Indiana man sentenced to 8 mo. in prison for teaching people to beat polygraphs

[rambone]

Is teaching others to lie a protected form of free speech? Apparently not.
Is this a way to keep whistleblowers from obtaining federal employment?

Indiana man sentenced to 8 months in federal prison for teaching people to beat lie-detectors | Police State USA

ALEXANDRIA, VA — An Indiana man thought he had the freedom to speak about controversial topics and teach others what he knows. The Federal Government disagreed. This week that man found out that the penalty for free speech is 8 months in federal prison. He taught people how to beat polygraph tests. The case has sparked a debate about whether or not the right to lie, or teach others to lie, should be protected under the First Amendment.

“My wife and I are terrified,” said Chris Dixon, of Marion, Indiana. “I stumbled into this. I’m a Little League coach in Indiana…never in my wildest dreams did I somehow imagine I was committing a crime.”

 

[Trigger Time]

But we're still free! Right! Right?

id like to know what the wire fraud charges were about. But teaching knowledge about ANYTHING should never be allowed to be prosecuted! Plus the media and the president lie all the time, where's their sentence?

 

[dirtfarmerz]

They want loyal subjects only; no whistleblowers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This is a free country! Pay no attention to the bars in front of you or the man behind the teleprompter!

 

[giovani]

I heard of a man that lied and got 8 years...........................................................................In the Whitehouse!

 

[IndyDave1776]

“It does not require much looking to find a respected scientist who has convincingly argued that polygraphs do not operate above chance levels and are therefore detrimental to national security,”McClatchy reported Nina Ginsberg as writing in her response to prosecutors. “Mr. Dixon has done nothing that warrants the government’s attempts to make him the poster child for its newly undertaken campaign to wipe out polygraph countermeasures training.”

I would speculate that this has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the polygraph test or the supposed methods of countering it, but rather that good sheep follow orders without question, accept even the most egregious invasions of privacy (in this case, one's own mind) without question, and do not question their 'betters'. Efforts like this undermine that conditioning and therefore are not to be tolerated.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Ummm, that's NOT why he is in trouble.

Explicitly advising prospective federal employees they should lie about having received his training.

There's your winner.

 

[jedi]

Ummm, that's NOT why he is in trouble.



There's your winner.

OK an what is wrong with that?
The 'prospective federal employee' can chose to follow that or not (.ie lie about it or not).
I don't see how him telling them to do something is a crime?
What am I missing?

 

[dirtfarmerz]

Ummm, that's NOT why he is in trouble.

There's your winner.

Is that a crime now? It must be because they said it was. Here's a quote from another article on the same story:

“This crime matters because what he did endangers others,” said Anthony Phillips, a prosecutor with the Justice Department’s division that pursues corrupt public officials. “That’s not the government putting the spin on anything. . . . This is not hyperbole. . . . Mr. Dixon’s crimes should matter to all Americans.”

That looks too close to "It's for the children" to me. I can't find anything in the articles that mentions a specific crime. The Judge mentioned "gray areas" concerning free speech, but I could not find any mention of a law being broken. It just seems like too much power to give to an already overbearing government. I don't agree with what he did and I don't believe anyone should ever lie, but what law was broken in this case? It seems that they are just trying to limit free speech, again.

 

[Trigger Time]

If there isn't a law against what he did then you can bet there will be. Why do people reelect these clowns?

 

[copperhead-1911]

I guess big brother is really watching. The irony here is that since polygraphs are not admissible in court I fail to see what basis they used for the charge.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

OK an what is wrong with that?

I don't understand. What is wrong with allegedly committing a crime? Not tracking.

I can't find anything in the articles that mentions a specific crime. The Judge mentioned "gray areas" concerning free speech, but I could not find any mention of a law being broken.

You want a citation on an Alex Jones website???

LOL, I think you want too much.

If you are asking me, it is likely aiding and abetting 18 USC §1001.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I guess big brother is really watching. The irony here is that since polygraphs are not admissible in court I fail to see what basis they used for the charge.

What?

