HOME

Formatted for convenient printing

Polygraph #2

Regarding Dart Trucking, T&L Leasing,

Mark Mcfarland and Delann Lamb

 

 

This is the second in a series of what has become six (6) polygraph tests (not three, as originally scheduled), taken by this employee, on his own initiative, and paid for by him. Questions 31-34 relate to whether or not Lamb and Mcfarland asked me not to contact them, which is a legal requirement prior to applying for an anti-harassment order. Lamb never claimed she had asked me not to contact her, therefore she was not legally entitled to an anti-harassment order, even though two judges (so far) have granted it to her. Mcfarland, on the other hand, chose to speak for both himself and Lamb, and stated that both of them had asked me to not contact them again. Needless to say, charges of perjury will be filed against Mcfarland, whether it's done by the prosecutor's office, or by myself as the result of a petition for due process in King County. 

Question #56, as another example, refers to a blocking problem the company had been experiencing, by Lamb's own admission, for five or six YEARS. Private vehicles were being parked in such a way as to block semi trucks from delivering to Sears at the 4119 store in Tacoma. It was costing the company money while the semi sat there, itself blocking all the other cars in the area, for as much as 30 or 40 minutes a day, or until the offending vehicle decided to move. I calculated the loss to the company and submitted it to Mcfarland. The problem was simple to solve; after all, the offending vehicles were parking in a well marked FIRE LANE! But Mcfarland never did figure out what to do about it, and had apparently been stymied by it for five or six years prior. When it finally came to a head in December of 2000, Mcfarland made the comment to me which is featured in question #56. I was doubly astounded at the man's apparent stupidity because the figure I had supplied to him was not $1900 per month, but $1900 per year (still worth an hour of a person's time to solve). He hadn't even been able to figure out how much the company was losing, even when it was typed and stuck under his nose! The blocking problem was one of the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back, as was Mcfarland's inability to even read a number correctly off a piece of paper. I had stated in my original web site that it was my opinion that Mcfarland was incompetent. Several thousand instances of performance like that had formed that opinion. Mcfarland stated to the court that my opinion that he was incompetent was "patently untrue", and that was one of the reasons he wanted my web site shut down. 

This is the second in a series of what has become six (6) polygraph tests (not three, as originally scheduled), taken by this employee, on his own initiative, and paid for by him. Questions 31-34 relate to whether or not Lamb and Mcfarland asked me not to contact them, which is a legal requirement prior to applying for an anti-harassment order. Lamb never claimed she had asked me not to contact her, therefore she was not legally entitled to an anti-harassment order, even though two judges (so far) have granted it to her. Mcfarland, on the other hand, chose to speak for both himself and Lamb, and stated that both of them had asked me to not contact them again. Needless to say, charges of perjury will be filed against Mcfarland, whether it's done by the prosecutor's office, or by myself as the result of a petition for due process in King County.  Question #56, as another example, refers to a blocking problem the company had been experiencing, by Lamb's own admission, for five or six YEARS. Private vehicles were being parked in such a way as to block semi trucks from delivering to Sears at the 4119 store in Tacoma. It was costing the company money while the semi sat there, itself blocking all the other cars in the area, for as much as 30 or 40 minutes a day, or until the offending vehicle decided to move. I calculated the loss to the company and submitted it to Mcfarland. The problem was simple to solve; after all, the offending vehicles were parking in a well marked FIRE LANE! But Mcfarland never did figure out what to do about it, and had apparently been stymied by it for five or six years prior. When it finally came to a head in December of 2000, Mcfarland made the comment to me which is featured in question #56. I was doubly astounded at the man's apparent stupidity because the figure I had supplied to him was not $1900 per month, but $1900 per year (still worth an hour of a person's time to solve). He hadn't even been able to figure out how much the company was losing, even when it was typed and stuck under his nose! The blocking problem was one of the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back, as was Mcfarland's inability to even read a number correctly off a piece of paper. I had stated in my original web site that it was my opinion that Mcfarland was incompetent. Several thousand instances of performance like that had formed that opinion. Mcfarland stated to the court that my opinion that he was incompetent was "patently untrue", and that was one of the reasons he wanted my web site shut down.  A number of statements had to be fine-tuned before the test began, to be certain there was not the slightest possibility that any untruths or half-truths existed within the questions, no matter how seemingly insignificant. For instance, one question (question #10) asks if a drug pipe was found next to Delann Lamb's desk. I changed it because the pipe was not exactly next to the desk---it was perhaps four feet away. The smallest item of discrepancy will cause the entire test to show false. The questions on this test are, therefore, as accurate as any human being can make them. As with test number one, a "passing score" would be +4. My score on this test was +9. It is the truth. It does not deviate from the truth by the smallest, tiniest, most insignificant amount. This test and the three others like it will help to build a picture of reality in this case. Once that's established, we'll examine just how far from any semblance of truth or reality two courts have wandered. We'll then explore methods of rectifying that problem. The body of this test will be discussed, explained and elaborated upon at length in the main document. As the polygraph will reveal, this is a piss-poor company to work for, and the two office people in Kent, Washington, are two piss-poor employers to work under; dishonest and crude, back-biting and petty. Dart Trucking and T&L Leasing deserve them. Mcfarland used to lament to me that he had "no friends at all". Well, what a surprise.  

