|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 16:59:59 GMT -5
Censuring A Polygraph Operator Is A Very Rare Event An A Very Serious Matter_ It is so rare for the APA to censure a polygraph-er -That I am having a problem,even finding someone else who has been- The Board of Directors APA -will be at the meeting in Fla for at least a week I'm told-then I will have and answer- This is very Important,as Patrick worked himself into the Oakland County Child Murder Cases-and we have to know if he is telling the truth...
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 17:01:19 GMT -5
Code of Ethics 4. Division IV Code of Ethics, Last Revised 01/10/1999) 4.1 Rights of Examinees 4.1.1 A member shall respect the rights and dignity of all persons to whom they administer polygraph examinations. 4.2 Standards for Rendering Polygraph Decisions 4.2.1 A member shall not render a conclusive diagnosis when the physiological records lack sufficient quality and clarity. This may include, but is not limited to, excessively distorted recordings possibly due to manipulations by the examinee, recordings with insufficient responsivity, or recordings with tracing amplitudes less than that generally accepted by the profession. 4.3 Post-Examination Notification of Results 4.3.1 A member shall afford each examinee a reasonable opportunity to explain physiological reactions to relevant questions in the recordings. There are three exceptions: 4.3.1.1 When the examinee is represented by an attorney who requests that no post-examination interview be conducted, and that the results of the examination be released only to the attorney. 4.3.1.2 When the examination is being conducted by court order which stipulates that no post-examination interview is to be conducted. 4.3.1.3 Instances of operational necessity. 4.4 Restrictions on Rendering Opinions 4.4.1 A member shall not provide any report or opinion regarding the medical or psychological condition of the examinee for which the member is not professionally qualified to make. This shall not preclude the examiner from describing the appearance or behavior of the examinee. Polygraph outcome decisions shall be restricted to only those based on polygraph data. 4.5 Restrictions on Examinations 4.5.1 A member shall not conduct a polygraph examination when there is reason to believe the examination is intended to circumvent or defy the law. 4.6 Fees 4.6.1 A member shall not solicit or accept fees, gratuities, or gifts that are intended to influence his or her opinion, decision, or report. No member shall set any fee for polygraph services which is contingent upon the findings or results of such services, nor shall any member change his or her fee as a direct result of his or her opinion or decision subsequent to a polygraph examination. 4.7 Standards of Reporting 4.7.1 A member shall not knowingly submit, or permit employees to submit, a misleading or false polygraph examination report. Each polygraph report shall be a factual, impartial, and objective account of information developed during the examination, and the examiner's professional conclusion based on analysis of the polygraph data. 4.8 Advertisements 4.8.1 A member shall not knowingly make, publish, or cause to be published any false or misleading statements or advertisements relating to the Association or the polygraph profession. No member shall make any false representation as to category of membership in the Association. All advertisements making reference to membership in the Association shall also list the category of membership. 4.9 Release of Nonrelevant Information 4.9.1 A member shall not disclose to any person any irrelevant personal information gained during the course of a polygraph examination which has no connection to the relevant issue, and which may embarrass or tend to embarrass the examinee, except where such disclosure is required by law. 4.10 Restrictions on Examination Issues 4.10.1 A member shall not include in any polygraph examination, questions intended to inquire into or develop information on activities, affiliation, or beliefs on religion, politics, or race except where there is relevancy to a specific investigation. 4.11 APA Oversight Authority 4.11.1 A member who administers or attempts to administer any polygraph examination in violation of the Code of Ethics or the Standards of Practice may be subject to investigation, censure, suspension or expulsion from the Association, as provided by Article IV of the APA Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 17:02:56 GMT -5
Thank you for contacting the American Polygraph Association. Someone will get back to you as soon as possible. For further assistance, please contact our national office at (800) APA-8037 or (423) 892-3992.
Best Regards, Your Friends at the APA
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 21:20:26 GMT -5
Censuring A Polygraph Operator Is A Very Rare Event An A Very Serious Matter Yet censuring polygraph operator Patrick T. Coffey for providing inaccurate information in an application for renewal of his APA membership- He Claims It To Be Unimportant ?? *****Application fraud refers to any act that involves providing fictitious, exaggerated, or otherwise misleading information~
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 21:53:28 GMT -5
Helen,
I see you have been a busy girl, and now obsessed with me for standing up to you on Topix. Fine, but let's keep the record straight on these issues shall we.
1. I Never paid anyone anything in a lawsuit settlement as you have written, nor have I ever owned any voice stress equipment or performed a voice stress test EVER. Any settlement given to this individual did not come from me, nor did I pay any part of it. The company that man worked for elected to settle out of court for the sum mentioned, but no test of any sort ever took place, and only an interview of him with no test planned or carried out at all.
2. In regard to your drawing attention to the anti-polygraph website; I was surprised given that this is the place where convicted child molestors go to seek advice in their desperation to try and beat their court ordered probation polygraphs; truly the antithesis of who you claim to be or associate with. Further, the comments made there were in common with a 60 Minutes piece that ran at about the same time in regard to Europe changing. Further, Mr. Maschke is regarded by some as suspect in treasonous translations of his claimed counter-measures into arabic and/or farsi, which he later covered on his website as if he magically discovered them already written in arabic somewhere else. He works with the Iranian government daily in Holland for the U.N., and his only personal experience with polygraph it to have failed two of them.
