Polygrapher John Grogan Sues Polygraphers Joseph Paolella, Jack Trimarco, and Ralph Hilliard

[George W. Maschke]

On 30 May 2008, polygrapher John L. Grogan of Woodland Hills, California filed a lawsuit against fellow Los Angeles area polygraphers Joseph Paolella and Jack Trimarco as well as PolygraphPlace.com and TruthAboutGrogan.org proprietor Ralph Hilliard of Canton, Georgia. Twenty "Does" are also included among the defendants.

Grogan seeks damages in excess of one million dollars from each of the defendants for defamation. Grogan claims that Joseph Paolella defamed him in a letter to Jack Trimarco:

On or about February 12, 2008, PAOLLELA wrote a letter to TRIMARCO that contained the following false, malicious, and libelous statements:

a. "After approximately 6-weeks of training, I gave Mr. Grogan an 'honorary completion' certificate. I had no idea that he wanted to be an examiner and go into the business as an examiner";

b. "I had to let Mr. Grogan go because of his 'unauthorized advances' towards female students"; and

c. "Even though Mr. Grogan has lost his P.I. & P.P.O. license, he is using an associate Lisa Javoric . . . to front for him on her website to do private investigations . . ."

Grogan's complaint against Jack Trimarco is that:

On or about March 7, 2008, TRIMARCO telephoned the Tom Leykis Radio Talk Show which airs on 97.1 FM (the "SHOW").  When TRIMARCO telephoned the show as a listener, the appearing guest of Mr. Leykis was Plaintiff.  Plaintiff was invited to appear on the radio and perform a polygraph examination on a television producer.  During this telephone call on a national broadcast to potentially millions of listeners TRIMARCO made several false, malicious, and slanderous statements about Plaintiff including but not limited to:

a. "John Grogan is a fake";

b. "He is not a polygraph examiner";  

c. "He's been convicted of 26 counts of fraud;

d. "He's never graduated from a polygraph school";

e. "You're nothing more than a fraud and you're about to get burned";

f.  "I'm going to get you convicted";  

g. "I'll bring in my proof to the DA in Ventura County"; and

h. "You perjured yourself."

A podcast of the radio show in question, which has been the topic of previous discussion on this message board, can be downloaded here:

http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956464.mp3

http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/956500.mp3

With regard to Ralph Hilliard, Grogan alleges:

Shortly after the SHOW aired, HILLIARD posted an article on POLYGRAPH PLACE entitled:  "Issue #142 – 4/18/2008, John Grogan – Part II – Imposter?  YES – Swindler? Definitely – Polygraph Examiner?  Not by any Stretch of the Imagination." In that article, HILLIARD republished each of the defamatory statements made by TRIMARCO during the SHOW.  In addition, HILLIARD wrote that Plaintiff is a "swindler," "imposter," and has "a history of threats, harassment and violence." Then on [TruthAboutGrogan.org], HILLIARD posted the following false, malicious, and libelous statements regarding Plaintiff:

a. "John snares the unsuspecting public into his web of deceipt"; and

b. "[f]raud being perpetrated on the public by John in California and now across the nation."

Furthermore, HILLIARD provides two hyperlinks to the false and defamatory articles on POLYGRAPH PLACE.  The above articles and statements on both websites are tremendously damaging to Plaintiff's reputation professionally and personally.

John Grogan's statement of "complaint for damages," including copies of Joseph Paolella's letter to Jack Trimarco and the "Polygraph Examiner" diploma that Paolella bestowed upon Grogan, is available for download here:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation/grogan/grogan-complaint.pdf

Grogan's "Polygraph Examiner" diploma includes no mention of its being "honorary," as Paolella maintained in his letter to Trimarco.

[George W. Maschke]

Polygraph results are sometimes admitted as evidence in California civil trials. As all parties to this case are themselves polygraph operators, perhaps they can all agree to the admissibility of polygraph chart readings? But who will polygraph the polygraphers?!

[SanchoPanza]

Trimarco caught you.  He'd probably catch Grogan too.

Now you deny you were caught at anything and I'll point out that there are at least 2 people who were present at your polygraphs who would probably disagree with you. etc. etc. etc.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

Trimarco caught you....

At what, precisely, do you aver that Trimarco "caught" me? And what bearing would that have on the present lawsuit, to which I am not a party?

[T.M. Cullen]

Trimarco caught you.  He'd probably catch Grogan too.

Now you deny you were caught at anything and I'll point out that there are at least 2 people who were present at your polygraphs who would probably disagree with you. etc. etc. etc.

Like a dusty old 45 record, sancho just keeps skipping and repeating.....

TC

[SanchoPanza]

According to Thesaurus.com "detect" and "catch" are synonymous. Their past tenses would be synonymous as well.  I could also have used disclosed, exposed, identified, observed, recognized, revealed, saw, smelled out, smoked out, spotted, uncovered, unmasked, revealed,or wised up to.

