nervous and did not know what to expect. Then I did my research, came in prepared, and passed my federal polys with ease, all while hiding my dirty laundry. I'm still employed there today and have a high security clearance. My business is not that of the government. I have not victimized anyone and I am great at my job. Now a person should be honest, but a person should also not incriminate themselves or give out too much info. You can lie on the polygraph just like they can lie on their SF-86 National Security Clearance form.
Here is a side note about that SF-86: If you do not disclose that you had psychological counseling, or that you got arrested in some random state or country that you did not live in for at least 30 days, the government will NEVER find out unless you or somebody else, like a developed reference, tells them. Why? Because there is no national database they can check. The investigators only check places that you lived at for 30 days, they do not run around the world and check records of all your vacation spots. This information is kept locally. The government does not go to every city and state and check police records and psych records. That would be too time consuming. They only check when you tell them to because you told them that you have a record there.
Anyway, polygraphers are getting scared because as more people learn the game, learn not to confess and how to relax during the polygraph "interrogation" (Doug's words, Polygraph School is mostly interrogation tactics), then less people will make confessions and more people will pass. I hope Doug wins his trial. I would like to see the lid blown off of the polygraph industry, and put polygraphers out of a job. Want to investigate somebody? Then run a background check. Trying to scare someone into confessing to things that would have never been discovered is wrong. An individual has the right to learn how the polygraph works and know what to expect before they go in for the "exam". Polygraphers are just too scared that they will not get as many confessions, well you know what, too bad! Find another career polygraphers!
I personally have told all my friends and co-workers about the polygraph. I tell them the rule is to just not confess. It is an interrogation to dig up your dirty laundry. Expect to be coerced, but do not fall for it, it happens to everyone. Relax and keep your mouth shut and you'll be fine. Follow this advice, and you may not even need to employ countermeasures!
DO NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS. THEY ARE JUST LITTLE TROUBLED PEOPLE. THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE THINKING AND NEITHER DOES THE POLYGRAPH MACHINE. RELAX AND DO NOT MAKE ANY CONFESSIONS AND YOU WILL BE FINE! POLYGRAPH DOES NOT WORK!
Go Doug Williams!
Go Antipolygraph.org!
Re filed Documents 1 and 3. The polygraph charts which Doug taught others to manipulate are a witness to some aspect of the applicant's background and suitability for employment only to the extent that the paradigm which leads to the production of the charts is valid.
The government can't have it both ways--either there is witness tampering (some reason to believe the witness is reliable and credible in the absence of any tampering, i.e., the charts are accurate) or there is no reasonable facsimile of a witness involved and absent a witness--no witness tampering.
Doug's attorney should and presumably will argue this vigorously.
Document 2's request to exclude all who have taken a polygraph exam is way too broad and seeks to establish an unfair burden for the defendant, i.e., that those who will judge him must be ignorant of the process which he taught others to manipulate.
Quote from: Drew_Richardson on May 05, 2015, 05:34 PMRe filed Documents 1 and 3. The polygraph charts which Doug taught others to manipulate are a witness to some aspect of the applicant's background and suitability for employment only to the extent that the paradigm which leads to the production of the charts is valid.
The government can't have it both ways--either there is witness tampering (some reason to believe the witness is reliable and credible in the absence of any tampering, i.e., the charts are accurate) or there is no reasonable facsimile of a witness involved and absent a witness--no witness tampering.
Doug's attorney should and presumably will argue this vigorously.
Document 2's request to exclude all who have taken a polygraph exam is way too broad and seeks to establish an unfair burden for the defendant, i.e., that those who will judge him must be ignorant of the process which he taught others to manipulate.
These are all great points Drew – thanks for sharing them. I have forwarded all of this to my attorney.
On 5 May, attorneys for Doug Williams submitted their proposed jury instructions (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-defendants-proposed-jury-instructions.pdf), which suggest that Williams might not testify in the case and that an entrapment defense will be presented. A second attorney has also been added to Williams' defense team: Chase A. O'Brien of the Buzin Law Office.
Doug,
You are quite welcome. I hope the thoughts will be useful. Let me now add briefly to them. I hope to add another post later today/this evening regarding another central issue in your indictment, but for the minute and in continuation....
The government will argue that my notion of the witness being the polygraph charts and not the examinee is wrong (largely because it will suit its case to completely remove polygraphy from charges that stem from nothing but polygraphy, i.e., people did not come to you and pay you good money to tell them that they should say that they don't know you, BUT quite clearly to learn how to effectively manipulate polygraph charts.)
Apart from this trial matter, the day-to-day operation for the government is to deny that the examinee is a trusted witness (otherwise there would be no need for lie detection). The government treats the examinee/applicant as little more than a biased spokesperson for himself/herself at the time of the polygraph examination and therefore the need for lie detection. Clearly it is the squiggles on the polygraph chart that is the trusted witness in this phase of the applicant inquiry.
This should be made quite clear to the presiding judge, and hopefully the judge will not allow the prosecution to confiscate this fact for its own trial purposes in the face of the reality of applicant investigation.
Quote from: Drew_Richardson on May 06, 2015, 07:36 AMDoug,
You are quite welcome. I hope the thoughts will be useful. Let me now add briefly to them. I hope to add another post later today/this evening regarding another central issue in your indictment, but for the minute and in continuation....
The government will argue that my notion of the witness being the polygraph charts and not the examinee is wrong (largely because it will suit its case to completely remove polygraphy from charges that stem from nothing but polygraphy, i.e., people did not come to you and pay you good money to tell them that they should say that they don't know you, BUT quite clearly to learn how to effectively manipulate polygraph charts.)
Apart from this trial matter, the day-to-day operation for the government is to deny that the examinee is a trusted witness (otherwise there would be no need for lie detection). The government treats the examinee/applicant as little more than a biased spokes person for himself/herself at the time of the polygraph examination and therefore the need for lie detection. Clearly it is the squiggles on the polygraph chart that is the trusted witness in this phase of the applicant inquiry.
This should be made quite clear to the presiding judge, and hopefully the judge will not allow the prosecution to confiscate this fact for its own trial purposes in the face of the reality of applicant investigation.
Thanks again Drew - this is indeed very helpful and I will forward it to my attorney. I welcome anything else you may have to add...
Doug,
One of the central themes of the indictment charging you is that you encouraged applicants to lie regarding various issues. Because deception or encouraging others to deceive is a central issue here, I thought I would dredge up some old writing (a 2001 blog post of mine) describing examiner deception in lie detection and then comment on same. Please take a minute to read/review the following quote...
Quote from: Drew_Richardson on Sep 07, 2001, 03:22 PMExaminer:
You say in part:
"...Yes, an examiner lies during the conduct of an interview. Every investigator I have ever known or heard of, from law enforcement to insurance to private lies during the interview process. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned this type of activity decades ago. This is an appropriate and accepted aspect of law enforcement. Its not like its any secret, I fail to understand why this is such a significant issue here..."
You are to be congratulated for your candor and thanked for furthering these on-going discussions. For the present, without much elaboration (I plan to start a new thread regarding polygraph "examiner" deception), I would like to simply characterize that which you describe as "...examiner lies during the conduct of an interview..." and list certain of those deceptions. Deceptions for the average examiner would include (but not necessarily be limited to) intentional oversimplification, confuscation, misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeration, and known false statement. Amongst the areas and activities that such deceptions will occur within a given polygraph exam and on a continual basis are the following:
(1) A discussion of the autonomic nervous system, its anatomy and physiology, its role in the conduct of a polygraph examination, and the examiner's background as it supports his pontifications regarding said subjects. In general, an examiner has no or little educational background that would qualify him to lead such a discussion and his discussion contains the likely error that gross oversimplification often leads to.
(2) The discussion, conduct of, and post-test explanations of the "stim" test, more recently referred to as an "acquaintance" test.
(3) Examiner representations about the function of irrelevant questions in a control question test (CQT) polygraph exam.
(4) Examiner representations about the function of control questions and their relationship to relevant questions in a CQT exam.
(5) Examiner representations about any recognized validity of the CQT (or other exam formats) in a screening application and about what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the exam at hand, i.e. the one principally of concern to the examinee.
(6) A host of misrepresentations that are made as "themes" and spun to examinees during a post-test interrogation.
(7) The notion that polygraphy merits consideration as a scientific discipline, forensic psychophysiology or other...
This listing is not offered as complete (nor in any way are the surrounding thoughts fully developed) but merely as a starting point for the following commentary and recommendation. You have stated that court opinions have been written which sanction the use of deception on the part of law enforcement officers. Agreed. I would suggest for your consideration the following points:
(1) The deceptions cited in such decisions are generally isolated to specific actions/conversations occurring within specific investigations, not pandemic and not necessary to the day-to-day general and routine practices of law enforcement officers.
(2) The decisions you might cite clearly refer to law enforcement officers. On what basis would you extend this "license to lie" to civilian polygraph examiners conducting polygraph exams related to purely administrative, commercial, or domestic subjects or even to polygraphers hired by the accused in a criminal matter?
For a number of years I have called for the abolition of polygraph screening. I have done so for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is what I believe to be the large scale victimization of people, many of whom have presented their relevant testimony on this web site and message board. I am also offended by any negative impact that pseudoscience has on legitimate science and in particular on meaningful and legitimate forensic science as practiced in the crime laboratory.
Although I hope my expanded ability to opine as a recently retired employee of the FBI will augment the voices of those already carrying the torch and lead to the aforementioned abolition, let me begin by suggesting an intermediate step. Although I do not believe for a minute that all of the deception, lack of due process, etc. that accompanies polygraph screening is justified (even when practiced by law enforcement and/or intelligence officers), for the sake of immediate conversation, let's assume that it is. If in fact it is proper practice and the realm of the law enforcement officer, then it resides within the realm of an advocate, i.e., those who would investigate and prosecute crime. As such it is clearly not a role for a neutral party and in the realm of the amicus curiae expert of the forensic science community. Aside from clearly falling within the role of an adversary and not a neutral forensic expert, I would further maintain, that in the numerous disciplines and sub-disciplines now recognized as being a part of forensic science (my background has largely revolved around the practices of forensic chemistry and toxicology), there is no accepted role for deception in any of these disciplines. Far from being accepted, any such deception would likely be (and has been) the subject of administrative or criminal inquiry.
