ATF Agents Beat the Polygraph to Infiltrate Mongols Motorcycle Gang

[George W. Maschke]

The Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrHOy4sPvBKCo0W7ItrIx-pmaE4gD93VFSI80

Feds say they drive a stake into Mongols gang
By THOMAS WATKINS – 5 hours ago

LOS ANGELES (AP) — An undercover investigation in which federal agents infiltrated the notorious Mongols motorcycle gang has ended with dozens of members arrested in six states and prosecutors say it could herald the end of what they call a criminal group.

"This is one of those celebrated investigations in which the organization from top to bottom has been charged and targeted," said Michael Sullivan, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "It puts a stake in the heart of the Mongols."

At least 61 Mongol Motorcycle Club members were arrested under a racketeering indictment. Agents served 110 arrest warrants across Southern California and in Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, Washington and Ohio.

Members of the Mongols, a Southern California-based group of 600 or so members, claims it is a social club but prosecutors say it's a criminal gang involved in murder, torture, drug trafficking and other offenses.

The 177-page indictment describes a tightly organized group routinely engaging in violence. It alleges the group, which is mostly Latino, sometimes attacks black people and commits robberies, steals motorcycles, and funds itself in part by stealing credit card account information.

John Torres, the ATF agent in charge in Los Angeles, described the pivotal role his organization's four undercover agents played in the investigation.

The unidentified federal agents infiltrated the gang and were accepted as full members, a difficult process that requires winning the trust of top leaders over a period of months, Torres said.

They had been given completely new identities, including Social Security numbers and life stories. To be accepted into the Mongols, the agents had to pass a lie detector test and background test carried out by private detectives.

Torres declined to comment on how they were able to pass the polygraph test. The agents started out doing errands for the gang, including security work at Mongol parties, and later became "full-patch" members, meaning they could wear the group's insignia.

The agents were required to live away from their real families for days on end in homes set up to make it look like they lived a Mongols lifestyle, Torres said. Four undercover women ATF agents also were involved, pretending to be biker girlfriends and attending parties with the agents. Women are not allowed to be full members of the gang.

Torres said the agents never committed any crimes during their work.

Among those arrested were the gang's former national president Ruben Cavazos, who wrote a memoir of his life called "Honor Few, Fear None: The Life and Times of a Mongol," published by HarperCollins in June.

Another former Mongols national president, Roger Pinney, alleged in an interview with The Associated Press that Cavazos was the problem, not the club in general.

"They were just on the verge of cleaning up their act," said Pinney, who is no longer a member and is serving probation from his role in an infamous brawl in Laughlin, Nev., in 2002. "It's not a club-run deal, it's individuals who are the ones who decide to commit crimes."

Pinney doesn't believe the raid will force the Mongols off the road. "This is all going to blow over. The Mongols aren't going away, and neither are the Hells Angels," he said.

But U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien has asked for an injunction that would seize the Mongols' trademarked name. If the order is approved, any Mongol would no longer be able to wear a jacket displaying the gang's name or emblem.

"It would allow law enforcement to seize the leather jackets right off their back," O'Brien said.

[SanchoPanza]

The Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:

California does not require Polygraph Examiners to be licensed, certified or even trained. All one has to do to become a polygraph examiner in California is to buy a polygraph on Ebay or elsewhere. The private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.

On June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mongols_-_indictment.pdf

I'll bet you a Double Whopper with cheese along with supersized fries and a coke that if this person is ever named it will either be John Grogan or one of his proteges.


Sancho Panza

[T.M. Cullen]

I just can't understand how they could have passed (false negative).  The  test if very accurate, at least 95%.

There is something fishy here!  Maybe they had a bad examiner.  Maybe they used countermeasures.  Whoops!  Forgot, CMs don't work.  Well, no test is perfect.  Even X-ray exams have error rates.  The fact they passed doesn't prove a thing except that this site is a menace to national security!

TC

[SanchoPanza]

I just can't understand how they could have passed (false negative).

Or maybe the government threatened the private detective/examiner with an indictment of his own if he didn't pass the agents. They flipped at least 4 hard core bikers while the agents were still under cover. Compared to flipping a 1%er getting a private eye to roll over in the face of a RICO indictment that includes murder doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.  

If he wasn't helping the agents on purpose, eventually he'll be arrested. The government intends to literally seize the jackets off of their backs. I don't think a criminal private eye will walk away unscathed unless he has already cut a deal.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

The Associated Press reports that four agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) who infiltrated the Mongols motorcycle gang had to first pass a lie detector test by a private detective:

California does not require Polygraph Examiners to be licensed, certified or even trained. All one has to do to become a polygraph examiner in California is to buy a polygraph on Ebay or elsewhere.

You are absolutely correct. Anyone can hang out a shingle and offer polygraph services to the public in my home state of California. By the same token, anyone can offer services as a phrenologist, graphologist, or palm-reader. I think it is a sign of California's relative enlightenment that it does not grant licenses to practitioners of such quackery as polygraphy.

The private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.

