USA Security, Freeman Tart , Van Tart, Authorized Vector Dealer Nonpayment for services rendered, illegal termination, Fairfax Virginia

Yesterday I looked at my posting for the first time since I wrote the original and was upset by the response that he made. I understand today, how upset he must have been when he read my original. If there was anyway I could delete this entire thing, I would. I apologize for any negative impact this has had, and it was a stupid discrepency that ended up with a good man having hurtful mean things posted in public. This certainly was one of the most awful things I've ever done, and I apologize.

I am the original author of this post. Do I regret posting what I have written in the past, yes. The information that I let become "google-able" knowledge about Mr. Tart is unfair and should be disregarded or deleted. My investigator's term of employment was that she put her results on this page. Am I wrong for what I've done? Yes, in a sense. Do I honestly care about this situation as of now? No, not in the least. However I'd like to address this entire situation as the financial rammifications no longer present an issue, and now it's come down to sheer integrity.


First of all I'd like to reiterate that it was wrong for me to have my investigator post her findings. That was wrong. I feel guilty for that. Is it a lie? No. But it is wrong that we had to be the ones to post it? Yes. In my opinion, it was wrong.

My Transcript was completely accurate. When I was typing and replaying the conversation, the phrase "it eats me out inside." was definetly one I would have liked to edit out. But did I? No. That would have compromised the evidence and my integrity.

I am not a liar, nor a cheat, nor a thief. I am not a bad employee nor a bad person. Malice is not my intention.

Mr. Tart's spelling is poor. His posting does nothing to defy this accusation. His website portrayed a sense of half assed illegitimacy. When I signed up to help him, I was to be a web designer. However that suddenly switched to being another door to door salesman. I tried it. My first "door" someone let a dog out on me, blatently, and I was bit. When I told Van I was bit by a dog, he merely said "That b***h." I'm not looking for any imbursement, but being attacked by a dog, when you're a web designer, why not do what you were originally signed on to do? I am not a street goon, I'm a professional. I focused on B2b sales, even signing up an insurance agency to push our "wireless security dream".

I did good by my initial agreement, and was denied payment, oh well. It's okay. I'm sure after my departure he continued to profit. I hold no resentment, I even let him into traffic a couple months back. He was not happy to see my smiling face. The fact is, Van, is not be a bad man. He is a good man in a bad trade. In my opinion, it's an intrusive, agressive trade. They force their way into your home, question your familys security, (their intrusion proving just how vulnerable you are, and pressuring you to to sign up for a piece of crap, free system and a monitoring fee for 34.95 a month.) WTF? At least get a good system, or a big dog. I was uncomfortable having words like rape, kids and murder in my door to door pitch. I'm a professional. I'm no goon. In my opinion the entire premesis is completely barbaric.

A web marketing specialist, and a door to door salesman, won't see eye to eye. But you used my site for a year after you denied me payment. It was my mistake because I didn't make you sign a contract. And I understand you feel attacked by the original post, however is any of it a lie? I am not a dismissed (dimmissed) employee anymore and hope my sustained opinion of this company shows that my motives have nothing to do with harming any reputations, but increasing the safety of my fellow homeowners.

I reiterate my opinion that Mr. Tart is a good man in a bad trade. Yet none of the information provided by I, nor my investigator, has been falsified. My intention was to enlighten anyone willing to read this. I tried to help Mr. Tart. Van, if you read this, I was wrong for looking into your history, but the people whos home you push your way into wouldn't be so wrong for doing what I did. That's why I did it. That's why I posted this. I didn't want to hurt you, but wanted to avoid anyone else from being hurt.

Would I let my dog out if I saw anyone peeking through my window with a cheap vector security dealer binder in their arm?

Absolutely.

I am the original author of this post. Do I regret posting what I have written in the past, yes. The information that I let become "google-able" knowledge about Mr. Tart is unfair and should be disregarded or deleted. My investigator's term of employment was that she put her results on this page. Am I wrong for what I've done? Yes, in a sense. Do I honestly care about this situation as of now? No, not in the least. However I'd like to address this entire situation as the financial rammifications no longer present an issue, and now it's come down to sheer integrity.


First of all I'd like to reiterate that it was wrong for me to have my investigator post her findings. That was wrong. I feel guilty for that. Is it a lie? No. But it is wrong that we had to be the ones to post it? Yes. In my opinion, it was wrong.