Let me summarize what I have just said...the deceptions such as are used in polygraphy, if they are to be accepted, belong in the realm of advocates, like police interrogators and prosecutors and not with parties that are supposed to be neutral, like forensic laboratories. Before we examine further whether polygraph screening merits continuation in any setting based on the complexities of validity, utility, and deterrence, let's begin by removing it from that setting where it clearly has no role—the forensic crime laboratory and related professional scientific bodies... Although there is a clear role for scientific inquiry into polygraph practices, there is no basis for polygraphy being a part of the forensic family or the forensic crime laboratory.
Clearly, as you are aware, there is much deception in the routine practice of lie detection, and as I have discussed, although there is some precedent for legally accepted limited deception on the part of law enforcement in dealing with criminal defendants, I believe the plethora of lies in each and every lie detection exam is unprecedented and unwarranted.
But more specifically as it applies to your situation, one of the aforementioned lies relates to the nature of control/comparison questions. These are misrepresented as relevant questions and the examiner further encourages the examinee to either minimize the nature (lie) regarding what he (the examinee) has been misled to believe is relevant material or at a minimum to be concerned that he/she is doing so.
I would argue that this last type of lie detection deception concerning control questions parallels that which you are accused of, that it occurs with each and every probable lie control question test administered, and that you very broadly need to introduce polygraph practice in order to reveal these parallels and adequately defend yourself...
In fact, I believe that instructions given to examiner trainees as contained in the various handbooks and manuals linked to on this site are both germane and relevant to your defense. If your attorneys are not yet aware of these materials, I would, at a minimum, discuss with them those portions which have to do with the "setting" of control questions.
I believe that your trial is a watershed moment, not only for you personally, but for first amendment rights in general, and for shining a very bright light on that practice which has been entrusted with the national security, the most important criminal matters of our time, and most significantly, the fates of thousands of individual polygraph examinees on an annual basis. Accordingly, I hope that this trial will draw the media coverage that it deserves.
Good Luck...
Thank you Drew Richardson!!!
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 05, 2015, 05:41 AMNew documents were filed in U.S. v. Doug Williams yesterday:
- United States' Proposed Jury Instructions (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-proposed-jury-instructions.pdf) (link fixed) dated 4 May 2015. Among other things, the prosecution wishes the judge to instruct the jury that "[a]n internal investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security into the possible commission of a federal offense" and "[a] pre-employment suitability determination and security background investigation conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection" qualify as official proceedings within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) (Witness Tampering).
- United States' Requested Voire Dire Questions (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-requested-voire-dire-questions.pdf) dated 4 May 2015. The prosecution wishes to identify (and presumably eliminate) any potential jurors who have taken a polygraph "test" before, or who have a family member who has done so, or who have concerns about the use of polygraph examinations.
- Trial Brief of United States (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-trial-brief-of-united-states.pdf) dated 4 May 2015. Prosecution seeks to exclude any evidence or argument regarding the reliability of polygraph examinations, entrapment, or the defendant's prior good acts or lack of a criminal record.
From my standpoint -- both as a polygraph consultant and as a full member of the American Polygraph Association -- the second bullet point is particularly striking.
Clearly, it's an effort to gain some valuable insight relative to a prospective juror's potential bias.
I wonder how the prosecution (or the defense, for that matter) would view potential jurors who are devotees of that genre of daytime television shows that feature the "lie detector"...
Relabeling may give you the ability to talk about the Polygraph machine.
The "Unmentionable" machine.
"The unmentionable machine shows where the truth lies."
Where the truth lies.
If you are attending Doug Williams' trial tomorrow, be aware that no electronic recording devices are allowed inside the federal court building, as confirmed to me today by one of the guards on duty at the public entrance. This includes computers, tablets, mobile phones, and digital cameras. The only exception is that if you have a cell phone, there is a place where you can check it in. If you appear with any other electronic devices, you'll have to secure them elsewhere before being allowed into the building.
this is typical for high profile stuff in fed court
I will be headed to the court building shortly. The trial is scheduled to begin at 9 AM CDT. I will be taking notes and will post updates when possible.
Might head up there some time this week. Just a wee bit up 35, and give me a good excuse to hit the Casinos.
Besides, curious to see how the Gov approaches this.
A quick update from today's proceedings:
1. Jury selection is complete. The jury is comprised of 7 men and 5 women, with one male and one female alternate juror. The only potential juror to have been polygraphed, a retired police officer, was dismissed.
2. In the afternoon, trial attorney Brian Kidd gave the government's 15-minute opening statement. Attorney Stephen Buzin gave the defense's 15-minute opening statement.
3. Government exhibits 1-300 and 302-304 were entered into evidence.
4. Special Agent Jeffrey Michael Bartlett of CBP Internal Affairs, Dallas, TX was called to the stand and examined by US trial attorney Heidi Boutros Gesch. On 25 Sep. 2012, he made an "exploratory call" to Doug Williams. This was played in court. SA Bartlett played no other, and no further, role in the investigation. Stephen Buzin cross-examined.
5. The next witness called was Special Agent Doug Robbins of CBP-IA. His testimony will continue tomorrow. I have more to report, but need to stop here to keep an appointment.
A more detailed account of the first day of proceedings in U.S. v. Doug Williams is now on the blog here:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/12/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-1/
Although not reporting from the courtroom, see also Jessica Glenza's article on the case published today in the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/12/polygraph-critic-trial-lie-busters-doug-williams
This afternoon at the federal court building in Oklahoma City, Doug Williams changed his plea from not guilty to guilty with respect to each of the five counts with which he has been charged. There was no plea agreement. Williams remains free on the pre-existing bond. The jury was dismissed and proceedings were adjourned until the sentencing date, which remains to be determined.
Following Doug Williams' guilty plea this afternoon, Polygraph.com appears to be offline, and his Twitter account, @PolygraphCom (https://twitter.com/PolygraphCom), appears to have been deleted.
Questions:
So all the buildup about a 1st amendment defense went nowhere ???
That's two down (Dixon, now Williams), and Who Next ? George ?
Can or Will these two legal precedents federally be used against applicants Dixon / Williams trained ?
Will the probable sentence for Williams equate to a life sentence given his reported age of 69, or will he be a suicide jockey while free on bond ???? Just Say'in ?
What Defense would George have recommended given his being on the radar should he be next ?
Oh no! Is Doug Williams going to JAIL?! This is it, they are coming for us. We have exposed the polygraph for the hoax it is, and the government can't ding people on it because more and more people are learning how it works thanks to us, so people are not making as many disqualifying confessions on their poly. We've done too well, now our asses are on the line. Soon the government will put hits out on our heads, have us killed in the name of silence on those exposing their polygraph secrets. This is it. GEORGE MASCHKE, YOU ARE NEXT!!!
:-/
QuoteThis is it. GEORGE MASCHKE, YOU ARE NEXT!!!
The government did nothing but apply sufficient pressure on one individual to make him give up. George has committed no crimes, this is why he has never been indicted. These convictions will definitely deter people from giving one on one countermeasure training, but will do little to stop others from learning on their own.
A report of yesterday's proceedings in U.S. v. Doug Williams is available here:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-williams-pleads-guilty/
In deference to Mr. Williams and his family, I will not at this time comment on his countermeasure training, that which he was indicted for, his trial strategy, or his decision to change his plea, etc.
I will say though that nothing about his situation has any bearing for any individual who seeks to understand lie detection as it is practiced, the serious flaws of that practice, and standard polygraphic lie detection's ready susceptibility to manipulation.
I am further convinced that the interested public can be made aware of all of the above with no need for any direct contact with individual members of that public, i.e., no need for one on one training. A video of a mock/scripted one on one training session, and a few simple tools useful for practice (a timing device, a tape recorder, and a mirror) are all that are necessary for learning how to efficiently manipulate that which leads to polygraph chart recordings. Again-no need for one on one training and no need for a polygraph instrument for the aforementioned practice (although one would be used in the video)...more to come later on this issue...
The aforementioned video, a recorded presentation to a large university audience, sworn testimony to Congress, a "60 Minutes" et al appearance, etc. all to include a presentation of the elements of polygraph countermeasure training, are all possibilities for sharing the aforementioned without some sort of commercial venture involving one on one training...
This is wonderful news. Now all we need is a nice long prison term for this cockroach to send a message to all the countermeasure wannabees that justice will be served. Maybe George and Drew will send Doug an occasional care package of cigarettes, candy bars, and socks, the currency of choice in prison. And to those of you fools who threw good money away buying his junk or taking his personal training, we will ferret you out and deal with you appropriately.
Don't drop the soap in the shower, Dougy!
Quote from: quickfix on May 14, 2015, 02:52 PMwe will ferret you out and deal with you appropriately.
I don't think a lowly GS-11 has the power to ferret out anything or deal with anyone.
Are you going to contribute to Doug's prison commissary account? As a GS-11 I can't afford to!
He may be able to get by fine once he gets the advance on his book deal and documentary. G. Gordon Liddy did just fine.
Doug Williams is no G. Gordon Liddy, as Dan Qualye was no Jack Kennedy, and remember what happened to him! Book deal my ass! In a month, he'll be forgotten. The only income he might see is from whatever pennies he gets from his Amazon.com sales, and the G will take that, too.
What a fighter! :)
QuoteWill the probable sentence for Williams equate to a life sentence given his reported age of 69, or will he be a suicide jockey while free on bond ???? Just Say'in ?
I truly hope this assclown is not an examiner. making light of and even insinuating that one would take pleasure in seeing someone kill themselves, especially someone they don't even know or has done nothing to them, is one sick and sad human being.
Dropping the soap, bubba in a cell, orange being the new black; these are all fair game as they are snipes that are to be expected.
But making light of someone talking their own life, while this doesn't shook me if it came from an examiner, it is none the less a sign of a sad, insecure, sick, sick mind. I hope this person doesn't own a gun, because he clearly has no value for human life.
Joe -
You'll notice that the anti-polygraph people like George Maschke and Drew Richardson speak like dignified, educated men and never use crude, vulgar language :). Quickfix talks like a thug and actually advocates against the U.S. Constitution. He probably can't read which explains why he doesn't grasp the first amendment. He has to be a polygraph examiner. Framing innocent people with polygraph witchcraft is probably the only way he can earn a living. I am certain he couldn't solve a real case and catch a real criminal.
Quote from: quickfix on May 14, 2015, 02:52 PMAnd to those of you fools who threw good money away buying his junk or taking his personal training, we will ferret you out and deal with you appropriately.
Sorry, I neglected to Mark & Quote Quickfix's anti-Constitution statement in my previous email. Imagine....buying certain books should be a crime according to this guy.
