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

[edporch]

Pled guilty

I know he pled guilty.
But pled guilty for telling people to not admit they had training on how to "beat" the test.
NOT for giving the actual training.

 

[edporch]

<short break>

For some reason, that comment reminded of this scene:

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

I loved the part in this same episode where Spock went up to the two identical girls and said to the first one "I love you...." then to the second girl "but I hate you...".
And they responded "but we're identical!".
Then they shut down.

 

[MTC]

I loved the part in this same episode where Spock went up to the two identical girls and said to the first one "I love you...." then to the second girl "but I hate you...".
And they responded "but we're identical!".
Then they shut down.

Yeah, that whole episode was entertaining, as I recall. Been a long time.

More clipped (paraphrased) quotes:

Mudd: "Mr. Spock, you're going to love it here. They all talk just like you do."

"You may be the finest First Officer in the fleet, but you couldn't sell fake patents to your mother."

Spock: "I fail to see why I should induce my mother to purchase falsified patents."

Mudd: "Fuhhggedditt."

 

[CarmelHP]

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

My first thought was conspiracy to violate 18 USC §1001 or some variety of subornation. Still, it sounds like an overreach.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Conspiracy? Maybe. Like to see the count.

Anywho, you think there was a conditional guilty plea and he'll take this up to the 7th Circuit?

 

[rambone]

Pled guilty

Hanging 20 years over a man's head will make him do funny things.

 

[Denny347]

Hanging 20 years over a man's head will make him do funny things.

Perhaps but since 90% of criminal cases end in a plea deal, I'm not moved by this. You commit any crime, the possible time will be hanging over your head. Nothing new here. Perhaps he was innocent, perhaps he was guilty, but since he pled guilty...he IS guilty.

 

[HoughMade]

I am hoping to see the actual court filings in this later today. Much seems to be lost when the source of "facts" are attorney's statements filtered through the press.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Hanging 20 years over a man's head will make him do funny things.

Or if you have an attorney telling you this is the best you could possibly hope for

 

[HoughMade]

Does anyone else see irony in the fact that these bastions of freedom who we are supposed to feel sorry for, just trying to maintain a scrap of privacy by defeating the polygraph.....are applying for jobs, largely law enforcement, with the federal government?

 

[rambone]

Does anyone else see irony in the fact that these bastions of freedom who we are supposed to feel sorry for, just trying to maintain a scrap of privacy by defeating the polygraph.....are applying for jobs, largely law enforcement, with the federal government?

Bastion of freedom? What? It doesn't matter if you pity this man. This is about the first amendment.

If the only thing keeping us from being abused by psychopath federal employees is a polygraph, then we have much bigger issues at play. And we do.

 

[HoughMade]

I've been reading some court documents. I suppose we can debate whether the First Amendment is implicated here all day long. It would seem to me that being paid (quite well) when you are fully aware that what you are doing is aiding people to defraud the government regarding matters that are not insignificant, goes beyond mere speech.

IF the allegations as to what was uncovered in the undercover operations is accurate, Dixon knew exactly what he was doing and he was helping people he had reason to believe were bad people to get into jobs that could be quite sensitive.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is about the first amendment

How do you figure that exactly?

 

[rambone]

How is this NOT a first amendment issue?

Should the Thought Police come after anyone who says "By the way, fooling a lie-detector test is going to involve LYING." (Shocking revelation)

What if he wrote his lecture material down? Would you ban his books? Arrest him?

 

[steveh_131]

Today on INGO, in a shocking turn of events, Kirk 'Free'man stands up to courageously defend tyranny.

More at 11.

 

[steveh_131]

Apparently everyone on this site who has ever advised others to lose their firearms in a 'boating accident' belongs in prison, right Kirk?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

How is this NOT a first amendment issue?

Because it involves non-protected speech, if as reported. That is why I hope his guilty plea was conditional.

Should the Thought Police come after anyone who says "By the way, fooling a lie-detector test is going to involve LYING." (Shocking revelation)

Thought Police? So, you think he was merely thinking this? Is this another thread based on a misunderstanding?

What if he wrote his lecture material down? Would you ban his books? Arrest him?

What if, what if, what if, what if Godzilla knew Wing Chun and he attacked Indianapolis. Good grief, it gets as bad as the cops trolling for budgets in here sometimes.

However, I'll play the kids' game and assume what if. If he is simply writing it down, no crime. However, he did not allegedly do this.

Today on INGO, in a shocking turn of events, Kirk 'Free'man stands up to courageously defend tyranny.

Preventing fraud is not tyranny. However, it sounds that there could be an issue, fact sensitive, as to Free Speech. I just hope that his guilty plea was conditional and that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals gets to hear a First Amendment argument.

 

[steveh_131]

Preventing fraud is not tyranny.

Who did he defraud?

Where is the victim?

What 'facts' are you waiting on before you decide if his speech was 'protected' by the first amendment or not?

And again, what is the difference between what he did, and the hundreds of INGO members who have suggested a 'boating accident' to 'lose' their firearms before the government takes them away?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Who did he defraud?

Where is the victim?

What 'facts' are you waiting on before you decide if his speech was 'protected' by the first amendment or not?

And again, what is the difference between what he did, and the hundreds of INGO members who have suggested a 'boating accident' to 'lose' their firearms before the government takes them away?

He admitted to defrauding the United States of America. The victim is the United States of America.

False statements are not protected by the First Amendment. See Gertz (1974). The Supreme Court has several categories of false statements that are non-protected but others are protected. False statement cases are always fact sensitive. In this case, the issue is whether this is a NYT v. Sullivan case (lie about the government=free speech) or is it a false statement with the needed criminal intent. Hard to say from just the story.

Saying "I lost my guns in a boating accident" to no one in particular and not under oath is not a crime. Saying "I lost my guns in a boating accident" to your probation officer or a judge is another circumstance.

 

[steveh_131]

He admitted to defrauding the United States of America. The victim is the United States of America.

False statements are not protected by the First Amendment. See Gertz (1974). The Supreme Court has several categories of false statements that are non-protected but others are protected. False statement cases are always fact sensitive. In this case, the issue is whether this is a NYT v. Sullivan case (lie about the government=free speech) or is it a false statement with the needed criminal intent. Hard to say from just the story.

Ok. What false statements did he make to the victim (the United States of America)?

Saying "I lost my guns in a boating accident" to no one in particular and not under oath is not a crime. Saying "I lost my guns in a boating accident" to your probation officer or a judge is another circumstance.

What fraudulent statements did he make under oath, or to a judge or probation officer?