Didn't Agent Tremarco tell you that he detected deception in your responses on your polygraph?
I would never have known that he caught you, but for your own statement. btw  Thanks.  

If he followed FBI Policy at the time, his findings must have been confirmed or you would have been retested.

You asked who would polygraph the polygraphers. I simply answered your question and gave you a familiar example of his qualifications from your own statement.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

Didn't Agent Tremarco tell you that he detected deception in your responses on your polygraph?

Yes. But he was wrong.

I would never have known that he caught you, but for your own statement. btwThanks.

As I also point out in my statement, "Too Hot of a Potato: A Citizen-Soldier's Encounter With the Polygraph," I was completely candid with Mr. Trimarco. He didn't "catch" me and he didn't "detect deception." His invalid test produced erroneous results.

If he followed FBI Policy at the time, his findings must have been confirmed or you would have been retested.

No. None of his findings were confirmed. Had it been "confirmed" that I had been "caught" lying when I (truthfully) denied that anyone had directed me to seek employment with the FBI, when I (again truthfully) denied having undisclosed contact with anyone from a non-U.S. intelligence service, and when I (yet again truthfully) denied having disclosed classified information to any unauthorized individuals, then one would expect to find me vacationing at the Grey Bars Hotel.

You asked who would polygraph the polygraphers. I simply answered your question and gave you a familiar example of his qualifications from your own statement.

Considering that Trimarco was dead wrong in my case, you chose a poor example. In any event, there is no evidence that he (or Paolella, or Hilliard) are any better than John Grogan is at the black art of polygraphic lie detection. Moreover, if this legal battle of the polygraphers is to be resolved by polygraphy, the polygrapher(s) performing the service shouldn't be parties to the case, don't you think?  

[George W. Maschke]

A number of documents pertaining to Grogan v. Paolella, et al. have been posted by the plaintiff's attorney to the website JDSupra.com and may be reviewed here:

http://www.jdsupra.com/profile/adrianos_docs/

The most recent document, dated 24 October 2008, is a tentative ruling by Superior Court Judge Helen I. Bendix rejecting defendant Jack Trimarco's motion to strike the case under California's anti-SLAPP statute.

[George W. Maschke]

Selected additional case documents, including filings by defendants Joseph Paolella, Jack Trimarco, and Ralph Hilliard, are now available here:

https://antipolygraph.org/litigation.shtml#grogan

[SanchoPanza]

Well let's see here.  YOU think he was wrong. HE thinks he was right.

So I'll have to make a judgement on who I choose to believe.

Since you literally "Wrote the book" that attempts to justify lying and cheating if one thinks it might help them get a job with the government, why should anyone believe you when you claim you didn't lie or cheat in an attempt to get a job with the government?  

I choose to believe the guy who DID NOT write the book that attempts to justify lying and cheating if they think it might help them get a job with the government.

FBI policy indicates that you would have received a retest if upon review of your charts the reviewer had disagreed with Agent Trimarcos findings. All charts are reviewed. Thus it is reasonable to infer that Agent Trimarco analysis of your charts was confirmed. On your second polygraph, when the examiner discovered evidence of countermeasures I'm betting he had his analysis reviewed and confrimed by his supervisor as well.

It astounds me that you can promote lying and cheating as a justifiable behavior and still act offended when someone doesn't believe you.

Sancho Panza

[Sergeant1107]

Well let's see here.YOU think he was wrong. HE thinks he was right.  

George knows he was telling the truth.
Trimarco thinks George was lying.

That's a fundamental difference that polygraph supporters are not willing to acknowledge.  The test subject is the only one of the two who knows if the test is accurate or not.  But their opinion is the only one that is ignored when discussing the accuracy of the polygraph.

[SanchoPanza]

I agree.  George does know whether or not he told the truth. He may have told the truth or he may have lied.
He just claims he was telling the truth.

Agent Trimarco and Mr. Youngblood detected that he was lying on one exam and cheating on another. They can articulate their reasons. Their jobs and careers were not at stake. I see no motivation for them to lie about their conclusions.

If Dr. Maschke lied on his exams he would certainly have motivation to deny it.

Which brings one back to the question of credibility. I choose to believe the guys who DID NOT have a stake in the outcome of the exams or write a book that attempts to justify lying and cheating if they think it might help them get a job with the government.

Sancho Panza

[George W. Maschke]

Sancho Panza,

Do you have anything substantive to say regarding Grogan v. Paolella, et al.? It seems that your purpose (as ever) is to change the subject.

[getrealalready]

S.P.,

How can you possibly be so simple minded?  Of course, Trimarco and Youngblood would not require motivation to lie about their conclusions.  It is not necessary to impugn their motives.  They were simply using a "test" which produces random error and has no diagnostic validity.  Get real already!

[SanchoPanza]

Getreal, I'm not simple minded I just have to write that way sometimes so you can understand

Sancho Panza