Sunday, March 15, 2020
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Complaint about a new California polygraph examiner: he charged $250 for a Friday night infidelity testing; when he wouldn't let client quietly observe the testing and got caught lying about the reason, client lost faith in him and did not want testing. Client says examiner refused to give the $250 back and threatened to beat up Client
Complaint about a new California polygraph examiner: he charged $250 for a Friday night infidelity testing; when he wouldn't let client quietly observe the testing and got caught lying about the reason, client lost faith in him and did not want testing. Client says examiner refused to give the $250 back and threatened to beat up Client
(No identifiers are listed. If you recognize yourself here, correct the situation for the future. Courtesy of Polygraph Examiners Of America, peoa.us )
Recent past complaints: NO
Examiner gender: M
Per Client:
Examiner is a newly-graduated polygraph school student with a new polygraph business. He told a man it would be $250 to test that man's wife same night. Examiner told Client that it was 'against the law' to allow any monitoring of the test. Client called other examiners, was told there is no such law but explained why that new examiner might prefer to not allow monitoring. Client, unhappy that he was lied to about a non-existent law, asked Examiner about it. Examiner said "It's MY law' and told Client what would happen if Client came back to office. Client said do not do the test, refund me; Examiner said no refund.
(No identifiers are listed. If you recognize yourself here, correct the situation for the future. Courtesy of Polygraph Examiners Of America, peoa.us )
Recent past complaints: NO
Examiner gender: M
Per Client:
Examiner is a newly-graduated polygraph school student with a new polygraph business. He told a man it would be $250 to test that man's wife same night. Examiner told Client that it was 'against the law' to allow any monitoring of the test. Client called other examiners, was told there is no such law but explained why that new examiner might prefer to not allow monitoring. Client, unhappy that he was lied to about a non-existent law, asked Examiner about it. Examiner said "It's MY law' and told Client what would happen if Client came back to office. Client said do not do the test, refund me; Examiner said no refund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