In my opinion, the convicting of Doug Williams will do for the containment of polygraph countermeasures what the killing of Osama bin Laden did for the containment of global terrorism -- virtually nothing.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
QuoteJoe -
You'll notice that the anti-polygraph people like George Maschke and Drew Richardson speak like dignified, educated men and never use crude, vulgar language :). Quickfix talks like a thug and actually advocates against the U.S. Constitution. He probably can't read which explains why he doesn't grasp the first amendment. He has to be a polygraph examiner. Framing innocent people with polygraph witchcraft is probably the only way he can earn a living. I am certain he couldn't solve a real case and catch a real criminal.
Ok, back the truck up a wee bit.
Again, A quick reminder that I am unbid in all of this; after all, being independent, fair and unbiased are the hallmarks of a TRUE polygraph examiner. I see both sides of your argument.
George and Drew have never been "crude" that I have ever seen, and although we differ on many aspects of the polygraph debate, they have always been dignified to me, which is far better than I deserve. Because I will admit, I am crude, rude and socially unacceptable. Having said that, I am honest about it and don't hide behind screen names.
So sometimes crude is a good thing. Sometimes the straight forward approach is better than sugar coating.
I will agree, his book and his videos are protected by the first amendment. I am a Libertarian and a huge believer in the Constitution. But this wasn't a first amendment case. It had nothing to do with the book or his videos. If his book or videos were the problem, this would have happened years ago.
The problem was his behavior around actually teaching and coaching the test in such a way as to hide people that told him, according to the evidence presented, that they were trying to hide. His crime wasn't teaching the classes or the book or his video. It was, according to the charges, teaching the classes in an effort to obstruct whatever it is they said he was trying to obstruct. I think I have that right. Anyway, I don't know, I wasn't there, I didn't see the evidence and I was not a trier of fact. With all due respect, neither were you.
Polygraph is here, and people practice polygraph. As such there are people who are going to be against it. As a polygraph examiner, I embrace this only because it creates balance. There needs to be check and balances in all aspects of life that creates balance. This is a universal fact.
Anti polygraph advocates are really friends to polygraph in a weird way. 1, it keeps us, or should keep us honest. If we know, or this is the way it should be, that people are watching, then it should encourage us to avoid appearances of impropriety. 2, it keeps us on our toes and always striving with ways to keep up the opposition. In a way, this is a general business model. Competition is not a bad thing. It keeps people innovative and creative. It encourages everyone to always do better, or sell better, or have better integrity than the guy down the street.
If polygraph weren't here, you guys would just have something else to flip over. This is the human condition.
I will agree that 9 times out of 10 he is an examiner, but then you are under a guest name too and I don't know who you are, so maybe you are one too just playing a game? We don't know.
If he is an examiner, I wish I could look into his eyes and tell him what a bottom feeder he is that would make light of someone killing himself. I also believe that is he is an examiner, he is a coward because he won't stand by what he said and own it.
Everything I say, I own, I don't hide. SO not all examiners are without honor my friend. And what you consider witchcraft, I consider a calling; and I put my future on the table a few times believing in that calling.
That is what makes me better than them. I stand by what I see and I am the ONLY polygraph examiner in the world who can truly say that.
Have to agree with ya on that Dan. just like polygraph is here to stay, the anti polygraph position is too. it is balance
The government's successful prosecutions of Williams and Dixon, in my view as a polygraph examiner (and member of the APA), serve to both validate the effectiveness of countermeasures and condemn the notion of polygraph as sound science.
Therefore, it seems to me that those flattering accuracy claims (i.e., validity) touted by pro-polygraph organizations should be regarded as null and void.
The polygraph apologists have long resisted any form of a countermeasure challenge. Now we have proof why that has been the case, and remains so.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on May 14, 2015, 10:21 PMIf polygraph weren't here, you guys would just have something else to flip over.This is the human condition.
Joe - I am a victim of the polygraph although I have survived better than many victims. I am a retired Federal Agent. My story is too long to tell here except that I am a double victim, the polygraph helped kill my father in 1986 and took food off of my table in 2012. I despise the current use of the polygraph by parts of our government that are every bit as evil as anything that existed in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. I am encouraged by a handful of polygraphers like you and Dan Mangan who have the moral courage to admit the shortcomings of the "box" and I am certain use the instrument as a tool and not a panacea of the truth like many of the misguided fools that are coming into your profession. I blame self-serving moral cowards like the heads of many of our civilian and military agencies (SES and Flag rank) who stand-by as innocent people are ruined while they themselves pretend to expose themselves to the negative side of the polygraph when, in fact, they are immune from any negative consequences. As to your statement above marked and quoted above, I disagree. To me the polygraph holds a place in American history next to the burning of witches in Salem and slavery. I have seen people who are not only innocent, but also include war heroes and the most honorable of our society, falsely labeled as traitors and criminals and I think this is the greatest evil in our society right now. Any polygraph examiner who would allow an innocent person to be falsely labeled and suffer consequences from being falsely labeled is the lowest form of life in the planet. Ruining innocent people for self-gain, there is nothing worse.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on May 14, 2015, 06:54 PMI truly hope this assclown is not an examiner.making light of and even insinuating that one would take pleasure in seeing someone kill themselves, especially someone they don't even know or has done nothing to them, is one sick and sad human being.
Joe: I don't think the question was meant as a joke. Given his former profession, he is a likely candidate as the guest of honor at a shank party. In fact, my connections at El Reno FCI (where Doug will most likely do his time) have told me Doug's guilty plea made the local tv news. They know who he is and what he was (ex-cop). In the inmate pecking order, ex-cops are treated the same as child molesters. They are the highest percentage of inmates killed in prison, for obvious reasons. I give him a month before he winds up in the infirmary or the morgue. Either way, I will shed not a tear for him.
Quote from: quickfix on May 15, 2015, 02:06 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on May 14, 2015, 06:54 PMI truly hope this assclown is not an examiner.making light of and even insinuating that one would take pleasure in seeing someone kill themselves, especially someone they don't even know or has done nothing to them, is one sick and sad human being.
Joe: I don't think the question was meant as a joke. Given his former profession, he is a likely candidate as the guest of honor at a shank party. In fact, my connections at El Reno FCI (where Doug will most likely do his time) have told me Doug's guilty plea made the local tv news. They know who he is and what he was (ex-cop). In the inmate pecking order, ex-cops are treated the same as child molesters. They are the highest percentage of inmates killed in prison, for obvious reasons. I give him a month before he winds up in the infirmary or the morgue. Either way, I will shed not a tear for him.
I'm wondering if anyone, including Quickfix, really believes that an attack on me in prison is a real possibility - or is this just being said to try to scare me.
Doug,
Quickfix is an inept buffoon; a poor tax payer investment. Pay no attention to what he says. If you are threatened, all you have to do is demand protection; you can sue them if they don't comply.
I can understand the extreme pressure you were under. You need to keep your mind and body strong to endure your upcoming ordeal. I suggest you start working out. You will survive what is to come and you can come back to the fight. The human spirit is very resilient.
inept buffoon who is not going to prison! As for Dougy, if you are scared, you should be. Guys like you are what violent inmates use to earn their reputation. I'd like to hear from you as to why you pleaded guilty; or are you saving that for your next book, "From Cop to Convict".
On the evening of 13 May 2015, following Doug Williams' decision to plead guilty, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the following press release:
Quotehttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraphcom-pleads-guilty-training-customers-lie-during-federally-administered
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Owner of 'Polygraph.Com' Pleads Guilty to Training Customers to Lie During Federally Administered Polygraph Examinations
A former Oklahoma City law enforcement officer and owner of "Polygraph.com" pleaded guilty today to obstruction of justice and mail fraud for training customers to lie and conceal crimes during polygraph examinations.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Acting Assistant Commissioner Anthony Triplett of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and Special Agent in Charge James E. Finch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Oklahoma City Field Office made the announcement.
"Lying, deception and fraud cannot be allowed to influence the hiring of national security and law enforcement officials, particularly when it might affect the security of our borders," said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. "Today's conviction sends a message that we pursue those who attempt to corrupt law enforcement wherever and however they may try to do so."
Douglas Williams, 69, of Norman, Oklahoma, pleaded guilty to a five-count indictment charging him with mail fraud and obstruction. Williams was indicted on Nov. 14, 2014, in the Western District of Oklahoma.
According to admissions made in connection with his plea, Williams, the owner and operator of "Polygraph.com," marketed his training services to people appearing for polygraph examinations before federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and federal intelligence agencies, as well as people required to take polygraph examinations under the terms of their parole or probation.
Williams further admitted that he trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation. Williams also admitted to having trained a second individual posing as an applicant seeking federal employment to lie and conceal crimes in a pre-employment polygraph examination. Williams, who was paid for both training sessions, admitted to having instructed the individuals to deny having received his polygraph training.
The investigation is being investigated by U.S. Custom and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and the FBI's Oklahoma City Field Office. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Heidi Boutros Gesch and Brian K. Kidd of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section.
15-610 Criminal Division
Updated May 13, 2015
I was struck by Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell's avowal--with no intended irony--that "lying, deception and fraud cannot be allowed to influence the hiring of national security and law enforcement officials" because the federal government does indeed allow lying, deception, and fraud to influence the hiring process of national security and law enforcement officials through its misplaced reliance on polygraphy, a pseudoscientific ritual that, as Dr. Drew Richardson has explained, depends in fundamental ways on lying, deception, and fraud by the polygraph operator (https://antipolygraph.org/forum/index.php?topic=255.msg1214#msg1214). In every polygraph examination, at least one person is lying: the polygraph operator himself!
Doug,
Regardless of whether Quickfix believes what he has said, he, in his bumbling attempt to ridicule and harass you in a difficult time, may have done you a favor.
I would make known to the individual responsible for your pre-sentencing report that an individual who has represented himself as a federal polygraph examiner over several years has in the last day stated several times now that he believes you are in imminent danger of assault if and when imprisoned. I am sure that his identity can be made forthcoming should it be needed.
He may well, in his tasteless diatribes to you and regarding you, have offered you a way to better circumstances than you might have had absent his comments...
Quote from: Drew_Richardson on May 15, 2015, 04:26 PMI am sure that his identity can be made forthcoming should it be needed.
I'm pretty certain Quickfix could have some trouble if his identity is revealed. As a former GS-10,11,12,13, and 14, I am pretty certain his Office of Professional Responsibility or Internal Affairs would not approve of his conduct/demeanor on this site. Keep talking Quickfix !