3. May I politely ask whom you carry your liability insurance with ? Are you a sole proprieter, or a corporation ? It would appear you have done this for personal reasons rather than professional.
Regards,
Patrick Coffey
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 21:55:25 GMT -5
Helen,
Please be aware, contacting my professional organization for events that have already passed historically, is being done by you for a purely personal reason(s), and not covered under the 1st ammendment in my view. I am prepared to retain my same legal counsel in Michigan for a lawsuit against you for slander and libel if you continue this personal vendetta.
Please remember that as a convicted felon you have no credibility with the courts, and I have a validated source who tells me that law enforcement regards you as a bona fide "Liar"; both in terms of evidence you claimed you could provide to the case to which you then confessed did not exist, and as a means of getting others to come to your website.
Our clear disagreement on the Topix website is covered by the 1st ammendment as protected speech. However, your reaching into my professional contacts, associations, and personal life is NOT. Therefore, you will cease and desist in this, or I will in fact sue you personally, your estate, and any assets you may have such as your website itself. I thought you were much smarter than this, but was told you were simply Not to be trusted ! You have three days to contact me as to our intent, or I will proceed with legal action.
Regards,
Patrick T. Coffey
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:00:10 GMT -5
Posted by Patric at Topix 1 hour ago-"TruthDude
Bell, CA Reply » | Report Abuse | Judge it! | #9561 1 hr ago
Judged: [Spam]
1 [Nuts]
1 [Disagree]
1
Manny wrote: <quoted text> Yes, Truth Dude is not creating scenarios to make the the facts fit his ideology. Probably because he wants to know who killed his friend more than he wants a particular theory to be right. I read way more than I comment and Truth Dude is the most reasonable person on these forums by a wide margin.
Manny,
I don't know you, but you are very kind. I think you GET ME. Unfortunately, when one stands up for a friend sometimes, they have to be preppared to lay it ALL on the line. In my case, even my profession. One blog member here on Topix, having been exposed as a felon and a confirmed liar by law enforcement, has not reached out with their own website, contacted my professional organization(s), and gone beyond the first ammendment rights we all share here; and has used her own website for a personal vendetta not in line with the first ammendment. I am exploring with legal council a possible lawsuit against this individual now and will probably not be able to further comment about her background, her lies, her manipulations, any further until we go to court. I have fought the good fight for the benefit of my childhood friend Timmy King, his family, and within my own faith's demands; and will take this as far as it needs to go. I've told the truth, she lied. I am a private person, she is a public person under the law. Now I will have this adjudicated insofar as her crossing the line using her website for a personal vendetta vs. a journalist's right she seeks to hide behind.
Thank You for your kind words.
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:03:45 GMT -5
Patric-I sugest you get with your sourced of this comment~"I have a validated source who tells me that law enforcement regards you as a bona fide "Liar"; both in terms of evidence you claimed you could provide to the case to which you then confessed did not exist, and as a means of getting others to come to your website. " ( Because not only you will look like an AH-So will she!)
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:07:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:10:38 GMT -5
#2 Patrick said-"In regard to your drawing attention to the anti-polygraph website;" Oh you mean where you pulled the same crap on him-and threaten him with a Law Suit also-Because he also told the truth about you--How is that working out for you?
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:19:10 GMT -5
This hasn't been done either-"Please be aware, contacting my professional organization for events that have already passed historically, is being done by you for a purely personal reason(s)" Patrick do not flatter your self-I have only checked on Info in Court records,and statements from article all ready posted on the Internet- and calling your APA ,lol-I haven't even talked to anyone yet-they are all in Fla at a meeting-- and my question for them was a generic one -your name was not even mention-So good luck with that~ It is like everything else you do-you are paranoid- well you are in good company with your other Bona Fide witnesses ...lol
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:24:44 GMT -5
and this Patrick, Is going to really be interesting-You said-"a confirmed liar by law enforcement, has not reached out with their own website" My god you have lost it-
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:33:45 GMT -5
and this- Patric said- "I've told the truth, she lied. I am a private person, she is a public person under the law"* I didn't realize how really dense, that you are- I have not found anything you have been truthful about-and let me tell you a secret,from the first Newspaper article that had your name in connected to the Occk -and the first TV clip that carried your name and your first post on any forum-you became a public figure..You remember all the Forums you trolled & spreading lies about everyone who didn't agree with you-well that is public....
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:38:45 GMT -5
and this Patric-"Our clear disagreement on the Topix website is covered by the 1st ammendment as protected speech." Your wrong-You posted the Jill deal which was not true-and then kept it up and kept it up and a quite a few other things that you are not covered under the 1st Amendment~ Think you need to brush up on your constitution- The only one here that has a valid Suit against anyone is me--lol
|
|
|
Post by Helen Dagner on Mar 1, 2012 22:53:57 GMT -5
Patrick-Law Suits are a lot like unsolved Serial Murder Cases-You need to have proof.....
|
|