In June, a federal judge ruled against angler Philip Heasley of the Kallianasa, the winner of the 2016 White Marlin Open. The judge ruled that the White Marlin Open properly applied the rules of the tournament, meaning that Heasley was disqualified and would receive the $2.8 million in prize money. Photo courtesy https://www.facebook.com/KallianassaAngler/

Below is a statement released on August 3 on the Kallianasa Facebook page, stating Heasley's reasons for appealing the court's decision.

Yesterday, I filed an appeal from the decision of the U.S. District Court in the case of the White Marlin Open et al. vs. Heasley, Case No. 1:16-cv-03105-RDB. I did so because neither I, nor my crew, cheated in any way during last year’s White Marlin Open (WMO) Tournament. The Kallianassa crew and I fairly and legally caught the first qualifying white marlin in the 2016 White Marlin Open Tournament on August 9, 2016. As it turned out, this was the only qualifying white marlin of the tournament, and it ended up being a $2.8 million fish. We were surprised and honored to win the contest. While we hoped that we would end up somewhere on the leaderboard when the tournament ended on Friday, on Tuesday it was only a hope and a wish. We have learned to be careful what we wish for… Though the media has already covered the fact that I filed an appeal, the purpose of this longer statement is to explain our story and debunk several myths surrounding the events last August and the subsequent court case. The Court Was Wrong in Finding We Had Lines in the Water Early. By piecing together a time line from various witnesses’ estimates of how long it took to carry out each activity on board the Kallianassa, the Court found my crew must have put lines into the water prior to the 8:30 a.m. start time. This conclusion is wrong on multiple counts. As an experienced sports fisherman knows, once the lines are properly prepared to go into the water, the actual time it takes to fully deploy the lines is less than four minutes, and with an experienced and skillful crew, it could be done in as little as one minute. Five witnesses at the trial testified that the act of placing the lines in the water would take between one and four minutes. The Court rejected this testimony. The Court’s decision rested on a somewhat ambiguous statement from my deposition. I had said that preparing and getting the lines into the water would take 15 to 20 minutes. My deposition answer was about the entire process of arranging the rods, clipping the lines, attaching the lines to the outriggers and, finally, upon receiving word from the captain, placing those lines in the water. I did not testify in court that the time it takes to actually place the lines into the water was 15 to 20 minutes. The Court’s conclusion is wrong and was contradicted by relevant evidence at trial. For example, the Kallianassa’s engine logs showed that the boat reached trolling speed at about 8:05 am. At that time, the crew began to prepare the lines to be deployed into the water in anticipation of the start time of 8:30 a.m. Of course, it would have been unsafe for the crew to prepare the lines at cruising speed beforehand. Ample time existed for the crew to prepare the lines to go into the water before the captain gave the order at 8:31 a.m. The Court and Media Ignored the Fact That There Were Eyewitnesses to the Winning Catch. Captain Joel McLeod and Mate Neil Ashley of the Maverick, a competing fishing boat, testified under oath that we did not cheat or fish early. They also testified that they were close by the Kallianassa before 8:30 a.m., but didn’t see any lines from the Kallianassa in the water before the start time. They testified that they only saw lines in the water after the 8:30 am start time and that they witnessed the fight with the fish and saw no rule violation. The Court Incorrectly Relied on an Edited Catch Report That Even the WMO Removed From Its Complaint as a Basis for Saying We Cheated. The Kallianassa submitted a catch report where my mate initially wrote down the time we caught a second fish on the line for the first fish. All my mate did was write over the wrong time and he told this to the Court at trial. This should have been no big deal. The WMO officials testified that they often accept catch reports with “edits,” and in fact, they accepted this catch report without any protest when it was turned in on August 9, 2016. The WMO officials also testified that based on the catch report they had no reason to believe it was not a fair catch. The WMO officials came aboard the Kallianassa to remove the fish and then displayed it for all the world to see. They handled the fish, weighed the fish, and even displayed it publicly in front of the hundreds of attendees. Not a single person questioned the fact that we had caught the fish on the morning of August 9, 2016 using a rod and reel. Despite the fact that the WMO later removed the allegation of a falsified catch report from its complaint, and the completely reasonable explanation that was given at trial, the Court still viewed this catch report as evidence that we cheated. Certain Media Never Corrected the Rumors About Us Passing the Sea Buoy Early. During the long build-up to the trial, a persistent story was spread that the Kallianassa had passed the sea buoy “early” on August 9, 2016 and this allegation was repeated in the press. However, the forensics from the boat’s computer systems showed that the boat’s engines had not even been started until a half hour after the time set for passing the sea buoy in the rules. This fact was corroborated with data from satellite, phone, and boat computer systems. The plaintiffs even admitted that they were not alleging that the Kallianassa passed the sea buoy early. Yet no correction has ever been made. Nor have the plaintiffs ever corrected the statement in their complaint. Ironically, the polygraph examiner who declared my denial of this question “deceptive” actually found that my two mates were being “truthful” when they denied passing the sea buoy early. The fact that I was asleep when we passed the sea buoy and my two mates were awake made no difference to the polygraph examiner. This only shows how unreliable polygraphs are. Certain Media Advanced an Unbalanced Plotline About the Trial. Some of the plaintiffs and press presented the story of the trial as a rich guy standing in the way of more deserving, less affluent people. This story line ignored the fact that the Hubris, which stands to receive much of the prize money if the Kallianassa is disqualified, is a sophisticated fishing boat that has a value of more than a million dollars. The crew of the Kallianassa - Dave Morris, Kyle Bohannon, and John Hagan - are all hardworking, professional fishermen. They stood to receive half the prize money as a reward for hard work and a great job. This money is life-changing to them, too. The media has forgotten their story, or outright ignored it. Unfortunately, the WMO Made This Entire Situation Solely About Suspect Polygraphs. Polygraphs are