I intend to, using the same First Amendment rights you have.
Any ideas as to why Doug Williams plead guilty to all counts vs. a plea bargain.
Chad Dixon seemed to have gotten a light sentence for the exact same crimes, but did only 9 months. Williams is reported to be facing 100 years max, or 20 if each count is served concurrently.
Williams appeared to have a competent well known Attorney, and the Jury a cross section of the community. Was Williams denied a particular planned defense ? Why would a defense Attorney TELL his client to plead guilty ?
Quote from: quickfix on May 15, 2015, 05:07 PMI intend to, using the same First Amendment rights you have.
You're First Amendment Rights might keep you out of jail, but they won't keep you from getting fired..... or time on the bricks.
Quote from: quickfix on May 15, 2015, 05:07 PMI intend to, using the same First Amendment rights you have.
By the way Quickfix, forgot to ask...are those the same First Amendment rights that people have who purchased Doug Williams' books and services ? Maybe you can organize a book burning now that Williams has plead guilty.
Doug,
Prison is a unique culture. The ratio of guards to prisoners can range from 20 to 1, to as much as 40 to 1 on any given shift. It varies from facility to faculty. I don't think anyone you put behind bars years ago in State prison would necessarily be in Federal prison now. Those would be the main ones you should / would be concerned about. Otherwise, you might be put in a segregated wing of other former officials, or cooperating witnesses with the government vs. the hard core Aryan nation or Black Panther types, etc.
Convictions like yours come into one's life in stages. First the shock and awe of it via disbelief. Second, Anger at the system. Third, Sadness in the change of lifestyle, or lack of a full life. Fourth, acceptance; and an adjustment to lack of a challenge in life and a regimented daily routine. You won't have much to brag about compared to others you will meet, and will have to find things to do to occupy your mind to get through the day. At least you will have visitation for good time served, and conjugal visits (If that still matters at 69).
QuoteMaybe you can organize a book burningnow that Williams has plead guilty.
Better yet, I'm writing my own book for the prison-bound. It will contain useful tips on:
how to kill a man with a lunch tray
how to cut through bars with dental floss
make your own shank and save
But wait, there's more!
Order now and receive my bonus DVD: How to become a Successful Prison Snitch.
I need a title. Any suggestions?
Having worked in a prison for over five years, I don't think Doug will find it to be quite the hellhole that many take delight in describing. Yes, it will be a miserable existence compared to life on the outside, but it wont be Dante's Inferno either.
I fully expect some of the correctional officers -- "screws" in prison parlance -- who aspire to loftier positions in various agencies to take a very keen interest in how Doug can advise them (legally, of course) about the polygraph process.
That goes double for select inmates.
Such tutelage has value, which could turn out to be huge in Doug's case. In a prison setting, even things of seemingly sparse value on the outside are frequently worth something substantial on the inside
Of the hundreds of inmates I interviewed over the five years I worked behind the walls, perhaps the key takeaway message in terms of prison survival is this very simple one: Mind your own business.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Quote from: quickfix on May 14, 2015, 02:52 PMAnd to those of you fools who threw good money away buying his junk or taking his personal training, we will ferret you out and deal with you appropriately.
What, in your view, is the appropriate way to deal with persons who have purchased Doug Williams' manual/video?
Quote from: quickfix on May 16, 2015, 08:05 AMI need a title.Anysuggestions?
How about: "The Inane Rambling of an Eddy Haskell Wannabe and his Stillborn Humor"
Okay quickfix, I'll bite:
How about the title: LIFESTYLES OF THE INFAMOUS AND IMPRISONED !!
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on May 16, 2015, 12:23 PMHow about: "The Inane Rambling of an Eddy Haskell Wannabe and his Stillborn Humor"
Now that's funny. Will take it under advisement.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 16, 2015, 12:10 PMWhat, in your view, is the appropriate way to deal with persons who have purchased Doug Williams' manual/video?
I refer to those who did so as applicants for federal law enforcement positions (names obtained from Doug's records). I'm also aware that the names are of interest to the intell community and those who applied for local/state law enforcement jobs. What would be appropriate? How about conspiracy to commit fraud, attempting to obtain federal employment through deception? I like those for starters.
Quote from: quickfix on May 16, 2015, 01:15 PMHow about conspiracy to commit fraud, attempting to obtain federal employment through deception?I like those for starters.
It seems to me that the mere fact that someone purchased Doug Williams' manual and/or DVD doesn't establish any conspiracy to commit fraud or any attempt to obtain federal employment through deception. Evidently DOJ agrees: it seems that more than two years after federal agents seized Williams' business records, none of his thousands of customers have been criminally prosecuted for having purchased his instructional materials.
Is it fraud to protect oneself against being falsely condemned by an instrument proven to be inaccurate ? Wouldn't you have to prove that the applicants were hiding something illegal before you accused them of any type of fraud ? Polygraph examiners are the ones committing fraud. They should be prosecuted. If this society is going to embrace the polygraph then I say let's polygraph everybody. I think lawyers (including Oklahoma prosecutors) should be required to pass a polygraph exam to maintain their licenses. After all, there is no right to bar association membership.
QuoteIs it fraud to protect oneself against being falsely condemned by an instrument proven to be inaccurate ?
Proven by whom? Someone's opinion? Opinions are like assholes.Everybody has one.
QuoteWouldn't you have to prove that the applicants were hiding something illegal before you accused them of any type of fraud ?
Someone who applies for a position requiring a polygraph exams, then obtains a "how to" book on engaging in countermeasures certainly appears to be attempting to engage in fraudulent behavior by trying to cheat their way through the polygraph process, thus gaining employment through fraud.
QuoteIf this society is going to embrace the polygraph then I say let's polygraph everybody.
Not everyone applies for employment in the CIA/NSA/FBI, or is a criminal suspect. You want the job? Take the polygraph. Take it honestly, answer truthfully, and there's no reason you can't successfully complete the process. Don't want to? Don't take it. It's a voluntary process, and there is no shortage of applicants willing to do so. You're welcome to seek employment elsewhere. Ever drive past the parking lots of NSA, CIA? Lots of cars! Who are all these people? They're folks who did take their polygraphs honestly and got hired. So when someone buys the book/CD from Doug the cockroach to prepare for the polygraph, they shouldn't complain when they get caught and get a foot in the ass out the door. Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer chances.
Just curious, is anyone planing to get the court reporter's record of what there was of a trial? Post that and let everyone decide on their own.
This seems the most fair thing to do rather than to commentary about what we speculate what happened.
Just spitballing
To get court recorder transcripts, one must pay. I had done this and it's not cheap.
It was just a thought.
So why did Doug change his plea to Guilty?
GoDaddy.com indicates that the domain name Polygraph.com is up for auction, with a minimum bid of $65,000. Alternatively, it can be purchased outright for $100,000:
https://auctions.godaddy.com/trpItemListing.aspx?miid=%20+%20166080770
QuoteSo why did Doug change his plea to Guilty?
Because, according to what he told the judge, he was. :D
The domain Polygraph.com is no longer up for auction:
https://auctions.godaddy.com/trpItemListing.aspx?miid=%20+%20166080770
Yesterday I was a guest on the Scott Horton Show:
http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2015/05/27/52715-george-maschke/
Quote from: quickfix on May 19, 2015, 05:39 PMProven by whom?Someone's opinion?Opinions are like assholes.Everybody has one.
Where have you been Quickfix ? Ana Belen Montes and Aldrich Ames proved the polygraph is a fraud when they passed and then were later convicted of espionage. I have seen lots of innocent lives ruined by the polygraph. If someone has nothing against them except a failed polygraph and they lose their livelihood because of it, you'd have to be a demented Nazi to continue to support the current use polygraph. If not a demented Nazi, maybe just an incompetent investigator who can't solve a case and has no moral problems with ruining innocent lives in order to make a buck. I've seen how hard real investigators work to solve a case and to see polygraph examiners falsely condemn someone by interpreting squiggly lines on a piece of paper is fraud and a crime against humanity. I suspect you are an atheist POS, but if you do have any belief in anything above yourself you might want to check out the IXth Commandment - "Do not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
QuoteWhere have you been Quickfix ?
Quickfix - I just had an epiphany......my blood has been boiling for no reason. All of your rantings have basically said the same thing....the polygraph is perfect and anyone who fails a polygraph is guilty. It just struck me that you are the best thing that ever happened to the anti-polygraph community. Anyone with half a brain that reads your gibberish understands that the polygraph is a joke. I now suspect you might be part of the anti-polygraph crowd using a false flag approach to win hearts and minds. If so, thank you and keep up the good work !
QuoteQuickfix - I just had an epiphany......my blood has been boiling for no reason.
Try therapy- see a shrink.
QuoteWhere have you been Quickfix ?
I'm right here, watching and listening.
QuoteI suspect you are an atheist POS, but if you do have any belief in anything above yourself you might want to check out the IXth Commandment - "Do not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
Here's a better one: In God we trust, all others we polygraph. P.S. the ten commandants are not legally binding.
Wandersmann, quickfix,
Let us set aside the trading of personal barbs and concentrate here on substantive discussion of U.S. v. Doug Williams. I value both of your perspectives.
While my judgment regarding the merits of polygraphy align much more closely with that of Wandersmann, I am also grateful that quickfix has been willing to share his opposing (and, I am convinced, sincerely held) viewpoints.
So let's look at the next phase of U.S. v. Doug Williams: sentencing. What is the appropriate punishment for the crimes to which Williams has pleaded guilty? It seems to me that, in view of the fact that the only "crimes" alleged are those conceived, planned, and executed by undercover federal agents, despite their access to, and exploitation of, records of nearly 5,000 of Williams' customers, a sentence of probation, with no jail time, would be appropriate (which is not to say that I believe Operation Lie Busters was appropriate to begin with). I do not see how putting Doug Williams in a cage will make any of us any safer. If anyone reading this disagrees, I would be interested in understanding your reasoning therefor.
Ok, so here's an opposite opinion from the "propolygraph" camp: let's compare the parallel cases of Doug and Chad Dixon; Dixon, a novice, with no formal polygraph training, and doing what he was doing for a relatively short time, served 8 months (I don't recall a monetary fine being assessed). And Doug, by his own admittance "f***ing the government" for what, almost three decades? At 20 years times 5 counts, max of 100 years prison time, and $250k times 5 counts for $1.25m, maximum punishment seems extreme. But probation??? I think not, my friend. 5 years confinement and $250k seems appropriate and sends a message that if you intend to assist those who want to gain federal employment through cheating their way through a polygraph, or who wish to get away with a criminal offense, be prepared to pay the price.