My Transcript was completely accurate. When I was typing and replaying the conversation, the phrase "it eats me out inside." was definetly one I would have liked to edit out. But did I? No. That would have compromised the evidence and my integrity.

I am not a liar, nor a cheat, nor a thief. I am not a bad employee nor a bad person. Malice is not my intention.

Mr. Tart's spelling is poor. His posting does nothing to defy this accusation. His website portrayed a sense of half assed illegitimacy. When I signed up to help him, I was to be a web designer. However that suddenly switched to being another door to door salesman. I tried it. My first "door" someone let a dog out on me, blatently, and I was bit. When I told Van I was bit by a dog, he merely said "That b***h." I'm not looking for any imbursement, but being attacked by a dog, when you're a web designer, why not do what you were originally signed on to do? I am not a street goon, I'm a professional. I focused on B2b sales, even signing up an insurance agency to push our "wireless security dream".

I did good by my initial agreement, and was denied payment, oh well. It's okay. I'm sure after my departure he continued to profit. I hold no resentment, I even let him into traffic a couple months back. He was not happy to see my smiling face. The fact is, Van, is not be a bad man. He is a good man in a bad trade. In my opinion, it's an intrusive, agressive trade. They force their way into your home, question your familys security, (their intrusion proving just how vulnerable you are, and pressuring you to to sign up for a piece of crap, free system and a monitoring fee for 34.95 a month.) WTF? At least get a good system, or a big dog. I was uncomfortable having words like rape, kids and murder in my door to door pitch. I'm a professional. I'm no goon. In my opinion the entire premesis is completely barbaric.

A web marketing specialist, and a door to door salesman, won't see eye to eye. But you used my site for a year after you denied me payment. It was my mistake because I didn't make you sign a contract. And I understand you feel attacked by the original post, however is any of it a lie? I am not a dismissed (dimmissed) employee anymore and hope my sustained opinion of this company shows that my motives have nothing to do with harming any reputations, but increasing the safety of my fellow homeowners.

I reiterate my opinion that Mr. Tart is a good man in a bad trade. Yet none of the information provided by I, nor my investigator, has been falsified. My intention was to enlighten anyone willing to read this. I tried to help Mr. Tart. Van, if you read this, I was wrong for looking into your history, but the people whos home you push your way into wouldn't be so wrong for doing what I did. That's why I did it. That's why I posted this. I didn't want to hurt you, but wanted to avoid anyone else from being hurt.

Would I let my dog out if I saw anyone peeking through my window with a cheap vector security dealer binder in their arm?

Absolutely.

I am the original author of this post. Do I regret posting what I have written in the past, yes. The information that I let become "google-able" knowledge about Mr. Tart is unfair and should be disregarded or deleted. My investigator's term of employment was that she put her results on this page. Am I wrong for what I've done? Yes, in a sense. Do I honestly care about this situation as of now? No, not in the least. However I'd like to address this entire situation as the financial rammifications no longer present an issue, and now it's come down to sheer integrity.


First of all I'd like to reiterate that it was wrong for me to have my investigator post her findings. That was wrong. I feel guilty for that. Is it a lie? No. But it is wrong that we had to be the ones to post it? Yes. In my opinion, it was wrong.

My Transcript was completely accurate. When I was typing and replaying the conversation, the phrase "it eats me out inside." was definetly one I would have liked to edit out. But did I? No. That would have compromised the evidence and my integrity.

I am not a liar, nor a cheat, nor a thief. I am not a bad employee nor a bad person. Malice is not my intention.

Mr. Tart's spelling is poor. His posting does nothing to defy this accusation. His website portrayed a sense of half assed illegitimacy. When I signed up to help him, I was to be a web designer. However that suddenly switched to being another door to door salesman. I tried it. My first "door" someone let a dog out on me, blatently, and I was bit. When I told Van I was bit by a dog, he merely said "That b***h." I'm not looking for any imbursement, but being attacked by a dog, when you're a web designer, why not do what you were originally signed on to do? I am not a street goon, I'm a professional. I focused on B2b sales, even signing up an insurance agency to push our "wireless security dream".