scientifically suspect and generally not admissible as evidence in United States courts. Many countries ban the use of polygraphs completely. Yet polygraphs are still regularly used in fishing tournaments as a cheap, yet invalid, way to “prove” who is cheating. People, and particularly fishermen who participate in tournaments, need to learn the truth about polygraphs. The federal government commissioned an extensive investigation by the National Academy of Sciences about polygraphs. The National Academy of Sciences found polygraphs to be little better than chance in detecting deceit. Contrary to what was reported in the media, the WMO never disqualified the Kallianassa. Rather, the WMO affirmatively made no decision and washed its hands of the matter by filing a lawsuit against me. The WMO asked the Court to make the determination. Under these circumstances, the Court should not have admitted evidence of the polygraphs, or even considered them at all. The federal rules of evidence do not permit the admission of polygraphs into evidence. By signing up for the tournament, I never agreed to be sued in court and never agreed to waive my rights to the Federal Rules of Evidence. At trial, the WMO officials testified that they knew nothing about polygraphs, and they relied upon an examiner who charged $250 per test to be the ultimate judge and jury of the 2016 White Marlin Open’s $2.8 million prize. Admittedly, I also knew very little about polygraphs. During the course of this case, I have learned much, and it concerns me that many fishermen sign up to participate in tournaments without knowing how unreliable polygraphs are and how incompetent some polygraph examiners can be. Among the many things I have learned about polygraphs, is that the polygraph profession is not regulated in many states, including Maryland. That means anyone off the street can buy a polygraph machine and call himself a polygraph examiner. At trial, three different examiners using three different scoring methods reached three different conclusions on the same data in one test. An expert for the WMO testified that polygraphs were subjective and that the most important thing in a polygraph examination was the skill of the examiner. Polygraphs are unreliable and are not objective at all. Professor William G. Iacono, a world renowned expert on polygraphs, testified at my trial about how polygraphs are inaccurate and unreliable. The Court was completely dismissive of his testimony. The Polygraphs the WMO Commissioned Were Particularly Flawed – Even by Polygraph Standards. Initially, I had no idea why we didn’t pass the WMO polygraphs. Because the purported standards for polygraphs are often ignored by examiners themselves, I had to commission a polygraph expert to investigate the WMO polygraphs. During this case, I learned that one of the WMO’s polygraph examiners had not read the WMO rules nor looked at the International Game Fish Association (IGFA) rules. Yet, he was testing me and my crew on those very rules! He also admitted to not knowing the standards for polygraphs promulgated by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), which are specifically referenced in the WMO rules and ensure a polygraph is administered properly. Even when these standards are properly followed polygraphs have, at best, questionable reliability. However, without proper procedures and oversight, polygraphs literally mean and show nothing. Incredibly, one polygraph examiner who said we cheated also specifically found that my two crew members and I were truthful when we said we did ­not put the lines in water early! The Court did not address this fact at all. Through the course of this case, I learned how substandard the WMO polygraphs were. When my crew and I took properly administered polygraphs with an examiner holding a Ph.D, we passed. The WMO fought to keep these tests out of evidence, and unfortunately, the Court ruled that they were submitted late and refused to admit them. Plain and simple, the WMO wanted only its own polygraphs, no matter how flawed, to be considered by the Court. The press has never published the fact that my crew and I subsequently took and passed polygraph tests that were properly administered. The WMO Polygraph Examiners Discussed Our Polygraphs in Secret and Accused Me of Countermeasures Without Any Basis. As mentioned above, the White Marlin Open’s polygraph examiners accused me of misconduct in the taking of the polygraphs. Specifically they said that I had employed “countermeasures” during the examinations to alter the test result. Of course, I didn’t know about this allegation until I saw it in the WMO’s original complaint. I had no idea what a “polygraph countermeasure” was. This false accusation of countermeasures has been repeated many times by the media. The fishing community around the globe was never informed that the WMO later removed these countermeasure assertions from its complaint and that none of the polygraph experts at trial testified that the accusation of countermeasures was supportable. No media outlet has reported the removal of the countermeasure allegation nor the testimony of all the experts. Likewise, no apology has ever been given. If the White Marlin Open Wants to Run a Polygraph Contest, We Believe They Should Advertise Itself as Such. In fact, all fishing contests that rely solely on polygraphs are actually polygraph contests in disguise. The situation with the WMO is very important to all fishermen, both recreational and professional. We want others to be aware of this. We strongly believe that no tournament should propose that polygraphs are a fair or ethical way to determine a fishing contest. There are, and have been, fair ways to run a fishing tournament without using polygraphs. We need to ask tournaments to use these alternative methods. The case poses a serious threat to every captain and crew member who makes an honest living fishing through his or her hard work, knowledge, and reputation. We do not want this nightmare to happen to anyone else, and feel it’s our responsibility to help inform others of the perils of polygraphs. As I testified in court, for me, this case is about the truth and the reputation of me and my professional captain and crew. In a time of fake news, fast news and drive-by media, we hope that members of the media will look into this story with more than a cursory glance. This is no longer about just a white marlin or the White Marlin Open tournament or $2.8 million. My crew and I thank our supporters for standing by us during this long, difficult year. Our supporters, including many prominent leaders within the sports fishing community, know that we did not cheat. I know few cases succeed on appeal, but I continue to keep faith in the justice system and hope that the appellate court will carefully evaluate the merits of my case. Note: The above statement was posted by Philip Heasley. In the interest of staying current with this case, we wanted to share this with our readers but are not attempting to pass judgement, one way or the other.