Quickfix,
I can agree with you that the maximum punishment seems extreme, even for a defendant aged 18 years. But let us consider that Williams turns 70 this year, and that any prison sentence could well end up being a life sentence for him. Doesn't that seem harsh to you?
- George
5 years harsh? Not at all, at least to me. He's a cantankerous old bastard, he'll survive!
In my opinion, a reasonable sentence for DW would be five years, suspended, with minimal supervision.
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
After the gloating and high 5's die down, after some reflection, I wonder if the authorities will really want Doug behind bars. I think he will have quite a following eager for his knowledge.
I am still kinda stunned. I recall way back, soon after 9/11 when a martial arts instructor lamented having given instruction to one of the terrorists, no doubt to subdue an aircrew. If the terrorist had told him of his intentions, would the teacher have been prosecuted had he moved forward with the instruction? Is proffering knowledge of how to better perpetrate a crime the same as conspiracy?
I think the only real transgression here is that Doug is guilty of being an a-hole (from the govt's perspective). What should the sentence be for being an a-hole? A fine and probation?
While a sentencing date has not yet been set, and no pleadings with respect to sentencing have yet been filed with the court, on Friday, 29 May 2015, the prosecution filed a request that Williams be ordered to pay the U.S. Government $7,750, which is the amount that he received from undercover agents in connection with Operation Lie Busters:
litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-petition-to-enter-plea-of-guilty.pdf
Quote from: danmangan on May 29, 2015, 06:46 PMIn my opinion, a reasonable sentence for DW would be five years, suspended, with minimal supervision.
I concur. According to U.S. Bureau of Prisons figures (http://www.bop.gov/foia/fy12_per_capita_costs.pdf) for fiscal year 2012, it cost $19,325 per year to keep a prisoner in a federal minimum security prison. That cost goes up to $51,430 if the prisoner is in medical referral center, which is a possibility in view of Williams' age. By contrast, the annual cost of federal probation was only $3,347.41 (http://www.uscourts.gov/news/2013/07/18/supervision-costs-significantly-less-incarceration-federal-system).
In view of the non-violent nature of Williams' offenses, the unlikelihood of his reoffending, the lack of any documented harm to any actual victim, his advanced age, and the high cost of incarceration, probation seems a more just and rational punishment.
Quote from: George_Maschke on May 29, 2015, 04:10 PMLet us set aside the trading of personal barbs and concentrate here on substantive discussion of U.S. v. Doug Williams. I value both of your perspectives.
Thank you George. Agreed. I am just chagrined that not one person in the polygraph community will admit that innocent people are falsely accused and sacrificed by current polygraph practices. It's like someone saying, "I hear they are killing people in concentration camps", and the unquestioned response being "they are just re-organizing the demographic composition in certain parts of Eastern Europe". I recommend that everyone view the confirmation hearings for DNI Clapper several years ago. He was directly confronted with a question pertaining to innocent officials having their lives ruined by the polygraph and he totally evaded the question by maintaining that the polygraph was the best method available. Unfortunately the questing congressman was not savvy enough or further prepared to follow up and the line of questioning ended there. Clapper was further revealed to have lied to Congress on other intelligence related issues. Despite the above, there was absolutely no negative impact on his career or standing.
As far as Doug Williams, his situation may not even justify interest by the anti-polygraph community. Although it is impossible to truly ascertain his culpability without hearing the complete transcripts of the undercover operation, it appears he may have used poor judgement in allowing the potential for personal gain outweigh his common sense. Because he plead to a felony I think he will do time, but I've seen what I consider more serious cases get less than a year in prison. He will undoubtedly receive a long probation and I believe he will be forbidden from discussing his case or anything to do with the polygraph. He'll probably spend the rest of his life selling his possessions and working as a convenience store clerk.
I recommend reading about the modus operandii of the former East German Stasi. The methods used by our Justice Department in this case are classical Stasi methods for silencing political opposition.
Deo Vindice -
Wandersmann
Quotequesting congressman
Make that - "questioning congressman"
Doug Williams is going down. Chad Dixon went down. Why hasn't George Maschke been indicted yet? I'm an anti-poly advocate by the way, I'm just wondering how George has evaded prosecution for all these years?
The government has picked on weak targets engaged in less than thoughtful activity...George doesn't qualify on either count...
Here's a fun fact...
In the 10+ years I've been a polygraph examiner, I've received a total of six inquiries seeking what I would generously characterize as "special consultations" -- all within the past 18 months.
At least one such inquiry was from a federal agent, who I was soon able to identify. When I responded to him on his official .gov email -- which he did not use to contact me -- he quickly lost interest.
Coincidence?
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
QuoteHe'll probably spend the rest of his life selling his possessions and working as a convenience store clerk.
Really? I see documentaries, book deals, lecture fees and more. The feds may even hire him as a consultant.
Quote from: danmangan on May 31, 2015, 10:14 PMHere's a fun fact...
In the 10+ years I've been a polygraph examiner, I've received a total of six inquiries seeking what I would generously characterize as "special consultations" -- all within the past 18 months.
At least one such inquiry was from a federal agent, who I was soon able to identify. When I responded to him on his official .gov email -- which he did not use to contact me -- he quickly lost interest.
Coincidence?
Daniel Mangan, M.A.
Full Member, American Polygraph Association
Certified PCSOT Examiner
www.polygraphman.com
Whoa. Dan, are you saying the feds tried to trap you too the same way they did Doug? What exactly did they say, how did the conversations go for these requests? They probably got your info from all your signatures in your posts on this site, which the feds read often.
By the way, hey feds, I lied and used countermeasures on my federal employment poly and they worked! I passed got TS-SCI cleared, and got hires. So ha ha ha.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on May 31, 2015, 10:22 PMReally? I see documentaries, book deals, lecture fees and more. The feds may even hire him as a consultant.
They will make it a condition of his probation that he never talks about his case or the polygraph. You'll never hear from him again. If I'm wrong, when he writes his next book or gives his next lecture, post my words here and tell me you told me so. I agree that the government might hire him as a consultant, but only if they turn him and get him to recant his anti-polygraph days.
On Monday, 1 June 2015, I was a guest on the Peter B. Collins Show and spoke with Peter about developments in the trial of Doug Williams. A preview clip is available here:
http://www.peterbcollins.com/2015/06/01/in-government-sting-case-polygraph-critic-doug-williams-changed-plea-to-guilty/
and the entire interview is available with the purchase of a $1 site day pass.
Doug Williams' website, Polygraph.com, is back online again:
http://polygraph.com
and Doug is back on Twitter, where you can follow him at @DougWilliams_PG (https://www.twitter.com/@DougWilliams_PG).
The current issue of Bloomberg Businessweek has an excellent article regarding Doug Williams. The article also mentions our own George Maschke.
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on-lie-detector/
meangino,
Thanks for posting the link! Drake Bennett's article about Doug Williams is indeed excellent, and I encourage all concerned about polygraph matters to read it in full:
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-doug-williams-war-on-lie-detector/
Also, Doug Williams is again making his book, From Cop to Crusader: The Story of My Fight Against the Dangerous Myth of "Lie Detection," freely available for download:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xzai45vfhujxpp1/LAE0g0nUB2?lst=
A sentencing hearing in U.S. v. Doug Williams has been scheduled for Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 3 PM in room 301 of the U.S. Courthouse in Oklahoma City.
Yesterday, the U.S. government filed a "Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing" requesting that the court sentence Doug Williams to 24-30 months in prison:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-sentencing-memorandum.pdf
In its Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing the U.S. government argues, among other things, that the court should show no leniency toward Doug Williams because his book and DVD (http://www.polygraph.com/manual-dvd.html) remain available for sale:
QuoteThe seriousness of the offenses committed by defendant as well as his continued promotion and sale of materials that teach people to "beat" the polygraph weigh against any downward variance or departure in this case.
Think about that. There is absolutely nothing illegal -- or even unethical -- about Williams' sale of his book and DVD. That the government invokes it to argue against leniency speaks to the corrupt motivation behind Operation Lie Busters: the government's desire to suppress the truth about polygraphy and polygraph countermeasures.
George,
Your analysis of the quoted material is quite correct as well as being relevant and timely with regard to Mr. William's sentencing.
In view of Mr. Williams guilty plea(s) to crime(s) for which he was charged/indicted, I am not sure that this material will have any impact on sentencing, BUT...
Having been made aware of this material and the logical analysis that you provide, the trial judge (at a very minimum) should give a very strong warning to the prosecution with regard to ever again bringing a prosecution that stems from at least partially misrepresented motivation(s), i.e., with motivation unrelated to proving the elements of the crime(s) and at least partially unrelated to seeking a conviction of a defendant solely because he/she is guilty of the crimes for which that one is charged.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 18, 2015, 08:14 AMYesterday, the U.S. government filed a "Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing" requesting that the court sentence Doug Williams to 24-30 months in prison:
Doug, if you are reading this, I know you can handle this sentence, and I suspect it may even be a little less. Be strong, start working out.
:-?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 18, 2015, 10:54 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 18, 2015, 08:14 AMYesterday, the U.S. government filed a "Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing" requesting that the court sentence Doug Williams to 24-30 months in prison:
Doug, if you are reading this, I know you can handle this sentence, and I suspect it may even be a little less. Be strong, start working out.
Ark – thank you for your support and encouragement.
Yesterday, Doug Williams' attorney Stephen H. Buzin filed on his behalf a "Defendant's Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing":
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-defendants-sentencing-memorandum.pdf
I think Mr. Buzin makes a compelling argument for downward departure from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and note in particular the U.S. Probation Officer's finding, cited at p. 6 of the memorandum, that "there are no identifiable victims in these offenses."
A sentencing hearing is scheduled for today, Tuesday, 22 September 2015 at 3 PM Central Time.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 22, 2015, 01:44 AM"there are no identifiable victims in these offenses."
the same rationalization applied for those engaging in prostitution.
Quote from: quickfix on Sep 22, 2015, 02:49 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 22, 2015, 01:44 AM"there are no identifiable victims in these offenses."
the same rationalization applied for those engaging in prostitution.
I don't understand. Are you saying that a polygrapher is like a whore?
Aunty finds the comparison invidious: When a whore does it to you, you enjoy it.
-Aunty Agony.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Sep 22, 2015, 04:00 PMI don't understand. Are you saying that a polygrapher is like a whore?