On June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mongols_-_indictment.pdf

The passage you cite is perplexing, because it is hard to fathom how the co-conspirator directed to administer a polygraph examination to three under-cover law enforcement officers could have remained "unidentified," unless perhaps it was a third party who actually administered the polygraph examinations. A press release by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California states:

During the investigation, four male ATF agents worked undercover and successfully infiltrated the Mongols to become "full-patch" members. Four female ATF agents also went undercover to pose as their girlfriends. The undercover agents had to undergo rigorous scrutiny by the Mongols, including polygraph examinations, to be accepted as members of the Mongols. They also had to develop and maintain "biker personas" to prolong their undercover investigation.

It is hard to conceive that ATF could be ignorant of the identity of the person who polygraphed its agents.

I'll bet you a Double Whopper with cheese along with supersized fries and a coke that if this person is ever named it will either be John Grogan or one of his proteges.

I'll have to decline that wager. That said, I would indeed be surprised if the Mongols' polygraph examiner were a member in good standing of either the American Polygraph Association or the California Association of Polygraph Examiners. Although I would disagree with the great majority of the members of these organizations regarding the merits of polygraphy, we're on the same side of the law, and I have to think that few, if any, would knowingly assist such a criminal enterprise.

Or maybe the government threatened the private detective/examiner with an indictment of his own if he didn't pass the agents. They flipped at least 4 hard core bikers while the agents were still under cover. Compared to flipping a 1%er getting a private eye to roll over in the face of a RICO indictment that includes murder doesn't seem like that much of a stretch.

Good point. Indeed, I wouldn't assume that the ATF agents used countermeasures to pass the polygraph. The polygrapher might have been flipped with threats and promises.

[SanchoPanza]

Quote:
The private detective/polygrapher was listed as an "unnamed Co-Conspirator" in the Mongol's indictment.

Quote:
On June 23, 2007, in San Diego County, California, defendant MUNZ directed an unidentified co-conspirator to administer a polygraph examination to three undercover law enforcement officers as a condition to their membership in the Mongols gang. http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site205/2008/1021/20081021_022540_Mo...

The passage you site is perplexing, because it is hard to fathom how the co-conspirator directed to administer a polygraph examination to three under-cover law enforcement officers could have remained "unidentified," unless perhaps it was a third party who actually administered the polygraph examinations. A press release by the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California states:

That was a cut and paste from the actual indictment.

In the context of an indictment, the language you find perplexing does not mean that ATF does not know the identity of the co-conspirator. It means that either the ATF attorney did not identify the person to the Grand Jury OR that the Grand Jury withheld the identity of the person at the request of ATF.  Both are common occurrences when the unidentified person is the subject of further proceedings or has agreed to testify against his cohorts.

Perhaps you can direct me to the N.A.S Reports on Phrenology, Graphology and Chiromancy.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

That was a cut and paste from the actual indictment.

In the context of an indictment, the language you find perplexing does not mean that ATF does not know the identity of the co-conspirator. It means that either the ATF attorney did not identify the person to the Grand Jury OR that the Grand Jury withheld the identity of the person at the request of ATF.  Both are common occurrences when the unidentified person is the subject of further proceedings or has agreed to testify against his cohorts.

Thank you for explaining.

Perhaps you can direct me to the N.A.S Reports on Phrenology, Graphology and Chiromancy.

While the NAS hasn't been tasked with investigating these pseudosciences, note that the fact that the NAS has produced a report on a practice does not ipso facto confer legitimacy upon it. As the chair of the NAS's Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph succinctly put it: "The polygraph has been the gold standard, but it's obviously fool's gold."

[Sergeant1107]

It is certainly possible that the feds got to the examiner and persuaded him to "pass" the agents in exchange for leniency or something similar.  Is there any indication that is what happened?

Since it does strain the limits of coincidence that four separate examinees all managed to pass a polygraph despite being completely deceptive, it is hardly surprising that a polygraph supporter offers up the rather lame excuse that the person conducting the examination must not have been a "real" polygraph examiner.  A licensed, certified, and trained polygraph examiner couldn't have missed the fact that four examinees were law enforcement agents rather than career criminals, right?  Something that obvious could hardly have escaped detection, I would hope.

Didn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb?  As the former president of the APA, I assume he would qualify as a licensed, certified, and trained polygraph examiner?  Didn't he completely miss the fact that Leon had a tack in his shoe that he stomped on repeatedly?  Hardly a tour de force for the polygraph.

How much more reasonable is to simply conclude that the polygraph does not detect deception?

[SanchoPanza]

Sergeant.
Of course it isn't suprising. That is because it is plausible. Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make you polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes you a cop. Like untrained cops, untrained polygraphers might be a bit easier to deceive.

Considering the failure of a Polygraph for the Mongols would probably (based on their reputation and history) result in your family never knowing where your body was buried, No trial, No opportunity to complain that polygraph doesn't work on bulletin boards like this, just lights out, I don't see ATF risking an attempt at countermeasures even with an untrained examiner.  Multiply that times four and you are really broadening their risk versus consequences.

Didn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb?