I did good by my initial agreement, and was denied payment, oh well. It's okay. I'm sure after my departure he continued to profit. I hold no resentment, I even let him into traffic a couple months back. He was not happy to see my smiling face. The fact is, Van, is not be a bad man. He is a good man in a bad trade. In my opinion, it's an intrusive, agressive trade. They force their way into your home, question your familys security, (their intrusion proving just how vulnerable you are, and pressuring you to to sign up for a piece of crap, free system and a monitoring fee for 34.95 a month.) WTF? At least get a good system, or a big dog. I was uncomfortable having words like rape, kids and murder in my door to door pitch. I'm a professional. I'm no goon. In my opinion the entire premesis is completely barbaric.

A web marketing specialist, and a door to door salesman, won't see eye to eye. But you used my site for a year after you denied me payment. It was my mistake because I didn't make you sign a contract. And I understand you feel attacked by the original post, however is any of it a lie? I am not a dismissed (dimmissed) employee anymore and hope my sustained opinion of this company shows that my motives have nothing to do with harming any reputations, but increasing the safety of my fellow homeowners.

I reiterate my opinion that Mr. Tart is a good man in a bad trade. Yet none of the information provided by I, nor my investigator, has been falsified. My intention was to enlighten anyone willing to read this. I tried to help Mr. Tart. Van, if you read this, I was wrong for looking into your history, but the people whos home you push your way into wouldn't be so wrong for doing what I did. That's why I did it. That's why I posted this. I didn't want to hurt you, but wanted to avoid anyone else from being hurt.

Would I let my dog out if I saw anyone peeking through my window with a cheap vector security dealer binder in their arm?

Absolutely.

I am the original author of this post. Do I regret posting what I have written in the past, yes. The information that I let become "google-able" knowledge about Mr. Tart is unfair and should be disregarded or deleted. My investigator's term of employment was that she put her results on this page. Am I wrong for what I've done? Yes, in a sense. Do I honestly care about this situation as of now? No, not in the least. However I'd like to address this entire situation as the financial rammifications no longer present an issue, and now it's come down to sheer integrity.


First of all I'd like to reiterate that it was wrong for me to have my investigator post her findings. That was wrong. I feel guilty for that. Is it a lie? No. But it is wrong that we had to be the ones to post it? Yes. In my opinion, it was wrong.

My Transcript was completely accurate. When I was typing and replaying the conversation, the phrase "it eats me out inside." was definetly one I would have liked to edit out. But did I? No. That would have compromised the evidence and my integrity.

I am not a liar, nor a cheat, nor a thief. I am not a bad employee nor a bad person. Malice is not my intention.

Mr. Tart's spelling is poor. His posting does nothing to defy this accusation. His website portrayed a sense of half assed illegitimacy. When I signed up to help him, I was to be a web designer. However that suddenly switched to being another door to door salesman. I tried it. My first "door" someone let a dog out on me, blatently, and I was bit. When I told Van I was bit by a dog, he merely said "That b***h." I'm not looking for any imbursement, but being attacked by a dog, when you're a web designer, why not do what you were originally signed on to do? I am not a street goon, I'm a professional. I focused on B2b sales, even signing up an insurance agency to push our "wireless security dream".

I did good by my initial agreement, and was denied payment, oh well. It's okay. I'm sure after my departure he continued to profit. I hold no resentment, I even let him into traffic a couple months back. He was not happy to see my smiling face. The fact is, Van, is not be a bad man. He is a good man in a bad trade. In my opinion, it's an intrusive, agressive trade. They force their way into your home, question your familys security, (their intrusion proving just how vulnerable you are, and pressuring you to to sign up for a piece of crap, free system and a monitoring fee for 34.95 a month.) WTF? At least get a good system, or a big dog. I was uncomfortable having words like rape, kids and murder in my door to door pitch. I'm a professional. I'm no goon. In my opinion the entire premesis is completely barbaric.

A web marketing specialist, and a door to door salesman, won't see eye to eye. But you used my site for a year after you denied me payment. It was my mistake because I didn't make you sign a contract. And I understand you feel attacked by the original post, however is any of it a lie? I am not a dismissed (dimmissed) employee anymore and hope my sustained opinion of this company shows that my motives have nothing to do with harming any reputations, but increasing the safety of my fellow homeowners.