Aunty finds the comparison invidious: When a whore does it to you, you enjoy it.
-Aunty Agony.
Allow me to make it less indivious and more perspicuous: Doug's lawyer calls his crime victimless; defense lawyers call prostitution a victimless crime. Doug committed a crime. The government is the victim. The spouses of those who use the services of prostitutes are victims of prostitution, particular those who contract STDs. That's the comparison; not whether Doug is a whore or polygraphers are whores.
I have been informed by a friend of AntiPolygraph.org who attended today's hearing that Doug Williams has been sentenced to 20 24 months in prison, where he is to report no later than 30 October 2015. He is to remain free on bond pending his reporting date.
A Department of Justice press release states that the sentence was "two years":
Quotehttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/owner-polygraphcom-sentenced-two-years-prison-training-customers-lie
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
Owner of Polygraph.com Sentenced to Two Years in Prison for Training Customers to Lie
A former Oklahoma City law enforcement officer and the owner of Polygraph.com has been sentenced to two years in prison for training customers to lie and conceal crimes and other misconduct during polygraph examinations.
Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, Assistant Commissioner Matthew Klein of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and Special Agent in Charge Scott L. Cruse of the FBI's Oklahoma City Division made the announcement.
Douglas G. Williams, 69, of Norman, Oklahoma, pleaded guilty on May 13, 2015, to two counts of mail fraud and three counts of witness tampering. Chief U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of Oklahoma imposed the sentence.
According to admissions made in connection with his plea, Williams owned and operated Polygraph.com, an Internet-based business through which he trained people how to conceal misconduct and other disqualifying information when submitting to polygraph examinations in connection with federal employment suitability assessments, background investigations, internal agency investigations and other proceedings. In particular, Williams admitted that he trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation. Williams also admitted to training a second individual, posing as an applicant seeking federal employment, to lie and conceal crimes in a pre-employment polygraph examination. Williams also admitted to instructing the individuals to deny receiving his polygraph training.
The investigation was conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Office of Internal Affairs and the FBI's Oklahoma City Division. The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Heidi Boutros Gesch and Brian K. Kidd of the Criminal Division's Public Integrity Section.
15-1156
Criminal Division
Updated September 22, 2015
Quote from: quickfix on Sep 22, 2015, 04:37 PMThe spouses of those who use the services of prostitutes are victims of prostitution, particular those who contract STDs. That's the comparison
Are you sure? Aunty is having trouble picturing how one would contract a STD from a polygraph machine.
-Aunty Agony.
Quote from: quickfix on Sep 22, 2015, 02:49 PMQuote from: George_Maschke on Sep 22, 2015, 01:44 AM"there are no identifiable victims in these offenses."
the same rationalization applied for those engaging in prostitution.
As I noted in my earlier post, the conclusion that "there are no identifiable victims in these offenses" is not that of Doug Williams or his attorney, but that of the U.S. Probation Officer who was assigned the case.
While the federal government is getting its pound of flesh from its prosecution of Doug Williams, the victory is unlikely to have much effect -- if any -- on containing polygraph countermeasures.
Beyond that, I predict that Doug will come roaring back in a scant two years and enjoy a new level of fame, popularity and financial success that will be orders of magnitude greater than anything he has achieved thus far.
Ironically, the prison sentence imposed on Williams accords him a kind of martyr status, providing a marketable cachet that will help propel Doug to new heights of recognition and accomplishment.
A report on yesterday's sentencing hearing by Overland Park, Kansas attorney David C. Graham, who was in attendance, is now online here:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/09/23/doug-williams-sentenced-to-two-years-in-prison-for-teaching-polygraph-countermeasures-to-undercover-agents/
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 23, 2015, 11:31 AMWhile the federal government is getting its pound of flesh from its prosecution of Doug Williams, the victory is unlikely to have much effect -- if any -- on containing polygraph countermeasures.
Beyond that, I predict that Doug will come roaring back in a scant two years and enjoy a new level of fame, popularity and financial success that will be orders of magnitude greater than anything he has achieved thus far.
Ironically, the prison sentence imposed on Williams accords him a kind of martyr status, providing a marketable cachet that will help propel Doug to new heights of recognition and accomplishment.
Dan thank you for those kind and encouraging words. From your lips to God's ears! And much of what you have predicted is already happening!
Doug, I thought your book From Cop to Crusader: My fight against the dangerous myth of "lie detection" would make for a pretty good movie.
But in view of your conviction and sentence, I believe your story now has the potential to be a great movie.
Consider shopping for a reputable Hollywood agent who can help get your book adapted into a screenplay.
America loves truth tellers, underdogs, and individuals with the balls to rage against the machine. Conversely, Americans usually harbor disdain for politically driven takedown agendas and government-sponsored witch hunts. On top of that, people generally have sympathy for victims -- especially those of the government's doing -- who have precious little recourse for a remedy to make them whole. Such is the case with polygraph.
Bottom line: You have a blockbuster.
With the right touch, the shock waves of that explosion will be felt far and wide, eclipsing anything you ever thought possible.
Ironic, isn't it?
The feds thought they were swatting a fly.
Instead, they kicked a hornets nest.
Quote from: danmangan on Sep 23, 2015, 09:09 PMAmerica loves truth tellers, underdogs, and individuals with the balls to rage against the machine. Conversely, Americans usually harbor disdain for politically driven takedown agendas and government-sponsored witch hunts.
So true Dan, our government talks the talk but doesn't walk to the walk when it comes to liberty. They will come down hard on anyone who challenges their authority.
A man goes to jail for teaching people how to protect themselves from a machine that can ruin their lives.
A woman goes to jail for standing for marriage being between a man and a woman, which has always been the true definition of marriage.
Police NOT going to jail for killing unarmed citizens.
Politicians under fire for saying Muslim law should not run this country. Last I remember, "God" is on our currency, in our oath of office, in our pledge, and plastered above the bench in courtrooms across the country.
This country is going to Hell on a scholarship. I'm starting to become ashamed to be an American. At some point in life, I see myself throwing in the towel and becoming a citizen of another country. Good riddance USA.
QuoteA man goes to jail for teaching people how to protect themselves from a machine that can ruin their lives.
A woman goes to jail for standing for marriage being between a man and a woman, which has always been the true definition of marriage.
Police NOT going to jail for killing unarmed citizens.
Politicians under fire for saying Muslim law should not run this country. Last I remember, "God" is on our currency, in our oath of office, in our pledge, and plastered above the bench in courtrooms across the country.
This country is going to Hell on a scholarship. I'm starting to become ashamed to be an American. At some point in life, I see myself throwing in the towel and becoming a citizen of another country. Good riddance USA.
I don't see any connection between Doug Williams' ordeal and the other grievances you enumerate (except, perhaps, police impunity). In any event, I think that neither the pseudoscience of polygraphy nor any religion should hold sway over public policy in America.
QuoteI'm starting to become ashamed to be an American. At some point in life, I see myself throwing in the towel and becoming a citizen of another country. Good riddance USA.
You don't like it? Leave. Move to North Korea or Iran. Maybe you'll like it there better.
Quote from: quickfix on Sep 24, 2015, 02:34 PMYou don't like it? Leave. Move to North Korea or Iran. Maybe you'll like it there better.
Why ? Thanks to guys like you America is turning into North Korea and Iran. Also, even the North Koreans and Iranians haven't stooped so low as to ruin innocent people's lives with the polygraph.
Someguy,
Throwing in the towel is not very patriotic. If you are firm in your beliefs then join with others and effectuate change. Religion is kind of a sensitive issue which I would save for forums with ears more inclined to such topics.
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Sep 25, 2015, 10:26 AMSomeguy,
Throwing in the towel is not very patriotic. If you are firm in your beliefs then join with others and effectuate change.
Trying to effectuate change is a very dangerous endeavor.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Sep 24, 2015, 09:47 PMAlso, even the North Koreans and Iranians haven't stooped so low as to ruin innocent people's lives with the polygraph.
You're absolutely right. They don't. They just execute you instead.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Sep 25, 2015, 11:07 AM
Trying to effectuate change is a very dangerous endeavor.
Ha! You got me on that one Doug. I think George probably doesn't get many Christmas cards from the anti-change camp either!
Quote from: quickfix on Sep 25, 2015, 11:57 AMYou're absolutely right. They don't. They just execute you instead.
Thanks for pointing out that getting executed is worse than failing a polygraph. I guess that justifies ruining innocent and patriotic people's lives to scam a living. It's a lot easier than having to mess with that silly system called "due process".
Two more filings in U.S. v. Doug Williams are now available for download:
Sentencing Minute Sheet (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-sentencing-minute-sheet.pdf) dated 22 September 2015
Judgment (https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-judgment.pdf) dated 22 September 2015
In addition to being sentenced to two years in prison, Doug Williams has also been sentenced to three years of "supervised release," during which time he "shall not participate in any form of polygraph-related activity." In addition:
QuoteThe defendant must submit to a search of his person, property, electronic devices or any automobile under his control to be conducted in a reasonable manner and at a reasonable time, for the purpose of detecting any evidence of polygraph activity at the direction of the probation officer upon reasonable suspicion. Further, the defendant must inform any residents that the premises may be subject to a search.
The prohibition against "polygraph-related activity" provides further confirmation that this was a political prosecution aimed at silencing Williams.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 28, 2015, 02:19 PM
The prohibition against "polygraph-related activity" provides further confirmation that this was a political prosecution aimed at silencing Williams.
I agree George, it's a very sophomoric stipulation, as if it's going to really make a difference. I think the CBP really snowed the Justice Dept on this. What exactly is "polygraph activity?" I wonder if they will give Doug polygraph exams to gauge compliance?
Nature abhors a vacuum.
After completing his sentence, if Doug simply wants to demonstrate or explain how to manipulate a polygraph channel tracing (i.e., simply restating publicly available non-classified information), I will gladly assist him and then the government can explain how my expression of protected free speech is his lack of compliance...
Quote from: George_Maschke on Sep 28, 2015, 02:19 PMThe prohibition against "polygraph-related activity" provides further confirmation that this was a political prosecution aimed at silencing Williams.
