Prevarication Du Jour

Here’s another bit of hallucinatory legal work from Acme—db201312262205Z

Polygraph evidence is not admissible in Maryland courts. See State v. Hawkins, 604 A.2d 489 (1992).

UPDATE—I see from A Reader’s comment that the Cabin Boy is accusing me of stalking his Twitter timeline because I took a look at his Twitter feed based on a phone tip from a friend and found the amazingly stupid tweet above. Given that this post went up at 5:39 pm and A Reader’s comment is timestamped at 5:55 pm, it would seem that the Cabin Boy follows this website closely enough to allow him to react to my posts within a quarter-hour. So who is cyberstalking whom?

13 thoughts on “Prevarication Du Jour


  1. Message for the clueless: courts do not order polygraphs. They are voluntary. And a guy who tweets about you incessantly accuses you of stalking because you post one of his tweets but do not name him or contact him in any way. I wonder why . . . hey! Aren’t there a couple court dates coming up soon for violating the PO over 300 times? Are we going to be treated to meltdowns as the dates approach?


    • “Message for the clueless: courts do not order polygraphs.”

      You beat me to this. There is a reason courts don’t allow them. They’re unreliable. So for Schmalfeldt to claim that any court (Federal, State or Kangaroo) would actually order one, is just another instance of him begging to be laughed at.

      I guess he just hasn’t had enough #FAIL this week.


  2. There’s an exception: convicted sex-offenders (e.g., pedophiles) can be forced to take court-ordered polygraphs as part of mandated treatment and/or supervision.

    Gee, pardon their confusion.


    • Good point – as part of a parole pursuant to a criminal conviction. Does Acme law realize this is a civil case? I guess it thinks everyone is, um, a certain photographer who was stalking BlogBash.


    • Whoa. You have me there. I was not aware they could be used in that manner. Seems unconstitutional since poly’s have been deemed unreliable. But if it’s a condition of probation, well…they can do pretty much whatever they want.


  3. Does the Cabin Boy ever get tired of putting his stupidity out there for everyone to point and laugh at? I’m guessing not since he’s been doing it for years.


  4. I’m reminded of the story of the African villages with the magically enchanted knives. When a crime had been committed with an unknown perpetrator, a special holy man was brought in to enchant a magical knife. All the villagers walk past the knife. Whoever the magical knife cut stood convicted of the crime.

    Turns out the magical knife nearly always identified the guilty party. All the villagers believed the knife really was enchanted. Guilty people believed in their own minds that the knife was about to cut them as they walked past it. The enchanter merely cut those who flinched.

    There are no magical knives. There are only human beings skilled at perception. Nor, is there a “lie detector.” A polygraph machine has no more ability to detect lies than an enchanted knife. The test is the operator. The operator is the test.

    Polygraph results are inadmissible for the same reason magically enchanted knives are.


  5. What part of “court-ordered” did he “never” say? “Used in investigations” he flails.

    Dear victim of Acme law, those are not only not admissable, but always voluntary, except in the very limited circumstances already mentioned.


  6. From the time stamps I see, it took Cabin Boy eight minutes to accuse you of keeping an eye on him. And he doesn’t even see the irony.

    He’s slipping, BTW. I’ve seen him manage some amazing response times. His auto refresh rate of this blog is probably limited only by network latency.

Leave a Reply