I reiterate my opinion that Mr. Tart is a good man in a bad trade. Yet none of the information provided by I, nor my investigator, has been falsified. My intention was to enlighten anyone willing to read this. I tried to help Mr. Tart. Van, if you read this, I was wrong for looking into your history, but the people whos home you push your way into wouldn't be so wrong for doing what I did. That's why I did it. That's why I posted this. I didn't want to hurt you, but wanted to avoid anyone else from being hurt.

Would I let my dog out if I saw anyone peeking through my window with a cheap vector security dealer binder in their arm?

Absolutely.

I find it a bit unsettling that a person that has worked for my company and was fired for poor performance, not showing up for work and not doing the job for which he was hired, can go on the internet and post false statements on a website such as this.I suppose that's what our world is subject to now that people have the internet to post whatever information they would like, true or untrue.
I simply need to let it be known that the mistake I made was in hiring Mr. Corbin in the first place. Once he was on board it became apparent rather quickly that he was not going to perform the job he was hired for or even show up for that matter. Mr. Levy Corbin was paid for time he was employed for USA Security. He even has that stated in his "recording transcript". In my opinion his lack of performance and failure to show up for work left me feeling like the one being "ripped off" for the money he recieved. Futhermore, the fact that he would have some "friend" of his post a false comment about being "a private investigator that worked for my company" should tell you what kind of person Mr. Levy tends to be. I've never even had such person employed with my company. I suppose he thought making up some title like private investigator might possibly sound like added credibility to this concocted story.
I would caution any business owner that's reading this to be careful who you hire and make sure you contact all of their past employer references. Had I been more thorough at this, I would not be addressing this issue and these false statements that Mr. Corbin has posted on this site. Should anyone reading this need to find out correct information about or USA Security you should contact the Dept of Criminal Justice Services or Vector Security Services. Of course, you can also contact me directly by email or telephone. Sincerely, Van Tart

This is from the article I found. It is disturbing. My daughter is 16.
connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?archive=true&article=68520&paper=62&cat=104

Three-Year Sentence Given for Pandering
By Bonnie Hobbs
November 2, 2006

Eventually, Chantilly's Joshua Brandon Tart will answer to a probation-violation charge in Arlington. First, though, he must spend the next three years in prison.
Tart, 26, of 13110 Point Pleasant Drive, was sentenced Friday in Fairfax County Circuit Court for pandering. Now both he and his partner in crime, Miguel Angelo Castro, 26, of Fort Washington, Md., have been punished for their roles in a teen-age prostitution scheme.

THE OFFENSE involved a 16-year-old runaway and, on April 1, a City of Fairfax detective discovered she was staying at the Fairfield Inn in Chantilly. Since the hotel was in their jurisdiction, Fairfax County officers were notified and responded to the scene.
There, around 3 a.m., they found the girl with Tart and Castro. Further investigation revealed that, between March 11 and April 1, they and the girl had used the Internet to run a prostitution business. Police also discovered illegal drugs inside the hotel room.
They charged both men with pandering and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The latter charge was dropped in May; but on June 19, the grand jury indicted both men for pandering. And on June 27 in Circuit Court, Castro entered an Alford plea of guilt acknowledging that enough evidence existed to convict him.
Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Camille Turner said the teen and the men met in March when she ran away from home. Then, said Turner, Castro and Tart "began posting ads on the Internet advertising sex [from the girl] on craigslist.org."
Once prospective customers responded, she said, "Arrangements [for sex] were made by phone, and the girl would provide oral sex or sexual intercourse for a previously arranged fee. The proceeds were used to purchase food, hotel rooms, drugs and alcohol."
On July 28, Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch sentenced Castro to three years in prison, suspending all but three months. Tart had a two-day jury trial before Finch, beginning Aug. 21, and was found guilty.
He returned Friday for sentencing, and Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Bob McClain told the judge, "The jury recommended three years. Respect [its] judgment and impose the three years."
But public defender Dawn Butorac said Tart has a severe drug addiction and, while in jail, enrolled himself in an intensive-addictions program. "He was battling the demons of drugs and grew up in a drug-addicted family," she said. "Both his mother and father used drugs, and he began breaking the law as a young teen."
She said her client understands he needs to stop using drugs or else he'll continue coming back to courts. Said Butorac: "This is when Mr. Tart is going to take matters into his own hands and get his life back on track."
Noting that he has a probation violation pending in Arlington, she said, "In all likelihood, [some part of a previously suspended sentence there] will probably be imposed." On June 19, 2003 in Arlington Circuit Court, he was convicted of a Dec. 4, 2002 grand larceny and was sentenced to five years in prison, with 3 1/2 suspended.
Next came Tart's Fairfax County arrest and, on July 20, Arlington issued a bench warrant for his arrest for probation violation. But because of his latest conviction in Fairfax, he'll serve that sentence first before being brought back to Arlington to answer to the probation-violation charge there.
Meanwhile, on Friday, Butorac told Judge Finch that Castro only received three months in jail and he and Tart were "equally involved" in the crime. Said Butorac: "Although I know my client had a more extensive record, I ask you to suspend a portion of the sentence and order him to continue drug treatment."
Tart then stood and said, "This is the most embarrassing thing that's ever happened to me in my life. My addiction has taken me from smoking weed to I.V. use of cocaine, crack and heroin."
But Finch was unmoved. "This jury spent a great deal of time on this case," he said. "Four years was the midpoint of the [sentencing] guidelines and six years, two months was the high end, so I think the jury got it right."
"I'm going to sentence you to three years [in prison] and three years post-release supervision," he told Tart. "I wish you good luck it's a miracle you're not dead."