A number of statements had to be fine-tuned before the test began, to be certain there was not the slightest possibility that any untruths or half-truths existed within the questions, no matter how seemingly insignificant. For instance, one question (question #10) asks if a drug pipe was found next to Delann Lamb's desk. I changed it because the pipe was not exactly next to the desk---it was perhaps four feet away. The smallest item of discrepancy will cause the entire test to show false. The questions on this test are, therefore, as accurate as any human being can make them. As with test number one, a "passing score" would be +4. My score on this test was +9. It is the truth. It does not deviate from the truth by the smallest, tiniest, most insignificant amount. This test and the three others like it will help to build a picture of reality in this case. Once that's established, we'll examine just how far from any semblance of truth or reality two courts have wandered. We'll then explore methods of rectifying that problem. The body of this test will be discussed, explained and elaborated upon at length in the main document.

As the polygraph will reveal, this is a piss-poor company to work for, and the two office people in Kent, Washington, are two piss-poor employers to work under; dishonest and crude, back-biting and petty. Dart Trucking and T&L Leasing deserve them. Mcfarland used to lament to me that he had "no friends at all".

Well, what a surprise.

 

This is the second in a series of what has become six (6) polygraph tests (not three, as originally scheduled), taken by this employee, on his own initiative, and paid for by him. Questions 31-34 relate to whether or not Lamb and Mcfarland asked me not to contact them, which is a legal requirement prior to applying for an anti-harassment order. Lamb never claimed she had asked me not to contact her, therefore she was not legally entitled to an anti-harassment order, even though two judges (so far) have granted it to her. Mcfarland, on the other hand, chose to speak for both himself and Lamb, and stated that both of them had asked me to not contact them again. Needless to say, charges of perjury will be filed against Mcfarland, whether it's done by the prosecutor's office, or by myself as the result of a petition for due process in King County.  Question #56, as another example, refers to a blocking problem the company had been experiencing, by Lamb's own admission, for five or six YEARS. Private vehicles were being parked in such a way as to block semi trucks from delivering to Sears at the 4119 store in Tacoma. It was costing the company money while the semi sat there, itself blocking all the other cars in the area, for as much as 30 or 40 minutes a day, or until the offending vehicle decided to move. I calculated the loss to the company and submitted it to Mcfarland. The problem was simple to solve; after all, the offending vehicles were parking in a well marked FIRE LANE! But Mcfarland never did figure out what to do about it, and had apparently been stymied by it for five or six years prior. When it finally came to a head in December of 2000, Mcfarland made the comment to me which is featured in question #56. I was doubly astounded at the man's apparent stupidity because the figure I had supplied to him was not $1900 per month, but $1900 per year (still worth an hour of a person's time to solve). He hadn't even been able to figure out how much the company was losing, even when it was typed and stuck under his nose! The blocking problem was one of the proverbial straws that broke the camel's back, as was Mcfarland's inability to even read a number correctly off a piece of paper. I had stated in my original web site that it was my opinion that Mcfarland was incompetent. Several thousand instances of performance like that had formed that opinion. Mcfarland stated to the court that my opinion that he was incompetent was "patently untrue", and that was one of the reasons he wanted my web site shut down.  A number of statements had to be fine-tuned before the test began, to be certain there was not the slightest possibility that any untruths or half-truths existed within the questions, no matter how seemingly insignificant. For instance, one question (question #10) asks if a drug pipe was found next to Delann Lamb's desk. I changed it because the pipe was not exactly next to the desk---it was perhaps four feet away. The smallest item of discrepancy will cause the entire test to show false. The questions on this test are, therefore, as accurate as any human being can make them. As with test number one, a "passing score" would be +4. My score on this test was +9. It is the truth. It does not deviate from the truth by the smallest, tiniest, most insignificant amount. This test and the three others like it will help to build a picture of reality in this case. Once that's established, we'll examine just how far from any semblance of truth or reality two courts have wandered. We'll then explore methods of rectifying that problem. The body of this test will be discussed, explained and elaborated upon at length in the main document. As the polygraph will reveal, this is a piss-poor company to work for, and the two office people in Kent, Washington, are two piss-poor employers to work under; dishonest and crude, back-biting and petty. Dart Trucking and T&L Leasing deserve them. Mcfarland used to lament to me that he had "no friends at all". Well, what a surprise.  

 

HOME