I have never understood how the government was able to seize all of Doug's business records, specifically client info. The only
probable cause for the alleged "crime" committed involved the undercover agents and information pertaining to their relationship with Doug. I would have thought that such records were the only records that could have been seized. Absent other specific information regarding Doug's clients being involved in criminal activity, client records should have been First and Fourth Amendment protected. What am I missing ? It seems to me a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional action conducted by the DHS.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Sep 28, 2015, 11:54 PMI have never understood how the government was able to seize all of Doug's business records, specifically client info. The only probable cause for the alleged "crime" committed involved the undercover agents and information pertaining to their relationship with Doug. I would have thought that such records were the only records that could have been seized. Absent other specific information regarding Doug's clients being involved in criminal activity, client records should have been First and Fourth Amendment protected. What am I missing ?
I think the theory is that if Doug was entrapped into criminal conspiracy with known agents, he may have committed similar conspiracies with some of his other clients. Just exactly how Doug's business records would help uncover such conspiracies need not be explained, if the judge is friendly enough.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Sep 28, 2015, 11:54 PMIt seems to me a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional action conducted by the DHS.
The DHS
OWNS blatantly illegal and unconstitutional action.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Sep 29, 2015, 10:51 PMI think the theory is that if Doug was entrapped into criminal conspiracy with known agents, he may have committed similar conspiracies with some of his other clients.
I understand the warped logic and agree that is probably how they justified it. That PC would never work in a real criminal search warrant.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Sep 29, 2015, 10:51 PMThe DHS OWNS blatantly illegal and unconstitutional action.
Thank you George Bush. I remember being in an overseas command post the day the creation of DHS was announced. Senior gov't and law enforcement officials were livid and cursing that the DHS was unnecessary that this new organization would turn into a new GESTAPO. They were right.
Unconstitutional action is a DHS specialty. They recently detained the mayor of Stockton, CA, took two laptops and a cellphone without a warrant and he was not allowed to leave the airport until he coughed up his passwords.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Stockton-mayor-was-briefly-detained-on-return-6546419.php
Land of the Free!
Quote from: Psalms68.4 on Oct 10, 2015, 01:00 PMUnconstitutional action is a DHS specialty. They recently detained the mayor of Stockton, CA, took two laptops and a cellphone without a warrant and he was not allowed to leave the airport until he coughed up his passwords.
Thanks to our traitors and sycophants, it looks like our enemies are accomplishing their mission.
So has Douggie Williams gone off to the slammer yet? If he has not, Douggie, what are you doing on your final days as a free man?
I wonder which antipolygraph advocate the feds will come after next? Maybe Georgie boy?
:D
QuoteSo has Douggie Williams gone off to the slammer yet? If he has not, Douggie, what are you doing on your final days as a free man?
I wonder which antipolygraph advocate the feds will come after next? Maybe Georgie boy?
Just curious, what's it like to be a sophomoric little troll?
Quote from: Arkhangelsk on Oct 13, 2015, 08:51 AMJust curious, what's it like to be a sophomoric little troll?
At least he gave himself an appropriate user name. It fits.
This troll sounds like a disgruntled polygrapher. I've seen "Douggie" and "Georgie boy" used on the now-defunct examiner's forum on polygraphplace.com.
Quote from: 4C5F48475A290 on Oct 13, 2015, 12:59 PMThis troll sounds like a disgruntled polygrapher.
Why would he be disgruntled ? If he is a polygrapher he is involved in the most successful scam in America. Maybe he's nervous that people are starting to catch on like Bernie Madoff must have been before his world collapsed.
It is with sadness that I note that Doug Williams should now be in prison, his reporting date being today by 12:00 noon. His criminal investigation, prosecution, and incarceration is testament to the polygraph community's inability to detect polygraph countermeasures, and its ire at those who teach others how polygraph "tests" can be trivially defeated.
You can be sad George; we're having an incarceration party here. Conga line is now forming.
Conga Line? That's my image of the polygraph community; a bunch of drunken fools dancing on someone's misfortune.
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 30, 2015, 04:47 PMYou can be sad George; we're having an incarceration party here. Conga line is now forming.
Quickfix - For you
Romans 2
God's Righteous Judgment
1Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
You chose honorably to serve your country but have taken a wrong turn. I hope and pray you will see the truth.
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 30, 2015, 04:47 PMConga line is now forming.
Have to admit, that's something I would like to see.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Oct 30, 2015, 08:00 PMQuickfix - For you
Romans 2
God's Righteous Judgment
and here's one for you AND Doug Williams:
I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath.
Ezekiel 25:17
Quote from: quickfix on Oct 31, 2015, 11:58 AMand here's one for you AND Doug Williams:
I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath.
Ezekiel 25:17
I'm pretty sure that one is also directed at you unless you see the light and change.
Even if one is a believer in the veracity of biblical scripture, me thinks (our) specifically ascribing such biblical references to one person's circumstances, behavior, and demeanor vs another's is about as subject to error as is divining truth from polygraph squiggles...
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 31, 2015, 01:11 PMEven if one is a believer in the veracity of biblical scripture, me thinks (our) specifically ascribing such biblical references to one person's circumstances, behavior, and demeanor vs another's is about as subject to error as is divining truth from polygraph squiggles...
Amen.
Quote from: getrealalready on Oct 31, 2015, 01:11 PMEven if one is a believer in the veracity of biblical scripture, me thinks (our) specifically ascribing such biblical references to one person's circumstances, behavior, and demeanor vs another's is about as subject to error as is divining truth from polygraph squiggles...
As the one who started with the scripture I'll also say amen. I believe, with few exceptions, the only true Christians in the world are those being persecuted in China and North Korea. I've dabbled in scripture on this site because I know that there are many vapid evangelical dolts in the pro-polygraph community, including an ordained minister who is a polygrapher. After 30 years of experiencing and witnessing polygraph hell, I must admit I am still in a state of complete disbelief and shock that the United States, of all places, still uses this terrorist device to ruin innocent people's lives. My use of scripture may have helped Doug Williams, who I do believe is a real Christian. I thought why not try a different tactic with Anti-Poly's top adversary, if he really is who he says he is. I strongly suspect that some of the pro-polygraph people who post on this site are really anti-polygraph supporters who are using a false flag method to win over hearts and minds.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Oct 31, 2015, 02:45 PMI strongly suspect that some of the pro-polygraph people who post on this site are really anti-polygraph supporters who are using a false flag method to win over hearts and minds.
I haven't found evidence of such fakery.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Oct 31, 2015, 03:00 PMI haven't found evidence of such fakery.
Regardless. If anyone with a mind and a conscience reads their dribble it should be having the same effect. People who profit and delight from another human being's suffering, especially given the possible fact the the victim is totally innocent and undeserving. Is there anything lower ?
Quote from: Wandersmann on Oct 31, 2015, 03:24 PM...People who profit and delight from another human being's suffering, especially given the possible fact the the victim is totally innocent and undeserving...
Uh oh. Now Quickfix is gonna have to emerge from his crevice and crow how Doug is
technically not "totally innocent".
-Aunty.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Oct 31, 2015, 06:49 PMUh oh. Now Quickfix is gonna have to emerge from his crevice and crow how Doug is technically not "totally innocent".
Oops !!!!!!! Thank you Aunty. My bad. Although I did say
possible fact, I realize I still threw Quickfix an underhand lob that he can hit out of the park. I was thinking about the hundreds of other totally innocent (at least in regard to false polygraph accusations) people out there with my comment.
I am in touch with Doug Williams via e-mail now. If anyone would like me to pass on a message, I'd be happy to do so.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 11, 2015, 10:42 AMI am in touch with Doug Williams via e-mail now. If anyone would like me to pass on a message, I'd be happy to do so.
George, how is the old warrior doing?
Arkhangelsk,
Doug is doing about as well as could be expected, under the circumstances. He has a job in the cafeteria and is active with a Christian fellowship group. He's also working on getting in better physical shape, though he has sleeping difficulties, as they turn the lights on for a headcount three times per night.
Doug has not been singled out for any special adverse treatment because of his status as a former law enforcement officer.
Doug Williams has today published on Polygraph.com a commentary on Operation Lie Busters along with recent correspondence with retired federal polygraph researcher Dr. Gordon H. Barland:
http://polygraph.com/assets/Doug_Williams_and_Dr._Gordon_Barland.pdf
Powerful; that is a more serious and tactical Doug. It appears the attempts to silence him have not borne fruit.
Wow. That is some exceptionally heavy shit.
Between the two of them, Samuel Beckett and Franz Kafka would be hard pressed to dream something like this this up.
Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction.
I find this portion of Doug's article particularly noteworthy:
QuoteI appeal to those in positions of power in the government to take note of what my prosecution actually means. The polygraph operators have admitted the polygraph is worthless as a lie detector. So why in hell do you still rely on it? Wake up! You are the victims of the polygraph operator's fraud! Stop the madness! Stop relying on this fraudulent polygraph procedure! It is foolish and dangerous to continue to trust our national security and the integrity of the criminal justice system to what amounts to an outrageous scam. It is criminally negligent of you who are in positions of power to continue to use and rely on the results of the polygraph "examination." There is no excuse for you to be deliberately ignorant about the waste, fraud and abuse of the polygraph industry. Go to www.polygraph.com, read my manual, my book, watch my DVD and watch the media clips - educate yourselves!
The very existence of Operation Lie Busters confirms that 1) polygraph countermeasures are effective and 2) the federal government has no ability to detect them. Policymakers take note.
After studying the email exchanges between Doug Williams and Gordon Barland, I have been entertaining a particular wonderment...
Will any elder statesmen of polygraph ever muster the courage to tell the truth -- in a highly public way -- about the true-life risks, realities and limitations of the "test" before they shed their mortal coil?
Such insider revelations could go a long way in helping to right the wrongs that have long plagued polygraph.
The risks to one's life and liberty do indeed appear considerable! :(
A user of the link-sharing site Reddit recently posted the link to the Bloomberg video report on Doug Williams' plight. The post presently has 221 comments and may be of interest to AntiPolygraph.org readers:
https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/4yhuuo/til_douglas_williams_an_administrator_of_lie/?sort=old&limit=500
On 21 November 2016, Doug Williams filed a pro se motion to amend the terms of his supervised release so as to allow him to engage in polygraph-related activity to the extent that it is not "intended or part of a scheme to defraud the United States or tamper with witnesses."
Williams' motion may be downloaded here:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-motion-for-modification-of-the-terms-of-supervised-release.pdf
I think his motion is reasonable and should be granted.
I agree that his motion is reasonable and should be granted.
However the weakest branch of Williams's argument is the assertion that his disclaimer ("...I will not give you a practice test if you tell me you plan to lie...") is "sufficient to prevent his involvement in any alleged scheme to defraud the Government or the tampering with any witness". The facts in evidence prove that this is not true. The disclaimer was on display and in effect when Doug was entrapped into violating its provisions.