There, someone had to do it.
-T- (a concerned parent)/Private Investigator

Well, bullying & intimidation works. I spoke to him yesterday, he said I violated the contract, he got a lawyer and called the police because I kept trying to get in touch with him. I have the whole conversation on tape. Here's a transcript.


Van
Hi this is Van how can I help you?

Levi
Hi Van how are you doing?

Van
Okay

Levi
This is Levi

Van
Okay

Levi
Okay, I was just calling to see if we could set up a time where I could pick up my check

Van
Uh, I'll see if I can get this across to you man I

Levi
I first have to tell you that you are being tape-recorded

Van
Good. I know what you've been up to

Levi
Awesome

Van
I know the defamation you've been trying to do

Levi
What kind of defamation

Van
You want a (inaudible)

Levi
What?

Van
What did you say?

Levi
What kind of defamation?

Van
You know what I'm talking about

Levi
I swear to god I don't. Unless you're talking about your article on rip-off report

Van
You're a chronic liar, I'll tell you. Here's the deal. The police know what you're up to, my attorney knows what you're up to, and if you make any more threats to attempt to contact me, anyone in my company, or vector you will see a sheriff at your door. That is the final word. I suggest you go your way, or we're going to have some trouble.

Levi
Wait a minute, how can you refuse to pay me the money when I was an hourly employee? How am I being turned around into the bad guy?

Van
You didn't follow through on our agreement at all pal. You did not abide by the company policy at all.

Levi
How is that?

Van
We had an agreement

Levi
What was the agreement?

Van
You totally violated it

Levi
When? Let me know so I dont let this eat me out inside.

Van
I'm sure you're really worried about that

Levi
I am, because I want my money, and if there's a reason you cannot give me my money then I really want to know, so I can stop worrying about it. I swear, where did I f**k up?

Van
I paid you 400-500, whatever it was for a weeks work that I dont even think you did. First of all you were supposed to check in with me, call in and let me know where you were and when and I think that happened the first two days, and you go off on this tangent, show up at my house looking like you, uh, you sure werent ready for work. A beard, baggy pants, worn out jeans and all that stuff, and there were several things, some inconsistencies, and its totally in character that you would try to do some of the things you've done recently. Unless you want some serious legal issues, I'll tell you I've already reported this to the police, just incase, I've already talked to my attorney he told me what I need to do and give you fair warning, there's some mail coming your way, and if you want to take this a step further, then we'll see you in... uh... courts. Goodbye.

Obviously the department of employment doesn't give a d**n. And I can't really do anything unless I get a lawyers help. It's sad. I worked very hard, and in the end, he turns it around so I'm at fault. This legal system is messed up, and I'm tired of getting worked up over it. I don't want to get sued. Overall though, I do want to say, I am not a liar. My integrity won't be compromised, that's why I'm not going to post a link to evidence against him. I give up. It's caused me enough grief. Don't work for security companies.