I hadn't heard this Harmon Leon story so I looked it up.
I viewed the video on YOUTUBE here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-cUD5RY9M

I read Harmon Leon's account here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-25/news/bullshitting-the-lie-detector/

and  also read the response to his article by the shows producer here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/the-infiltrator-who-proved-nothing/

Saying that he completely fooled Ed Gelb is a bit of an exaggeration, even for you.
First,  Harmon Leon was not on parole or probation so when he ansered "yes" to the question, "Do you plan to tell the truth on this test whether you knowingly used marijuana while on probation?"  He was telling the truth.
When he answered "No" to the question "Did you do marijuana while on probation last January?" He was again telling the truth.
The results of his polygraph were that he was telling the truth on these questions.
But, your conclusion is that he "Fooled" Ed Gelb.

In Summary  Gonzo Journalist tells truth on the test. Test shows Gonzo Journalist told the truth on the test. Conclusion: Person administering test Fooled?  HARDLY

Second  The real message you should get from all three sources is that even though Harmon Leon claims "After searching the Internet, I decided the best way to beat a polygraph test was to put a tack in my shoe and poke myself when each question was asked."  He failed to cause sufficient distortion in his charts to prevent Ed Gelb from  arriving at the conclusion that this Gonzo Journalist who successfully lied to the producers about his arrest and probation to the extent of forging a police report had in fact told the truth about using marijuana on probation.

I don't know where on the internet he got his countermeasure advice, but I do know that the N.A.S. study stated that there isn't any credible evidence or scientific research that supports the idea that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

For extended commentary on Harmon Leon's exploit, see Harmon Leon Infiltrates PAX TV's Lie Detector Show.

[notguilty1]

Sergeant.
Of course it isn't suprising. That is because it is plausible. Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make you polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes you a cop. Like untrained cops, untrained polygraphers might be a bit easier to deceive.

Considering the failure of a Polygraph for the Mongols would probably (based on their reputation and history) result in your family never knowing where your body was buried, No trial, No opportunity to complain that polygraph doesn't work on bulletin boards like this, just lights out, I don't see ATF risking an attempt at countermeasures even with an untrained examiner.  Multiply that times four and you are really broadening their risk versus consequences.

Didn't Harmon Leon go on the TV show "Lie Detector" and completely and utterly fool Ed Gelb?

I hadn't heard this Harmon Leon story so I looked it up.
I viewed the video on YOUTUBE here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv-cUD5RY9M

I read Harmon Leon's account here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-05-25/news/bullshitting-the-lie-detector/

and  also read the response to his article by the shows producer here: http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-06-22/news/the-infiltrator-who-proved-nothing/

Saying that he completely fooled Ed Gelb is a bit of an exaggeration, even for you.
First,  Harmon Leon was not on parole or probation so when he ansered "yes" to the question, "Do you plan to tell the truth on this test whether you knowingly used marijuana while on probation?"  He was telling the truth.
When he answered "No" to the question "Did you do marijuana while on probation last January?" He was again telling the truth.
The results of his polygraph were that he was telling the truth on these questions.
But, your conclusion is that he "Fooled" Ed Gelb.

In Summary  Gonzo Journalist tells truth on the test. Test shows Gonzo Journalist told the truth on the test. Conclusion: Person administering test Fooled?  HARDLY

Second  The real message you should get from all three sources is that even though Harmon Leon claims "After searching the Internet, I decided the best way to beat a polygraph test was to put a tack in my shoe and poke myself when each question was asked."  He failed to cause sufficient distortion in his charts to prevent Ed Gelb from  arriving at the conclusion that this Gonzo Journalist who successfully lied to the producers about his arrest and probation to the extent of forging a police report had in fact told the truth about using marijuana on probation.

I don't know where on the internet he got his countermeasure advice, but I do know that the N.A.S. study stated that there isn't any credible evidence or scientific research that supports the idea that it is easy to train examinees to "beat" both the polygraph and trained examiners.

Sancho Panza

Of course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law.  Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not

[SanchoPanza]

Of course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law.Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not

Wrong again Notguilty1.    But at least you are consistently wrong.
It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.

If I may reiterate, Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop.

Sancho Panza

[notguilty1]

Of course you don't seem to realize that, owning a badge with the intent to, or actually use it for it's intended purpose, will get you arrested for impersonating an officer of the law.Owning a polygraph machine with the intent to, or actually using it for it's intended purpose ........ well, not

Wrong again Notguilty1.    But at least you are consistently wrong.
It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.

If I may reiterate, Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop.

Sancho Panza

Sancho wrote:
"It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states."

But it's perfectly legal in the other half of our states!

Sancho wrote:
"Owning a polygraph doesn't automatically make someone a polygrapher any more that owning a badge makes someone a cop."

Apparently, Sancho it does in the states where licensing is not required.
However, your example as usual falls short because, even in those states using a badge if your not authorized to will land you in jail.

[G Scalabr]

It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.

Yet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.  

[notguilty1]

It is illegal to administer a polygraph examination without a license in more than half of our states.

Yet it is illegal to administer a haircut without a license in all of them.  

Good point!