Actually, the fact that he was so badly entrapped should be sufficient to deter any further violations. He set up a rule to protect himself and came to grief only from not following it. He won't do that again.
If Doug gets a chance to support this motion with oral argument, perhaps he should lean on the idea that he takes the appropriate lesson from his conviction and sentence. Justice department functionaries love to hear how their work straightens people out.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 08, 2016, 09:35 AMI think his motion is reasonable and should be granted.
There are huge First Amendment issues in Doug's favor. The fact that he's already published a book on this matter is important. Journalists have gotten away with espionage because of First Amendment protection, not that I'm equating Doug to anything bad. I think the government goons painted themselves into a corner with their entrapment. As I recall it was stipulated in the trial or some other legal proceeding that teaching about the evils of the polygraph and the specifics of the junk science is legal. For them to continue to suppress his efforts to speak simple truth would help bring to light what a bunch of Stalinist style thugs these polypunks really are. I think this case may eventually help bring them down. Doug is truly a political prisoner.
George, thanks for your support and I hope the judge agrees with you that my request is reasonable and should be granted.
Quote from: AuntyAgony on Dec 08, 2016, 07:14 PMHowever the weakest branch of Williams's argument is the assertion that his disclaimer ("...I will not give you a practice test if you tell me you plan to lie...") is "sufficient to prevent his involvement in any alleged scheme to defraud the Government or the tampering with any witness". The facts in evidence prove that this is not true. The disclaimer was on display and in effect when Doug was entrapped into violating its provisions.
Doug added this disclaimer
after the Operation Lie Busters raid on his office and home (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2014/01/28/doug-williams-goes-public-on-his-attempted-entrapment-and-raid-by-federal-agents/). This is a point that the prosecution raised on the second day of Doug's trial (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2015/05/14/u-s-v-doug-williams-day-2-doug-williams-pleads-guilty/):
QuoteSA Robbins testified that after the 21 February 2013 raid, Williams made changes to his website, including removal of the claim that he could teach a person to pass the polygraph "lying or not" and the addition of a "terms of service" statement clarifying that he would not train anyone who told him that they intended to lie, and that any in-person training customer who made such a statement would forfeit the fee and not receive training.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Dec 09, 2016, 04:48 AMDoug added this disclaimer after the Operation Lie Busters raid on his office and home. This is a point that the prosecution raised on the second day of Doug's trial:
My mistake, I missed that.
In that case, the argument is not weak at all. It is quite in line with what any DOJ likes to see.
On 10 February 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a brief in opposition to Doug Williams' motion that he be allowed to engage in polygraph-related activities during his upcoming period of supervised release:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-united-states-opposition-to-defendants-motion-for-modification-of-the-terms-of-supervised-release.pdf
As noted on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/02/18/u-s-department-of-justice-effectively-concedes-that-polygraph-countermeasures-are-effective/), the Department of Justice effectively concedes that polygraph countermeasures are effective.
As Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMIt defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless.
You are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.
Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.
Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.
Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.
Quote from: Wandersmann on Feb 20, 2017, 01:25 PMYou are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.
Yes, greed and corruption are at the root of the problem with the polygraph. Perhaps a phone call and letter writing campaign to Pres. Trump would be effective. I cannot believe he would allow this to continue if he was made aware of the waste, fraud and abuse in the government polygraph program.
On 21 February 2017, Doug Williams filed a reply to the U.S. government's opposition to his motion that he be allowed to engage in polygraph-related activities during his upcoming period of supervised release:
https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/doug-williams/doug-williams-reply-to-governments-opposition.pdf
As noted on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/02/22/doug-williams-argues-why-he-should-be-allowed-to-continue-teaching-people-how-to-pass-a-polygraph-test/), Williams argues forcefully (and, I hope, effectively) why his freedom of speech should not be curtailed.
Quote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 21, 2017, 05:45 AMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.
Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.
Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.
Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.
You are quite correct Joe, they don't ALWAYS pass - not because they didn't produce a perfect "truthful" chart, but because polygraph operators often disregard the fact that the person did in fact produce a chart that should be scored as "NO DECEPTION INDICATED". It is an unfortunate fact that all too often polygraph operators call a person deceptive and "fail" them even though it is obvious from the chart tracings that they had told the truth - or at least what passes for the truth on the polygraph. But I can teach a person to do what they need to do to ALWAYS produce a "truthful" chart. It is very simple to teach a person to produce a reaction on the control questions and show no reaction on the relevant questions, but you are right, I cannot guarantee them that the polygraph operator will accurately report what he/she sees on the chart. I have taught thousands of people to "pass" the test and for the past 10 years I have used the AXCITON computerized polygraph instrument and in the last several years have used the scoring software which ALWAYS shows a reading of NO DECEPTION INDICATED.
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 21, 2017, 11:51 PMQuote from: Wandersmann on Feb 20, 2017, 01:25 PMYou are correct Doug. It defies logic and anyone with half-a-brain can see not only the logic but the PROOF in the anti-polygraph message. Our problem lies 100% with corruption. Corrupt lobbyists, politicians, and bureaucrats. Let's find one honest man or woman somewhere in authority to start turning things around.
Yes, greed and corruption are at the root of the problem with the polygraph. Perhaps a phone call and letter writing campaign to Pres. Trump would be effective. I cannot believe he would allow this to continue if he was made aware of the waste, fraud and abuse in the government polygraph program.
Don't even get me started with greed and corruption in the polygraph industry. I been fighting it for 10 years now
Quote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 22, 2017, 01:24 PMQuote from: the_fighting_irish on Feb 21, 2017, 05:45 AMQuote from: Doug_Williams on Feb 19, 2017, 08:05 PMAs Dr. Maschke correctly states, this marks the first time that the government has admitted that I can teach a person to pass the polygraph test regardless of whether they are telling the truth or lying. I have said for almost forty years that if I can teach a person to control every tracing on the polygraph chart and ALWAYS pass, nervous or not, lying or not, no matter what, that is prima facie evidence that the polygraph is not a "lie detector". It defies logic that the government continues to use the polygraph while at the same time admitting it is worthless. I have much more to say in my reply to the government which Dr. Maschke will post when it is filed.
Doug, and I say this with all due respect, the "ALWAYS pass" thing, come on. They don't "ALWAYS" pass.
Now that being set aside. I am glad that you are well, and you got out of a very difficult time in your life. I take no joy in someone else's misery.
Actually, check that. There are a few I would take pleasure in seeing miserable, you are not one of them. We may disagree about a lot, but you've never taken things to a personal level with me.
You are quite correct Joe, they don't ALWAYS pass - not because they didn't produce a perfect "truthful" chart, but because polygraph operators often disregard the fact that the person did in fact produce a chart that should be scored as "NO DECEPTION INDICATED". It is an unfortunate fact that all too often polygraph operators call a person deceptive and "fail" them even though it is obvious from the chart tracings that they had told the truth - or at least what passes for the truth on the polygraph. But I can teach a person to do what they need to do to ALWAYS produce a "truthful" chart. It is very simple to teach a person to produce a reaction on the control questions and show no reaction on the relevant questions, but you are right, I cannot guarantee them that the polygraph operator will accurately report what he/she sees on the chart. I have taught thousands of people to "pass" the test and for the past 10 years I have used the AXCITON computerized polygraph instrument and in the last several years have used the scoring software which ALWAYS shows a reading of NO DECEPTION INDICATED.
Thanks for the classy (being sincere) response. Again, I am happy to see you well and heathy. With all sincerity
Doug Williams is scheduled to be released from the federal prison camp in Florence, Colorado this Wednesday morning, 26 July 2017. :)
The court has not yet ruled on his November 2016 motion (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2016/12/08/jailed-polygraph-critic-doug-williams-appeals-ban-on-post-release-participation-in-any-form-of-polygraph-related-activity/) for amendment of the terms of his upcoming three-year period of supervised release.
Glad Doug is getting out. Can he go back to running his website, polygraph consultation business, and selling his book? How was doug able to have access to comment on this forum while he was in jail, or did he talk to George by phone? When I was in jail, I had no computer access and phone calls were monitored.
Jail makes you a better criminal, I have no respect for law or national security any more. I hope Doug and others will continue to teach people how the poly works as just an interrogation game of chance. I have been teaching people about it myself and opening their eyes to how it is all a psych game, but just in casual talk. I would like to see everyone prepared for the interrogation and accusations that are routine with a poly, so less and less confessions are given, and polygraphers start getting more pissed off because their secret has been outed.
QuoteGlad Doug is getting out. Can he go back to running his website, polygraph consultation business, and selling his book? How was doug able to have access to comment on this forum while he was in jail, or did he talk to George by phone? When I was in jail, I had no computer access and phone calls were monitored.
I have been in touch with Doug via the CorrLinks email service while he has been in prison, where he has not had access to websites. I sent him selected message threads and blog posts and posted his replies on his behalf. The court has not yet ruled on Doug's motion for modification of the terms of his supervised release.
Doug Williams left the federal prison camp at Florence, Colorado this morning and is on his way home:
https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2017/07/26/polygraph-critic-doug-williams-freed-from-prison/
Doug looks stronger and happier than ever.
Aunty is only an imaginary avatar but if she were real she would want to have Doug's babies.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Jul 25, 2017, 02:01 AMI have been in touch with Doug via the CorrLinks email service while he has been in prison, where he has not had access to websites. I sent him selected message threads and blog posts and posted his replies on his behalf. The court has not yet ruled on Doug's motion for modification of the terms of his supervised release.
Happy day for truth, justice, and the real American Way ! As far as the court, the judge has, in my opinion, proven herself to be too weak to contemplate government fallibility. I'm not crossing my fingers for a favorable ruling but hope the Doug can find a way forward regardless of the decision.
Quote from: George_Maschke on Jul 26, 2017, 11:59 AMDoug Williams left the federal prison camp at Florence, Colorado this morning and is on his way home:
Hell Yeah! Congratulations Doug! I am confident that you will receive the justice that you seek.
Let's roll.
As noted on the blog (https://antipolygraph.org/blog/2020/07/27/polygraph-critic-doug-williams-completes-supervised-release/), Doug Williams' court-ordered three-year period of supervised release, which forbade him from participating in any "polygraph-related activity," expired on Sunday, 26 July 2020.
Williams is again free to teach people how to pass or beat a polygraph "test" and plans to resume doing so.
It is hard to see what public interest was served by his entrapment and imprisonment.