When do admin polygraphs have to be admissible pursuant to the FRE? A myriad of agencies use polygraphs in law enforcement, security, procurement, intel, inter alia.

 

[poptab]

How is telling someone to rob a store (or lie) aiding and abetting? Doesn't there have to have been a crime committed first?

Free to speak as long as its not something the gov doesn't like.

And why is there a double standard? Cops and politicians can lie to us but when we lie to them it's a felony. What a crock of ****.

 

[edporch]

So let me make sure I have this straight.
This man is going to jail for telling people how to "beat" a machine that doesn't do what it claims to do?

A pretty harsh sentence considering there's NO such thing as a machine that will tell DEFINITIVELY if somebody is telling the truth or a lie.

 

[Fargo]

So let me make sure I have this straight.
This man is going to jail for telling people how to "beat" a machine that doesn't do what it claims to do?

A pretty harsh sentence considering there's NO such thing as a machine that will tell DEFINITIVELY if somebody is telling the truth or a lie.

From what I've read, he is going to jail for advising people to lie to federal authorities and them helping them do so. At present, I believe that is a crime, particularly as the stuff he was advising them and teaching them how to lie about was almost certainly under penalty of perjury. Keep in mind, he wasn't found guilty, he pled guilty.

Best,

Joe

 

[phylodog]

"obstructing federal proceedings and wire fraud"

I'd like to see the actual verdict against him and whether is was for the part I placed in bold.

 

[edporch]

Originally Posted by edporch
So let me make sure I have this straight.
This man is going to jail for telling people how to "beat" a machine that doesn't do what it claims to do?

A pretty harsh sentence considering there's NO such thing as a machine that will tell DEFINITIVELY if somebody is telling the truth or a lie.

From what I've read, he is going to jail for advising people to lie to federal authorities and them helping them do so. At present, I believe that is a crime, particularly as the stuff he was advising them and teaching them how to lie about was almost certainly under penalty of perjury. Keep in mind, he wasn't found guilty, he pled guilty.

Best,

Joe

So then he was not found guilty for advising people how to "beat" the "lie detector", he was found guilty for advising people not to ADMIT he advised them?

A fine point in law, but I see YOUR point.

Ironically, if so-called "lie detectors" did what they claim, the tester would know the subject was lying if they said they never had been advised on how to beat the test.


I'm dead set against so-called "lie detector" tests, and will NEVER take one.

Besides the fact that no machine can tell if somebody is telling the truth or lying, I know somebody PERSONALLY who took one of these tests, told the 100% truth, and it was reported they were lying.

Yet I know independently they told the truth.

If it hadn't been for their supervisor going to bat for them and insising to higher ups that my friend was innocent, they would've been fired, and had their career destroyed.

 

[MTC]

Ironically, if so-called "lie detectors" did what they claim, the tester would know the subject was lying if they said they never had been advised on how to beat the test.

<short break>

For some reason, that comment reminded of this scene:

[video=youtube;wlMegqgGORY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMegqgGORY[/video]

 

[Denny347]

Originally Posted by edporch
So let me make sure I have this straight.
This man is going to jail for telling people how to "beat" a machine that doesn't do what it claims to do?

A pretty harsh sentence considering there's NO such thing as a machine that will tell DEFINITIVELY if somebody is telling the truth or a lie.




So then he was not found guilty for advising people how to "beat" the "lie detector", he was found guilty for advising people not to ADMIT he advised them?

A fine point in law, but I see YOUR point.

Ironically, if so-called "lie detectors" did what they claim, the tester would know the subject was lying if they said they never had been advised on how to beat the test.


I'm dead set against so-called "lie detector" tests, and will NEVER take one.

Besides the fact that no machine can tell if somebody is telling the truth or lying, I know somebody PERSONALLY who took one of these tests, told the 100% truth, and it was reported they were lying.

Yet I know independently they told the truth.

If it hadn't been for their supervisor going to bat for them and insising to higher ups that my friend was innocent, they would've been fired, and had their career destroyed.

Pled guilty