The Auto Theft Process Written By Rob Painter. Robo14@aol.com.
It is extremely important to realize I have no bias against insurance companies and I expect claims to be investigated, because there is a propensity for fraud in auto theft claims as well as vandalism claims.
The problem in my view is all insureds are painted with a large brush. There are other underlying issues too. Investigators are paid by their employer the insurance company to investigate and there are issues that set these investigations in motion. Few question these actions, but I will!
There is a cost benefit analysis when dealing with stolen vehicle claims ranging from claims $3,000.00 up. Just as an example, we will look at a $10,000.00 claim. Now, what if I told you that to initiate an investigation with what appear to be very positive facts, indicating the insured submitted a fraudulent auto theft claim and it cost as little as $650.00? That would be a real bargain, wouldn’t it? It’s done every day in every state in the US!
All the SIU (Special Investigations Unit) has to do is hand-pick an “independent” vendor known as a Certified Forensic Locksmith, an engineer or a mechanic. This is where ambiguity knows no bounds! Yet, the “Expert he is now known as” will accuse the insured of having the last key used in the ignition, or at least, that is what everyone is meant to believe! In my view the expert is actually as wordsmithing scammer that adds merit for an investigation of the insured, the auto theft victim.
Now the insured will be victimized twice, and if really unfortunate, thrice if charged criminally of insurance fraud! The insured does not have to be guilty. The investigation does not require proof, but merely innuendo and assumption! Do you think they need more than that to refer to the prosecution to press criminal charges? Not from what I have seen in criminal court! It’s known as a circumstantial case! Insureds are tried and found guilty unless they have an expert witness like me in auto theft and forensics. I am stating a fact!
In a criminal case involving an auto theft, the lawyer can argue motive of his/hers client, but the defense presents their case first. The problem in these cases is that the prosecutor has a so-called expert on the vehicle. The same guy that examined the vehicle for the insurance company. In fact, the prosecutor’s case is totally built on what the insurance company supplies from their investigation. It gives the impression a scientific process was applied to the examination of the ignition lock, keys and transponder anti-theft system.
Here you have the expert misusing the self-given or questionable title of “Forensic”. That to the jury makes him truly believable as well as to the judge.
Without the defense having their own expert, the attorney generally has no idea as to what to cross examine this expert with. Attorneys generally know nothing about auto theft methodology, vehicle security or how it is easily bypassed. I could say the same about the experts, but I won’t. Most these experts are not liars in my opinion, but they commonly tell half truths to protect their client the insurance company and or a prosecutor. The prosecutor may be truly impressed with their background and conclusions, but most is a smoke screen.
The Commonwealth v Rogers New Bedford, MA
Now, the question would be once I am retained, what do I do as the defense consultant/expert?
The first thing the client attorney will need is cross examination questions on the examination process applied to the vehicle. Many of these experts use conjecture as fact. One example from a trial was stated in an expert’s report like this: “If the ignition was found (which it wasn’t) It may have had the other half of the broken bolt belonging to the dent puller found in the vehicle”. This report was heralded as evidence for the possible conviction of 6 felonies including conspiracy to defraud the insurance company! The prosecutor really thought he had a case here and he did had I not been there to take this menace of an expert down!
His job was to give an analysis on the ignition lock for tampering, picking, forcing or the use of a newly made key. This is kind of hard to do when he never examined the ignition lock in this burned vehicle!
His report he testified to stated to his knowledge the GM PK III could not be defeated if the ignition was ripped out of the steering column. Unfortunately, it is our burden because he is ignorant on how the PK III system is simply bypassed, we had to prove he had no clue as to what he was talking about! Video assisted me on the stand. After he testified, he was asked if he ever heard about the very widely known common bypass of the system. He said he never saw it! So because he never saw it, the bypass of the PK III was impossible? What a goof! I use fact v their unfounded opinions.
I then gave 6 scenarios as to how easy it was to steal this vehicle. All ways could not be ruled in or out if forensics was applied due to the fire damage.
Yes, I am that good! no one comes close to my training, background, experience in auto theft and forensics! Worse for my opposition, not only do I know how to beat locks, alarms, transponders, but also worked for a repossession agency in which I could have a vehicle in seconds!
This case went so well, and the prosecutor went out of his way to the Chief Justice to have my testimony stricken and he couldn’t! Judge did not want to hear it! I stayed in the court room for closing arguments. It was amazing! The defense stated, our defense is Rob Painter’s testimony. The judge acquitted my client!
State of AZ v Cox
Ford pick up with Securilock transponder system.
The investigator when interviewing Cox actually believed the crap he was spoon fed by his NICB expert that the vehicle was impossible to steal. The prosecutor believed it too!
I had an associate find an exact like kind vehicle at an auction in Chicago. He video taped as per my instructions as to how to steal the vehicle.
I supplied the video in court and the NICB expert stated he was not aware of that method. I gave 6 different ways to steal the vehicle.
Bailey v Grange Ohio
This case involved a burned Buick reported stolen. Through deposition testimony we found that the expert that wrote the report like he was the one that examined the car did no such thing! He had someone else examine the car. The ignition was the typical 9 wafer (tumbler) lock. It was determined with only 4 out of ine wafers that the ignition was last driven with the insured’s.
I spent three or 4 hours on the stand selectively ripping the experts conclusion apart and interjecting the fire damage with it.
Not only did my client get $100k verdict, but a lot of extra money from other issues in the case.
I reviewed the 2nd report from a MA forensic frm in which the vehicle was equipped with an after market remote start, which was completey over looked when performing their analysis. I feel this is very incompetent!
What it means is there is another working programmed key in the vehicle located under the dash.
Thieves commonly once they gain entry into the vehicle look under the dash for an alarm to unplug, look for a stationary starter interrupt switch, or for a remote start plastic key box containing a key for the car. In the event the car has remote start there will be evidence, but one has to look for it. This firm because of their disinterest caused one claim to be denied and another insured to face criminal charges.
I am hated by whoever I am opposed by. Many things have been done to my good name in an effort to destroy me. Opposing attorneys have lied about my background to judges. One Las Vegas judge lied about my qualifications about 40 times. She based her opinion not on fact, but from a manifesto from a crybaby I have opposed that he never prevailed in a case against me.
What was funny is that it backfired on him and his prosecutor buddy in Virginia in 2016.The prosecutor told the judge he was going to have me arrested for fraud when I was on the stand. Well, that didn’t turn out the way the duo planned. Instead, the expert managed to get himself disqualified in the case.
Leaving the court room in front of the jury, walking towards that little punk I crossed my arms together like I was cuffed, and smiled! See, he kept pushing the Las Vegas case disqualification to the judge. The judge asked if he had a certified copy? Of course not! He was told to sit down!
At the time the Las Vegas case was coming down on me, it was only because State Farm with lies to the judge could not take me down in a federal case in New Orleans at the same time. In other words, I had two law firms trying to take me down at the same time in 2 different states and two different insurance companies.
I even set precedents with an emergency motion of mandamus to the Nevada Supreme court to question the err of the judge because I was in fact qualified.
Another interesting thing about the disqualification was that it was dated Sept 2011. I qualified in about 8 trials after that without a hitch!
I hope you enjoyed the article.
Please, your comments and questions are always appreciated.
Copyright 2019. Rob Painter. All rights reserved.